ribboninthesky1
-
Posts
2.2k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by ribboninthesky1
-
-
10 hours ago, VCRTracking said:
According to Wikipedia the novel did have a more ambiguous ending with Roper making his deal, Burr(who's a man in the book) and his American allies discredited. Pine and Jed do get to end up together and live in England.
It wasn't until this final episode that I realized how similar the basic story is to the License to Kill, the second and last Timothy Dalton James Bond movie. In it a drug lord named Sanchez kidnaps and mutilates Bond's CIA ally Felix Leiter and kills his wife on their honeymoon. A revenge seeking Bond goes rogue, pretending to be an assassin whom the drug lord hires and starts to trust and him, thinking he's a kindred spirit, making him part of his inner circle. The drug lord's girlfriend(who he sadistically abuses) becomes romantically involved with Bond and helps him take him down Sanchez by framing an associate of his. Bond destroys the drug lord's whole smuggling operation and kills him.
License to Kill came out in 1989 and John Le Carre's The Night Manager was published in 1993. It's plausible Le Carre saw License to Kill and thought he could write a more realistic version of that story!
Interesting points about the Licence to Kill parallels. Dalton is probably my favorite Bond (he just edges out Craig for me), but there are key differences for me:
Bond is a well-trained spy and assassin, so posing as an assassin-for-hire wouldn't be a stretch. I don't recall Sanchez making Bond his number two and having him broker major deals out of the blue. (The downfall of Corky rang entirely false to me because the man, who was probably always a messy drunk, managed to work for Roper for years, if not decades, presumably without fucking up. Even if Corky was "demoted," it's another matter entirely for Roper to so easily perceive him as a liability and mole.)
Bond got lucky with being found, bound and unconscious, by Sanchez and his crew in the decimated warehouse with the Hong Kong narcotics agents who were working undercover to bust Sanchez. It provided some increased credibility.
Dalton, while also being quite handsome, managed to convey a lot even when he wasn't speaking. Having watched his two films recently, I was highly amused at some of Dalton's facial expressions, particularly in The Living Daylights. He had a steely, ruthless yet deliberate air that may or may not have worked in this context (not familiar with the source material, so not sure how Pine was in the books). I suspect that kind of disposition would have made more sense from a "Roper makes a complete stranger his number two with little vetting" perspective, but mileage varies.
Part of my problem with Hiddleston's performance wasn't that I expected him to be Bond-esque, but I never believed his portrayal of a man pretending to be a psychopathic (per Angela), ruthless criminal. It's why I kept thinking that Roper was on to him - to me, Pine often seemed ready to jump out of his skin versus a "still waters run deep" even-keeled quality. Some of it was the writing and direction. Introverted personalities take a certain kind of talent to convey on screen, and it's not his strength.
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, Kromm said:
Sure there have been other attempts at similar movies--at least movies featuring prominent stunt driving as the main action beat. Gone in Sixty Seconds. The Transporter. The Italian Job. There was a movie called "Faster". I think in general nobody else got the formula right enough that anyone wanted to see more than one of them (well, there were a bunch of Transporter movies, I guess).
I wouldn't consider any of those films clones of Fast and Furious. But even if they are...all of the aforementioned films, save one, were centered around white people, which reinforces my opinion about the industry.
As for Empire and Star, I thought Empire was really Danny Strong's baby. Maybe Star is Lee's, though. I gave up on Empire pretty quickly, and don't keep up with any of the media.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Kromm said:
I actually wonder why Empire hasn't spawned more clones. You'd think the other networks would have taken a shot at cloning it. I guess there was that Power show even before that, but that was on Starz, not network TV.
Probably the same reason there are no clones of the Fast and Furious franchise in film, despite the insane amount of money it's made: the industry largely prefers to make, distribute, and promote stories around people who look like them, even when there's little profit.
It's why I've come to understand that who is behind the camera is more important than who is in front of it. Controlling the story - who writes it, who produces it, who brings it to life via direction, who decides the casting, how the cast is treated, having the proper studio allies behind your work - is everything.
-
7
-
-
20 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:
I took a pass on seeing that one, but if it does fall down on its treatment of women (I've heard both viewpoints from reviewers) it's the exception rather than the rule for him.
I've not seen Sucker Punch, either, but I still agree with your view on Snyder's treatment of female characters. It's ultimately why I don't have the hate for him as a director that many do. He seems to be one of the few male directors who generally seem to like and regard women as human beings AND adults (no infantilization, thank goodness), at least through the camera lens. But then, I'm also not a comic fan, and thus don't have that level of attachment to the characters. I prefer Nolan's visual style, but I've said for years that Nolan has no idea what to do with women beyond "antagonist." I truly cannot imagine what Wonder Woman would have been reduced to under his direction.
I thought Batman vs Superman had some interesting ideas, but tried to do too much in one film. I know it's hopeless to wish otherwise, but it's a primary example of why WB should have taken their time in setting up their universe instead of trying to compete with Marvel.
-
Having watched both films recently, I enjoyed Batman vs Superman AND Captain America: Civil War. Both films had things that worked, and things that didn't make much sense. *shrug*
-
3
-
-
I binge-watched this series in two days. It was beautifully shot, and I appreciated the sumptuous locations. The actors did what they could with the material. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop with a few characters - Angela, Jed, and especially Jonathan. The book ending mentioned upthread made a lot more sense than what I saw.
I'm certain that I was meant to be impressed with Hiddleston, and I wasn't. His best overall scene was opposite Angela in the Cairo hotel room. There were so many close-ups wasted beyond seeing his handsome face, and I have to agree with someone in one of the earlier threads about Hiddleston as a cipher. Hiddleston's performance as Pine wasn't at all subtle yet managed to be bland, IMO. I also think it was poor direction, as Hiddleston never seemed comfortable in the role. With regard to Pine the character, there seemed to be more telling than showing.
Also, it's a good thing that Hiddleston's fight scenes were against considerably smaller men - he was too posh-like for me to believe he could take a full-bodied man down. If this was his "I could be Bond" performance, he's got some work to do. Daniel Craig is a tough act to follow, especially with the physicality.
Laurie was menacing enough, but I also thought that his chemistry with Hiddleston was off. I kept thinking he was on to him the whole time, and that's how Laurie seemed to play it. Yet, Roper went from being grateful for his son's life to making Pine his number two in a matter of weeks or months with absolutely zero effort from Pine, and I was baffled. Incongruity between the writing and performance was the strongest in their scenes. I often felt that Laurie and Hiddleston were given different scripts.
Debicki was good, but I also thought she was miscast. I never bought that Jed was so naive and blind about Roper because Debicki has a keen, intelligent air about her. She was supposed to be vulnerable, yet came across willfully obtuse. In truth, I think she and Natasha Little should have switched roles.
Ultimately, Olivia Colman saved this series for me (with a very honorable mention to Tom Holland). Most of the time, I was invested in her. Beyond the visual feast this series provided, I wasn't particularly interested in what Jonathan was doing.
-
5
-
-
I like Hemsworth. I am not sure that he is a good actor, but it is early days in his career. He is white, male, and handsome as hell. Studios will keep giving him chances at juicy leading roles to see if he can eventually open a movie.
Good point. (Pre-Deadpool) Ryan Reynolds is exhibit A. And Hemsworth is even more handsome (IMO) than Reynolds.
Hollywood generally judges women's sex lives harsher than men's, but I am willing to bet that the real reason that they didn't try to get Kirsten Stewart in this movie was because of the rumors that she was not straight. The rumors were all over when those pictures with Marsh came out. If the studio thought that she was about to be open about her sexuality, it would have decided not to risk having her as lead because her Twilight fans might turn against her and not go see the movie.
I don't know, I thought most of the controversy around Sanders/Stewart was more that she allegedly cheated on Robert Pattinson, and resulting fallout from the Twilight fandom. I've always assumed that if she hadn't been with Pattinson, the scandal may not have been so...scandalous. Maybe they would have just replaced Sanders, and kept it moving. Ah well, we'll never know.
Glad Marsh was clarified, because I wondered what I was missing.
-
I don't Ratatouille at all. Sorry.
I couldn't get past the rat cooking. Nope.
-
1
-
-
A few years back, when Person of Interest was just starting up, then Scandal hit the scene, followed by the Sleepy Hollow announcement, I was excited by black women being cast as leads/co-leads in standard TV drama and sci-fi/fantasy. Around 2013-2014, I pivoted and decided to take a "wait-and-see" approach with any new show/casting news. And by "wait and see," I mean watching several episodes, if not a season, to see how the character and actress are regarded on the show.
I wish there was more indie TV stuff out there, but I try to keep my eyes and ears open. I'm not in the industry, so once I started to understand what it takes to produce a TV show, I became a lot more understanding of why black and other non-white creatives struggle outside of the mainstream. Having access to resources and connections to get your productions on the air is no small feat. Bless those who keep at it, especially black women - I can't imagine the headwinds they face.
-
3
-
-
That's why I feel there is an elephant in the room with Hemsworth - whatever the reason(s), moviegoers don't have much interest in him outside of Marvel. Hollywood seems invested in him, but I'm beginning to wonder if he's eventually gonna go the way of Sam Worthington.
For my part, I think Hemsworth is a good actor (better screen presence than Worthington definitely). Still, I've long thought some of these franchises, Marvel in this context, are gilded cages. If you're only in it for the money, it's all good. If you want to have a varied career? Different ballgame.
-
1
-
-
But, I said, that's like saying "black people don't swim." That's not true, but if you keep saying it, soon even black people will believe it.
Images are important on TV because if they're shown over and over again people will begin to believe them. I mentioned on the board for the show "Alone" that whenever there is some type of outdoors type show, they pick a black person that's the least outdoors-y. I think that's done on purpose. It keeps the stereotype going, "black people don't camp/swim/ski/hike." And if you keep pushing that, some black people will believe that they can't do those things and not bother to try them.
This reminds me of an episode from Oprah's talk show. There was a black park ranger (Yellowstone? Yosemite?) who talked about how he rarely saw black people visiting the park. What I found ironic was a voiceover scene showing...black people walking in the park. I certainly can't dispute what he says if that's his experience. But the framing of it bothered me due to the implication, to me at least, that it was some kind of collective flaw (blacks can't appreciate nature or some such foolishness), rather than lack of exposure, accessibility, or opportunity. Most of the US National Parks are in western states where there's not a significant black population anyway.
I also think that the narrative carried by entertainment/media (and thus widely accepted) for the last 40 or years is that of inner city blacks. That subset has never, and still doesn't, make up the largest population of blacks in the United States. I suspect that's why myths such as "blacks don't swim" (I recall this coming up during a season of The Amazing Race) or "blacks don't hike" were popularized. My Georgia-born, country self never heard these myths until the late 90s or so, when I went to college in Atlanta.
-
6
-
-
I've been catching up on The Mindy Project, and I've actually found the unraveling of the utterly, comprehensively incompatible coupling of Danny and Mindy interesting to watch. I get it's an OTT romantic comedy, but I rarely understand the "let's put two completely different people with widely divergent values and play it for laughs" trope. Anyway, it's a bit of unexpected realism, and I think it's been written well. Also, while I think Chris Messina is a good actor, I think Mindy Kaling holds her own just fine.
Finally: I kind of hate Morgan and Peter. Never found either of them remotely funny.
-
2
-
-
I felt that way about David Bowie. In truth, I just try to avoid most media during these periods. I try not to begrudge others' grief, even though I don't mourn even those artists whose music I thoroughly enjoyed (like Prince).
-
5
-
-
I can certainly get attached to actors in particular roles, but sometimes I'm more invested in a character's journey or the overall storyline of a show, so it sucks when all that gets derailed just because an actor wants to pursue other roles or has a salary dispute with producers.
Agreed.
But then, I'm one who will stick with a show if I'm interested in what's going on vs an individual actor's performance or cast chemistry. I probably care less about the latter than most. I appreciate a cast who elevates material and work well together. However, once my incredulity or annoyance about storytelling reaches critical mass, no matter how good the actors are, I'm out. That's one of the reasons I couldn't get into Game of Thrones - I never got invested in the storytelling and it felt tedious to watch.
-
2
-
-
Yeah, I don't have any problem with Tatum being cast as Gambit. He may turn out to be awful, but it's not one of those times where I'm baffled by the casting. Then again, I thought Taylor Kitsch was a poor choice (and mediocre in general), and plenty of folks liked his Gambit. In truth, Josh Holloway is the only other name I've read about that seemed plausible. Of course, I'm not that invested in Gambit as a character to have strong feelings either way.
I'm watching the end of Dirty Dancing and Patrick Swayze's dancing, while technically good, always makes me laugh. It's so...dramatic...and shoulder-intensive
Hee! As I've gotten older and rewatched the film, Swayze's dancing has become less impressive.
-
The 35 super hero movies opening between now and the end of 2020:
Wow. Talk about saturation.
-
From the Doctor Strange thread:
For me, the situation is a little like casting Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily in Pan. While the original character as written was racially problematic, I don't see casting a white person as rectifying the problem, just avoiding it. Instead of backing away from the issue, making your film less diverse in the process, why not meet challenge of figuring out how to write/perform this Asian character in a way that's three-dimensional and not stereotypical/uncomfortable?
Hat tip to angora for great summation. Some of the discussion on the thread reminded me of something that I've often noticed...
It was probably inevitable, but one of the things I sometimes find disheartening in online racial discourse is the notion that providing multiple sides of an issue is being overly "PC" or "minorities just can't win because they have to represent all things to their people." To me, that's not the point of circumspection. Yes, some opinions can get ridiculous, but that's a possibility with any debate. I've reconsidered my POV on some topics because I read various, sometimes conflicting, perspectives on race and ethnicity on film (and TV). It's not always about one "side" being "right" as much as bringing to light just how much the Anglophilic, Westernized film lens distorts and/or suppresses the narratives of those who don't fit into that scope.
For example, I'm not Japanese, so I found the Twitter thread that Ms Blue Jay linked to about Ghost in the Shell interesting and a perspective I never considered, even while in general agreement about the whitewashing of the film. Also, the link galax-arena provided about racial markings in manga was also enlightening because, again, not a perspective I considered before. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion.
-
4
-
-
This may be too "get off my lawn"-ish, but I don't need extra sensations to get engrossed in a film. During my experience, the seats were shifting and water spraying, and it took me out of watching the film itself (especially since I was wearing glasses at the time). I can understand why the younger set would enjoy it.
-
3
-
-
With so many shows having shorter seasons in the last few years, I wonder if networks are going to rethink their syndication deals, which is where they make most of their money. It would take a decade for a show with 10 episodes per season to make it to the magic 100 number.
I always forget about syndication - good point. I wonder when that model will evolve. How many shows from the last 5 years or so have made it to syndication?
-
I had a 4D theater experience. It was...interesting. It wasn't a major feature film, though, so that might be the key.
-
I totally understand why - Hollywood learned NOTHING from Avatar: The Last Airbender.
-
3
-
-
If the child had been a daughter instead of a son, they probably would have cast a "visibly" mixed girl.
There have been a flurry of shows with black men, and with Women of Light Color. That could skew your perception.
I hadn't thought of it in this way, and perhaps that's the case.
-
Don't know how unpopular it is or even if it is but I needed a place to put it.
A good presitige drama does not need more then five seasons to tell a good story. Almost every fantastic prestige drama I have seen went on a steady decline after season 5.
I believe if the show is getting 22-24 episodes a season, you don't even need five. Three will do.
-
8
-
-
The first one was...mediocre, and not just because of Kristin Stewart. I assume TPTB hoped to capitalize on the Frozen frenzy, not to mention Hemsworth, but too much time has passed from the former, and this film doesn't seem to be targeted to children. On another thread, there was discussion about Hemsworth's career, but I have to wonder what he'll do once Thor is no longer a Marvel chess piece. Not that he'll be hurting for money, but there's an elephant in the room with his films to date.
Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions
in Everything Else TV
I only got through about two seasons of the show, but I'm still stumped as to how the lead (too lazy to look it up) was considered a good actor. But then, it was very reminiscent of the backlash towards the Laurel actress from Arrow, all the while praising the walking block of wood that is Stephen Amell.
I fully acknowledge there are weak female actors, but they commonly work alongside weak male actors, which feels ignored.