|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 1, 2009 17:05:45 GMT
RRA's thesaurus lists "probable" under "certain". How else you think I got a job under the last American President?
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 1, 2009 17:10:25 GMT
RRA's thesaurus lists "probable" under "certain". And "producer" under "director". Quick question, what does that make Spielberg then?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 1, 2009 17:28:17 GMT
What does what make Spielberg? Your highly selective conflation of the ideal roles of the producer and director, or the fact that those ideal roles are different?
Steven Spielberg is a director and a producer. The films he's produced for other directors are not directed by Spielberg, just as Marcus Nispel's Friday the 13th is not directed by producer Michael Bay. And, as already noted, what creative input seems to have come from the producers seems to have come from Andrew Form and Brad Fuller rather than from Bay.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, whether that's actually a question or whether there's supposed to be some bulletproof rebuttal logically implied.
Having "already fucking been through this", I quote:
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 1, 2009 17:34:11 GMT
Hey, why you think I asked the question? But if my dictionary, as you purport, say producer=director, thus likewise flipside director=producer, one must equal in transmutation into the other, but that's a direct correlation. In short, they can't be seperated into two unique jobs, at least according to your recent edition of RRA's Dictionary. I need clarification on my book!
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 1, 2009 17:49:32 GMT
Y'see, it's a highly selective dictionary. When you look up "producer" it says "Someone who creates the conditions for making movies; who initiates, co-ordinates, supervises and controls matters such as fund-raising, hiring key personnel and arranging for distributors (except in the case of Michael Bay, who wields absolute creative control over all films he produces and who directs the films in absentia via the medium of a puppet-director, eg: Marcus Nispel)."
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 1, 2009 23:23:48 GMT
So how is that equal to director? If they're two seperate positions, they can't equal each other. Also, what of directors who basically have creative/production control, but aren't technically producers on the final credits, like Scorsese?
Also, don't forget other puppets in Jonathan Liebesman (TCM: THE BEGINNING), David Goyer (THE UNBORN), Dave Meyers (THE HITCHER), and Andrew Douglas (THE AMITYVILLE HORROR)
Sorry to be bitch, but I want my Dictionary to be the greatest book ever written on film criticism since SEAGALOGY (which came out last fall.)
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 2, 2009 1:33:48 GMT
Also, RNL you want to write a quick write-up on the remake for the 1990s-00s section? I mean considering alot of blabble we've shared over it, maybe it deserves its own section.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Mar 2, 2009 22:20:38 GMT
I don't see any influence of Spielberg on BAYFORMERS. All i see in BAYFORMERS is the usual Michael Bay shit!
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 3, 2009 4:32:46 GMT
I don't see any influence of Spielberg on BAYFORMERS. All i see in BAYFORMERS is the usual Michael Bay shit! Spielberg's influence was signing him to contract, and extending hand to collect paycheck from TRANSFORMERS. I despite Bay, but that fucktard sure makes a shitload of money....even if THE ISLAND sank.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Mar 3, 2009 20:53:36 GMT
Contrary to popular belief, and Bay's PR machine, PEARL HARBOR was indeed was a flop and ARMAGEDDON underperformed to expectations.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 3, 2009 22:01:57 GMT
How so?
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Mar 4, 2009 17:48:37 GMT
Disney hoped for Titanic-like box office results fro both ARMAGEDDON and PEARL HARBOR. Of course, this is insane expectations, but there you go. It's Holylwood studio thinking, and thus, alien to the rest of the global human population.
But the most important thing is, both movies had massive budgets. Today, it's not too uncommon that a blockbuster movie has a 150 million dollars budget. In 1998, ARMAGEDDON's 150 million dollars budget ment it was the year's most expensive movie made. The movie's box office result at the end of the year was 210 millions, which for any other movie would meant a killing, a bit profit. However, for ARMAGEDDON, it meant it barely covered the expenses. And we need to remind this also: disney also payed tonnes of cash for ARMAGEDDON'S massive advetizement, to the sum of about 70 millions. This made the whole sum of the movie's cost, budget and advertizement, up to 220 million dollars.
We need to remind that in USA, about 40% to half the box office money goes to the theater chains, the studio gets the rest, and it has to financeand pay the copies of the film, and also to pay the recall costs, after the movie has the theatrical run. Therefore, on the american box office front, ARMAGEDDON performed way below expectations. Had it not beeen the international market, it would had been a complete embaracement to Disney.
PEARL HARBOR flopped. It costed 125 million dollars (Disney was not willing to shell out the 210 millions that Bay wanted). The box offcie return was hardly 100 millions. Disney, in a attmept to leave their movie in the black, did soemthing studios rarely do: they prolongued the theatrical run of the movie, in an atempt to bring higher figures for the box office. Of cours,e this meant that Disney that to pay the theaters to let the movie run longer. In the end, PEARL HARBOR didn't recover the costs of production and promotion, and was 2001's most embaracing flop of the year.
Later, in 2005, THE ISLAND had a similiar fate to PEARL HARBOR.
So, all this story of Bay being a hit maker is more myth and PR stuff then reality. Fact is, all things considered, Bay's commercial track record is no different from most directors out there. In fact, Brett Ratner certainly has a more sucessful commercial run with his carer then Bay. And this just speaking of the hacks, of course.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 4, 2009 18:02:59 GMT
Interesting.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 4, 2009 21:06:11 GMT
So how is that equal to director? If they're two seperate positions, they can't equal each other. Oh? (2 + 2) = (8 - 4) No? Besides, this is your position on the subject, that Bay has effectively directed any film on which he is a credited producer. This question appears to be utterly irrelevant, in that inimitable RRA style. Oh I'm not. All puppets. Of course, had Goyer been puppet-director on Friday the 13th the film would've turned out exactly the same, since Bay has absolute creative control over it either way. I wonder what Fuller and Form do. Are they puppet-coproducers? Clones, perhaps, that enable such multi-hyphenate multitasking? It's pretty scary, I wonder how far Bay's dark tentacles really go into the heart of the film industry... Now, hows about (perpare yourself for a wild idea) you try to address some of the substance of my counterargument, which has now been repeated twice, rather than fixating pointlessly on a joke I made?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 4, 2009 21:14:32 GMT
I don't see any influence of Spielberg on BAYFORMERS. All i see in BAYFORMERS is the usual Michael Bay shit! Spielberg's influence is apparent, blatantly, in the teenage Sam character, who is not a Bay-type at all. His 'adventure/journey' (beginning in suburbia) and his relationship with Bumblebee are thoroughly Spielberg-ian. "It will have those Spielberg-ian moments where you have the push-in on the wide-eyed kid and you feel like you're ten years old even if you're thirty-five." - producer Tom DeSanto. None of the scenes involving Sam, Mikaela and Bumblebee are "the usual Michael Bay shit". They are shit, but they're a uniquely Spielbay-ian type of shit.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 4, 2009 21:48:39 GMT
Now, hows about (perpare yourself for a wild idea) you try to address some of the substance of my counterargument, which has now been repeated twice, rather than fixating pointlessly on a joke I made? Sure, as soon as you actually properly review the remake, as I had nicely requested earlier? Not a one-line bullshit job, but the size of Capo usually summarizes: Short, but concise and to the point, which is many.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 4, 2009 22:30:28 GMT
More complete irrelevance. What does my having not "properly" reviewed the "remake" have to do with my criticisms of you and Arkady's arbitrary conflation of the ideal roles of producer and director wherever Michael Bay is involved? Absolutely nothing whatsoever is what. We're not debating the merits of Nispel's film. We obviously can't be, since you haven't even seen it. We're debating the extent to which evaluating a film without having seen it is critical bad faith, and our argument has progressed onto some of the ludicrous assertions that have been made about what producers and directors actually do. I'll just quote myself again: Steven Spielberg is a director and a producer. The films he's produced for other directors are not directed by Spielberg, just as Marcus Nispel's Friday the 13th is not directed by producer Michael Bay. And, as already noted, what creative input seems to have come from the producers seems to have come from Andrew Form and Brad Fuller rather than from Bay. Having "already fucking been through this", I quote:
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 5, 2009 0:23:44 GMT
Blah blah, I got a deal for ya RNL.
Do a proper review, and in return...I'll admit I was totally wrong, that we've wrangled for days over my desire to be proven right within an argumentational style no matter what, and that indeed I was wrong to criticize a film that I hadn't seen.
I get review, you get victory.
I mean that's what you've wanted the whole time, and that is to me...to use your favorite word....an irrelevant endgame.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 5, 2009 1:08:45 GMT
I'm not going to write a review.
And I don't need you to concede, I'm satisfied that the arguments I'm making are sound and that you haven't rebutted them at all.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Mar 5, 2009 1:18:08 GMT
I'm not going to write a review. And I don't need you to concede, I'm satisfied that the arguments I'm making are sound and that you haven't rebutted them at all. How can I rebut if I haven't seen it? Better yet, remind me what your argument was in the first place?
|
|