Movies You've Seen Recently

[LadyCrimson]

Last thread.

 

 

Life of Pi - the tale of a boy stranded on a small boat with a Bengal Tiger named Wilson Richard Parker.

 

Apparently I'm dead inside, because it left me profoundly unmoved. It is a very visually striking film, however (and I'm sure it was even more striking in the theater), and the meerkat bit was cute.

[Blarghagh]

It's a visual masterpiece but the movie itself is a bit dull.

 

Which is all the more sad that the oscar winning production drove the special effects studio in the ground (bankruptcy) while the director was wailing that he wanted special effects to be cheaper. He barely even made the movie, the only thing that was really made by him was the framing device where the story is told by the old guy. Special effects creators are terribly undervalued.

Edited March 5, 2013 by TrueNeutral

[LadyCrimson]

Yeah, I read about that ... something about local companies not being able to compete with the outsourcing Hollywood/studios like to do now, I think?

[Orogun01]

It's time they realize that blockbusters are made by special effects teams and not the ponces with six packs who star in them. No one should be paid millions to play dress up and pretend.

[Volourn]

Nonsense. if those 'ponces' sell tickets and get people to want to watch them they most assuredly deserve it. Eitehr them or the companies who make billions off of them. Why do you ant the movie companies to have all the money? Are you paid by them to pimp them out and give them all the credit.

 

And, don't bring up garbage like doctors and fire fighters not making enough depsite the so called myth that they are 'worthy'. When youa re willing to pay $10 to watch a firefighter do his job for 2 hours then they'll make more money.

[Orogun01]

They are replaceable, as most of the stars of major blockbusters lack talent and their only selling point is their perceived good looks you can easily take another would be actor.
Plus in the utilitarian sense, they don't work more than the rest, its not worth to outsource a whole company's job just so they get more money than they can possibly need.
 

[Raithe]

Watched Limitless last night. It's generally entertaining, although there does seem to be an undercurrent cross of "drugs are bad, m'kay?" with "drugs can solve your problems and create other problems!" messages running through it. But it's fairly slick and enjoyable, although a few people might not like some of the visual sequences used to represent some of the drug enhanced aspects.

 

Actually read the book it's based on over the weekend.

[TSBasilisk]

Technically, the VFX studios often work more than the actors. They can work similar schedules to a game develoepr, putting in 60-80 hour weeks during an active project.

 

Little bit of info on why VFX in America is struggling.

 

As for me, latest movie was the new Die Hard. Wasn't incredibly good, but enjoyed it; nice popcorn pic.

[Hurlshort]

A great actor can get on screen and hold an audience's attention with nothing more than his presence. Watch Glengarry Glen Ross for a perfect example of that, the whole movie is shot on a couple of stages with no special effects, it is just actors giving great performances. The subject matter isn't even interesting, but the actors are.

 

Special effects are cool, but they don't make a film great. The Star Wars prequels had fantastic SFX, but that didn't help them.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Hurlshot

[Volourn]

"They are replaceable, as most of the stars of major blockbusters lack
talent and their only selling point is their perceived good looks you
can easily take another would be actor."

 

You don't know how things work. If being good looking was all it took there'd be a lot more actors popular since even the least well known actors tend to be 'perceived' as acting. And, 'lack talent' is eye of the holder' crap that is totally irrelevant.

 

 

"Plus in the utilitarian sense, they don't work more than the rest, its
not worth to outsource a whole company's job just so they get more money
than they can possibly need."

 

It's not mrerely about hours. The stars tend to do more amrketing, ar eon set more often, and have more demands on them. The stars also drive tickets more than your typical plebian actor.

 

You obvioously don't know hwo the market work. Do you REALLY think the studios CHOOSE to pay actors 10mil+? L0L If they could get a way with it, they'd gladly pay them mininum wage, and keep all the money for themselves. Youa re other ignorant o a tool of the studios. Why do you hate actors so much but love studios? L0LZ I get it. It's the Green Monster.. the common folk tend to be constantly inflicted it even as they spend money to watch the rich get richer. L0LZ

 

 

"Technically, the VFX studios often work more than the actors. They can work similar schedules to a game develoepr, putting in 60-80 hour weeks during an active project."
 

Nobody pays to watch tech employee a b c much like firefighters. They pay to go watch Sandra Bullocks,Vin Diesels, and the like.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Volourn

[Oerwinde]

"They are replaceable, as most of the stars of major blockbusters lack

talent and their only selling point is their perceived good looks you

can easily take another would be actor."

 

You don't know how things work. If being good looking was all it took there'd be a lot more actors popular since even the least well known actors tend to be 'perceived' as acting. And, 'lack talent' is eye of the holder' crap that is totally irrelevant.

 

 

"Plus in the utilitarian sense, they don't work more than the rest, its

not worth to outsource a whole company's job just so they get more money

than they can possibly need."

 

It's not mrerely about hours. The stars tend to do more amrketing, ar eon set more often, and have more demands on them. The stars also drive tickets more than your typical plebian actor.

 

You obvioously don't know hwo the market work. Do you REALLY think the studios CHOOSE to pay actors 10mil+? L0L If they could get a way with it, they'd gladly pay them mininum wage, and keep all the money for themselves. Youa re other ignorant o a tool of the studios. Why do you hate actors so much but love studios? L0LZ I get it. It's the Green Monster.. the common folk tend to be constantly inflicted it even as they spend money to watch the rich get richer. L0LZ

 

 

"Technically, the VFX studios often work more than the actors. They can work similar schedules to a game develoepr, putting in 60-80 hour weeks during an active project."

 

Nobody pays to watch tech employee a b c much like firefighters. They pay to go watch Sandra Bullocks,Vin Diesels, and the like.

 

No one would pay to see Vin Diesel jump around a green screen fighting a ball on a pole.

[Raithe]

No one would pay to see Vin Diesel jump around a green screen fighting a ball on a pole.

 

I think I know a few girls who might disagree with that statement...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Watched Spartacus: War of the Damned on a recommendation from a friend. Meh.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Red Dawn (2012). yeah, won't be watching that ever again.

 

With VFX studios, not a great business to be in when another company can do it half the price in a cheaper country. Can understand why companies are doing that.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Watched Spartacus: War of the Damned on a recommendation from a friend. Meh.

 

 

Did you watch the previous seasons?

[Orogun01]

"They are replaceable, as most of the stars of major blockbusters lack

talent and their only selling point is their perceived good looks you

can easily take another would be actor."

 

You don't know how things work. If being good looking was all it took there'd be a lot more actors popular since even the least well known actors tend to be 'perceived' as acting. And, 'lack talent' is eye of the holder' crap that is totally irrelevant.

 

 

"Plus in the utilitarian sense, they don't work more than the rest, its

not worth to outsource a whole company's job just so they get more money

than they can possibly need."

 

It's not mrerely about hours. The stars tend to do more amrketing, ar eon set more often, and have more demands on them. The stars also drive tickets more than your typical plebian actor.

 

You obvioously don't know hwo the market work. Do you REALLY think the studios CHOOSE to pay actors 10mil+? L0L If they could get a way with it, they'd gladly pay them mininum wage, and keep all the money for themselves. Youa re other ignorant o a tool of the studios. Why do you hate actors so much but love studios? L0LZ I get it. It's the Green Monster.. the common folk tend to be constantly inflicted it even as they spend money to watch the rich get richer. L0LZ

 

 

"Technically, the VFX studios often work more than the actors. They can work similar schedules to a game develoepr, putting in 60-80 hour weeks during an active project."

 

Nobody pays to watch tech employee a b c much like firefighters. They pay to go watch Sandra Bullocks,Vin Diesels, and the like.

It is just a matter of proportion, the amount of money that they pay actors is grotesquely disproportionate to the amount of work that any living being would be able to do. That money comes from the studios cutting cost on on other sectors, so everyone from the rest of the cast to the crew takes less of the pie just so that actor John Doe can have his big piece. You could make a whole movie just from what they pay some of these actors, and if you ever take away the smoke and mirrors people will probably realize that a lot of them just aren't worth their paycheck.

Also I would ask you to consider that most of the films that make it in the box office feature special effects or 3D, that's why there is a high demand to put out crap like "Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" or "Hansel & Gretel".

[Volourn]

"Also I would ask you to consider that most of the films that make it
in the box office feature special effects or 3D, that's why there is a
high demand to put out crap like "Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" or
"Hansel & Gretel"."

 

Yet, films liek these, the amount of money spent on the actors is small comapred to special effects since those aren't driven by said actors. Even series like Twilight and Harry potter, the actors are not apid much intil later when thes eries is a hit.

 

The actors deserve (mostly) what theya re paid. And, the ones who don't or start to fall tend to get start losing money.

 

Why do you want the companies to keep up the money? Do you REALLY think if the stars get their pay cut that money would then go to the crew? L0L No. It'll go directly to the big wigs. Why do you want them to be richer? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM!?!

[Hiro Protagonist II]

It is just a matter of proportion, the amount of money that they pay actors is grotesquely disproportionate to the amount of work that any living being would be able to do. That money comes from the studios cutting cost on on other sectors, so everyone from the rest of the cast to the crew takes less of the pie just so that actor John Doe can have his big piece. You could make a whole movie just from what they pay some of

these actors, and if you ever take away the smoke and mirrors people will probably realize that a lot of them just aren't worth their paycheck.

 

You're suggesting that instead of paying Tom Cruise 20 millions dollars to do a movie, we should get in say Manu Bennett because he will do the movie for 1/2 a million dollars. And if the studios do that, then the rest of that 19.5 million will go to VFX and other parts of the production? 

 

No, doesn't work like that. Firstly, the general public (who hasn't watched the TV show spartacus) will be asking, who is Manu Bennett? So you're probably not going to pull in the audiences. Secondly, even if the studio were to get in a small time actor, they would STILL screw the VFX studios because they wan't to make more money, not spend more on production costs.

 

 

 

Also I would ask you to consider that most of the films that make it in the box office feature special effects or 3D, that's why there is a high demand to put out crap like "Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" or "Hansel & Gretel".

 

 

No, regardless of VFX, a lot of crap makes money, that's why they release it. Why do you think Adam Sandler releases so many movies? Not because he's a film genius, it's because there's a market. If I was an investor, I'd put my money into Adam Sandler's company, due to the fact he makes money even though I can't stand 99% of his movies. Chances are he'll double my money. His rate of return on investment is pretty awesome.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Hiro Protagonist II

[kirottu]

The Man from Earth is one of the better scifi movies and it didn't have any special effects.

[Gfted1]

Latest Iron Man 3 trailer. I cant wait to see this movie.

[HoonDing]

It will do as an appetizer for Spider-Man 2 and Avengers 2.

[Orogun01]

No, regardless of VFX, a lot of crap makes money, that's why they release it. Why do you think Adam Sandler releases so many movies? Not because he's a film genius, it's because there's a market. If I was an investor, I'd put my money into Adam Sandler's company, due to the fact he makes money even though I can't stand 99% of his movies. Chances are he'll double my money. His rate of return on investment is pretty awesome.

Since Adam Sandler is now considered one of the most overpaid actors in Hollywood, I would say that you are a bad investor.

 

Also, you seem to have the notion that star power is the same now as it was back in the 90's. Those dynamics seem to have changed.

[Hurlshort]

 

No, regardless of VFX, a lot of crap makes money, that's why they release it. Why do you think Adam Sandler releases so many movies? Not because he's a film genius, it's because there's a market. If I was an investor, I'd put my money into Adam Sandler's company, due to the fact he makes money even though I can't stand 99% of his movies. Chances are he'll double my money. His rate of return on investment is pretty awesome.

Since Adam Sandler is now considered one of the most overpaid actors in Hollywood, I would say that you are a bad investor.

 

Also, you seem to have the notion that star power is the same now as it was back in the 90's. Those dynamics seem to have changed.

 

Source?  Forbes has him on their overpaid list, but then states he is worth $6.50 for every dollar you spend on him.  That's a solid return.  That being said, Sandler is safer investment as a full production company rather than hiring as a lead actor.  

 

Also where are you getting the idea that star power has diminished?  You mentioned the Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter film earlier, but the Lincoln with Daniel Day Lewis relied completely on the actor and succeeded tremendously.  

 

Action stars are not as marketable as they used to be, I'll give you that.  I think it is because there are just too many of them, and none have really separated from the pack.  But you can't replace a Brad Pitt with just anybody, that guy sells tickets. 

[Raithe]

"Lincoln does well in the theatres. Historically, this hasn't always been the case."

[Hurlshort]

I picked up "Wreck it Ralph" last night, and saved $7 on it using a coupon from Scott tissue and Disney Movie Rewards.  This might be my favorite movie of the last year, it's just an awesome homage to arcades.  Plus it really captured both of my kid's imagination.  My two year old rarely sits still for an entire movie, but he was having a blast watching it last night.