GI Jane blooper
Walter Thompson
David Mandell wrote:
>
> GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
> spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
> the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
> producers did not even bother to do this basic homework.
>
> If this is any indication of what the movie is like it promises
> to be as big a turkey as the Scarlet Letter, one of the worst
> films ever made.
It's true that SEALs are in the Navy, but I think it's likely that the
producers were reaching for a *metaphor* here. I'm sure someone at the
studio knows better.
David Mandell
Peter Ronaszeki
Walter Thompson <walte...@aol.com> writes:
>It's true that SEALs are in the Navy, but I think it's likely that the
>producers were reaching for a *metaphor* here. I'm sure someone at the
>studio knows better.
Ridley Scott wanted the movie to be called IN PURSUIT OF HONOR, but Demi
Moore insisted that the title be strictly GI JANE, since it emphasised her
more. So the studios went for Demi "STRIPTEASE" Moore's decision over
that of Ridley Scott (director of BLADE RUNNER, ALIEN and BLACK RAIN).
Personally, I think the studios should have just told Ms. Moore to shut
the fuck up. (sorry about the crude language there)
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
_THE ENTERTAINMENT NEXUS_
( Movies, video games, sci-fi, multimedia downloads, etc. )
*** http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/~predator ***
Dan Bongard
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
:>> GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
:>> spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
:>> the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
:>> producers did not even bother to do this basic homework.
:> It's true that SEALs are in the Navy, but I think it's likely that the
:> producers were reaching for a *metaphor* here. I'm sure someone at the
:> studio knows better.
: Ridley Scott wanted the movie to be called IN PURSUIT OF HONOR, but Demi
: Moore insisted that the title be strictly GI JANE, since it emphasised her
: more. So the studios went for Demi "STRIPTEASE" Moore's decision over
: that of Ridley Scott (director of BLADE RUNNER, ALIEN and BLACK RAIN).
The reason is that, unlike Ridley Scott, Demi Moore has actually been
involved with one or two good movies during the last decade. Neither
one of has quite what you'd call a glowing record, actually, but Demi
Moore at least enjoys wider drawing power (deserved or not).
Anyway, while "GI Jane" is a terrible title, "In Pursuit of Honor" is
just as bad. The former sounds like a high-concept comedy, the latter
is utterly boring -- it sounds like a hundred other movies out there.
At least "GI Jane" gives an indication of what the basic plot of the
film is. "In Pursuit of Honor" sounds like a Victorian romance novel.
Side note for those people complaining that "<whine whine> SEALS are
in the Navy, not the army!": did any of you notice how, in the trailers
for the film, one of the military head honchos remarks, in an annoyed
tone of voice, how the public and the _media_ had "already started
calling her 'GI Jane'"? The media is much more concerned with a good
soundbite than it is with accurately representing which branch of
the armed forces contains SEALS. "GI Jane" is a convenient "stupid
media nickname"; "Sally SEAL" isn't.
-- Dan
Bryant Frazer
Peter Ronaszeki <pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
: Ridley Scott wanted the movie to be called IN PURSUIT OF HONOR, but Demi
: Moore insisted that the title be strictly GI JANE, since it emphasised her
: more. So the studios went for Demi "STRIPTEASE" Moore's decision over
: that of Ridley Scott (director of BLADE RUNNER, ALIEN and BLACK RAIN).
: Personally, I think the studios should have just told Ms. Moore to shut
: the fuck up. (sorry about the crude language there)
GI JANE might be kind of a dopey title, but at least it's not as breathy
and nonspecific as IN PURSUIT OF HONOR, which just sounds like a movie in
search of something better to call itself. Besides, I'm not sure I'd trust
the judgement of Orson Welles himself if he just finished shooting a movie
starring Demi Moore.
-bf-
--
DEEP FOCUS (Movie Reviews)
http://www.panix.com/~bfrazer/flicker/
Want to receive a note when new reviews go online?
Send email to deep...@mindspring.com
David Mandell
Demi has not had a succesful box office film in several
years. Scarlet Letter, Sriptease. and Juror were all flops.
Demi is on her way to becoming a female Burt Reynolds
soon if she does not have a hit. Burt managed to get star
billing for several years after he lost his box office appeal so
maybe Demi has a few more films before the producers get
around to wondering where there millions went.
From the trailers of this film the title should have been Plain
Jane.
MJD
Russell Watson wrote:
>
> Dman...@juno.com (David Mandell) wrote:
>
> >GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
> >spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
> >the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
> >producers did not even bother to do this basic homework.
>
> >to be as big a turkey as the Scarlet Letter, one of the worst
> >films ever made.
>
> (er, "action figures") that they have been making for 40 years that
> depict anything other than Army men are mis-named and won't sell.
I believe they are discussing changing the name of
the movie from 'G.I. Jane' to 'A Matter of Honor'
for precisely this reason. Although, Demi is
reportedly dragging her feet on the change because
she loves the original name.
Shane Dodson
Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
> Ridley Scott wanted the movie to be called IN PURSUIT OF HONOR, but > > Demi Moore insisted that the title be strictly GI JANE, since it > emphasised her more.
You prefer IN PURSUIT OF HONOR over G.I. JANE? Are you kidding? Could
there be a more ambigously pretentious title? IN PURSUIT OF HONOR?
What is that...a TV movie of the week? A Van Damme picture? A Tom
Clany novel? I don't care what films Scott has directed prior to this,
but his choice of titles is--at least in this case--questionable at
best.
Who cares if Demi chose that title or not? A gaffer could've chose G.I.
JANE...it's still a much better title than IN PURSUIT OF HONOR.
-S.D.
Russell Watson
Frank Fabbrocino
Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<dbongardE...@netcom.com>...
> The reason is that, unlike Ridley Scott, Demi Moore has actually been
> involved with one or two good movies during the last decade. Neither
> one of has quite what you'd call a glowing record, actually, but Demi
> Moore at least enjoys wider drawing power (deserved or not).
And what might these "one or two good movies" be called? I must have been
away or something...
Later,
Frank
Greg Dell
David Mandell wrote:
> GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
> spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
> the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
> producers did not even bother to do this basic homework.
>
> If this is any indication of what the movie is like it promises
> to be as big a turkey as the Scarlet Letter, one of the worst
> films ever made.
Early buzz seems to be that the movie is much better than expected
(although certainly not a classic), and by far Moore's best films for a
few years. I haven't seen it so I can't give an opinion.
Adam.
David Mandell
GI Jane sure sounds like a copy of Private Benjamin.
Can't the writers come up with anything original?
Evelyn C. Leeper
In article <01bc9638$8a4f9ea0$6437a8c0@blastcap>,
GHOST and A FEW GOOD MEN?
Scott had THELMA AND LOUISE over the last decade, along with a couple
of other so-so movies.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
Life is not a "brief candle." It is a splendid torch that I want to make burn
as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations. -- GBS
Bryant Frazer
: Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com> wrote in article
: <dbongardE...@netcom.com>...
: > The reason is that, unlike Ridley Scott, Demi Moore has actually been
: > involved with one or two good movies during the last decade. Neither
: > one of has quite what you'd call a glowing record, actually, but Demi
: > Moore at least enjoys wider drawing power (deserved or not).
It's easy to trash Ridley "WHITE SQUALL" Scott for his missteps, but he
certainly does have a "glowing record." BLADE RUNNER has proven itself to
be a tremendous cash cow for Warner Home Video (and the Criterion
Collection). ALIEN remains a popular and wildly influential franchise.
THELMA & LOUISE was a cultural phenomenon. Scott takes sharp scripts and
makes sharp movies from them -- but he's not always great at picking those
scripts.
I agree with you that neither of them has had a hit lately and thus both
opinions are suspect. Do you suppose the new film will be promoted as
"from the director of THELMA & LOUISE"?
Skander Halim
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) writes:
> Ridley Scott wanted the movie to be called IN PURSUIT OF HONOR, but Demi
> Moore insisted that the title be strictly GI JANE, since it emphasised her
> more. So the studios went for Demi "STRIPTEASE" Moore's decision over
> that of Ridley Scott (director of BLADE RUNNER, ALIEN and BLACK RAIN).
> Personally, I think the studios should have just told Ms. Moore to shut
> the fuck up. (sorry about the crude language there)
In Pursuit of Honor was also the name of a recent HBO movie starring Don
Johnson, so the studio might have run into some legal trouble there (if
the Screamers people can sue the Scream people...).
--
Skander Halim
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ba547/
"I'm not afraid of you, Marty."
"Well ma'am, if I see him, I'll sure give him the message."
Carl Christensen
Dman...@juno.com (David Mandell) wrote:
>GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
>spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
>the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
You're right, they should have just called it SEAL, which in this case would
be an acronym for the movie -- "Stripper Exercises, Another Loser"
------
Carl Christensen
C/C++/VB/Web Consultant
Philadelphia, PA USA
E-mail: ca...@op.net Web: http://www.op.net/~carl
Randy
Let's not forget that the two movies have notihng in common except for a
female lead. G.I. Jane is supposed to be "action drama" whilst Private
Benjamin was a comedy.
David Mandell wrote:
>
> GI Jane sure sounds like a copy of Private Benjamin.
> Can't the writers come up with anything original?
---
Randy Tjahjono
ira...@worldnet.att.net
http://www.netforward.com/poboxes/?randolph
http://www.trailerpark.com/phase2/kilgore/index.htm
Dan Bongard
Bryant Frazer (bfr...@panix.com) wrote:
:: Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com> wrote in article
::<dbongardE...@netcom.com>...
::> The reason is that, unlike Ridley Scott, Demi Moore has actually been
::> involved with one or two good movies during the last decade. Neither
::> one of has quite what you'd call a glowing record, actually, but Demi
::> Moore at least enjoys wider drawing power (deserved or not).
: It's easy to trash Ridley "WHITE SQUALL" Scott for his missteps, but he
: certainly does have a "glowing record." BLADE RUNNER has proven itself to
: be a tremendous cash cow for Warner Home Video (and the Criterion
: Collection).
"Cash Cow"? Not hardly. The movie performed poorly when it was originally
released. It is a popular title on laser disk _today_, fifteen years
later, but that's hardly enough to make it a "cash cow".
: ALIEN remains a popular and wildly influential franchise.
Mostly because of James Cameron's "Aliens", though. Look at how many
people said "Hey, where are all the guns?" when "Alien 3" came out.
Besides, while "Alien" was an awesome movie it was also released 18
years ago. It could have been the _beginning_ of a glowing career, but
it didn't really turn out that way.
: THELMA & LOUISE was a cultural phenomenon.
True, but it wasn't a very good movie.
: Scott takes sharp scripts and makes sharp movies from them -- but he's
: not always great at picking those scripts.
Which was exactly my point. Yes, Scott has made two really successful
films (T&L and Alien), but one of those was almost a generation ago
and he's had mostly medicore films for the last decade. This is why he
hasn't got Demi Moore's clout.
: I agree with you that neither of them has had a hit lately and thus both
: opinions are suspect. Do you suppose the new film will be promoted as
: "from the director of THELMA & LOUISE"?
IIRC they didn't mention it in the trailer.
-- Dan
Jun Yan
> You prefer IN PURSUIT OF HONOR over G.I. JANE? Are you kidding? Could
> there be a more ambigously pretentious title? IN PURSUIT OF HONOR?
> What is that...a TV movie of the week? A Van Damme picture? A Tom
> Clany novel? I don't care what films Scott has directed prior to this,
> but his choice of titles is--at least in this case--questionable at
> best.
>
> Who cares if Demi chose that title or not? A gaffer could've chose G.I.
> JANE...it's still a much better title than IN PURSUIT OF HONOR.
It's no worse than "Courage under Fire" or "In the Line of Fire."
jun
Vana Doufexi
On 22 Jul 1997, Jun Yan wrote:
> > Who cares if Demi chose that title or not? A gaffer could've chose G.I.
> > JANE...it's still a much better title than IN PURSUIT OF HONOR.
>
> It's no worse than "Courage under Fire" or "In the Line of Fire."
>
I think that "courage under fire" is a reason for getting a medal, in
which case the title is very suitable.
Vana
>
> jun
>
>
>
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
\ _ / Vana Doufexi
\_(0)_/ va...@csrd.uiuc.edu
+---=====(]( + )[)=====---+
* o @ o *
JLasz
>GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
>spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
>the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
You're right, they should have just called it SEAL, which in this case
would
be an acronym for the movie -- "Stripper Exercises, Another Loser"
------
Carl Christensen
i'm just looking forward to seeing how demi can work revealing her tits
and ass into the plot of a military movie. i just don't think seals run
the obstacle course naked, but i could be wrong!!!!
jlasz
TBenton933
>GHOST and A FEW GOOD MEN?
>
>
Sorry, I really don't feel Moore deserves any credit for "A Few Good Men".
Admittedly, I didn't buy into any of the characters except perhaps the
defendents, but Moore's character was needless as far as I could tell.
Further, even accepting that the character was needed, I felt anyone could
have played it. The only plus I could come up with was a lack of a
negative. At least Cruise and Moore didn't end up in bed. As far as it
commercial success, with a cast of Cruise and Nicholson , it is hard to
say what Moore added to the star draw.
Tom Benton
Ray Martinez
Dman...@juno.com (David Mandell) wrote:
>GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
>spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
>the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
>
>If this is any indication of what the movie is like it promises
>to be as big a turkey as the Scarlet Letter, one of the worst
>films ever made.
>
Could this be the one that puts the Demster's career in the
dumpster?
If I were her, I would beg, plead, threaten, do WHATEVER IT TAKES
to stop this film from being released!
-Ray
Peter Ronaszeki
ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Skander Halim) writes:
>Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) writes:
>> Ridley Scott wanted the movie to be called IN PURSUIT OF HONOR, but Demi
>> Moore insisted that the title be strictly GI JANE, since it emphasised her
>> more. So the studios went for Demi "STRIPTEASE" Moore's decision over
>> that of Ridley Scott (director of BLADE RUNNER, ALIEN and BLACK RAIN).
>> Personally, I think the studios should have just told Ms. Moore to shut
>> the fuck up. (sorry about the crude language there)
>In Pursuit of Honor was also the name of a recent HBO movie starring Don
>Johnson, so the studio might have run into some legal trouble there (if
>the Screamers people can sue the Scream people...).
Then they should have gone with the second alternate title they had:
NAVY CROSS. Which still sounds better than GI JANE.
Vozhd
>From: pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki)
>Ridley Scott wanted the movie to be called IN PURSUIT OF HONOR, but Demi
>Moore insisted that the title be strictly GI JANE, since it emphasised
her
>more. So the studios went for Demi "STRIPTEASE" Moore's decision over
>that of Ridley Scott (director of BLADE RUNNER, ALIEN and BLACK RAIN).
To clarify, the studio went for Demi "Ghost, A Few Good Men, Indecent
Proposal, Disclosure, had a few setbacks, could come back anytime" Moore
over Ridley "1492, White Squall, what have you done for me lately" Scott.
Honestly, if we're going to study resumes, its a pretty tight lame-o race
between Striptease/Scarlet Letter and 1492, so let's not praise one person
to damn another.
"Gangway you heelots!!!"
Ty Klein
In article <19970723003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jl...@aol.com
(JLasz) wrote:
> >GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
> >spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
> >the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
>
> You're right, they should have just called it SEAL, which in this case
> would
> be an acronym for the movie -- "Stripper Exercises, Another Loser"
>
> ------
> Carl Christensen
>
> i'm just looking forward to seeing how demi can work revealing her tits
> and ass into the plot of a military movie.
Ha! That'll be easy! Have you seen how many sexual harassment cases the
military has had lately??!?
> jlasz
--
Ty Klein
David Mandell
Ray Martinez <wave...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Could this be the one that puts the Demster's career in the
>dumpster?
> If I were her, I would beg, plead, threaten, do WHATEVER IT TAKES
>to stop this film from being released!
>
> -Ray
It takes years for Hollywood to catch on that the public
has had its fill of an actor or actress. Burt Reynolds was
hot as a pistol in the 70s but lost his appeal in the 80s.
Still producers gave him starring roles and megabucks
for a whole decade before they figured it out. It looks
loke Demi will still get big parts despite her turkeys Scarlet
Letter, Jury, and Striptease.
GI Jane looks like a big thanksgiving turkey so far
but it takes a lot of turkey for producers to get the massage.
Dan Bongard
Jun Yan (jy...@hsc.usc.edu) wrote:
:> You prefer IN PURSUIT OF HONOR over G.I. JANE? Are you kidding? Could
:> there be a more ambigously pretentious title? IN PURSUIT OF HONOR?
:> What is that...a TV movie of the week? A Van Damme picture? A Tom
:> Clany novel? I don't care what films Scott has directed prior to this,
:> but his choice of titles is--at least in this case--questionable at
:> best.
: It's no worse than "Courage under Fire" or "In the Line of Fire."
It is a great deal worse than "Courage Under Fire" or "In the Line of
Fire". The former is centers around a person nominated for the
Medal of Honor for courage; the latter deals with somebody who
protects Presidents from getting shot. Furthermore both "in the line of
fire" and "courage under fire" are commonly used expressions. "In Pursuit
of Honor" means nothing. How do you "pursue honor"? I thought honor
was something you _had_.
-- Dan
Donna Anderson
She added quite a bit. She was also really good in that movie. Actually,
I think she is a very decent actor. She made "Ghost" work, and helped a
"few good men". The movies she has been blamed for were really bad
scripts. "striptease" was just a case where she got a ton of money just
to show up and work. She certainly did not ruin the movie; If anything
she made it semi-watchable. "Indecent proposal" was better than average.
She has made a nice career for herself. Michael
Erwin Sterk
tbent...@aol.com (TBenton933) wrote:
>Sorry, I really don't feel Moore deserves any credit for "A Few Good Men".
> Admittedly, I didn't buy into any of the characters except perhaps the
>defendents, but Moore's character was needless as far as I could tell.
Who should have told Kaffee(Cruise) to take his job seriously if her
character wasn't in the movie?
See Ya,
"The Pc and tv addict"
Carl Christensen
jl...@aol.com (JLasz) wrote:
>>GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
>>spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
>>the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
>
>You're right, they should have just called it SEAL, which in this case
>would
>be an acronym for the movie -- "Stripper Exercises, Another Loser"
>
>------
>Carl Christensen
>
>i'm just looking forward to seeing how demi can work revealing her tits
>the obstacle course naked, but i could be wrong!!!!
In the most shocking scene of the movie, Demi goes to a "Tailhook" party
where her breasts and buttocks are exposed and fondled.
------
Carl Christensen
Chris Borg
A Few Good man was based on a real incident. The brother of the Demi
Moore character wrote the story. For the Movie they changed a few things..
#1 in real life it was a gay bashing... so you can't really say her
character was needless.
: >
: Sorry, I really don't feel Moore deserves any credit for "A Few Good Men".
: Admittedly, I didn't buy into any of the characters except perhaps the
: defendents, but Moore's character was needless as far as I could tell.
: Further, even accepting that the character was needed, I felt anyone could
American
Carl Christensen wrote:
>
> Dman...@juno.com (David Mandell) wrote:
> >GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
> >spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
> >the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
>
> You're right, they should have just called it SEAL, which in this case would
> be an acronym for the movie -- "Stripper Exercises, Another Loser"
>
> ------
> Carl Christensen
I wouldn't write off this movie so quickly. Check out:
http://www.pwunder.com/reviews/gijane.html
for Wunderboy's advance review of the film and then draw your own
conclusions. Wunderboy calls it a "riveting and provocative" piece of
entertainment and gives it four stars.
Peter Ronaszeki
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) writes:
I think you have missed the point of the title. Demi Moore's character
struggles to be seen with respect by the men around her. She is
figuratively pursuing honor - ie. to be seen to be an honorable soldier
regardless of her gender. That's how I interpret the title anyway...
Dan Bongard
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
: dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) writes:
:> "In Pursuit of Honor" means nothing. How do you "pursue honor"? I
:> thought honor was something you _had_.
: I think you have missed the point of the title. Demi Moore's character
: struggles to be seen with respect by the men around her. She is
: figuratively pursuing honor - ie. to be seen to be an honorable soldier
: regardless of her gender. That's how I interpret the title anyway...
I dunno, that doesn't make much sense to me. The "women in the military"
issue has nothing to do with "honor"; it has to do with tradition,
perceived gender roles in society, and the macho mentality of combat
troops. "Navy Cross" would have been a better title. "Honor" itself
would have been a better title, actually.
-- Dan
David Mandell
The producers lose credibility when they don't
even know that SEALs are navy. I'm surprised
they didn't call McHale's Navy as McHale's Army.
RFerrie
If you people are freaked out that the movie's called "GI Jane" (GIs
being Army) when it's referring to Navy Seals - you're really going to
go ballistic over what I just found out: THE CHARACTER ISN'T NAMED JANE!
Oh my God. The producers have TOTALLY lost any credibility they had.
Blah blah blah.
Get a grip, people. It's allegorical.
Renee
Dan Bongard
David Mandell (Dman...@juno.com) wrote:
: The producers lose credibility when they don't
: even know that SEALs are navy. I'm surprised
: they didn't call McHale's Navy as McHale's Army.
For the second time, in the movie it is the _media_ which gives her
the name "GI Jane". Are you saying that the media never gives people
inappropriate catchy nicknames? Jesus, the word "GI" is just an
unofficial nickname in the first place. Uninformed people use it
to refer to military types as a whole all the time.
-- Dan
David Mandell
If you are going to spend millions of dollars on a movie about
the military at least learn the basics. Like the navy is the one
on water and the army is the one on land. They could have
taken a guided tour of old ironsides in Boston harbor and learned
that much.
The film should be renamed the stripper goes to war.
R. Wiley
Dman...@juno.com (David Mandell) writes:
>GI Jane isn't even out yet and a major blooper has been
>spotted. Jane is supposed to be a SEAL and SEALs are in
>the navy. GIs are army. According to the news accounts the
>producers did not even bother to do this basic homework.
>If this is any indication of what the movie is like it promises
>to be as big a turkey as the Scarlet Letter, one of the worst
>films ever made.
G.I. means government issue. If that's the worst thing about
the movie, it wil be many times better than anything else in
which Moore has starred.
rw
elgee
not a bad one dave. however, if i'm going to make a flick about the
military
i'm going to save millions by ditching demi. hopefully this movie will
tap
that last little nail in her career coffin so hollywood will stop
pushing
her ass on the movie going public.
elgee
David Mandell
How long does it take the film industry to see that an
actor or actress no longer has fan appeal? Demi has
had three huge flops, Striptease, the Juror, and the Scarlet
Letter and still gets 10 million or whatever per movie?
Her hit films, Ghost and Disclosure were the result of
Patrick Swayze and Michael Douglas. What other industry
enjoys throwing money away like the movies?
Dan Bongard
David Mandell (Dman...@juno.com) wrote:
: If you are going to spend millions of dollars on a movie about
: the military at least learn the basics.
What makes you think they didn't?
: Like the navy is the one on water and the army is the one on land.
Given that her character IS a SEAL, and IS in the Navy, I'd say they
got that right.
: The film should be renamed the stripper goes to war.
Yeah, yeah -- whine whine whine. I bet you bitch and moan every time
you hear about the "GI Bill" that passed after WWII, too.
-- Dan
John Fearnall
Dan Bongard wrote:
>
> Which was exactly my point. Yes, Scott has made two really successful
> films (T&L and Alien), but one of those was almost a generation ago
> and he's had mostly medicore films for the last decade. This is why he
> hasn't got Demi Moore's clout.
> -- Dan
I am not sure I understand your argument. The original comment had to
do with which person, Demi Moore or Ridley Scott, had made high quality
movies, but your response has to do with which person has more clout. I
have no doubt that Demi Moore has more power in "Hollywood" (if that
really matters?) but I can't think of one quality movie that she has
appeared in. On the other hand, Ridley Scott has made some incredibly
powerful and moving films that have, unfortunately, not always had
commercial success. (Yes, I do admit, he has made a couple of awful
films, but at least he tries to make something different and original)
Dan Bongard
John Fearnall (melv...@bmts.com) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:
:> Which was exactly my point. Yes, Scott has made two really successful
:> films (T&L and Alien), but one of those was almost a generation ago
:> and he's had mostly medicore films for the last decade. This is why he
:> hasn't got Demi Moore's clout.
: I am not sure I understand your argument. The original comment had to
: do with which person, Demi Moore or Ridley Scott, had made high quality
: movies, but your response has to do with which person has more clout.
No, it had to do with the fact that Ridley Scott hasn't made a quality
film since the early eighties. His qualifications as "a great director"
are hardly indisputable at this point. Sure, he made "Alien" and
"Blade Runner", but what kind of lame-ass directing produces drek
like "1492" and "White Squall"? His only claim to fame at this point
is that he made the enormously successful "Thelma and Louise" -- but
if you start talking about money-making power, Demi Moore has him
whupped. In other words, neither has enough artistic credibility to
merit paying them much mind, but Moore seems to be a bigger money-maker.
Thus, the studios back her. If Ridley Scott was Stanley Kubrick they'd
be backing _him_, because they'd know they're dealing with a guy
they can rely on to turn in a good, successful film. But they aren't;
they're dealing with a guy whose last two films deservedly flopped
and died.
: I have no doubt that Demi Moore has more power in "Hollywood" (if that
: really matters?) but I can't think of one quality movie that she has
: appeared in.
Ghost, A Few Good Men, Mortal Thoughts, and The Seventh Sign. YMMV, but
in my opinion "A Few Good Men" is as good a film as "Blade Runner".
Most of the credit for "Blade Runner" goes to Phillip K. Dick, David
Webb Peoples (an insufficiently recognized writer IMO), and to the
set and costume designers (such as Moebius, who has AFAIK never done
anything that wasnt' at least good). What did Scott add to this film?
A half-baked "Deckard is a Replicant" subplot?
: On the other hand, Ridley Scott has made some incredibly
: powerful and moving films that have, unfortunately, not always had
: commercial success.
With the exception of Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma and Louise (which
I didn't especially like) he has made nothing but bad films IMO. Don't
forget that he hasn't had full creative control over a lot of his
early, great films either -- whereas "1492" was made with him both
producing and directing. "Blade Runner" was mainly good for reasons
other than direction; "Alien" was mainly good because of the story
and alien design.
: (Yes, I do admit, he has made a couple of awful films, but at least
: he tries to make something different and original)
Anybody with a camera can make something "different and original". What
matters is making something _good_. Best of all would be "good, original,
and different", but Scott's last film of that kind came out during the
early Reagan administration. I'm underwhelmed. Demi Moore's no artiste
either, but the upshot of that is that I'm skipping this movie entirely. :)
-- Dan
Erwin Sterk
dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
>With the exception of Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma and Louise (which
>I didn't especially like) he has made nothing but bad films IMO.
The Duellists and Legend are quite good also IMO
Edward Champion
Well...I just had to comment on this.
Ridley Scott to me is more of a cinematographer than a director (for instance, the
creative differences he had with Harrison Ford during BLADE RUNNER).
And while his last couple of films (1492, WHITE SQUALL) have left something to be
desired story-wise, they are nonetheless beautiful in imagery. Fortunately, with GI
JANE, he's finally got hold of a decent script again (aside from a cheesy, jingoistic
third act) and he seems to be moving back again towards directing actors the way he did
in THELMA & LOUISE.
For my money, he's delivered. THE DUELISTS, ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, LEGEND, THELMA &
LOUISE and BLACK RAIN all have great elements within them and most are great films. But
he seems to me to be more of a meticulous craftsman than a great director.
DYu2837400
Actually, his brother, Tony Scott , is kind of like him (in a lesser way).
But Ridley Scott looks more crafted and is less inclined to give it an
MTV look.
Daniel Fienberg
DYu2837400 (dyu28...@aol.com) wrote:
: Actually, his brother, Tony Scott , is kind of like him (in a lesser way).
: But Ridley Scott looks more crafted and is less inclined to give it an
: MTV look.
I think that that is porbably true, in that both are more visual
directors, less inclined to really care too much about logic or plot (for
I shall never forgive Tony for The Fan). They are, however, from totally
different sides of the visual spectrum. Whereas Ridley tends to hold
shots too long, emphasizing art direction and high production values,
Tony tends to use lighting and fast edits to compose the same overall
effect that Ridley achieves in single shots. They are probably proponents
of both styles, so I'll hesitate to choose between 'em. The fact remains
that The Fan and White Squall were two of the 5 worst films of last year,
visual theatrics or not.
-Daniel
--
Daniel J. Fienberg
d...@sas.upenn.edu
Daniel's Lion Den -- http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~djf
Managing Editor- 34th Street Magazine http://www.dp.upenn.edu/street
Welcome to Cyprus...Goats and Monkeys!
--
Edward Champion
Daniel Fienberg wrote:
>
> DYu2837400 (dyu28...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Actually, his brother, Tony Scott , is kind of like him (in a lesser way).
> : But Ridley Scott looks more crafted and is less inclined to give it an
> : MTV look.
>
> I think that that is porbably true, in that both are more visual
> directors, less inclined to really care too much about logic or plot (for
> I shall never forgive Tony for The Fan). They are, however, from totally
> different sides of the visual spectrum. Whereas Ridley tends to hold
> shots too long, emphasizing art direction and high production values,
> Tony tends to use lighting and fast edits to compose the same overall
> effect that Ridley achieves in single shots. They are probably proponents
> of both styles, so I'll hesitate to choose between 'em. The fact remains
> that The Fan and White Squall were two of the 5 worst films of last year,
> visual theatrics or not.
> -Daniel
Hell, you know it's a Tony Scott film with the close-ups. I've never seen a director
more obsessed wtih close-ups in film history. Another difference between Tony and his
brother is that Tony emphasizes acting more (witness TRUE ROMANCE and CRIMSON TIDE). I
wonder how often the two brothers talk to each other because I've noticed occasional
overlapping in styles.
As for THE FAN and WHITE SQUALL, I can't argue that they're not very good films. But
worst films of the year? I'll take a Scott brothers film any day over a Pauly Shore
one.
Pentti J Lajunen
Edward Champion <edc...@slip.net> writes:
> Well...I just had to comment on this.
>
> Ridley Scott to me is more of a cinematographer than a director (for instance, the
> creative differences he had with Harrison Ford during BLADE RUNNER).
So, you're saying a real director would have agreed with Harrison Ford?
In my book its on a contrary a sign of strong director.
I believe Mr. Scott's problem is that he makes too sophisticated, European
style movies for mainstream American pop corn audiences, their subject matter
is often automatically assumed to be targeted to them after all, and after
several "failures" he's left with crap to direct. Just look what kind of
directors and stars flourish in Hollywood.
> For my money, he's delivered. THE DUELISTS, ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, LEGEND, THELMA &
> LOUISE and BLACK RAIN all have great elements within them and most are great films. But
> he seems to me to be more of a meticulous craftsman than a great director.
He's definately not a plot director, like Spielberg, Cameron, and others.
His strength is in his ability to put subtext in details of his images.
Its too subtle for majority of American block buster audiences, while
the plot is usually too basic and cliched (Black Rain, for instance), I
think that sums it up. Mr. Kubrick also builds his movies on a very
basic and simple plots, but I've never heard anyone complaining about
them.
I hope he moves back to Europe when/if movie industry gets stronger over
here.
Pentti J Lajunen
dyu28...@aol.com (DYu2837400) writes:
> Actually, his brother, Tony Scott , is kind of like him (in a lesser way).
> But Ridley Scott looks more crafted and is less inclined to give it an
> MTV look.
Tony seems to borrow most of his visual style
from his brother, but lacks sense to make it work the same
way (seiling fans in Black Rain vs. fans in Last Boyscout, for
example) and can not lift the visual texture to the same
level of richness, which requires real insight, copy-catting isn't
enough. He lacks his own vision and hides the emptiness
of his movies behind rapid fire editing. His best efforts
(The Last Boyscout and True Romance, former because of Bruce
Willis' wit and latter because of Gary Oldman) are slightly
above mediocre. But yes, he seems to be good with actors, as
someone already said.
He has steadier career than his brother because his MTV style
and star driven mainstream (to extreme) subject matters suites
better to studios (Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop II, that car
race movie with Tom Cruise, the name escapes me right now).
Tony is a director for teenagers, Ridley for more mature audiences.
David Fresko
Pentti J Lajunen <plaj...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>that car
>race movie with Tom Cruise, the name escapes me right now).
Days of Thunder.
Dave