Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:43 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 196 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD 
Author Message
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
calvero wrote:
Quote:
O.K. please fill me in: what exactly is your point?


what is yours? I said Gangster Squad was edited to avoid reminding people of the shooting(maybe you should reread the article I posted - or view the trailer for it), much like all shots of WTC were edited from many 2002 releases. And then you said WTC was a completely different situation, and started going on about whether movies influence violent actions, which I didn't imply in the slightest. I know you're not a native English speaker, so maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.


There is definitely a misunderstanding going on. I wasn't referring to anything relating to "Gangster Squad" since I don't know anything about it yet. I also did NOT refer directly to your post, just generically (might have been a mistake) - and I didn't even have the most remote thought that you implied anything regarding (specific) movies influenceing/encouraging real life violence. Definitely a misunderstanding here. Might have been my fault since my knowledge of the English language only goes so far (I say that with absolutley NO innuendo and No fishing for compliments). I trust everything is cool with you, as it is with me.


Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:58 pm
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
NotHugh, I'm more than willing to let water go under the bridge.

Here's the thing about the Gangster Squad scene: how do you know the one they're reshooting won't turn out to be a better scene than the one already shot. For all we know, it may end up being a better movie as a result.

I think this unofficial constraint on the violence in a film can only be a good thing for one reason: it encourages creativity. If a director is under more constraint he/she will be more creative and produce richer results, as opposed to being given free reign to do whatever they want. I guarantee, had Bond had the option to be an R-rated affair over the past 50 years, fans would have less than 1/10th as much to celebrate in terms of the creativity and humor of the violence. Like it or not, Bond is also an intensely moral franchise in terms of its violence, which makes it intensely appealing to both kids and adults alike. Even at age 10, I was extremely moved by Connery's painful, angry, and disgusted reaction when he find's the girl's body painted in gold. He's having a reaction of basic, human moral disgust, and I wouldn't mind seeing more of that in some of today's action films.


Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:14 pm
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
I read somewhere that the Gangster Squad scene happened during, or towards, the climax of the movie. That's kind of a hurdle for them to reshoot it (When I first saw the trailer I thought that scene would be early in the movie, which if so would be easier to edit or change).


Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:40 pm
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
MGamesCook wrote:
NotHugh, I'm more than willing to let water go under the bridge.



Excellent! :D

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:18 am
Profile
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
MGamesCook wrote:
NotHugh, I'm more than willing to let water go under the bridge.

Here's the thing about the Gangster Squad scene: how do you know the one they're reshooting won't turn out to be a better scene than the one already shot. For all we know, it may end up being a better movie as a result.

I think this unofficial constraint on the violence in a film can only be a good thing for one reason: it encourages creativity. If a director is under more constraint he/she will be more creative and produce richer results, as opposed to being given free reign to do whatever they want. I guarantee, had Bond had the option to be an R-rated affair over the past 50 years, fans would have less than 1/10th as much to celebrate in terms of the creativity and humor of the violence. Like it or not, Bond is also an intensely moral franchise in terms of its violence, which makes it intensely appealing to both kids and adults alike. Even at age 10, I was extremely moved by Connery's painful, angry, and disgusted reaction when he find's the girl's body painted in gold. He's having a reaction of basic, human moral disgust, and I wouldn't mind seeing more of that in some of today's action films.


I cannot agree with this. The director is being forced to alter his original vision, due to something that no one could predict. This movie has been finished as is ready to go...it was even bumped up a month to the beginning of September. The film is just the way the director wants to show it. And unless it's his idea to change that scene because he thinks he can make it better/evoke even more of a certain emotion or feeling he was going for, then he is being forced to change something he believes in. The audience should make the choice if the scene works or not (and they do that by watching the film as it was intended); the choice shouldnt be made for them! This is a form of direct censorship by the studio on the audience.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:02 am
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
MGamesCook wrote:
NotHugh, I'm more than willing to let water go under the bridge.

Here's the thing about the Gangster Squad scene: how do you know the one they're reshooting won't turn out to be a better scene than the one already shot. For all we know, it may end up being a better movie as a result.

I think this unofficial constraint on the violence in a film can only be a good thing for one reason: it encourages creativity. If a director is under more constraint he/she will be more creative and produce richer results, as opposed to being given free reign to do whatever they want. I guarantee, had Bond had the option to be an R-rated affair over the past 50 years, fans would have less than 1/10th as much to celebrate in terms of the creativity and humor of the violence. Like it or not, Bond is also an intensely moral franchise in terms of its violence, which makes it intensely appealing to both kids and adults alike. Even at age 10, I was extremely moved by Connery's painful, angry, and disgusted reaction when he find's the girl's body painted in gold. He's having a reaction of basic, human moral disgust, and I wouldn't mind seeing more of that in some of today's action films.


I cannot agree with this. The director is being forced to alter his original vision, due to something that no one could predict. This movie has been finished as is ready to go...it was even bumped up a month to the beginning of September. The film is just the way the director wants to show it. And unless it's his idea to change that scene because he thinks he can make it better/evoke even more of a certain emotion or feeling he was going for, then he is being forced to change something he believes in. The audience should make the choice if the scene works or not (and they do that by watching the film as it was intended); the choice shouldnt be made for them! This is a form of direct censorship by the studio on the audience.


The problem with your analysis is that it assumes the auteur theory is absolute. I don't. The film is "owned" by the studio, and if the studio wishes to change it of their own free will, it can only be considered self censorship, nothing else. I am willing to bet that nearly every movie made has had some form of self censorship imposed upon it by those involved with making it. If a writer currently writing a script for a movie today, decides not to include a theater shooting that he had originally intended to, would that be form of censorship on the audience?

You are also assuming the director is against the change as well. Maybe Ruben Fleischer is not against and also feels that under the circumstances, they should be made. Has he made a public statement against doing the changes?

Furthermore, as a general principle, how an audience reacts to a film can easily be influenced by recent events, either positively or negatively. Changing a work of art, even one that has been completed, in response to such events is not necessarily a bad idea. I don't see what there is to get worked up about in this case.
-Jeremy


Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:56 pm
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
I cannot agree with this. The director is being forced to alter his original vision, due to something that no one could predict. This movie has been finished as is ready to go...it was even bumped up a month to the beginning of September. The film is just the way the director wants to show it. And unless it's his idea to change that scene because he thinks he can make it better/evoke even more of a certain emotion or feeling he was going for, then he is being forced to change something he believes in. The audience should make the choice if the scene works or not (and they do that by watching the film as it was intended); the choice shouldnt be made for them! This is a form of direct censorship by the studio on the audience.


The director doesn't OWN his/her vision, so therefore doesn't control it. If the director doesn't want to have his/her "vision" altered, he/she is free to act as their own producer.


(Jeremy said it better, but I felt it worth feebly repeating)


Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:32 pm
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
I know it'd be unlikely, but I'd hope that they use the original cut of The Gangster Squad for the international release.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:16 pm
Profile
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
Well the scene in question takes place during the climax of the film. It's not just a scene that can be easily reworked...But now, the film is being postponed until the death zone that is January 2013, in order to get the cast back together, reshoot, re-edit, yada yada yada. This is NOT FOR CREATIVE REASONS. And I'm not an asshole...I do feel for the victims; I just hate that this is affecting hollywood...and I feel more and more will be altered because of it.

Had this happened several years ago, what would Tarantino have done to the ending of Inglorious Basterds? My guess is left it how he directed it in the first place.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:16 pm
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Had this happened several years ago, what would Tarantino have done to the ending of Inglorious Basterds? My guess is left it how he directed it in the first place.


Well, the film wouldn't have really worked without it. It was the scene that really drove home the theme of the movie.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:20 pm
Profile
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
That's a good question regarding Inglorious Bastards. I just got done watching The International and the scene where all the assissins go at it in a very public place (forget the name of the museum) where there are lots of bystanders stuck in an enclosed place... was very eerie and a little uncomfortable to watch.

If the Aurora incident can have that kind of effect on a non-theater scene, think about what kind of effect it will have on a theater scene.

The point I'm getting at is this thing happens all the time, and probably happens a lot to projects that we don't even know about. Sometimes it's small. In Return of the King, the filmmakers made deliberate choices about bringing down Sauron's tower to avoid evoking you know what.

As for Inglorious Basterds, I don't think it could be redone, the only smart thing to do would have been to delay the release for a year or so if this had happened.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:28 pm
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
thered47 wrote:
That's a good question regarding Inglorious Bastards. I just got done watching The International and the scene where all the assissins go at it in a very public place (forget the name of the museum) where there are lots of bystanders stuck in an enclosed place... was very eerie and a little uncomfortable to watch.

If the Aurora incident can have that kind of effect on a non-theater scene, think about what kind of effect it will have on a theater scene.

The point I'm getting at is this thing happens all the time, and probably happens a lot to projects that we don't even know about. Sometimes it's small. In Return of the King, the filmmakers made deliberate choices about bringing down Sauron's tower to avoid evoking you know what.

As for Inglorious Basterds, I don't think it could be redone, the only smart thing to do would have been to delay the release for a year or so if this had happened.
You mean the Guggenheim? Also not everyone is going to think of Aurora when they see scenes like that, so while I don't entirely disagree with editing of Gangster Squad, I also hope the studios don't become too censor happy over this.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:58 pm
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
Vexer wrote:
thered47 wrote:
That's a good question regarding Inglorious Bastards. I just got done watching The International and the scene where all the assissins go at it in a very public place (forget the name of the museum) where there are lots of bystanders stuck in an enclosed place... was very eerie and a little uncomfortable to watch.

If the Aurora incident can have that kind of effect on a non-theater scene, think about what kind of effect it will have on a theater scene.

The point I'm getting at is this thing happens all the time, and probably happens a lot to projects that we don't even know about. Sometimes it's small. In Return of the King, the filmmakers made deliberate choices about bringing down Sauron's tower to avoid evoking you know what.

As for Inglorious Basterds, I don't think it could be redone, the only smart thing to do would have been to delay the release for a year or so if this had happened.
You mean the Guggenheim? Also not everyone is going to think of Aurora when they see scenes like that, so while I don't entirely disagree with editing of Gangster Squad, I also hope the studios don't become too censor happy over this.


No, not everyone will. In this case it was more of a timing issue, you know with the theater shooting being so recent. If I had seen it last thursday, I wouldn't have thought anything of it.
-Jeremyu


Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:17 pm
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
Vexer wrote:
thered47 wrote:
Also not everyone is going to think of Aurora when they see scenes like that, so while I don't entirely disagree with editing of Gangster Squad, I also hope the studios don't become too censor happy over this.


People will stop worrying about it in a few months. This is just knee jerk marketing. What I don't get, is that if reshoots are going to delay the movie till January, why not just delay it without the reshoots. January feels like a good cooling off period.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:47 pm
Profile
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
Vexer wrote:
thered47 wrote:
Also not everyone is going to think of Aurora when they see scenes like that, so while I don't entirely disagree with editing of Gangster Squad, I also hope the studios don't become too censor happy over this.


People will stop worrying about it in a few months. This is just knee jerk marketing. What I don't get, is that if reshoots are going to delay the movie till January, why not just delay it without the reshoots. January feels like a good cooling off period.


Yeah, it does seem like it would be cheaper and easier that way. But who knows? Maybe there's some specific element to the scene that's not shown in the trailers that could really end up invoking the theater shooting? It's not like Columbine or 9/11 were forgotten that quickly and readily and the nature of this is that it's not going to be forgotten any time soon.
-Jeremy Redlien


Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:53 pm
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
Not exactly back on topic but closer anyways:

The 5 Stages of Coping with a negative Dark Knight Rises Review
http://tdylf.com/2012/07/16/the-five-st ... es-review/

-Jeremy


Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:07 pm
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
thered47 wrote:
Not exactly back on topic but closer anyways:

The 5 Stages of Coping with a negative Dark Knight Rises Review
http://tdylf.com/2012/07/16/the-five-st ... es-review/

-Jeremy

As Toshi would say in American Dad!: "Bonkers!" or "Eat...my...bowls!". But seriously, I can almost agree with McGames when he talks about the kind of actions people could take over a film when I read about stuff like this.


Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:27 pm
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1480
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
Quote:
I know it'd be unlikely, but I'd hope that they use the original cut of The Gangster Squad for the international release.


I doubt the original cut or deleted scenes will ever be seen(even on dvd)

in other news

Quote:
James Holmes is facing murder charges as the suspected movie theater shooter, and his alleged actions have now spawned the first of possibly multiple lawsuits by victims and survivor’s families. Aurora shooting survivor Torrence Brown Jr. has retained an attorney and plans to filed a lawsuit against James Holmes’ doctors, the Century 16 theater and Warner Brothers Studio, according to TMZ.

The first target of the pending Colorado shooting lawsuit is the Century 16 movie theater. According to Karpel, Torrence Brown Jr. feels the Aurora movie theater was negligent because the theater did not have an emergency door that was alarmed or guarded.

One of the Brown’s best friends, A.J. Boik was shot in the chest during the theater shooting and later dies from his wounds. Brown did not reportedly suffer any physical wound but maintains he now suffers from “extreme trauma.”

Torrence Brown Jr. also included Warner Brothers in the planned theater shooting lawsuit. Karpel claims “Dark Kight Rises was particularly violent” and suspected shooter James Holmes allegedly “mimicked some of the action” on the screen.
“Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today,” Aurora shooting victim Torrence Brown Jr.’s attorney, Donald Karpel, told TMZ during an exclusive interview.


Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:11 pm
Profile
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
calvero wrote:
Quote:
I know it'd be unlikely, but I'd hope that they use the original cut of The Gangster Squad for the international release.


I doubt the original cut or deleted scenes will ever be seen(even on dvd)

in other news

Quote:
James Holmes is facing murder charges as the suspected movie theater shooter, and his alleged actions have now spawned the first of possibly multiple lawsuits by victims and survivor’s families. Aurora shooting survivor Torrence Brown Jr. has retained an attorney and plans to filed a lawsuit against James Holmes’ doctors, the Century 16 theater and Warner Brothers Studio, according to TMZ.

The first target of the pending Colorado shooting lawsuit is the Century 16 movie theater. According to Karpel, Torrence Brown Jr. feels the Aurora movie theater was negligent because the theater did not have an emergency door that was alarmed or guarded.

One of the Brown’s best friends, A.J. Boik was shot in the chest during the theater shooting and later dies from his wounds. Brown did not reportedly suffer any physical wound but maintains he now suffers from “extreme trauma.”

Torrence Brown Jr. also included Warner Brothers in the planned theater shooting lawsuit. Karpel claims “Dark Kight Rises was particularly violent” and suspected shooter James Holmes allegedly “mimicked some of the action” on the screen.
“Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today,” Aurora shooting victim Torrence Brown Jr.’s attorney, Donald Karpel, told TMZ during an exclusive interview.

I feel bad for the guy, but he's sorely misguided if he's blaming the film for Holmes actions, he's not going to get a cent from Warner Bros.


Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:13 pm
Post Re: THE OFFICIAL "DARK KNIGHT RISES" REVIEW THREAD
Vexer wrote:
calvero wrote:
Quote:
I know it'd be unlikely, but I'd hope that they use the original cut of The Gangster Squad for the international release.


I doubt the original cut or deleted scenes will ever be seen(even on dvd)

in other news

Quote:
James Holmes is facing murder charges as the suspected movie theater shooter, and his alleged actions have now spawned the first of possibly multiple lawsuits by victims and survivor’s families. Aurora shooting survivor Torrence Brown Jr. has retained an attorney and plans to filed a lawsuit against James Holmes’ doctors, the Century 16 theater and Warner Brothers Studio, according to TMZ.

The first target of the pending Colorado shooting lawsuit is the Century 16 movie theater. According to Karpel, Torrence Brown Jr. feels the Aurora movie theater was negligent because the theater did not have an emergency door that was alarmed or guarded.

One of the Brown’s best friends, A.J. Boik was shot in the chest during the theater shooting and later dies from his wounds. Brown did not reportedly suffer any physical wound but maintains he now suffers from “extreme trauma.”

Torrence Brown Jr. also included Warner Brothers in the planned theater shooting lawsuit. Karpel claims “Dark Kight Rises was particularly violent” and suspected shooter James Holmes allegedly “mimicked some of the action” on the screen.
“Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today,” Aurora shooting victim Torrence Brown Jr.’s attorney, Donald Karpel, told TMZ during an exclusive interview.

I feel bad for the guy, but he's sorely misguided if he's blaming the film for Holmes actions, he's not going to get a cent from Warner Bros.


He's just suing everyone and trying to cash in. That's what we call a legal system in 2012. Also, I don't feel bad for this fucking guy - he wasn't even shot! Sure, it's a terrible situation, but let's keep things in perspective here.


Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:57 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 196 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Thief12, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr