Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 17, 2025, 21:35:
More than anything I suspect the "remake syndrome" which has infected Hollywood is the impact of corporate think getting better control at the studios. I mean, film making has always been about making money. But making money didn't drive EVERY decision previously and now, it does.

LOL -- I just saw they are making another "I Know What You Did Last Summer" -- No indication this film is part of a series, or seemingly a series of films in my eyes. Hilarious.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 18, 2025, 04:12:
You picked Pattinson and Stewart probable bc the Twilight series was so uniformly moribund, but both actors were able to break away from that and challenged themselves to do much more interesting work.

You are probably right. I haven't watched them enough to have a solid opinion.

Everything I have ever seen from Stewart has not been great, but we are talking about maybe 3 movies not called Twilight that were all early and made to take advantage of her Twilight fame while it was hot so I will check into your suggestions. Pattinson has improved, and I have seen him in a couple of things where I was impressed. The Batman movie was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be, and the areas I had issues with didn't have anything to do with RP. I was hoping not to have another same old same old Batman movie, and I think he would have been a better as Terry McGinnis than Bruce Wayne, but that's neither here nor there. It was what I saw him in immediately after Twilight that left me most unimpressed...and consequently, I haven't seen him in much since. I will check into your other movie suggestions, thanks.

Okay, I watched the Taconic video and while this won't add to the discussion of what might have happened, something about it did really strike me as odd. It almost immediately seemed to me that "Law & Order" had written an episode inspired by if not loosely based on that incident. But upon checking dates, both L&O and L&O CI were off the air by the time the Taconic incident happened. So... that is really weird.

Jivaro wrote on Jun 17, 2025, 22:35:
Don't forget how ridiculous it feels to watch the same 3-4 lead actors in everything for large bunches of releases at a time. Particularly when the "hot" leads of the moment aren't actually all that great at their job, or at least not ready for that much of a spotlight. Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart jump to mind, but they are low-hanging fruit; there are plenty of other examples. I know it's just a symptom of the money > art equation...but it stands out to me for some reason. For a while there, I wondered if there were any other male leads besides The Rock and Ryan Reynolds. I love some of their performances, but you can only watch them be them so many times. Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds in a romantic comedy. Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds in an action comedy. Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds in a mystery comedy. I mean, I actually dig his humor quite a bit, but that's not acting. Also, you know the entire movie after watching 10 minutes of it...and that's if the trailer didn't already spoil it.

I could bitch about Hollywood killing Hollywood for days. I will spare you all...lol

You picked Pattinson and Stewart probable bc the Twilight series was so uniformly moribund, but both actors were able to break away from that and challenged themselves to do much more interesting work. Yes Pattinson did The Batman and Tenet, but he also did The Lighthouse and Mickey 17 recently. He's shown true talent and range. Same for Stewart. Go watch Love Lies Bleeding. It's about as far from a blockbuster as you can get, and she's great in it creating a character from whole cloth. It also stars Ed Harris playing very against type.

Reynolds is an interesting study, kind of the opposite of Pattinson and Stewart. Early in his career he was doing challenging work like Buried and showing true talent. When he became popular, he stopped challenging himself. He's entertaining to watch, but as you point out he basically plays himself in most movies these days. I think Pitt is another who started out with a lot of range, and just got samey when he got famous.

Actors that play themselves most of the time: The Rock. The Chrises. Marky Mark. Cena. The list goes on forever sadly. Dave Bautista does a good job of avoiding that trap IMO.

Prez wrote on Jun 18, 2025, 00:56:
On the subject of the Taconic wreck my opinion is that she had a stroke. Her BAC was crazy high but all reports seemed to point to her being an alcoholic. I've done both: a stroke and alcoholism. The tolerance that I eventually built up was astonishing, which is why I am doubtful she could go from mostly functional to so blasted out of her mind that she drove like that in that short of a time. If the onset of her stroke was similar to mine, on the other hand, every observed event in the timeline fits. It's at least possible if not the more probable answer. Of course suicide due to impaired judgment from chemical abuse can't be ruled out. Drunks aren't known for their excellent decision-making skills.

I decided to watch the video after your post. I haven't had a stroke, and I have not experienced what it is to be an alcoholic, but I think stroke or something like it is most likely the cause as well. The theory that she might have drunk alcohol, thinking it was water, is not nearly as crazy as some people might think. I had a patient who brushed their teeth with body lotion during the first 3-4 minutes of their stroke. When a connection isn't being made in the brain, it ain't being made. It seems like something in there should compensate and point out the nonsense of driving the wrong way with screaming children in the back seat, but that isn't how the human brain works when it's damaged, diseased, or in crisis. Is it possible that she tried to kill the pain of a dental problem with alcohol and pot before driving a bunch of kids? Sure, it is. I just don't think it's likely based on that video. Eight people are dead, likely due to one person's medical crisis behind the wheel, and that's incredibly tragic.

It's also scary stuff because, in reality, this could happen to anybody.

On the subject of the Taconic wreck my opinion is that she had a stroke. Her BAC was crazy high but all reports seemed to point to her being an alcoholic. I've done both: a stroke and alcoholism. The tolerance that I eventually built up was astonishing, which is why I am doubtful she could go from mostly functional to so blasted out of her mind that she drove like that in that short of a time. If the onset of her stroke was similar to mine, on the other hand, every observed event in the timeline fits. It's at least possible if not the more probable answer. Of course suicide due to impaired judgment from chemical abuse can't be ruled out. Drunks aren't known for their excellent decision-making skills.

Don't forget how ridiculous it feels to watch the same 3-4 lead actors in everything for large bunches of releases at a time. Particularly when the "hot" leads of the moment aren't actually all that great at their job, or at least not ready for that much of a spotlight. Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart jump to mind, but they are low-hanging fruit; there are plenty of other examples. I know it's just a symptom of the money > art equation...but it stands out to me for some reason. For a while there, I wondered if there were any other male leads besides The Rock and Ryan Reynolds. I love some of their performances, but you can only watch them be them so many times. Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds in a romantic comedy. Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds in an action comedy. Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds in a mystery comedy. I mean, I actually dig his humor quite a bit, but that's not acting. Also, you know the entire movie after watching 10 minutes of it...and that's if the trailer didn't already spoil it.

I could bitch about Hollywood killing Hollywood for days. I will spare you all...lol

More than anything I suspect the "remake syndrome" which has infected Hollywood is the impact of corporate think getting better control at the studios. I mean, film making has always been about making money. But making money didn't drive EVERY decision previously and now, it does.

Audience saturation is not as big of a factor as most people think it is because so often something they personally are beyond sick of is what others absolutely love and can't get enough of. A well-written movie is almost assuredly a bigger factor than sequel stuff or lacking original franchises. The numbers kind of bear that out. What you're seeing now, with everything being a 6th or 8th sequel, is only a symptom of the bigger overarching issue- studios are just terribly lacking in originality and putting the work in creating brand new worlds and also can't rewrite a classic movie to be anywhere near as good. Who in the hell wants to watch an inferior remake?? Occasionally a remake will actually improve on the original movie, but if it was more than 10% of the time I would eat my hat.

The reason Pixar was able to deliver such high quality for decades is that they refined and honed the script and storyboards into perfection before starting development. So while it may work out when they start shooting without a completed script, I think it's the exception rather than the rule that it works out. For example, Russell Crowe's Robin Hood movie is shit because Crowe and Scott basically threw the rather excellent script away and did their own thing. Most of the movies made during the writers strike without the writers are shit. Etc. That doesn't mean there's no room for improvisation or changes, but you probably should shoot the script and then deviate so you have something to fall back on. Also, there are directors like Lord and Miller who just shoot a shitton of B-roll and then assemble the movie in post. But if that's your style, then you have to hone and perfect it to ensure something of quality.

Marvin T. Martian wrote on Jun 17, 2025, 16:13:

Prez wrote on Jun 17, 2025, 14:58:
Gunn is half-right. If you do the legwork to always ensure all character actions are logical and consistent and in keeping with the way a character is portrayed, and you have them arrive at the scene of your next plot point in an organic and believable way, you can stand to not have all of your "i's dotted" as they say. A detailed, well-written, comprehensive outline will suffice in many cases. Without that, however, you're going to make crap. It might be pretty crap like "Alien Romulous" or "Dial of Destiny" but still crap. I could write a novel on how Disney writers shouldn't be trusted writing children's books. Finished screenplays or not, they are almost uniformly terrible.

For me the movies have been going under for years. Sequel, sequel, remake,remake, remake sequel. The Fast and the Furious should have stopped at 3. Incredibly bad scripts and plots, never mind the marvel metaverse ruining the franchise. (Please leave the new fantastic 4 as a standalone--but changing the Silver Surfer will likely cause me to wait for free home release). I would add the cost of going to the theater (tickets, snacks and hidden surcharges) for a family of 4 is out of hand. Disney is destroying classics (e.g. Snow White for one). Never mind making a single book into 3 or more parts just to make a few more $$$ bucks. It is much more than just script writing).

Yes I think this is the real reason movies have been declining. Very similar to games, it's become less about making art and more about making money to the point that it's making neither.

GinRummy wrote on Jun 17, 2025, 12:44:
I didn't know you could get drugs from Doctor Who.

It's a little known fact that he carried a sonic syringe in addition to his sonic screwdriver.

Prez wrote on Jun 17, 2025, 14:58:
Gunn is half-right. If you do the legwork to always ensure all character actions are logical and consistent and in keeping with the way a character is portrayed, and you have them arrive at the scene of your next plot point in an organic and believable way, you can stand to not have all of your "i's dotted" as they say. A detailed, well-written, comprehensive outline will suffice in many cases. Without that, however, you're going to make crap. It might be pretty crap like "Alien Romulous" or "Dial of Destiny" but still crap. I could write a novel on how Disney writers shouldn't be trusted writing children's books. Finished screenplays or not, they are almost uniformly terrible.

For me the movies have been going under for years. Sequel, sequel, remake,remake, remake sequel. The Fast and the Furious should have stopped at 3. Incredibly bad scripts and plots, never mind the marvel metaverse ruining the franchise. (Please leave the new fantastic 4 as a standalone--but changing the Silver Surfer will likely cause me to wait for free home release). I would add the cost of going to the theater (tickets, snacks and hidden surcharges) for a family of 4 is out of hand. Disney is destroying classics (e.g. Snow White for one). Never mind making a single book into 3 or more parts just to make a few more $$$ bucks. It is much more than just script writing).

WannaLogAlready wrote on Jun 17, 2025, 15:36:
The Chant, that I played and enjoyed no end recently is on sale at Steam, 80% off.

Ridiculously low price, *plus* get the very good, if very hard, The Gloom Below DLC totally *free*, just add to Library.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1577250/The_Chant/

Disclosure: As with all games, hacked every little aspect, so my playing isn't the usual.

The Cheat 😜

I've eaten at Ruth's Chris Steak House before.

Kinda hard to fuck up steak drenched in butter :P.

The Chant, that I played and enjoyed no end recently is on sale at Steam, 80% off.

Ridiculously low price, *plus* get the very good, if very hard, The Gloom Below DLC totally *free*, just add to Library.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1577250/The_Chant/

Disclosure: As with all games, hacked every little aspect, so my playing isn't the usual.

This comment was edited on Jun 17, 2025, 15:53.

Gunn is half-right. If you do the legwork to always ensure all character actions are logical and consistent and in keeping with the way a character is portrayed, and you have them arrive at the scene of your next plot point in an organic and believable way, you can stand to not have all of your "i's dotted" as they say. A detailed, well-written, comprehensive outline will suffice in many cases. Without that, however, you're going to make crap. It might be pretty crap like "Alien Romulous" or "Dial of Destiny" but still crap. I could write a novel on how Disney writers shouldn't be trusted writing children's books. Finished screenplays or not, they are almost uniformly terrible.

I didn't read the article, but I looked up Ruth's Chris Steak House on Wikipedia. And yeah the reason is pretty much what anyone would guess..

I didn't know you could get drugs from Doctor Who.