Cool News
PEARL HARBOR greenlit by Disney
Greetings, citizens! ROBOGEEK here with an important bit of breaking news.
VARIETY reported today that DISNEY has greenlit PEARL HARBOR at a budget around $130-135 million. That's right, DISNEY found the cojones to bankroll the whole enchilada, and I say bravo!
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Michael Bay have apparently not only given up their usual (and sizable) upfront fees, they've also agreed to delay their gross participation (i.e. slice of the box office pie) until after Disney breaks even on the project. This saves Disney perhaps as much as $50 million up front -- and therefore let's us see this movie. They are that passionate about this project, that dedicated to seeing this (apparently fantastic) Randall Wallace screenplay brought to a silver screen near you (click here to read Harry's review of it). I personally think they deserve some serious applause for putting their money where their mouth is.
Film SHOULD be about passion, or it's not worth doing. Apparently Harrison Ford has remembered that, thankfully (see Harry's story today). Now let's hope that others follow suit -- like, oh, maybe ARNOLD... who could then usher forth such utter greatness as Paul Verhoeven's CRUSADE (HAGEN!!!), the Randall Wallace-scripted WITH WINGS AS EAGLES, and those other incredible projects that are gathering dust because of their budgets.
"Pearl Harbor" will begin production this spring (April or May), and is slated for release around Memorial Day, 2001. Shooting will apparently take place in Los Angeles, Hawaii, Texas (yee-haw!), and Baja California (at the Fox Baja studio built for "Titanic").
Thank you and good day,
- robogeek@robogeek.com
-
+ Expand All
-
Yeah, but I already know what happened at Pearl Harbor...
-
Sounds really good. Same feel as The Thin Red Line but with clearer and more identifiable characters. Good luck to all involved.
-
.....that doesn't mean it will be bad. There are plenty of other reasons to not like something besides that fact that you know about the time period it is set in, doofus.
-
I think this has great potential. However, I hope the size of the picture doesn't consume it. Instead of sun-drenched, slow-mo shots of sailors running to their posts while Trevor Rabin's score pumps along, I hope Bay can bring us a character driven, dramatic storyline where the effects are incidental. However, at the core of even his most gargantuan films, there beats a human heart. So, I'll go on record now saying that this movie will be a monumental success, both artistically and financially.
-
Uh... Kraven? We also knew what happened to the TITANIC. And that movie made $1.8 BILLION worldwide.
-
This porject really excites me, it has everything to become a really good movie. The script review that I've read over at Dark Horizons isn't great, but that was only a first draft that hasn't been given to Disney. The action scenes done by Micheal Bay/ Jerry Bruckheimer should be amazing and seeing the sort of dogfights etc that were done in such films as Tora! Tora! Tora! and Battle of Britain then with the advancements over the last 20/30 years these will undoubtedly be breathtaking! Roll on 2001!!!
-
That pun was so bad I cant believe I just wrote it.
-
Jan 27, 2000 2:16:24 PM CST
DISNEY WILL HAVE TO SELL LOTS OF SNOW WHITE DVDs TO GET $135 MIL
by frenchie
I just hope they will continue to release their animated classics on DVD to get the Money! That's the only good reason to see another Bay movie.
PS: David Fincher rules.
-
Bruckheimer and Bay is all I need to hear to stay away from their adrenalization/mythologizing of war ruin. At least when the bombing begins, Bay will have an actual reason to shake the camera around.
-
Disney hardballed Bay and Bruckheimer into knocking the once astronomical budget of $145 million to a much more sensible $135-130 million. And no gross participation? They really are doing it for the art. In all seriousness, come Memorial Day 2001, Disney might look back on January 27, 2000 as a date that will forever live in infamy.
-
Will American audiences want to see another onscreen depiction of the "day that will live in infamy" again? "Tora Tora Tora" was - and is - a pretty good movie, but it was a dismal box-office failure, mainly because Americans didn't want to be reminded of what went wrong on December 7th, 1941. For "Pearl Harbor" to be a success, they will probably have to play up the romantic angle to a fairly high degree. It worked for "Titanic," after all. Big explosions are cool, but it's a different story when the Battleship Arizona is on the receiving end of a bomb that killed over 1,000 men in a heartbeat.
-
If only Arnold would give up his up front salary for film epics such as CRUSADE and WITH WINGS AS EAGLES, would we see these GREAT films. I think it's more than Arnold's salary though why these two films haven't been given the green light. Harry, why the FUCK haven't you asked Randall Wallace himself when he thinks WWAE will move forward. I know in your last major Arnold scoop you said WWAE only needs a start date and a director, but come on. Get someone to friggin comment. Get Wallace, I'm sure the guy is all over AICN because of PEARL HARBOR.
-
You talk badly about MICHAEL BAY and then says that DAVID FINCHER RULES??? They both are the same kind of directors. Just that FINCHER(that I like) is a lot more pretentious and thinks he is a great visual artist when he is COOL, but redundant. I just think that it is bizarre to say that one rules and the other is a piece of shit when they work the same way fast cuts + lenses + weak script - exception of FIGHT CLUB-+ Overrated stars + Egomaniacal director with dreams of being more than he really is. MICHAEL BAY dreams of being James Cameron(he is not far) and FINCHER dreams of being STANLEY KUBRICK (he still has to do something better than THE KILLING, SPARTACUS or LOLITA, some of the lesser - if there are lesser in SK career - films of that great CINEMA director). I adore FINCHER and despise BAY, but let's be real. Taste can confuse you. They do the same thing.
-
Uh... Powerslave? "Tora! Tora! Tora!" came out in 1970 -- THIRTY YEARS AGO! And if you read Harry's review of Randall Wallace's "Pearl Harbor" script, you know that "the romantic angle" is most definitely "played up to a high degree" -- a la "Titanic."
-
Robogeek, Emmit (I never heard of a period of time called a doofus, BTW) all I'm saying is...another goddamn WWII movie - it feels like a Saturday afternoon on AMC or TCM. Three words: TORA TORA TORA. Tell you what, why not remake THE GREAT ESCAPE or D-DAY THE SIXTH OF JUNE...has nobody got any imagination any more? Jeez, I just heard today that Robin "Sob!" Williams is connected to a remake of KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS. Barf. Listen up: TORA TORA TORA was a good movie. Michael Bay is a flashy director with no brain and Bruckenheimer...words fail me with that chinless blowhard. If the script were the best ever written, trust me, those guys would turn it into mulch for the Multiplex. The only good thing about this news is that Bay lost Spiderman to Raimi. Sorry I'm so grouchy - I think it was the KIND HEARTS rumor...
-
Uh... Kraven? You ask "has nobody got imagination anymore?" -- in the SAME SENTENCE you suggest REMAKES of "The Great Escape" and "D-Day The Sixth of June"??? Are you on CRACK?
-
No, you silly wanker, I don't want remakes of THE GREAT ESCAPE or D-DAY THE SIXTH OF JUNE. That was what is called an ironic comment (an adjective of the noun irony, which is the conveyance of meaning (generally satirical) by words whose literal meaning is the opposite).
-
This is a Bruckheimer/Bay production with a ton of Disney money thrown in. They'll want a return on their investment. Does anyone honestly believe that the clever innovative script that's going around is what's going to make it to theatres? They're going to cut the hell out of it before and after it films. With that kind of money being put into it and those two soul-less bastards in charge, it'll be a dumbed down series of men jumping away from fireball explosions while rattling off quippy one liners. Until, I'm proven wrong, I'll stick with my TORA! TORA! TORA! DVD
-
I don't like Michael Bay's "Kodak moments" -- as Harry called them in the screenplay review. One of my officemates was just telling me today that there is evidence that FDR allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor to happen to garner public support for entering the war. Anyone else heard that before?
-
Yup.
-
Jan 27, 2000 3:39:41 PM CST
I Wonder If They'll Shoehorn "Leaving On A Jet Plane" Into This
by mrbeaks
"This Memorial Day..... Watch..... Your..... Back!" CUT TO: Propulsive Trevor Rabin/Hans Zimmer score. Kamikaze bombers leveling the Tennessee and the Arizona. Pilots scrambling in vain for their planes. Fireballs aplenty. CUT TO: PEARL HARBOR! A Michael Bay Film! CUT TO: "Wake up, Danny. This is war!" Kamikaze careens toward the camera. Smash! CUT TO: Memorial Day 2001. There's your teaser, folks!
-
We knew an attack was coming, but we didn't know when; however, Roosevelt would've never sacrificed those men just to get us into the war, and there is precious little *hard* evidence to suggest otherwise. I have yet to be convinced. It's still a fascinating chapter in our nation's history. I only wish it weren't being depicted by a slickster like Bay.
-
Its too bad that such a great opportunity to tell this story is being wasted by throwing so much money at these lowest-common-denominator hacks. Bay was born to direct Britany Spears videos, that there giving him so much money for more of his shallow, cynical garbage is depressing. Eisner should have followed what were obviously good instincts and let this one go.
-
No, this is how it will go. Some young folks are in a pretty harbor Hawii on vacation and she spots an oyster. She opens it and finds a pearl. She asks her boyfriend "Is this why they call it Pearl Harbor?" Then an old geezer comes along, chuckles gently, and says, "No, kids. Let me tell you the real story..." THEN we cut to the pounding music, throbbing visuals, etc. And I can't wait for the plastic Kamikaze pilots for the MacDonalds tie-in.
-
Disney should be ashamed of themselves. I cannot think of a worse moviemaking team to with whom to entrust an important subject such as this. Michael Bay is a hack MTV-video director. He is a paint-by-the-numbers, story-doesn't-matter-as-along-as-stuff-explodes kind of director. Any visual style he has can be learned in the first week of any high school film class. He is the worst director in the market today, and it saddens me that Disney has decided to dispose of respect for history in favor of the almighty dollar. This is just going to be another brainless Bruckheimer production aimed at numbing the minds of the great bleating sheep that make up the general moviegoing populace, dumbing and cheapening a subject that to this day has a tremendous emotional impact on anyone who takes the time to learn about it. All of you folks cheering for Bay to make this movie, go out and buy a book about Pearl Harbor or the war as a whole. Learn about the horror of it all, and then understand why it doesn't deserve to be cheapened by Bruckheimer and Bay. Could Bay ever hope to do for Pearl Harbor what Spielberg did for D-Day? Not in his wildest dreams.
-
Big difference between the two flicks. TITANIC was helmed by one of the great mainstream action directors of our time at the height of his craft. PEARL HARBOR is in the hands of two hacks who've never turned out anything but dross. They've made some money between 'em, no doubt, but can they pull off the TITANIC magic? Short answer: NO. Mr. Breaks' imagined trailer for PEARL HARBOR hit the nail on the head. And cracked me up.
-
Uh... SSZero? What are you talking about? What "list"? I have never advocated the elimination of "Talk Back." I have, on the other hand, expressed my desire to see it evolve into more along the lines of "slashdot.org," giving more control to the user. I mean, if I want to filter out "I'm first!" crap, posts by a specific person I think is an idiot, profanity, off-topic wastes-of-time -- whatever -- I should be able to do that. And so should you. Furthermore, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a basic "code of conduct" that would, say, keep Talk Back free of the hate speech that has been spewed against Bryan Singer. KIDS READ THIS SITE.
-
Damn straight. Love kids, me. Grew up with 'em.
-
Jan 27, 2000 4:11:13 PM CST
TITANIC was JAMES CAMERON on the top of his crafting abilities?
by dodge manhunter
Christ. Say it ain't so. He is a CRAPPY writer, but he showed directed well in the 2 TERMINATORS, ALIENS and THE ABYSS.
TITANIC was pure crap. This time wasn't only the screenplay but the actors direction and all of the scene direction... With overly dramatic plans and camera movements. Well the the SOUND FX was allright. The VISUAL FX was kind of a little better than the screenplay... But nowhere near the effects of CONTACT of course. -
Is that what we're going for here? If that isn't an example of mainstream commercialism, I don't know what is. I'd love for talkback to remain hardcore, where people can be honest in their expressions and not change their opinions to mesh with some politically correct manifesto.
-
Let's not start that whole Cameron thing all over again. The poor tormented soul can't make up his mind what movie to direct as a direct consequence of reading conflicting TBs about himself. For pity's sake, leave the man alone. (Oh, and Jim, is you're there...do you have Kate Winslett's number?)
-
Thanks for your message! BUT.....
Michael Bay= Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon
David Fincher= Alien3, Seven, Fight Club
No they are NOT the same kind of directors.
-
Pretty good, but I'm surprised you opted out of the obvious "pearl necklace" gag.
-
Okay. Try to listen to what I'm saying here; there's a middle ground between fascism and anarchy. First off, I'm not advocating censorship from an editorial perspective (if I was, I would have already deleted your posts and banned you a FOURTH time, Warrior -- and yes, I do have that authority). What I'm primarily recommending is that AICN offer _you_, the _consumer_, greater control over our content. For instance, when you click on a story on the front page, we don't shove EVERY OTHER STORY down your throat, do we? (Even though they've been edited for publication -- unlike Talk Back.) So what sense does it make for us to regurgitate each and every anonymous Talk Back? What makes you think you have the right to impose your ideas on someone who doesn't necessarily care to hear them? At the very least, readers of Talk Back should be given some control to screen out crap they don't want -- whether it's a specific poster, profanity, whatever. Furthermore, no newspaper or magazine attaches unedited letters columns (printing _every_single_letter_) to each and every story -- nor does any radio or television news program have live, unfettered call-ins. So don't complain about "censorship" here; this is the best deal around. And Niiiice, there's a BIG DIFFERENCE between "politically incorrect" and violently bigoted hate speech. There is certain speech that is simply indefensible, and too many people in Talk Back abuse their so-called "right" to free speech, launching into vicious personal attacks without any accountability. There's nothing "cool" about that. I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but the soapbox we've given you here at AICN via Talk Back is a PRIVILEGE. And if you keep abusing it, don't be surprised at the results.
-
*sigh* I forsee an expensive flop...
I can't even stand Titanic anymore, so I'm not even considering imitators... I loved it in the theatre!!!
So, I bought the video, watched it once, and it hasn't come out of my videocase since...Titanic doesn't age well. :-P
Ripping off other movies, is almost always a bad idea... -
MICHAEL... BAY... MUST... BE... STOPPED. That script Harry is so orgasmic about has all the earmarks of another "Armageddon", only this time Bay will be screwing with REAL events that resulted in the deaths of REAL people. Those men didn't die at Pearl Harbor to be patronized in some mindless action flick sixty years later. I pray this thing never makes it to the screen.
-
Might as well have my say, as it's obvious to all that I have absolutely not got a life today. It doesn't really matter who curses and flames ad nauseum, because such folks only show themselves up for the nitwits they are; I remember cogent arguments removing Eternal from the TB one session for example (not that I'm picking on you in particular, O Immortal one) purely by weight of reasoned argument. On the other hand, God knows it certainly feels good to let off steam about something you feel strongly about, and that's only natural and healthy. So where does one draw the line? Well, in the sand, frankly: it all comes down to what's being said, and the context in which the conversation occurs. Nothing wrong with a good Anglo-Saxon epithet in the right cause, say I. And the problem with censorship per se, has always been quis custodiet ipsos custodes, if you catch my meaning. As for the whole Pearl Harbor thing...a lot of people died, and most people who lost relatives and friends and lovers in any battle would like to have that engagment treated in a relatively respectful way (a la SAVING PRIVATE RYAN) rather than a full-blown Bay/Bruckheimer pop promo of a movie. I know I've wandrede about a bit here, but my heart, I hope, is in the right place...wait a minute...yeah, there it is.
-
Jan 27, 2000 5:28:20 PM CST
Dodge Manhunter... You have no idea what you're talking about, d
by lightstormer
Manhunter, how old are you? I'm guessing about 13, 14? Why don't you try learning a thing or two about screenwriting before you try to rake somebody like James Cameron over the coals. BASIC SCREENWRITING THEORY: A script is a STORY. Story is built on structure. Cameron knows story structure better than 90% of the writers in the business. So the dialogue was awkward in Titanic. That has basically nothing to do with how well the man can tell a story. Have you ever even read any of his scripts? There's more to learn from simply reading the script for The Abyss than by reading three books devoted to screenwriting theory. Christ, what a cretin. And as far as the "special effects in Contact vs. those in Titanic" argument goes... you must be joking, right? Please tell me you are. Think about this: there are TONS of FX shots in Titanic, most of which you don't even realize. Why? Because they're so convincing, YOU DON'T NOTICE THEM. You don't KNOW they're special effects. They just look like real photography. They don't hold up a shiny, translucent flag and wave it back and forth saying, "LOOK! COME SEE THE DIGITAL EFFECTS!" like they did in Contact. What a joke. Oh, and BTW, just so's to keep this on-topic, Bay's a hack, his shit is just that; Wallace's work won't stand up as well as BraveHeart without Gibson there to fix his gaffes, and Pearl Harbor will generally suck dead donkey cock. Oh, and the person that said a Disney studio could never possibly make a decent true-to-the-horrors-of-reality war film was absolutely right. "Wake up, Disney. It's a WAR!"
-
...bitches do is whine and moan like $1 whores. Fuck grow up you ignorant-ass morons! This is fucking Hollywood! Anyway, TTT! was made way back...only buffs remember it. The general public will love it.
Get a life and do something besides bitching all day. -
John Toll. The man's a genius.
-
Well, oh boy, here comes another CRAP-A-THON movie. The first full-fledged rip-off of Titanic! Entire reason they're making this film: "Titanic made money, Saving Private Ryan made money, WE'LL make money!" End quote. You can leave your dumb "Cameron Sucks" arguments at the door. Even if he did, he still beats out Bay by a mile. I've seen The Rock, his best film, exactly ONCE. That about sums it up. This is going to be watered-down, don't offend anyone (read: BO in Japan) PG-13 CRAP! And don't tell me Disney greenlit what would be The Most Expensive R Rated Movie Ever. Well, maybe they did, since Private Ryan matched grosses with Armageddon pretty even. UG! Hey, I've got an idea. If a movie sucks, don't see it. If a director makes sucky movies, don't see them! Would you eat at a restraurant that gave you food posioning?
-
All I have to say is if this movie does better than TITanic, Bay will be King of the Universe. Bay has a *very* good box office track record in countries like Japan, England, Australia, etc. Last time I checked, Armageddon was #3 in box office gross in Japan. So what does this mean? Nothing. Other tahn I can't see Bay making a bore-ass movie like Eyes Wide Shut.
-
Stop comparing Bay to Cameron. They are both very different filmakers and are both very good at what they do. Yes, Bay's movies are light on story, but they still kick ass. Everyone knows this from his other films like The Rock, Amageddon. His movies are meant to entertain, not provoke deep intellectual thought. If you want that, go read a book. If you don't like this type of movie, stay the fuck out of the theatre and go rent Runaway Bride.
-
Yeah! Enough of this intellectual stuff! Let's all watch dumbass movies like Armageddon and let our brain cells atrophy! Let people laugh at our stupidity! What do we care? I'm with the Kackmeister! Like him, I don't wanna see any guys on screen talking none of them twenty-dollar words what hurt my head! He's right - if you don't wanna see this kinda movie go read a book - God knows the Kackmeisetr and I can't - or rent Runaway Bride, or some other kinda sissy girl flick! Men like me and the Kackmeister only want the boys flicks (especially one with naked gladiators in them). F**k the smart stuff! Bring on the dumb stuff! Yay!!!
-
I'm not saying that I have a flip top head that needs to have thoughts poured in through a funnel, I'm saying that I know what kind of film Bay makes. I like film for many reasons, and one of them is to be entertained. When I'm in this mood, I go check out a Bay film. Everyone on this talkback needs to just chill out, and quit looking for reasons to spank on each other. Lets start taking everything that everyone says as ammo and throw it back at them. Kraven, if you don't like Bay's films, don't go to them.
-
I did have my nutsack blown off at Pearl Harbor, and that is not funny at all.
-
Jan 27, 2000 6:06:39 PM CST
Oh, yeah I recall that bygone time when Harry briefly entertaine
by keeper
Jeez, that was some time ago - doing away with talkbacks though? FAT CHANCE!! (an apt expression) That was clearly just a ploy to bring Harry's detractors into line with an empty threat, and if it wasn't and Harry was really toying with the idea then I doubt he would have carried it through. The talkbacks are as much a part of AICN's success as the scoops - it sets it apart from Corona and Dark Horizons who cater news a bit differently. People like myself who at times scoff at Harry's ridiculous antics and despair at all those fake scoops and NOT-so-cool news will keep coming back for the talkbacks. THEY'RE HILARIOUS!!! They're sometimes obscene, grotesque, and insipid but it's like watching a train wreck, you just can't turn away. Anyhow, Prima Donna Harry could not stand to be out of the spotlight of his adoring fans. I'm sure he even gets a sort of twisted pleasure from all the negative comments. There may come a time when he won't need them to feed his need for recognition but for now, Harry is just too conscious of his whole "demagogue of the internet geek crowd" alter ego to let go.
-
I have never posted to Talkback before but now I have to. Why the fuck are some of you slagging this site and the people who run it? What is your problem? If you don't like it and Harry is such a "Bloated sell-out" then fucking leave! Quit wasting the space where intelligent movie discussion should be taking place!! I used to read talk back all the time but I'm starting to skip it more and more because of all the stupid bullshit. Grow up!!!!
-
Jan 27, 2000 6:16:45 PM CST
JAMES CAMERON'S SCRIPTWRITE tour by a LIGHSTORM FAN or kiss ass
by dodge manhunter
Is that line unneducated enough or do I have to say more? Is it good for you to offend and suppose that everyone else but your BLIND self is stupid? Your "You must be dumb, because you say something I disagree. Buaaa!!!" is one of the stupidiest ways to present opinions I have seen. So tune down my friend and talk like a person not like boring ex-girlfriend.--- Now to the point. What you are talking about is basic storytelling. But to describe a scene(that he does okay, but most times ends in a laughable atempt at trying to be a "writer") and be able to do multiple arc stories like CAMERON does, don't make him a good writer. He writes shallow characters and predicable situations, situations that he takes from other movies and of other medias and diminues with his lack of finesse as a screenwriter. Studying his films recently, I have observed that since THE TERMINATOR(His best, most concise screenplay) these weakness existed, but they have grown in his more recent works. And in TITANIC these weakness are highlited because of the ambitious proportion of the picture. Contrary to what you think, my friend, cinema is not only story - and screenwriting is cinema at it's narrative core. Cinema is one of the few arts that combine all the elements of other arts. The primary element is the image. How the story is being telled trough the elements in the photographic composition, but you don't use dialogue to "fill space" or only for exposition like CAMERON does. You use dialogue to acrescent the distinctive voice that each characters has and to show things that can't be show with image. But I don't take that you can learn something from CAMERON. Sometimes, dependending on the situation that you are, you can learn more from flawed scripts than from the best ones. On the other hand, about the effects of CONTACT. I an sorry, but the mirror effects, change of color of eyes, etc, don't scream "I Am a effect" like does the AERIAL SHOT - I AM THE KING OF THE WORLD were you see mirrored elements making the same movements in the two sides of the ship, or like the Sship brokin in a half. Sorry, but when it broke the soudn that came was MODEL!!! The alternation from CGI, LIFE-ACTION and the SHIP MODEL where in front of anyone with at least one eye... Sorry, but CONTACT may have obligatory screamers in the MACHINE(questionable screamer - You only say "oh, it's an special effect" because you know that it doens't exist) and OPENING SEQUENCE, but TITANIC had SCREAMERS in scenes of things that were supossed to be live action. And the water... The water. See ya.
-
fits into the category of geeks and film buffs that think it's "fashionable & hip" to trash Bay...
-
I have been floored by the utter intelligence it took to brew up an insult like that. It is obvious I am dealing with an astoundingly mature and thoughtful person. Anyone who can come up with 3rd grade insults and pick on someones physical characteristics for the sole purpose of degrading them is out of my league.
-
I'll take some of them. I got some people that need them as I tend to lay on the sarcasm with a thick brush. Sarcasm can be a tricky thing on forums or in email. Never know when people are going to take things one way or another. Anyways..it's all good. All the negativity people on here seem to spout bothers me sometimes but I won't lose any sleep over it. Happy movie watching.
-
Jan 27, 2000 7:07:31 PM CST
Alright, I'm not wanting to divide us into pro and anti-Cameron
by dave_f
Dodge Manhunter, you claim that Cameron writes "shallow characters and predictable situations." Granted, he is a very mainstream action director, but he may well be the best, and he's certainly been quite innovative. Action movies traditionally have very little character development, but look at what Cameron did with Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio in THE ABYSS. Or Linda Hamilton's dark turn in TERMINATOR 2. How about the thoughtfully understated scenes between Sigourney Weaver and Michael Biehn in ALIENS? As for predictable situations...was Mastrantonio's death in THE ABYSS just another ho-hum Hollywood action scene? Hell no, that was one of the most intense scenes ever to grace an action movie. Was TRUE LIES just a splashy James Bond rip-off? No, it was an offbeat update of the action-spy genre, incorporating slapstick humor and the clever hook of a secret agent with domestic troubles. Predictable? Not really, unless you mean we all suspected the good guys were gonna come out on top. TRUE LIES was a better "Bond" movie than the official ones have been for...decades. Does Cameron have faults? Yes. Is his scripting awkward at times? Yes. Does he still stand head-and-shoulders above the competition? Oh yeah. ********* Sidebar: CONTACT's special effects were indeed more seamless than TITANIC's. I loved CONTACT, even if the miscast McConaughey tainted it slightly.
-
Hooray! Michael Bay's directed some bad movies, I'll admit, but I've always thought since I saw Armaggedon that what this guy needs to make a great film is a virtually unlimited budget! That PLUS a sure-hit setting like Pearl Harbor on the Day That Lives In Infamy means you know what: Action! Adventure! Romance! The only thing that would be better than a Bay Movie with an Unlimited Budget set at Pearl Harbor would be a Bay Movie with an Unlimited Budget about the Revolutionary War! No one even remembers that, so they wouldn't have to bother with historical accuracy! I guess "The Patriot" will have to do for now, though. So, my closing thoughts, to Disney: thanks a lot for providing Mr. Michael Bay with a chance to bring his vision to the screen! To Mr. Bay: don't let your vision cloud too much of that budget; we want to see people die! And to Robogeek: thank you for the privelege of posting here!! We all really appreciate it; there's nowhere else on the Internet for us to go!!
-
There is no PRO or ANTI-CAMENRON in here. I Am a fan o James Cameron. But I think that we have to acknowledge the missteps of those we love or of those who work we love. In terms of action CAMERON is a GREAT director. But we were talking about him a screenwriter. When I said predictable, I was shallow in my exposition. I was talking about the outcome of every character and how they act in their respective things. and how things wil go. There is no surprise in the outcome of BILL PAXTON in ALIENS from the moment he is show as an asshole. There is no doubt that Mr. and Mrs. White will be a couple when they enter in their very "cliche" first discussion. The thing is that as writer CAMERON is not a great artist. Maybe a great profissional, because he has a TEMPLATE for his directing skills. It is great when he doesn't take himself serious as an grand artist, but as the greater enterteiner that he is. I love his movies (Even that I don't admire his two latest movies like I admire the rest), but him as writer is a shortcoming to his directing abilities. If he had more than a "template for images"and a true screenplay by a great writer he would do a even better job. And TRUE LIES and TITANIC show that this is the moment. Both were terrible movies (I like TRUE LIES, I despise TITANIC) and shows that it is time for him to change. Maybe I will take a look in "The Crowded Room" and see if he has undergone any changes as a screenwriter.
-
Hollywood isn't exactly the most culturally sensitive place, especially when it comes to Asians, who seem to be the safest minority to pick on, because they're so nonvocal. No wait, that award would have to go to the Arabs, who've been the terrorist maniacal bad guys in every post-Cold War era action film we've had. Oh well. From the script review Harry gave, perhaps they'll be treated as people this time...
-
Warrior: While I'm disappointed that you missed my point entirely, I am glad that you made it for me -- and happy to see you engage in fairly constructive dialogue (which I would never ban or delete). Harry is by no means immune from my criticisms, believe me; he and I have had many conversations about his sometimes liberal use of profanity, and he and I have very different opinions on that subject -- but that is a matter between me and him. So I don't see how you can label me a "hypocrite." But you're exactly right on one point: "the first amendment doesn't exist in a vacuum" -- in fact, not all speech is protected, nor should it be (i.e. the classic example yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater). Furthermore, some of you seem to be mistaking AICN for something other than a privately owned publication -- and seem to be intent on not actually listening to what I'm saying, suggesting, and advocating. Go back and read my other posts again. THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN FASCISM AND ANARCHY. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And freedom _from_ speech is just as important as freedom _of_ speech (regardless of Eternal's irrational concept of "user-controlled censorship"); if I personally would rather not be confronted by "I'm first!" crap, profanity, hate speech, off-topic posts (of which this is admittedly one), etc. -- which arguably make Talk Back borderline useless -- then I should have the right to filter out such things by choice. That doesn't take away any one else's rights, now does it? It actually gives you, the user, MORE rights. So what exactly is your problem, Warrior? How exactly is this "self-important" or "condescending," Harry8? Are you both that desperate for attention that the thought of _one_ Talk Back reader choosing _not_ to read _your_ posts makes you this insecure and defensive? Surely not. ;-) And one more time, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING GETTING RID OF TALK BACK! Stop imagining things. Just remember we are all _guests_ here. (Didn't your parents teach you manners?)
-
I officialy submit the new name of this sure-to-be suck-fest. It shall be called "Hurl Harbor" I'm making the name up now, so you all have something bad to call it when IT SUCKS! I predict this entire movie will be BEIGE-colored, up until the BATTLE, where it will turn GREY. Um..... UM..... "They're shooting the bodies in the water!" "It's a war, Danny, wake up." That's another example of every movie having to have something WORSE or MORE SICKENING than the last. Audiences have become so jaded. When will it end? With someone jerking themselves off while shooting babies in a hospital? I mean, really. I can't be the only who's noticed this. Oh, well. I'll save my $7.25 for a couple beers, thank you very much. At least they're SUPPOSED to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
-
NEO WROTE: "give the users the power to moderate. Thereby, people feel like active participants in the content of the site, want to take part more, and those with less time don't have to read every damn thing that gets posted looking for the real gems." EXACTLY! That is EXACTLY what I've been saying ALL ALONG! I did not "miss the point" of slashdot.org -- why would I be advocating emulating their system? I am suggesting we empower the reader so they can moderate as they see fit! So, if someone, say, doesn't want to see any posts longer than 250 words (ahem), they could choose to filter them out when reading Talk Back. Finally, we seem to be getting somewhere here... (Maybe.)
-
Jan 27, 2000 10:50:21 PM CST
"Pearl Harbor"is the kind of movie tired hacks with no ideas wri
by user id indeed!
These people apparently want to get Oscar recognition or something by "honoring"our veterans.At least that's what they say.Obviously,they just want to get recognition and be thought of as national heroes like Spielberg.But as anybody can see,they're just taking advantage of the Day of Infamy and are corrupting our veterans to try to make a cheap pseudo-sentimental war movie.Shit like this really burns my balls.Go Rams!
-
My only worry is with as few major, major, major stars as it has, and a budget that big, everything will be computer generated which I HATE. Why can't they do anything real anymore. The best CGI affects are Titanic without a doubt because it looks real. All well, maybe it'll still kick ass.
-
I had read somewhere that part of the reason that the movie was going to cost so much was that Bay wanted to use less computer effects and use more models and large sets, similar to when Cameron had the back half of the Titanic constructed in a studio for use in the last part of the movie. Hope this helps. And just to reiterate, none of you have seen the movie and most have not read the script, so blasting it as trash is pretty stupid.
-
Jerry Bruckheimer + Michael Bay + Pearl Harbor = Sacrilege
-
After all the insults, the Harry-bashing, and the back-and-forth arguments about whether TalkBack should be censored/banned outright, this particular TalkBack just wouldn't have been complete without some idiot completely screwing up the formatting altogether. If you had to do it though, buddy, you could have done it with a halfway-intelligent post. "Railroaded into war"... I'm still laughing.
-
Someone named Neo bad-mouthing "Armageddon." How rich - and tiresomely trendy - can you get? What's the matter? Was the name Morpheus already taken? Try and keep it under 10,000 words next time, okay?
-
I'll be the first to admit that I am a Michael Bay fan. I enjoyed Bad Boys and Armageddon and the Rock, and his "Kodak Moments" All you people ripping him up should give it a break. Obviously he feels strongly enough about this picture to take a paycut to make it happen. This is what we should want people...filmmakers making movies for their love of it...not love of the dollar. Quit being so goddamn hypocritical.
-
In the Republic, Plato postulated that the best kind of society was not a democracy, but an "intellectual aristocracy" that knew what would be best for the public. Why? Because the public wouldn't know what's best for itself. I'm not trying to be an elitist bastard...in fact, I'm far from it. Power to the people is an EXCELLENT idea. First of all, I'd like to point out the huge difference in the quality of the posts between this particular story, and say, any random X-Men story. There's a great deal of posters who come only for one thing, such as X-Men news and post there. I'd say about 10% say something new, and 90% rehash the same post or post random insults. The problem? That 90% are the people that are going to have the power in deciding what gets seen and what doesn't. Now, as for the idea of the individual user being able to filter out what he sees, it's a great idea, kind of sounds like the V-Chip. How about users posting voluntary warnings in the subjects of their posts if they feel that they may be offensive?
-
I agree with what Neo and Robogeek are saying about having the users censor ourselves. The only thing that has worried me is the talk of eliminating posts that are off the subject. I've been reading these posts for awhile, and it seems that over half of them are off the subject. These also tend to be the best and funniest of the posts, and are the reason I come to this site in the first place. Alright, I think I've finished mutilating that poor dead horse. God, what a mess
-
Well, if people actually followed through, 95% of the Talkback posts would carry warnings of offensive material. Not that anyone here would actually follow through, though. Besides, voluntary warnings are what continue to strangle movies and comic books. People want their voices to be heard, so they censor themselves for the sake of the widest possible audience. Yeah, it's their choice, but the actual effect is to stifle voicing risky ideas. A dangerous road, that. ****** I think the pure, unfettered freedom we currently enjoy is the best bet. It means wading through tons of shit to get to the folks who actually have points to make, but that's just the price, and I'm willing to pay it. ******* I'm curious, too...how would a theoretical user-defined screening system work anyway? What type of parameters would you set? I'm dubious that I'd use it. Sometimes I don't want to read posts with excessive profanity, but sometimes profanity is admittedly effective. Sometimes I never want to hear from some particular Talkbacker again, and then they'll make a reasonable point out of the blue. Point is, I wouldn't want to risk missing some hidden gem of a Talkback (okay, "gem" is maybe overstating it a bit...), so I'd probably never use any filters.
-
Over on the talkback someone dared to accuse me of not knowing my history. Boy you got some things wrong! Yeah FDR did know about the impending attack, but only from advance scouts, and there was still the possiblity that they were heading towards Alaska, or a diversion to a real attack on Manilla. So FDR knowing about those aircraft carriers doesn't neccesarly mean he sacrificed those men, but that he knew about them is almost undeniable. SECONDLY the Russians did loose 15-20,000,000 in the war, and lost about the same amount to Stalin afterwards. But to say they only lost 1-2 million!?! The Russians lost that many troops to starvation in POW camps in Poland. Plus the SS had special killing squads that roamed the countryside desposing of any unwanteds(communist leaders, jews etc) that was another 2 million, and the Russians lost 300,000+ men in the battle for Stalingrad alone. THIRDLY the T34 was only availible in 1942, but the Panzer 6 and 7 models weren't availible to the NAZI's until 1944. For a two year period the Russians enjoyed almost complete tank superiority. It was the sturdiness of the T34 that won them the battle of Kursk, but if the Germans had devoted their entire panzer corps to the battle in Kursk, then the Russians loose, and the entire offensive campaign in 1944 comes to a halt as the Germans realocated their troops that had been brought up from the Caucaus(sp?) campaign to strengthen their defensive position.
-
Wow, I'm "elitely hip," according to Neo. I feel so alive - and sarcastic - it isn't funny! Neo, please remove the industrial-size stick from your posterior and explain exactly how I am "elitely hip," and what I have done to have this honor bestowed upon me.
-
The part about how one guy can be so completely useless, then he says something that's incredibly deep and profound. Everyone who filtered him away would miss that. Let's say Joe Talkback logs on for the first time and happens across an eloquent diatribe by one of Talkback's more outspoken members. Being an upstanding moral member of society, this shocks Joe Talkback who rallies the other Joe Talkbacks into filtering out said outspoken member, and miss out on everything he has to say. And this happens in reaction to a single strand of posts. Like if the first SSZero post someone read was one of those masturbatory satires instead of his others...
-
I hope they get Scoey Mitchell to play Winston Churchill!
-
Jan 28, 2000 4:13:09 AM CST
Due to the nature of this site, if we used the slashdot system..
by niiiice
People would only see the posts that agreed with their views, or vote for them anyway. And that means people who are on one side of a debate will merit that debate high points (such as Lucas sucks!) and people on the other side will merit their side with high points (such as "its just a movie you whiny crybabies"). If you think the majority of the posters here are open minded and level headed, I suggest you pop on over to the chaotic realm of comic to movie scoops...it might change your mind...Now if there were a preselected group of people who have demonstrated themselves capable of seeing more than one side of a debate, that would work better.
-
You guys act exactly alike, it's kinda hilarious. Any time a poster gives clear-cut, well-reasoned criticisms of Bay - in very simple English mind you - You guys are all over them. But not to dispute their points or give your own points like any rational adult, but rather to dismiss them as "trying to be hip" with no basis for your comment except apparently that you hate it when people don't stoop to your "he sucks, he rocks, I'm always right and what are you losers doing here" level. Sheesh, is there some ostrich in your family?
-
I'm no fan of Bay and no doubt he cares for the subject matter as much as he did for asteroids, unsung military heroes, and Liv freaking Tyler. But it sounds like he just might try to experiment with his filmmaking in this one and it might be worth it to see that. Sure, you could view the whole thing as incredibly ego-driven attempt to get critical acclaim (do not even try to tell me that someone with Bay's infamous ego doesn't want the respect of his peers and critics), but then a lot of directors are egomaniacs, so who cares? We should at least wait until a lot more info is available (ie, test screenings, shooting script review halfway through filming) before writing this off as another SOS situation (same ol' shit).
-
...because he is not into filmmaking as an expression of anything other than a few monosyllabic grunts. The guy is into films for DA MONEY, DA FAME, and DA POWER. His ego would never allow him to do it for the sake of a story. Everything Arnold does - filmmaking is no exception - is a business decision, and forever will remain one. So unless his brain is short-circuited into really giving a crap about his profession as something more than a paycheck, I doubt we're ever gonna be treated to CRUSADES or WWAE. Maybe this also explains why the guy can't act - he just doesn't care about it enough to make it believable.
-
You didn't specify, Wesley Snipes. Actually, if you've ever read any postings I've made in the past, you'd probably notice I refrain from the "rocks" and "sucks" style of critiquing movies. Hell, I usually mock it. I also don't bash for bashing's sake; I've defended film-makers I don't even like, because I thought they were being treated unfairly. I don't say movies will "rock" or "suck" before seeing them; that's unfair too. How can you judge a movie on the basis of a poster or casting? I don't jump on bandwagons, either; I loathe the entire bandwagon idea. And you have to admit, there are lots of internet users named "Neo" out there; I just thought the Neo in question was a bandwagon jumper. Obviously, he isn't. Point taken. "Hip?" Not me.
-
How easy it is for YOU to say "It should be about passion" when it ain't your fuckin' money. You put up $130 mil for your "art" big-mouth. Fuckin' people never cease to amaze me. Just because somebody puts something on film, it don't make it art, anymore than pissing on a canvas is a painting. It's so easy for you to be high-brow when you're talking out of your ass with someone else's money. Go ahead and delete this one, it makes too much sense!!!
-
...This Pearl Harbor movie won't suck like the Inspector Gadget movie!
-
The Game show will have Hollywod stars swimming in a pool full of sharks. The Tentative title is "Stump The Stars".
-
We've just had two arguably great WWII flicks, SPR and TRL, and at the more recent end of the spectrum of conflict, other greats like Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Three Kings (I dont include that rah-rah peice of crap with Denzel and Meg Ryan of course). Where is the defining movie of the "forgotten war" between WWII and Veitnam? Sadly forgotten indeed by Hollywood, when the story is ripe for an epic film. Surely the scenes of a huge N.Korean army thrust across the border into S.Korea (June, 1950), crushing a hastily dispatched and poorly equipped bunch of US troops (Task Force Smith) with their overpowering numbers and Soviet supplied tanks and tactics would make for some shots that would make the opening 30 min of SPR look like a picnic, not to mention the several battles for control of Seoul, the breakout from the Pusan perimeter, the landing at Inchon, Puller's Marines fighting withdrawl from the Chosin resivoir (his regiment gutted several Chinese divisions on the way, and it is still studied today as a textbook example for a fighting withdrawl). Incredible that this challenge by the USSR to test the west's resolve at the beginning of the Cold War, while using the Koreans as pawns, involving the first "coalition" warfare by the UN (the 12+ participants even including an unlikely company of tribesmen sent from an African republic)is still ignored by mainstream film makers. Enough of that rant for the moment. Bruckheimer has apparently bought the movie rights to Mark Bowden's great book on the tragic battle of Mogadishu, Somalia involving the US Rangers, Delta, etc "BlackHawk Down-A Story Of Modern War". I just hope the director does justice to the first hand accounts of the fight Bowden got from the dozens of US and Somali participants, it could be a fine movie. Hopefully it will include a scene showing the father of one of the two fallen Delta troopers who received the Medal Of Honor when he refused to shake Clinton's hand at the award ceremony and and told his draft-dodging, soldier-hating ass off, but that's wishful thinking ;-)
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 286 total posts 286 posts
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 273 total posts 272 posts
- UPDATE!! What The Hell Happened With G.I. JOE: RETALIATION?! -- 157 total posts 157 posts
- Remember when I said I’d kill The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day last? I lied. -- 147 total posts 147 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 141 total posts 141 posts
- THE EXORCIST Is Being Remade... -- 114 total posts 113 posts
- Quint has seen the brand new Jaws restoration and demands that Universal do a wide theatrical rerelease this summer! -- 95 total posts 95 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 161 total posts 80 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 172 total posts 77 posts
- The day we've all been waiting for has arrived...IN THE ARMY NOW II is in the works! -- 51 total posts 51 posts