Why Ratner deserves respect…
-
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 14, 2008 11:33 PM)
Most people think that he couldn't do anything without it being light hearted and bright, blah blah blah. All I can say is go watch Season 1 of Prison Break. Oh wait, Rothman isn't the nazi over FOX TV, that's right.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 15, 2008 08:23 AM)
It's Matthew Vaughn, not Michael Vaughn. And he left X3 probably because he didn't have the b4lls to stand up against Rothman.
American TV has gotten a lot better, but they still suck a lot. That's why you don't watch anything from Basic Cable, and should only watch Showtime or HBO shows. Even Lost, pardon the pun, lost its ways in the third season. Abrams hasn't been able to replicate the success of the first two seasons of Lost. But every single primetime basic cable show: Heroes, Lost, Terminator, ect start out strong but eventually get weaker as the seasons roll by. All shows should be miniseries and last no more than 24 episodes. Unless you have real stories to tell, you shouldn't continue the show. "John Adams" is a good example of how to tell a story.
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 15, 2008 10:24 AM)
Freemantle,
It seems that you are very critical of Ratner purely because of X3. You don't seem to have much to say about his directing style, and most of the issues you have with him is because of what he did (or didn't do) with X3's plot. You follow the pattern of a lot of fans of a comic book series or game series. You couldn't care less or have an opinion about a particular director until he "screws" up your favorite franchise. Paul Anderson wouldn't receive half the hate he gets if he didn't direct 16d03 or 4 geekdom franchises. Notice now the only movies that he didn't get pure hatred for are: Shopping, Event Horizon, and Death Race. None of these are particular geekdom franchises. But you don't have much to say about Ratner's other films, none of which are terrible, and all of which were at least half way decent. He's still a young director, has much to learn and has a great career in front of him.
It just makes me laugh when people call him "bland". Fanboys love the genres directors. The ones that always go for the money shots, do a lot of slowmotion, play up the melodramas, Use tons of exotic vocals you know, the overtly expressive directors. Fans love them because they bring everything but the kitchen sink to the surface. These are not subtle directors, and never hesitate to make their presence (style) known on screen, whether it calls for it or not. Sam Raimi, Zack Snyder, and Edgar Wright are good examples of these type of directors. I do enjoy their ways, but ultimately it ends up a little flat sometimes, when these directors exerts so much weight on the film that it slows the film down and essentially crushes the story. Sometimes I just want to yell at them "JUST GET ON WITH IT ALREADY!!".
Then there is the type of director who plays it cool, but packs a punch in the action scenes. They hold back on the "style for style's sake", and are more interested in creating a more realistic version of the world. They don't do so much melodrama, and place a lot of importance on humor and entertainment. They place a lot more emphasis on telling a story than filling it with style. They are not interested in throwing every camera tricks in the book on screen all at once. These are the Jon Favreaus and Brett Ratners of Hollywood. But just because they are subtle doesn't mean they don't have a style. Watch a Ratner's film, and it's like listening to a good jazz piece. Watch for Rhythm, shot selections, coverage. Watch for the way the story moves forward, the sense of urgency, the energy in an action scenes. Watch for the steadfast way he stays on a dramatic note, but doesn't linger when the emotion has wane. he doesn't try to force what simply isn't there. What fanboys call "bland" or "lazy filmmaking" is simply mature film making, a director with a bag of tricks throwing everything on screen and see what sticks. You like Marc Forster, I'm sure you can understand this.
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 15, 2008 08:55 PM)
Oddly enough as you were talking about what makes a good director I was reminded of Body of Lies. Ridley Scott's style is a strong blend of the two. It is a terrific style. Right when you think it is slowing down. The camera movement jolts you back and the actors get intense reeling you back in to the movie.
I really agree. Ratner is young and still learning in the movie business, but he is doing a terrific job for himself and I am excited to see his future work.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 16, 2008 12:37 AM)
Ridley Scott is weird for me. I love Black Rain, Black Hawk Down, and his director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven. I like matchstick men, Alien, and Blade runner. but I hated Gladiator, GI Jane, and pretty much everything else he did. He's kind of a toss up, with a good possibility for a good flick once in a while. For me anyway. I really don't like some of the DP he works with, and I hate the way he bathes his scene with heavy saturation sometimes. His films can also be a little dreary for me. but Black Hawk Down, that movie ruled!
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 16, 2008 07:55 AM)
Then you will love Body of Lies. Like I said, it is almost slow, but then the acting gets intense or the camera jolts and reels you back in. Alexander Witt is the DP and he has worked on Pirates 1, Casino Royale, and American Gangster. He was the second unit DP for those movies, but it shines through in Body of Lies.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 16, 2008 03:27 PM)
Wow alot of points I have to address. Okay, before things get out of hand. I will say right now that Ratner isn't one of my favorite director. I like most of the films he has made, and I find them very entertaining to watch. But I do think he has a lot of potential, and I think he's a talented guy. He's no hack, in any sense of the word. The last thing I want to sound like is that I herald the guy, or think he's the next best thing to sliced bread. But I do defend him because i think a lot of your criticism is unfounded, and manifested from your strong admiration for Singer and your feelings for the Xmb68en series, which you've stated that is the best Superhero film to date, even topping The Dark Knight. Nothing wrong with that statement. A lot to like in X2.
Okay. You say that Singer is better than Ratner is because he is a more subtle director. I think he's more sensitive, and I do give him a lot of credit for setting the Xmen films the way he has. It's not perfect, but it's pretty darn good. But if by subtle you mean melodramatic and drawing out an emotion until it's soap opera quality. I agree. Ratner likes over the top characters. He likes the screwball comedy types of characters who express themselves by communicating with words and strong body language. This is a TYPE of film that you obviously don't subscribe to, but it's the Hollywood way, and it has been done since the '50s. It's also highly witty and entertaining, stylized acting yes, but entertaining no less.
IN MY OPINION, Ian McKellan, Hugh Jackman, and Patrick Stewart displayed some of the best acting they had in the entire series in X3. Ian McKellan became the tragic figure, Pactrick Stewart became the heroic martyr, and Hugh Jackman became the passionate antihero. Ian McKellan's performance toward the demutant of Mystique, and his reaction to the death of Professor X is some of the most tragic and human thing I've seen in the entire series. How can you say he dialed in the performance. He himself stated that he loved the way he is portrayed in the film in an interview with Kroq Kevin and Bean. It's a radio interview. Patrick Stewart actually HAD something to do in the film. In the last two films, he's either the wise teacher, or he's in some sort of comatose state. In this film, he actually shows that he cares a lot of his student, and you actually understand the complex relationship between him and Jean. He's never under a spell, and I actually feel that Prof X was actually present in the film, which is more than I can say for the last two. As for Hugh Jackman. COME ONE!!! you can't look at him kneeling next to Prof X's chair, or him agonizing after he Killed Jean and say he didn't put in a good performance. He also evolved (no pun intended) into a leader, and put aside his individuality and stepped up to meet the crisis. Ask Any of these guys if they felt they didn't have a good performance in teh film. I've already explained how the deaths make sense, and are actually very tragic. Ratner's approach is ANYTHING but heartless. How can you watch the entire scene in Jean's house and call that heartless direction. It's the best scene in the entire series.
As for Chris Tucker. I like the guy. I like his antics in Money Talks and The Fifth Element. I loved him in Rush Hour. But he did grate me in Rush Hour 2 and 3. I think he has a lot of charisma, and he give a scene a lot of energy. I will say that He didn't try at all in Rush Hour 2 and 3. As for under using Jackie Chan. 2000I couldn't agree more. He's a great actor as well as a great action star. But at the same time, Jackie Chan hated working on an American set, and he clashed with Tucker and Ratner. But plenty of talented people have clashed before, doesn't make them any less talented. In all interviews he gave about Rush Hour, he felt that he was never given enough free reign to do what he wanted. That's less of Ratner's fault and more of the entire Hollywood system as a whole. In Hollywood, people don't devote 2 months to a 5 minutes fight scenes. It's slowly changing, but it wasn't that way in Rush Hour 1. By Rush Hour 3, Jackie himself is just phoning it in to complete a contract. Not completely Ratner's fault, but he was a new guy in Hollywood, and has yet to learn the ropes. Jackie is used to get his own way, and he's like that with everyone in Hollywood. You don't work with jackie and not let him take full control.
Oh yeah, I didn't like the injokes in Singer's Xmen. I didn't like the cat licking the claws, I hated all the feminine jokes on Cyclops. That brand of humor just doesn't appeal to me and doesn't belong in an Xmen films. I, however, howled at all the jokes in X3. I don't think they belong in such a film either, but I thought they were funny. What's my point? Humor is strange, what makes one man laugh can make other roll his eyes. Neither humor types belong in the Xmen films, but I found Ratner's jokes to be funnier. I just think it's the difference between British humor -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 17, 2008 04:48 PM)
I don't blame you for not understanding the true value of $25 million at the time when the film was made. You've probably never worked here, and donb68't understand what is involved in making a Hollywood production. Requiem for a Dream was consisted of mostly B actors who don't command a high salary. Save for maybe Marlon Wayan lol. The film has no action sequences, and shot mostly in doors. Romero, Coppola made films in the 60s and 70s. Factor in inflation. Not only that they were making small budget films that LOOKED like small budget films. Compare that against Money Talks. It has several major action sequences happening outside in LA, one of the most expensive place to shoot. It has chase sequences, explosions, and a reasonably large shoot out at the end of the film. To include even a small action scene means to involve safety crew, training instructors, safety inspectors, insurance, police officers, gun specialist, gun inspectors etc Now estrapolate that over several sequences. THe film LOOKS good, much more expensive than 25 million dollars. This is a Hollywood production, not some production in Korea. There are unions here, and the people working on it has to be paid a certain rate, and they have restrictions on what they are allowed to do, how long they are allowed to work. This isn't Hong Kong where "let's just do it" will fly. You don't jump off a building with only apple boxes waiting for you. There will be stunt coordinators involved. It's a business, and nobody has to get hurt. We do things RIGHT in the States, because if something goes wrong, people are gonna get sued. Labor is also cheaper in Korea and Hong Kong, and Mexico or Spain. To shoot in LA, with action, is not an endeavor many first time directors should take. The fact that Ratner pulled it off is a credit to his name. And the fact that he pulled it off using only 25 mil? that's mind blowing. As for Hot Fuzz costing 8 million pounds. That's closer to 18-19 million dollars. Once again Brits don't command as high a salary as Americans. Especially the stars. Plus the film took place in a small town, not a huge city, so therefore avoids the logistics. By then, It was Edgar Wright's second ACTION film. Plus, the action was near the end, and it was no where the scope of Money Talks. It's in abundance to be sure, but once you break down what is involved to pull off a sequence like that, location and cost wise, Edgar Wright did an okay job, but nowhere near what Ratner had to pull off.
I'll be back to address the rest of your arguments. gotta run right now.
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 18, 2008 05:22 PM)
Freemantle,
you are so wrapped up in trying to prove something, that I don't know what you're trying to prove anymore. I'm saying that it's expensive to shoot in LA. In fact, it's one of the most expensive places to shoot. I'm not saying NY isn't expensive, but you used Requiem for A Dream, which has no action sequences, shot mostly in door. Money Talks is shot in the middle of a city with a chase sequence, shoot outs. So getting it done for 25 mil is very very good. Especially for a film that looked that good. I have no doubt there are a few other directors that might have gotten more for less, but it doesn't change the fact that 25 mil to shoot in LA is a small fee for an action comedy picture. Doesn't matter that some other people might have done more, it doesn't change the fact that Brett Ratner was very skillful in pulling off the film with that budget and on time. understand now?
and yes, 25 mil is an okay budget for an action film for a first time director. Heck, I'd like 25 mil to direct an action flick. BUT not everyone can take 25 mil and turn in a picture that will be on the same scale as Money Talks. The fact remains that he did a VERY good job pulling that off. I'm not saying no one else can do better, but it's still a great job. Work a day in this town, and you'll see.
And Come on, no one. NO ONE takes as much precaution as Hollywood. Even Jackie Chan, who's a Veteran in shooting action flicks, knows a lot about safety, says when he was working on Rush Hour that a lot more precaution was taken that any production he has ever worked on. There are more unions here than any other place. So they have to take the extra precaution so that nobody gets sued.
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 19, 2008 09:49 PM)
Freemantle,
I'm trying to give you some insights into how things are here. I've worked here, I've had first hand information here, and I've studied extensively from working professionals on how things work here. Unlike you, I've actually worked in a film studio. You are throwing figures around like you know what's going on, and while I'm patiently trying to explain to you how things really work in real life. You can armchair produce all you want, but the fact remains that 25 mil is not a lot to make a picture like Money Talks. It can be done, as shown by Ratner, and it can be done well, as also demonstrated by Ratner. You are so blind by your hatred for him that you are willing to deny that pulling off a film with Money Talks with 25 mil is so EASY because 25 mil is SO MUCH money for him. You can deny it all you want, or you can actually talk to producers on the logistics of pulling together a film like that with that budget, and they'll tell you that it was a really good job that Ratner did. And your statement about shooting in LA is cheap is just pure fantasy. PURE FANTASY. Say that to anybody that has shot here and they'll laugh in your face. So yeah I'm done with this particular argument, because it seems no matter what I say, no matter how hard I try to give you a little insights on how things work in the real world, you'll just deny it and counter with your elementary logic and your questionable figures. I'm sorry but it has to be said.
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 20, 2008 04:23 PM)
Read your arguments again. You did say that shooting LA was "cheaper", when it is one of the most expensive place to shoot. 25 Million is NOT alot of money for a first time director, EVEN in 1997. Not for an action comedy set in LA at least. It can be done, as it has been done in the past, but that doesn't negate the fact it was a job well done. That's my argument. Of course there have been cheaper films made, nobody is stupid enough not to notice that fact, but they've all looked cheaper than Money Talks as well. You get what you pay for.
And I just don't care for the argument that to be a good director he MUST prove himself with lower budget films. Some directors are comfortable enough with commercial works that they can jump directly into a big budget films. Every director's journey is different, and some will have different routes than others. But to say that working in a lower budget films is a qualification for greatness is just silly. You act like Ratner didn't work hard for his career, and that films just fall into his lap just for being a Socialite. It's not that easy, for ANYONE. If he gets 25 mil for a film, somebody out there sees talent in him, and thought that he deserved it. It also has to do with the genre he decides to work in, and the stars attached as well. But to say it's undeserved wow. Why don't you talk to him and tell him that. Tell him that he has never proven himself, and see what he'll say. Nobody gets it easy, especially in LA, low budget or not. That's one thing you gotta know. Say what you want about Ratner's films, you can hate them or like them, but to suggest that someone can just have projects handed to them without having to prove themselves in this town is to insult every single person that has ever worked hard for success, including Sam Raimi. But I can't say anything else to change your mind. If you are interested in working in this town, I suggest you come out and see for yourself. I just hope I can be there when you tell me that I was Right.
And Money Talks was OBVIOUSLY a Studio film, and NOT a ultra low budget project. I never argued otherwise. I'm just saying it takes good skills as a director to pull it off, not saying it's the best I've seen. It's just far from the worse. It's not a failure either, as it made money, and secure Ratner and Tucker as talents to watch in Hollywood. Critically it didn't fare as well, but Roger Ebert did give it a thumb up. I obviously liked it enough. Not the best film I've seen, but a refreshing buddy flick.
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings.