|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tha1ChiefRocka
Yeah, well hey, I'm really sorry.
Location: Kansas
|
- #71
- Posted: 11/03/2019 16:22
- Post subject:
|
I don't see any reason to go out and end up spending $40 or more to see something that I could in the comfor of my own house. Plus, it's 3 and a half hours long, so I can also get up and use the restroom whenever I want to. 
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
PurpleHazel
|
- #72
- Posted: 11/03/2019 21:47
- Post subject:
|
True that the length incentivizes watching it at home. But it's Scorsese, and based on the reviews this could be his best film in a very long time, so I'm going to make the effort (I didn't see Silence in the theater, though I've seen most of his post-1990 movies on the big screen). I don't buy popcorn or beverages at the theater (I bring water, and popcorn if I want it), so it'll only cost me $15 plus train fare. 
It playing anywhere near you?
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Tha1ChiefRocka
Yeah, well hey, I'm really sorry.
Location: Kansas
|
- #73
- Posted: 11/04/2019 01:02
- Post subject:
|
|
Yeah, it'll be at the Screenland Armour, which is where most of those kinds of things are at. It's a great theater, but it's also 30 minutes from my house, so the drive over there for me would be a pain too.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
CA Dreamin
Gender: Male
Location: LA
|
- #74
- Posted: 11/05/2019 03:00
- Post subject:
|
I feel like The Irishman is something I can temporarily wait on. Been so busy lately, I only saw Joker and Zombieland 2 in theaters during the entire month of October. But now that work is possibly lightening up, it's time to finally catch Pain and Glory and Parasite this week. The Irishman...it just came out so I'm in not in a hurry especially since the aforementioned movies, Jojo, and The Lighthouse are on the watchlist. With the awards buzz, I feel like The Irishman will be in theaters for a good while. Of course, Rocka brought up a good point. Before long, we'll be able to stream it, so what's the point in seeing it in theaters after it's available on Netflix? Well, for the full experience. And you never know, Scorsese is no spring chicken so you don't how many more chances you're gonna have to see a new movie of his on the big screen. Any movie could be his last.
And it don't cost no $40 either What theater charges $40, Rocka? I really want to know. Heck, I could see it tomorrow for $6.
_________________
on such a winter's day
Last edited by CA Dreamin on 11/05/2019 16:30; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Tha1ChiefRocka
Yeah, well hey, I'm really sorry.
Location: Kansas
|
- #75
- Posted: 11/05/2019 03:48
- Post subject:
|
A bit of an exaggeration, but not much.
Ticket $12
Booze $10 (3 1/2 hours might mean more than that, but then I'd also go to the bathroom more.)
$5 gas
Plus, I might need to buy another ticket for a friend or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
PurpleHazel
|
- #76
- Posted: 11/05/2019 09:54
- Post subject:
|
| CA Dreamin wrote: | | I feel like The Irishman will be in theaters for a good while. |
So after Netflix put Roma up for streaming, theaters kept showing it?
| Quote: | | What theater charges $40, Rocka? I really want to know. Heck, I could see it tomorrow for $6. |
Assumed Rocka was factoring in popcorn, some kind of beverage and gas, and through my NYC prism I thought the total would be more than $27.
Buying a ticket for a friend doesn't count. Though if you feel obligated to treat a friend who never returns the favor, that'd be a disincentive to go out.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
CA Dreamin
Gender: Male
Location: LA
|
- #77
- Posted: 11/05/2019 12:32
- Post subject:
|
| PurpleHazel wrote: | So after Netflix put Roma up for streaming, theaters kept showing it?
| Quote: | | What theater charges $40, Rocka? I really want to know. Heck, I could see it tomorrow for $6. |
Assumed Rocka was factoring in popcorn, some kind of beverage and gas, and through my NYC prism I thought the total would be more than $27.
Buying a ticket for a friend doesn't count. Though if you feel obligated to treat a friend who never returns the favor, that'd be a disincentive to go out. |
Yes. Roma continued to screen at theaters in LA long after it was available to stream and during awards season, so I feel Irishman will be the same. Obviously I can't speak for areas of the country.
And yeah, buying someone else's ticket and booze doesn't count 
_________________
on such a winter's day
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
CA Dreamin
Gender: Male
Location: LA
|
- #78
- Posted: 11/06/2019 01:02
- Post subject:
|
Speaking of Martin Scorsese, not only did one of his new movies just come out, but he also made a controversial remark during an interview regarding Marvel movies. He said they weren't cinema, and were more like theme park rides. Naturally, people gave him shit. So, he replied back in the Opinion section of the NY Times yesterday:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opin...arvel.html
The NY Times has a paywall, so you may not be able to read his full opinion article in that link. But here is the entire thing:
| Martin Scorsese wrote: | When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.
Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way.
Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.
For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.
It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.
And that was the key for us: it was an art form. There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance. And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms — in “The Steel Helmet” by Sam Fuller and “Persona” by Ingmar Bergman, in “It’s Always Fair Weather” by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen and “Scorpio Rising” by Kenneth Anger, in “Vivre Sa Vie” by Jean-Luc Godard and “The Killers” by Don Siegel.
I suppose you could say that Hitchcock was his own franchise. Or that he was our franchise. Every new Hitchcock picture was an event. To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching “Rear Window” was an extraordinary experience: It was an event created by the chemistry between the audience and the picture itself, and it was electrifying.
And in a way, certain Hitchcock films were also like theme parks. I’m thinking of “Strangers on a Train,” in which the climax takes place on a merry-go-round at a real amusement park, and “Psycho,” which I saw at a midnight show on its opening day, an experience I will never forget. People went to be surprised and thrilled, and they weren’t disappointed.
Sixty or 70 years later, we’re still watching those pictures and marveling at them. But is it the thrills and the shocks that we keep going back to? I don’t think so. The set pieces in “North by Northwest” are stunning, but they would be nothing more than a succession of dynamic and elegant compositions and cuts without the painful emotions at the center of the story or the absolute lostness of Cary Grant’s character.
The climax of “Strangers on a Train” is a feat, but it’s the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker’s profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now.
Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters.
That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.
And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.
But, you might argue, can’t they just go home and watch anything else they want on Netflix or iTunes or Hulu? Sure — anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen.
In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.
I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary.”
Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.
For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness. |
Wow, that's quite an opinion piece. His chicken-and-egg analogy for modern franchise films struck me. As did his bit near the end about how 'the financial dominance of entertainment may be being used to marginalize and belittle cinema.' I don't know how accurate that it is, but certainly thought-provoking.
What do you all think?
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Tha1ChiefRocka
Yeah, well hey, I'm really sorry.
Location: Kansas
|
- #79
- Posted: 11/06/2019 01:21
- Post subject:
|
| Quote: | | buying someone else's ticket and booze doesn't count |
I'll agree with the extra ticket, but most of my friends are poor, since we just got out of college. Sometimes I need to pick somebody up. The booze definitely counts though. Especially if I'm seeing a movie called "The Irishman". Hell, I saw "The Lighthouse" a little lit myself. 
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Hayden
Location: CDMX
|
- #80
- Posted: 11/07/2019 19:44
- Post subject:
|
Some great recent watches from the world scene:
Beanpole - which is a Russian mixture of brutal nothing-to-live-for-meaninglessness arthouse and war with an Amelie colour palette. One of my favourites of the year. Nothing has a chance against Parasite at the Oscars, but I'm hoping it gets a nom. Killer cinematography.
Synonyms - deserving winner of the Golden Bear (much more than that awful work which won in 2018). A film proving how useful Duolingo is when you find a decent apartment in Paris. Worth a watch as long as you're not afraid of penises.
The Farewell - Very fun, enjoyable sadness, which everyone will tell you is well shot, because it is. Like a chinatown cookie tin.
3 Faces - An excellent example on how to make a film while under house arrest (worth taking notes).
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 8 of 17 |
|
|
|
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 vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
