You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
Week of 10/1 Podcast [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : Week of 10/1 Podcast


C_T
10-01-2007, 02:05 AM
The Week of 10/1 podcast is now available through the RSS feed (iTunes for most) or the website: http://www.ctandjivin.com


Work
Funeral Pyre
Matt Jivin Way
E.T. / Something CT wishes he could unsee
movies (CT reviews The Darjeeling Limited)
science!
...and more

Brimmy
10-02-2007, 10:11 PM
Good one

VPI97
10-03-2007, 03:22 PM
I listened.

c1c9k72
10-04-2007, 04:28 AM
I listened too. Good episode.

KnoxHarrington
10-04-2007, 03:35 PM
Yeah, good show.

I feel what you're saying about Wes Anderson: it really does seem that he's far more worried about being a "stylist" than doing things like character development, so that you end up with these movies that are just beautiful to look at, but a bit hollow.

C_T
10-04-2007, 05:05 PM
Yeah, good show.

I feel what you're saying about Wes Anderson: it really does seem that he's far more worried about being a "stylist" than doing things like character development, so that you end up with these movies that are just beautiful to look at, but a bit hollow.

This movie continued a trend I definitely saw coming a bit in The Life Aquatic, he really is becoming overly obsessed with cute little shit like the stationary in that film, the luggage in this one, etc.

That stuff has it's place, but where you're clearly going out of your way to make it part of a movie, it's a bit silly. I thought The Life Aquatic was good but not as good as his prior 2 movies, and this one felt like a lesser version of The Life Aquatic. He need to break out of his shell, and maybe direct a movie written by somoene else, work with a new cast, etc.

Oh and I love how I made up the fact that Owen Wilson co-wrote the movie. He didn't, Jason Schwartzman did. I'm firing our fact-checker today.

albionmoonlight
10-05-2007, 04:32 AM
The Dark is Rising is actually a very good children's/young adult book from the 60s or 70s.

And, while you can say this about almost every movie based on a book, this movie looks like it has NOTHING to do with the book. The book is very British. It's not just set in England. The whole mood/setting/plot/characters are very tied up in Jolly Ole England. The best analogy to me is that Great Britian is to The Dark is Rising books as New York City is to Woody Allen movies.

Oh, and the main character in the book is a sort of meek and nice kid.

So, of course, it looks like the movie makes the kid a smart ass and is set in America.

Which, to keep my strained analogy going, is like remaking Annie Hall, but setting it in Chicago and making the main character somewhat well-adjusted.

So, let's rag on this movie all we want. I just wanted to throw out a quick defense of the book. Other than the author (or her kids or grandkids or whoever) selling out and taking the money from Hollywood, the book has nothing to do with this movie.

Which actually raises a question. They had to pay some money to get the rights to this book, right? But, unlike Harry Potter, this book is old, and I can't imagine anyone going to see the movie because it is based on some 35 year old book they never heard of. And the movie has very little to do with the book.

So, why not just make the movie you were going to make (Harry Potter meets Lord of the Rings) and make it an original screenplay? Why pay for the rights to a book when the book is so old that most people don't even realize that it is a book?

albionmoonlight
10-05-2007, 05:53 AM
That stuff has it's place, but where you're clearly going out of your way to make it part of a movie, it's a bit silly. I thought The Life Aquatic was good but not as good as his prior 2 movies, and this one felt like a lesser version of The Life Aquatic. He need to break out of his shell, and maybe direct a movie written by somoene else, work with a new cast, etc.

My buddy was saying this from the beginning. He does not mind Anderson, but thinks that people way over-rate him. He summed the whole thing up with a question: "Why did Ben Stiller and his kids all wear the same track suits in Royal Tennenbaums?" His answer: "There is no reason. It was just quirk for the sake of quirk." And he feels that most of Wes Anderson is quirk for the sake of quirk, which kind of bored him.

I think that I am much closer to you guys than to him. I loved Rushmore. Really enjoyed Royal Tennenbaums, but I am ready for somthing new.

C_T
10-05-2007, 09:38 AM
"Why did Ben Stiller and his kids all wear the same track suits in Royal Tennenbaums?" His answer: "There is no reason. It was just quirk for the sake of quirk." And he feels that most of Wes Anderson is quirk for the sake of quirk, which kind of bored him.


I think I'll actually defend this particular instance, Ben Stiller's character was a hard-ass who was running his kids lives by a cast-iron schedule, they reference this a number of times when Royal asks them how often he has them working out, the fact that they have to work with him in the home office, the fire drills, etc. I mean, it's in the realm of comedy, but I guess at least in that instance it made sense.

Im sure there are 5 other examples from that movie you could point out that are totally valid though. Wes Anderson clearly seems more preoccupied than ever with the appearance of his films versus the content. I'm worried he's going to be a guy who just becomes his own genre rather than trying to do new and interesting things every time out.

albionmoonlight
10-05-2007, 10:18 AM
I think that director/writers tend to get stale pretty quickly--they have no one to challenge and push them. Look at M. Night Shamalan. After the Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, I was ready to put this guy in Hitchcock's class. Now, it is clear that he had two (some say one) good movies in him.

On the other hand, can you blame those guys (Shamalan, Anderson, etc.)?

Here's hoping that in ten years we will be saying "Remeber before CT & Jivin got all rich and famous and started mailing it in? Those guys used to be young and hungry. Now all they do is record their show for three hours while hung over and spend the rest of the day hanging out with hot chicks."

Dodgerchick
10-05-2007, 10:37 AM
I listened 99:07 minutes in, no need for kidnappings here :)

banditorico
10-06-2007, 09:21 PM
I'm listening. Keep the podcasts rolling.

Dan 'Hampton
10-07-2007, 08:50 AM
I listened as well. Thought I would post in this thread to keep you off the ledge

Hunting_Oblivion
10-08-2007, 02:15 PM
Great show.... I had to go back and listen to the other downloads from i-tunes.

lordscarlet
10-10-2007, 06:09 AM
I listened, as I do every week. I forgot to come here and let you know, but got reminded when I listened to the 10/8 show last night. I also don't really visit the message board because it is absolutely hideous. :) There's way too much crap going on.

lifeforms
10-19-2007, 07:30 AM
I listened, but it was yesterday. I'm still catching up.