Poor Quentin Tarantino and Jamie Foxx! And poor Ke$ha — the radio won't play her hit song “Die Young.” Another celebrity who's been hurt is Anne Hathaway's Vulva. Its moment in the sun... gone!
ADDED: Tarantino "said at a press junket in New York for the film on Saturday that he was tired of defending his films each time the US is shocked by gun violence."
"I just think you know there's violence in the world, tragedies happen, blame the playmakers... It's a western. Give me a break."Yeah, Quentin's tired. Give him a break.
Posts
171 comments:
Be sure to miss this POS if you can.
"Anne Hathaway's Vulva." And I still haven't seen it.
The business concern is that the public's need for vicarious carnage has been satisfied, for the time being.
The American flag at half-staff denotes the refractory period.
Good. Quentin Tarantino's movies are nothing but violence porn. And on top of that, he makes his women wild and mean.
There's another movie due in January called the Gangster Squad. The trailer has been airing on TV this week. Apparently this movie isn't being delayed. The trailer consists solely of people with guns, lots of them, unloading on each other. It is only punctuated with a slow-motion vid of empty shell casings hitting the floor.
The tone-deafness of this trailer right now is mind-numbing.
"And I still haven't seen it."
It's a blockbuster.
I wouldn't sit through five minutes of a Tarentino movie. Reservoir Dogs was all I needed to see to conclude Tarentino is a talentless bore who appeals to the baser instincts of movie goers with senseless violence and a lot of f-bombs.
Maybe they should sit through THIS Django instead.
Much better for the soul.
Psychology question.
At a horror film you scream and sweat as if you are in actual danger. Your body is reacting to what you see and hear as if it is real.
What does that mean for torture and violence porn movies? How does it psychologically compare to the ancient Roman Coliseum?
If we have physiological reactions we can measure, can we begin to measure and discuss the psychological reactions?
Psychology question.
At a horror film you scream and sweat as if you are in actual danger. Your body is reacting to what you see and hear as if it is real.
What does that mean for torture and violence porn movies? How does it psychologically compare to the ancient Roman Coliseum?
If we have physiological reactions we can measure, can we begin to measure and discuss the psychological reactions?
I read a great book by Joe Bob Briggs wherein he argues that Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch is a great movie because it shows violence and gore fully, so as to show the audience just how awful it is.
It's a stupid argument. Violence porn, whether in movies, video games, or elsewhere, is the same as any other porn. People get off on it. That's why they buy it, whatever the pecker who made it intended.
I wouldn't sit through five minutes of a Tarentino movie.
Millions of people do, myself included. I might miss this one, based upon some anti-whitey quotes from Jamie Foxx.
When are the idiot lefties going to realize that it's not a good idea to piss off their customer base?
I think it's safe to say, he's a jerk. If he was a proper liberal, he wouldn't make such a moview, but, then again, he's like most liberals, out for themseleves.
Or Jerry Jeff's little boy Django, named after the Belgian.
The honorable man would present a declaration of war before seeking retributive change. Does the virtual world of motion pictures have different ethical standards?
"Anne Hathaway's Vulva." And I still haven't seen it.
Seen one, you've seem em all. If you haven't seen one, order oysters on a half shell and its a close second.
I'll cease additional comment on the topic.
Since the crime in Connecticut is the justification for what is substantially an irrational "conversation" about, well, something must be done, because something must be done...
Here are some proposals that, good or bad, make at least as much sense as the renewed call for banning scary looking guns with scary media descriptions:
> Adopt a convention among media outlets that says suspects in horrific mass killings like this won't be identified.
The media have a convention, largely followed I think, about not naming victims of rape, and not naming minors who are accused of crimes. Obviously of much less grave concern is a convention sportscasters have of largely ignoring, in tv and radio broadcasts, incidents of people intruding into the field of play.
So let's adopt a new one. The name of these killers won't be renowned; it will be obliviated. It will be a matter of public record, anyone who wants to know can contact the authorities; and of course, it will get out via social media; but the big media will not name them.
(Bonus: this will help avoid naming the wrong person, and save innocent individuals incalculable damages.)
> The media will refrain from unsourced or unnamed sources for the particulars of these crimes, and will tell their anchors to shut up when they don't have something to say while they wait and wait.
They don't have to have these ghoulish broadcasts. It's their choice. Let's hear some talk about "responsible" use of constitutional rights--when it comes to the First Amendment.
> Hollywood and others in entertainment might do some soul-searching about standards and practices. They have them; but they continually bend them to get a little more tittilation value wrung out of their offerings to the public.
And, let's be honest; there are things they are legally able to show, which people would pay to see, that even their dessicated consciences won't quite stomach.
> Maybe the President, in his "Let's stop killing kids" moral dudgeon, could take a little more seriously the objections many--Left and Right--have to abortion on demand and drones killing civilians at weddings and funerals, and his Kill List. Maybe he could show a little more concern about the guns his administration sent to Mexican criminals.
> Lastly, there are indeed practical proposals being made about better care for people with mental illness and related problems. To wave this off, as those with a single focus on grabbing guns are doing, deserves scorn.
Hollywood cashes in on the fact that it is a power trip for the young men seeing men using super fire power that blows away opponents. It is like a drug.
And like all drugs, its dose must be increased as we come to tolerate more and messier violent waste of human bodies.
The underlying reality is that the average 19-20 year old American boy is a savage killing machine ready to emerge.
Eugene Sledges' With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa is an eye opener in this regard.
Django Unchained......and with all of his fingers back :-)
Just think how much better he might have been. Or not. Maybe he as so good because he had to struggle without his fingers.
I would never watch this movie either mainly because of the statements by Jaime Foxx. Frankly I haven't heard much about him before this, but he is now added to a longer list of so called celebrities that I refuse to support.
Yeah, Quentin's tired. Give him a break.
Althouse may have been mocking Tarentino, but very early on I noticed that Tarentino's admirers always affect a first name familiarity with him. I first noticed this back in the 80's waiting in line to see one of his first movies:
"I love Quentin's movies" squealed a young female admirer.
This phenomenon seems unique to Tarentino. I just googled a list of American film directors; imagine hearing:
I adore Alfred's movies!
I adore Woody's films!
Martin's movies rock!
Francis Ford is adorbs!
Spike is cool!
Clint Eastwood does enjoy a certain first name basis popularity, but not nearly as much as Tarentino.
DBQ, when I first saw an ad for this movie, my initial reaction was: Why on earth is Quentin Tarantino making a movie about Django Reinhart?
When are the idiot lefties going to realize that it's not a good idea to piss off their customer base?
Don't you think it is a better idea to know what they actually think about us? This way we can make informed decisions about whether we want to give them our hard earned money.
I would rather know the truth and be able to recognize who is my enemy than to have been lied to and bamboozled.
Maybe we should just go ahead and let them spout off and be therefore informed.
It's always fun until someone gets hurt!
I'm sorry but any industry that makes and promotes films like Saw is simply in no moral position to say anything about the NRA.
Oh, and enough of the "violence porn" BS. It's a freaking movie. It's not the cause of anyone doing anything to anybody.
We are all responsible for our own actions.
If you watch "Lolita" are you then going to go bang a 13 year old?
If you watch "Crash" are you going to start dealing narcotics?
If you watch "The Dark Knight" are you then going to put on a costume and fight bad guys?
Get over yourselves, people. If you don't like the content of a film, then DON'T WATCH IT.
I don't particularly care for most horror flicks. Guess what? I don't pay money to go see them! How amazing is that?
Know what else I don't do? Go on a moral crusade against those people who do. You can have your "Pride And Prejudice". I'll take "Pulp Fiction" instead, and maybe we can both be entertained.
Or enlightened. Or whatever you get out of Jane Austen. Just stop turning up your damn noses at people who have different tastes than you do.
Its only natural to cry foul... Hollywood cant compete with Sandy Hook.
Maybe they can sue under some innovative monopoly interpretation...
The Constitution is evolving, remember?
Because, of course, we all must do something!!! about this shooting.
Government must do something!
Otherwise, why is the Govt there?
Crunchy Frog said
Oh, and enough of the "violence porn" BS. It's a freaking movie. It's not the cause of anyone doing anything to anybody.
The argument is that the culture is changing in a bad way. When violence, killing, abortion, rape, racism, crappy music, ugly art, and the like become popular, the culture suffers, and may die.
I don't know why crap like this succeeds, but you should face the argument and not just laugh it away.
Clint Eastwood does enjoy a certain first name basis popularity, but not nearly as much as Tarentino.
That's because Tarantino is just too darned hard to say (and spell.) Quentin is much easier.
(I do not say this in jest. My real last name is an easy Italian name, but most of my patients call me Dr. Sydney and skip the Italian.)
"It's a western"? More like it's more grindhouse schlock.
Not that I don't like me some grindhouse schlock, But Quentin should stop pretending he's making serious films instead of serving up violence and gore for people's titilation.
The alpha and omega of what makes a director first rate is whether he crafts scenes that stick in the mind's eye. By that standard Tarantino is a very talented movie maker. Yes, almost everything Tarantino does is violence porn, but is it memorable? Very. Reservoir Dogs; Pulp Fiction; Kill Bill: filled with memorable scenes and all beautifully coreographed - there is no other word for Tarantino's pacing - as well.
The hypocrisy is getting deep.
The movie was in the writing/planning stages when Congressperson Giffords was shot and shooting (no pun) during the Denver shootings, so we're supposed to believe these guys have suddenly developed a conscience?
Ann Althouse said...
Quentin's tired. Give him a break.
Lili Von Shtupp, the Teutonic Titwillow, would understand.
chickelit said...
Clint Eastwood does enjoy a certain first name basis popularity, but not nearly as much as Tarentino.
More because of Mr Yates and Inspector Callahan than anything else.
I've only seen 3-4 Tarantino films. "Pulp Fiction" was the only one I liked.
I can't help but believe that the orgy of violence, its glorification and presentation as a problem solving method in many films has some sort of detrimental impact on our culture. Yet, Hollywood accepts no responsibility and many of its denizens work to destroy our freedom and rights while refusing to exercise restraint with theirs.
The alpha and omega of what makes a director first rate is whether he crafts scenes that stick in the mind's eye. By that standard Tarantino is a very talented movie maker. Yes, almost everything Tarantino does is violence porn, but is it memorable? Very. Reservoir Dogs; Pulp Fiction; Kill Bill: filled with memorable scenes and all beautifully coreographed - there is no other word for Tarantino's pacing - as well.
--------------
Agreed.
But I don't like the last one you mentioned. Kill Bill was an awful movie, both parts. Way too slapstick and ridiculous.
I've only seen 3-4 Tarantino films. "Pulp Fiction" was the only one I liked.
I can't help but believe that the orgy of violence, its glorification and presentation as a problem solving method in many films has some sort of detrimental impact on our culture. Yet, Hollywood accepts no responsibility and many of its denizens work to destroy our freedom and rights while refusing to exercise restraint with theirs.
---------------
There have been some recent studies done that have shown that there is a strong correlation between television watching and the declining birthrates in the developed world (something that is spreading to the not so developed world - Iran, for instance).
Ann Althouse said...
And I still haven't seen it.
It's a blockbuster.
Which one?
Personally, I think Tarantino is one sick puppy. He's far too fixated on extreme violence, which he throws into his movies on the slightest excuse. In fact, his movies ARE just an excuse to portray violence. Plot, character -- nothing matters but the violence.
There's some weird psychopathic or sociopathic quirk at work in the Gummy Wonder's movie-making.
Like limiting high-capacity magazines, we need to ban Hollywood movies with a more than 2 deaths in a film.
Only one torture scene per season would be allowed. And no movies by Spike Lee, because his films all suck.
For the children.
About Anne Hathaway's Vulva & its moment in the sun -- I hope she remembers the SPF-15 sun-block lotion.
Ok last comment on Hathaway's vulgar.
Apparently Hollywood actresses are not paid as well as their male counterparts, so much so, they obviously can't afford underwear.
Shouldn't the MSM share the profits of this tragedy with the victims families?
There is a precedent I believe.. something about the convicted not being allowed to profit from their crimes.
Granted, the MSM may not directly responsible for Sandy Hook, but it has obscenely profited from it.
Crunchy:
It's one thing to say, we don't want to censor content; it's another to say there's no need.
It seems very hard to argue the content and message of entertainment doesn't change people. It seems schizophrenic, pardon the choice of adjective. Of course these things affect us, and frequently change us. None of these things ennoble anyone? Enlargen people's consciences and horizons?
It seems quite obvious that a lot of the entertainment industry has sought, over the last 40+ years, to change attitudes: towards race issues, toward unreflective American chauvinism, and toward "alternative lifestyles"...and it's worked. Anyone who says none of this happened is, I think, naive or disingenuous.
Well, why can't the effect go both ways? Why can't these same vehicles for moral sentiments and powerful images coarsen or degrade us?
Get over yourselves, people.
NEVER!
Ke$ha's Die Young did have a horrible message.
With Sandy Hook and Hathaway's vulva on the free side... Django could not possibly be all that 'unchained'.
People vote with their pocketbooks.
It always amuses me when people think a priest is somehow shielded from shocking things. Someone curses and apologizes to me. Why? You think I don't know all those words? Why wouldn't I? I wasn't ordained in 2nd grade.
A moment's thought about the sorts of things people bring to clergy ought to dispel that notion.
With that preface, I assume I'm no different from others here: there are things I wish I'd never seen and didn't know about. Some of the movies advertised--such as "Saw"--are, from what I know of them, so foul that I really don't want to know more about them.
I won't mention the movie, but I recall some months ago hearing a movie title somewhere, being curious about it, looking it up on wikipedia...and being very sorry I did: for days. The premise was that repulsive.
In Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, he developed the idea of how evil leaves its mark, even on virtuous people. He's right. There is a too little appreciated value to "innocence," yes, even in adults. I've met people who weren't stupid, weren't incapable people, but yes they were "innocent" of many awful things. I envied them.
Another celebrity who's been hurt is Anne Hathaway's Vulva.
I'm willing to console it.
With that preface, I assume I'm no different from others here: there are things I wish I'd never seen and didn't know about. Some of the movies advertised--such as "Saw"--are, from what I know of them, so foul that I really don't want to know more about them.
I won't mention the movie, but I recall some months ago hearing a movie title somewhere, being curious about it, looking it up on wikipedia...and being very sorry I did: for days. The premise was that repulsive.
------------------
Saw is pretty tame as far as torture porn movies go.
I'm a fan of horror movies but despise the torture porn subgenre.
Tarentino is a talentless bore who appeals to the baser instincts of movie goers with senseless violence and a lot of f-bombs.
While I agree with the violence-porn label, I disagree that he is talent-less. As a director and a writer, he's got a gift for dialog. It's kind of hard to pin down, but what he comes up with (not always, but often enough) are gems that engage dispute the surroundings or the settings. He also has a knack for reinventing retro music; another skill that's hard to pin down, but he's obviously been successful with it.
And...he's done something nobody else could do. He singlehandedly saved John Travolta's career despite Travolta's own best efforts to end it.
I'll be missing this latest attempt, though, as while I love westerns, anything that has to do with westerns and slavery has zero facination with me and, frankly, smacks of kill-whitey-porn, as Jamie Foxx as much admitted.
I'm a fan of horror movies but despise the torture porn subgenre.
Horror flicks aren't my usual go to movies but the Exorcist kept me up at nights.
I will give myself a break and avoid this movie.
SPI:
"Saw is pretty tame as far as torture porn movies go."
'Nuff said, thanks.
While I agree with the violence-porn label, I disagree that he is talent-less. As a director and a writer, he's got a gift for dialog. It's kind of hard to pin down, but what he comes up with (not always, but often enough) are gems that engage dispute the surroundings or the settings. He also has a knack for reinventing retro music; another skill that's hard to pin down, but he's obviously been successful with it.
----------------------
Tarantino does have a gift for gab.
I don't think he has anything to do with the music, though. He's not a musician or producer.
People always want to give credit to directors for everything in their movies, when in reality direction is only a small part of the puzzle.
As a director and a writer, he's got a gift fordialog. It's kind of hard to pin down, but what he comes up with (not always, but often enough) are gems that engage dispute the surroundings or the settings. He also has a knack for reinventing retro music; another skill that's hard to pin down, but he's obviously been successful with it.
I guess its a matter of opinion. I didn't find the discussion of Madonna's pussy in Reservoir Dogs to be very compelling.
As for the retro music, I think its more re-introducing retro than reinventing. Personally I think was more akin to shock-director than anything. He's just not my bottle of Scotch.
I'm a fan of horror movies but despise the torture porn subgenre.
Horror flicks aren't my usual go to movies but the Exorcist kept me up at nights.
------------------
The Exorcist has been redone a billion times in the past decade, "The Devil Inside" was one of the latest, so I've more than had my fill of exorcism movies for one lifetime.
I don't think I could even stand to watch the original again.
I agree with Friar Fox and I would just say – go see The Hobbit if you haven’t done so already. I was a bit apprehensive that it wouldn’t be as good as the Lord of the Rings (which I rewatch every year on my birthday) but I think that the first Hobbit movie is as good or even better than LOTR.
Dust Bunny Queen:
Are you a fan of Sun Tzu?
To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
People often make the mistake of rejecting traditional knowledge, preferring their own wisdom to their ancestors and predecessors. As if the human experience has materially changed.
I agree with Friar Fox and I would just say – go see The Hobbit if you haven’t done so already. I was a bit apprehensive that it wouldn’t be as good as the Lord of the Rings (which I rewatch every year on my birthday) but I think that the first Hobbit movie is as good or even better than LOTR.
----------------------
I've boycotted that movie because they split it into three halves so they could get more money out of people's wallets.
This is just a lame ass rip off of "Mandingo."
Leonado Di Crapio could never hope to approach the sublime art of the great Perry King.
And Jamie Foxx is no Ken Norton.
Just sayn'
Plus James Mason, Susan George and a bunch of naked titties.
Do yourself a favor and rent the original.
"She craves a pleasuring!"
I guess its a matter of opinion. I didn't find the discussion of Madonna's pussy in Reservoir Dogs to be very compelling.
Case as case may be, but the foot massage discussion just before they bust into an apartment in Pulp Fiction was fun. Pulp Fiction is laden with moments like that.
As for the retro music, I think its more re-introducing retro than reinventing. Personally I think was more akin to shock-director than anything. He's just not my bottle of Scotch.
You could reintroduce a song by merely adding to the credit scroll or maybe as an overdub for the trailer, but reinventing requires taking the original song and making something new with it...something that sticks in the mind. For instance, "Stuck In The Middle With you" from the infamous "ear" scene in Reservoir Dogs or "Son Of A Preacher Man" in Pulp Fiction. Older songs that were used for a much younger audience that now identifies that music and those lyrics with those particular scenes. Reinventing.
lge said...
Personally, I think Tarantino is one sick puppy. He's far too fixated on extreme violence, which he throws into his movies on the slightest excuse. In fact, his movies ARE just an excuse to portray violence. Plot, character -- nothing matters but the violence.
Spielberg is similar. Another guy with a blood fetish.
I can't help but believe that the orgy of violence, its glorification and presentation as a problem solving method in many films has some sort of detrimental impact on our culture. Yet, Hollywood accepts no responsibility and many of its denizens work to destroy our freedom and rights while refusing to exercise restraint with theirs.
Remember "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?
It made a statement about the institutionalization of people not quite sane.
It contributed to the "Freedom Movement" of the '70s.
Result: masses of homeless people who do not remember to take meds, refuse to take them, or refuse to go to the clinic to get them.
And insane people who slaughter others, when they should have been locked up for everyone's sake.
Tarantino is at least not *pandering* the way his producer and Foxx are pandering.
Delay the opening? If ultra-violent movies cause violence, how is a *delay* moral? The only moral choice is to cancel it all together, but that would mean losing money.
I don't care for Tarantino films, but I do agree with him that the films don't cause violence... or at the least, they have absolutely nothing to do with these revenge massacres of innocents.
I've boycotted that movie because they split it into three halves so they could get more money out of people's wallets.
Is it? I suspect Jackson is making an attempt to be true to the book rather than like some book to movie adaptations that attempt to cram a intricate storyline that turns into a 90 minute pile of shiite.
What idiot thinks a movie could cause violence? Certainly not Muslims, that's fer sure.
I've boycotted that movie because they split it into three halves so they could get more money out of people's wallets.
I think that they made the right choice from a story-telling perspective. The movie version of the Hobbit encompasses more than the just the events seen in the original book and also develops several scenes that were mentioned in the books and were integral to setting up the events of the Lord of the Rings.
s it? I suspect Jackson is making an attempt to be true to the book rather than like some book to movie adaptations that attempt to cram a intricate storyline that turns into a 90 minute pile of shiite.
My understanding is that the studio fronting the money wanted a trilogy and he had to go deeeeeep into the appendices to make it happen. From the fanbois that I know, they are more interested in the 48fps than they are with a creeping, somewhat boring origin-story-first-movie. The real meat-n-potatoes, so to speak, won't begin until we deal with Smaug.
So if I watch "The Terminator" which features a killer robot committing a mass shooting of an entire police station, does that make me "tone deaf"?
Is it? I suspect Jackson is making an attempt to be true to the book rather than like some book to movie adaptations that attempt to cram a intricate storyline that turns into a 90 minute pile of shiite.
----------------------
The book is a 300 or so page children's book and the storyline is not intricate at all.
The Rankin-Bass cartoon managed to hit most of the plot at an hour and a half.
I loved "Once Upon a Time in Mexico", highly stylized violence is not an easy thing to pull off.
something that sticks in the mind. For instance, "Stuck In The Middle With you" from the infamous "ear" scene in Reservoir Dogs
I think you touched on my aversion to Tarentino because that was, was being the key word, favorite song. Now I can only relate it to seeing a helpless guy having his ear hacked off by a sociopath.
I'm just not into torture movies. Didn't see Pulp Fiction but heard enough to know that I didn't miss out on anything. Hell I left the theater when Daniel Craig was getting his balls destroyed in Casino Royale.
I loved that scene in Kill Bill where the Bride went up against the Crazy 88s and slaughtered them all, quite brutally.
Keep QT on the QT!
I'm glad I'm strong enough to watch movies.
The book is a 300 or so page children's book and the storyline is not intricate at all.
Well I never read it so I was speculating. I guess if its entertaining enough, most people won't mind paying more for quality entertainment. YMMV.
I've boycotted that movie because they split it into three halves so they could get more money out of people's wallets.
I think that they made the right choice from a story-telling perspective. The movie version of the Hobbit encompasses more than the just the events seen in the original book and also develops several scenes that were mentioned in the books and were integral to setting up the events of the Lord of the Rings.
---------------------
Yeah but part of the fun of the Hobbit story is that it's not tied in too tightly with LOTR and it can be enjoyed as a stand alone thing.
I guess this means no "300: Rise of an Empire"?
I guess this means no "300: Rise of an Empire"?
Nope. You will be getting "Xerxes" from the same people in the same visual style.
Thorley:
Perhaps you will find this entertaining--it is offered as that, nothing more:
A "friar" is a member of a "mendicant religious order"--mendicant meaning that they beg and live on what they beg.
The etymology of the word derives from French frere, which is from Latin, frater, which means "brother."
The Franciscan Order is more properly known as the "friars minor," or lesser brothers.
A "brother" is a non-ordained member of a religious order, the male counterpart, as you would guess, to "sister" (which is not the same as a "nun," but that's for another discussion).
I am not a Franciscan, not a member of an order; I'm a diocesan priest. But I am looking more and more each day like the movie version of "Friar Tuck."
Wait--there's more!
When I visited a Benedictine Monastery in Norcia, Italy a few years ago--the birthplace of the great Saint Benedict!--the Benedictines, famous for hospitality, had put name cards at our places. For the priests who were religious--i.e., our Benedictine hosts who were priests--the title was "Father"; but not for the visiting Diocesan priests. What, you may ask, was the title?
"Don"...derived from Latin, Dominus, "Lord"! Sometimes this becomes "Dom," in academic circles if I recall correctly.
Anyway, I don't object to being called "Friar," but I'm not, actually; and I thought you might find that information diverting.
On the other hand Die Hard is a great violent movie for the Christmas holiday. Rouge cop kills a bunch of white Euro (German) terrorists.
What's not to like?
Is it? I suspect Jackson is making an attempt to be true to the book rather than like some book to movie adaptations that attempt to cram a intricate storyline that turns into a 90 minute pile of shiite.
I listened to an interview with the main cost members and Ian McKellen made this very point. The reason that people usually think that a film adaptation of a book isn’t as good as the book is because so many things get cut out or rushed in the film that fans enjoyed from the book. McKellen was very adamant that Jackson was determined to be true to the fans of the series which meant spending as much time as needed to tell the story properly.
The reason that people usually think that a film adaptation of a book isn’t as good as the book is because so many things get cut out or rushed in the film that fans enjoyed from the book
Try taking a 500 page book and turn it into a 120 page screenplay. Omissions are inevitable.
@ Fr Martin Fox – thank you I did find that entertaining and informative. As you might have guess, I referred you as “Friar” on the mistaken belief that “Fr” stood for “Friar” rather than “Father” and I appreciate the correction and your good humor in making it.
Try taking a 500 page book and turn it into a 120 page screenplay. Omissions are inevitable.
And then there are those omissions that are not inevitable at all but celebrated as genius, such as Verhoeven's treatment of Starship Troopers.
I've boycotted that movie because they split it into three halves so they could get more money out of people's wallets.
Uh....you realize that the Lord of the Rings is a trilogy? A three book series, where each book approaches the whole story from a slightly different angle and highlights different sets of characters? There is no way that they could combine all three books and put them into one movie without totally losing the flavor and reason for the books.
@Colonel "Exorcist kept me up at nights."
Which is my point from before.
It is easy to see how horror movies had an strong affect upon your mindset. Just show a young child a horror movie to understand that point for any naysayer.
My question is: So what about violence?
If your mind can't tell the difference between fake and real at a very low level. What does that mean for watching mass murder over and over.
DBQ:
I think he meant The Hobbit had been split up into three movies?
"I think he meant The Hobbit had been split up into three movies?"
It has??? Well, there is no reason for that I would think. The story in book The Hobbit isn't that long or complicated.
If so....to quote Emily Litella.....Nevermind.
I'm sure the parents of the murdered children feel much better now.
I have to agree with Tarantino on this one. It's just a movie. If postponing it makes financial sense, then fine. Pretending it's an issue of "respect" is granting a silly fantasy on a screen far more influence than it deserves.
Angus: I don't remember the color scheme in Die Hard as being all that significant. What'd I miss?
Fr Martin Fox said...
...there are things I wish I'd never seen and didn't know about.
I feel your pain. Why, right near my house there's this place decorated with lots of pictures of a man nailed to a cross with his heart hanging out dripping blood. Jeez, talk about gross.
I won't mention the movie, but I recall some months ago hearing a movie title somewhere, being curious about it, looking it up on wikipedia...and being very sorry I did: for days. The premise was that repulsive.
Human Centipede! Am I right?
Although, that attitude may keep you from some movies you might actually enjoy. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, for example, is actually pretty well done, and there's lots of eating of flesh and drinking of blood, which should help you feel at home. On the other hand, the way Jessica Biel wears a pair of blue jeans might make you question your vocation, so there's that.
I fail to see how The Human Centipede is bad for society. It's not like one can do that on a whim. At the very least you need to be a medical doctor.
Jack:
I'm too polite to say just what that comment deserved; but I have no objection if someone else supplies it for me.
It shouldn't take more than two words.
I fail to see how The Human Centipede is bad for society. It's not like one can do that on a whim. At the very least you need to be a medical doctor.
It's possible that it's not bad for society, but that only a bad society could have created it.
Scott - those are fighting words. Tom Six is a genius who shines an ironic light on things. The whole HC saga is one big joke.
I would be curious to find the percentage of women that like Tarantino's movies. I've talked to several men that think he's a genius, but I've never heard that from a woman.
Personally, I can't stand his stuff. I gave up on Pulp Fiction after about thirty minutes. Watched Inglourious Basterds because my husband wanted to see it, but I wasn't impressed there either. I find his characters one dimensional and uninteresting.
I'll skip the movie because I don't need to see anything from noted bigot Foxx. Screw his overrated ass.
The argument is that the culture is changing in a bad way. When violence, killing, abortion, rape, racism, crappy music, ugly art, and the like become popular, the culture suffers, and may die.
Except, to the intellegentsia, it is ALWAYS the same culprits: Hollywood and video games. That is it.
Couldn't be music. Couldn't be art.
Gotta be the things that appeal to "the lowest common denominator".
If you knew the hours people have played games like Halo and Call of Duty, then if the intellegentsia's opinion are valid, we'd have far more killings.
Perhaps making babies disposable was a bad idea...
A novel is usually around 400 pages... often much longer.
A movie script is one page per minute of film... so... 90 pages, 120 pages, 160 pages for the super long movies.
Even if you took out *all* of the description in a 400 page novel, it's not going to be that much shorter. Also, the description ends up taking up room in the script, too, so...
I did hear that they added auxiliary material to Hobbit, however. From the similliarianwhatsit or something.
A vote with Fr Martin Fox! Hit the nail on the head.
I'm too polite to say just what that comment deserved; but I have no objection if someone else supplies it for me.
Aww, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Can I buy an indulgence or something?
Speaking of HC, I've heard there's a sequel coming out soon. Though I'm not sure how you'd top the original..."Human Millipede" just seems too obvious and derivative.
Smiling Jack:
I'll tell you what.
You tell me where to meet.
Then speak to me face-to-face that way.
Anybody can hide behind a keyboard and a screen name.
The reason that people usually think that a film adaptation of a book isn’t as good as the book is because so many things get cut out or rushed in the film that fans enjoyed from the book
Try taking a 500 page book and turn it into a 120 page screenplay. Omissions are inevitable.
I don't think it's a matter of size. I've always found it interesting that the best movies are based on mediocre books (The Godfather), while even short great novels (Great Gatsby) make mediocre movies.
You tell me where to meet.
Then speak to me face-to-face that way.
Gosh, I think a Catholic priest just challenged me to a duel or something. Truly the End is Nigh.
But seriously, couldn't you just put a curse on me and save the airfare?
Fr Martin at 1:24, I think you've made an excellent point. Great music and literature and films can ennoble us to an extent, so why do people try to argue that things like violent movies and video games can't do the opposite?
I also enjoyed your little discourse on "friar" etc.
I saw the theatrical trailer for the new Tarantino movie a few weeks ago, in a theatre. It was interminable. I have no real interest in supporting Jamie Foxx, but the main reason I won't be going to see Django Unchained is simply that it looks like a bad movie.
And then there are those omissions that are not inevitable at all but celebrated as genius, such as Verhoeven's treatment of Starship Troopers.
Only by people who never read the book.
I like(d) Verhoeven - RoboCop is in my top 10 - but what he did to ST was criminal.
I don't think it's a matter of size
I bet a guy who tries to pick an online fight with a priest tells himself that a lot.
I wouldn't have seen the movie anyway. It sounds like, if nothing else, it's a waste of time and resources. So are a lot of things far less violent and far less profane a waste of time and resources.
When I was home visiting family this summer I had to not-watch the show White Collar because my sister disapproves of the way television shows make being a criminal seem not-bad. I said "lets watch this" and she said "what is it about" and I said "a con artist works with the FBI while... oh, never mind."
I think it's about a flawed person trying to learn to live up to an honorable person's expectations, and the show itself is starting to deal with the possibility of the influence going the other way, instead of Neil becoming "good" is Peter going to become "bad"? At heart, dealing then with serious moral issues and a quite bright line between right and wrong.
But my sister wouldn't see it that way, she'd just see the glamour of being a clever con artist.
I'm probably just as picky as she is but with other ideas. One thing that bothers me a whole lot is the sorts of sterile, tidy, violence in books and movies. I was reading Redwall to my kids and in the third book or so I hit my limit and refused to read any more. Those books are a weird mish-mash of inconsistent alternating garment rending and callous treatment of violence. I found them morally appalling... but my sister liked them. I'm particularly sensitive to the clean, tidy, and unimportant death of countless minions in fiction, books or movies. I'm unnatural enough to have thought, while watching the movie, "those storm troopers have *families!*"
I don't watch horror films. Not ever.
I liked Conan, actually. And that got accused of being torture porn. My reaction to it was that it had a great deal of moral clarity, and that that fountain of blood from someone's *foot* was nearly a farce because, seriously, a fountain of blood from a foot?
Do I think that movies and video games that involve horrible violence make us more capable of violence? Probably they do. But "capable of" isn't the same as "inclined to" and I think it's probably important to be "capable of" violence.
For my money, Spielberg is the best film maker over the past 25 years. His films tell a story that connects with our lives or comes out of our history, and he is not ashamed to tell it emotionally.
The Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are master pieces. He also did Band of Brothers and The Pacific series for HBO.
If you associate Spielberg with violence, remember that he was gutsy enough to tell a true story while restraining the amount of actual historical violence.
Horror movies scare the living piss out me.
And then I saw these kids laughing at all the little things that totally got me.
"oh, go into the house!" ha ha ha ha
"walk backwards." ha ha ha ha ha.
"twist your ankle" ha ha ha ha ha
"but it's notdead" ha ha ha ha ha
And I'm all, damn, I've been flicking off the basement light and tearing up the steps in a single bound for nothing? That totally changed my attitude.
For my money, Spielberg is the best film maker over the past 25 years. His films tell a story that connects with our lives or comes out of our history, and he is not ashamed to tell it emotionally.
Funny you don't mention Hook nor Munich. ; )
Is it me, or is Smilin' Jack just a garden variety asshole?
For my money, Spielberg is the best film maker over the past 25 years. His films tell a story that connects with our lives or comes out of our history, and he is not ashamed to tell it emotionally.
Duel. His earliest work, and spellbinding for me for some reason.
Say what you will about De Caprio's involvement in Django, but if Leo's production house had beat out Brad Pitt's over the movie rights for WWZ, we might not have gotten the stinking, re-filmed, re-re-filmed pile of detritus that's going to be foisted upon us next year.
EMD...I also don't mention ET, Raiders, Jaws, and Jurassic Park. Nobody is perfect.
Leftwing Hollywood want to take away out guns - all while they create films filled with gun violence.
Methadras said...
I'm surprised no one has done this yet:
You can only be surprised if you believe that everyone else is as childish and small as you are.
Blogger dreams said...
"Anne Hathaway's Vulva." And I still haven't seen it.
12/18/12 11:56 AM
You didn't miss much, but the Newtown shootings happened so quickly after her 'showing', that the first thing I thought was 'There went Anne Hathaway's wisp of hair'.
I gave up on Pulp Fiction after about thirty minutes
I (as a woman) liked Pulp Fiction. I especially liked the way it was cut to mix up past and future events. I found that part interesting. The characters were different as well; fascinating losers. But then.....that was the book by Elmore Leonard and not so much Tarantino.
The Left may hate it, but if we are going to have a "National Conversation" about Sandy Hook Elementary School, part if that conversation will be on the role of their Hollywood and mass media mogul - allies.
It cannot just be on guns.
It has to be about violence pornographers like Quentin Tarantino - and how that film maker deserves the tag "violence porn producer" every time his name is mentioned because he makes to other sort of flick.
Or...maybe I'm confused. I thought Elmore Leonard was involved?
Anyhoo I liked it. I also thought Boogie Nights was very good too.
If we're gonna have any new laws about guns, it should be this. No depiction of a firearm may be presented on TV or movie screen, except actual news footage.
Worked for smoking.
"It always amuses me when people think a priest is somehow shielded from shocking things."
Indeed, Catholic priests have been known to tell the sickest jokes. Hey, they need some kind of release lol.
Probably part of their ecumenical training ... praise the lord!
DBQ – you may be thinking of “Jackie Brown” which was based on Elmore Leonard’s “Rum Punch.”
Portia thought There went Anne Hathaway's wisp of hair
What Anne hath waxed away shall grow again another day.
It has to be about violence pornographers like Quentin Tarantino - and how that film maker deserves the tag "violence porn producer" every time his name is mentioned because he makes NO other sort of flick.
=============
And don't buy into the media moguls defense that violence porn - be it the next mass death Tarantino movie, the next Mortal Kombat game, the next black rap artist backed by tens of millions in music industry mogul's investment - does not influence the psychos and the black thugs that kill 200 times the number of people lost in psycho killer massacres.
The Left may hate it, but if we are going to have a "National Conversation" about Sandy Hook Elementary School, part if that conversation will be on the role of their Hollywood and mass media mogul - allies
I've never seen a credible source that connects violent movies to actual gun violence. Gaming either.
We're a messed up and brutally violent country. Not sure how you change that.
We're a messed up and brutally violent country. Not sure how you change that.
Ludovico technique?
"Violence is as American as apple pie."
I hadn't planned to see "Django", and the recent events do not make more any more eager to see it.
Have you noticed how Hollywood movie studios never seem to cancel premieres out of respect for ghetto kids who die of gunshot wounds?
I've never seen a credible source that connects violent movies to actual gun violence. Gaming either.
And you're absolutely certain that you're not looking credible sources and mistakenly calling them "not credible"?
And you're absolutely certain that you're not looking credible sources and mistakenly calling them "not credible"?
Lots of countries watch the same movies we do, and play the same video games we do, and have a fraction of gun murders as we do.
We're a messed up and brutally violent country.
Not really. Some 300 million people in America weren't killed on that same awful day.
Now Mexico, that's a messed up and brutal country. And Egypt. And Iran. And some African nations. But America? Not really.
Have you noticed how Hollywood movie studios never seem to cancel premieres out of respect for ghetto kids who die of gunshot wounds?
It would be awfully tough to schedule one for when there weren't any. Of course the only time one of those makes the news is when a cop does the shooting - then you get the Jacksons and Sharptons of the world, and the mom going on TV and telling how poor little D'Quan was a good little boy that never hurt no one (never mind all the gang tats) and that all he was armed with was a bag of skittles.
Smiling Jack:
My offer stands. Just a conversation.
I think it'd be entertaining.
Propose the city. It may be doable.
We'll post the place and time and day hereabouts; no doubt many Althouseans would enjoy a blognic. In some mainstream drinking and eating establishment. I'm certainly counting on that to make the evening enjoyable.
And then let's see if you will care to repeat your bon mots out loud, within arms' reach of those present.
Heck, let's see if you have the courage even to show up.
Garbage Mahal -
I've never seen a credible source that connects violent movies to actual gun violence. Gaming either.
The militaries have always used movies as indoctrination and motivational tools - since WWI at least. Constant recorded radio speeches and now video aimed at dehumanizing their targets. Additional movies, video and "live action simulation (ie games for military use) to make them better and more willing killers.
It all works and has valid "effectiveness of training" metrics. Hence the tens of billion in military investment in media that makes soldiers more motivated, efficient, and less remorseful killers.
Have you noticed how Hollywood movie studios never seem to cancel premieres out of respect for ghetto kids who die of gunshot wounds?
Hell, Elvis did a whole song about that and Chuck D still called him a racist.
Can't win.
Garage - would you agree that school bullying is the #1 cause of these shooters?
The militaries have always used movies as indoctrination and motivational tools - since WWI at least
Still doesn't explain why countries like Canada or Australia doesn't have the same routine violence we do.
Fr. Martin Fox said...
"Don"...derived from Latin, Dominus, "Lord"! Sometimes this becomes "Dom," in academic circles if I recall correctly.
Were the placecards written in an elaborate script that you may have misread? B/c this is the reverse of the only two examples I know: "Cambridge/Oxford dons" and "Dom Pérignon".
Chip:
Sure could be; but as a counter example I offer "Don Bosco"--i.e., San Juan Bosco.
Fr. Fox, Maybe it's an Italian v. French thing.
I'm late to the party but will comment on The Hobbit anyway. I am a Tolkien fan, and took one son (also a Tolkien fan) and a nephew this past weekend. I had not known in advance that this was to be part I only, but I did not feel cheated when the movie came to an end. I enjoyed it a lot, and look forward to seeing part II. Son and nephew also enjoyed it.
Jackson is going to run out of JRR material in fairly short order. I wonder what he will move on to adapting to the screen.
I have to agree with Quentin on that one.
"I'll tell you what.
You tell me where to meet.
Then speak to me face-to-face that way."
It's also amusing when a priest gets passive/aggressive at a political blog as faux bluster works both ways.
>
"We'll post the place and time"
hmm, Fr Fox appears to long for some human interaction ...
garage mahal said...
The militaries have always used movies as indoctrination and motivational tools - since WWI at least
Still doesn't explain why countries like Canada or Australia doesn't have the same routine violence we do.
===================
Yes it does, Media violence porn is effective across countries in indoctrinating the limited audience of new soldiers - as desired.
When you talk about broader society - you see countries that limmit exposure of kids to violence porn, strong norms that make any person too into media violence product and acting out as an outcast, and who keep crazy people away from guns while having full access by normal law-abiding citizens to guns - like Canada.
And since we are a multiracial society as opposed to Japan or Canada for the most part - at least where they are not cursed with a dysfunctional violence/intimidation addicted black underclass - we have higher violence rates.
This "national conversation" must also include how and whether this killer received any kind of moral instruction. Did he regularly attend Sunday School? Was he exposed to any didactic literature in school? Or was his moral compass formed by the "free to be you and me" school of morality?
Timothy McVeigh was an altar boy.
Okay, now explain Dom Delouise.
AReasonableMan said...
Methadras said...
I'm surprised no one has done this yet:
You can only be surprised if you believe that everyone else is as childish and small as you are.
Which of course I'm not you foolish little twat. However, I do see that my post got deleted, which I figured it would, which is exactly why I put it there.
Now, if I had said MIDGETS a 109 times, that would have been okay.
Shiloh: "Timothy McVeigh was an altar boy."
And your conclusion is...?
"And your conclusion is...?"
Just stating a fact. In high school theology class, this sarcasm was offered ~ Children/families are starving in Biafra and Bangladesh, so let's form a discussion group.
Pretty much sums up political blogging the past 10/15 years. Lots of inane ranting w/very little solutions.
Indeed, as there is a fine line between personal freedom and personal safety. LBJ wanted to register all guns/firearms (44) years ago.
Interesting Joe Scarborough has changed his mind re: gun control 'cause 1st graders and teachers in a school were murdered.
Lanza could have targeted anyone. A library, a store, an office, a day care center, a playground, a church, etc.
And as mentioned, guns kill folk daily ie In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.
Interesting suicides are a "bigger" problem than homicides. Sandy Hook had both.
We've seen this movie before ...
Shiloh:
You use the term "passive aggressive"; I do not think it means what you think it means.
Fox
It means all hat, no cattle ~ much like yourself.
btw, just post a time and place where you'll be and see how many bloggers show up to say hi lol.
Surely it will be SRO as everyone can see you're a party animal ...
"Try taking a 500 page book and turn it into a 120 page screenplay. Omissions are inevitable"
OK, but if Peter Jackson got the genius idea to stretch out The Hobbit into multiple films so he could do justice to the whole story (and more), why oh why couldn't he have done the same with each volume of LOTR? Where is Tom Bombadil? WHERE IS THE SCOURING OF THE SHIRE??????
Heck yeah I'm bitter... ;-)
Is it? I suspect Jackson is making an attempt to be true to the book rather than like some book to movie adaptations that attempt to cram a intricate storyline that turns into a 90 minute pile of shiite.
I don't know about Jackson's Hobbit, but that's not what he did with Lord of the Rings, which I'm currently watching on DVD.
I understand filmmakers must omit material in order to fit a novel into a film, especially something as huge as LOTR, and Jackson did his share of that (like the Tom Bombadil section) and I understand.
However, that does not explain all the material Jackson added -- all of the Arwen/Aragorn scenes, all of the Gimli dwarf joke scenes, the whole warg battle ending in Aragorn's death and resurrection, Farmir's attempt to take the ring from Frodo, Merry's tricking the Ents into attacking Saruman, etc.
I could go on and on but don't have to because here's a huge list of the changes an obsessive librarian compiled.
Then there are the grotesque changes to the book's tone in which Jackson keeps everything cranked up to eleven throughout the film with loud music and Jackson's constant fallbacks onto his horror movie chops. (Jackson comes from horror.)
Jackson butchered LOTR. To his credit he does create beautiful sets and Tolkien's material is so strong it shines through enough to provide a satisfying experiece for those who don't know the books. Just don't tell me that Jackson tried to be true to Tolkien.
Shiloh:
No, maybe work on your reading skills.
The purpose was call out "Smiling Jack" who is perfectly described by your phrase, "all hat, no cattle."
He makes a point of saying vile things; I invited him to say them to my face.
And, yes, as a matter of prudence, I suggested a public place.
And since all this happened on a thread, what's wrong with inviting the other Althouseans?
Curious how he went silent after that.
I'm a public person; I don't hide.
Cowards like "Smiling Jack" are a different story.
Fox, what you were doing is/was quite evident as it happens all the time at political blogs ie childishly calling someone out er say that to my face, big boy! :zzz:
One would have been better served to just ignore him as it's not good to pig wrestle a malcontent. Especially if your a priest.
It's also interesting how many of your "in depth" posts are totally ignored by Althouse con flock. Perhaps one should seek out a different platform ... or not.
In a way, posting at an innocuous blog must be some sort of release for you unattainable in a real world situation.
Especially if you're a priest.
Shiloh:
"One would have been better served to just ignore him as it's not good to pig wrestle a malcontent."
Good advice, which I recall has been given me, regarding you. I had forgotten.
"But Quentin should stop pretending he's making serious films instead of serving up violence and gore for people's titillation."
Regarding this and other condescending remarks about the violence in Tarantino's movies (and in much popular culture), when Skakespeare's plays were performed at the Globe Theater, actors wore pig bladders filled with blood and sometimes viscera to simulate real wounds and gore in scenes where violence was depicted. Humankind's fascination with viewing depictions of violence is innate, and the tut-tutting of it by those who would be the moral arbiters of society probably has almost as long a history as does the depiction of violence by storytellers throughout history.
Tarantino is certainly no Skakespeare--no one is but Shakespeare--but he is more than merely a schlockmeister. He is a smart, talented filmmaker who uses the tropes of popular culture and genre films--including violence--to tell his stories. I like him just fine. I think his best work is JACKIE BROWN, to my memory his least violent movie.
Let the record show Fr Fox did not disagree w/what you were doing is/was quite evident as it happens all the time at political blogs ie childishly calling someone out er say that to my face, big boy! :zzz:
And he supposedly has trouble heeding advice from Althouse con lemmings. Hopefully he'll try harder goin' forward! :)
I loved Tarantino from True Romance to Jackie Brown -- mostly for the dialog and plotting -- but I stopped there.
Since then he has become a violence schlockmeister.
R. Cook: I'm very fond of Jackie Brown. I would join you in saying JB is underrated.
I would hope that Jacksons next work would be one of SM Stirlings works.
Such as the current Emberverse series or the "Island in the Sea of Time." That would be way cool.
I think the nitpickers who critize the LOTR are crazy. He did a great job making great movies. Which it is. A movie. Not a book.
When they asked the great Elmore Leonard about how a movie maker butchered one of his novels he said " What do I care. I a cashed the check. My book will always be there. This is just a movie."
Did you ever get the feeling that shiloh sits in a dark closet fingering his tiny penis and whispering "My precious" over and over again?
Just sayn'
Good information here. FSD solutions
Post a Comment