>being the main character in something similar to Descendants, a soulless Disney production solely for its teen audience that would've been a Made-for-TV/DVD production in pre-digital times
Because I know some people want to hear about how films are made. But I don't.
I'm of the completely opposite opinion, the real world circumstances behind how movies are made are exponentially more interesting than the film itself, even if the film isn't shit.
Because I know some people want to hear about how films are made. But I don't.
I'm of the completely opposite opinion, the real world circumstances behind how movies are made are exponentially more interesting than the film itself, even if the film isn't shit.
It was interesting at first, but the shop talk gets old after a while. I know there are those who love that sort of commentary, but there's only so many times I can be told about the same shit.
Brosnan was pissed when they replaced him but he was super complimentary in the video. Getting a commentary from him fifteen years ago would have been so much more interesting. Goddamn he's old. I think Lazenby's more spry at this point.
As useless as film critics are, they are at least a semi-impartial observer. You can agree or disagree with what they have to say. Since they're not the creator, they don't own the film any more than a viewer does. They give you a lot to think about, but you can still walk away with your own opinions.
You make a valid argument, but personally, I trust critics about as far as I can throw them. Either they’re pretentious snobs, who think that Gene Deitch was an underrated genius, or a shitlib who thinks that Cars’ tribute to the 1950’s and Middle America sets a dangerous precedent.
Depends. I have nothing but praise for the commentary of folks like Michael Jeck and Tony Rayns. I'm not saying you should take seriously some fucking Brad Jones-tier movie """"critic.""" But with a director whose filmography spans decades, there are legit scholars out there who study their work and are capable of putting together a solid film analysis. While, I might add, interspersing bits about the practical side of film making. And/or the director's personal history. A film critic can talk dispassionately about (for example) the death of Akira Kurosawa's brother, and how that might have influenced Kurosawa's movies. I think that would be hard for the director himself to do. Or about how Kenji Mizoguchi was supported financially by his sister marrying into a rich family (she did it to support the rest of the kids), and how this theme of self-sacrificing women shows up in his movies. I've never heard Ridley Scott get that intimate in his dvd commentaries. A film critic can bring that shit up though, because they have emotional distance.
DHI is proof you can be both a massive homosexual and a virgin. They're not exclusive. If you display both in large enough quantities you can qualify for mod status.
