Author Topic: Resurrecting the Movies thread...  (Read 405112 times)

Offline MaineWriter

  • Bettermost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,042
  • Stay the course...
    • Bristlecone Pine Press
Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
« Reply #350 on: October 31, 2007, 12:38:07 pm »
I read that, too. I think the answer is that this particular movie is being marketed incorrectly. I almost went to it on Sunday, though even then I really didn't know what it's about.
I don't know what it's about, either. My children (ages 19 and 16) saw it and couldn't tell me what it was about! LOL

Quote
Serious adult movies, IMO, are still in too short supply. I think the problem financially is that serious adults rarely see a movie more than once or twice (BBM aside  ;D), whereas kids are more likely to see movies several times.

True. But we do rush out and buy the DVDs!

Quote
Oh yeah, the bad guy. I was wondering about that, too, and for some reason I'd forgotten all about the bad guy. I think Ryan Gosling, talented though he is, seems too sympathetic an actor to play a guy that evil. Even Mark Wahlberg might not be abhorrent enough. I was thinking the cop.

I haven't read the book but apparently he plays "the father" of (I think) the girl who is murdered. There was some thought that Ryan Gosling wouldn't look old enough to play the father which is why he gained weight and grew a beard but Peter Jackson didn't like the beard and weight. Probably Wahlberg is more age appropriate, in general.

L


Taming Groomzilla<-- support equality for same-sex marriage in Maine by clicking this link!

Offline notBastet

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,276
  • no way out but through
Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
« Reply #351 on: October 31, 2007, 12:45:05 pm »
I haven't read the book but apparently he plays "the father" of (I think) the girl who is murdered. There was some thought that Ryan Gosling wouldn't look old enough to play the father which is why he gained weight and grew a beard but Peter Jackson didn't like the beard and weight. Probably Wahlberg is more age appropriate, in general.

Hmmnnn.  I don't really remember the role of a cop, but I think I can (sort of) remember a role for the father.  But I do think you're right about Wahlberg being more age appropriate... on the other hand - sometimes make up can do a lot for age-appropriateness (thinking of older Jack/Ennis Jake/Heath), but I guess for an entire movie of this genre you'd rather not have to make someone look older...

(maybe I'll like the movie since I don't seem to remember much about the book!  I went to see The English Patient right after I finished reading the novel, as in same day.  Was completely unimpressed with the movie at that juncture... though I did eventually come to appreciate the movie on its own accord.)
“It can be a little distressing to have to overintellectualize yourself” - Heath Ledger

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,705
Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
« Reply #352 on: October 31, 2007, 01:44:48 pm »
I haven't read the book but apparently he plays "the father" of (I think) the girl who is murdered. There was some thought that Ryan Gosling wouldn't look old enough to play the father which is why he gained weight and grew a beard but Peter Jackson didn't like the beard and weight. Probably Wahlberg is more age appropriate, in general.

Ryan Gosling, according to imdb, is 27, so it is a stretch to see him as father of a 15-year-old. It makes more sense to cast someone closer in age.

Then again, Heath Ledger at 24 convincingly played the father of a 19-year-old, even without the beard and weight!

Offline MaineWriter

  • Bettermost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,042
  • Stay the course...
    • Bristlecone Pine Press
Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
« Reply #353 on: October 31, 2007, 01:56:20 pm »

Then again, Heath Ledger at 24 convincingly played the father of a 19-year-old, even without the beard and weight!

Yes. Another one that comes to mind is Anne Bancroft in "The Graduate." She and Dustin Hoffman were less than 6 years apart in age but look how much older her character was supposed to be, compared to Benjamin Braddock.

L
Taming Groomzilla<-- support equality for same-sex marriage in Maine by clicking this link!

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,705
Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
« Reply #354 on: October 31, 2007, 02:33:50 pm »
Right! It probably didn't hurt that Dustin Hoffman was 30. At 36, Ann Bancroft's age was probably closer to her character's than his was (Benjamin Braddock would be about 22, right? And Mrs. Robinson, mother of a girl still in college, who told Ben she "had" to get married, could plausibly have been under 40).

BTW, in fact-checking this on imdb, I noticed that Dustin Hoffman appeared on an episode of "The Match Game" in 1968!!




Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
« Reply #355 on: October 31, 2007, 07:24:49 pm »
I think the problem financially is that serious adults rarely see a movie more than once or twice (BBM aside  ;D), whereas kids are more likely to see movies several times.

 ??? ??? ???

So if I like a movie so much I'll take every friend I have to go see it, I"m not a serious adult?

Last, I saw, I have a full time job that I treat as important, I still vote, pay my taxes and involve myself in enviro-socio-political issues but I'm not a serious adult because I like to watch a movie more than twice?

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,705
Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
« Reply #356 on: October 31, 2007, 07:56:55 pm »
??? ??? ???

So if I like a movie so much I'll take every friend I have to go see it, I"m not a serious adult?

Last, I saw, I have a full time job that I treat as important, I still vote, pay my taxes and involve myself in enviro-socio-political issues but I'm not a serious adult because I like to watch a movie more than twice?

I hope you're teasing, Del. Obviously I didn't mean that no serious adult on the face of the earth ever sees a movie more than twice. I meant in general, compared to kids.


Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
« Reply #357 on: October 31, 2007, 08:36:16 pm »
I hope you're teasing, Del. Obviously I didn't mean that no serious adult on the face of the earth ever sees a movie more than twice. I meant in general, compared to kids.



Heh, I know lots of serious adults who see movies more than once.  They're usually fans of a series - Harry Potter any one? - so I think in genera' is not so much a true statement any more.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,705
Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
« Reply #358 on: October 31, 2007, 10:24:46 pm »
Heh, I know lots of serious adults who see movies more than once.  They're usually fans of a series - Harry Potter any one? - so I think in genera' is not so much a true statement any more.

I don't know any adults who see movies more than once or, rarely, twice. My kids, now older, limit most viewings to three or four times, but used to watch the same movies 15 times. But obviously both your and my experiences are anecdotal, and I don't have any hard data readily available, nor am I willing to scour the web for statistics. So I'll admit my earlier statement was my impression based on observation and things I've read in the past, not on recent extensive research.

And to clarify my earlier statement, the phrase "serious adults" in the sentence "... serious adults rarely see movies more than once or twice ..." stemmed from the fact that we were talking about "serious adult movies" (movies like Michael Clayton, apparently, as opposed to Harry Potter). It wasn't a judgment of gravitas, not did it imply anything about the employment history, political involvement, etc., of specific moviegoers.





Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Resurrecting the Movies thread...
« Reply #359 on: November 01, 2007, 12:58:02 am »
I don't know any adults who see movies more than once or, rarely, twice. My kids, now older, limit most viewings to three or four times, but used to watch the same movies 15 times. But obviously both your and my experiences are anecdotal, and I don't have any hard data readily available, nor am I willing to scour the web for statistics. So I'll admit my earlier statement was my impression based on observation and things I've read in the past, not on recent extensive research.

Is multiple viewings something that would normally come up in a conversation?  It's not something people normally talk about at work or at most places people gather.  But it's a lot more common than one would think.  Take a poll on this board.  How many have seen BBM more than once?  How many told their friends/family each and every time they went to go see it?  I'm willing to bet - not many.  That's likely one reason why we're here.  We've found someone else with whom we can talk about this movie and our fandom worship of it without fear of being thought of as wierd.

So I'm quite sure that happens with other movies as well.

After all, people buy DVDs in droves.  Why do they if they're not going to watch them again?

Why do people buy CDs or books?  Why listen to a CD or read a book more than once? 

Ask someone if they've seen a certain Xmas movie more than once.  You'll find people who've watched the same Xmas movies every single year since they were kids.

[shrug]

Quote
And to clarify my earlier statement, the phrase "serious adults" in the sentence "... serious adults rarely see movies more than once or twice ..." stemmed from the fact that we were talking about "serious adult movies" (movies like Michael Clayton, apparently, as opposed to Harry Potter). It wasn't a judgment of gravitas, not did it imply anything about the employment history, political involvement, etc., of specific moviegoers.

I was thinking perhaps you might have meant "Adults rarely see serious movies more than once."

But I don't know what you meant, I can only read what you put down.