Avatar -- Like Rats Off a Sinking Ship
Paulo Joe Jingy
spectacle's worldwide gross total of $232.2 million ranks as the
"highest-grossing nonfranchise, nonsequel opening ever.""
(I guess if you use enough qualifiers, "Gigli" could have the "highest-
grossing opening ever", too.)
"Responding to a New York Times article title with the on-the-nose "A
Movie's Budget Pops From the Screen," Fox exec Jack Gianopulos called
the $500 million figure "a ridiculous number.""
Is it just me, or does it sound like they're already in spin mode? I
mean, geeze, the thing did, like, $240 million on its opening weekend,
and Fox is doing damage control. One article even said if it doesn't
gross $250 million in the the states, Fox will lose their shirts.
I'm thinking, maybe this thing was a little front loaded, and they
needed the opening weekend to pull in half their gross, I don't know.
But I do know going into spastic shit-fits about a $240 million
weekend won't help your cause.
nmstevens
While I'd like to say yes, the fact is, in the months prior to Titanic
and when it first came out, you had exactly the same kind of thing
going on. It's just when you spend the the kind of money that Cameron
spends on a movie, it's almost impossible for everybody *not* to focus
on the budget, for it not to become a big part of the story and
everybody's (even the studio's and publicity machine's) interest in
it.
But in the end, a movie comes out and people go to see it and one of
two things happen. It either becomes a big budget hit, the way Titanic
did, or it becomes a big budget bomb, the way Heaven's Gate did.
And it looks like this is on the way to becoming a big budget hit. The
real question, of course is -- who knows how much this thing really
cost, so who can say how much money it's actually going to have to
take in before it really becomes a literal "hit" in the sense of
justifying that investment.
NMS
Paulo Joe Jingy
Fox put themselves in lose/lose situation. To drum up support for the
movie they went into hyperbole hyperdrive: "THIS WILL CHANGE THE WAY
MOVIES ARE MADE FOR ALL TIME!!!" "FROM THE CREATOR OF THE
'TITANIC!!!'"
And then they trapped themselves in their own hype and got carried
away with the budget and now they have a movie that if it ONLY grosses
$750 million worldwide, will be considered a failure.
Some will consider it a failure if it doesn't gross a billion
dollars. (And I saw a couple of "over-energized" Cameron groupies,
wondering out loud, about how much it would surpass Titanic's $1.8
billion gross.)
It will probably be successful -- at least break even. Will more than
likely spawn a sequel or two (which will probably make a lot of
money), but I don't think it's going to change "LIFE ON THIS PLANET AS
WE KNOW IT!!! (Or come anywhere close to out-grossing that box office
freak, Titanic.)
Betterduck
> It will probably be successful -- at least break even. �Will more than
> likely spawn a sequel or two (which will probably make a lot of
> money), but I don't think it's going to change "LIFE ON THIS PLANET AS
> WE KNOW IT!!! �(Or come anywhere close to out-grossing that box office
> freak, Titanic.)
Who cares? Im not invested in the movie. I dont lose sleep worrying if
the Studios are making or losing money, because all they do is make
money. You think Cameron is gonna end up on a reality show? The
numbers are bullshit. especially with him. He's a bullshit artist. Did
you see Jim order the Sour Patch Kids candy on Entourage? That was
bullshit, nobody with hair number 1 on their ass eats Super Sour Candy
like that. Cameron was willing to go along with the idea of Vince
playing Aquaman. I think Camerons line was something like, "We had to
devise a way for Vince to really breath underwater." Cameronesque.
Oh 500 Million. Im scared. You know it takes about 18 years to count
to 500 million. 24hrs a day of course. Nothing compared to half a
trillion, that would fill an NFL stadium like a salad with hundreds.
Avatar is gonna be just fine, and its not gonna just continue to
produce revenue during the theatrical release, its gonna make money
for decades. Just like the fishing videos I made 2 years ago.
BD
Your Mom
> It will probably be successful -- at least break even. �Will more than
> likely spawn a sequel or two (which will probably make a lot of
> money),
Cameron has two planned if it's a success.
Skipper
<chip.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't give a damn about seeing it. Know the story and it's absurdium.
And since James Cameron is an asshole, he gets none of my money.
Martin B
> Avatar is gonna be just fine, and its not gonna just continue to
> produce revenue during the theatrical release, its gonna make money
> for decades. Just like the fishing videos I made 2 years ago.
Paint yourselves blue before going fishing again. Bask in the reflected
glory.
--
Martin B
Martin B
> And since James Cameron is an asshole...
So that's why he has "piles" of money.
--
Martin B
Pathetic, I know.
Skipper
<mart...@mweb.co.za> wrote:
> "Skipper"
>
> > And since James Cameron is an asshole...
>
> So that's why he has "piles" of money.
Helps in Hollywood. Ask Scott Rudin and... well, I'd be here all day.
Betterduck
> I don't give a damn about seeing it. Know the story and it's absurdium.
>
> And since James Cameron is an asshole, he gets none of my money.
Thats a great outlook, especially since youre a guru in an industry
that you despise. Who do you like? Anybody? Me? Cause I shit absurdium
and wipe my ass with asshole. Are you telling me, your gonna face a
client, and admit you wont pay to see James Cameron movies because
he's an asshole?
We are all a bunch of assholes. And maybe every hundred or so years,
you get one that is off the charts nice guy, like Robert Wise, but the
rest of us are a little what do you call it, self absorbed? Crazy?
Absurd? If you would rather spend your money on Kirk Cameron than Jim
Cameron, by all means go ahead. I'm gonna go and watch Mario Bava's
Black Sabbath as part of my Xmas Film Tradition.
BD
wcmartell
$14m on each day) so not all of that rats are leaving. One theory -
based on the % of weekend biz that came from 3D showings - is that the
reason why it did only $77 million for the weekend is because everyone
wants to see it in 3D and those shows are sold out. The 2D shows are
not sold out at all.
Cameron has made some great films - T, T2, ALIENS... and, of course,
the most popular film of all time.
I also like TRUE LIES and ABYSS, but can't expect everyone to like
them. I haven't seen AVATAR yet, all of the 3D shows have been sold
out, so I have plans to see it in the next couple of days if there are
some empty seats for me and my friends at a 3D showing.
The greatest thing about Cameron? He's really into T&A movies. Look at
the titles of his films.
- Bill
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Well, the movie is did weekend style biz on Monday and Tuesday (over
> $14m on each day) so not all of �that rats are leaving. One theory -...
I was shooting for tongue-in-cheek (not successfully, apparently).
The rats were the Fox executives, already trying to distance
themselves from what they perceived to be a loser because it ONLY
grossed $240 million on the opening weekend. (And for using
qualifiers to try to spin a non-record opening, to make it sound like
a record opening.)
I think they felt kind of trapped. They really spun up the hype on
this one. I think if it had opened at $1 billion -- people would have
been asking why it didn't open at $2 billion?
And I admit, I was kind of bugged by the: "THIS WILL CHANGE THE WAY
MOVIES ARE MADE FOREVER!!!", bullshit.
I liked Alien but not the sequels and I don't think James Cameron had
anything to do with Alien. I saw Terminator 2 and liked that movie.
A long time after that, I finally saw Terminator and didn't care much
for that one. (I haven't seen any of the Terminators.) I am probably
one of the six people who DID like The Abyss. (In fact I liked it
enough -- it's one of the few VHS tapes I paid full price for.) I
have no idea why that one gets dumped on.
I haven't seen True Lies or Titanic. (I'm getting old -- didn't I go
through this list about two months ago?)
I don't anticipate seeing Avatar. I'm just not sold on it. The one-
sheet with a big blue (kind-of-hokey) face, with phosphorescent
freckles didn't sell me, and the trailer repelled me. (Besides I
think I can smell the plot from 200 miles away.)
But I'm not going to carry a protest sign outside of theaters either.
So, as you can see, I had nothing to say -- I just wanted to murder
some words.
Paulo Joe Jingy
...any of the *other* Terminators...
Skipper
<chip.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're right, I'm not a suppository. I know a lot of great people in
this business, and I support their work. I don't despise the industry,
just some of the shitheads in it who work overtime to justify the
immoral lifestyles and insane beliefs they have and pass on to others.
James Cameron isn't one of the people I admire, and his idiot movie
won't get my money.
Kirk Cameron's Fireproof was a movie about something - making a
marriage work - something James Cameron hasn't been too good at doing.
$500,000 budget, $33.5 million box office in the US. That's means the
movie took in $67 for every $1 spent.
Let's see James Cameron make that kind of return with a story line that
isn't simply his liberal indulgence bullshit agenda.
Skipper
<skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote:
Typo, left out a decimal. $6.7 return to every $1 spent on Fireproof.
Remysun
> > Kirk Cameron's Fireproof was a movie about something - making a
> > marriage work - something James Cameron hasn't been too good at doing.
> > $500,000 budget, $33.5 million box office in the US. That's means the
> > movie took in $67 for every $1 spent.
>
> > Let's see James Cameron make that kind of return with a story line that
> > isn't simply his liberal indulgence bullshit agenda.
>
> Typo, left out a decimal. $6.7 return to every $1 spent on Fireproof.
Don't sell yourself short, Skip. Your numbers were correct the first
time. Do you have any numbers for the biggest budget that a Christian
Indie has been able to muster?
nmstevens
Well, I don't have the numbers handy, but I think that Mel Gibson's
The Passion -- which was certainly financed independently would have
to qualify as the biggest budget return that any explicitly Christian
movie has ever been able to muster.
That being said, it's difficult to imagine anybody other than Mel
Gibson -- either in the studio system or in the community of Christian-
based filmmakers, making a movie like that. Like it or hate it or
condemn it or however you feel about it -- it really was, start to
finish, uniquely his movie.
NMS
Remysun
> Well, I don't have the numbers handy, but I think that Mel Gibson's
> The Passion -- which was certainly financed independently would have
> to qualify as the biggest budget return that any explicitly Christian
> movie has ever been able to muster.
I didn't quite mean it like that, unless Passion of the Christ was
exceedingly expensive to make at 30 million. It performed at 12:1
domestic and 20:1 worldwide. I think Blair Witch Project holds the
record for greatest return at 10,000:1.
With a genre that can give you a 12-67 times your investment, is there
diminishing returns on having an A-list budget?
Skipper
<remys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Passion like Neal said.
Fact is, Christian-themed movies generally do very well, have for
years. When the 60s and 70s crowd came in, though, they wanted to smoke
dope and do heavy drugs and have as much sex as they wanted and that
clashed with their Biblical upbringing (Christians and Jews). So they
started knocking Jesus as much as possible.
It doesn't help that you have jackasses like Cardinal Mahoney in L.A.
who covers up homo predators in the priesthood. That gives the
Christian-haters license. Doesn't matter than Catholic charities
support more poor folks than any other, worldwide. All you see from
Hollywood is creepy bad priest stuff - they're just projecting their
own evil lifestyles (I know about plenty of them, specifics).
But you have good things like Spielberg funding the Shoah project. He
won't touch anything Christian though, doesn't dare.
Lucas did his knock on Jesus in the last Star Wars movies, mocking the
Jesus story and then turning his own "hero" into the devil. And ended
up with a crap last movie.
When they're all gone to their doom or whatever, Jesus will still be
here, and after what we're seeing in America lately, reminding people
how good they had it, you'll see Christian things standing even taller,
renewed, refreshed, and flourishing.
Betterduck
> Kirk Cameron's Fireproof was a movie about something - making a
> marriage work - something James Cameron hasn't been too good at doing.
> $500,000 budget, $33.5 million box office in the US. That's means the
> movie took in $67 for every $1 spent.
Are you really doing this? Since I have yet to see either Avatar or
Fireproof, are you recomending that I see Fireproof first? Really?
Cause I'll click it on Netflix if you want me to. I dont care about
gross profits, cause I can go low budget horror and then porn to win
that debate all day. Tonight I'm triple watching Christmas Story (TV)
Black XMas remake (iPhone) and Bird With The Crystal Plumage
(Computer) at the same time.
BD
Skipper
<chip.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's about something that means something to people - or should - which
is a good marriage. He has one; I'm not sure Cameron ever has. And he's
a Christian, which I respect, while Cameron is probably worshipping at
the altar of himself. Watch what you want. I watch what I care about.
Your Mom
> When they're all gone to their doom or whatever, Jesus will still be
> here, and after what we're seeing in America lately, reminding people
> how good they had it, you'll see Christian things standing even taller,
> renewed, refreshed, and flourishing.
I feel bad pushing this even further off topic, but I'm not sure if
you're saying that religion necessarily makes things better. If so
I'll cite the children's crusade, the Vatican's Nazi ratlines, the
Indo-Pakistan wars, and the last few hundred years of middle Eastern
history. You also might be saying that America was a much better
country before the filthy hippies took over, in which case we've got
plenty of American Indians, descendants of African slaves,
"undesirable" people who were "sterilized" by government sponsored
eugenicists, Tuskegee syphilitics, and Japanese-American internment
camp victims who will take exception to this white-washed nostalgia.
If you're not saying either of these things, then I humbly apologize.
Alexei
Skipper
<alex....@gmail.com> wrote:
I was talking about Jesus in the movies,but of course, being the idiot
liberal that you are, you had to trot out the heaviest list of
"everything bad white peoples done done" that you could churn up from
your confused brain.
Merry Christmas, nutball.
Martin B
> Are you really doing this? Since I have yet to see either Avatar or
> Fireproof, are you recomending that I see Fireproof first? Really?
*Someone* didn't like it:
"With the production values of a straight-to-video cheapie and the script
of a mediocre soap opera, Fireproof is good for just about one thing:
dousing ..." (from Google)
--
Martin B
Martin B
>> Fireproof, are you recomending that I see Fireproof first? Really?
I see there's a blog:
http://fireproofproduction.blogspot.com/
What would a movie about a firefighter be without a fire? The five
FIREPROOF actors playing members of the Albany Fire Department battled
the flames for the first time on camera on Wednesday. It was a day to
remember for everyone on the set, including director and co-writer Alex
Kendrick.
�It was very exciting, but it was also scary. I�ve never shot anything on
this scale,� Alex says. �It�s never 100 percent of what you see in your
head, but I think through prayer, God makes it what it needs to be.
Nobody got hurt, which we prayed for. All in all, it went very well.�
I checked the credits on IMDb. God didn't get one. Based on the above,
s/he should have got one.
Incidentally, if you watch Christian-themed movies, Skip, did you see
FAITH LIKE POTATOES? It's a South African Christian movie and true story
about a farmer who prayed after many tribulations and ended with a bumper
crop. It's not bad. It did quite well here, and the protagonist draws
stadium-size crowds when he preaches.
--
Martin B
Betterduck
> "With the production values of a straight-to-video cheapie and the script
> of a mediocre soap opera, Fireproof is good for just about one thing:
> dousing ..." (from Google)
That doesnt mean anything. I clicked it on Netflix, it will be here in
a few days. And then I will lay definitive proclamation. I happen to
enjoy Straight to video, so the bar couldnt really be any lower. I
havent seened Avatar yet because I want to see it in Imax 3D, but Imax
is a box of germs and coughing people, especially this week.
Skip, good round. I'll be fairer to Fireproof than you and Kirk can
be to James stuff and since you wont see Avatar, we cant even discuss
the result of Fireproof Vs. Avatar. Which means we cant take this
argument to Youtube, where it really belongs, and end up with crazy
videos of you and me arguing over Fireproof Vs. Avatar.
Fireproof Vs. Avatar - this time its for (insert Alan Brooks Joke
here)
A new video by Skip&Chip Productions
Skip Press - Himself
Better Duck - Chip Mayhugh
FADE IN
SKIP
Look at him, he's high. Hey Chip
clear the smoke, man. Should I
call the Firemen? What a loser...
DUCK
Firemen? Firemen are killing this
planet Skip! Where would we be
as a civilization without fire, and
these Village People dudes are
against it.
SKIP
You are probably the dumbest
person in Florida...
....
wcmartell
> It's about something that means something to people - or should - which
> is a good marriage. He has one; I'm not sure Cameron ever has.
I have yet to see AVATAR, but I believe *it* is also about something,
and something that should probably be important to people and
important to Christians. Starting with Commandment #10, then covering
Commmandments #8 and #6. That's *THREE* commandments in the James
Cameron movie as compared to almost one (#7) in Kirk Cameron's movie.
I think the problem is, you see those three commandments as being
liberal, when they are the word of God. I think that's breaking #3,
and probably #2.
So - James Cameron - makes a movie illustrating three Commandments.
Kirk Cameron - makes a movie illustrating one Commandment.
Skip - breaks two Commandments and completely skews the teachings of
Jesus Christ to push his right wing agenda.
Which one of these three is guanteed to go to hell?
Merry Christmas!
- Bill
lurking crow
Skip Press is an Icon. So is William C. Martell. You guys are the
angels on my shoulders (but I'd be scared to ask for an autograph at
the airport) inspiring me to be reasonable and balanced or intolerant
and belligerent. That's right -- there's someone walking the streets
right now circa 12:00 am (you probably made a safe detour around him),
who seems to be talking to himself, but is really debating Skip Press
and William C. Martell
Dancing Fingers
guys have been saying. I enjoyed it, mostly for the spectacle
factor. But the writing was much more engaging than Shitanic. The
attention to detail was impressive and the 3-D insects were amazing.
It also followed the Cameron axiom: every action movie needs 30 more
minutes of action. As a person with a disability I had mixed feelings
about the lead. I'm surprised that you guys didn't pick up on that.
Is it better to be an Avatar in a different world than a person with a
disability in your own? He could have done just a little more with
that to make it very compelling. Buy I felt that overall the film was
a great experience, not unlike Starwars 30 years ago.
Chris
Ovum
>
> As a person with a disability I had mixed feelings
> about the lead. �I'm surprised that you guys didn't pick up on that.
> Is it better to be an Avatar in a different world than a person with a
> disability in your own? �He could have done just a little more with
> that to make it very compelling.
I mentioned this in another thread. I wondered how real-life people
with disabilities react to this film.
I thought it was great to have the hero of such a major film have a
disability. The disability really wasn't necessary to make the film
work, so it's cool that Cameron chose to have it in the movie.
However, I did wince a little when The Bad Guy military leader
promised the hero that he'd get his legs back if he succeeded at his
mission.
What do you suggest Cameron should have done with the lead's
disability to make the film more compelling?
o
Steven J. Weller
> I saw Avatar and I have to say that I was disappointed in what you
> guys have been saying. I enjoyed it, mostly for the spectacle
> factor. But the writing was much more engaging than Shitanic. The
> attention to detail was impressive and the 3-D insects were amazing.
The 3D insects were amazingly WRITTEN? Guess I missed that part of
it.
The visuals were impressive as all get-out but the story was largely
lacking in detail. The broadest of broad strokes, the most ham-fisted
of messages, the most obvious of plot mechanics. The dialogue was
beyond clunky, too.
> It also followed the Cameron axiom: every action movie needs 30 more
> minutes of action. As a person with a disability I had mixed feelings
> about the lead. I'm surprised that you guys didn't pick up on that.
> Is it better to be an Avatar in a different world than a person with a
> disability in your own? He could have done just a little more with
> that to make it very compelling. Buy I felt that overall the film was
> a great experience, not unlike Starwars 30 years ago.
The physical challenge of the lead was a mostly wasted idea, to my
eye. Could have done a LOT more with it, but just let it lay there.
It's a plot device that seems to have little or no impact on the
character, beyond getting him there in the first place. By making his
condition curable (with enough money) it removes it from a present-day
context. He's not stuck in a chair for the rest of his life, he's
just got a broken leg or two and will be in a cast for a fairly long
time. It's more an inconvenience than a life-changing tragedy, for
him.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
> Is it better to be an Avatar in a different world than a person with a
> disability in your own?
Heavens no. After about three days on Pandora, I'd be suffering from cinema
withdrawal, big time. :-)
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"The penalty of success is to be bored by people who used to snub you."
-- Nancy Astor
Dancing Fingers
I know several people with spinal injuries. There's always a year, or
more, of denial. I'd assume that Jake was in that stage. Usually,
they have a peer to help them adjust to thier new skill set. It would
have been nice to see that peer drawing Jake back to his world, not
just a macho Colonel. Also, Jake made no comment, that I remember,
about being different on Pandora. Why not?
Some people with are injuries are fine with not walking but are
frustrated with not having sensual sensation. Etc. There's always
something that they miss that reveals their personallty. A few
minutes of drama, out of 120+ minutes, would have said a lot about
Jake.
If Jake had adjusted to his disability why even bother? Why would he
be so attracted to this other world?
Why didn't Cameron cast a person with a disability? I guess Hollywood
just doesn't get it? We're all just here living on Pandora.
Chris
Alan Brooks
> Why didn't Cameron cast a person with a disability? I guess Hollywood
> just doesn't get it? We're all just here living on Pandora.
This one I can answer: they couldn't cast a person who's actually confined
to a wheelchair because the actor also had to do his own motion-capture for
the Pandora scenes.
No idea why Cameron didn't just solve the quadriplegia problem so he could
have an authentic wheel chair person at the beginning who could then do the
motion-capture later. The guy's completely lazy and unimaginative.
It's about an hour drive from here to the closest large-screen 3D showing,
so I haven't seen "Dances with Smurfs" yet. But I will probably go sometime
this week.
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- You're In
The Na'vi
Now...
MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
Steven J. Weller
I guess the thing that's being missed, in this conversation, is the
context. In Cameron's future, Jake's spinal injury - and so
disability - isn't permanent. It's just expensive. In the early 21st
century, he'd have to adjust to the fact that he's never going to walk
again. In the 24th century, he has to adjust to the fact that he's
got to make a lot of money before he can walk again, which is a very
different thing (dramatically speaking).
> If Jake had adjusted to his disability why even bother? Why would he
> be so attracted to this other world?
He's obviously a character with few personal attachments - he had to
sleep for five YEARS just to get to Pandora, so going there pretty
much means abandoning his non-military life, and he seems to have also
rejected his previous military life (or perhaps it rejected him).
He's a would-be Alpha Male, with mad skills as a hunter and survivor,
trapped in a high-tech world where all anyone needs him to do is
operate a joystick and a keyboard, and won't pay him enough for the
priviledge for him to buy his legs back. Pandora's all about hunting
and surviving; no one's going hungry and the place is littered with
cool-looking flying bat-lizard things and suchlike, plus Angelina
JoLionKing's running around mostly naked, making the very biggest of
big googly romantic eyes at him. What's not to like?
> Why didn't Cameron cast a person with a disability? I guess Hollywood
> just doesn't get it? We're all just here living on Pandora.
See Alan's response, and add my 2� - this question is another version
of Identity Politics. Why not cast a person living with a
disability? Because - aside from a sop to the advocacy groups who
like to protest Identity Politics sorts of issues, there's no
particular reason to do so. Jake's challenge isn't adjusting to a
life without legs, it's coming up with enough money to pay for the
surgery. He also spends much more screentime on his (digitally
enhanced) feet than he does in the chair, and there are not one, but
TWO sequals aleady being prep'd. Why on earth (or pandora) would you
saddle yourself with an actor who can't walk, to play a character who
does walk in Smurfland, and who will probably walk again in his pink
skin? I can only assume that if they can splice together a Na'vi and
grow it in a tank, they have Jake's DNA on file and are ready to grow
a new one of him, too, complete with a set of working legs.
Michael Dines
> I guess the thing that's being missed, in this conversation, is the
> context. In Cameron's future, Jake's spinal injury - and so
> disability - isn't permanent. It's just expensive. In the early 21st
> century, he'd have to adjust to the fact that he's never going to walk
> again. In the 24th century, he has to adjust to the fact that he's
> got to make a lot of money before he can walk again, which is a very
> different thing (dramatically speaking).
So Pres Obama's health reforms didn't make it through to the 24th
century?
Steven J. Weller
wrote:
Apparently not. In the opening VO, Jake talks about how the surgery
to fix his spine is available - just not on his income, and certainly
not as a part of his VA benefits. He's taking the job on Pandora
specifically to earn the money to pay for the surgery, and Col.
Scarface offers him the guarantee of getting his legs back as an
inticement to spy for him.
Seems like a trip to C*n*d* would be less involved than a trip to
Pandora, where medical treatment is involved, but then again that'd
mean there'd be no movie.
Ovum
>
> Why didn't Cameron cast a person with a disability? �I guess Hollywood
> just doesn't get it?
Same reason why Hollywood didn't cast little people to play Frodo, Sam
et al. in "Lord of the Rings." Same reason why Hollywood didn't cast
all Chinese actresses to play Chinese characters in "The Joy Luck
Club."
Rene Zellweger played a Brit in "Bridget Jones;" Tom Cruise played a
German in "Valkyrie;" straight guys played gay guys in "Brokeback
Mountain," etc.
It's The Hollywood Way (tm).
o
MC
wrote:
No. It's *acting*
Have you ever seen a Dane play Hamlet? A Moor play Othello? An Italian
play Romeo?
Probably not. Because they hired actors, and paid them to act.
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
nmstevens
No, I'm sorry. C*n*d* was stripped mined in the 23rd Century, cemented
over and turned into a giant theme park called C*n*d*l*nd, complete
with plug-in virtual hockey games played on mile wide ice hockey
courts by sixty-foot tall robots with fifty-foot long titanium hockey
sticks. The puck is made of depleted uranium, weighs twenty tons and
has been known to break the sound barrier during particularly
energetic games.
You see, it was that or universal health care so -- the choice was
obvious.
NMS
Skipper
<nmstev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 6:15�pm, "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 2:31 pm, mjcnospamheredi...@gmailnospam.com (Michael Dines)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Steven J. Weller <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > I guess the thing that's being missed, in this conversation, is the
> > > > context. �In Cameron's future, Jake's spinal injury - and so
> > > > disability - isn't permanent. �It's just expensive. �In the early 21st
> > > > century, he'd have to adjust to the fact that he's never going to walk
> > > > again. �In the 24th century, he has to adjust to the fact that he's
> > > > got to make a lot of money before he can walk again, which is a very
> > > > different thing (dramatically speaking).
> >
> > > So Pres Obama's health reforms didn't make it through to the 24th
> > > century?
> >
> > Apparently not. �In the opening VO, Jake talks about how the surgery
> > to fix his spine is available - just not on his income, and certainly
> > not as a part of his VA benefits. �He's taking the job on Pandora
> > specifically to earn the money to pay for the surgery, and Col.
> > Scarface offers him the guarantee of getting his legs back as an
> > inticement to spy for him.
> >
> > Seems like a trip to C*n*d* would be less involved than a trip to
> > Pandora, where medical treatment is involved, but then again that'd
> > mean there'd be no movie.
> >
> > --
> > Life Continues, Despite
> > Evidence to the Contrary
> >
> > Steven
>
> No, I'm sorry. C*n*d* was stripped mined in the 23rd Century, cemented
> over and turned into a giant theme park called C*n*d*l*nd, complete
> with plug-in virtual hockey games played on mile wide ice hockey
> courts by sixty-foot tall robots with fifty-foot long titanium hockey
> sticks. The puck is made of depleted uranium, weighs twenty tons and
> has been known to break the sound barrier during particularly
> energetic games.
>
> You see, it was that or universal health care so -- the choice was
> obvious.
>
> NMS
>
After every game the field is cleaned with water from the now toxic
Great Lakes by workers known as hosers.
Dancing Fingers
So why don't we do black face?
Dancing Fingers
don't get it?
I did like the part where they talk behind Jakes back -- that happens
all the time. But this happens in both worlds so again there's no
difference.
Chris
Skipper
<baty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 8:22�pm, Ovum <lk1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So why don't we do black face?
>
Spike Lee already made Bamboozled.
Steven J. Weller
> So Jake is okay with his disability but wants an operation anyway? I
> don't get it?
Jake's not okay with his INJURY, but it's a mistake to think of it as
a disability because that context isn't there. You have a broken leg,
you're going to get it set, get a cast or maybe some pins and a little
traction, and then it's going to heal up and you'll be back to walking
again. You're not 'disabled,' you're just injured. In a 21st century
context, a broken spine is a disability because it's never going to
heal up and you'll never be back to walking again. In the movie's
24th century context, a broken spine is no different than a broken leg
is in our 21st century context, save that the treatment's more
expensive.
Steven J. Weller
> So why don't we do black face?
Tropic Thunder.
Steven J. Weller
To me, that seems a little harsh and a bit dismissive. "Little
Person" is a social description that covers both dwarves - who are
people with a genetic abnormality which DOESN'T make them Hobbits -
and midgets, who are otherwise healthy and normally proportioned
adults who are just less than 4' 9" tall - which also doesn't make
them Hobbits. Are we really saying that an actor who's otherwise
perfect for a role can't be allowed to play the role if he or she
isn't the right height? Tom Cruise can only play action heros if
they're specifically written as very short action heroes? No room in
H'wood for Richard Moll unless he's playing a virtual giant?
There was an outcry, from some Asian advocacy groups, when Miss Saigon
was casting. The argument was that no one who wasn't Asian should be
allowed to play the lead. But the character is written as
specifically half Vietnamese and half American Caucasian, so if it's
okay for an Asian who isn't half white to play him, why isn't it okay
for a white guy who isn't half Asian?
This is the movies. We cast actors who can play the role, not actors
who ARE the role. We occassionally cast actors to play characters of
different genders (Linda Hunt won an Oscar� for her portrayal of a
man), different races, different ethnicities, different religions,
orientations, and so on. If you're ready to complain that the guys in
Brokeback Mountain weren't really gay, are you also ready to step up
to the plate and complain about every gay actor who's ever played a
straight character?
Martin B
Choice of seats: front row on the aisle, or three rows from the back
against the wall (it's a centre aisle cinema). For the 10:30 AM show.
The last time I had to sit in the front row was, IIRC, TO DIE FOR with
Nicole Kidman, back in 1995.
In those days, everyone went to movies. Now I'm the only person I know
who goes to the movies regularly.
The theatre was only half full, with grandparents and soccer moms. After
the movie the little kids stood up and the mystery of the empty seats was
solved.
I wonder if those little tykes know what Na'vi feet look like? I doubt
they could have seen them.
I chose the seat against the wall. Nerve-racking, because the worry was,
could my bladder hold out? Luckily I had anticipated this and had only a
cup of black coffee for breakfast. No carbs or sugar. It worked, although
I was squirming a bit towards the end. Several grandpas had to take a loo
break.
I hope Cameron doesn't make AVATAR 2 any longer, otherwise it won't be
The Squeakuel, it'll be The Leakuel.
It was a 2 1/2 hour movie. Two hours for the movie, thirty minutes for
the credits.
Those cheap plastic 3-D specs made us look like a theatre full of Kim
Jong-Ils.
It's my first movie in 3-D. I don't know that it added much to the
experience. Maybe five or ten percent. It gave things a plasticky sheen
and cut quite a bit of the light, so the brightness and color suffered. I
thought 3-D was most effective in the slower and static scenes, not so
much in fast action.
My favourites were the little aerial jellyfish.
Judging by the Jupiter-like gas giant hanging in the sky, Pandora is a
moon not a planet. Which means interesting possibilities for eclipses and
stuff (which were not made use of).
One drawback of CGI is there were no wardrobe malfunctions of Na'vi
bikinis, not even in vigorous fighting scenes, and yes, I was looking out
for them.
Concerning the story and plot, as the song says: "There are more
questions than answers."
For instance: Ripley's nine foot tall avatar was wearing a tank top and
shorts among the jungle garb of the Na'vi. Where did she buy them? At the
Pandora branch of Old Na'vi?
*****************SPOILERS**********************
One thing that really annoyed me: A major turning point in the movie is
when Our Hero rides the giant Thingadactyl, thus qualifying himself as
the Supreme Leader who can unite the tribes. That moment needed a much
bigger build-up, and a huge fanfare, and we should have sat up in our
seats, light of heart, because now all is not lost. But it was treated as
just another event, nothing special about it.
And what about his Broomstickasaurus that he risked his life to tame and
has a mystical mind-bond with for life? Cast aside for the bigger, better
model without a second thought. How human! Na'vi, be warned -- you don't
want this selfish human DNA polluting your mystical
conjoined-with-the-trees gene pool.
--
Martin B
Alan Brooks
> This is the movies. We cast actors who can play the role, not actors
> who ARE the role. We occassionally cast actors to play characters of
> different genders (Linda Hunt won an Oscar� for her portrayal of a
> man), different races, different ethnicities, different religions,
> orientations, and so on. If you're ready to complain that the guys in
> Brokeback Mountain weren't really gay, are you also ready to step up
> to the plate and complain about every gay actor who's ever played a
> straight character?
Totally agree.
But it's an interesting point about "Brokeback Mountain". By casting a
couple straight guys you're asking the audience to notice the actors playing
gay instead of casting two gay men and asking the audience to simply
appreciate the two men's affection for each other.
For all the flak the writer and director took on this film, it's interesting
that they used their casting to remain at arms length from creating an
actual gay film.
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- High Concept Casting
MC
Alan Brooks <ch...@panix.com> wrote:
> "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
> > This is the movies. We cast actors who can play the role, not actors
> > who ARE the role. We occassionally cast actors to play characters of
> > different genders (Linda Hunt won an Oscar� for her portrayal of a
> > man), different races, different ethnicities, different religions,
> > orientations, and so on. If you're ready to complain that the guys in
> > Brokeback Mountain weren't really gay, are you also ready to step up
> > to the plate and complain about every gay actor who's ever played a
> > straight character?
>
> Totally agree.
>
> But it's an interesting point about "Brokeback Mountain". By casting a
> couple straight guys you're asking the audience to notice the actors playing
> gay instead of casting two gay men and asking the audience to simply
> appreciate the two men's affection for each other.
>
> For all the flak the writer and director took on this film, it's interesting
> that they used their casting to remain at arms length from creating an
> actual gay film.
Well I'm not sure the characters were both gay. They turned to each
other and had sex, but that doesn't mean they're out and proud, here and
queer or anything of the kind. I'd equate it with prison sex which may
be same-sex but is a long way from GAYYYYYYYY. .
Mysti Berry
And Patrick McGoohan is their Prime Minister, er General Manager.
Mysti Berry
> For all the flak the writer and director took on this film, it's interesting
> that they used their casting to remain at arms length from creating an
> actual gay film.
What's a "gay film"? This seemed to confront the issues as
straightforwardly
as Proulx's short story, or as Lee's similarly themed Wedding Banquet.
I don't believe they cast straight actors to remain at arm's length
from anything.
Ang Lee has a wonderful sense of casting. I truly believe the sexual
orientation
of the actors was irrelevant.
All during the film, I believed one of them identified as gay, and one
of them was
struggling with his identity, just like all the guys I knew in
Berkeley and San Francisco
who had the same issues. I did not feel at arm's length at all.
He cast the more chameleon-like actor as the one whose identity was
set, which would
tend to support the idea that he wanted the audience to accept the
characters, not stay at arms length.
JMO, as usual :)
Mysti
Ovum
Hmm. It's quirky, but casting Dane Cook as Hamlet just might work!
:-)
Ovum
>
> If you're ready to complain that the guys in
> Brokeback Mountain weren't really gay, are you also ready to step up
> to the plate and complain about every gay actor who's ever played a
> straight character?
It's not my complaint, it's Rupert Everett's complaint:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/rupert-everetts-advice-to_n_377010.html
And the complaint about little people not being cast as Hobbits? Not
my complaint either:
http://www.warwickdavis.co.uk/fantasy-films-help-little-people-actors
I think I also heard, or read, an Asian woman (maybe it was Amy Tan
herself) comment on the casting of non-Chinese women for "The Joy Luck
Club."
So there.
:-)
Ovum
>
> Choice of seats: front row on the aisle, or three rows from the back
> against the wall (it's a centre aisle cinema).
Dude, you sat against the wall? That's insane. The key is to try to
sit right smack in the middle of the theatre.
> It was a 2 1/2 hour movie. Two hours for the movie, thirty minutes for
> the credits.
I saw something new with these credits that I've never seen before.
Instead of each name being on its own line, there were paragraph-
blocks of names. Brilliant! Wonder why more filmmakers don't do this.
> For instance: Ripley's nine foot tall avatar was wearing a tank top and
> shorts among the jungle garb of the Na'vi. Where did she buy them? At the
> Pandora branch of Old Na'vi?
Did you notice how disproportionately skinny the Na'vi are, as
compared to humans? So obviously, Signourney Weaver's character
ordered a size 3X Stanford tank top, and it fit perfectly on a 10-foot-
tall woman.
o
Ovum
>
> Well I'm not sure the characters were both gay. They turned to each
> other and had sex, but that doesn't mean they're out and proud, here and
> queer or anything of the kind. I'd equate it with prison sex which may
> be same-sex but is a long way from GAYYYYYYYY.
A few years ago, this "down-low" phenomenon was talked about a lot:
men who have one-night-stands with other men but deny that they're
gay, or even bi-sexual.
Look, if someone's not sexually attracted to, let's say, three-toed
sloths, that person is not going to attempt to have sex with three-
toed sloths, no matter how long he or she has been lost in the
outback.
On the other hand, someone who regularly treks to the outback for the
sole purpose of having carnal knowledge of three-toed sloths should
just admit to being a sloth-ist. Or whatever.
Trying to deny that one is gay when one has consensual same-sex
liaisons is just Clintonian.
o
Steven J. Weller
Slothophile?
> Trying to deny that one is gay when one has consensual same-sex
> liaisons is just Clintonian.
Prison sex is one thing, but these characters weren't in prison, or in
any other way forced together into a long-term situation where they
had no other sexual outlet. They went where they went - physically
and metaphorically - because they wanted to. To argue "that doesn't
make them gay" is to assume that being gay is somehow bad and wrong,
and something to be denied unless there's no other possible choice.
They might not have been happy about being gay (or bi) but that
doesn't mean they aren't. The line is "I wish I could quit you," not
"I wish I could escape this forced confinement, so I could get my
hands on a woman - because that's what I prefer, sexually speaking."
Alan Brooks
> On Jan 5, 12:45�pm, Alan Brooks <ch...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> For all the flak the writer and director took on this film, it's interesting
>> that they used their casting to remain at arms length from creating an actual
>> gay film.
>>
> What's a "gay film"?
I'm no expert, but what I meant was "a film specifically designed to appeal
to a gay audience".
> This seemed to confront the issues as straightforwardly
> as Proulx's short story, or as Lee's similarly themed Wedding Banquet.
I didn't read Proulx's short story, so I'll just have to believe you.
> I don't believe they cast straight actors to remain at arm's length from
> anything. Ang Lee has a wonderful sense of casting. I truly believe the sexual
> orientation of the actors was irrelevant.
Sure, I agree, the sexual orientation of the actors should be especially
irrelevant in light of the fact that so many actors are still in the closet,
or are bisexual or are any number of different things that aren't precisely
what they're portrayed as by their agents, managers and handlers.
But I think if you cast a couple well known, out, gay men in the roles in
"Brokeback Mountain" you'd have had a much smaller audience for the film. I
honestly believe that: the conversation about the film would have been
entirely different, the film would have been pigeon-holed as a gay film, and
the mainstream audience wouldn't have come out (he) to see it.
> All during the film, I believed one of them identified as gay, and one of them
> was struggling with his identity, just like all the guys I knew in Berkeley
> and San Francisco who had the same issues. I did not feel at arm's length at
> all.
Well, whether or not you felt "at arm's length" isn't relevant to what I
said, which was that Proulx and Lee wanted to keep at arm's length any
accusation of making a "gay film" -- which is to say, a film specifically
for a gay audience. All I really meant is that they made a marketing
decision.
> He cast the more chameleon-like actor as the one whose identity was set, which
> would tend to support the idea that he wanted the audience to accept the
> characters, not stay at arms length.
>
> JMO, as usual :)
That's fine, but you're making it sound like I said they wanted to keep the
audience at arm's length, and I didn't say that at all.
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Arm's Too
Short To Box
With Dog.
Steven J. Weller
> "Mysti Berry" <mystia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What's a "gay film"?
>
> I'm no expert, but what I meant was "a film specifically designed to appeal
> to a gay audience".
Sounds like a workable definition to me, too.
> > I don't believe they cast straight actors to remain at arm's length from
> > anything. Ang Lee has a wonderful sense of casting. I truly believe the sexual
> > orientation of the actors was irrelevant.
>
> Sure, I agree, the sexual orientation of the actors should be especially
> irrelevant in light of the fact that so many actors are still in the closet,
> or are bisexual or are any number of different things that aren't precisely
> what they're portrayed as by their agents, managers and handlers.
>
> But I think if you cast a couple well known, out, gay men in the roles in
> "Brokeback Mountain" you'd have had a much smaller audience for the film. I
> honestly believe that: the conversation about the film would have been
> entirely different, the film would have been pigeon-holed as a gay film, and
> the mainstream audience wouldn't have come out (he) to see it.
It also raises another question. Who, exactly, would you cast, if you
were to restrict your choices to a couple of well known, out, gay male
actors? Neither Jake Gyllenhaal nor Heath Ledger were exactly
unknowns when they were cast; who were the analogous straight and out
actors, at that time? This is also the issue with the rest of the
Identity Politics-type issues, where casting is concerned. If you can
only cast someone who's half Caucasion and half Asian, who's under
5'6" tall and who's Out and Proud, and also has a wooden leg, then
you're not casting a star. You're not casting an actor who has a lot
of experience, even, since that actor should only be playing roles
that fit that description.
MC
"Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
> It also raises another question. Who, exactly, would you cast, if you
> were to restrict your choices to a couple of well known, out, gay male
> actors?
For some reason Brokeback Mountain with Harvey Fierstein and Ian
McKellen isn't working for me.
Dancing Fingers
Here's the thing, many older actors complain that there aren't enough
parts written for them. What if Hollywood decided only to cast young
actors with make-up? There more reliable and make less money. There'd
be outrage.
Chris
Martin B
> I think I also heard, or read, an Asian woman (maybe it was Amy Tan
> herself) comment on the casting of non-Chinese women for "The Joy Luck
> Club."
Jennifer Hudson is cast to play Winnie Mandela in an upcoming movie.
You should hear the vituperative comments here because a local South
African black actress isn't getting the role.
Note, it's just for Winnie. No one complains much about Morgan Freeman
playing Nelson Mandela. But Winnie has a passionate band of followers for
whom she can do no wrong. She's a bit like Sarah Palin in that way.
TRIVIA
Morgan Freeman is a keen pilot. He flew solo from America to South Africa
in his own plane for the premiere of INVICTUS, a 40-hour trip (presumably
with breaks on land).
--
Martin B
Martin B
> Dude, you sat against the wall? That's insane. The key is to try to
> sit right smack in the middle of the theatre.
Yes, I know that. But when it's all booked out and your only choices are
right in front in the middle, or at the back against the wall, what do
you choose? Vertically distorted or horizontally distorted? With the kids
in the front or the old folks at the back?
(In my case it's a no-brainer. Due to an old neck injury I can't look
above the horizontal without straining, so I have to sit at the back.)
--
Martin B
Martin B
> Look, if someone's not sexually attracted to, let's say, three-toed
> sloths, that person is not going to attempt to have sex with three-
> toed sloths, no matter how long he or she has been lost in the
> outback.
At one point in my life I was posted to a remote ethnic area.
The guys in head office joshed, "When the local women start looking
attractive, it's time to come home."
Afterwards, an old-timer took me aside.
"Martin, when the goats start looking attractive, *then* it's time to
come home."
--
Martin B
Martin B
> one of them was struggling with his identity
"My head is straight but my dick is gay."
--
Martin B
nmstevens
> In article <hi1ajh$jr...@reader1.panix.com>,
> �"Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
> > It also raises another question. �Who, exactly, would you cast, if you
> > were to restrict your choices to a couple of well known, out, gay male
> > actors?
>
> For some reason Brokeback Mountain with Harvey Fierstein and Ian
> McKellen isn't working for me.
I'd go see it.
NMS
MC
"Martin B" <mart...@mweb.co.za> wrote:
What was the local reaction to Matt Damon?
I didn't think he looked much like a Rugby player.
Steven J. Weller
...like the great hue and cry over Benjamin Button.
The point being that there are times when it makes sense to cast an
actor who fits the <<fill in the blank>> of a character, and times
when it doesn't. It isn't, and shouldn't be, up to some political
group with their own axe to grind as to when it's one and when it's
the other. The original question - why didn't Cameron cast a
physically challenged actor to play Jake? - has two equally important
answers. First, because the character of Jake will have to walk in
the film, as his motion-capture avatar and quite likely as himself in
the coming sequals. Second, because none of your damn business; it's
Cameron's film and not some handicapper advocacy group's. When a rep
from some handicapper advocacy group is able to find someone to trust
him or her with a quarter of a billion dollars to make a movie, he or
she can cast it any way he or she damn well pleases.
Skipper
<nmstev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A whole movie like the nude wrestling scene in Borat. Woohoo.
Martin B
> Here's the thing, many older actors complain that there aren't enough
> parts written for them. What if Hollywood decided only to cast young
> actors with make-up? There more reliable and make less money. There'd
> be outrage.
I once saw a graph plotting actors' salaries against their ages.
It peaked at late-30s, early 40s, and fell away on both sides of the
peak.
--
Martin B
Martin B
> What was the local reaction to Matt Damon?
>
> I didn't think he looked much like a Rugby player.
He wasn't bad. Obviously, physically he can't match Francois Pienaar,
who's built like a brick shithouse. But he worked with Francois on how a
captain feels in the situations and what a captain does to motivate his
players. And he did the accent well. And off-set he was a decent guy.
--
Martin B
MC
"Martin B" <mart...@mweb.co.za> wrote:
I wanted so much to love the film, but I found even Morgan Freeman
couldn't quite capture Mandela, and the dialogue sounded far too much
like something you would hear from a podium far too much of the time.
Does Mandela really talk like that behind closed doors?
Ovum
>
> Jennifer Hudson is cast to play Winnie Mandela in an upcoming movie.
Hey, at least they didn't cast Gwyneth Paltrow.
:-)
Ovum
>
> It also raises another question. �Who, exactly, would you cast, if you
> were to restrict your choices to a couple of well known, out, gay male
> actors?
Neal Patrick Harris and Rupert Everett?
o
Ovum
>
> Prison sex is one thing
No, it's not.
There's only two things human beings absolutely have to do, and sex is
not one of them.
o
Martin B
> I wanted so much to love the film, but I found even Morgan Freeman
> couldn't quite capture Mandela, and the dialogue sounded far too much
> like something you would hear from a podium far too much of the time.
> Does Mandela really talk like that behind closed doors?
I haven't seen the movie yet (I'm waiting for the schoolkids to go back
to school), but I did read the script, which seemed to be rather plodding
and worthy, two-thirds Mandela and one-third rugby.
>From the trailer, which I've seen, and radio reviews, Freeman didn't get
the Mandela accent, which is very distinctive, and which every stand-up
comic in South Africa managed to master five minutes after Mandela was
released. He got a half-Mandela, half-generic white South African accent.
But then, we've been told, "Freeman doesn't do accents."
>From all accounts, behind the scenes Mandela has a nice sense of humor, a
gift for putting people at their ease, and is by no means the Great Man.
I can't comment on Freeman's portrayal since I haven't seen enough of it.
--
Martin B
Dancing Fingers
> On Jan 4, 8:32 am, Dancing Fingers <batym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 2:12 pm, Ovum <lk1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 3, 7:36 am, Dancing Fingers <batym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > As a person with a disability I had mixed feelings
> > > > about the lead. I'm surprised that you guys didn't pick up on that.
> > > > Is it better to be an Avatar in a different world than a person with a
> > > > disability in your own? He could have done just a little more with
> > > > that to make it very compelling.
>
> > > I mentioned this in another thread. I wondered how real-life people
> > > with disabilities react to this film.
>
> > > I thought it was great to have the hero of such a major film have a
> > > disability. The disability really wasn't necessary to make the film
> > > work, so it's cool that Cameron chose to have it in the movie.
> > > However, I did wince a little when The Bad Guy military leader
> > > promised the hero that he'd get his legs back if he succeeded at his
> > > mission.
>
> > > What do you suggest Cameron should have done with the lead's
> > > disability to make the film more compelling?
>
> > > o
>
> > I know several people with spinal injuries. �There's always a year, or
> > more, of denial. � I'd assume that Jake was �in that stage. �Usually,
> > they have a peer to help them adjust to thier new skill set. �It would
> > have been nice to see that peer drawing Jake back to his world, not
> > just a macho Colonel. �Also, Jake made no comment, that I remember,
> > about being different on Pandora. �Why not?
>
> > Some people with are injuries are fine with not walking but are
> > frustrated with not having sensual sensation. �Etc. There's always
> > something that they miss that reveals their personallty. � A few
> > minutes of drama, out of 120+ minutes, would have said a lot about
> > Jake.
>
> I guess the thing that's being missed, in this conversation, is the
> context. �In Cameron's future, Jake's spinal injury - and so
> disability - isn't permanent. �It's just expensive. �In the early 21st
> century, he'd have to adjust to the fact that he's never going to walk
> again. �In the 24th century, he has to adjust to the fact that he's
> got to make a lot of money before he can walk again, which is a very
> different thing (dramatically speaking).
>
So in the future I can become totally paralyzed, without any emotional
impact, and still enjoy the stigma of disability - 4 hots and a coot.
No wonder earth was going to hell?
Chris
Steven J. Weller
Sure, why not?
But... what does THIS mean?
> - 4 hots and a coot.
In the US, slang for prison or jail is "three hots and a cot," meaning
three hot meals every day and a bed to sleep in at night, and a "coot"
is a crazy or eccentric person, typically old.
> No wonder earth was going to hell?
--
MC
"Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
> > - 4 hots and a coot.
>
> In the US, slang for prison or jail is "three hots and a cot," meaning
> three hot meals every day and a bed to sleep in at night, and a "coot"
> is a crazy or eccentric person, typically old.
Three "hots and a coot" was correct if you had to share a cell with the
Birdman of Alcatraz.
Michael
> On Dec 24, 2:24 am, Paulo Joe Jingy <dbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 1:28 am, wcmartell <wcmart...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, the movie is did weekend style biz on Monday and Tuesday (over
>>> $14m on each day) so not all of that rats are leaving. One theory -...
>> I was shooting for tongue-in-cheek (not successfully, apparently).
>> The rats were the Fox executives, already trying to distance
>> themselves from what they perceived to be a loser because it ONLY
>> grossed $240 million on the opening weekend. (And for using
>> qualifiers to try to spin a non-record opening, to make it sound like
>> a record opening.)
>>
>> I think they felt kind of trapped. They really spun up the hype on
>> this one. I think if it had opened at $1 billion -- people would have
>> been asking why it didn't open at $2 billion?
>>
>> And I admit, I was kind of bugged by the: "THIS WILL CHANGE THE WAY
>> MOVIES ARE MADE FOREVER!!!", bullshit.
>>
>> I liked Alien but not the sequels and I don't think James Cameron had
>> anything to do with Alien. I saw Terminator 2 and liked that movie.
>> A long time after that, I finally saw Terminator and didn't care much
>> for that one. (I haven't seen any of the Terminators.) I am probably
>> one of the six people who DID like The Abyss. (In fact I liked it
>> enough -- it's one of the few VHS tapes I paid full price for.) I
>> have no idea why that one gets dumped on.
>>
>> I haven't seen True Lies or Titanic. (I'm getting old -- didn't I go
>> through this list about two months ago?)
>>
>> I don't anticipate seeing Avatar. I'm just not sold on it. The one-
>> sheet with a big blue (kind-of-hokey) face, with phosphorescent
>> freckles didn't sell me, and the trailer repelled me. (Besides I
>> think I can smell the plot from 200 miles away.)
>>
>> But I'm not going to carry a protest sign outside of theaters either.
>>
>> So, as you can see, I had nothing to say -- I just wanted to murder
>> some words.
>
> ...any of the *other* Terminators...
>
Hey, seven poeple liked The Abyss then. I'd skip to the fridge for the
last 10 minutes, however. And last minutes are important.
M
Avoid normal situations.
> Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
[..]
> >> I am probably
> >> one of the six people who DID like The Abyss.
> >
> Hey, seven poeple liked The Abyss then. I'd skip to the fridge for the
> last 10 minutes, however. And last minutes are important.
I've always thought _The Abyss_ was rather great. Besides, it boasts a 7.5
average on the IMDb user rating poll out of 47,190 votes, so presumably
*some* people like it.
If you wanna talk about extreme minority viewpoints... I was probably the
only person who liked _Rejuvenatrix_.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"If you make people think they're thinking they'll love you: but if you really
make them think, they'll hate you." -- Don Marquis
RonB
> I've always thought _The Abyss_ was rather great. Besides, it boasts a
> 7.5
> average on the IMDb user rating poll out of 47,190 votes, so presumably
> *some* people like it.
I watched (I think) but I can't even remember the plot. Something about
being under water if I remember right. (Or maybe that was a different
movie.)
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"