dudalb

I wonder if Tarantino is trying, finally, to step away from his "every movie I make is a homage to some action genre film" and make something a bit more "serious" and mainstream. it's also, I think, the first time he is doing a film that is based on real events. But to pull it off, he will have to give up some of the gimmicks he has been using. They can be fun with his homage to a genre films, but won't cut it here.

God, how the hell can a film on Manson cost a hundred million? Surprising since Tarantino is known to be a very efficient, very,cost conscious filmmaker who is not at all extravagan when it comes to spending money. Or maybe he is just testing his muscle on his first project without Weinstein.

Maybe we need to define what "etc' in the thread tile means. I though that meant ANY movie franchise.

I hope they point out that Dickens wrote a lot more then just "A Chrismas Carol". In lact is generally considered to be one of his lesser works, hough his most popular.

So the Fox/Disney sales talk is so Rupert can keep control of his company during a stockholder's rebellion? interesting. One thing is sure: this story will not be covered on Fox News....

Thing is some studios are better at it then others.

I do a happy dance whenever it's bad news for Rupert......I cannot express how much I hate the bastard and what he has done to the news industry.

I knew that. And I am shocked...SHOCKED...that the Mouse gets special treatment in Anaheim. Let's face it:Walt Disney choosing to put Disneyland there made Anaheim. Except for that Anaheim would be just another LA suburb. And it still one of the biggest employers in Anaheim. I am pretty sure for years it has been a case of ;The Mouse says Jump, the Anaheim City Council says How High?

Disney should have known better,particularly since they own a news network. As Mark Twain said, never start a feud with somebody who buys ink by the barrel....

Any stuntman will tell you that most injuries happen on the routine stunts because they are routine;the big more dangerous stunts are much more carefully rehearsed and everybody is aware of the danger; a routine stunt like the one Cruise was injured in people get careless. Guaranteed, it the stunt had been really dangerous Cruise would not have been allowed to do it. Anytime you hear that an actor "did all his own stunts" it's publicty BS. The risks are simply too high.

If this was true, it would be over not just the trades but the media. It's pure B.S. And not particularly clever BS at that. If Gopher is going to troll with fake stories, he really has to improve his game.

The LA times and The Mouse have had an ongoing feud for years. Most recent flap was the LA times reporting that Disney was using it's muscle to get concessions it wanted from the City of Anaheim.

I see that Disney has become the company that is "cool" to hate. I hate Fox more because I hate Rupert Murdoch so much, but to each his own.

Writers and Artists jump from DC to Marvel all the time;in fact some do projects for both at the same time.

I have to quibble;Spiderman Homecoming though set in the MCU was a Sony Production;it was not made or released by Marvel Studios;though a lot of MCU people "Moonlighted" on the film.

Marvel has managed a pretty high level of good films in their franchises; They have had a couple of weak entries. but the only Marvel film I would classify as out and out bad film would be Iron Man 3..and even that had a few redeeming qualaties.

Of course I am weird ..at least in the world of fandom..because I judge individual films,not franchises as a whole. I could make the argument that every Franchise tends to use a formula;it's when their is not a lot of variation within the formula that problems happen,and the films begin to look the same.

Considering how the SW Franchise has pretty much used the basic plot from "A New Hope" twice ("The Phantom Menace " and "The Force Awakens" I agree the SW fans should not talk about other franchsies using Formula.

I could never get why the Ice Age films were so popular:The first one was entertaining,but not really memorable, but the sequels all pretty much sucked. Never get why they made so much money.

I know one thing:" No way that Marvel Studios could screw up the Fantastic Four as badly as Fox did. Fox seems to be totally clueless when it the comes to the Fantastic Four. But I disagree that Fox has totally screwed up the X Men. For the Main X Men it 4 good,two disspapointing. Agree they messed up the first tow Woverine solo films. But Fox did waste my favorite female X Man with Kitty Pryde.

It's a fascinating thing that Fox Films will release a movie that will be widely s een as a sort of slap in the face to the Trump administration, while Fox News pretty much worships the guy.......

Studio Canal is despertaly trying to find a way to legally sever the relationship with the Weinstein company. Probably have their lawyers working on it 24/7.

Question is also one of budget. It it finiancally feasible to give a TV version the kind of funding it would take to do it properly? Bezos might love the books,but he is still accountable to the Amazon stockholders and can't just spend huge amounts . He has to do "due diligence" and show it would be a wise project for Amazon to do.

There is a LOT in the novel that the films had to leave out for lack of time. I am normally very skeptical of remakes, but I can see the reasons for a mini series. I liked the films a lot also, but if you are an admirer of the books they are far from flawless. You really have to read the novel to know where I am coming from. I hope the miniseries would drop a couple of the "Hollywood" things that IMHO flawed the films,like the emphasis on action scenes. You have a more leisruly pace with a TV series, and would not have the "We need a big action scene every half hour" routine that did not help the films. Make it more character driven, less action driven. Overall I liked the films quite a bit, but I did think at times they slipped into action movie mode,which is not faithful to the novel. I say novel because is LOTR is a single novel.The only reason it was brough out in parts is because it was the only economically feasible way for the books to be brought out in the mid 1950's. Tolkien always disliked people calling it a Trilogy, since he wrote it as a single story, and bringing it out in three parts was for strictly business.not artistic reasons.

This. It might be the best film of the year, and that would not save it. It's doomed,a victim of circumstance. At SONY,they are no doubt cursing the name of Harvey Weinstein for starting this huge row of dominoes falling. IMHO Spacey's career is also DOA. Right now has better concentrate not on his trying to salvage his probably doomed career, but on keeping out of jail. Amazed if has not already lawyered up.