This forum?

[operalover21]

The Arts. Literature, music, theatre .... no pop music or television. But it says nothing about Movies. Are discussing those okay here? There doesn't seem to be another place on this site.

[foxy]

Good question as I'm about to talk about The Life of Pi

[+ sf westcoaster]

If movies don't fit in this forum then I don't know where they would fit.

[+ Cash4Trash]

Movies don't fit but films do.

[jackhammer91406]

I have no problem with film and movie discussions in this forum. I think the prohibition on television and pop music topics was in line with the original moderator's preferences who as it happens no longer moderates. I don't think the current moderators would be concerned with discussions involving any type or mode of artistic endeavor. Where the problem always arises is the subjective difference of opinion on what is art?

[ragazzolupo]

So this is the place for my tatting patterns?

[Cooper]

The Arts. Literature, music, theatre .... no pop music or television. But it says nothing about Movies. Are discussing those okay here? There doesn't seem to be another place on this site.

 

Operalover, Yes, this does seem to be the logical place to write a movie review. I saw "Lincoln" today and enjoyed it very much. Lots of Oscar buzz around this one. Coop

[operalover21]

Operalover, Yes, this does seem to be the logical place to write a movie review. I saw "Lincoln" today and enjoyed it very much. Lots of Oscar buzz around this one. Coop

 

Great. I saw a special screening of LES MISERABLES over the weekend. Move over, Lincoln, that one is going to win Best Picture. It was stunning!

[+ Lucky]

I have no problem with film and movie discussions in this forum. I think the prohibition on television and pop music topics was in line with the original moderator's preferences who as it happens no longer moderates. I don't think the current moderators would be concerned with discussions involving any type or mode of artistic endeavor. Where the problem always arises is the subjective difference of opinion on what is art?

 

This forum is a special interest forum, and was created when several posters who liked the Arts lobbied Daddy to enact it. Posts about theater were then being posted in the Lounge, and were soon surrounded by posts about other topics. It was hard to create a focus on the Arts. If someone wanted to post about a show they saw, they couldn't easily tell if someone else had already started such a thread. With the creation of this forum, all of the arts are in one place, and it's easy to find if a thread already exists abut the show you want to post about. So far, the forum has worked just fine without any factions feeling left out.

 

Cash4Trash has it right. Posts about film would seem suitable here, but posts about movies might not. When one thinks of the Arts, one does not think of Porky's Adventures or some other film created for mass appeal. To date, everyone seems to understand that some films belong in the Lounge. There just hasn't been any problem.

 

Daddy's concerns when people, including me, lobbied him to create a special interest forum were whether it would be popular enough to carry its weight as a forum, and whether the forum would be a time-constraint on the moderators. Time has proven that the forum can carry its weight as it has been very popular. It has also been shown not to be a time-consumer for the moderators as very little moderating has been needed.

 

Jackhammer's suggestion that the "original moderator" strong-armed his way to limit postings on television and movies is off base. The group of people lobbying for the forum did not want the breadth of topics to be stretched beyond the arts. Dancing for the Stars, Madonna, and like subjects continue to flourish in the lounge. Everyone gets their say, but here we have created a successful forum on the arts without diluting it by trying to accommodate every interest. Gay men seem to have a natural ability to separate art from commerce.

 

To meet Daddy's concerns about the time-constraints that might be made upon the moderators, I offered to moderate this forum. Not only did I not have much to do, but I wasn't cut out to be a moderator, and thankfully the forum has done just fine without me moderating it. It may be regrettable that jackhammer cannot seem to remember my name, but he has been a guest in my home and lunched with my mother. I consider myself lucky that he could find time to join us.

 

The forum has a life of its own, and if people want change, they can lobby for it just as the original group did to get a true arts forum.

[jackhammer91406]

Well of course I can remember Lucky's name and had a wonderful time on the several occasions I was invited to his homes (on both coasts) He is also one of the first posters I met on this board and he and Cooper were the main reason I enjoyed my first bite of the Big Apple.

 

But Lucky, you are taking offense where none was intended. I never meant that you somehow strong-armed anyone. At the time the forum was created I was not aware of a group lobbying effort (not that there wasn't one, I just wasn't aware of it.) I was aware of your preference not to have T.V. in the forum. I didn't agree with you, but I went with your preference and the forum has thrived as you point out. But forums also evolve and I don't have a problem discussing some made for cable series. I am not advocating a running discussion of Dynasty reruns on TV LAND.

 

I didn't use your name because I was trying to not insult or call attention to you directly in any way (for no other reason than trying not to offend you. So much for intentions. Damned if I mention your name and damned if I don't. Really an impossible situation making me more and more inclined to respond less and less.) I am quite able to call someone out when that is my intention and can do so openly. That wasn't the intention here and I am sorry if you took my post that way.

 

The original poster asked a question and I responded with my opinion. I think anyone can count on one hand the number of people I have meant to offend in my time here. To my remembrance, Lucky has never been one of them. Of course my memory isn't what it used to be, so there is that to contend with.

[+ sf westcoaster]

Movies don't fit but films do.

 

 

Cash, Enlighten me, as to the difference between a movie and a film.

[Cooper]

Great. I saw a special screening of LES MISERABLES over the weekend. Move over, Lincoln, that one is going to win Best Picture. It was stunning!

 

Operalover, You are one lucky guy...I've seen the Broadway show several times, love the story and music. Can't wait to see it in the movie theater. Thanks for the heads up.

[Cooper]

Lucky, I see you have a new avatar, very interesting.... I also appreciate the many contributions you have made to this Forum. Not only were you instrumental in creating it but you have provided us with numerous reviews/comments. I always enjoy reading your take on the arts... Thanks for all your hard work. Coop

[+ Lucky]

Thanks for that clarification, jackhammer. I appreciate that you took the time to do so. This forum has been successful so far, and if changes are in order, I hope that a strong consensus would support them. Until then, I plan to find a way to see Book of Mormon!

[+ Lucky]

Lucky, I see you have a new avatar, very interesting.... I also appreciate the many contributions you have made to this Forum. Not only were you instrumental in creating it but you have provided us with numerous reviews/comments. I always enjoy reading your take on the arts... Thanks for all your hard work. Coop

 

Cooper, how nice of you to compliment my avatar, who bears a strong resemblance to me. I also appreciate that you have enjoyed the contributions I have made to this forum. Thanks for saying so.

[+ Lucky]

SFWestcoaster, no doubt Cash4trash has a very good answer for you. In the meantime, I suggest that movies are in color, and films are in black and white. And speaking of black and white, the difference between a movie and a film is not always easily determined.

But Wiki.Answers.com says this:

"Movies have historically been captured and projected from photographic film, so the term "film" has been applied to what are commonly referred to in the US as "movies" (which is a shortened version of "motion picture").

In the US, the terms are interchangeable, but most major, commercial motion pictures aimed at a broad viewing audience (in the hopes of making a profit) are usually referred to as "movies". The term "film" is commonly applied to movies of an artistic or educational nature not expected to have broad, commercial appeal.

But using one term for the other will not cause any confusion. "Have you seen the latest Harry Potter film?" or "Last night I watched a Lithuanian movie about the history of waistcoats".

"Movie" may also be used by a critic in a derogatory way, such as "That was movie, not a film" would indicate the critic's opinion that the motion picture was not what she would consider "art".

 

 

 

And this link to Amazon has a longer discussion on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/1GGTKVEDFUNJ1

 

http://awesomenator.com/content/2011/08/producers-vs-director-vision-illustration.jpg

[operalover21]

Operalover, You are one lucky guy...I've seen the Broadway show several times, love the story and music. Can't wait to see it in the movie theater. Thanks for the heads up.

 

And if you had told me that Anne Hathaway could sing like that, I would never have believed it. I really enjoyed it and I surprised myself. I'm not a HUGE fan of the show although compared to anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber I find it enjoyable. I was really swept away. I suspect Oscar voters will be, too, although I wonder if it's too soon to award Oscars to the same filmmakers who won for The King's Speech just 2 years ago or so?

 

And, from what I'm hearing, Lincoln is NOT in contention. The top three contenders for Best Picture, so far, are LES MISERABLES, ARGO, and the new Kathryn Bigelow film whose title now completely escapes me. SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK and LINCOLN bring up the rear.

[operalover21]

SFWestcoaster, no doubt Cash4trash has a very good answer for you. In the meantime, I suggest that movies are in color, and films are in black and white. And speaking of black and white, the difference between a movie and a film is not always easily determined.

But Wiki.Answers.com says this:

"Movies have historically been captured and projected from photographic film, so the term "film" has been applied to what are commonly referred to in the US as "movies" (which is a shortened version of "motion picture").

In the US, the terms are interchangeable, but most major, commercial motion pictures aimed at a broad viewing audience (in the hopes of making a profit) are usually referred to as "movies". The term "film" is commonly applied to movies of an artistic or educational nature not expected to have broad, commercial appeal.

But using one term for the other will not cause any confusion. "Have you seen the latest Harry Potter film?" or "Last night I watched a Lithuanian movie about the history of waistcoats".

"Movie" may also be used by a critic in a derogatory way, such as "That was movie, not a film" would indicate the critic's opinion that the motion picture was not what she would consider "art".

 

 

 

And this link to Amazon has a longer discussion on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/1GGTKVEDFUNJ1

 

http://awesomenator.com/content/2011/08/producers-vs-director-vision-illustration.jpg

 

I think that's all fairly ridiculous and loaded with more than an ounce of pretension. If one really wants to be pretentious, one can call them (as John Huston did) "motion pictures."

[leigh.bess.toad]

And if you had told me that Anne Hathaway could sing like that, I would never have believed it. I really enjoyed it and I surprised myself. I'm not a HUGE fan of the show although compared to anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber I find it enjoyable. I was really swept away. I suspect Oscar voters will be, too, although I wonder if it's too soon to award Oscars to the same filmmakers who won for The King's Speech just 2 years ago or so?

 

And, from what I'm hearing, Lincoln is NOT in contention. The top three contenders for Best Picture, so far, are LES MISERABLES, ARGO, and the new Kathryn Bigelow film whose title now completely escapes me. SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK and LINCOLN bring up the rear.

 

Operalover -- I sure hope you would fill us in more on Les Mis. Although I'm a huge Hugh Jackman fan (a gay boy can drool, can't he), I was wondering if Jean Valjean would be too high for him. The original Valjeans were high lyric tenors, such as Alfie Boe. I've always thought of Jackman as more of a high baritone. So unless they do some transposition, isn't it too high for him. Actually, he might have made a better Javert. And I really do wonder about Russell Crowe as Javert. What singing I've heard from him has hardly been impressive, to say the least. Anne Hathaway's "I Dreamed the Dream" has been the focus of the trailers I've seen (so much so that you would never know Jackman or Crowe were in the movie). It way work theatrically, especially in a theater where they aren't projecting to the back row, but vocally I don't think she is going to be in Lea Solanga's class. As I understand it, Samantha Banks (Eponine) is the only cast member who has performed it on stage. She has a far more traditional stage voice from what I've heard so far. With all that said, I am definitely looking forward to seeing it on Christmas day. And I'd love a further detailed of what you thought of the casting and the performances. The visuals do look stunning, but some of the vocals I've heard from other cast members (on other things) does have me a bit apprehensive.

 

And as far as Kathryn Bigelow's new movie, it's called Zero Dark Thirty, opening December 19.

 

I also just read briefly about a documentary opening soon entitled "Wagner and Me". Anyone know anything about it?

[whipped guy]

Lee... Actually Wagner and me has been out there for a while and is available on DVD. In a nutshell it deals with how a Jew comes to terms with Wagner's genius.

 

I'm surprised that our resident Wagnerian has not been on top of this..but then he has been top of other things for the past year or so...

[operalover21]

Operalover -- I sure hope you would fill us in more on Les Mis. Although I'm a huge Hugh Jackman fan (a gay boy can drool, can't he), I was wondering if Jean Valjean would be too high for him. The original Valjeans were high lyric tenors, such as Alfie Boe. I've always thought of Jackman as more of a high baritone. So unless they do some transposition, isn't it too high for him. Actually, he might have made a better Javert. And I really do wonder about Russell Crowe as Javert. What singing I've heard from him has hardly been impressive, to say the least. Anne Hathaway's "I Dreamed the Dream" has been the focus of the trailers I've seen (so much so that you would never know Jackman or Crowe were in the movie). It way work theatrically, especially in a theater where they aren't projecting to the back row, but vocally I don't think she is going to be in Lea Solanga's class. As I understand it, Samantha Banks (Eponine) is the only cast member who has performed it on stage. She has a far more traditional stage voice from what I've heard so far. With all that said, I am definitely looking forward to seeing it on Christmas day. And I'd love a further detailed of what you thought of the casting and the performances. The visuals do look stunning, but some of the vocals I've heard from other cast members (on other things) does have me a bit apprehensive.

 

And as far as Kathryn Bigelow's new movie, it's called Zero Dark Thirty, opening December 19.

 

I also just read briefly about a documentary opening soon entitled "Wagner and Me". Anyone know anything about it?

 

If I may be so blunt, the first thing you have to do is just stop trying to compare theater voices with film voices. And theater voices ain't what they used to be either ... afterall, they're all amplified so no one needs to be Ethel Merman anymore.

 

As I said, I'm not a big fan of the original show. It's all so treacly at times. But it's one of those shows -- because of the classic story -- that lends itself to the cinematic treatment. I don't know if they transposed things but I suspect they did and that wouldn't surprise me. And I could care less. This isn't trying to be all about the music, although it seems a fairly faithful adaptation of the musical in that there is a LOT of music.

 

It's certainly, to me, one of the more successful musical adaptations I've seen in a long time ... and to let you know where I'm coming from I HATED the film versions of PHANTOM, CHICAGO, and SWEENEY TODD. Filled with people who couldn't sing and edited in a way so that you wouldn't notice they cast non-singers and non-dancers. They cried out to be dubbed.

 

What I love about Tom Hooper, as a director, is that he's very old-fashioned (and I mean that in a good way) and let's the story play out without a lot of quick cuts and all of that. That's often what dooms film musicals made today. They're basically MTV videos. LES MIS is not and it's all the better for it ....

 

I think it will be loved by people who loved the musical. At least that's what I'm hearing from Broadway pros who saw it.

 

I don't usually like Russell Crowe (too rough for me) but he's really good here. I also would have thought Jackman wrong for the part but he's really terrific. I hope he gets a Best Actor nom for the part but it's a tough year so probably not.

 

Oh, Wagner and Me. I saw it. I thought it was trite and superficial. I would avoid it, IMHO.

[leigh.bess.toad]

Thanks Operalover, that's what I needed. It's easier said than done in my case to forget the difference between stage voices and film voices. I can literally hear the sound and voice of Nilsson and Pavarotti and Price in my head so the timbre and sound of what a Verdi soprano and Wagnerian soprano should sound like to me carries over to what a theater voice sounds like. But you are right, it's something I need to try to do.

 

That said, as far as Chicago, I thought it was great in film (in spite of Gere who was merely adequate). The Sweeney Todd left me unmoved. Helena Bonham Carter didn't impress me in the least but maybe here she'll be better. Actually Sacha Baron Cohen did fine as Pirrelli, but we shall see since he is here too. It should be interesting this spring because VCU Theater department is doing Sweeney (which is one of my favorites of all time) so we'll see how that turns out.

 

I do think Jackman would be fine vocally if he isn't pushed too much. He does possess a theater voice obviously, but is it the right timbre. From what I've seen of Anne Hathaway her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" will work beautifully. But it was Crowe I was most worried about. The Javert in my head is a full on, musical theater, almost operatic, bassish baritone (the sound of Brian Stokes Mitchell is perfect). And from what I've heard he doesn't have it. But I will hold judgment.

 

The big difference I guess we shall is how the music was recorded. As you no doubt know, usually they lay the vocals down in a studio before hitting the film set. Here, they wore ear pieces and actually sang on every take, and the instrumentals were put in later. It will be interesting to see if that works better. Which may make a difference if and when they do proceed with a movie version of Wicked.

 

Will numerology come into play? Is the number 13 unlucky? This is the 13th screen adaptation of Les Miserables.

 

I think we are going to have a great Oscars race this year. Les Mis will be double digit nominee. Lincoln, Argo, and by all accounts, Zero Dark Thirty, will also receive multiple nods. And the director's race will certainly be lively.

 

Thanks for the input. Looking forward to it. Will there be packed movie theaters on Christmas Day?

[+ Lucky]

Hollwyood in Tizzy Over Oscar Flops Outlook

 

Wireless News Services are reporting a disarray rarely seen in Hollywood as several movie studios have pulled their films from contention for the Oscars due to a report that an anonymous poster on a gay message board nay-sayed their chances. Producers of hit films usually spend a fortune in the trades to promote their films for Oscar contention, but this is now all up in the air. The poster, known simply as "thelover" is reported to have said:

"...from what I'm hearing, Lincoln is NOT in contention. The top three contenders for Best Picture, so far, are LES MISERABLES, ARGO, and the new Kathryn Bigelow film whose title now completely escapes me. SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK and LINCOLN bring up the rear." No word on whether what he is hearing is from voices in his ear or of actual people in the know, yet he has set the town on edge.

 

As a result, studios have stopped promoting Silver Linings Playbook for Best Picture, and there is talk that Lincoln may even be pulled from theaters. Hollywood heads are scratching over the name of the third film that might have a chance at Best Picture. Should they promote their film on the assumption that it is the one, or wait until the poster remembers the name of the film?

 

In other news, it is expected that theaters will be packed on Christmas Day, but this could change depending on future reports. Should this "thelover" nay-say full theaters, Hollywood bonuses could go the way of silent films. Thus pundits are demanding he reveal now how filled the theaters will be. Yet "thelover" remains silent. Hollywood outsiders call his thoughts superficial, but Hollywood insiders say "you never know."

[RockHard]

Hollywood outsiders call his thoughts superficial

 

Hollywood insiders, too. She certainly is opinionated and has humorous moments, but her writing is so bitchy/catty at times.

 

A bitchy/catty queen with an opinion on the arts? They're so ubiquitous. Ever work in television?

[operalover21]

Hollwyood in Tizzy Over Oscar Flops Outlook

 

Wireless News Services are reporting a disarray rarely seen in Hollywood as several movie studios have pulled their films from contention for the Oscars due to a report that an anonymous poster on a gay message board nay-sayed their chances. Producers of hit films usually spend a fortune in the trades to promote their films for Oscar contention, but this is now all up in the air. The poster, known simply as "thelover" is reported to have said:

"...from what I'm hearing, Lincoln is NOT in contention. The top three contenders for Best Picture, so far, are LES MISERABLES, ARGO, and the new Kathryn Bigelow film whose title now completely escapes me. SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK and LINCOLN bring up the rear." No word on whether what he is hearing is from voices in his ear or of actual people in the know, yet he has set the town on edge.

 

As a result, studios have stopped promoting Silver Linings Playbook for Best Picture, and there is talk that Lincoln may even be pulled from theaters. Hollywood heads are scratching over the name of the third film that might have a chance at Best Picture. Should they promote their film on the assumption that it is the one, or wait until the poster remembers the name of the film?

 

In other news, it is expected that theaters will be packed on Christmas Day, but this could change depending on future reports. Should this "thelover" nay-say full theaters, Hollywood bonuses could go the way of silent films. Thus pundits are demanding he reveal now how filled the theaters will be. Yet "thelover" remains silent. Hollywood outsiders call his thoughts superficial, but Hollywood insiders say "you never know."

 

In the annals of immature, bitchy, queeny, faggy, asshole shit. This one takes the cake.

 

If you're not interested in what I have to say you're free to ignore but I was asked my opinion. So, why don't you just go fuck off and get laid? You'd be less of an asshole.