Red Letter Media

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Favorite recurring character? (Select 4)

  • Jack / AIDSMobdy

    Votes: 257 24.0%

  • Josh / the Wizard

    Votes: 77 7.2%

  • Colin (Canadian #1)

    Votes: 460 42.9%

  • Jim (Canadian #2)

    Votes: 230 21.4%

  • Tim

    Votes: 386 36.0%

  • Len Kabasinski

    Votes: 208 19.4%

  • Freddie Williams

    Votes: 274 25.5%

  • Patton Oswalt

    Votes: 27 2.5%

  • Macaulay Culkin

    Votes: 541 50.4%

  • Max Landis

    Votes: 64 6.0%
  • Total voters
    1,073
KrewlKween said:
I wouldn't out it past Breen or someone associated with him to have striked it.
Click to expand...
I would have done the same, tbh. Mike and Jay were both smug when they were giving advices to Breen on how to make movies. Coming from the people who made Space Cop, that's quite ironic.
 
ditto said:
Really wish they didn't keep cutting to that horrible Depp remake duringt the Re:View, and instead spent half the time on the original and then brought out Mr. Plinkett to shit hard on the remake.

Loathe that fucking movie. It deserves nothing less.
Click to expand...

As much as I miss and lionize the 2000s today the remake is a good example of one of the things that sucked about the 2000s and that was the oftentimes cynical attitude with no room for genuine whimsy.

Commander X said:
The Burton "Willy Wonka" film is bad, but his Alice in Wonderland film was even worse - it's almost like a savage parody of the worst of Burton's directorial tics and excesses, written by a group of people who heartily despise his oeuvre.
Click to expand...

That was when his career officially shit the bed.
 
ditto said:
Really wish they didn't keep cutting to that horrible Depp remake duringt the Re:View
Click to expand...
What's the deal with the cinematography in that remake? I can't stand the weird blur on the faces.
 
Commander X said:
The Burton "Willy Wonka" film is bad, but his Alice in Wonderland film was even worse - it's almost like a savage parody of the worst of Burton's directorial tics and excesses, written by a group of people who heartily despise his oeuvre.
Click to expand...
When I first started venturing online, back in 1999 or so, every time a Burton project was announced, the comments would be filled with people wishing that he’d direct new adaptations of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland “but make ‘em all dark!” Granted, this was before he had reached the depths of self-parody, but still. Thank God he made Ed Wood when he did.
 
Dom Cruise said:
As much as I miss and lionize the 2000s today the remake is a good example of one of the things that sucked about the 2000s and that was the oftentimes cynical attitude with no room for genuine whimsy.
Click to expand...
Most of the good 00s was really post 2005. The cynicism of the early 2000s was a cultural desert.
Miller said:
What's the deal with the cinematography in that remake? I can't stand the weird blur on the faces.
Click to expand...
The CGI of the time really wasn't up to the task. I think Burton smeared it with blur so the difference between CGI and live action effects isn't so obvious.
 
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory without Whimsy is like a desert without water. Like a Christmas spent at your bitchy aunt's house listening to her talk about her gall bladder surgery. I'll take having to listen to one boring song in the old version of the movie over having Burton vomiting his cringy weirdness at me for 1-1/2 hours in the new version.
 
Someone in a Tree said:
When I first started venturing online, back in 1999 or so, every time a Burton project was announced, the comments would be filled with people wishing that he’d direct new adaptations of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland “but make ‘em all dark!” Granted, this was before he had reached the depths of self-parody, but still. Thank God he made Ed Wood when he did.
Click to expand...

I remember hearing a rumor in the early 2000s that he was going to remake The Wizard of Oz.

A Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland was the most obvious idea in the world, it could have been cool had he done it in the 80s or 90s though.

Burton's visual style was cool when it was actual physical things, intricate sets, models, stop motion animation, costumes, when most of that stuff became CGI it just became totally soulless.

The only time CGI really worked in a Tim Burton movie was Mars Attacks, but the CG in that had a very stop motion feel (and I believe was originally meant to be stop motion) and there were still sets and locations and things, it wasn't all filmed on a big green screen sound stage.

Mars Attacks is not a great movie but it's still far better than most of what came later.

ditto said:
Most of the good 00s was really post 2005. The cynicism of the early 2000s was a cultural desert.
Click to expand...

It was still preferable to what we have now, but yeah, that cynicism often sucked, I think of the horrendous, horrendous live action Cat In The Hat movie for another example.
 
Dom Cruise said:
It was still preferable to what we have now, but yeah, that cynicism often sucked, I think of the horrendous, horrendous live action Cat In The Hat movie for another example.
Click to expand...
The 2000s at least had a sincerity that feels missing now.
 
Dom Cruise said:
The only time CGI really worked in a Tim Burton movie was Mars Attacks, but the CG in that had a very stop motion feel (and I believe was originally meant to be stop motion) and there were still sets and locations and things, it wasn't all filmed on a big green screen sound stage.

Mars Attacks is not a great movie but it's still far better than most of what came later.
Click to expand...
The Martians were originally going to be stop motion figures but that was nixed when CGI was determined to be cheaper and faster. They are wonderfully realized creations, too. Mars Attacks! is wildly uneven, but I would love it if Burton made something as “bad” as it now.
 
Someone in a Tree said:
The Martians were originally going to be stop motion figures but that was nixed when CGI was determined to be cheaper and faster. They are wonderfully realized creations, too. Mars Attacks! is wildly uneven, but I would love it if Burton made something as “bad” as it now.
Click to expand...

Stop motion is actually what CGI is the best replacement for, look at Jurassic Park for example.

I mean I love stop motion but there's no denying CGI gives you smoother motion.

CGI is a useful tool but Hollywood has too often gone overboard in wanting to use it to replace everything, even makeup and costumes.

There's always going to be something to things existing in physical space, your brain is hardwired to recognize what is real and what isn't, that's why the best CGI effects are often things that blend something real in, like performance and motion capture, some examples being Davy Jones in the Pirates of The Caribbean sequels and Thanos in the Avengers movies.
 
Miller said:
I would have done the same, tbh. Mike and Jay were both smug when they were giving advices to Breen on how to make movies. Coming from the people who made Space Cop, that's quite ironic.
Click to expand...
Space Cop is miles ahead of anything Breen has ever done in terms of production quality.
Also, RLM were trying to make a movie that they would watch on BOTW, Breen is actually trying to make good movies.
 
Dom Cruise said:
I remember hearing a rumor in the early 2000s that he was going to remake The Wizard of Oz.

A Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland was the most obvious idea in the world, it could have been cool had he done it in the 80s or 90s though.

Burton's visual style was cool when it was actual physical things, intricate sets, models, stop motion animation, costumes, when most of that stuff became CGI it just became totally soulless.

The only time CGI really worked in a Tim Burton movie was Mars Attacks, but the CG in that had a very stop motion feel (and I believe was originally meant to be stop motion) and there were still sets and locations and things, it wasn't all filmed on a big green screen sound stage.

Mars Attacks is not a great movie but it's still far better than most of what came later.



It was still preferable to what we have now, but yeah, that cynicism often sucked, I think of the horrendous, horrendous live action Cat In The Hat movie for another example.
Click to expand...
Burton's more interested in chasing that Hot Topic money than he is making interesting movies nowadays.
 
Dom Cruise said:
Stop motion is actually what CGI is the best replacement for, look at Jurassic Park for example.

I mean I love stop motion but there's no denying CGI gives you smoother motion.

CGI is a useful tool but Hollywood has too often gone overboard in wanting to use it to replace everything, even makeup and costumes.

There's always going to be something to things existing in physical space, your brain is hardwired to recognize what is real and what isn't, that's why the best CGI effects are often things that blend something real in, like performance and motion capture, some examples being Davy Jones in the Pirates of The Caribbean sequels and Thanos in the Avengers movies.
Click to expand...
There are times I wish they could merge the two. Do stop motion (and animatronics) and then use CGI to smooth the frames out.

CGI always seems better as a filler, than a main course (exception: Pixar).
 
People hate on Burton for just doing cash grabs but then, when he makes something like Big Eyes, nobody goes to see it.
Anyone seen Big Eyes?
Yeah, exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom