 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
142.56.5.23
Most often, what leads you to pick which movie to see?1. The actors
2. The story
3. What my partner/family wants
4. All of the aboveIn my case, all of the above played an important role when picking up movies. Although I always go for the story if the special effects are a little lame.
Follow Ups:
for me it is:
directors first,
story and actors take second place tie
...then actors, story, trailer, reviews...sometimes even the producers...all combined.When I have watched movies because a favorite actor was in it orbecause I was particularly interested in the story or period, I've often been disappointed.
I can tolerate bad movies for friend's/famnily's sake, but I hate spending the money. I usually try to steer to respectable commercial fare and hope for the best. I do actually like commercial movies - I know many of my friends won't dig The Pledge.
I always want to see what certain filmmakers are up to: Scorsese, Almodovar, Cuaron, Winterbottom, Kiarostami, Lee, Hansen, Weir, Heneke, Aranofsky and many others. Their names attached to a project always piques my interest and I will usually have followed the project or know about it in advance.
Some directors and writers (like screenwriter Akiva Goldsman) I know to stay away from.
Sometimes a trailer will spark interest, and sometimes just the opposite. This isn't a reliable barometer - good films have had terrible trailers (The Whiote Balloon) and some stinkers have had interesting trailers.
/
Mostly the most important option. I mean if he his not too self dependant from the producer.
It will be not the first time a producer took a film out of the end of a director to finish it himself!
Or to demolish it...
..
Ex nihilo, nihil fit . . .
Unless its Johnny Depp. My wife will rent anything he's in.
Usually the text on the back of the DVD case. Occassinally the movie trailer although I can't recall the last time I saw a preview in the theater that had me looking forward to a new film.
That is the number one reason - much like the painter.
or became an alcoholic, much like some of the artists. Seriously, I plainly forgot.
Heck, even Bergman, who we normally associate with classical films, is still kicking!If there is yet another film with his name, that's a no-brainer. Ditto for folks like Almodovar, Denis, and many others.
as he’s one of my favorite directors along with Bergman, Scorsese and Frank Capra just to named a few. To me these directors are what I called realist as opposed to Capolla or Spielberg that borders on surrealist part of the film. Correct me if I’m wrong.
One can certainly discuss the individual approaches of different directors, but the point here is there seem to be quite a few very interesting ones still around. And to me the film is still mostly about its director.I always hated, and still do, with passion, the fact that in the US the Best Film award goes to producer - if I remember right, in Europe it is still the director who receivs it. Less "Money talks" there, I presume.
From what I understand, the bar for being a producer is significantly lower than for being the director. I guess because the director must actually do something "creative" on a film, whereas a producer is either arranging the bankrolling of a film, or handling the meetings with the studio. I suspect that the awards are handed to the producers (there always seem to be too many to count) in order to keep them motivated to find money for films, which directors would probably rather not do.
I suspect there is that sense of ownership... he who pays the money owns the thing, and in some sense that is fair, but we are not dealing with used cars, and when discussing creative "product" we still associate it with the creator, hence we do not remember the names of producers, but we always mention the director's name next to the title.So it is sort of like "Rembrandt, Portrait of an Old Man, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson collection".
The statement that the Producers often receive the best picture awards rather than the director, even though the director has far more to do with the quality of a film than the Producer. I have heard many stories of "producers" that gave large sums of cash to a film only so that they can attain a "producers" credit on the film. They have not contributed to the artistic vision of the film, but get to walk the stage.I suspect the only reason that they get to claim a Best Picture Award is (1) because there is separate Best Director award, and (2) allowing them to walk the stage, bask in the lights, coaxes more money in future projects.
And I agree that your analogy is spot on.
how much of an impact does a director really have? It's when the pictures are smaller that you really see the director's work.Look at the Academy Awards - cinematography,editing,screenplay, etc these are entities(though working on a common project)that function seperately.
How much director is in all that?
There are directors (even indy ones) who exert quite a bit of influence over their big budget, commercial movies, even FX domianted projects: Del Toro, Cuaron, Soderberg, Singer, Scorsese etc. These folks imprint their personal style even on their "for hire" films.I think you see this especially where you have a cinematically articulate director with a strong visual style. Even with various departments working on a movie, even with the collaborative narure of filmmaking, strong directors *do* exert a lot of influence over the "look" and feel of the finished film, and as such they directly control how the story is told. These directors have told the DP what they want - angles, lighting etc - they've discussed with the art director in pre-production about what they're going for, same with the costume designer on what they want costuming to convey, they sit in cutting rooms working with the editors. Most directors have input into the script - what about the directors who write or co-write their scripts? Shoot their films? Even do their own special FX? (Rodriguez, Cameron, Lucas)
Some directors have virtually edited their films "in the camera" - they literally see the films in their heads while shooting. Others love to have many options in the cutting room and drive their editors crazy with variations.
OTOH, a hack for hire on a Bruckheimer produced flick - naw, that guy doesn't have as much artistic control.
Inevitably, however, compromises are made like in any business endeavor. I don't see AS MUCH artistic control with the bigger productions; you do see SOME of the director's style but this lessens as more people come on board.There are exceptions as your examples show. I think the rule is otherwise.
nt
...if you look in the right places.
I don't rent movies based on whose in them. I can have one of my favorite actors (say Clint Eastwood) in a movie that I think I may not like (the romantic one, can't remeber the name, never seen it).
I may rent one however in which I don't like any actors (Heath Ledger (?) and whoever else played in it) and enjoy it (I enjoyed Casanova on a recent plane trip, better than watching wings flap, so not actually a rental but the idea is the same).
I definately do not rent/watch by directors or any other participants. It seems I only recognize directors I don't like, not ones I do.
The romantic film with Clint is "The bridges of Madison County" and it is worth a look see. he directed it as well.
Nothing but good reviews it seems. Not a great premise in my opinion (in this case someone cheating on their spouse) which doesn't make me grab it off a shelf as easy. When I finally get my room back up I'll have to slow down in front of this one. In the meantime it's only what's on our 35" bedroom TV. Can't be bothered to rent a movie in the meantime.
Don't forget Jeremy Irons in that one - one of the stronger performances.
The director usually is the first indication to me of how the film is going to be. If the director is an unknown, then the story. The actors are usually in about last place unless there is the possibility of previously unknown titillation.
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]