CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Paul Thomas Anderson's THE MASTER Pre-Release Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paul Thomas Anderson's THE MASTER Pre-Release Discussion - Page 2

post #51 of 265
5/21/12 at 7:13pm

Yeah, but the point is it's not a straight up biography of either person, so why use their name?

Reply
post #52 of 265
5/21/12 at 11:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

 

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.


I'd be a MILLION TIMES more scared of tackling L. Ron Hubbard, given that his followers have a tendency to attempt to fucking destroy anyone who says anything bad about their cult. In fact I'm sort of amazed this film is coming out at all, and that people are tying it so openly to Hubbard. I would have thought the dogs would have been released from Scientology Central months ago.

Reply
post #53 of 265
5/21/12 at 11:39pm

I don't doubt you that they've tired, but people, including media figures, tend to make fun of Scientology... a lot.  I don't think a picture loosely based on the founder, that's seemingly being kept under tight wraps, is really going to stir the shit much more than all the comedians and shows that have openly mocked their church directly.  Now, if it's a masterpiece, if it gets under the skin of people who watch it, then maybe there will be a stronger effort.  But the cat's out of the bag on Scientology being a bunch of nonsense.  And what exactly could they do to stop Anderson, anyway?  Besides behind the scenes stuff we'd probably never know about, of course.

Reply
post #54 of 265
5/22/12 at 2:30am

Hollywood is a bit of a special case, but broadly, people don't feel like taking Scientology's shit any more.

If they did try and sue for some general belligerant reason I think PTA could put up a kickstarter for his fighting fund and get millions in a couple of days.  And/or a few big firms might want to take a crack at them pro bono.  It might not look good but they'd also have a hard time holding back Anonymous from trying to level them too.

 

"How would you rate the overall health of the anti Scientology movement?"

"Straawng."

Reply
post #55 of 265
5/22/12 at 2:32am

I just spent about an hour reading through most of Hubbard's life story on Wikipedia. Hoooly shit. I knew the scientology basics before (E-meters, Thetans, their dangerous and litigous nature, etc.), but I didn't know Hubbard's story.

 

It was a fascinating and deeply disturbing read. If the movie even touches on a third of this stuff, it should be epic.
 

Reply
post #56 of 265
5/22/12 at 9:03am
Thread Starter 

Some reactions from the footage screened today at Cannes:

 

 

Quote:

The Wrap says:
 

“The Master” seems destined for controversy. Paul Thomas Anderson has written a tale that is loosely inspired on the life of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. The short piece shown was enough to suggest that Anderson (“Magnolia,” “There Will Be Blood”) has again taken on an epic subject and will face it down fearlessly.

Philip Seymour Hoffman, in moustache and suspenders, plays The Master, the Hubbard-like leader of what is referred to as The Cause. Amy Adams, in fierce dramatic scenes, plays his headstrong wife.

Joaquin Phoenix is the center of the story as a postwar drifter, searching for a path and racked by anguish or mental illness or both.

In one scene, The Master demands: “Is your life a struggle? Is your behavior erratic?”
It looks ambitious and exciting, though no frogs appear to fall. Remains to be seen what the never-shy Church of Scientology will have to say about this portrayal, however fictionalized.

 

 

Quote:

Awards Daily says:
 

The first reel they showed was from Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master. We saw a lot more than could be shown in the trailer, naturally, as there were tits, masturbation and more violence. I couldn’t really get a read on what it’s about exactly except that people kept talking about Joaquin Phoenix like he was a madman. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams both great in what they have to do but it’s Phoenix’s show. If you’re looking for your possible acting nods, you have three potential ones right there.

I like it that it flies in the face of recent Academy tradition of safe, sappy fare. It throws down gasoline and lights it on fire. The music, Phoenix completely out of his mind jerking off on the beach with people nearby. And there will be blood, sex, sweat and tears. Anderson is a ferocious, creative mind at work — this is a deepening for him, not a detour.

 

 

Quote:

The Playlist says:
 

While a teaser trailer gave everyone a taste of what to expect earlier today, at Cannes we got a lot more footage from the film which again looks like another unique, cinematic world conjured by Paul Thomas Anderson. Starting with the voiceover and similiar bits of the same pieces from the trailer, the footage unspooled showed much, much more from the film. The first thing to note was that Joaquin Phoenix's character, named Freddie Sutton in the script leaked last year, is now named Freddie Quell. Falling along the general plot we already know, Freddie comes in the orbit of the enigmatic leader of a -- religion? cult? -- led by Philip Seymour Hoffman. And let's be clear -- while the name Scientology isn't mentioned, this is clearly very inspired by the religion. While in recent months the production has taken steps -- perhaps for legal reasons -- to avoid drawing direct parallels, it's something that's going to be very hard to deny.

 

Wearing a pencil moustache and carrying an air of ambition and importance, not only does Hoffman look like L. Ron Hubbard, in the reel we saw, he describes himself as (among many other things) a writer, doctor and theoretical physicist. Those are all terms that have been used to describe Hubbard over the years. And there are more clues throughout, including some scenes from a very confident looking Amy Adams, who plays Hoffman's wife Mary-Sue, saying that the the "only way to defend ourselves, is to attack." Sound like any lawsuit happy religious group you've heard of? And the final scene we were shown might as well be from an auditing session, with Hoffman's leader peppering Freddie Quell with a serious of personality test style questions.

 

Visually, it looks fantastic with a graininess and color scheme that seems inspired by Technicolor/'50s film. And remember, this was shot on 65mm stock which is why we're seeing the kind of texture we get less of in this increasingly digital world. The footage we saw also opens with a great, slow dolly shot down a hallway that was immediately reminiscent of something Stanley Kubrick might have done. The score throughout was the same as was heard in the teaser trailer, though with some added strings in the same atonal universe as "There Will Be Blood." The cast overall looked universally strong with Phoenix, Hoffman and Adams highlighted. Freddie is portrayed as very much a wildman in what we saw, with Adams noting, "perhaps he's past help...or insane." With this line of dialogue followed by a shot of Freddie with his trunks pulled down, masturbating on the beach.

Overall, it was the best footage of the Weinstein lot, promising another Anderson outing that will be memorably distinct and fascinating work.

 

 

Quote:

Vulture Says:
 

While the footage online only features Joaquin Phoenix (unrecognizably sinewy and retro-looking, like a wilded-out Montgomery Clift), the clips we saw also heavily featured Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams as a Hubbard-like religious leader and his determined wife, respectively. As good as they looked, though, the presentation truly appeared to be the Joaquin show, featuring the actor (who plays an aimless sailor given purpose by Hoffman's cult) in a series of hallucinatory, color-saturated sequences while Hoffman and Adams determine how best to save him. There's a lot more PSH to this story than they're showing us, but no matter what, it's exciting stuff.

 

 

Quote:

Hollywood Elsewhere says:
 

The Master reel was exciting but it's clearly going to be a complex, out-there drama that doesn't play the game. An "audience film" if the audience is filled with people like myself and Drew McWeeny, James Rocchi, Sasha Stone, Ira Parks, Anne Thompson and Pete Howell, but I don't know about Joe Popcorn...but who knows? The sound was too loud. I couldn't hear half the things that Phillip Seymour Hoffman was saying. The footage was longer and more varied than the currently-up teaser. Hoffman is clearly going to be the charismatic megalomaniac -- confidence, swagger, drill-bit eyes. Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams , it appears, are going to fully alive and beating with the heart pump.

 

 

Quote:

 Rope Of Silicon says:
 

The Master made the strongest impression on me and for those of you that have already watched the teaser I've included here to the right, this was how the footage I saw began although, while using the same voice over, different footage from the film was shown instead.

It's still Joaquin Phoenix's character, Freddie, a drunken Naval officer speaking with his superior, but one shot in particular is a long dolly shot, rolling in closer and closer to Freddie as he approaches a bulletin board. He stops and begins writing on a piece of paper, finishes and heads back down the hallway, the way he came, as the camera continues dollying forward and past what he's written. "Gone to China."

The footage not seen in the teaser includes co-star Amy Adams and lead actor Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, the titular "master", a man claiming to be many things including writer, doctor and philosopher and he has attracted Freddie's attention. Dodd is a man who's witnessed the horrors of World War II and tries to rediscover who he is in post-war America and creates a belief system, something that catches on with other lost souls.

Freddie is one such soul and Adams' character, playing Lancaster's wife Mary Sue, doesn't necessarily trust him. Dodd, however, wants to help, but as the footage closed Adams says something along the lines of, "Maybe he's beyond help." I will say this, he definitely appears to have his issues as one snippet showed him masturbating on the beach. Not normal as far as I know.

A lot can be taken away from the small amount of footage that was shown, which must have totalled somewhere around four minutes. For starters, the performances look excellent. If this film is as good as this trailer leads me to believe it will be, we may be talking about three Oscar nominations for acting alone. Jonny Greenwood, who scored Anderson's There Will be Blood, is also back for this one and his music suits the mood beautifully.

Along with the dolly shot mentioned above, I found several of the shots to be interesting as Anderson and his cinematographer, Mihai Malaimare Jr. (Tetro), seem to focus heavily on close-ups, particularly a nearly hypnotic moment featuring Adams speaking directly into camera saying, "Look into my eyes."

Finally, while there have been denials that this film has anything to do with Scientology, I'm not really buying it, particularly based on Hoffman's introduction as Dodd.

Overall, the themes it looks like this film will be exploring will run deep with plenty to chew on as you walk out of the theater. 

 

 

Quote:

And from Twitter:
 

@TwitchFilm: THE MASTER looks late 40s-50s period through & through. Amy Adams delivers some powerful stuff. Teaser lacks same emotion as 4 mins. #Cannes

 

@FirstShowing: The Master footage looks phenomenal, of course. Joaquin looks crazy, like totally insane. And PS Hoffman looks amazing as 'Master'. #Cannes

 

@LoganHill33: The Master footage was major too--More Joaquin than expected. Great to see him again. Looking great. #cannes

 

@JamesRocchi: Also, the Johnny Greenwood score over THE MASTER footage we saw is the percussion-laden sound of paranoia rattling in your head.

 

@Jake_Howell: THE MASTER looks actually very good - a 2012 film with a 90s film aesthetic (watch AMERICAN BEAUTY and you will understand) #Cannes
Reply
post #57 of 265
5/22/12 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey
 
I don't doubt you that they've tired, but people, including media figures, tend to make fun of Scientology... a lot.  I don't think a picture loosely based on the founder, that's seemingly being kept under tight wraps, is really going to stir the shit much more than all the comedians and shows that have openly mocked their church directly.  Now, if it's a masterpiece, if it gets under the skin of people who watch it, then maybe there will be a stronger effort.  But the cat's out of the bag on Scientology being a bunch of nonsense.  And what exactly could they do to stop Anderson, anyway?  Besides behind the scenes stuff we'd probably never know about, of course.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzman View Post

Hollywood is a bit of a special case, but broadly, people don't feel like taking Scientology's shit any more.

If they did try and sue for some general belligerant reason I think PTA could put up a kickstarter for his fighting fund and get millions in a couple of days.  And/or a few big firms might want to take a crack at them pro bono.  It might not look good but they'd also have a hard time holding back Anonymous from trying to level them too.

 

"How would you rate the overall health of the anti Scientology movement?"

"Straawng."

 

You have to understand, it's literally written into the holy doctrine of Scientology that if someone makes trouble for the cult, you should sue them into oblivion, smear them as child pornographers (seriously, that was a favourite tack of Scientologists for a long time--they'd spread rumours that anyone who made trouble for them was a child pornographer or a pedophile) and just generally call down the wrath of their many brainwashed followers to make their life hell. There are darker rumours about employing hitmen and hired muscle, too. The lawsuits, their favourite tactic, are generally completely frivolous, but the objective isn't to win, it's to bankrupt anyone who causes trouble for them--and they have an army of lawyers to allow this. There are apparently areas where Scientologists are now pretty much automatically thrown out of court due to their antics.

 

You want to really get freaked out about it? Read up on Operation Snow White some time. Fucking terrifying.

 

That said, you're right, in the last decade Scientology's wacky belief system, at least, has been exposed, and they're not taken all that seriously, though their outright evil tactics are still not widely known as they should be.

Reply
post #58 of 265
5/22/12 at 7:25pm

PTA and Co have gone out of their way to state that the film is fiction. A lawsuit by the folks at Scientology would only substantiate many of the themes the film touches on. They're not going to do anything to validate the film or bring attention to its connections to Scientology because believe it or not, that information is not common knowledge outside of places like this.

 

Basically, I just think you're overreacting. 

 

As for the person who stated they would be more worried about attacking Hubbard than Hearst... do some research and get back to us on that.


Edited by Timothy Q - 5/22/12 at 7:39pm
Reply
post #59 of 265
5/23/12 at 2:22am

Is it true that Hubbard managed to get many (or most) of his novels passed off as religious works so that he wouldn't have to pay taxes on his earnings?  I've always heard that, but have been too lazy to look it up.

 

If true, that's pretty damn smart.  Almost as smart as Lucas' "real" reason for waiting until 1999 to do the Prequels.

Reply
post #60 of 265
5/23/12 at 2:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

Is it true that Hubbard managed to get many (or most) of his novels passed off as religious works so that he wouldn't have to pay taxes on his earnings?  I've always heard that, but have been too lazy to look it up.

 

If true, that's pretty damn smart.  Almost as smart as Lucas' "real" reason for waiting until 1999 to do the Prequels.

 



Ok I'll bite. What was Lucas' real reason?

Reply
post #61 of 265
5/23/12 at 3:01am

Lucas got divorced in 1983.  Part of the deal that his ex got, in addition to whatever chunk of dough she received at the time, was a portion of George's profits for the next 15 years.

 

1983 + 15 = 1998.  The Phantom Menace hit theaters in 1999.  Coincidence?

 

Now I know that's definitely not the only reason he took so long to return to the world of Star Wars, but you have to admit the timing is rather hilarious.

Reply
post #62 of 265
5/23/12 at 6:36am

Man, Lucas did everything in his power to erase her from the Star Wars history books after they got divorced. I'd be willing to bet my shirt nobody reading this knew she was one of the editors on Star Wars that salvaged it into working order. And won an Oscar for it. 

Reply
post #63 of 265
5/23/12 at 8:12am

You'd lose that shirt. That's pretty well known.

 

A lot of old-school fans say the one-two punch for Lucas losing his way was him losing Marcia Lucas and then Gary Kurtz.

Reply
post #64 of 265
5/23/12 at 8:54am
Thread Starter 

There was an official quote from the church of scientology commenting on The Master.  I can't remember exactly what was said, but the gist was they didn't give a shit, mostly because they haven't seen the film.  Even after they see it I doubt they'll care.  Any ties to the church are certainly going to be thin and circumstantial at best, not enough for a law suit.  Every film employs a legal department to look over the script and I'm sure they've covered their bases.

Reply
post #65 of 265
5/23/12 at 8:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

A lot of old-school fans say the one-two punch for Lucas losing his way was him losing Marcia Lucas and then Gary Kurtz.

 

Losing Marcia Lucas was worth it. Without her cheating, we would've never gotten this

 

mola-ram-heart.jpg

Reply
post #66 of 265
5/23/12 at 9:09am
Thread Starter 

Here's PTA and Robert Downey Sr. for the Criterion series

 

 

Reply
post #67 of 265
5/23/12 at 10:41am

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!! That's fucking Don Calfa (Return of the Living Dead) at 2:17 on video one! AWESOME!

Reply
post #68 of 265
5/24/12 at 9:38am

That teaser is an astounding micro-narrative on its own. Obviously its helped by being distilled from extensive context, but goddamn. Watching it for face value, and just pretending like >that's the story< and that's all you get, its like the cinematic equivalent of one of Chekhov's especially concise stories.

Reply
post #69 of 265
5/31/12 at 3:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese View Post

I just spent about an hour reading through most of Hubbard's life story on Wikipedia. Hoooly shit. I knew the scientology basics before (E-meters, Thetans, their dangerous and litigous nature, etc.), but I didn't know Hubbard's story.

 

It was a fascinating and deeply disturbing read. If the movie even touches on a third of this stuff, it should be epic.
 

 

Read the same article. Is it just me, or do the early years of Scientology - the franchises, the reference to new recruits as "raw meat", the charismatic leader, the "rules" - sound an awful lot like the paradigm of fight clubs and "space monkeys"? I know the ostensible purposes of "fight clubs" were different in detail, but I'd be interested to know whether an awareness of it played a part in Palahnuik's invention and Fight Club could be read in part as an oblique satire on L Ron and the development of Scientology. It's a similar model to any pyramid scheme or political organisation, so maybe not.

Reply
post #70 of 265
5/31/12 at 6:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post

 

Read the same article. Is it just me, or do the early years of Scientology - the franchises, the reference to new recruits as "raw meat", the charismatic leader, the "rules" - sound an awful lot like the paradigm of fight clubs and "space monkeys"? I know the ostensible purposes of "fight clubs" were different in detail, but I'd be interested to know whether an awareness of it played a part in Palahnuik's invention and Fight Club could be read in part as an oblique satire on L Ron and the development of Scientology. It's a similar model to any pyramid scheme or political organization, so maybe not.

 

All cults are the same more or less. A delusional lunatic with a messiah complex bends weak minded simpletons to his will. This also applies to politics, religion, Nazi's and most dictatorships.  

Reply
post #71 of 265
6/8/12 at 10:05am
Thread Starter 

John Huston made a documentary in the 40s called Let There Be Light about the psychological problems soldiers experienced in World War 2.

 

Might have been an influence on PTA.

 

LetThereBeLightMain_tiff_627x325_crop_upscale_q85.jpgthe-master-phoenix-paul-thomas.jpg

Reply
post #72 of 265
6/8/12 at 10:59am

Wow.

 

You know what else those stills are reminding me of for some reason? Theodore Sturgeon's Some of Your Blood.

 

I'd kill to see a PTA adaptation of that.

Reply
post #73 of 265
6/19/12 at 3:22am

Reply
post #74 of 265
6/19/12 at 7:14am
Thread Starter 

Yes, it looks magnificent.  PTA never ceases to amaze me and continues to evolve.

Reply
post #75 of 265
6/19/12 at 12:25pm

No disrespect meant to PTA whatsoever, but does anyone else find it kinda amusing that the titles There Will Be Blood and The Master sound like videotapes you would've found at the video store in oversized boxes from, like, Vestron? I mean, There Will Be Blood is the schlocky horror movie (doesn't help that it was Saw's tagline) and The Master is some Italian sword-and-sorcery flick. (Even Punch Drunk Love sounds like a Wallace Beery wrestling picture.)

 

Not dissing. TWBB was great and I'm expecting great things from The Master. Just saying. Not saying they're bad titles either.

 

Glad to finally see what PSH looks like in the film; pretty much what I expected, power 'stache and all.

Reply
post #76 of 265
6/19/12 at 5:56pm

That second trailer has me a little more excited than the vague first one.

Reply
post #77 of 265
6/19/12 at 6:42pm

My most anticipated film of the year bar none, even Django Unchained.

Reply
post #78 of 265
6/19/12 at 6:51pm

The clip posted earlier was removed

 

Reply
post #79 of 265
6/20/12 at 6:40am

Really interested in the way that each trailer feels self-contained, and tells its own story within a 2-minute time frame. Very cool. And I'm a big fan of the utter lack of branding seen in both; it makes what we're watching feel authentic, like we're not just watching footage in a trailer.

 

Also, I'm glad to see PSH in his full 'stached glory. But it sounds like The Master is going to be all about Phoenix. Not a bad thing at all.

Reply
post #80 of 265
6/20/12 at 7:08am
Thread Starter 

*sniffs*

 

smells like Oscar time

Reply
post #81 of 265
6/20/12 at 7:31am

I'm loathe to go into Oscar talk at any time of the year-- even Oscar time-- but  as premature as it is to talk about awards for an actor whose full performance we haven't seen yet, I can't help but nod in ascent. I have a suspicion this is going to be a massive, massive role for Phoenix in terms of golden statues.

Reply
post #82 of 265
6/20/12 at 7:51am
Thread Starter 

My feeling is PTA got robbed of a best director oscar to the Coens For No Country... and while I think the Coens did an amazing job, I feel PTA was clearly more deserving of the award for TWBB, which is a film for the ages.  I know it's early, but I feel like he'll be nominated and I hope he snags one for The Master, or at least one for original screenplay.

Reply
post #83 of 265
6/20/12 at 8:26am

There were several directors that year who were very deserving of that award.  The Coens were the most overdue.

 

(Plus No Country For Old Men is perfect.)

Reply
post #84 of 265
6/20/12 at 8:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

My feeling is PTA got robbed of a best director oscar to the Coens For No Country... and while I think the Coens did an amazing job, I feel PTA was clearly more deserving of the award for TWBB, which is a film for the ages.  I know it's early, but I feel like he'll be nominated and I hope he snags one for The Master, or at least one for original screenplay.

 

This. I have little more to add other than straight-up agreement that There Will Be Blood and PTA both deserved awards more than even a film as excellent as No Country For Old Men (though when the race is really between two movies as good as TWBB and NCFOM, you're in a pretty good position as a film fan). I'd be thrilled to see PTA take one home for The Master, assuming of course that it's as good as I'm expecting it to be based on the trailers.

Reply
post #85 of 265
6/20/12 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

No disrespect meant to PTA whatsoever, but does anyone else find it kinda amusing that the titles There Will Be Blood and The Master sound like videotapes you would've found at the video store in oversized boxes from, like, Vestron? I mean, There Will Be Blood is the schlocky horror movie (doesn't help that it was Saw's tagline) and The Master is some Italian sword-and-sorcery flick. (Even Punch Drunk Love sounds like a Wallace Beery wrestling picture.)

 

Wallace Beery? Ya got no problems there! Could be a pip, could be a pip!

Reply
post #86 of 265
6/20/12 at 8:44am

And Hard Eight sounds like...

 

Well, it is best not to talk about some things.

Reply
post #87 of 265
6/20/12 at 8:46am

Yeah, I left out that one mainly because it wasn't PTA's title and he hates it apparently (he won't refer to it as anything but Sydney).

Reply
post #88 of 265
6/20/12 at 8:48am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

There were several directors that year who were very deserving of that award.  The Coens were the most overdue.

 

(Plus No Country For Old Men is perfect.)

 

I understand why they got the award.  I still feel PTA deserved it more.

Reply
post #89 of 265
6/20/12 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

I understand why they got the award.  I still feel PTA deserved it more.

 

They got the award because they made a perfect movie. /shrug

Reply
post #90 of 265
6/20/12 at 8:53am
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

 

They got the award because they made a perfect movie. /shrug

 

So did Anderson. 

Reply
post #91 of 265
6/20/12 at 8:54am

Who cares? It's the Oscars.

Reply
post #92 of 265
6/20/12 at 8:59am

It's not about the Oscars, it's about which is the more well directed film.  I think There Will Be Blood is flawed... the kind of flawed only great visionaries can make; but I'll take economical perfection over that most days.  Just my preference.

 

(When it comes to the Oscars, you could have thrown a dart and hit a worthy winner that year.)

Reply
post #93 of 265
6/20/12 at 9:02am

Funny thing about the Oscars: even though I don't much give a shit about them, I do. It's a weird tension. I don't really think they mean much but I still care where awards are accorded. Watching me watch the Oscars is liking watching Welshmen watch the English play in the World Cup, cheering when the other team outplays them and booing when they ultimately lose the game. (Anecdotal evidence, go!)

 

I have a feeling that many feel the same way as I do about them-- not really caring but still caring to a degree at the same time. If that's a thing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

 

(When it comes to the Oscars, you could have thrown a dart and hit a worthy winner that year.)

 

Seconded.

Reply
post #94 of 265
6/20/12 at 9:10am

There Will Be Blood is oscar worthy more in its individual elements than the package as a whole, which bites off more than it can chew. The right film got Best Picture.

 

I have high hopes for this one because by 'doing' Scientology PTA's targeting something more specific than just "Religion" and "Capitalism" in the broadest possible senses, and that something has the potential to be very original and maybe even a little bit important.

Reply
post #95 of 265
6/20/12 at 9:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

It's not about the Oscars, it's about which is the more well directed film.  I think There Will Be Blood is flawed... the kind of flawed only great visionaries can make; but I'll take economical perfection over that most days.  Just my preference.

 

(When it comes to the Oscars, you could have thrown a dart and hit a worthy winner that year.)

 

They're totally different movies, though. Not exactly apples and oranges, but talking about which is better in this case seems more flawed then any flaws in either two movies. And the Oscars is pretty much overblown pageantry trying to pass itself off as prestige. More great films don't get nominated each year than the ones that do. 


Arguing which one is better is like arguing who your favorite baseball player. Using the Oscars as an equalizer is like pointing to who makes the All Star team to back up your claim. 

Reply
post #96 of 265
6/20/12 at 9:12am

Maybe, but arguing which baseball player is better due to their respective skillsets and accomplishments is fun.

Reply
post #97 of 265
6/20/12 at 9:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

Maybe, but arguing which baseball player is better due to their respective skillsets and accomplishments is fun.

 

It can be. But pointing to the All Star Team as proof of quality is when it gets dumb. 

Reply
post #98 of 265
6/20/12 at 9:21am

Nobody said X movie is good, or X is better than Y, because it won the Oscar.  It's more like arguing who deserves to be an All-Star more, which isn't the same thing.

Reply
post #99 of 265
6/20/12 at 9:25am

That's true.

Reply
post #100 of 265
6/20/12 at 1:04pm

This movie is still a must-see for me.  The second trailer is genius.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Paul Thomas Anderson's THE MASTER Pre-Release Discussion