Steady Leak: All Chops, No Brain - Page 2

It was brought up. Oh well.

Sums it up, I'd say.

Edit: Beaten by you when I was trying to point this out to you. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

I hope I had a little more to say than that; if not, blame the caffeine. But the reason for ire in the situation as you present it is: if the guy's filmmaking skills are nil, he's getting attention not for "doing his thing", but for "doing someone else's thing". He's cutting in front of other wannabe filmmakers by standing on the shoulders of giants. How is that not really, really wrong?

As I noted above, Phil's defense, although it works, doesn't seem to be consistent with Nick's original article. I don't see how Doomsday (or Spider-Man 2 for that matter) is legitimately distinguishable under his (Nick's) theory.

ETA: Typed the above before seeing Phil's most recent post. The "standing on shoulders" thing may be where Nick is going - so Collera (sic) is guilty of trying to make a name for himself by using the concepts and characters (or reasonable facsimiles thereof) of others? That's obviously different from Nolan's or Raimi's situation, but isn't Neil Marshall still turning a buck by ripping off The Road Warrior, etc. in much the same fashion?

1: Collora's entire "ouvre" exists SOLELY in the realm of fan film; Marshall and Raimi established themselves as filmmakers before playing with other people's toys. Doomsday was Marshall's third feature film.

2: There's no distinctive or indigenous creative voice whatsoever in his creative output;

3: His actual output is lifeless and dull. (subjective, but that's where I'm coming from)

Really? You don't see how an adaptation is not the same as a fanfilm? You don't see how GOODFELLAS or THE GODFATHER are different from BATMAN: DEAD END.

Seriously? We have to have this discussion?

"I think people who make really polished fan films are infinitely worse than folks like Boll"

What??? You MUST be joking.

ETA: I think this still applies after reading Devin's post above.
I get your points, Phil, and if I'd bothered to watch either "Dead End" or the trailer to this latest movie I'd likely agree .That seems to be consistent with the intent of the term "fanfilm" when it is used in a disparaging fashion, which is to say that the product in question is creatively bankrupt - the only thing worthwhile in it are the pieces that were lifted from someone else. If that was in the original article I think I"d be fine with it. But this bit is what has me a bit rankled:

That's a different thing. Taken at face value, what Nick is saying there applies to most any comic book adaptation and, arguably, many genre films in general and doesn't seem consistent with all that is CHUD.

I don't know why I care but it seems like the site should be clear and consistent in its criticism of Collera and anyone else.

Here's the problem with this trailer: if you take out the Star Wars and other fan film stuff, all you're left with is...nothing.

I appreciate that he got this film made in the first place, that's more than most people can say they've done. But it's pretty much worthless if he can't inject his own original ideas into it.

Good question. Id like to hear the answer.

Making a film is enough? I guess we should all be congratulating Paul WS Anderson on every release?

This guy didn't make a movie to show his friends at the bar. He made a movie to SELL to people. Just making it is not enough. This isn't the Special fucking Olympics.

Well, here's where it's going to devolve into the "authorized/unauthorized" debate, but if you legally CAN'T do anything with what you've spent all this time creating, all you're left with is a masturbatory end result. Which renders your artistic motivations as seriously suspect in the first place. You can "live and let live" that, but I'm not sure it's worth defending or celebrating.

The big variable in this argument is the existence of a fan film that is actually some stellar work of creative genius. THAT will be an interesting debate, but as of today, it hasn't happened yet. As iwaskabukiman states above, there's nothing to Collora's work beyond the tropes and trappings of other people's creations. He's not adding anything of merit.

"That someone would eschew an original, fresh idea for something with existing comic book characters and film franchise characters is like a "fuck you" to the writers out there with real ideas that simply need to be paired with a new filmmaker with the ability to execute those ideas."

Didnt you try to make a film of a book?

Again, this is just retarded. Your reasoning, such as it is, places what Collora does alongside THE GODFATHER. I have too much faith in humanity to actually believe that you mean this. I have to believe you're just being argumentative.

Feel free to hate the final product, go right ahead. But to say that this guy is 'worse then Boll'? Come off it. He made a fan film which he is trying to sell to people. Shouldnt CHUD be congratulating him for at least that? Good on him I say, hes living the dream. His film may well be rubbish. But good on him for giving it a go.

Whatever Nick's motivations are or aren't, I think this is an interesting topic to discuss. Do we have to play Encyclopedia Brown over why the topic came up? It's here; we're talking. Yay discussion!

New theory for my Collora hate: I'm sick to death of anything remotely Star Wars. And love or hate Nolan's Batman films, they embarrassed the shit out of Collora's Batman Vs. Predator.

The dream is to rip off other people's vision? Why should we be congratulating every moron who gets a camera and has nothing to say?

But ROCK STAR was inspired by a true story.

But....but...but...Nick is slating the guy for not doing something original isnt he? And Nick tried to make a film about a book.

I absolutely never want to see the cinematic equivalent of a Judas Priest cover band that then gets to actually be Judas Priest. Ever.

Fuck you EchoBase.

At first I thought Devin was being a little strawman-ish, but you really are comparing adapting a film into a book to fan films, aren't you? Holy cats.

Maybe SC can coax someone into one of Caroline Munro's old outfits. Win win.

You know why I don't take this message board discussion shit seriously... because some cunty cunt faced cunt reads the argument being made, asks a question, the question is addressed and the cunty cunt faced cunts ask the same stupid shitty question again. Why bother trying to debate any of this shit in the first place if sub-human dipshits are far too anal and literal minded to comprehend the point being made in the first place?

When you are adapting a book, you are being asked by the people who own the rights to the book to help them transfer their idea into a new artistic medium. You are collaborating with the owners of the original idea at their request. You are being asked to provide your skills to transfer an idea from one medium to another. How can someone not understand why that is different than making a fan film?

Doomsday gets a pass because Neil Marshall is actually talented, he holds not pretention that Doomsday holds artistic value, it can be argued that Doomsday is enough of its own thing to qualify as homage and it is probable the failure of Doomsday at the box office staved off actual remakes of The Road Warrior or Escape From New York.

Hitler was living his dream too.

But in your article on the film, you say:
Look, I think the trailer looks like crap. It's dull and uninspired. But this guy didn't take dime one away from a more worthy project. The only thing he looks to have wasted is the time of his cast and crew. I don't think he should be patted on the back just for having made something, but I don't think he's particularly worthy for individual scorn either. He's getting far more attention than he deserves.

No im not. Im wondering why Nick is slagging off a guy for not doing something fresh original and exciting when Nick tried to get a film off the ground that was an adaptation. That's all.
I think I shouldnt have said anything. I just like coming here for the Focused Film section discussions, man.

Let's us have an informed discussion:

Batman: Dead End

World's Finest

Note the stolen MPAA screens, the stolen WB logo, the horrible grammar on display. Maybe you'll love it; maybe you'll see things differently after watching this guy's stuff.

It's been amply shown that you can still imbue an adaptation with your own creative spark. Collora hasn't really shown he has a creative spark, just a gift for capable mimicry.

http://www.collorastudios.com/ip.htm

I think he's a very talented designer, for what it's worth.

Fuck yeah when are we gonna see that movie?!

After someone else makes it first. (zing!)

I totally want to see a fish riding a fish.

These guys dont have resources. They're writing so that eventually their ideas can get made by someone with resources.

This fella seems to have resources. Him not using a resource of quality and originality stems from laziness and a desire to play safe. Star Wars is a proven success, playing off that success has less of a risk of failing and it already has a pre-build fanbase. There are thousands of writers online who could have supported this guy if he was willing to break out of his safety net.

I wouldn't expect him to come up with the next Eternal Sunshine. Oddly, our world doesn't play by the rule where only amazing and awful films exist.

And remakes are different than fan films because you are being asked by the owners of the original concept to re-adapt their orginal concept. Creative collaboration with the creators or owners of an original idea has merit and artistic value.

"end up making history"
HAHHAHAHAHAHAH

Ok, now i hate him.

Because it is fun to slag off worthless assholes. Why does there need to be any more motivation than that? It feels fucking awesome to call Sandy Collora an asshole and belittle people who waste their time making fan films.

What I meant was that this wasn't a case of some money guy going, "Well, I can finance this brilliant unproduced screenplay, or I can give Collora some money to play with and make a Star Wars/Predator rip off." Collora making this film didn't stop that brilliant screenplay from being produced.

That Guardians of Atlantis concept (reminds me of the Stan Winston figure properties) seems like a cool idea. I'd watch it for sure, but it's gotta be much riskier and harder to produce.

This statement also makes it okay to slag off this pile of cock vomit. Artistic intent has a lot to do with the value of art. What is Sandy Collora's intent with Hunter Prey? According to him it is to make deeply personal art. Then guess what, Sandy. As far as I can see you have failed to do so. You certainly failed to do this with Dead End and World's Finest.

What was Neil Marshall's intent with Doomsday? To create a super violent homage to Road Warrior and Escape From New York that is a lot of fun. Mr. Marshall I must congratulate you on your successful endeavor in exploitation film-making.

I remember enjoying Dead End enough when I saw it*, but that World's Finest clip was so not good. Batman looked like a Mego doll.

*At no point did I think anyone involved should have any part in a Batman franchise.

ETA: ...which adds nothing to the discussion at hand. I'm all for these guys doing what they want to do, but the adulation they earn has little to with actual merit and everything to do with the properties they appropriate or "pay homage" to. It's not so much that they shouldn't do what they're doing, only that the relative respect earned is wholly out of whack because of the associations of the subject matter. Fun videos on YouTube that trigger nostalgia does not automatically translate to a filmmaker worth paying attention to.

Honestly, I said that because I just didn't feel like calling down the attentions of mongoloids like echobase. I don't really mean it, I was just being diplomatic.

Yo DAWG...!

You said it yourself - a struggling filmmaker (and after watching that World's Finest...whatever it was, I hate myself for using that term to describe this guy) may reasonably assume he/she will get more hits making something that is or that looks like Batman or Star Wars than something 100% new. I'm not defending it as art, but I understand it as commerce.

This seems to be one of those situations where the guy isn't worthy of defending, but the argument is worth making. To say that someone trying to break into the business should NEVER try to do so by latching onto an existing property (or properties) ignores reality from a business point of view. To say that they should never do so from an artistic point of view also implicates the Nolans and Raimis. And to say that the difference is that it is only OK if the filmmakers have something interesting to do or say seems to be the same thing as saying that they shouldn't try to make movies if they have no talent for it. Duh.

No, the reality is that if you make fanfilms no one in Hollywood will take you seriously. Collora isn't making his feature debut under the auspices of Screen Gems, after all. Making fanfilms is a bad career move.

Leeching off of other people's success is purely a business move. Not crediting those who deserve it is dishonest. The work has no artistic merit.

It's hardly rocket science. Understanding his motivations doesn't make what he's done more acceptable - it makes it less so, especially since he's actively said he's creating unique works here.

Starcrash needs to be more well known in these parts. It may well be the greatest movie ever made.

Dugg (sorry for the unimaginative headline, was going for something obvious and clickable):

http://digg.com/movies/The_Horrible_...bout_Fan_Films

Hasselhoff would agree with you. I find it funny how blatant others were in ripping off Lucas and cashing in at during the late 70s early 80s. Buck Rogers (yeah, I know SW is an homage to those old properties), BSG, STARCRASH, BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS, THE LAST STARFIGHTER, BLACKHOLE, etc. But even in that glut of rip-offs, there was still some fun to be had as fans of the genre.

Hopefully HUNTER PREY is more akin to that mentality (even combining ideas) and execution than the purely-business driven motives of the lesser-skilled The Asylum.

But I'm probably just giving too much benefit of the doubt.

Some of my favorite ALIEN-ripoffs (GALAXY OF TERROR, XTRO, FORBIDDEN WORLD, INSEMINOID) are ALIEN-ripoffs. Wait, what?

Can't blame you there.

And yeah, reading the quotes on his site really makes me less inclined to stand up for the guy. This:

earns him every last bit of bile Nick heaped upon him.

I want someone to make a film out of his GUARDIANS OF ATLANTIS designs.

Just not him.

He probably does have a future as an FX designer or conceptual artist.