Page 4 of 4

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:26 pm
by so sorry
Is this whole thread/arguement about the fact that people form opinions about a director based on his previous body of work?

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:30 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
so sorry wrote:Is this whole thread/arguement about the fact that people form opinions about a director's new film they just saw in a biased way based on his previous body of work?


Yes.

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:31 pm
by Hermanator X
so sorry wrote:Is this whole thread/arguement about the fact that people form opinions about a director based on his previous body of work?


Apparently so. Thats why everyone ADORES the star wars prequels, Godfather 3, and kingdom of the crystal skull to name but a few.

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:38 pm
by TonyWilson
Salient points, Herm and SS. I thought seperating the discussion would throw it into sharp relief.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:45 pm
by King Of Nowhere
TonyWilson wrote:keep fighting the good fight against the mods, Pev, never falter, never doubt a new world is just around the corner if you hold on tight.


If only i had received such encouragement :P





:wink:

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:47 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Also why The Hurt Locker won best film Oscar as it was directed by a woman who got praise for 1. Being a woman who was brave enough to direct a war film about men, and 2. That it had a 'different' take on this war and men as it attained an opinion of a feminine.

It also got praise as it was a 'departure' for this director in terms of her style of film making beforehand.

Slap Paul Anderson's name on it, it wouldn't even have been nominated.

Also don't tell me that there wasn't an opinion of "OMG Mel Gibson has grown up so much that he can direct Braveheart! It make the film even more special! Give him the Oscar for sure!" If it was someone who had directed war epic sword and sandals films before, there'd be no nomination.

In fact I also think that a lot of actors get Oscars that people who are newcomers to their work think "Eh? Why? It didn't do much for me.", while it's the stuck up "Oh but we know it's the best performance ever even though he slept throughout the entire film as this guy has NEVER slept in a film before in all his previous works!" Case in point, Jack Palance, City Slickers. Yes, he was much better than Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci or Gary Oldman in JFK or Ben Kingsley in Bugsy. Are you voters crazy!?

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:01 pm
by King Of Nowhere
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote: Are you voters crazy!?


Because it's a well known fact that the Academy consists of the 15 or so zoners who still post, yeah?

Any questions about the oscars should be pointed somewhere else, as we can only give our opinions & not those of the union members that get to vote.


I'll give you an example: Hurt Locker was shit


Also, Mel Gibson directed The Man Without a Face years before Braveheart, so it had fuck all to do with him growing enough to move into the directors chair.

If it was someone who had directed war epic sword and sandals films before, there'd be no nomination

Which explains why Peter Jackson got arse all for RotK.
Oh, wait...

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:06 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
King Of Nowhere wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote: Are you voters crazy!?


Because it's a well known fact that the Academy consists of the 15 or so zoners who still post, yeah?

Any questions about the oscars should be pointed somewhere else, as we can only give our opinions & not those of the union members that get to vote.


Well I'm not just talking about Zoners here, I'm talking about everyone.

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:19 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Case in point about Fincher

I heard all this from many people about certain films of his...


Seven - It redeems him for ALien 3. That's why I like it that bit much more as a film.

Panic Room - It's nowhere near a memorable follow up to Fight Club. That's why I like it less as a film.

Zodiac - Fincher never did this kinda thing before. It's a 'departure'. That's why I like it that bit much more as a film.

Benjamin Button - It's the worst thing Fincher's ever done. That's why I like it less as a film.
Benjamin Button - But it's the most different thing Fincher's ever done. That's why I like it that bit much more as a film.

The Game - It's nowhere near a memorable follow up to Seven. Or as (very important term in movies here folks) 'dark'. That's why I like it less as a film.

Fight Club - It' such a radical departure than what he's done before. That's why I like it that bit much more as a film.

Don't get me started on Richard Donner.

The Omen - Donner can do horror! That's why I like it that bit much more as a film.
Superman - Donner can do fantasy! That's why I like it that bit much more as a film.
Scrooged - Donner can do comedy! That's why I like it that bit much more as a film. Or
Scrooged - Donner can't do comedy. That's why I like it less as a film.
Lethal Weapon - Donner can do thriller! That's why I like it that bit much more as a film.
Maverick - Donner can do western! That's why I like it that bit much more as a film.
Maverick - Donner can do western! That's why I like it less as a film.

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:22 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
I can see you reading this thread, John-Locke.

Here's one for you -

Nick Love's name pops up as the Director of Schindler's List at the end credits. You'd call it Holocaust exploitation porn and condemn it to the gas chamber.

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:39 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
I remember Empire magazine commending Spielberg on Jurassic Park that he had gotten over his mid life crisis as evident from his lat films prior an thus there was an extra pat on the back for this film because of his backlog. You gotta be fucking kidding me!!!

Empire magazine also commended Oliver Stone's JFK as finally he had a hit after the BO failure of The Doors. So that was nice thing for the film, yeah that really is the success of JFK isn't it?! Man I'll stop reading right now!

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:51 pm
by John-Locke
Shut up Kirks, I've seen almost all of Nick Love's films, I haven't liked any of them but I always had a little hope that the next one might be better

I've also seen ALL of Paul W(ank) S(tain) Anderson's films, I liked Event Horizon back in teh day, once I got over how much of a missed opportunity his Resident Evil was I grew to find it entertaining enough if it happened to be on the TV and there was nothing better on, Soldier might not be as good as the original Script (apparently) but I thought it was great when it came out, AVP was shite, Deathrace was hugely entertaining despite my love for the original... Then I watched Resident Evil 4 and it was one of the most nonsensical films I've ever had the displeasure of watching...

I don't know what point I'm trying to make really but then I don't know what point you are trying to make, I rate films on their individual merits, I might more actively seek out the films of people who I consider to have good track records but if a film has flaws I won't pretend they aren't there just because I have more intellectual stock invested in the director.

Case in point, I'm a huge Coen Bros fan... I was very underwhelmed by True Grit.

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:15 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
John Locke Replying to message in Movie Discussion Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:24 pm

Gotchya!!! :twisted: :twisted: Even though that was over an hour ago.

Well just think next time about a film in which you all pour stuck up judgement over in accordance to their previous work, people. you will know what I say here is true.

(I notice Peven runs away when I'm here agreeing with him. :?: )

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:58 pm
by Lord Voldemoo
John-Locke wrote:
Case in point, I'm a huge Coen Bros fan... I was very underwhelmed by True Grit.


DAMN YOU, I'm the opposite. I'm not a huge Coen Bros fan, but I really liked True Grit. I've become a pretty huge Jeff Bridges fan over the years, tho, so that may have something to do with it.

Which brings me to the next thing, it's not just directors. There have been plenty of shit movies that I've given a pass just because of an actor or actress in it.

I think this bias stuff happens. It happens both ways. Of course the goal is to judge each work on its own merits, but that's simply not reality. People build a body of work, and the body of work can tend to influence views on subsequent work, for good or ill. Lucas is an interesting example in that it has already influenced people in both directions, depending upon whether you are looking pre or post Phantom Menace (and especially AotC).

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:03 pm
by Hermanator X
There is another thread very similar to this one, but I cant remember its name. I think it was the one with the crazy dutch guy going mental.

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:11 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Hermanator X wrote:
so sorry wrote:Is this whole thread/arguement about the fact that people form opinions about a director based on his previous body of work?


Apparently so. Thats why everyone ADORES the star wars prequels, Godfather 3, and kingdom of the crystal skull to name but a few.


Yeah and people NEVER ranted on AI Artificial Intelligence due to the fact that it was 'made' by Kubrick and Spielberg. NOE ONE ever banged on about how rubbish that film was as it wasn't a true Kurbrick film and that it was Spielberg ruining that film as it brought HIS style to it, and not Kurbicks blah blah blah. Yeah that never existed did it, right?

If there's one film that I think got bad reactions due to the creative forces behind it, it was AI. Due to the body of work that both directors had, their personalities, their characteristics, their style, and in comparing both directors to EACH OTHER at the same time as comparing these film makers to AI, that film got a ton of critical shit from everywhere, including this place.

The irony that most of the comments about this film were wrong, such stuff that Spielberg decided to do this or that and not Kubrick, when in reality it WAS Kubrick who made these creative story telling decisions, well that's not really the point. The point is is that there was bias and an overcritical reaction to this film due to the film maker names who are responsible for it.

Yeah I know you take these 2 names away from the movie, we wouldn't be having these comments, and the film might be regarded as still uneven and have it's share of love/hate but the fact is that a huge % of speakers on this film spoke of it in terms of it's producer and director and their body of work etc., and this also tipped the scales in people's dislike for the film a lot further as well. That's undeniable.

Re: Name and brand bias in films

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:35 am
by Spandau Belly
Yes Kirks, people have expectations and they frequently express their opinion in contrast to their expectations. I don't think anybody can disagree with this.

Can this thread be merged into a bigger 'Stating The Obvious' thread in the Evil Bastard forum or something?

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:13 pm
by Tyrone_Shoelaces
Somewhere Fincher said Sorkin wrote the regatta scene to have the Winklevii discover that Facebook had gone international, giving them incentive to finally sue.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:29 pm
by minstrel
Saw The Social Network for the first time last night. Excellent. The script just crackles with electricity, and Jesse Eisenberg does a great job of playing a brilliant asshole. Turns out Justin Timberlake is a damn good actor, too.

I wasn't expecting a movie about computer nerds writing software would be very interesting, but this film was more than that - it was riveting. I'll watch it a few more times just to dissect that great script.

What have you been watching? (DVD or Films on TV)

PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:11 pm
by minstrel
The Social Network, with director commentary. I'm still a bit fascinated by this movie (mostly the script). Strong filmmaking.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:38 pm
by caruso_stalker217
I love THE SOCIAL NETWORK. Bought the Blu-Ray the day it came out, watched it four times and then watched it again with the commentaries. It has a power over me.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:25 am
by Nachokoolaid
I saw this. I liked it. I saw the script linked in this thread, and I liked that very much too. I'm glad Sorkin won the Oscar. It's a pretty sharp script. I liked how the protagonist was a real asshole, which the audience is literally told in the first scene, but he was still somewhat likeable.

And I honestly feel bad for Eduardo Saverin. I think he got dicked worst of all. I really felt bad for him, and I'm hoping he got what he deserved. We're told he settled for an undisclosed amount, and I bet it was 500 mil at least. Great job all around. An enjoyable film about a pretty standard topic. Good filmmaking.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:07 am
by caruso_stalker217
I'm not sure how bad I felt for Eduardo in this movie. I mean even without the settlement the guy still has more money than I'll ever see. I sympathize with him for getting screwed over by his friend, though. I think the money wasn't the big thing here. It was the dissolution of a friendship, etc.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:10 am
by Bloo
caruso_stalker217 wrote:I'm not sure how bad I felt for Eduardo in this movie. I mean even without the settlement the guy still has more money than I'll ever see. I sympathize with him for getting screwed over by his friend, though. I think the money wasn't the big thing here. It was the dissolution of a friendship, etc.


agreed, I think that was Sorkin's point

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:47 am
by Ribbons
Nachokoolaid wrote:I liked how the protagonist was a real asshole, which the audience is literally told in the first scene, but he was still somewhat likeable.


I feel like the question of whether Zuckerberg was an asshole (or how much of one) was a source of tension throughout the film. At the end, Karen Fileppelli brings it back and says "You're not an asshole, Mark; you just try so hard to be." Which is not an assessment I completely agree with (then again, it is Sorkin's fictionalized account of a sort-of real person), but one of the things I think is brilliant about the film (and which Karen Fileppelli gets at when she explains voix dire) is that a lot of the terrible things that are associated with him in the movie are never actually proven -- but all you have to do is suggest it and then point to his big, stupid face and people fill in the blanks. Which is also one of the negative side effects of the "social network" that Zuckerberg helped usher in: to a certain extent, the physical divide makes everything about you into hearsay.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:07 pm
by so sorry
I just caught up with this on Saturday night.

The movie version of Zuckerberg IS an asshole, despite what his girlfriend and Rashida Jones said ("you're not an asshole, you're just trying to be one"). Movie-Zuck is only one step above movie-Parker in terms of unlikeability. Despite the fact that the Winklevii and that other dude are seemingly spoiled rich kids, to me they come across as sympathetic considering what movie-Zuck did to them.

I don't know, it was a good movie, well written and all, but to have such strong distaste towards the characters makes me want to not like this movie at all. And hanging over my head the entire time I watched it was the knowledge that what I was watching wasn't really true to the actual events (whatever the actual events were). I know all about creative license and all that, but it affected my viewing pleasure knowing that these guys are all alive and well and probably laughing at the way they were portrayed (except maybe Savarin, who came across as a poor business man and kind of a whiney bitch).

And the CGI cold-breath was incredibly annoying and took me right out of that scene. Seriously, in this day and age of movie technology THAT'S the best they could do? Jeez.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:22 pm
by Spandau Belly
Yeah, I don't really see how the Zuck character in this movie was just posing as a bastard to impress people. I think he really was a bastard. He spends the whole movie selfishly and cowardly stealing, lying, abusing, and betraying. I'm trying to think of one kind or charming thing he did during the entire movie that might show a kinder side of his character and I'm coming up blank.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:24 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Facebook is causing me a lot of stress this week.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:46 pm
by so sorry
Spandau Belly wrote:Yeah, I don't really see how the Zuck character in this movie was just posing as a bastard to impress people. I think he really was a bastard. He spends the whole movie selfishly and cowardly stealing, lying, abusing, and betraying. I'm trying to think of one kind or charming thing he did during the entire movie that might show a kinder side of his character and I'm coming up blank.



dickpedia entry

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:07 pm
by caruso_stalker217
Spandau Belly wrote:He spends the whole movie selfishly and cowardly stealing, lying, abusing, and betraying.


Allegedly. We should say that for legal purposes.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:13 am
by Spandau Belly
I hope when they reboot this series they make Zuck a nicer character. I think the key would be anglicizing/translating his name. I mean, outside of Germany his name probably doesn't sound so friendly, but how could you hate a guy named Mark Sugarmountain?

Also in the reboot, they need to drop the THE, just SOCIAL NETWORK. It's cleaner.

I would like to see this reboot done within the next year or so, preferably by a Swedish filmmaker doing the film in Swedish but retaining the original Boston location. I mean, c'mon. If I wanted to hear a conversation in a language I spoke, I'd talk to my mum, I go to the movies to read. Get with it Hollywood.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:32 am
by TheBaxter
Spandau Belly wrote:I hope when they reboot this series they make Zuck a nicer character. I think the key would be anglicizing/translating his name. I mean, outside of Germany his name probably doesn't sound so friendly, but how could you hate a guy named Mark Sugarmountain?


or even better, Mark Sugartits. can't hate a guy named Mark Sugartits. get mel gibson for the role, have his character speak only in ancient aramaic, and call it THE SOCIAL NITWIT, and wait for the money to roll in.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:40 am
by Ribbons
so sorry wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:Yeah, I don't really see how the Zuck character in this movie was just posing as a bastard to impress people. I think he really was a bastard. He spends the whole movie selfishly and cowardly stealing, lying, abusing, and betraying. I'm trying to think of one kind or charming thing he did during the entire movie that might show a kinder side of his character and I'm coming up blank.


dickpedia entry


That is crazy. I would suggest they should have gone with "Dicktionary," but it appears that one is already taken for something else...

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:55 pm
by TheButcher
Collider vs The Films of David Fincher:
THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Matt Goldberg wrote:[With the upcoming release of his new film Gone Girl, I’m taking a look back at the work of director David Fincher. These articles contain spoilers.]
Read more at http://collider.com/tag/david-fincher/# ... PQ8cA35.99

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:52 pm
by TheButcher
Mark Zuckerberg Calls 'The Social Network' "Hurtful"
The Facebook CEO also revealed why he wears a gray T-shirt every day

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:21 pm
by caruso_stalker217
TheButcher wrote:Mark Zuckerberg Calls 'The Social Network' "Hurtful", Cries Into Pillow Made Of $1000 Bills
The Facebook CEO also revealed why he wears a T-shirt made of gold doubloons every day


Fixed.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:56 pm
by Ribbons
I'm confused, did he NOT do all those things he was charged with and paid out handsome sums of money for? As far as I can tell, the only thing the movie makes him look worse at is having friends.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:24 am
by so sorry
And isn't he a few years behind on this story? Who the hell cares at this point Mark?

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:57 am
by TheBaxter
so sorry wrote:And isn't he a few years behind on this story? Who the hell cares at this point Mark?


Luke Skywalker wrote:I care!

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:35 am
by TheButcher
TheBaxter wrote:
so sorry wrote:And isn't he a few years behind on this story? Who the hell cares at this point Mark?


Luke Skywalker wrote:I care!

Han Solo wrote:I know.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:50 pm
by TheButcher

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:48 am
by TheButcher
Scene Breakdown | The Social Network

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:50 am
by TheButcher
The Social Network - Designing Dialogue

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:39 pm
by Ribbons
Crap, I just spent two hours watching this guy's videos. DAMN YOU BUTCHER!!!

Seriously though, quality link.

Re: The Social Network

PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 3:22 pm
by caruso_stalker217
Agreed. Really good stuff.