Paul Thomas Anderson's THE MASTER Pre-Release Discussion

My favorite theory about this is that, contrary to what they said after a "re-write," this is a total Scientology hit-job, so much so that it spooked Will Smith off of "Django Unchained," since both movies are at the Weinstein Company.

Psyched that Greenwood is back.

It's a rumor, but as soon as Smith went into negotiations with the Weinsteins, the re-write reports for this movie starting circulating, with Weinstein people STRESSING that this had nothign to do with Scientology, though I had also heard that, in reality, the script changed very little.

Not sure if I believe it or not, but it makes sense to me.

Woah, woah, woah, they SHOT this already?! 

Christ. Excited. 

If it's not I will feel cheated, but it will have to be different enough not to open the filmmakers up to lawsuits from the notoriously litigious cult. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

It's a rumor, but as soon as Smith went into negotiations with the Weinsteins, the re-write reports for this movie starting circulating, with Weinstein people STRESSING that this had nothign to do with Scientology, though I had also heard that, in reality, the script changed very little.

 

Not sure if I believe it or not, but it makes sense to me.

I actually do believe that. Scientology is to careers and personal well-being what Pac-Man is to ghosts. On topic, I'm quite excited about this and the only thing that has me slightly bummed out is the exit of Jeremy Renner. I'm sure someone could conspiratorially tie his exit to his role in The Master to his role in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, but I won't be that guy. I'll just sort of like mention it, and let it simmer...

Yeah, I've heard that rumor too. :)

Not sure how much there is to that, as that rumor was from a far less reliable friend. Makes sense, though. Not like it's a huge downgrade to end up with Joaquin Phoenix.

I'll take Phoenix over Renner any day. 

I haven't been to the movies in over a year now (high cost, crying babies, rude idiots, long lines, inferior product) and haven't missed the experience at all. The Master is going to earn my dollars once or twice though. There is absolutely no way I could sit this out and wait for it on video. Plus, what is this 65mm Kubrick camera talk? I haven't heard this at all. In a world being overrun with digital photography and iMoviemagic that is some incredibly exciting news to me. I'm not a snob. I like plenty of digital movies but the idea of PT Anderson carrying that particular torch is something to cherish as a fan of film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

Woah, woah, woah, they SHOT this already?! 

 

Christ. Excited. 

Seconded. I thought this was still having trouble getting off the ground, what with it being an excoriation of Scientology and all. I really hope it hasn't been defanged.

Expect an anti-Battlefield Earth situation, with hordes of random one-shot posters appearing on the day of the film's release to badmouth it.

Colour me friggin' ravenous for this film. There's so much about Scientology that simply bursts with dramatic potential, and it's about time someone tackled it head-on on a wide scale, and let the fuckers wheel their lawyers out. I hope PTA is the guy who does it.

Thats pretty cool that Emily Watson has already seen a part of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Not related to The Master, but it looks like Inherent Vice starring Robert Downey Jr. is still PT's next film.

 

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2011/12/08/robert-downey-jr-says-paul-thomas-anderson-collaboration-is-probably-true/

WHAT????  This is major news.  This book is unbelievably amazing, and RDJ is perfect for Sportello.  But isn't Pynchon historically averse to having his books movie-ized?

Where did you hear about this?  I mean, Pynchon is so notoriously reclusive. 

I also heard about PTA consulting with Pynchon while writing the script for Vice. That's a pretty amazing bizzare idea not only has Anderson met Pynchon several times now but he knows where he lives.

It's completely bizarre, but an awesome development. 

So it looks like there is some whisperings on Twitter via some Pixar directors that the film is defintely 65MM. How much of the film is that I can't tell. has a film ever been shot completely on 65MM?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingfan 

So it looks like there is some whisperings on Twitter via some Pixar directors that the film is defintely 65MM. How much of the film is that I can't tell. has a film ever been shot completely on 65MM?

As I understand, they're using the cameras used to shoot 2001: A Space Odyssey, so.... Yes!

this could be the Citizen Kane of the 21 century in more then one way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Hill 

this could be the Citizen Kane of the 21 century in more then one way.

You mean it will be a whip smart satire, critical powerhouse and artistic masterpiece that will place it for all time in the annals of filmic canon and at the same time piss off a psychotic, super powerful entity that lacks both a sense of humor and an overblown ego that will manipulate and fling mud at the film's writer/director making sure it gets limited exposure, no press, and poor box office returns. This entity inevitably causes the slow anguishing death of his career while we watch on, teary eyed yet too cowardly to tell the entity to fuck off. And when it finally is done and that entity finally backs that writer/director will be an imbittered alcoholic who move through a series of failed and messed with projects until he has to do voice work in a movie length toy commercial just for booze money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugsport 

You mean it will be a whip smart satire, critical powerhouse and artistic masterpiece that will place it for all time in the annals of filmic canon and at the same time piss off a psychotic, super powerful entity that lacks both a sense of humor and an overblown ego that will manipulate and fling mud at the film's writer/director making sure it gets limited exposure, no press, and poor box office returns. This entity inevitably causes the slow anguishing death of his career while we watch on, teary eyed yet too cowardly to tell the entity to fuck off. And when it finally is done and that entity finally backs that writer/director will be an imbittered alcoholic who move through a series of failed and messed with projects until he has to do voice work in a movie length toy commercial just for booze money.

He still married Rita Hayworth, can't be all bad.

http://www.lileks.com/institute/publicity/10.html

Oh.  Nevermind.

Y'know, I feel for what Welles went through with the Hearst thing, but he did outlive the dude by, what, 35 years? It's not like the guy was sabotaging his career from beyond the grave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Y'know, I feel for what Welles went through with the Hearst thing, but he did outlive the dude by, what, 35 years? It's not like the guy was sabotaging his career from beyond the grave.

It wasn't the feud with Hearst that crushed Welles' spirit; it was the complete shit the studio took on The Magnificent Ambersons--re-editing and re-shooting the end while he was out of the country and burning the original negatives so Welles couldn't fix what they broke. He still had classics to make after that, but he never recovered fully from that blow; Ambersons was supposed to be his golden boy film, after playing cloak and dagger to get Kane made, it was his big coming out party in Hollywood, and they took it from him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

I wonder how they're dealing with the sound issue, as I'm sure this movie is 80-90% dialogue.

 

EDIT: I hear that portions are 65mm, the rest in 35... so wonder what the ratio is.

Well, as for the sound issue, I'm sure it will be handled the same way as it was handled on all these films:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films

Of course, isn't the sound issue only really a problem with IMAX cameras?

Yeah, I thought one of the reasons that Nolan decided to use 65mm for some of Inception was a compromise between image quality and the practicality of being able to get production audio.

YAY!

Wooo! For some reason I thought this was never coming out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Oct 12 of this year is the official release date.  In 6 months we will have a new PTA film!!!  Now let's see a teaser guys!

AAAIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is shaping up to be a helluva year, but this, THIS is the film I most want to see.

NY Times article on the film.

Intriguing, but it feels like a deliberate riff on the teaser for TWBB.  Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily... considering that was one of the best teaser's I'd ever seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

...Anderson met Stanley Kubrick when he was shooting Eyes Wide Shut with Cruise.  Cruise invited Anderson to the set.  After Kubrick died, his daughter converted to scientology and disowned her own family in favor of the cult family.  Her mother hasn't heard from her in years.  That could be another inspiration for PTA.

Didn't know that. SAD.

Trailer looks great. There are few actors than can do weird like JP.

I swear, whenever a new PTA movie is on the horizon, I always say the same thing: "We need this."

One of the things I am most interested in is to see if this film at all informs the religious angle of There Will Be Blood.

Very interested in this. Wonder why they don't just come out and called the character L. Ron Hubbard though.

Why didn't they call Charles Foster Kane William Randolph Hearst?  Because it's not a biography, just inspired by their life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

Why didn't they call Charles Foster Kane William Randolph Hearst?  Because it's not a biography, just inspired by their life.

Well, they were also scared shitless of saying anything bad about Hearst. And Hearst was pissed either way and helped create a backlash against the film in 1942.