or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › What did you wear to go see Snakes On A Plane??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What did you wear to go see Snakes On A Plane?? - Page 3

post #31 of 43
Just because something is low budget does nto mean it will be bad - but it CAN factor in; then again... Bad Taste was low budget!
P.s. Have I mentioned that Air Force One is one of the worst films I have seen?
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by skalogre
Just because something is low budget does nto mean it will be bad - but it CAN factor in
Give me an example... and I guess it depends on what you mean by "bad". I meant "bad" being lacking in a facet of polished higher budget filmmaking. Whether its camerawork, effects, sound, editing, acting, directing, or set/prop/location. Not in the subjective sense that I think you are talking about. I thought that was clear in my post.
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by skalogre
P.s. Have I mentioned that Air Force One is one of the worst films I have seen?


lol, my fave scene is when they start parachuting the personnel to safety and you see the black lady parachuting down with this huge grin on her face.

I never understood why the traitor would reveal himself in the end when all the terrorists were dead so no one could out him. He was home free to go back and hatch a new plot to kill the President, but no, he has to go and shoot William Macy and reveal himself.
post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Give me an example... and I guess it depends on what you mean by "bad". I meant "bad" being lacking in a facet of polished higher budget filmmaking. Whether its camerawork, effects, sound, editing, acting, directing, or set/prop/location. Not in the subjective sense that I think you are talking about. I thought that was clear in my post.

Well, I mean both subjectively and lacking in some other way. I agree though that it is easy to just throw money at something and still have it end up being a collossal POS. Titanic/Last Samurai/AIR FORCE ONE syndrome.
ANy old idiot can throw millions away and you wil still end up with something as shitty as the three shining aforementioned examples. My point is that I cannot think clearly right now and I need to get a drink. Where's me albatross anyway?
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Give me an example... and I guess it depends on what you mean by "bad". I meant "bad" being lacking in a facet of polished higher budget filmmaking. Whether its camerawork, effects, sound, editing, acting, directing, or set/prop/location. Not in the subjective sense that I think you are talking about. I thought that was clear in my post.


You said that low budget movies are "bad" because they are lacking in a facet of polished higher budget filmmaking. Of course they are bad if that is the definition you are using. There is no objective meaning to the word bad. It is a subjective word at its core.
So getting rid of the word bad. There are many low budget movies that are well done, even in a filmmaking aspect. Evil Dead comes to mind. George Romero's movies are well done on a very low budget. Your problem is that you have bought into the hollywood definition of a "bad" movie, which means anything that isn't overproduced and over spent.

Back to the idea of B movies though. The B movie doesn't star well established actors such as Sam Jackson.
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrswitch
You said that low budget movies are "bad" because they are lacking in a facet of polished higher budget filmmaking. Of course they are bad if that is the definition you are using. There is no objective meaning to the word bad. It is a subjective word at its core.So getting rid of the word bad. There are many low budget movies that are well done, even in a filmmaking aspect. Evil Dead comes to mind. George Romero's movies are well done on a very low budget. Your problem is that you have bought into the hollywood definition of a "bad" movie, which means anything that isn't overproduced and over spent.
I haven't "bought into" anything. I probably own more b-movies than anyone on this board. You seem to keep missing my point. B-Movies are made out of NECESSITY, not out of ART. Given the opportunity, Every filmmaker wants to spend more and fill out parts of the story, effects, sound etc. that they think are missing. Both the Evil Dead series and Night/Dawn/Day of the Dead are included. Evil Dead was shot without camera dollys. The cameras were strapped to wheelchairs and rolled around. This wasn't out of CHOICE. As a matter of fact, as i pointed out, Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness both had MUCH higher budgets than Evil Dead. Why blame SoaP for having a modest budget? They worked with what they had, and its not like Samuel L. Jackson got paid $20 million for it or anything. I'm sure he didn't even get his going rates for the movie, ($10 million) since he practically begged to be in it.
Quote:
Back to the idea of B movies though. The B movie doesn't star well established actors such as Sam Jackson.
I would have to disagree with that. Bruce Campbell is a well established actor, so are Christopher Walken, Alec Baldwin, Joe Don Baker, Adrienne Barbeau, Tom Beringer, Micheal Beihn, David Carradine, Micheal Ironside, Bill Paxton, Jamie Lee Curtis, Bo Derek, Parker Posey,Leonard Nimoy/William Shatner, Brigitte Nielsen, Rose McGowan, Christopher Lee, Bela Lugosi, George Lazenby, Donald Pleasance, Clint Howard, John Saxon, Mimi Rogers, Sean Connery, William H. Macy, and many others. You can't tell me that these people (who are established actors with varying degrees of name recognition) have not been in B-movies. In fact, some of them are famous FOR making B-Movies. Christopher Lee in particular has probably made more B-Movies in his life than you've SEEN. And yet, he's also been in some of the largest grossing big budget movies of all time. If you REALLY want to go that route, then Python vs Boa was BARELY a B movie, and neither of the two original movies that spawned it, Python or New Alcatraz are "B-Movies" because they all contain "well established actors" like Dean Cain, Casper Van Dien, Wil Wheaton, and Jenny McCarthy.
post #37 of 43
I, by the way, am not trying to pick a fight with you or anything. I'm just more passionate about movies than most people here are about clothes.

I'm just trying to point out that your definition of a B-movie is ludicrously strict, considering that it would technically exclude movies like Bloodbath at the House of Death and Death Race 2000. Since there were established stars fronting both of those movies.
post #38 of 43
At the time bruce campbell was not a well established actor. And would you actually consider casper van diem, dean cain, jenny mccarthy, and most of the other people on your list as on par with Sam Jackson? I don't think so.


Anyways, I have waisted too much time and effort on this movie that I could have just gone to see it.
post #39 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrswitch
At the time bruce campbell was not a well established actor.
No, but he was AFTER, so does that mean that The Man With The Screaming Brain, Alien Apocalypse, Terminal Invasion, Bubba Ho-Tep, and all the other low budget horror/sci fi movies he's made in the past 5-10 years, are NOT B-movies? According to you, I guess they aren't. According to your belief, if you become an "established actor" none of your movies afterwards, regardless of how much of a low budget cheesefest they are, aren't considered to be "B-Movies". So all of Christopher Lee's movies after The Man With The Golden Gun were not B-Movies. The Howling II: Stirba-Werewolf Bitch was obviously an "A-Feature" in your eyes. Gene Kelly was second billed in Xanadu (though not 'low budget', definitely B movie material)... I can go on for days...
Quote:
And would you actually consider casper van diem, dean cain, jenny mccarthy, and most of the other people on your list as on par with Sam Jackson? I don't think so.
Oh, so it IS Samuel L. Jackson you have a personal vendetta against. I was unaware that you are the arbiter of fame and fortune here. You didn't say anything about being "on par" with anyone else, you just said "well established actors" of whom I have provided a convenient list of MANY well established actors that have starred in B-movies after they were "established", which you have conveniently chosen to dismiss wholesale. So, what determines who gets to make low budget B movies and who doesn't? Be honest, you aren't going to see the movie because you don't like Samuel L. Jackson. It has nothing to do with the fact that you object to the filming or budgeting of the movie. At least thats an answer that I can't dismiss as a logical fallacy. I mean, I know there are plenty of people out there who don't appreciate Samuel L. Jackson. That is fine. But don't give me this smokescreen about the movie not being low budget enough for you to respect it. That I have no sympathy for, and I will sit here and pick it apart relentlessly. Its exactly the same as movie snobs refusing to see PoTC because its not "high art" and doesn't reflect on the values of society or stimulate deep thoughts for your wine and cheese parties. If you don't want to see it, don't see it. But frankly I think your attitude sucks.
Quote:
Anyways, I have waisted too much time and effort on this movie that I could have just gone to see it.
So go see the damn thing, or don't. Download illegally it for all I care. I'm not demanding that you go support the championing of mediocrity with your hard earned dollar or anything. I'm just excited about the possibilities that this method of fan-based movie making bring to the table. And for the first experiment, I think it turned out rather well.
post #40 of 43
Wow... alright you sucked me back in.

BTW i have no beef with sam jackson, I liked him in Do the Right Thing (a well done low budget movie, but in no regards a B-movie) and a time to kill and absolutely hated him in Shaft. But is it possible for him to stop playing the same role? I think you are grasping for straws if you think SoaP is in some way going to broaden the commercial viability of "fan-based" movies. I really don't see how this is much a fan based movie, seeing as how no one had seen the movie prior to its release, hence people were riding the wagon expecting it to be good or "bad" as the producers would like you to think.

Maybe I miss worded my "established actor" phrase, but just how much did Jackson get paid. Without Jackson, and the money to get him on the film, the movie would have been in the shitter and no fratboy or faux movie buff would want to see it. Put Bruce Campbell in a movie, another man who plays the same roll all the time, and see if it gets the same hype as SoaP, but I guarantee it would be a better movie.

I bet everybody reading this thread is like, "Jeeze, these guys are geeks. They really need to get over it." Which is true.
post #41 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrswitch
I really don't see how this is much a fan based movie, seeing as how no one had seen the movie prior to its release, hence people were riding the wagon expecting it to be good or "bad" as the producers would like you to think.
Well then you haven't been following along.... Basically what happened is that this script has been kicking around in Hollywood with only minor revisions since 1992. It was written by David Dalessandro, an administrator at the University of Pittsburgh. It was his first ever movie script. It was denied/turned down/scoffed at/and rejected for nearly 10 years, until MTV/Paramount picked it up for perusal, and thought that it might make a decent straight to video title. It was then sold to New Line and they began shopping the script looking for talent. Josh Friedman, a screenwriter for the project mentioned it on his internet blog, Just after the first wave of b-movie fanboyism, Samuel L. Jackson comes signs on to the project, publicly stating that he's a huge fan of the script, and title. And thats when the fanbase erupts into a frenzy of tribute videos, images cobbled together from other sources, parodies, bootleg merchandise, about a million spin off blogs, songs, and etc. New Line realizing that they have stumbled upon something very special, basically decided to open the filmmaking process up to the fans. Instead of sending cease and desists out on webpages, people creating faux images, posting homemade videos online, songs, and whatnot, (which is standard practice) they encourage it, even sponsoring a series of fan contests through different channels with the prize of having your input into certain aspects of the film. The soundtrack features fan submitted songs - which is why it kind of sucks. In response to a web poll, they did five days of re-shooting after final wrap to include the most popular suggestions from the fanbase in the film. Everyone who has been following the movie since 2005, was basically given the chance at some point to be included in some facet of the film through contests, polling, feedback and grassroots support. As far as I can tell, that would make this the most fan inclusive major release of all time. But maybe you missed it.
Quote:
Maybe I miss worded my "established actor" phrase, but just how much did Jackson get paid. Without Jackson, and the money to get him on the film, the movie would have been in the shitter and no fratboy or faux movie buff would want to see it. Put Bruce Campbell in a movie, another man who plays the same roll all the time, and see if it gets the same hype as SoaP, but I guarantee it would be a better movie. I bet everybody reading this thread is like, "Jeeze, these guys are geeks. They really need to get over it." Which is true.
I'm not sure how much Sam got paid, but for this kind of job, seeing as he wanted to be a part of the project very badly from the moment he heard about it, I'd bet that he recieved much less than his standard $10 million a movie. I'd bet that he worked out a much smaller fee plus a percentage of gross deal, which would be standard for movies with smaller budgets. The internet buzz for the movie started before Samuel L. Jackson was signed with Josh Friedman's film blog. Once Jackson signed on, the faux images and videos started turning up. Who can say whether the movie would have been as anticipated with Bruce Campbell in it, but he doesn't really fit the role, so probably not. The Samuel L. Jackson "character" was perfect for the role of the badass mofo with an attitude that SoaP called for. Its a movie that revels in its own stereotypes, not something to stretch the acting muscles of someone who can't pull off the persona. Bruce Willis would also have been a solid selection, and I bet that the movie would do just as well if he was in it. I guess we'll never know though. And everyone reading (probably not many people anymore) already KNOWS I'm a movie geek. "Getting over it" at this point would be, for me, far too little - too late.
post #42 of 43
Ya know I really didn't pay attention... and I guess what you posted about the script kicking around since 1992 I can respect it a bit more. It is rather interesting that folks posted there own clips and what not. I am gonna have to leave it at that. I'll probably catch the movie on netflix when it comes out.
post #43 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrswitch
I'll probably catch the movie on netflix when it comes out.

Just a word of advice, watch it while drunk with a bunch of rowdy friends.

Much like the Rocky Horror Picture Show, most of the fun is watching it with someone who knows what they are doing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › What did you wear to go see Snakes On A Plane??