Z
MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

BYOB: Is The Light Winning?

byob_truedetective

12 Responses to “BYOB: Is The Light Winning?”

  1. leahnz says:

    i’m more into ‘Murdoch Mysteries’ personally

  2. Amblinman says:

    Watching some corners of the internet go into hyper-whine mode because the series didn’t end with Cthulhu molesting a kid in a bathtub has been great.

  3. EtGuild2 says:

    So, early reactions are in for “Captain America” and “Noah” and they are fantastic for the former, and very good for the latter, though critics are warning that many conservative Christians will HATE “Noah.”

    Also, the two highest profile SXSW movies got very good, if somewhat disposable notices….the Favreau/Downey Jr. “Chef” and Rogan/Efron “Neighbors.”

    I’m a big fan of Warner Bros.’ recent run…but major props to Paramount for standing by Aronofsky’s vision, especially in the wake of WB’s abandonment of the Brad Pitt/Cate Blanchett production of “The Fountain.” This could flop hard. Aronofsky made “Black Swan,” “Pi,” “Requiem,” and “The Wrestler” for $26 million combined and has 5 times as much money to play with here. Anytime one of the majors puts art ahead of pre-screenings though, it deserves to be recognized.

  4. Hcat says:

    When Black Swan was released someone more astute than myself noticed that each DA release makes more than all the previous ones combined. That puts Noah at a completely doable $150 million.

  5. cadavra says:

    “many conservative Christians will HATE ‘Noah.'”

    Many conservative Christians will hate ANYTHING. Some have even attacked “Son of God.” There is no winning with these people. None.

  6. Hcat says:

    Conservative Christians are simply another stripe of fanboy who will never be pleased with hollywood interpretation of their beloved property. Just as there could never be a watchman adaption that will please the most rabid fans, there is never going to be a biblical movie that is up to snuff for a portion of those folks.

  7. SamLowry says:

    This is a joke, right?

    4 Reasons This New Movie Is Everything Wrong With Hollywood.

    Santa Claus versus the Vikings? Wasn’t Pia Zadora in that one?

  8. hcat says:

    So I am glad that television is better than it was (though this has always been the case), but articles like this one from the vulture drive me a little batty;

    http://www.vulture.com/2014/03/tv-stars-dont-need-a-movie-career-anymore.html

    Maybe the reason that Williams, Clooney, and Aniston got lead roles instead of the supporting ones offered to Cranston and Hamm is that the first group where household names that were watched by 30 Million people every week, while this new breed of crowned king if they hit three million viewers? The whole article reads like it was from someone in an insulated bubble where Taylor Kitsch and Benedict Kumberbatch are actual recognizable stars as opposed to good actors who where in strong quality marginally successful shows.

  9. YancySkancy says:

    The title of the Vulture article is absurd as well, since it seems to imply that Williams, Clooney, Aniston, et al, “needed” to have movie careers. Obviously, the networks would have been just as thrilled back then to keep TV stars on TV.

  10. cadavra says:

    Nothing wrong with being a TV star anymore. There are plenty of actors who’ve remained on TV (with an occasional movie role tossed in) and have maintained their popularity and stardom. Ted Danson, Tom Selleck and Betty White are three of the most obvious examples.

  11. SamLowry says:

    I wonder how many studios are trying to snatch up the rights to The Night They Took Miss Beautiful.

    Has anyone checked the manifest of flight MH 370 to see if it was carrying anything interesting? Wouldn’t it be a hoot if there was nothing thrilling on board and the hijackers just wanted to sell everyone into slavery?©

  12. SamLowry says:

    It’s always stunning when you read a piece like “The Sex Scene Is Dead”, you Google the writer and discover they’re not a kid.

    While slagging NYMPHOMANIAC and BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOR, this thirtysomething twit presents his thesis, which is that widely available internet porn has desensitized folks to the point where sex scenes in movies are no longer shocking, without realizing that a) mainstream directors put sex scenes in their movies even after porn was available at video rental stores across the country, long before wieners and clits appeared on the internet, and b) who said sex scenes are supposed to be shocking?

    It comes off as unintentionally humorous hand-wringing, like the assertion that 9/11 killed irony forever. Grow up, kid. Even after porn becomes tactile and fully interactive, sex scenes will still appear in mainstream movies.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Z

Quote Unquotesee all »

“The core fear is what can happen to you, personally. Your body. That’s what horror films deal with, precisely. We are a very thin skin wrapped around a pumping heart and guts. At any given moment it can come down to that, be it diseases, or somebody’s assault, or war, or a car wreck. You could be reduced to the simple laws of physics and your body’s vulnerability. The edged weapon is the penultimate weapon to disclose that reality to you.”
~ Wes Craven, 1996, promoting Scream

MAMET
Well, that, to me, is always the trick of dramaturgy; theoretically, perfectly, what one wants to do is put the protagonist and the audience in exactly the same position. The main question in drama, the way I was taught, is always what does the protagonist want. That’s what drama is. It comes down to that. It’s not about theme, it’s not about ideas, it’s not about setting, but what the protagonist wants. What gives rise to the drama, what is the precipitating event, and how, at the end of the play, do we see that event culminated? Do we see the protagonist’s wishes fulfilled or absolutely frustrated? That’s the structure of drama. You break it down into three acts.

INTERVIEWER
Does this explain why your plays have so little exposition?

MAMET
Yes. People only speak to get something. If I say, Let me tell you a few things about myself, already your defenses go up; you go, Look, I wonder what he wants from me, because no one ever speaks except to obtain an objective. That’s the only reason anyone ever opens their mouth, onstage or offstage. They may use a language that seems revealing, but if so, it’s just coincidence, because what they’re trying to do is accomplish an objective… The question is where does the dramatist have to lead you? Answer: the place where he or she thinks the audience needs to be led. But what does the character think? Does the character need to convey that information? If the answer is no, then you’d better cut it out, because you aren’t putting the audience in the same position with the protagonist. You’re saying, in effect, Let’s stop the play. That’s what the narration is doing—stopping the play… It’s action, as Aristotle said. That’s all that it is—exactly what the person does. It’s not what they “think,” because we don’t know what they think. It’s not what they say. It’s what they do, what they’re physically trying to accomplish on the stage. Which is exactly the same way we understand a person’s character in life—not by what they say, but by what they do. Say someone came up to you and said, I’m glad to be your neighbor because I’m a very honest man. That’s my character. I’m honest, I like to do things, I’m forthright, I like to be clear about everything, I like to be concise. Well, you really don’t know anything about that guy’s character. Or the person is onstage, and the playwright has him or her make those same claims in several subtle or not-so-subtle ways, the audience will say, Oh yes, I understand their character now; now I understand that they are a character. But in fact you don’t understand anything. You just understand that they’re jabbering to try to convince you of something.
~ David Mamet

Z Z