It is currently Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:34 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Ridley Scott's All The Money In The World


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK
That's terrible make up on Spacey.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:56 am
Location: Canada
Finch wrote:
That's terrible make up on Spacey.
I guess they didn't have enough money in the budget to do a good job in that department.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK
The make up on Guy Pearce in Prometheus was shoddy as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Can someone point me to a good example of this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Brad Pitt in Benjamin Button is probably the best one out there, though it's a blend of prosthetics and CGI, I believe. Johnny Knoxville in Bad Grandpa is another good example, if a little rubbery looking.

It's funny because with all the talent and money out there, Hollywood almost always seems to have a hard time completing this particular task convincingly. Agreed that Spacey looks horrendous here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:56 am
Location: Canada
A great job of aging a young acting talent onscreen is the case of Agent Carter in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
There will be no Oscar campaign for Spacey in this


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
They can at least sell it on how he looks nothing like himself in it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:27 pm
Have the distributors changed the marketing yet? The trailer made such a big deal out of the Spacey reveal. He's so unrecognizable that they could probably do what they did with Gary Oldman in Scott's Hannibal and leave him uncredited.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
Sony's pulled this from the AFI Film Festival, but it will still come out as scheduled.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
This hasn't been a good year for Ridley.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
They've recast Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and the movie is still coming out in 45 days


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Ribs wrote:
They've recast Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and the movie is still coming out in 45 days

I don't see how this is possible, unless they're counting on including a whole lot of Spacey's footage on the grounds that he's unrecognizable in that hilarious make-up. This might just bump this film from 'of no interest whatsoever' to 'trainwreck!'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:55 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
What are they talking about with Wind River-- that came and went before the Weinstein scandal. Did something happen recently?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
zedz wrote:
Ribs wrote:
They've recast Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and the movie is still coming out in 45 days

I don't see how this is possible, unless they're counting on including a whole lot of Spacey's footage on the grounds that he's unrecognizable in that hilarious make-up. This might just bump this film from 'of no interest whatsoever' to 'trainwreck!'


According to the article he only worked 8-10 days on it, so maybe it could work if Plummer manages to do it all in that time. And plus he won't have to do all that makeup too so that could cut down time as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:58 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
I can def see Plummer getting an Oscar nom if he is even remotely okay just for jumping in like this at the 11th hour


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
domino harvey wrote:
What are they talking about with Wind River-- that came and went before the Weinstein scandal. Did something happen recently?

Article from Deadline


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
willoneill wrote:
domino harvey wrote:
What are they talking about with Wind River-- that came and went before the Weinstein scandal. Did something happen recently?

Article from Deadline

Looks like they're leveraging the scandal for an ingenious 'For Your Consideration' campaign to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
It won't work - first, because Wind River doesn't have the enthusiasm Hell or High Water somehow achieved, and second because despite the theatrics it's a movie that made a lot of money for Weinstein and just by scrubbing his name from it doesn't magically not make him a producer when he was credited as such for literal months after release.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Ribs wrote:
It won't work - first, because Wind River doesn't have the enthusiasm Hell or High Water somehow achieved, and second because despite the theatrics it's a movie that made a lot of money for Weinstein and just by scrubbing his name from it doesn't magically not make him a producer when he was credited as such for literal months after release.

I agree with that, but I think that they're trying to artificially create an "Oscar Narrative" around a film that's been and gone (and wasn't that good in the first place), including its topical political correctness, a 'poor good filmmakers versus evil rapey corporation' David & Goliath story (that's resolved way too neatly to be compelling, but whatever), and the - ahem - 'fact' that this was a movie tipped for a lot of awards attention (really?). Mostly, it's a way of weaving yesterday's film into the biggest Hollywood story of the year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
zedz wrote:
Ribs wrote:
They've recast Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and the movie is still coming out in 45 days

I don't see how this is possible, unless they're counting on including a whole lot of Spacey's footage on the grounds that he's unrecognizable in that hilarious make-up. This might just bump this film from 'of no interest whatsoever' to 'trainwreck!'

Apparently Spacey only shot 8 or 9 days, and mostly without the other major stars. Say what you want about the quality of his films, but Ridley Scott is pretty efficient, so if this could work in any situation, this is probably the one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm
willoneill wrote:
zedz wrote:
Ribs wrote:
They've recast Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and the movie is still coming out in 45 days

I don't see how this is possible, unless they're counting on including a whole lot of Spacey's footage on the grounds that he's unrecognizable in that hilarious make-up. This might just bump this film from 'of no interest whatsoever' to 'trainwreck!'

Apparently Spacey only shot 8 or 9 days, and mostly without the other major stars. Say what you want about the quality of his films, but Ridley Scott is pretty efficient, so if this could work in any situation, this is probably the one.


Yup. I think this will be easier than people are claiming. If it were difficult I doubt Scott would be doing it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
When is the most recent example of something like this occurring on this scale? Back to the Future? There Will Be Blood? Not even sure if either of those were this much of a last chance high wire act.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
I mean, it's literally unprecedented on this scale and timetable, but probably September's infamous being-shot-then-totally-reshot-with-slightly-different-cast is in the mix.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Peg of the PreCodes, souvenir


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection