After Earth [2013] Who's in it?

[The Starmaker]

I haven't seen it, but who's in it? I mean besides those two guys...is it a road movie?

[nick]

On Jun 3, 1:33 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I haven't seen it, but who's in it? I mean besides those two guys...is it a road movie?

It's a slapstick comedy about a kid who wants to get in the family
business, with hilarious results when things misfire badly.

[moviePig]

There seems to be a lot of hate around AE's nepotism, bad parenting,
etc. I try not to join in, but it's hard. M. Night, though, probably
welcomes the presence of a lightning rod attached to someone else's
navel for a change...

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 3, 2013 6:39:07 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> There seems to be a lot of hate around AE's nepotism, bad parenting,
> etc. I try not to join in, but it's hard. M. Night, though, probably
> welcomes the presence of a lightning rod attached to someone else's
> navel for a change...
>

Not really. M Night's direction is being cited as "uninspired, for-hire work." Many will put compare Smith's track record with M Night's and reach what they think is the obvious conclusion.

[Bill Anderson]

A Critic Who Is Not Roger Ebert liked the movie:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/after-earth-2013

I knew it. Now I'm going to spend the rest of my review-reading life
wondering what Roger would have had to say about particular movies.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

[Tom]

On Jun 3, 8:25 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:

WWRS?

Tom

[moviePig]

On Jun 3, 9:25 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:

My instinct, which in this narrow domain has had a fair track record,
suggests even-money between 2 and 2.5 stars. Ebert seemed usually to
drag his heels at a unanimous flogging...

[nick]

He joined the pile-on the last time around.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-last-airbender-2010

[moviePig]

Okay, I've now seen a couple of other data-points that support that,
so maybe I overstated. Still, I link he'd be loath to pummel a child,
even as tough love...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 3, 2013 11:42:01 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> Okay, I've now seen a couple of other data-points that support that,
> so maybe I overstated. Still, I link he'd be loath to pummel a child,
> even as tough love...
>

Don't fall for the belief that the one who gets blamed is the real culprit. It's all a business perspective, one of odds. Smith will survive this, but M Night probably won't. How Smith even picked him is still a mystery to me.

[nick]

You'd think someone in the Smith camp would have said it's okay to
make a movie with your son but think twice before hiring the
internet's number one whipping boy to direct it. Hating on M. Night
Shyamalan is a national past time.

I still wonder if he's not doing a rope-a-dope, setting us up for some
smaller movie where he works the Twilight Zone meets Spielberg schtick
that got him famous, so even though it might not be any good, the
public/critical perception will be "Shyamalan returns to his roots",
like De Palma did with Raising Cain after the blow-out (no pun
intended) of Bonfire of the Vanities.

[trotsky]

On 6/3/13 10:49 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 3, 2013 11:42:01 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
>> Okay, I've now seen a couple of other data-points that support that,
>> so maybe I overstated. Still, I link he'd be loath to pummel a child,
>> even as tough love...
>>
> Don't fall for the belief that the one who gets blamed is the real culprit. It's all a business perspective, one of odds. Smith will survive this, but M Night probably won't.

Now there's a bad prediction.


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[trotsky]

On 6/4/13 7:27 AM, nick wrote:
> On Jun 3, 11:49 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, June 3, 2013 11:42:01 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>> Okay, I've now seen a couple of other data-points that support that,
>>> so maybe I overstated. Still, I link he'd be loath to pummel a child,
>>> even as tough love...
>>
>> Don't fall for the belief that the one who gets blamed is the real culprit. It's all a business perspective, one of odds. Smith will survive this, but M Night probably won't. How Smith even picked him is still a mystery to me.
>
> You'd think someone in the Smith camp would have said it's okay to
> make a movie with your son but think twice before hiring the
> internet's number one whipping boy to direct it. Hating on M. Night
> Shyamalan is a national past time.

This presupposes there is some other magical director that could've
stepped in and turned lead into gold. It sounds like it was a stupid
premise and I'm sure the script was pretty banal too. And although Will
Smith had a good track record, he's in the "what have you done for me
lately" category and is there anyone anywhere singing the praises of
Jaden? Here's the question I have, though: if the movie had been
unwatchable but made a zillion dollars like Transformers would it have
been in the clear. I'd watch a Shymalan movie before I'd watch a
Michael Bay movie even with his existing track record. In a perfect
world the production budgets Michael Bay has been given would have gone
to shelter the homeless and cure cancer instead.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 3, 2013 11:42:01 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> Okay, I've now seen a couple of other data-points that support that,
> so maybe I overstated. Still, I link he'd be loath to pummel a child,
> even as tough love...
>

The "nepotism" aspect as a negative isn't very reliable since Hollywood has been doing it forever. "Paper Moon" comes to mind.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:10:14 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
> This presupposes there is some other magical director that could've
> stepped in and turned lead into gold. It sounds like it was a stupid
> premise and I'm sure the script was pretty banal too. And although Will
> Smith had a good track record, he's in the "what have you done for me
> lately" category and is there anyone anywhere singing the praises of
> Jaden? Here's the question I have, though: if the movie had been
> unwatchable but made a zillion dollars like Transformers would it have
> been in the clear. I'd watch a Shymalan movie before I'd watch a
> Michael Bay movie even with his existing track record. In a perfect
> world the production budgets Michael Bay has been given would have gone
> to shelter the homeless and cure cancer instead.
>

First off, "what might have been" no longer matters and what you would prefer to see really isn't relevant. Balancing Michael Bay versus M Night is a ridiculous contrast as Bay is hugely successful and M Night had been tagged as a director on the way down and if you can't produce a money maker with Will Smith then what good are you to anybody? All of this is perception in the minds of investors and audiences that may not reflect what might be the actual reality. Getting into a discussion about the relative talents of Bay and M Night is pretty silly. You are a fan of M Night -- you're the only one I know that defended "The Last Airbender" -- so I can see how you want to shift the blame to Smith. Few others will see it that way.

[moviePig]

True, and iirc Ryan & Tatum were considered Adorable. But we probably
live in a more cynical time now (a truism). Also, Jaden is 15,
whereas Tatum was 9 ...and a girl. Note that I'm not seeing Shyamalan
getting off scot-free, but merely that he's not bearing the brunt of
the public's ire. And I do expect the deflection to help his career
survive (...if indeed he needs it. I'd bet a comeback project like
Nick semi-seriously suggests is in the wings.)

[BTR1701]

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> In a perfect world the production budgets Michael Bay has been
> given would have gone to shelter the homeless and cure cancer instead.

If the world was perfect, you'd never know it, since by definition a
perfect world be one where you don't exist.

[nick]

On Jun 4, 11:25 am, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:

No one's going to be too critical either of Beau and Jeff Bridges, or
whatever start-up help Michael Douglas or any of the Fonda clan might
have had coming up. I think it's more a case of living an age of such
constant information and such an endless relentless barrage of pop
culture and reality trash gossip, we look at someone like Jaden Smith
and think he's being forced on us and it's a manufactured celebrity.
We're still retro enough to prefer out movie stars in the Bradley
Cooper/Ryan Gosling mode, where they've put in the hours.

[nick]

Whatever happened to that "from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan" thing
he had going with Devil? That one didn't go down too badly.

[trotsky]

Something that garnered an AA is the best example?

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:03:22 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> Something that garnered an AA is the best example?
>

Of nepotism not being a negative? Yeah, it's the prefect example. The film was also box office gold and is now considered a Classic. Not exactly a series of downsides . . .

[trotsky]

On 6/4/13 10:38 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:10:14 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>>
>> This presupposes there is some other magical director that could've
>> stepped in and turned lead into gold. It sounds like it was a stupid
>> premise and I'm sure the script was pretty banal too. And although Will
>> Smith had a good track record, he's in the "what have you done for me
>> lately" category and is there anyone anywhere singing the praises of
>> Jaden? Here's the question I have, though: if the movie had been
>> unwatchable but made a zillion dollars like Transformers would it have
>> been in the clear. I'd watch a Shymalan movie before I'd watch a
>> Michael Bay movie even with his existing track record. In a perfect
>> world the production budgets Michael Bay has been given would have gone
>> to shelter the homeless and cure cancer instead.
>>
> First off, "what might have been" no longer matters and what you would prefer to see really isn't relevant.

I see, so speculating about the demise of Night's career is okay because
you're doing it, but hypothesizing about the movie isn't okay because
I'm doing it. Honest to Christ, william, I would like to have a bona
fide discussion with you at least once, but your post screams "dickhead"
right out of the gate. Oh well.

Balancing Michael Bay versus M Night is a ridiculous contrast as Bay is
hugely successful

Define "successful". Financially? Yes. Critically? No.

and M Night had been tagged as a director on the way down and if you
can't produce a money maker with Will Smith then what good are you to
anybody?

Well, let's see, according to this page:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=willsmith.htm

The opening of AE is slightly ahead of "The Pursuit of Happyness", the
only other Will/Jaden package deal. That's an apple to apple to
comparison. Except AE is supposed to be a summer blockbuster, so the
expectations are obviously higher. M. Night certainly has cooties from
his most recent work, but what money man in Hollywood would be hot to
offer the Smith boys another big budget project?

All of this is perception in the minds of investors and audiences that
may not reflect what might be the actual reality.

Film is like politics: perception is reality. Duh.

Getting into a discussion about the relative talents of Bay and M
Night is pretty silly.

No, not if it gives me good cause to tell you to go fuck yourself. See,
I win again, you pompous motherfucker. To quote George Orwell, "words
are such feeble things". I just can't figure out how to muster words in
the English language to convey how utterly contemptible you are.

You are a fan of M Night

No, I simply recognize his talent as a filmmaker.

-- you're the only one I know that defended "The Last Airbender"

Have you seen it, or is this another one of those "that movie is shit"
discussions without actual viewing being necessary?

-- so I can see how you want to shift the blame to Smith. Few others
will see it that way.

Cool, the McDonald's argument--I'm nonplussed! Bay movies are good
because a lot of people go see them too, right?

[trotsky]

What I expect is for him to get smaller projects to work on, which I
think will work in his favor. He might have wanted to be the big budget
family friendly action guy, but he's probably better suited for more
Hitchcockian movies. That should give billy something to bitch about.
We need more film noir anyway.

[trotsky]

...said the anonyshit. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:19:03 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> I see, so speculating about the demise of Night's career is okay because
> you're doing it, but hypothesizing about the movie isn't okay because
> I'm doing it. Honest to Christ, william, I would like to have a bona
> fide discussion with you at least once, but your post screams "dickhead"
> right out of the gate. Oh well.
>

Why don't you learn how to read? My post is about the expectations and images that investors rely on. What either of us think of the relative talents of the two directors is irrelevant, you scum-sucking, illiterate troll. Try and pay attention. This is why having a "bona fide" discussion with you is a waste of time.

>
>
> Balancing Michael Bay versus M Night is a ridiculous contrast as Bay is
> hugely successful
>
> Define "successful". Financially? Yes. Critically? No.
>

Exactly. That's all that matters. Are you following this conversation? The difference between Bay and M Night according to the above criteria is that Bay is successful financially and M Night is successful at neither. This isn't a discussion about Andrei Tarkovsky, for god's sake. It's about who gets to make big-budget Hollywood films. It's about the fucking banks.

>

> -- you're the only one I know that defended "The Last Airbender"
>
> Have you seen it, or is this another one of those "that movie is shit"
> discussions without actual viewing being necessary?
>

I don't write critical observations about films I haven't seen. I saw "The Last Airbender" and wrote it up in this forum. I wrote that it sucked even worse than "Sex and the City 2." The rest of your post is just your usual bullshit nitpicking and stupidity. You say you want a conversation and you start off with your usual troll shit and insults and personal attacks. I treated you like a serious poster and you showed you're just another calvin, with the possible exception that he may have better taste in films than you do. He may get a lot of stuff wrong -- in my opinion -- but at least he tries. You don't.

[moviePig]

I dunno about 'Hitchcockian'. Shyamalan took a severe body-blow for
THE HAPPENING, which iirc I was pretty much alone in appreciating as
deliberate satire...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:21:27 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
> What I expect is for him to get smaller projects to work on, which I
> think will work in his favor. He might have wanted to be the big budget
> family friendly action guy, but he's probably better suited for more
> Hitchcockian movies. That should give billy something to bitch about.
> We need more film noir anyway.
>

So M Night can claim his true crown by making derivative films that no one wants to see and will resent it when they do? I'll ignore your juvenile goading. Apparently your feelings are hurt because M Night Auteur is being bashed for being the empty-eyed hack that he is. What I love about you trotsky is that you always make a stand on a pile of broken bottles. It's a hoot to watch.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:22:22 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> ...said the anonyshit. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Irony Alert.

[trotsky]

On 6/4/13 11:40 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:19:03 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
>> I see, so speculating about the demise of Night's career is okay because
>> you're doing it, but hypothesizing about the movie isn't okay because
>> I'm doing it. Honest to Christ, william, I would like to have a bona
>> fide discussion with you at least once, but your post screams "dickhead"
>> right out of the gate. Oh well.
>>
> Why don't you learn how to read? My post is about the expectations and images that investors rely on.

And we are concerned with that, why, exactly? How the motherfuck did
you confuse ramc-f readers with "Variety" subscribers?

What either of us think of the relative talents of the two directors
is irrelevant,

What, because you say so? WTF are you talking about?

you scum-sucking, illiterate troll. Try and pay attention. This is why
having a "bona fide" discussion with you is a waste of time.

You horned in on my comments, dickhead. You are welcome to fuck off,
or, if you're nice, I might continue to try and have a dialogue with you.

"Sir william says you made wrong comments!" Could you sound any more
like an asshole?

>>
>> Balancing Michael Bay versus M Night is a ridiculous contrast as Bay is
>> hugely successful
>>
>> Define "successful". Financially? Yes. Critically? No.
>>
> Exactly. That's all that matters.

SURE, IF YOU THINK McDONALD'S IS THE ONLY RESTAURANT THAT "MATTERS".
YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Honest to Christ, billy, you're ten years behind the curve. Even the
shittiest trolls around don't use the McDonald's argument anymore.
What's next, calling me a Nazi?

> Are you following this conversation? The difference between Bay and M Night according to the above criteria is that Bay is successful financially and M Night is successful at neither. This isn't a discussion about Andrei Tarkovsky, for god's sake. It's about who gets to make big-budget Hollywood films. It's about the fucking banks.

You know, you're right. You need to find a newsgroup, or blog or
Facebook group that discussed Tarkovsky. Because this group is neither
likely to discuss (especially in context of current films, since imdb
lists his last film at '86. You do understand "current films", right?)

Okay, so you fucked yourself with the Tarkovsky reference. You do also
realize that besides yourself, relative to their movie going
experiences, you aren't going to get a whole lot of takers saying
Michael Bay is "successful". This stuff isn't complicated: this is a
handful of people discussing what they like and dislike about going to
the movies. Lastly, if you pooled Night's tomato ratings vs. Bay's,
you'd find he's gotten far more critical acclaim over the course of his
career, so when you say he's been "successful" at neither it sounds like
you're talking out of your ass. Especially if you factor in the fact
that his movies have grossed about a billion dollars, per boxofficemojo.
Not close to Bay, obviously, but hardly chump change.

My conclusion: you're living in your own private Idaho.

>> -- you're the only one I know that defended "The Last Airbender"
>>
>> Have you seen it, or is this another one of those "that movie is shit"
>> discussions without actual viewing being necessary?
>>
> I don't write critical observations about films I haven't seen. I saw "The Last Airbender" and wrote it up in this forum.

Fuck, and I missed it? Let me guess, it can be summarized by "that
movie is shit." LOL.

I wrote that it sucked even worse than "Sex and the City 2." The rest
of your post is just your usual bullshit nitpicking and stupidity. You
say you want a conversation and you start off with your usual troll shit
and insults and personal attacks. I treated you like a serious poster
and you showed you're just another calvin, with the possible exception
that he may have better taste in films than you do. He may get a lot of
stuff wrong -- in my opinion -- but at least he tries. You don't.
>

Ah yes, that tired old canard about calvin being the little engine that
could. You need some new material. It might explain why all you can do
is critique movies: your creativity hovers right around zero.

[trotsky]

Well he's clearly in a tail spin, and it looks like directing someone
else's script didn't help. He probably needs someone good to
collaborate with. There are probably ten million people in Bollywood he
could choose from, for example.

[trotsky]

On 6/4/13 12:11 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:21:27 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>>
>> What I expect is for him to get smaller projects to work on, which I
>> think will work in his favor. He might have wanted to be the big budget
>> family friendly action guy, but he's probably better suited for more
>> Hitchcockian movies. That should give billy something to bitch about.
>> We need more film noir anyway.
>>
> So M Night can claim his true crown by making derivative films that no one wants to see

Yes, well, when rotten fish become all the rage we can soundly declare
you the final arbiter of taste.

and will resent it when they do? I'll ignore your juvenile goading.
Apparently your feelings are hurt because M Night Auteur is being bashed
for being the empty-eyed hack that he is. What I love about you trotsky
is that you always make a stand on a pile of broken bottles. It's a hoot
to watch.
>

Again, you can either respond to my comments in a productive way or you
can fuck off. Are you having a hard time deciding, buddy?

[trotsky]

People know far more about me than about you, anonyshit.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:04:26 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
> Ah yes, that tired old canard about calvin being the little engine that
> could. You need some new material. It might explain why all you can do
> is critique movies: your creativity hovers right around zero.
>

Your arguments are so tired and the bit about "horning in on your comments"? Is that a joke, Oh Exalted Hall Monitor of Usenet? What's even worse is that you think that you set the parameters of the discussion and you framing such-and-such as this-and-that is actually adding something to what passes for conversation around here. You have some neurotic response to someone saying something "sucks." "The Last Airbender" sucked. I could go on with chapter and verse as to why, but you wouldn't get it. All you can respond to is that someone was negative about your favorite director. He sucks, trotsky. He had one good film and then slowly pissed away all that audience good will. That you would try and pull the McDonald's argument on me only shows how utterly unprepared you are for this kind of a conversation. I know you're angry and conflicted about your sexuality. It's apparent in so many of your posts. None of us care, yet it seems to be taking its toll on you. Your anger -- to say nothing of your pathetic obsession with me -- is really solving nothing and adding nothing to your being here. How do you know anything about me or my creative work? You don't know -- for all your googling -- a fucking thing about me and I love that it burns a hole in your brain. I tried to talk to you and you barked like that angriest dog in the world. Fuck off.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:08:40 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> People know far more about me than about you, anonyshit.
>

Yup. They know that you're a homophobe, sexually conflicted, and that you don't know shit about movies. Oh, and that you're obsessed with me.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:08:00 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:

> Again, you can either respond to my comments in a productive way or you
> can fuck off. Are you having a hard time deciding, buddy?
>

Look at your comments. And you accuse others of lacking self-awareness? You're a fucking joke. You even suck at being a troll. I did repsond in a productive way and you followed with insults and your usual trivial and superficial bullshit. You're worse than a liar. You're fucking deluded. So I will fuck off because you are a fucking squirt nobody that doesn't know shit about much of anything besides sniffing my butt that you're obsessed with.

[trotsky]

On 6/4/13 5:17 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:04:26 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>>
>> Ah yes, that tired old canard about calvin being the little engine that
>> could. You need some new material. It might explain why all you can do
>> is critique movies: your creativity hovers right around zero.
>>
> Your arguments are so tired and the bit about "horning in on your comments"?

If you don't like what I have to say don't comment. In this case, you
apparently are unable to rebut what I had to say, and have now declared
intellectual bankruptcy. That was a bit predictable.

[trotsky]

You're responding to my comments, liar. How low are going to sink on this?

[trotsky]

On 6/4/13 5:22 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:08:00 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
>> Again, you can either respond to my comments in a productive way or you
>> can fuck off. Are you having a hard time deciding, buddy?
>>
> Look at your comments.

To quote the Rush song, "If you choose not to decide you still have made
a choice."

[WrongWayWade]

Except Tatum O'Neal was terrific; Jaden Smith no so much.