#12: Ja, siger whiner-nummerXXX - det er sgu en storm i et glas vand, og hvor er hans argumentation - i stedet bruger han halvdelen af artiklen på at namedroppe skuespillere han mener har en solid track record; hvor svært kan DET være?? Generelt er der jo intet nyt under solen i denne artikel...
Min dvd-samling: http://www.invelos.com/dvdcollection.aspx/Nikolai%20Schulz
#13 det er en journalistisk artikel - den skriger ikke til himmelen om manglende akademisk hjemmel. Men jeg er nu meget enig med ham, der er ikke mange helte mere i instruktørernes verden mere. Jeg synes også at det er på sin plads at nævne at fortidens store instruktører skulle producere et større antal film. På disse film var der ofte ikke Dir. cut (enddog nogen indflydelse på klippe processen) på eller for den sags skyld magt over manus og alligevel kunne de producere et mesterværk eller perle hver 3, til 5 år.
Der er ikke noget nyt men det rammer ikke helt ved siden af.
En interessant artikel om mængden af sequels, adaptations og remakes blandt kommercielle blockbusters og Pixars policy om at fokusere på originale film.
Hun analyserer blockbusteren som et fænomen. Hvordan kritikere elsker at hade disse spectacles og blockbusterens historie og etymologi. Og hun skriver vittigt, indsigtsfuldt, intelligent, og så er hun ikke bange for at give sin mening til kende.
Bare læs de første to paragrafer:
"SUMMERTIME and the viewing is lousy and noisy and deedle-dee dumb, or so the received wisdom has it. It is our season of stupidity, summertime, that interminable stretch when adults surrender the nation’s theaters to hordes of popcorn-chugging, sugar-jonesing, under-age nose-pickers for whom the cinematic experience means nothing more than recycled big, bigger, biggest bangs. It is the season of mass distraction, of the tent pole, the event movie, the blockbuster.
Blockbuster is really just descriptive, but it often carries with it a down-market whiff, as do many pop-cultural products that come with eye-catching price tags and seem precision-tooled for young audiences. Critics, including, yes, yours truly, often use blockbuster as easy (too easy) shorthand for overinflated productions that rely more on special effects than words and characters, and that distract rather than engage the audience. At its most reductive the negative spin on blockbusters is that they signal the death of cinema art and mark the triumph of the corporate bottom line, of marketing strategies, product placements and opening-weekend returns. And here you thought you were just watching Tobey Maguire run around in a unitard. "
Jeg er dybt forelsket i hendes måde at skrive på :D
#11 elwood 18 år siden
Tom Cruise: "I just love this scene, and the set"
#12 jessup 18 år siden
http://film.guardian.co.uk/patterson/story/0,,2060...
#13 filmz-Angel Eyes 18 år siden
Generelt er der jo intet nyt under solen i denne artikel...
#14 jessup 18 år siden
Der er ikke noget nyt men det rammer ikke helt ved siden af.
#15 filmz-Angel Eyes 18 år siden
#16 filmz-Bruce 18 år siden
#17 mr gaijin 18 år siden
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/movies/24orig.ht...
#18 filmz-Angel Eyes 18 år siden
#19 mr gaijin 18 år siden
Defending Goliath: Hollywood and the Art of the Blockbuster
Hun analyserer blockbusteren som et fænomen. Hvordan kritikere elsker at hade disse spectacles og blockbusterens historie og etymologi. Og hun skriver vittigt, indsigtsfuldt, intelligent, og så er hun ikke bange for at give sin mening til kende.
Bare læs de første to paragrafer:
"SUMMERTIME and the viewing is lousy and noisy and deedle-dee dumb, or so the received wisdom has it. It is our season of stupidity, summertime, that interminable stretch when adults surrender the nation’s theaters to hordes of popcorn-chugging, sugar-jonesing, under-age nose-pickers for whom the cinematic experience means nothing more than recycled big, bigger, biggest bangs. It is the season of mass distraction, of the tent pole, the event movie, the blockbuster.
Blockbuster is really just descriptive, but it often carries with it a down-market whiff, as do many pop-cultural products that come with eye-catching price tags and seem precision-tooled for young audiences. Critics, including, yes, yours truly, often use blockbuster as easy (too easy) shorthand for overinflated productions that rely more on special effects than words and characters, and that distract rather than engage the audience. At its most reductive the negative spin on blockbusters is that they signal the death of cinema art and mark the triumph of the corporate bottom line, of marketing strategies, product placements and opening-weekend returns. And here you thought you were just watching Tobey Maguire run around in a unitard. "
Jeg er dybt forelsket i hendes måde at skrive på :D
#20 jessup 18 år siden
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0...