Poster of the dinosaur $810 000 000?
What is that poster of the dinosaur eye with $810 000 000 referencing?
shareI thought Jurassic Park, though it made $914,691,118 worldwide.
shareI though it was about Anaconda... silly me!!
Simply Mad About You!
It was fictional. It could have been any major blockbuster. The point is what he says about it, no actors, no names, just a number.
shareExactly! "In the end its no actors, no names, just a huge number"
So telling....
In the early 90's that would a dinosaur's eye. Late 90's a boat, in 2009 its a bat symbol.
aN:
http://www.MySpace.com/authorNYSE
Bat symbol doesn't apply to this quote. Dark Knight had names. Cloverfield would be more appropriate although its 80 million intake can't compare.
Wow, look at me. I'm not even listening to a word you're saying.share
So "Cloverfield" applies to this quote even though it didn't even make $200 mil at the box office?
The point of the poster in the movie "What Just Happened" was to show that even when a film breaks a "highest gross ever" record that actors, directors, producers etc don't matter but rather only the number of money made.
Making Jurassic Park, Titanic, and The Dark Knight relevant to this post thread and not Cloverfield by any means.
Oh, but Jurassic Park and Cloverfield are movies about humans running from creatures.....
aN:
http://www.MySpace.com/authorNYSE
learn to read until the end of the post before replying
thank you!
Don't you find that the poster-scene represents what was so wrong with the entire movie?
What I mean is, the poster-scene tries TOO HARD to be profound: ie., in the center of the producer's and money-broker's office is a poster representing all that they care about... no directors, no actors, merely profit.
Yeah, so? They ARE in the financing wing of the movie business. And money-people like money.
What if they went into the creative wing of the movie business. For example, an influential actor's office. Guaranteed there'd be some poster of a lone acting icon, standing in some pose. (James Dean standing in a street; Jack Nicholson making some face, etc.)... no director, no box office, merely an actor.
Ditto in a top screenwriter's office.
So, the poster-scene represents how producers focus on the goals of their industry: box office. That's not telling, profound nor insightful. Actors focus on character, writers focus on storytelling, teachers focus on education, garbage men focus on routes. This MOVIE was pretentious. Entourage is a better lens into the movie industry.
WOW, I agree with EVERYTHING you wrote .... except I still liked the movie. Sorry, I'm a sucker for my favorite actors (Willis, De Niro). But you're absolutely right sir! I think De Niro mirroring Levinson's career. I loved Sphere but most didn't with Man Of The Year and Envy being slept on. No recent hits lots of respectable misses.
Entourage is a better lens into the movie industry, especially the last season where Vince is hasbeen thrown back home to mope. But Marty is gonna save hime from that next season.
aN:
http://www.MySpace.com/authorNYSE
I know what you mean about the actors... I'm a huge Willis addict. And, De Niro did great! Yup, the acting was great.
But you wouldn't know it from the directing. For example, some of Willis' greatest tirades were obscured by a scene filled with distracting litter in wide shot. Topped off with some of his hilarious wardrobe tossing falling completely out of shot... such a waste.
Another example, the director lingers forever on background bokeh in the car, and close ups on the slippers and every other unneccessary business that should have been cut out to give more interactions between characters and De Niro.
Which brings us to pacing. Audiences are able to get the 'meaning' of these scenes in half the time that it took the director to tell it. (especially with exposure to similar genre items like Entourage out there). It some ways the slow pace was insulting.
Then there was the whole 'point' of the movie. About how he was, basically, the top 5 MOST POWERFUL producer in Hollywood. Yet, he couldn't handle ONE movie from a director who didn't have 'final cut'? Yet, he couldn't go man-to-man with Willis but instead only took things out physically on the fired, wimpy, agent? Yet, couldn't handle the emotions involved with a failing Hollywood marriage (1.5 years after the separation)?
A guy that powerful really wasn't trying hard to stay on top. It was self-sabotage. Which is fine if you're making a "leaving Las Vegas" movie. But they billed this as a Comic Satire of Hollywood. Comedy? Drama with some jokes isn't comedy... it's drama. That's why audiences felt defrauded. Hollywood satire? The protagonist did more damage to himself than did Hollywood. They had 30 minutes of material in a 104 minute movie. (more time was spent discussing the COUCH than discussing Hollywood).
It IS cool that you liked the movie. Really. But would you recommend it over other Hollywood satire comedy/dramas like "swimming with sharks" or "the player"?
Whoa Doogie Hauser! You are certainly on point with that one. I laughed agreeing with the whole Willis tirade scene remembering that I dismiss the clumsiness. But then you went on dissecting the film EXACTLY like I would had I not been zoned in on my favs plus that great Catherine Keener performance.
To answer your final question I wouldn't recommend it over "Swimming With Sharks" ever a definitely not over "Living In Oblivion". Made over "Full Frontal" and "The Player" I've haven't seen all the way through because it was of an era a few years before my familiarity of Hollywood.
aN:
http://www.MySpace.com/authorNYSE