Raoul's China Saloon (V5.0) Beta
The Bar Room => The Champagne Cabana => Topic started by: A-Train on February 23, 2013, 12:35:05 AM
-
Not that easy a choice this year.
-
I always wonder - Les Miserable than who? mmmmmmmmmm
-
bkbkbkbkbk
-
Hardy ha, ha, EL!
I have no idea why Silver Linings Playbook is on this list...what were they thinking? Les Mis HAS to win- I can go get hit by a truck now, I have seen the BEST movie ever made!
Life of Pi was pretty damn good too!
-
Don't frighten me like that! Do you know that I have seen them all (and MANY others) and I can't recall a couple of those listed there. bibibibibi NO! I don't go to sleep in the movies, I just put them out of my mind. Les Mis is also my choice.
-
Granny, how was Silver Linings if you've seen it then? Any particular reason it would be right up there to be Oscar material?
I like rom-coms like the rest of us, but seriously??!!
-
Argo is going to win. It's the type of movie academy members like. It reminds them of the type of movies Hollywood used to make all the time before teenagers became their target market. An entertaining, well-done, thriller along the lines of All the President's Men, The Insider, etc. Silver Linings Playbook could sneak in. It's another type of movie that academy members typically like. A romantic comedy with a feel good ending that's just different enough (mental illness, sports, great acting) to set it apart from the usual romantic comedies. Think Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan. If it was up to me Django Unchained would win. It was the best movie I've seen this year by a wide margin. Nothing else came close.
I thought Les Mis was terrible. I had to stop the movie once I realized that every line was going to be sung, about 5 minutes in. I don't mind musicals. I just don't like one's where every line of dialogue is sung.
-
How are people voting Argo? That movie was mere hair and cigarettes compared to Zero Dark Thirty. Life of Pi is too Indian. Amour, I haven't seem, but it's French and scary because old people are old. The Miserable by contrast were jolly and you could sing along. Django was too black, Linings too crazy, and the others I haven't seen. So, toss up between which affects the American Psyche most: presidents, current military hegemony, or fantasy?
Beasts or Zero. Can't decide until I've seem the former, which may be never.
-
Granny, how was Silver Linings if you've seen it then? Any particular reason it would be right up there to be Oscar material?
I like rom-coms like the rest of us, but seriously??!!
I thought that Bradley Cooper played his part very well indeed. Jennifer Lawrence was also good. In my opinion, anyone could have played the parts of Robert De Niro and Jackie weaver. I wasn't bored with it, and ultimately, I believe it came down to Bradley Cooper's acting because he had plenty of scope with his character.
-
I also enjoyed Argo and I thought that Pi was lousy compared to the book.I also don't get the whole 3D thing think it is a gimmick which added nothing to the overall feel of the movie.In Avatar it was ok in Pi it was "de trop" and just gave me a headache
-
How are people voting Argo?
Well, it's about Hollywood coming to the rescue and saving lives. Like voting yourself a Nobel Peace Prize. As opposed to "Zero Dark Thirty" which some think condones torture. Probably an easy decision for many members of the Academy.
I too would vote for "Zero Dark Thirty" followed by "Beasts of the Southern Wild". I thought "Argo" had a great premise, but was a cookie-cutter film.
"Silver Linings Playbook" does not belong on this list, I agree. Yes, Bradley Cooper showed something as an actor that I've never seen from him before. He shed that "pretty boy" demeanor for a convincing, troubled adult. But the movie completely wastes Jacki Weaver and De Niro makes the most out of a pretty silly character.
"Django Unchained" was the most fun to watch and Tarantino should get a Best Screenplay Oscar for just about everything he writes. Chrisoph Waltz is as entertaining as anything on screen, but unfortunately for him, any time D. Day Lewis finishes a project, the other actors might as well just sit back in their chairs, open up a box of JuJu Beans and watch him collect the statue.
Actress: Jennifer Lawrence, "Silver Linings Playbook"
Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, "Les Miserables"
Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones, "Lincoln"
Directors: "Spielberg", "Lincoln".
-
Well, we got it right. "Argo" it is, for better or worse.
-
I thought Argo was good..well..actually, I thought the last fifteen minutes were good, the remainder of the movie was blah...Lincoln was good too, though primarily due to the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, I thought very little of Tarantino's blood'n'gore fest and the feel-good flick with Cooper and Lawrence is just not something I want to watch.
Best Picture...I don't even understand the criteria for choosing it.
-
As they said in the movie "Argo F**k yourself"! To be quite honest, it just confirms the fact that I see things differently from most folk and I would be no good at all on that type of selection panel. Don't get me wrong though, I liked the movie.
-
I'd only seen Life of Pi from that lot, Argo and Django are the only ones I'm interested in seeing
The trouble with those 'worthy' films like Argo/ZeroDark30 etc is it that when you do some research it always turns out that the 'history' is totally wrong
-
The trouble with those 'worthy' films like Argo/ZeroDark30 etc is it that when you do some research it always turns out that the 'history' is totally wrong
I am so tired of this argument. It surfaces EVERY time a movie is released that contains a historical character or event. It's a drama, not a documentary. If you want the facts, read a book. Do you really expect an historical lesson in 90 minutes about anything of importance? Let's just all agree that every movie every made or about to be made, based on actual events, is highly flawed. That would eliminate three-fourths of the useless discussion and get us back to what was actually on the screen.
Besides, as you said yourself, it got you to do some research. If a movie can get us to do that much I'd call it a huge success compared to its errors of fact.
-
The trouble with those 'worthy' films like Argo/ZeroDark30 etc is it that when you do some research it always turns out that the 'history' is totally wrong
I am so tired of this argument. It surfaces EVERY time a movie is released that contains a historical character or event. It's a drama, not a documentary. If you want the facts, read a book. Do you really expect an historical lesson in 90 minutes about anything of importance? Let's just all agree that every movie every made or about to be made, based on actual events, is highly flawed. That would eliminate three-fourths of the useless discussion and get us back to what was actually on the screen.
Besides, as you said yourself, it got you to do some research. If a movie can get us to do that much I'd call it a huge success compared to its errors of fact.
Of course it depends on the subject and so on, but I would argue that film makers do have a responsibility to tell the truth when it is assumed that they are. ZD30 is the perfect of example of the dangers of taking 'artistic liberties'.
In the film they find out where Bin Laden is hiding using information that they gained using torture, this makes a very strong statement about something in real life that has affected people all over the world and it frames this question of whether torture is justified in extreme situations and so on. But the information that helped find OBL didn't come from torture in real life like the film implies, it's getting it's 'kudos' from real crimes that America and Al Qaieda committed against innocent people and then making up a bunch of stuff about it
-
I understand the dangers, but they of viewers' naivete, laziness and/or stupidity not of the movie. It's like believing every post you see on the internet. Yes, if the movie's producers sell it as fact, they have a responsibility to be true to their word, but it seems to be always "based on actual events". It's up to us to suss out the truth.
I used to get upset about factual errors too, but I think I can trace my change of heart to the movie "JFK". It was filled with errors of fact and intent, (and the passage of time has proved it to be even more inaccurate), yet it remains one of my favorite movies of all time and I highly recommend it.
On the other hand, the movie "United 95" purports to be factual and lives up to that as far as it can. But even there it depicts moments on the plane that no one could know happened, but these moments fit in with the facts that we do have and the viewer believe them, not believe them or just watch and react. Directors are artists not historians.
-
Film producers have absolutely no duty or responsibility to tell the truth, which is why movies like "Argo" begins with the phrase "Based on real events", not the phrase "A trtuhful, factually correct movie version of real events". If people want to learn the real facts, they can read the book the movie is based on but for movies it is all about one thing...bums in seats and for that one has to play to what the audience wants. agagagagag agagagagag
-
It is kind of sad that Argo Americanized the real story. llllllllll llllllllll The Canadian Ambassador who was in Iran is quite upset about the movie and how it changed what really happened. asasasasas asasasasas llllllllll
-
Reading history written by the winners to get the truth eh?
-
Reading history written by the winners to get the truth eh?
Definition of History: "A lie, agreed upon".
-
"A lie, agreed upon".
That may just be the definition of the truth.
-
It is kind of sad that Argo Americanized the real story. llllllllll llllllllll The Canadian Ambassador who was in Iran is quite upset about the movie and how it changed what really happened. asasasasas asasasasas llllllllll
New Zealand is so angry about the misrepresentation of its role in the saga that it is considering taking legal action.
-
The hair care company, "Just For Men" has also filed suit.
-
I've heard of 3 of those and seen none. agagagagag
-
I've heard of 3 of those and seen none. agagagagag
Any books you haven't read?
-
Argo HAHAHA
Just another reason why some people have trouble with (REAL) history. They learn it from television and movies. bibibibibi
As a side note, I went to parochial school. When the hit "Jesus Christ: Superstar" came out, we asked one priest what he thought of it. He replied that it was an excellent musical and he loved it. Too bad it wasn't true. Based on a real story, but missed the mark. Argo does the same
The g/f loved Les Miz. She was also shocked when I gave her a rundown on who the principals were. Also about half the 30-odd spectators vacated the theatre in the first half hour
-
I just heard this on Q107 (a Toronto Rock Station)
Ben Afflict (sp?) is going to make 2 more movies; the first will be a recreation ot the 1972 Summit Series where the United States beats Russia 8-0 in all eight games. The other movie is the Miracle on Ice where the United States beats Canada 10-0 for the Stanley Cup
mmmmmmmmmm
-
I just heard this on Q107 (a Toronto Rock Station)
Ben Afflict (sp?) is going to make 2 more movies; the first will be a recreation ot the 1972 Summit Series where the United States beats Russia 8-0 in all eight games. The other movie is the Miracle on Ice where the United States beats Canada 10-0 for the Stanley Cup
mmmmmmmmmm
What crap! Everybody knows Russia beat the U.S. by a field goal in game seven of the world series that year.
-
Hollywood should award an Oscar for 'The Film that Distorts History the Most.' I think that there comes a point when a claim for 'creative licence' can no longer justify distortions of reality.
Anyway, a lot of New Zealanders are not happy with the crap shovelled out in Argo.
NZ survivor of hostage crisis breaks silence over Kiwi heroism in Tehran
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10871725
-
What about movies like Titanic or Goodfellows? Do the stories in these movies bother people because they are inaccurate?
-
Actually, lots of people were upset about the historical accurasies in those movies. Not me, because I can read, which means I can understand the phrase "based on real events" that precedes all historical movies. No movie, nor book, can ever present any events as they truly happened, because retelling or reporting any past event will be effected or coloured by the narrator's own interpretation. I have two books in front of me right now, a bigography of Andrew Carnegie and Andrew Carnegie's Autobiography and even though these two books aim to tell me the same story, the general impression of the subject, Andrew Carnegie, are rather different in view point and assessment. Movies are entertainment. If one wants to understand history, history books are usually the preferred medium and even those will contradict each other. Two books on my shelf each deal with Frcanco and Vancetti, one portrays them as scape-goats and one as dyed-in-the-wool super-anarchists. They both make convincing points. To figure out the truth, I would have to summon the ghosts of the two chaps and who knows if they would be truthful? Hollywood produces illusions, make-believe, fiction. That is all.
-
^ based on real events
-
What about movies like Titanic or Goodfellows? Do the stories in these movies bother people because they are inaccurate?
Anybody who believes these, or any other movie, are more than 50% accurate probably has not yet gotten over the letdown over Santa Clause.
-
Movies have to be true to *something*. Otherwise they're just sound and colour on a screen. If they spend too much time misrepresenting just *what* they are true to, the audience is entitled to be annoyed.
-
For me the problem isn't with the people who watch the movies and have a poor understanding of history because like people have said, they can easily check up on it if they are interested. For me the problem is that it f*cks over the subjects of the movie who were involved in the real events and to see what happened changed or omitted just for the sake of entertainment
-
Movies have to be true to *something*. Otherwise they're just sound and colour on a screen. If they spend too much time misrepresenting just *what* they are true to, the audience is entitled to be annoyed.
May I then inquire as to what "The Expendables", "Die Hard", "Star Wars" and "Madagascar" are true to, aside from the idea that we, the audience, likes to see things getting blown up and animated talking animals whilst munching popcorn?
-
That's a weird question from a fiction aficionado, Eric. At minimum they are true to their premise. If their premise includes untrue things, such as talking animals blowing up popcorn, this is entirely fine. If their premise includes--or is made to include by, say, advertising--a fudging of frames of reference, then the audience is being screwed with. If the actual frame of reference is "entertaining melodrama with moustaches" but the film makers are also attempt to appropriate gravitas and thus more "drama" by pretending to another frame, "actual history", then something is amiss. It's a cheat.
-
Well, they don't pretend to give us actual history. When I sit down to read E.L.Doctorow's "Ragtime" which is a historical novel in which the reader is a secret observer of conversations between J.D.Rockefeller and J.P.Morgan, I do not believe I am actually reading the real thing. The premise of "Lincoln" was to show the audience one take on the life and personality of Lincoln. 'Argo" had the premist of showing us one take on how that situation was dealt with. Anyone who reads, watches or is exposed to one opinion and takes that as either the truth or gospel, is kidding themselves. To me, there is no difference between watching "Winnie the Pooh" or "Lincoln". Both are entertaining, that's it. I don't think either of them attempt to present me with the truth, all they present me with is an interesting narrative.
-
Movies have to be true to *something*. Otherwise they're just sound and colour on a screen. If they spend too much time misrepresenting just *what* they are true to, the audience is entitled to be annoyed.
We're always entitled to be annoyed. I exercise that entitlement routinely. For me, if it's true to human experience and true to itself,that's enough for a start. But I also like to see sh!t get blown up.
-
Well, they don't pretend to give us actual history.
They did too. The hair, the clothes, the cigarettes, the music, the names of the people, the fact that it's "based on" a genuine incident.
"Based on" is fine when it's used by the creators to tell some story of their own. Every story is "based on" in this sense.
But...
The premise of "Lincoln" was to show the audience one take on the life and personality of Lincoln. 'Argo" had the premist of showing us one take on how that situation was dealt with.
If it's a take on history, then the frame of reference is history. If instead of a take on real events, they were developing something more universal, for example, say, the enduring appeal of sideburns, then there's room for the audience to let broader historical inaccuracy slide, provided the sideburns were accurate enough to the platonic ideal. But planting the story firmly in "history" means inaccuracies are untruths.
-
Well, they don't pretend to give us actual history. When I sit down to read E.L.Doctorow's "Ragtime" which is a historical novel in which the reader is a secret observer of conversations between J.D.Rockefeller and J.P.Morgan, I do not believe I am actually reading the real thing. The premise of "Lincoln" was to show the audience one take on the life and personality of Lincoln. 'Argo" had the premist of showing us one take on how that situation was dealt with. Anyone who reads, watches or is exposed to one opinion and takes that as either the truth or gospel, is kidding themselves. To me, there is no difference between watching "Winnie the Pooh" or "Lincoln". Both are entertaining, that's it. I don't think either of them attempt to present me with the truth, all they present me with is an interesting narrative.
Historical films get a lot of their cache from their connection with reality as well. A lot of people went to see Lincoln because of the importance of the person from history. If it had just been the last few months of some fictional historical US president who invaded Russia or something it would be a totally different thing.
-
Not sure why an attempt to set the record straight about an incident in the movie Argo has resulted in contributions from American Film 101.
For the record - I know it is a movie, I know movies are not real, and I know that Santa Clausecomes only once a year.
For those who think Rambo and the US Army won WW2 here is another article on the issue:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/8424975/NZ-diplomats-heroic-Argo-escapee
-
In that case, the only movies Hollywood should make are really long-winded, stuffy, tweed-dripping documentaries, action-packed nonsense like "The Expendables", barftastic rom-coms and superhero-movies. All I can say is that I, me, the person, firmly accepts that any movie set in any historical period will, through costumes and speech, try to make it feel as real as possible whilst telling me a story. A movie is like a magic trick, an illusion, I don't want to see the magician stuff the pigeon up his sleeve, I want to go 'wah' when it flies out. Illusion and wonder, that is all. Movies, like books, have the leeway of poetic license. One of the reasons I don't watch reality shows is because reality is boring, fiction is entertaining.
-
In that case, the only movies Hollywood should make are really long-winded, stuffy, tweed-dripping documentaries, action-packed nonsense like "The Expendables", barftastic rom-coms and superhero-movies. All I can say is that I, me, the person, firmly accepts that any movie set in any historical period will, through costumes and speech, try to make it feel as real as possible whilst telling me a story. A movie is like a magic trick, an illusion, I don't want to see the magician stuff the pigeon up his sleeve, I want to go 'wah' when it flies out. Illusion and wonder, that is all. Movies, like books, have the leeway of poetic license. One of the reasons I don't watch reality shows is because reality is boring, fiction is entertaining.
Reality shows aren't reality, they are edited and played with just as much as movies!
This debate/discussion does seem to have quite a few people arguing with cross porpoises...
Another thing I wanted to add was that movies about things that really happened tend to be more interesting and successful the closer they stick to the facts
Argo and Zero Dark Thirty both did well on release but they have lost a lot of their cache since the backlash against the facts that a lot of what was in the story was true. I would bet that any of Werner Herzog's documentaries will be around longer even though they deal with much smaller stories just because his stories are actually true and the ambivalence is left in.
-
Yes, Kitano, reality shows are fiction...yet, they, by the nature of their title, make professions of realness which no movie ever does.
Undoubtedly, Herzog's documentaries will be, to some, more important than movies. However, may I ask, have you ever watched "Casablanca", "Cleopatra", "Citizen Kane" and other classics? How many informative, educational movies from same periods have you watched? I have watchen none.
Movies that tend to stick close to what really happened tend to be more interesting? Ok...and who tells you what really happened? Historians? There is not a single historical event about which there will not be 1000 historians all writing huge tomes each with their own interpretation of what really happened.
-
The thing about Argo was they left in the gigantic elephant in the room: all the people they weren't saving. If this really were some heroic entertainment adventure "based on, but not really" story of no actual import beyond an Oscar or two, they missed a significant opportunity to actually tell a story. As far as I recall none of the characters had any conflict over "the others". Even in the real life story there must have been some question over that.
-
Well I don't think that they made many documentaries in those days did they? The factual programs were just newsreels they played before movies...
-
Personally the only thing that really pisses me off is that there are so many people who will watch a movie based on a true story and then think that this is factual.
For example: Hollywood is to blame for the pirate stereotypes of the captain always with an eyepatch, a peg leg and a parrot on his shoulder. As well as the Vikings with horns on their helmets. A great number of people weren't even born or were too young during the Canadian Caper. Unfortuneately, their knowledge was limited and they'll beleive the movie to be true. Look at all the misconceptions about the Bible thanks to "The Ten Commandments". Sure, some things are true, some tru-ish and some just bold face lies. Shakespear did it. Sadly its hard to undo that damage amongst the masses.
Afterall, the general public are idiots, generally speaking
-
Hmm...though I fully agree with the previous poster, it should be added that the peg-legged parrot-equipped pirate sprang from the mind of R.L.Stevenson.
I like Hollywood movies, everytime I watch one dealing with historical events, I run to my computer and end up buying books just to figure out it how many ways Hollywood has tried to dupe me. Inaccurate historical movies makes me seek information, which is a good thing agagagagag agagagagag
-
If it turns out, as you crazy kids seem to be suggesting, that narrative is ultimately founded on nothing at all, then I for one shall be burning a book or two.
-
But planting the story firmly in "history" means inaccuracies are untruths.
Yes, of course. But, if the movie aspires to be art, then the untruths can give us more meaning than the rote details might. Do Picasso's paintings look like real people? Monet's? Granted, most movies don't reach for that air, but the ones that do can be excused for getting some data incorrect. If you want history...read history.
A lot of New Jersey politicians are angry because the move "Lincoln" got their vote backwards on the anti-slavery amendment. Fine, that should have been done correctly. But to let that minutia color the movie in the face of D.Day Lewis' portrayal is like condemning the Sistine chapel for misspelling the exit sign.
-
The comments about History being related to who is telling the story is very true.
For example: Canada is a bilingual country. English and French.
English Canadian history teaches that Louis Riel was a rebel and traitor. French Canadian history teaches he was a hero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel The truth lies between the two. llllllllll
Most educated people can discern that a movie is for the entertainment of the masses and deviates from the truth when it makes the movie 'entertaining'. However, as said above about movies, the general public tend to believe that a movie is 100% true. This is where the sin in movies belongs. llllllllll llllllllll llllllllll
-
The comments about History being related to who is telling the story is very true.
For example: Canada is a bilingual country. English and French.
English Canadian history teaches that Louis Riel was a rebel and traitor. French Canadian history teaches he was a hero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel The truth lies between the two. llllllllll
Palestinian militants are called terrorists. Israeli militants are called commandos.
~ George Carlin
-
Education not media is the issue.
-
Stil is right. Realizing that you are watching a fictional account of real events and, more importantly, being able to recognize fact from fiction is about education. People who complain about historical inaccuracies in movies really should take a look at previous classics. Do you complain about inaccuracies in "Cleopatra"? How about "Tombstone"? I love that Western, however, I also read several books about the era and the people in it. Doc Holiday was not as cool and suave in life as he is portrayed by Val Kilmer, nor was he a faster-than-his-own-shadow quick draw. No, according to contemporary sources, he was drunk off his gourd most times. His gunfighter reputation stems from the fact that he had no qualms about drawing his gun and shooting at people which was actually not as common as one might think. Knowing this, I still enjoy "Tombstone" because I am not watching a true representation of Holiday or Earp or even the events surrounding the O.K.Corral, I am watching a romantized version.
Narrative is not based on nothing, it is based on theme, character, political issues, symbolism, entertainment value but not historical correctness. Did you watch "300"? I did and found it highly entertaining, albeit I know that the Spartans did not go to war wearing leather speedos and Xerxes, by all accounts, did not employ mutants to decapitate his failed generals. Let us look at "Argo" and what the narrative presents us with: a patriotic story of a flawed, semi-broken man who works for the CIA, an agency whose very remit and actions are shrouded in secrecy and which a large part of the population looks upon with distrust. This man, along with Hollywood, risks life and limb to save innocent Americans hiding in a civil-uprising torn Middle Eastern country where the people, notice their nationality, are eager to string these poor, scared Americans up by the nearest lamp-post. Overcoming all odds, doing the impossible, our intrepid hero saves the hostages, returns home, ends up in the suburban house of the wife who greets him as a hero triumphant and what is his reward? A parade? A huge ceremony? No, he gets to read his son a goodnight story. A hero unsung, whose act of bravery gives him a secret medal and peace of mind. Then, we can leave the theatre feeling good about the government, somewhat ambivalent about our feelings about the CIA and wonder how many unacknowledged heroes are walking around us. Que Souza music. Then we can, if we want to, explore what was missing in the movie, what it exaggerated and what it did not.
Did you ever watch "Braveheart"? A movie so riddled with historical inaccuracies it would make anyone with a faint knowledge of British and Scottish history snigger but, from a narratological point of view, a great story about public defiance at unjust laws, of the power of the ordinary people, of sacrificing all, even your life, for ideals, for making rhe world a better, nicer, more just and equal place. That, as I see it, is what any good narrative does. It does not aim to present us with dry, academic facts, those we should be enlightened enough to seek out ourselves.
-
People look at Hollywood movies and they'd be naive in the extreme if they came away with the idea Americans where an unusually handsome bunch, often hairless and large breasted, fairly well immune to gunshot shock too, and often successful in their endeavors. Frankly it's astounding that people do even still think of Americans as a mostly two legged race. After all, it's only movies.
-
The more I think on this, the weirder it gets. "It's just movies" is an unnecessary cynicism and the baby goes out with the bathwater even if it does have two legs. I'll assert that every judgement ever made about any media property at all really does boil down eventually to, dangit, that just does/doesn't reflect the world! Strip *all* reflection out of media and it isn't even communication any more. So misrepresenting the kind of reflection your media property does is lying.
Repeat after me: Two legs good!
-
I don't think we will ever have to worry about a Chinese movie winning best picture. After grossing 1.26 billion RMB Lost in Thailand (beating out Avatar as China's highest grossing picture) it manages to gross a paltry $57,000 in US theaters.
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_15811/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=zTDSXkvT (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_15811/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=zTDSXkvT)
But thenChina has also had some bad luck with movies for the domestic audience too. Movies portraying China's communist hero Li Feng had it's showing cancelled, on Li Feng Day no less, because nobody showed up for the premier.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chinese-cinemas-cancel-propaganda-film-426236?utm_source=Sinocism+Newsletter&utm_campaign=34a0eba515-Sinocism03_07_13&utm_medium=email (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chinese-cinemas-cancel-propaganda-film-426236?utm_source=Sinocism+Newsletter&utm_campaign=34a0eba515-Sinocism03_07_13&utm_medium=email)
In 2011 there was the release of the movie The Founding of a Party internationally known as Beginning of the Great Revival released in conjunction with the CPC's 90th Anniversary.
http://shanghaiist.com/2011/06/28/empty_theaters_and_disabled_ratings.php (http://shanghaiist.com/2011/06/28/empty_theaters_and_disabled_ratings.php)
Before even hitting theaters, authorities announced a box office goal of 1 billion yuan. In order to reach that number, they have employed all manner of tactics, including but not limited to: pre-selling-out theaters for the debut week; mandatory attendance by businesses, schools, and government employees; voluntary field trips (something like "okay, if you don't want the day off work, that's up to you"); the release of the film in IMAX, and removal of Kung Fu Panda from many 3D, IMAX, and regular screens, and even reducing ticket prices of competing movies to lower profits; the pushing back of other foreign summer blockbusters such as Transformers 3 and Harry Potter in order to reduce competition.
-
Maybe they can redo the 1937 movie "The Good Earth"
-
My wife has become a weibo friend of one of the actors in the CCTV show I had a bit part.
It seems he is an Army actor, but by his own admission, he hates any movie or TV show made in China, says they all are bqbqbqbqbq, with crappy themes, silly story lines, every script needs to be ok'd by government censors before production, followed word for word during filming (no ad-libs)and :lickass: producers who treat government watchdogs as royalty. Says that during his off time, he only watches Western television and movies on toudo and youko.