While I am glad to hear he's able to shoot his passion project, and I know I should have faith in him, I must state I don't find this subject terribly interesting. I will withhold judgement till I see the final film, though

150 mil??? Can you imagine the designer scarves Aronofsky will be able to sport while shooting this one? Going to be incredible!

I'm sure this will be heady and metaphysical like THE FOUNTAIN. I personally don't like Aronofsky when he plays in this sort of sandbox. He's brilliant with small scale stories like THE WRESTLER and BLACK SWAN, but I just don't think he has the brilliance to pull off what Kubrick and Malick can. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

I'm sure this will be heady and metaphysical like THE FOUNTAIN. I personally don't like Aronofsky when he plays in this sort of sandbox. He's brilliant with small scale stories like THE WRESTLER and BLACK SWAN, but I just don't think he has the brilliance to pull off what Kubrick and Malick can. 

Pi disagrees with you.

But, I agree that Aronofsky is rather untested in the realm of big-budget epics. I also don't care that much, and my skepticism about this project stems more from the subject matter than anything on to do with Aronofsky himself. I mean, are we really gonna see sequences of, say, Christian Bale going around rounding up two of each animal? Are we gonna see crazy CGI flooding wiping out villages? Because that errs a little too hard on the side of fucking lame for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 

Pi disagrees with you.

 

But, I agree that Aronofsky is rather untested in the realm of big-budget epics. I also don't care that much, and my skepticism about this project stems more from the subject matter than anything on to do with Aronofsky himself. I mean, are we really gonna see sequences of, say, Christian Bale going around rounding up two of each animal? Are we gonna see crazy CGI flooding wiping out villages? Because that errs a little too hard on the side of fucking lame for me.

 

Pi has big ideas, but is a small film. He's fine on that level. But THE FOUNTAIN has big ideas and strives to be epic, and IMO it utterly fails to be epic. Maybe that's the fault of the diminished budget, but I think even the most ardent fans of THE FOUNTAIN can't argue that the film wants to feel epic and doesn't.

Oh yes they can. They can absolutely argue that. The entire construction of the movie argues for that.

I'd say the future/space sections of The Fountain are epic enough thanks to the creative effects work. The medieval sections on the other hand were gutted by the budget cuts, which is unfortunate as it means approx 1/3rd of the movie just doesn't work at all.

Anyway I'm on board for this (ho ho, do you see what I did there??). Aronofsky getting free reign to tackle a story as broad and fableish as this one is too intriguing.

Yeah, The Fountain always felt very, very dressed up to cover for it's shallowness. 

Handing $150 mil to Aronofsky = studio breathing down the auteur's neck, I imagine. Which he is not going to like. 

He's going to have battle scarfs from this one, for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

Oh yes they can. They can absolutely argue that. The entire construction of the movie argues for that.

So those Temple of Doom Aztec sets feel epic and real to you? Hugh Jackman in a space bubble with lava lamp blobs in the background reads as "cosmic" in your eyes? I get that the story is telling you that it's epic, but the visuals don't back it up, IMO. Which is something Kubrick or Malick would never settle for. If they couldn't get what they wanted in terms of scope on the screen, they just wouldn't bother.

You're telling me Tree of Life's cosmic visuals read bigger to you then those in The Fountain (achieved in similar ways in fact)? Malick was pretty visually candid about his influences to  think he wouldn't "settle" for that level of visual drama.

Some of the Aztec stuff feels like a set, yes. But "being epic" is not the intent of those sequence. This isn't LOTR where there are some sweeping CGI shots of a huge armies that they just couldn't work into the budget. All of that is small in the scheme of things anyway. The cosmic material in The Fountain absolutely reads as epic. Seeing that in a theater was profound for those that ride the wavelength of the film. I dismiss no one as a fool who doesn't like the movie, but put forward some declarative "nobody can argue it's epic" nonsense as some agreed-upon fact. That imagery is beautiful, huge, and best of all, is gifted with a sense of weight and reality that other special effects don't even remotely touch. The imagery in The Fountain is timeless. It's real. And if you're swallowed up in the poetry and passion of the experience, it works as well as anything ever put on screen to communicate a transcendental experience.

Kudos to Aronofsky for getting his epic passion project financed.  The question is what in God's name is he going to have to direct when this puppy tanks?  Let's be honest, Aronofsky or not, does anyone REALLY think this movie is going to make back its $150 million budget.................let alone a decent profit?

Darren has flirted with studio genre properties repeatedly (Batman: Year One, Lone Wolf & Cub, Robocop, The Wolverine, Machine Man, etc.), but has yet to actually make one.  I can pretty much guarantee that he will be directing at least one or two on down the line if (and when) this gets torpedoed at the box office, if for no other reason than to insure that he can keeping making his smaller personal films for years to come.  That said, I'll look forward to pretty much anything the man has up his sleeve................be it a studio project or a personal one.

Also, I'll be damned if I don't still pointlessly hope that he actually does make his spaghetti western take on Lone Wolf & Cub someday!

Well, you're right I guess, it can be argued. Fans of THE FOUNTAIN have a fanatic like devotion to the film and seem convinced that it is a transcendent experience. Some people also see Jesus's face on a cracker. I guess they have an argument as well.

Kidding, kidding, I am not seriously equating fans of THE FOUNTAIN to nutjobs who see deities on crackers. I concede to your point Renn, it CAN be argued. I just don't see how.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Kudos to Aronofsky for getting his epic passion project financed.  The question is what in God's name is he going to have to direct when this puppy tanks?  Let's be honest, Aronofsky or not, does anyone REALLY think this movie is going to make back its $150 million budget.................let alone a decent profit?

Actually, I gotta say you're off on this. If they sell it as a legit religious epic, it will make money. I direct your attention to PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Now how that audience will feel as they exit the theater is another matter entirely.

The Fountain is like one of those Magic Eye paintings. People swear that there's something truly revelatory there but after several viewings, I'm one of those guys that don't see what everyone else is seeing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

The Fountain is like one of those Magic Eye paintings. People swear that there's something truly revelatory there but after several viewings, I'm one of those guys that don't see what everyone else is seeing.

It's a sailboat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Actually, I gotta say you're off on this. If they sell it as a legit religious epic, it will make money. I direct your attention to PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Now how that audience will feel as they exit the theater is another matter entirely.

Passion only cost $30 million to make.  It DID reap in 300+ million domestically, but that was for two reasons.  The first is that it was about Jesus and specifically about the part of the Bible that EVERYONE knows, whether they are a Christian or not.  The second is that it was extremely controversial and ridiculously violent.  People went to go see it JUST SO THEY COULD BITCH ABOUT IT.  I know this because I worked at a theater at the time and heard all kinds of crazy from many of the patrons paying to see it.  There is nothing like listening to some idiot blabbering on about how they "hope this movie bombs" as they and their ENTIRE FAMILY pay to go see it.  The controversy was pretty much at a fever pitch by the time that sucker came out.  Unless Aronofsky extremely ramps up the violence and vulgarity in the pre-flood portion of the story, there is no way this will have a shot at reaching that kind of "must-see" status.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see Darren knock it out of the park financially with this.  I really do.  I just don't think it is going to happen, epic or not.  The religious audience will most certainly flock to see it.............probably more than once and in groups, as long as it is too offensive for them.  That said, you don't see most films aimed at them setting the box office ablaze these days do you?

Outside of Passion and the Narnia flicks, their vote at the box office doesn't amount to much:  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=christian.htm

Unless this can really capture the attention of the general movie-going public, it doesn't have much of a chance of being an actual hit.

I don't get how anyone can speak to the box office potential of a film they've not read the script for.  The subject matter alone kind of assures substantial interest...whether or not that interest can be maintained by a good movie and be led to boffo box office pastures is up to Aronofsky and Paramount....but there is no fucking way in this dire state of the industry that a studio is going to sink $100+ million into a film they don't believe will make several times that ammount.  And they've read the script.  So I'd say the potential is there from the get go just from the greenlight.

That said I'm very happy DA is finally getting his due.  He's been a filmmaker bucking the system for a long time and finally getting some much deserved recognition and a chance to work on a bigger canvas.  I didn't like The Fountain, precisely because it felt like a high school production of a broadway musical (in terms of the production value), and that seriously hurt the film.  I don't think that's any indication of how Noah will turn out though precisely because he has the money to back his vision this time.  It will definitely be interesting to watch, he's never let me down in that department.

Really looking forward to a hand held shot following the back of Noah's head as he walks around the ark. I was blown away by the intensity and freneticism of Pi and Requiem, but haven't had much interest in revisiting them, or indeed any of his works.  He's an important director I guess, but I don't ever really enjoy his films or want to watch them again. Hopefully he can find something interesting to say with this source material after drowning us in physical and psychological misery tethered to 2 unlikable, unstable characters in his last 2 films.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

I don't get how anyone can speak to the box office potential of a film they've not read the script for.  The subject matter alone kind of assures substantial interest...whether or not that interest can be maintained by a good movie and be led to boffo box office pastures is up to Aronofsky and Paramount....but there is no fucking way in this dire state of the industry that a studio is going to sink $100+ million into a film they don't believe will make several times that ammount.  And they've read the script.  So I'd say the potential is there from the get go just from the greenlight.

I'm not saying that the potential for big bucks isn't there.  I'm sure it is.  If it wasn't, it would not have been greenlit.  I'm just not expecting it to actually make big money, even if it does end up being a masterpiece.
 

Let's not forget the fact that studios have been cancelling big projects left and right over the past year because they've taken so many hits recently on features with budgets of 100 million or higher...............something which will likely continue for the next year or two.  I am beyond happy for Darren, but I'm also kind of surprised that he managed to get studio financing on this.  I hope for nothing but the best for this film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

 I concede to your point Renn, it CAN be argued. I just don't see how.

Didn't Renn just argue it?

And I do think FOUNTAIN is epic in scope, just not in scale. The story itself is grasping at the meaning of death, or at least how we look at it, accept it, and understand it. That's  grand, universal issue by definition. We have Future Tom literally crossing galaxies to get to Xibulba - how is that tiny? The imagery around the bubble, especially when seen on a large screen, certainly doesn't make the plot or scope seem small.

Many of the conquistador scenes feel trimmed in scale and scope, I'll grant - but given that those are essentially Izzy's story given visual life, I don't think it hurts the film at all; the movie, after all, revolves around Tommy and Izzy, with everyone else essentially just helping things move along. You don't need thousands to do that.

I think some of you confuse the shallow term "epic" for the more broad, meaningful "immersive." Is The Fountain "epic"? Who gives a shit? Is it immersive? I feel like you have to dislike movies to not concur with that. I don't watch The Fountain, I fall into The Fountain.

Well, expecting anything in the movie business is pretty foolish I'll give you that. 

I'm not surprised a studio is financing it because of the religious and epic nature of the subject matter.  A big clue about a concession that probably got it greenlit was Logan's rewrite of DA and Handel's script...the studio probably wouldn't finance it unless a more malleable screenwriter, as opposed to the auteur penned the movie.  The script is probably pretty damn good.  Logan is a great writer and the subject matter is there.  Biblical epics could be on a comeback if this can be pulled off and I'm sure Paramount is thinking that.  There is a HUGE religious population and this is one of (if not THE) best known biblical stories out there.  To me, it's not surprising at all it got greenlit.  And let's be honest, $100 million is a lot, but it's not what it used to be...many big projects are being budgeted at more than twice that ammount these days  If this was 20 years ago, I'd be shocked, but $130 million is pretty modest these days for a big epic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

I'm not saying that the potential for big bucks isn't there.  I'm sure it is.  If it wasn't, it would not have been greenlit.  I'm just not expecting it to actually make big money, even if it does end up being a masterpiece. 

Let's not forget the fact that studios have been cancelling big projects left and right over the past year because they've taken so many hits recently on features with budgets of 100 million or higher...............something which will likely continue for the next year or two.  I am beyond happy for Darren, but I'm also kind of surprised that he managed to get studio financing on this.  I hope for nothing but the best for this film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

 

Didn't Renn just argue it?

 

And I do think FOUNTAIN is epic in scope, just not in scale. The story itself is grasping at the meaning of death, or at least how we look at it, accept it, and understand it. That's  grand, universal issue by definition. We have Future Tom literally crossing galaxies to get to Xibulba - how is that tiny? The imagery around the bubble, especially when seen on a large screen, certainly doesn't make the plot or scope seem small.

My point is that for me, the visuals do not match the scope. The conquistador segment is clearly scaled back and compromised (for you it works because it's part of Izzy's story and therefor the artificiality is acceptable - fine, but to me it just looks stagey and unconvincing) and the future segment is done in a deliberate stylistic fashion that either works for you or doesn't. It looks COOL, I'll grant it that, but I am not transported by it across the cosmos. I am transported inside the world's biggest and coolest lava lamp.  And bald Hugh Jackman is there eating a tree.

Clearly if you are moved and pulled into the story, the visuals work for you like some sort of quasi-religious rapture. But I have watched the movie THREE TIMES (once on Blu Ray on a giant screen) and never once did I come to this place of sublime enlightenment. To me the film is the textbook definition of a "noble failure"  - I get the universal meditation on love and death that Aronofsky is going for, but the narrative and visuals just aren't getting me there. I'm sorry, I've tried, repeatedly.

I know I'll never convince anyone who loves the film that it is a failure, and I don't need to. I'm fine with people loving it. I have respect for the film and what it's trying to do. But some people look at a crucifix and see the son of God who died for our sins, and some just see a nice dude who had the misfortune to get nailed to a cross. I don't know of any other way to put it.

I dunno. I agree that The Fountain is a noble failure, but my feeling on it is that the limitations of the visuals shouldn't matter -- you needn't have massive CGI vistas, a huge cast, and sprawling sets/production design in order to feel how "epic" the emotional journey of that film is. I really don't think the movie would have had any greater an impact on anybody if it was actually filmed in the jungle somewhere, or if Aronofsky had millions more dollars to blow on special effects for the cosmos sequences. Obviously each would have enhanced the wow factor of the movie and might have made it more immersive... but, you know. People watch plays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

 

I know I'll never convince anyone who loves the film that it is a failure, and I don't need to. I'm fine with people loving it. I have respect for the film and what it's trying to do. But some people look at a crucifix and see the son of God who died for our sins, and some just see a nice dude who had the misfortune to get nailed to a cross. I don't know of any other way to put it.

 

That's fair, and I can conceptually understand how the small-scale and stylized artificiality of the sets and settings can make it hard to get in to. So we agree to disagree. Interestingly, I'm mixed on DA's smaller, more mundane stories. WRESTLER was really great (though a very tough viewing for me), but I found BLACK SWAN a technical triumph but absolutely cold and empty character-wise.

Which brings us back to Noah. Is DA going literal with the story, or introduce a new angle or approach to the basic story?

Aronofskys finally making his biggest passion project outside of The Fountain and has a budget that big???

This is like cinephile christmas. Such fantastic news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Aronofskys finally making his biggest passion project outside of The Fountain and has a budget that big???

 

 

This is like cinephile christmas. Such fantastic news.

Indeed.  Considering The Fountain is still by far my favorite film of his to date, I'm hoping this one skews closer to it than his others...............at least in the visuals department.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Indeed.  Considering The Fountain is still by far my favorite film of his to date, I'm hoping this one skews closer to it than his others...............at least in the visuals department.

 

Agreed. While I didn't realise there was this view of fans of Aronfskys most beautiful work being thought of seemingly along the lines of an arthouse answer to Browncoats (seriously, is that a 'thing' now?), I guess I qualify. That film touches some very deep places inside me and helped me look at things from my past - like say my fathers death and its aftermath - in new constructive ways.

I think the The Fountain is a marvel in the truest sense of the word.

So I definitely just popped onto Amazon and bought The Fountain on BR, which is something I should have done a long time ago.