Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

[TV] August Television Discussion


PetrolCB

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Brian Fowler said:

How in the blue hell is "Space Man From Pluto" less genre than... basically anything ever?

Well....Back to the Future implies the plot will actually involve the future. Space Man from Pluto can be literal or it can be like Encino Man.

Basically, what I'm saying is you need a shitload of cocaine to understand this. Anyone wanna get high?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, zev said:

So now what memo led to Pluto Nash?

It was a series of memos.  We don't have the full text, just the headers:

 

Quote

RE: Money; We have too much of it?


Re: Eddie Murphy: Keeps calling me.


RE: I think I have an idea.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Based on Eddie's lone podcast appearance, I like the idea that he throws parties to celebrate the anniversaries of Meet Dave, Pluto Nash, and Vampire in Brooklyn. 

Eddie's perspective reminds me of what Michael Caine said about Jaws 4: "I've never seen it. By all accounts it's terrible. However, I have seen the house it built me, and it's terrific." 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Based on Eddie's lone podcast appearance, I like the idea that he throws parties to celebrate the anniversaries of Meet Dave, Pluto Nash, and Vampire in Brooklyn. 

I want to go to the bash he throws for The Golden Child.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I always got a bit annoyed at Eddie Murphy for some of the choices he made.

The man is extraordinarily talented. You want evidence? Watch Beverly Hills Cop or Trading Places,  It's stunning how charismatic and amazing he is. But he kinda squandered that talent and his gifts.  

I get his argument: "Eh, they just kept offering me money, so I had to accept all those crappy films!"  But it's like, dude, you're Eddie frigging Murphy. You can be picky about your roles and still make shit loads of money. 

Is there any real difference between a $10 million paycheck (for a shit film) or a $5 million dollar  paycheck (for a decent film with a good script)? You're still incredibly rich, either way.

Maybe an extra yacht, I guess. But I'm sorry: Norbit was not worth an extra yacht.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2016 at 6:11 AM, J.T. said:

Hitchcock suckers you into feeling compassion for Norman Bates, but he is far from innocent and he's always known that he's fucking crackers.  He's the one that murders his mother and her lover in a jealous rage and Norman is the one who absorbs her persona in order to absolve himself of the guilt of his act caused by his Oedipal desires. 

At some point in the timeline of the movie and the novel. Norman must've been keenly aware of his deteriorating mental state, but he is also completely lacking in empathy so he doesn't really care that he's a sociopath.  I think that the television show does a pretty good job of telling that part of his story.

IMO, the reason his mother's persona is so abusive and eventually gains dominance in the movie and in the novel is because Norman continues to punish himself for the homicide.  Think about it.  We as readers of the novel and the audience of the movie have always assumed that Norman's mother was domineering woman is because that is how Norman portrayed her when he slipped into "her" identity. 

"We" have no idea what she was really like (ie. how Robert Bloch might have envisioned her), but we know what she might've been like thanks to Bates Motel.

I don't think that one is sicker than the other.  Bates Motel just seems more disturbing because you have a lot more information to work with.  When we are introduced to Norman in medias res in the movie, he's already experienced all of the trauma that pushed him over the edge.

My own interpretation:

The book and the movie are about a man who is delusional.

The TV show is about a man who is willfully delusional.

That's why Norman in Bates Motel is worse. Because, on some level, he does know.  But he's choosing to do it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reed said:

Eh, I always got a bit annoyed at Eddie Murphy for some of the choices he made.

The man is extraordinarily talented. You want evidence? Watch Beverly Hills Cop or Trading Places,  It's stunning how charismatic and amazing he is. But he kinda squandered that talent and his gifts.  

I get his argument: "Eh, they just kept offering me money, so I had to accept all those crappy films!"  But it's like, dude, you're Eddie frigging Murphy. You can be picky about your roles and still make shit loads of money. 

Is there any real difference between a $10 million paycheck (for a shit film) or a $5 million dollar  paycheck (for a decent film with a good script)? You're still incredibly rich, either way.

Maybe an extra yacht, I guess. But I'm sorry: Norbit was not worth an extra yacht.  

You're assuming it's an either/or argument. Unless you have the figures for the movies that people love and all the ones he turned down over a thirty year career that went onto be critically acclaimed, then that's a weird argument.

How many black leading men were there in the mid 80s and early 90s? Denzel didn't really get going until like midway through the 90s as a true leading man. Eddie was a young kid from Brooklyn who was thrown into the deep end (on both the TV and movie side) and made it work critically because he was extremely talented. He always figured that he would be able to go back to standup at any moment. Plus, when you have a machine like Paramount and Simpson/Bruckheimer as well as Joel Silver and Lawrence Gordon behind you, you have no choice but to succeed anyway. That's four mega producers off the top of my head. However, it's incredibly naive to believe that's going to last forever. Every actor has done shit movies unless you're like John Cazale and die before you can do one. When you realize that ship is going down and that those people have no desire to work with you anymore (or vice versa), you're not necessarily looking for something to right the ship. You're looking to pad your bank account just in case that ship takes you as well.

Moreover, based on Eddie's comments and what others have said about him, he has been incredibly desensitized to that to idea that every movie defines him in that way and the criticism that comes with that. At some point, he went from funny latchkey kid from Brooklyn to one of the five most successful black actors at the box office (because Vin Diesel refuses to say he is black and we don't get credit for Clark Gable either) and one of the most successful actors ever. Yeah, he is an extremely guarded person (who chooses to avoid criticism like a plague) who doesn't make the best career choices. However, that's like most of the people in the entertainment industry that were and are that successful. In his mind though, that success (whether it was financially, critically, or putting on a bunch of comedians that would go on to be really successful too) is his legacy as well as inspiring a bunch of comedians after him. Either way, that's pretty fucking good considering all the Pryor, Cosby, and Carlin clones that came up before, during, and after his time that didn't even get close to doing something relevant or being that influential. We're still talking about his movies ten, twenty, and thirty years after the fact. Delirious and Raw ain't going anywhere either. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Either way, that's pretty fucking good considering all the Pryor, Cosby, and Carlin clones that came up before, during, and after his time that didn't even get close to doing something relevant or being that influential. 

 

Of course Eddie was better than them. All along. They were great comedians. But he was a great comedian and a superb actor.

But the point is: He could have been a lot better than them, when all was said and done. . 

Quote

We're still talking about his movies ten, twenty, and thirty years after the fact. Delirious and Raw ain't going anywhere either. 

But we mostly talk about how shit his movie choices were. 

Eddie sold out his talent. I'm sorry, he just did.  How can anyone deny such a thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Reed said:

 

 

Of course Eddie was better than them. All along. They were great comedians. But he was a great comedian and a superb actor.

But the point is: He could have been a lot better than them, when all was said and done. . 

Based on your opinion. Dude, you said a yacht wasn't worth it as someone who I am safely assuming never owned a yacht. At that point, I'm not taking anything you say very seriously. It's safe for you to have that opinion because it's not your money.

Shit, people were shitting on Matthew McConaughey for years. Years. He had a brief run recently where everything he did was a hit and won an Oscar. Now, he is having a tough stretch where nothing is working it seems. Free State of Jones was every bit of awful as you would expect. But for me to say he squandered his talent because he did a bunch of terrible movies and say he sold out because he is doing awful car commercials is ridiculous. He is still one of the top actors out there. Everything you do isn't going to be the greatest shit in the world, especially if you work consistently.

He should have done a 15 year stint on SNL and not done mainstream movies because some dude on the internet who isn't 1/100th the talent Eddie is said so. Yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Based on your opinion. Dude, you said a yacht wasn't worth it as someone who I am safely assuming never owned a yacht. At that point, I'm not taking anything you say very seriously. It's safe for you to have that opinion because it's not your money.

Bro, what the fuck does any reasonable person in this world ever want to own a yacht for, though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Reed said:

Bro, what the fuck does any reasonable person in this world ever want to own a yacht for, though?

Because they can get away from dumbasses like you. Just a hunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in the middle of all the shit choices, the man still had a Bowfinger in him.  I think if he wanted to, and had the script, he could still do something like it today. He might have "sold out", but I would have, and I bet you would have too if ever given  the opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kuetsar said:

Even in the middle of all the shit choices, the man still had a Bowfinger in him.  I think if he wanted to, and had the script, he could still do something like it today. He might have "sold out", but I would have, and I bet you would have too if ever given  the opportunity.

Reed's "definition" of sold out is farcical and contentious at best . Most of, if not all of, his successful movies were back by these mega producers (FUCKING DON SIMPSON COKED OUT OF HIS EVERLOVING MIND AND JERRY BRUCKHEIMER) and a studio with money out of the wazoo. That's not selling out but doing OTHER movies backed by mega producers and studios with money out of the wazoo is selling out. 

Tom Cruise had that same backing at Paramount, and he's not a sellout apparently. And we're heading into 40 years of watching Tom Cruise and a bunch of shitty Tom Cruise movies along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...