To: paudio
For example, when well-meaning people, flush with cash (clip)... attempt to “show Hollywood” by creating films that go around proven creative methods, the result is always the same: direct to videoChronicles of Narnia...?
To: Darkwolf377
Chronicles of Narnia...?
I think he's talking more about stuff like the "Left Behind" movies.
To: Darkwolf377
I was thinking of Gibson's "Passion", myself. Now, THERE was a waste of box office time. /sarc
50 posted on
02/07/2006 5:03:53 AM PST by
MortMan
(Trains stop at train stations. On my desk is a workstation...)
To: Darkwolf377
Wasn't there some film about a violent Crucifixion recently that was privately funded?
It must have lost money too: Because Hollywood NEVER promoted it, or ran it in its' Oscar promotions and reviews and discussions.
And private films about decent subjects (Hollywod knows!) always lose money.
52 posted on
02/07/2006 5:05:05 AM PST by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Darkwolf377
I saw Narnia, and I can sum it up in two words: LOTR Lite. The books were wonderful, and the film did a passable job of capturing the essence of the (now) second book, but not a remarkable job. More than anything though, the movie borrows just about every visual cue and cinematic element from LOTR and does it (seemingly) a bit cheaper.
It was an entertaining movie, no doubt. But honestly, there is no way this film is deserving of awards.
72 posted on
02/07/2006 10:04:36 AM PST by
Melas
(What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
To: Darkwolf377
Chronicles of Narnia...?The guy is talking about outsiders making movies. Narnia was a studio project all the way.
77 posted on
02/07/2006 10:20:51 AM PST by
Heyworth
("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson