By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - John Carter - a great movie.

RVDondaPC said:
HesAPooka said:
RVDondaPC said:
HesAPooka said:
RVDondaPC said:
This movie was horrible. I watched it with my brother this weekend who worked on the movie and he agreed it was god awful. We literally talked for hours after the movie was over about how bad it was. The acting was terrible. The Character development(or lack there of) was bad. It was soap opera acting at it's worst. The only two good actors in this movie were Willem Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church and they were both CG characters. It was shot terribly. The lighting and set dec was awful in many scenes. The action was mediocre and for a $200 million movie, it's bad. The CG and character animation was amazing though. It was the only element of this movie that was even close to top notch. I don't think Disney even had a budget to score this movie. They spent all their money on a year of reshoots and realized how bad it was that they just took generic theme music from their archives and added it to the movie. I reckon this will be the last time Disney let's an Animated film director and a TV actor, steer the ship of a $200 million live action movie.

If you don't know anything about movies though, you might be able to enjoy it. Sometimes I wish I didn't know anything about movies.


Brad Bird, Ghost Protocol. 

That movie came out last year, it's budget was $145 Million and it starred Tom Cruise. On top of that it was produced by JJ Abrams and part of a billion dollar franchise. How much ship steering do you think Brad Bird was doing? 

On a side note I just looked up what his next project is going to be on wikipedia. And it was a $200 million live action disney/pixar movie about the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake(Which sounds awesome). However it says that Brad has been working on rewrites to scale down the scope of the film(Which normally means budget) and it has also been suggested that the postponed start date is because Disney is concerned about the budget of the film. I mean if Disney is giving shit to Jerry Bruckheimer on the Lone Ranger which stars Johnny Depp and is directed by Gore Verbinski(Who ironically won the oscar for best animated film this year) for its budget, there is no way they don't trim this one down or replace Brad Bird with someone else or at the least cast an established movie star with a great supporting cast to help carry the film. 

Well I've seen every movie Brad Bird has made and I've also seen every movie JJ Abrams has ever done, and they each have their own very distinct way of directing which is appearant from their movies. Watching JJ abrams movies is like watching a spielberg movie. They both love to move the camera around a lot from side to side or up and down. Brad Bird on the other hand is a completely different amimal and it's clear he was doing the steering.

Just because you disliked John Carter (which I wont comment on because I haven't seen the movie) and it was directed by someone who previously had only worked on animated movies doesn't mean all directors can't make the transition is all I am getting at, and I think Brad Bird is a prime example. Ghost Protocol is one of the best reviewed movies of last year and certainly an amazing action film. 

Like I said before I haven't seen John Carter since it doesn't really appeal to me, but the reviews haven't been terrible, and to be honest I've been hearing a lot of postive things so far. 

As far as Brads next project goes lots of directors agree to trim down budgets in order to have more control over how the end project will be shot. Frank Darabont cut down the budget for The Mist down to 18 million from I believe 60 million so he could have the ending he wanted. Clint Eastwood often finishes project under budget as well, and wraps shooting early. Bird is a capable movie maker and knows what he's doing. He knows that at 200 million a movie has a far less chance of making a profit which makes him look bad, if the same movie can be shot for 145 in the end it will only make him look better when it makes a higher profit. 

Oh, and one last point. A little director by the name of Tim Burton also started his career doing aimation. 

First of all, the camera movement is none of the producers concern nor is it an actors concern. It's the directors and only the directors. So regardless of who's really making sure a movie will put asses in the seats, the camera movement will always reflect the decisions of the director, no matter who the producer is, so it doesn't mean anything.

Second of all, Clint Eastwood doesn't make studio films, he produces and directs all of his own films for the last 20 years, so that is why he comes in under budget, and that's a whole different situation. Frank Darabont also produced and wrote the Mist, and it too was not a studio film. Also the reason why he lowered the budget to $16 million to have more control, because the weinstiens are not dumb, a $60 million budget was way too risky. How much money did it make at the box office? $59 milion. I guess they made the right decision. Now Disney is being hesitant to take on that much risk. Not because Bird wants more control of his film. It's a studio film, not a directors film. BTW Do you know who produced Ghost Protocol? JJ Abrams, Tom Cruise, and Bryan Burk. They make live action movies, that make money. Do you know who produced John Carter? Animated film producers. There was no live action veterans over seeing that movie at all. I didn't even realize that until now. I'd have thought they'd atleast have one veteran live action producer on it, but instead they had all pixar animated movie producers. Disney was even dumber than I thought with John Carter.  

Third of all, I never said Animated directors could never make the transition. All I said is Disney wont let an animated director (and a tv actor) be in control of a big budget live action movie again. For obvious reasons. It's way too risky. You can't take risks with unknowns on movies that cost that much money. You will get burned and Disney will lose way too much money on John Carter, to ever let it happen again. As for Bird, he got in before the door will be shut. He's already made a live action movie(albiet with the help of people that know their shit). So atleast he has some bargaining chip to bring to the table. I actually haven't seen ghost protocol, but it looked pretty good from the trailers.

And last, Tim Burton worked in an animation studio. He didn't direct animated features. Burton is a live action director and has always been one. He didn't direct an animated film until Corpse Bride which was his 12th feature length film , and his only animated film. If he is your one guy to reference, then you don't have much of an argument. I'm actually thinking now the transition is even more difficult that I first thought. It could still be done, but there is no way a studio is putting up $200 million to find out. Animated movies and live action movies are two completely different things.  

First of all, where did I once say anything about producers or actors having control (or concern as you worded it) over the cmaera movement? I said, bird and JJ have different directing tactics which are evident by the way they move the camera, and therefore it's obvious that Bird directed Ghost Procotol, and not JJ as you first implied with your "   On top of that it was produced by JJ Abrams and part of a billion dollar franchise. How much ship steering do you think Brad Bird was doing?  " comment.

second of all, every movie is a studio film. Unless its an independant, and clint eastwood doesn't make movies that come out of his own pocket. 

third, Tim Burtons first 3 films were animated, and he direct them all, and he's a damn good example of animator gone live action.

we done now?



I was walking down along the street and I heard this voice saying, "Good evening, Mr. Dowd." Well, I turned around and here was this big six-foot rabbit leaning up against a lamp-post. Well, I thought nothing of that because when you've lived in a town as long as I've lived in this one, you get used to the fact that everybody knows your name.

Around the Network

The movie is way too disney!

"Give me the princess and I will let this city live!!!!111"
Isn't that outdated since 1994?



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

Coca-Cola said:

You may be right.  i haven't read the book in a long long time.  i need to go back to the book and read it.  The movie seemed very similar to what I remembered from the book.  Only main difference is the princess.  For some reason, I pictured her with less clothes.

I don't think this movie was dumbed down.  for an action film, it did have character development, it had humor, romance, action, I enjoyed willem Dafoe's character, and his daughter.  The dog was funny. and the twist at the end was very Sherlock Holmes like.  


The people of Mars was  wore next to nothing in the books, that's why you pictured her with less clothes.

As for the biggest differences from the book -

There were NO therns. And even in later books when there were therns, they weren't technomages. Everything related to them and the explanation of John Carter's teleporting was completely invented for the movie.

All the characters were completely changed, to the point of being different people. In the movie, John Carter was a rebel without a cause. In the book, he attached himself to any cause he felt was worthy. Also, he wasn't the kind of person to randomly attack people that are just trying to talk calmly. Not to mention they added a random backstory where he once had a wife and kid, whereas that was simply not the case. Also, they made Tardos Mors (the Jeddak of Jelium) decide to give his daughter to Sab Than, and Deja didn't want to. Which was the exact opposite of what characters were like in the book. Tardos Mors and in fact ANY heliumite would sooner die than hand over their princess, but  Deja Thoris, who out of loyalty to her people would do it willingly. Also, she was randomly a top scientist developing the planet's most advanced technology. Apparently being a princess and master sword fighter leave you plenty of time to dabble in ultra-advanced technology. The movie Deja Thoris's abilities read like a 6 year old girl's response to what she wants to be when she grows up. "I wanna be a princess/super model-sword fighting inventor". Well, that's nice honey, you shoot for the stars.

In the book John Carter could jump high and far, and was strong, because of the relatively low gravity of Mars.  In the movie however, they increased it by an order of magnitude. His abilities put spiderman to shame. Being strong doesn't mean you can whirl around a rock that's 25x your mass while remaining stationary.  They somehow knew less about physics than an author in 1917.

Worst of all, they just made the therns a plot mover. Why did anything major in the movie happen? Because therns wanted it to. Helium losing the war? Therns. Sab Than wanting to marry Deja? Therns. Random Warhoon attack? Therns. John Carter teleporting to Mars? Teleporting home to tell his story(instead of being killed?) Teleporting back to mars again? Therns. Wow, it would almost make you think that the book the movie was based on had therns in it. Which it did not.

 

/rant



Jereel Hunter said:
Coca-Cola said:

You may be right.  i haven't read the book in a long long time.  i need to go back to the book and read it.  The movie seemed very similar to what I remembered from the book.  Only main difference is the princess.  For some reason, I pictured her with less clothes.

I don't think this movie was dumbed down.  for an action film, it did have character development, it had humor, romance, action, I enjoyed willem Dafoe's character, and his daughter.  The dog was funny. and the twist at the end was very Sherlock Holmes like.  


The people of Mars was  wore next to nothing in the books, that's why you pictured her with less clothes.

As for the biggest differences from the book -

There were NO therns. And even in later books when there were therns, they weren't technomages. Everything related to them and the explanation of John Carter's teleporting was completely invented for the movie.

All the characters were completely changed, to the point of being different people. In the movie, John Carter was a rebel without a cause. In the book, he attached himself to any cause he felt was worthy. Also, he wasn't the kind of person to randomly attack people that are just trying to talk calmly. Not to mention they added a random backstory where he once had a wife and kid, whereas that was simply not the case. Also, they made Tardos Mors (the Jeddak of Jelium) decide to give his daughter to Sab Than, and Deja didn't want to. Which was the exact opposite of what characters were like in the book. Tardos Mors and in fact ANY heliumite would sooner die than hand over their princess, but  Deja Thoris, who out of loyalty to her people would do it willingly. Also, she was randomly a top scientist developing the planet's most advanced technology. Apparently being a princess and master sword fighter leave you plenty of time to dabble in ultra-advanced technology. The movie Deja Thoris's abilities read like a 6 year old girl's response to what she wants to be when she grows up. "I wanna be a princess/super model-sword fighting inventor". Well, that's nice honey, you shoot for the stars.

In the book John Carter could jump high and far, and was strong, because of the relatively low gravity of Mars.  In the movie however, they increased it by an order of magnitude. His abilities put spiderman to shame. Being strong doesn't mean you can whirl around a rock that's 25x your mass while remaining stationary.  They somehow knew less about physics than an author in 1917.

Worst of all, they just made the therns a plot mover. Why did anything major in the movie happen? Because therns wanted it to. Helium losing the war? Therns. Sab Than wanting to marry Deja? Therns. Random Warhoon attack? Therns. John Carter teleporting to Mars? Teleporting home to tell his story(instead of being killed?) Teleporting back to mars again? Therns. Wow, it would almost make you think that the book the movie was based on had therns in it. Which it did not.

 

/rant

Dang, you do remember a lot about the book.  No wonder the movie is not that good for you.  I remember reading Harry Potter right before seeing the movies, and hated it cause I liked the book so much.

I remember the Therns but didn't realize how different they are from the book.

I liked what they did at the end of the movie though.   For him to find a way to go back to Mars was a good one.  More satisfying than the book, I thought.

I really thought Bird did a great job with the movie - he's gonna be a great director. well, he already is.



@Hunter -
Now you got me afraid of 'Hunger Games'
My son loved the book, and he wants me to read it before we see the movie this weekend.
Now, I'm thinking I should skip the book



Around the Network
HesAPooka said:
RVDondaPC said:
HesAPooka said:
RVDondaPC said:
HesAPooka said:
RVDondaPC said:
This movie was horrible. I watched it with my brother this weekend who worked on the movie and he agreed it was god awful. We literally talked for hours after the movie was over about how bad it was. The acting was terrible. The Character development(or lack there of) was bad. It was soap opera acting at it's worst. The only two good actors in this movie were Willem Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church and they were both CG characters. It was shot terribly. The lighting and set dec was awful in many scenes. The action was mediocre and for a $200 million movie, it's bad. The CG and character animation was amazing though. It was the only element of this movie that was even close to top notch. I don't think Disney even had a budget to score this movie. They spent all their money on a year of reshoots and realized how bad it was that they just took generic theme music from their archives and added it to the movie. I reckon this will be the last time Disney let's an Animated film director and a TV actor, steer the ship of a $200 million live action movie.

If you don't know anything about movies though, you might be able to enjoy it. Sometimes I wish I didn't know anything about movies.


Brad Bird, Ghost Protocol. 

That movie came out last year, it's budget was $145 Million and it starred Tom Cruise. On top of that it was produced by JJ Abrams and part of a billion dollar franchise. How much ship steering do you think Brad Bird was doing? 

On a side note I just looked up what his next project is going to be on wikipedia. And it was a $200 million live action disney/pixar movie about the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake(Which sounds awesome). However it says that Brad has been working on rewrites to scale down the scope of the film(Which normally means budget) and it has also been suggested that the postponed start date is because Disney is concerned about the budget of the film. I mean if Disney is giving shit to Jerry Bruckheimer on the Lone Ranger which stars Johnny Depp and is directed by Gore Verbinski(Who ironically won the oscar for best animated film this year) for its budget, there is no way they don't trim this one down or replace Brad Bird with someone else or at the least cast an established movie star with a great supporting cast to help carry the film. 

Well I've seen every movie Brad Bird has made and I've also seen every movie JJ Abrams has ever done, and they each have their own very distinct way of directing which is appearant from their movies. Watching JJ abrams movies is like watching a spielberg movie. They both love to move the camera around a lot from side to side or up and down. Brad Bird on the other hand is a completely different amimal and it's clear he was doing the steering.

Just because you disliked John Carter (which I wont comment on because I haven't seen the movie) and it was directed by someone who previously had only worked on animated movies doesn't mean all directors can't make the transition is all I am getting at, and I think Brad Bird is a prime example. Ghost Protocol is one of the best reviewed movies of last year and certainly an amazing action film. 

Like I said before I haven't seen John Carter since it doesn't really appeal to me, but the reviews haven't been terrible, and to be honest I've been hearing a lot of postive things so far. 

As far as Brads next project goes lots of directors agree to trim down budgets in order to have more control over how the end project will be shot. Frank Darabont cut down the budget for The Mist down to 18 million from I believe 60 million so he could have the ending he wanted. Clint Eastwood often finishes project under budget as well, and wraps shooting early. Bird is a capable movie maker and knows what he's doing. He knows that at 200 million a movie has a far less chance of making a profit which makes him look bad, if the same movie can be shot for 145 in the end it will only make him look better when it makes a higher profit. 

Oh, and one last point. A little director by the name of Tim Burton also started his career doing aimation. 

First of all, the camera movement is none of the producers concern nor is it an actors concern. It's the directors and only the directors. So regardless of who's really making sure a movie will put asses in the seats, the camera movement will always reflect the decisions of the director, no matter who the producer is, so it doesn't mean anything.

Second of all, Clint Eastwood doesn't make studio films, he produces and directs all of his own films for the last 20 years, so that is why he comes in under budget, and that's a whole different situation. Frank Darabont also produced and wrote the Mist, and it too was not a studio film. Also the reason why he lowered the budget to $16 million to have more control, because the weinstiens are not dumb, a $60 million budget was way too risky. How much money did it make at the box office? $59 milion. I guess they made the right decision. Now Disney is being hesitant to take on that much risk. Not because Bird wants more control of his film. It's a studio film, not a directors film. BTW Do you know who produced Ghost Protocol? JJ Abrams, Tom Cruise, and Bryan Burk. They make live action movies, that make money. Do you know who produced John Carter? Animated film producers. There was no live action veterans over seeing that movie at all. I didn't even realize that until now. I'd have thought they'd atleast have one veteran live action producer on it, but instead they had all pixar animated movie producers. Disney was even dumber than I thought with John Carter.  

Third of all, I never said Animated directors could never make the transition. All I said is Disney wont let an animated director (and a tv actor) be in control of a big budget live action movie again. For obvious reasons. It's way too risky. You can't take risks with unknowns on movies that cost that much money. You will get burned and Disney will lose way too much money on John Carter, to ever let it happen again. As for Bird, he got in before the door will be shut. He's already made a live action movie(albiet with the help of people that know their shit). So atleast he has some bargaining chip to bring to the table. I actually haven't seen ghost protocol, but it looked pretty good from the trailers.

And last, Tim Burton worked in an animation studio. He didn't direct animated features. Burton is a live action director and has always been one. He didn't direct an animated film until Corpse Bride which was his 12th feature length film , and his only animated film. If he is your one guy to reference, then you don't have much of an argument. I'm actually thinking now the transition is even more difficult that I first thought. It could still be done, but there is no way a studio is putting up $200 million to find out. Animated movies and live action movies are two completely different things.  

First of all, where did I once say anything about producers or actors having control (or concern as you worded it) over the cmaera movement? I said, bird and JJ have different directing tactics which are evident by the way they move the camera, and therefore it's obvious that Bird directed Ghost Procotol, and not JJ as you first implied with your "   On top of that it was produced by JJ Abrams and part of a billion dollar franchise. How much ship steering do you think Brad Bird was doing?  " comment.

second of all, every movie is a studio film. Unless its an independant, and clint eastwood doesn't make movies that come out of his own pocket. 

third, Tim Burtons first 3 films were animated, and he direct them all, and he's a damn good example of animator gone live action.

we done now?

1. I guess you misunderstood my comment. Steering the ship, as in controlling the overall product and major decisions. Obviously whoever is listed as director of a movie is "directing" the movie, but that doesn't mean they are in control of the overall product. Maybe if you read the whole sentence and didn't ommit part of it you would have realized how moronic the sentence would have been if you replaced, steer the ship with direct. 

2. There is a difference between a studio distributing the film and a studio producing the film. Studio films are produced and controlled by studios, non-studio films can still be distributed by major studios, but they are not studio films. And no shit Clint Eastwood doesn't self finance out of his own pocket. What does that have to do with anything? 

3. Can you please link me to Tim Burton's first 3 animated films? Because according to his IMDB, his first three features films were Pee's Wee's Big Adventure, BeetleJuice, and Batman. Everything else before that were shorts, and half of them were not even animated. 

Yes, we're done. You clearly have a passion for movies which I like, but you don't know what you are talking about. 



RVDondaPC said:
HesAPooka said:
RVDondaPC said:
HesAPooka said:
RVDondaPC said:
HesAPooka said:
RVDondaPC said:
This movie was horrible. I watched it with my brother this weekend who worked on the movie and he agreed it was god awful. We literally talked for hours after the movie was over about how bad it was. The acting was terrible. The Character development(or lack there of) was bad. It was soap opera acting at it's worst. The only two good actors in this movie were Willem Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church and they were both CG characters. It was shot terribly. The lighting and set dec was awful in many scenes. The action was mediocre and for a $200 million movie, it's bad. The CG and character animation was amazing though. It was the only element of this movie that was even close to top notch. I don't think Disney even had a budget to score this movie. They spent all their money on a year of reshoots and realized how bad it was that they just took generic theme music from their archives and added it to the movie. I reckon this will be the last time Disney let's an Animated film director and a TV actor, steer the ship of a $200 million live action movie.

If you don't know anything about movies though, you might be able to enjoy it. Sometimes I wish I didn't know anything about movies.


Brad Bird, Ghost Protocol. 

That movie came out last year, it's budget was $145 Million and it starred Tom Cruise. On top of that it was produced by JJ Abrams and part of a billion dollar franchise. How much ship steering do you think Brad Bird was doing? 

On a side note I just looked up what his next project is going to be on wikipedia. And it was a $200 million live action disney/pixar movie about the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake(Which sounds awesome). However it says that Brad has been working on rewrites to scale down the scope of the film(Which normally means budget) and it has also been suggested that the postponed start date is because Disney is concerned about the budget of the film. I mean if Disney is giving shit to Jerry Bruckheimer on the Lone Ranger which stars Johnny Depp and is directed by Gore Verbinski(Who ironically won the oscar for best animated film this year) for its budget, there is no way they don't trim this one down or replace Brad Bird with someone else or at the least cast an established movie star with a great supporting cast to help carry the film. 

Well I've seen every movie Brad Bird has made and I've also seen every movie JJ Abrams has ever done, and they each have their own very distinct way of directing which is appearant from their movies. Watching JJ abrams movies is like watching a spielberg movie. They both love to move the camera around a lot from side to side or up and down. Brad Bird on the other hand is a completely different amimal and it's clear he was doing the steering.

Just because you disliked John Carter (which I wont comment on because I haven't seen the movie) and it was directed by someone who previously had only worked on animated movies doesn't mean all directors can't make the transition is all I am getting at, and I think Brad Bird is a prime example. Ghost Protocol is one of the best reviewed movies of last year and certainly an amazing action film. 

Like I said before I haven't seen John Carter since it doesn't really appeal to me, but the reviews haven't been terrible, and to be honest I've been hearing a lot of postive things so far. 

As far as Brads next project goes lots of directors agree to trim down budgets in order to have more control over how the end project will be shot. Frank Darabont cut down the budget for The Mist down to 18 million from I believe 60 million so he could have the ending he wanted. Clint Eastwood often finishes project under budget as well, and wraps shooting early. Bird is a capable movie maker and knows what he's doing. He knows that at 200 million a movie has a far less chance of making a profit which makes him look bad, if the same movie can be shot for 145 in the end it will only make him look better when it makes a higher profit. 

Oh, and one last point. A little director by the name of Tim Burton also started his career doing aimation. 

First of all, the camera movement is none of the producers concern nor is it an actors concern. It's the directors and only the directors. So regardless of who's really making sure a movie will put asses in the seats, the camera movement will always reflect the decisions of the director, no matter who the producer is, so it doesn't mean anything.

Second of all, Clint Eastwood doesn't make studio films, he produces and directs all of his own films for the last 20 years, so that is why he comes in under budget, and that's a whole different situation. Frank Darabont also produced and wrote the Mist, and it too was not a studio film. Also the reason why he lowered the budget to $16 million to have more control, because the weinstiens are not dumb, a $60 million budget was way too risky. How much money did it make at the box office? $59 milion. I guess they made the right decision. Now Disney is being hesitant to take on that much risk. Not because Bird wants more control of his film. It's a studio film, not a directors film. BTW Do you know who produced Ghost Protocol? JJ Abrams, Tom Cruise, and Bryan Burk. They make live action movies, that make money. Do you know who produced John Carter? Animated film producers. There was no live action veterans over seeing that movie at all. I didn't even realize that until now. I'd have thought they'd atleast have one veteran live action producer on it, but instead they had all pixar animated movie producers. Disney was even dumber than I thought with John Carter.  

Third of all, I never said Animated directors could never make the transition. All I said is Disney wont let an animated director (and a tv actor) be in control of a big budget live action movie again. For obvious reasons. It's way too risky. You can't take risks with unknowns on movies that cost that much money. You will get burned and Disney will lose way too much money on John Carter, to ever let it happen again. As for Bird, he got in before the door will be shut. He's already made a live action movie(albiet with the help of people that know their shit). So atleast he has some bargaining chip to bring to the table. I actually haven't seen ghost protocol, but it looked pretty good from the trailers.

And last, Tim Burton worked in an animation studio. He didn't direct animated features. Burton is a live action director and has always been one. He didn't direct an animated film until Corpse Bride which was his 12th feature length film , and his only animated film. If he is your one guy to reference, then you don't have much of an argument. I'm actually thinking now the transition is even more difficult that I first thought. It could still be done, but there is no way a studio is putting up $200 million to find out. Animated movies and live action movies are two completely different things.  

First of all, where did I once say anything about producers or actors having control (or concern as you worded it) over the cmaera movement? I said, bird and JJ have different directing tactics which are evident by the way they move the camera, and therefore it's obvious that Bird directed Ghost Procotol, and not JJ as you first implied with your "   On top of that it was produced by JJ Abrams and part of a billion dollar franchise. How much ship steering do you think Brad Bird was doing?  " comment.

second of all, every movie is a studio film. Unless its an independant, and clint eastwood doesn't make movies that come out of his own pocket. 

third, Tim Burtons first 3 films were animated, and he direct them all, and he's a damn good example of animator gone live action.

we done now?

1. I guess you misunderstood my comment. Steering the ship, as in controlling the overall product and major decisions. Obviously whoever is listed as director of a movie is "directing" the movie, but that doesn't mean they are in control of the overall product. Maybe if you read the whole sentence and didn't ommit part of it you would have realized how moronic the sentence would have been if you replaced, steer the ship with direct. 

2. There is a difference between a studio distributing the film and a studio producing the film. Studio films are produced and controlled by studios, non-studio films can still be distributed by major studios, but they are not studio films. And no shit Clint Eastwood doesn't self finance out of his own pocket. What does that have to do with anything? 

3. Can you please link me to Tim Burton's first 3 animated films? Because according to his IMDB, his first three features films were Pee's Wee's Big Adventure, BeetleJuice, and Batman. Everything else before that were shorts, and half of them were not even animated. 

Yes, we're done. You clearly have a passion for movies which I like, but you don't know what you are talking about. 

1. You're being a twat, all i said is Brad Bird directed Ghost Protocol and you went off on a tangent about who actually steered the ship. To which I replied it's obvious he did. Then you went off on another tangent about how producers dont control camera movement. 

2. All movies start from a studio in one way or another, and the studio has partial control if not full control over what happens during production unless it's independent

3. I said his first 3 films were animated, why does it matter if they are features or not. My whole argument this whole time is that a director that has previously only worked on animated films can make the transition from animation to live action and provided you with two perfect examples. You're agument against me using Tim Burton as an example is basially ignoring the fact that his first 3 projects that were animation don't count because they were shorts? Which is beyong stupid. You're pretty much setting a standard that if a directors first feature films are animated he cant make a transition to live action. You clearly just like to argue every little point since this whole argument started over me providing you with two examples of animation directors turned live action. 

You don't like to be proved wrong and don't know what you're talking about, see how that works?



I was walking down along the street and I heard this voice saying, "Good evening, Mr. Dowd." Well, I turned around and here was this big six-foot rabbit leaning up against a lamp-post. Well, I thought nothing of that because when you've lived in a town as long as I've lived in this one, you get used to the fact that everybody knows your name.

Proving me what? I never said it couldn't be done. Your comment was completely unrelated to anything I posted about. I was talking about future $200 million projects being given to an animated director and tv star to control by Disney because it was too much of a risk and your response was a $145 million movie, released a year ago by Paramount which was a 5th movie in a Billion dollar franchise that was already controlled by one of the biggest movie stars in the world and it's producers. There was no risk. Where is the relevance?

I then pointed out to you that what you are talking about has nothing to do with anything and most of the things you are talking about, you are dead wrong about.

As for Tim Burton who has directed about 15 live action movies and only 1 animated movie which came after 12 live action movies, you are trying to convince me he is an animated film director and not a live atcion director. He is clearly a live action director and it shows in his body of work. The reason some of his first few shorts involved animation was because he was an artist, not because he was an Animated film director. If he was an animated director, he would have been directing animated features, not live action movies. Someone can be great at directing both Live action and Animated films, but they are completely different types of films that require different skill sets to direct and be good at it. It's a lot more work and requires a much greater amount of understanding of film and having foresight to direct live action, than it does an animated film. So to assume because someone can make a great live action movie because he's directed good animated films, will continue to be a risky proposition. One that I am willing to bet Disney will not put down $200 million dollars on to find out any more. Pixar has been hugely successful at producing animated films, so successful they figured they could do it with live action, and Disney gave them a chance because of all the animated success, but John Carter has quickly reminded Disney of the risks and how it is a completely different beast to make a live action movie compared to an animated film.



There you go again on another tangent completely ignoring Burton first work being animation, and Brad Bird being a capable live action dirctor.
How was my comment not related to anything you said LOL. You were talking about animators who switched to live action and I provided examples of directors who have made a successful transition. Once again you're arguing the silliest of points without basis.
If this conversation were face to face I'd continue it, but It's not and will obvious go on forever with you ignoring crucial facts, and going on numerous tangents over minuscule pointless things that the original conversation has nothing to do with in a desperate attempt to seem more knowledgeable.



I was walking down along the street and I heard this voice saying, "Good evening, Mr. Dowd." Well, I turned around and here was this big six-foot rabbit leaning up against a lamp-post. Well, I thought nothing of that because when you've lived in a town as long as I've lived in this one, you get used to the fact that everybody knows your name.

Just saw it earlier tonight and would say its a fine movie but not fine for 250 million. Hey how the hell did it take 250 million for production? There's wasn't anything epic to that scale. Marketing and directorial flaws to be blamed. Hoping the foreign contribution to the box office recovers cost. Who wants to see the Therns striking back....?