CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › All The Money In The World (Pre-Release)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

All The Money In The World (Pre-Release)

post #1 of 79
Thread Starter 

Mark Wahlberg and Ridley Scott? Based on this trailer, I'm up for it. I'm not familiar with the true-life case that this is based on but the fact that the final scene in this trailer actually happened just blows my mind.

 

 

post #2 of 79
Scott really loves awkwardly ageing people up rather than just casting old actors, doesn't he?
post #3 of 79
Thread Starter 

Ha, that's true. In the movie's defence, I think they've done a pretty good job with Spacey's look. At least he can still emote under that. 

post #4 of 79

That looks pretty fun, but I kind of want a movie about the Gettys shamelessly looting the world for their gallery. 

 

I'm actually hoping this will be a lot like THE MARTIAN and show us process of how this all went down. 

post #5 of 79
Good trailer. But since Getty looked like Donald Sutherland, why go through all that trouble with Spacey? Though I've no idea what the real Getty sounded like.

And agreed that this looks a lot like The Martian; a straight-forward and extremely well made thriller with a great cast. In other words, this looks like a Tony Scott film.
post #6 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

That looks pretty fun, but I kind of want a movie about the Gettys shamelessly looting the world for their gallery. 

 

I'm actually hoping this will be a lot like THE MARTIAN and show us process of how this all went down. 


Hah, I just went to the Getty Center for the first time last month. It's nice!

post #7 of 79
It's Ridley, so it's a must see for me. Hard to believe Wahlberg was the best choice he could get for the lead, but whatever.
post #8 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

Scott really loves awkwardly ageing people up rather than just casting old actors, doesn't he?

Indeed: Ridley Scott apparently loves to slather pounds of "old man makeup" on a younger actor. 

 

It's a well-paced, engaging trailer, though. "Time of the Season" by The Zombies is such a hackneyed choice and yet I cannot argue that it doesn't work fabulously here.

 

Oh, and Virtanen is right about the Getty patriarch looking like Donald Sutherland, which is why the FX series about this case in early 2018 cast Sutherland in the role.

post #9 of 79

I'm not quite seeing the resemblance between Kevin Spacey in heavy make up and this:

 

 

He looks and sounds like John Carpenter, only much creepier and without a joint in his hand.

post #10 of 79

Kevin Spacey has been cut from the film and is being replaced with Christopher Plummer. The movie comes out in December.

 

I can barely process that information. Maybe the extent of Spacey's scenes was something like Leto in BR2049? 10-15 minutes and at a remove from the rest of the film's characters and action for the most part? The trailer does kind of make it look like that would be the case.

 

Still, I went from little interest in seeing this to highly intrigued.

post #11 of 79

The trailer - which, interestingly, has not been pulled from circulation - seems that Getty has a much bigger part than this would all indicate. 

post #12 of 79

From what I understand, Kevin only worked on the film for ~10 days.  If the sets still exist for his scenes and all of the main actors can be re-assembled, matching the new footage should be doable.  From what I understand, the two leads (Williams and Wahlberg) are available for the reshoots.  Hopefully, they can be styled to look consistent with the original shoot (not need wigs or anything ala Kate Mara in F4).

post #13 of 79
Thread Starter 

They should replace him with CGI Tarkin. The poor guy hasn't worked since the poor reviews his performance received for Rogue One.

post #14 of 79

If they still manage to get this film out by the 22nd of December, that will be quite an accomplishment.

 

And hopefully it's good!  I was intrigued by it up to this point (and, honestly, would have still seen it with Spacey).

post #15 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

They should replace him with CGI Tarkin. The poor guy hasn't worked since the poor reviews his performance received for Rogue One.

 

good work for CG monsters!

post #16 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

They should replace him with CGI Tarkin. The poor guy hasn't worked since the poor reviews his performance received for Rogue One.


I'd prefer CGI Philip Seymour Hoffman. More range.

post #17 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
 

From what I understand, Kevin only worked on the film for ~10 days.  If the sets still exist for his scenes and all of the main actors can be re-assembled, matching the new footage should be doable.  From what I understand, the two leads (Williams and Wahlberg) are available for the reshoots.  Hopefully, they can be styled to look consistent with the original shoot (not need wigs or anything ala Kate Mara in F4).

 

Yeah, I've read up some more, and it does sound doable.

 

Still, a major time crunch.

 

They should re-release the exact same trailer immediately but photoshop Plummer's face over Spacey's. "AND    KEVIN SPACEY    CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER AS J. PAUL GETTY."

post #18 of 79

They should have just gone full-on absurd with it, though. Pennywise as J. Paul Getty. "He's LITERALLY a monster!"

post #19 of 79
This is the first I've even heard of this movie, and I like movies!

Well... some.
post #20 of 79

https://entertainment.theonion.com/entirety-of-hollywood-film-industry-replaced-with-40-00-1820307690

 

I cringe at a lot of the jokes coming out of this Allegation Era but I have to say this, this right here is gold.

post #21 of 79

Plummer got a credit bump! 

 

post #22 of 79

Good for him.

 

And it's smart as hell to have Plummer's name front and center.  As of now, he's the selling point on the movie.

post #23 of 79
Wouldn't it have been good to just keep Spacey since his character is a bad guy anyways? I could see cutting him if we're meant to be rooting for the character, but we're not, the guy was an asshole.
post #24 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBOB View Post

Wouldn't it have been good to just keep Spacey since his character is a bad guy anyways? I could see cutting him if we're meant to be rooting for the character, but we're not, the guy was an asshole.

The very stink of Spacey could keep who knows how many people from coming to see the film. When Harveygate started to eat away at the reputations of Matt Damon and George Clooney for a few weeks this autumn, it absolutely sunk what was already a probable surefire flop anyway in Suburbicon. Nobody out there rationalized along the lines of, "Well, Damon's playing a sinister, murderous jerk in this movie anyway..."

post #25 of 79
Thread Starter 

Yeah, it just makes everyone involved in the production look better, and that'll help Box Office. Because they're showing that the money they'll have to spend means nothing compared to doing the right thing (even if it's ultimately so they make more money, but shushhhhhh about that). 

post #26 of 79
The movie might end up getting more attention than if they hadn’t gotten caught up in the scandal at all. I didn’t get the impression everyone was burning with anticipation for it before, but the movie itself is an intriguing story now.

What’ll be disappointing is if they pull off the roll switch flawlessly but the movie turns out to be another stodgy late-period Scott effort anyway, like a lot of his more awards-baity stuff.
post #27 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoirHeaven View Post

The very stink of Spacey could keep who knows how many people from coming to see the film. When Harveygate started to eat away at the reputations of Matt Damon and George Clooney for a few weeks this autumn, it absolutely sunk what was already a probable surefire flop anyway in Suburbicon. Nobody out there rationalized along the lines of, "Well, Damon's playing a sinister, murderous jerk in this movie anyway..."

Can you sink a sure fire flop?

The thing you're talking about seems like more of an Internet thing, I doubt your average person knows or cares that Damon and Clooney knew a person.
post #28 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

Yeah, it just makes everyone involved in the production look better, and that'll help Box Office. Because they're showing that the money they'll have to spend means nothing compared to doing the right thing (even if it's ultimately so they make more money, but shushhhhhh about that). 

But it's not really the "right thing", it's just a thing. I could see dropping him if the movie hadn't started filming yet, but this just seems like a goofy PR stunt...probably because that's what it is. And if we all know it's a PR stunt to begin with, it doesn't exactly make the production look better. You could probably make the point it makes them look worse because they're using the real world thing surrounded him to make money.
post #29 of 79
Thread Starter 

Spacey admitted he might have sexually assaulted a 14 year old boy. He's been labelled a sexual predator (and even a rapist) by multiple people now. You don't think it's going to be seen as "the right thing" when the studio removes all traces of him? You don't think it's going to make them look better? You think a studio would let their director spend all of that money on a movie that's just about to released if all of their PR people hadn't sat around a little table and agreed they'd all look better for it?

 

C'mon, Princess Sam. 

post #30 of 79
It’s Kate / Hartford, guys. Do not engage.
post #31 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomTastic View Post

It’s Kate / Hartford, guys. Do not engage.

 

Johnny, quick, we need to- ...

 

 

Oh.

post #32 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

Spacey admitted he might have sexually assaulted a 14 year old boy. He's been labelled a sexual predator (and even a rapist) by multiple people now. You don't think it's going to be seen as "the right thing" when the studio removes all traces of him? You don't think it's going to make them look better? You think a studio would let their director spend all of that money on a movie that's just about to released if all of their PR people hadn't sat around a little table and agreed they'd all look better for it?

C'mon, Princess Sam. 

You yourself said it was about money. Do you think it makes them look good if you already know or think you know the actual reason it's being done? Does it look good when someone uses something bad to make themselves look better? Ultimately I don't think the general public will care all that much if he is or isn't there. And I doubt this gesture will mean much of anything for them, I mean right now I'm not sure most people even know this movie is a thing. This all just seems like an empty gesture. Spacey already did his work, they already worked with him, and he was already paid; it just seems totally meaningless, this isn't like they refused to work with him and give him money. If they were worried about people not coming out removing him and his name from all promotional material seems like it'd work just as well.

Yeah, you can cut the shit with this Princess Sam crap or whoever the fuck you think I am that's been here before, because I'm not that person. This shit is getting kind of annoying now. Hell, this thread I'm just now discovering I'm a third person. Are there more posters I don't know about that I also am? It's be nice to learn all the other people I'm meant to be. Is Princess Sam a whole other person too, or is it some clever hilarious combo of Sam and Kate? Was Sam this person's whole name, or was it part of a name?
post #33 of 79

I read the decision to re-cast and re-shoot was done by sir Ridley alone, he just phoned Sony and notified them about this. I wouldn't be surprised if sir Ridley's doing this just to get the film he wanted to make in the first place, with Christopher Plummer as Getty instead of studio-mandated Spacey. But still, it does make them look a lot better than if they'd just buried the film.

post #34 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBOB View Post


Yeah, you can cut the shit with this Princess Sam crap or whoever the fuck you think I am that's been here before, because I'm not that person. This shit is getting kind of annoying now. Hell, this thread I'm just now discovering I'm a third person. Are there more posters I don't know about that I also am? It's be nice to learn all the other people I'm meant to be. Is Princess Sam a whole other person too, or is it some clever hilarious combo of Sam and Kate? Was Sam this person's whole name, or was it part of a name?

Don't worry about it. It's happened to me before, and while I don't know what started it in your case, but in mine, it's maybe just that I was wordy and/or had some opinions that weren't liked or misunderstood. Of course some might now just think we're one guy talking to himself, and yes, Kate, yes we are.

But seriously though, this is a close knit community, I've gleamed, that not everyone takes well to new posters, at least at first. It sucks, and one shouldn't have to give proof that you aren't someone you aren't as an initiation (like any other message board), but there you are. Just do a search on Princess Kate/Dr. Harford and that might give you some insight. That might help you with the inside jokes and references that might pop up.

Ok, let's go back to watching our ZT60 (yes that's one of the recurring jokes).
post #35 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBOB View Post


You yourself said it was about money. Do you think it makes them look good if you already know or think you know the actual reason it's being done? Does it look good when someone uses something bad to make themselves look better? Ultimately I don't think the general public will care all that much if he is or isn't there. And I doubt this gesture will mean much of anything for them, I mean right now I'm not sure most people even know this movie is a thing. This all just seems like an empty gesture. Spacey already did his work, they already worked with him, and he was already paid; it just seems totally meaningless, this isn't like they refused to work with him and give him money. If they were worried about people not coming out removing him and his name from all promotional material seems like it'd work just as well.

Yeah, you can cut the shit with this Princess Sam crap or whoever the fuck you think I am that's been here before, because I'm not that person. This shit is getting kind of annoying now. Hell, this thread I'm just now discovering I'm a third person. Are there more posters I don't know about that I also am? It's be nice to learn all the other people I'm meant to be. Is Princess Sam a whole other person too, or is it some clever hilarious combo of Sam and Kate? Was Sam this person's whole name, or was it part of a name?

 

Of course it's about money. Everything's about money. My entire original comment was about how they're looking to be seen to do the right thing despite the financial costs, whilst actually hoping it'll improve the movie's Box Office and therefore make them more money. And, yes, you can still look good even if you do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Why do you think Netflix cancelled House Of Cards? If you're thinking anything other than "It makes them look good in the eyes of the public", then I don't know what to say. On the surface, it seems the right thing to do given the allegations. The fact that we know it protects their brand, stops them becoming the entertainment company that tolerates alleged pedophiles, and therefore ensures their bottom line isn't massively affected, is secondary. What's going on here is exactly the same. Can you imagine how those publicity interviews would have gone if they hadn't done this? Can you imagine all of those questions about working with a guy who once tried to fuck a 14 year old boy? This way, they get to sit in those chairs and control the narrative. "Oh, once we found out, we did what was right. We erased all trace of that monster from our movie. Come see our film now!" 

 

Infamous troll and user of sock accounts and wisher of cancer on people, Princess Kate / Dr. Harford / Sam - who has popped up multiple times here to post hundreds of posts a month and each time protest that it wasn't really him this time - had a way of being contrarian for the sake of it. I think you can see why I'd be suspicious when someone argues that the removal of an alleged sexual predator from a movie '"is not really "the right thing"'.... 

post #36 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

Of course it's about money. Everything's about money. My entire original comment was about how they're looking to be seen to do the right thing despite the financial costs, whilst actually hoping it'll improve the movie's Box Office and therefore make them more money. And, yes, you can still look good even if you do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Why do you think Netflix cancelled House Of Cards? If you're thinking anything other than "It makes them look good in the eyes of the public", then I don't know what to say. On the surface, it seems the right thing to do given the allegations. The fact that we know it protects their brand, stops them becoming the entertainment company that tolerates alleged pedophiles, and therefore ensures their bottom line isn't massively affected, is secondary. What's going on here is exactly the same. Can you imagine how those publicity interviews would have gone if they hadn't done this? Can you imagine all of those questions about working with a guy who once tried to fuck a 14 year old boy? This way, they get to sit in those chairs and control the narrative. "Oh, once we found out, we did what was right. We erased all trace of that monster from our movie. Come see our film now!" 

Infamous troll and user of sock accounts and wisher of cancer on people, Princess Kate / Dr. Harford / Sam - who has popped up multiple times here to post hundreds of posts a month and each time protest that it wasn't really him this time - had a way of being contrarian for the sake of it. I think you can see why I'd be suspicious when someone argues that the removal of an alleged sexual predator from a movie '"is not really "the right thing"'.... 

They already worked with him, this isn't going to stop questions about working with him. The work was done. Replacing him after the fact isn't the same as kicking him off the project beforehand.

It's not the right thing, it's not the wrong thing either, it's just a thing that was done.
post #37 of 79
just a matter of time...
post #38 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBOB View Post

They already worked with him, this isn't going to stop questions about working with him. The work was done. Replacing him after the fact isn't the same as kicking him off the project beforehand.

It's not the right thing, it's not the wrong thing either, it's just a thing that was done.

 

The work was done?  You're not making sense here.  The work was done before Spacey's career was ruined and any projects with him were tanked.  Ultimately the film studio wants this film to succeed.  Do you really think the film wouldn't be boycotted or just snubbed on release if they'd stuck with Spacey? 

 

 

 

post #39 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones View Post

The work was done?  You're not making sense here.  The work was done before Spacey's career was ruined and any projects with him were tanked.  Ultimately the film studio wants this film to succeed.  Do you really think the film wouldn't be boycotted or just snubbed on release if they'd stuck with Spacey? 



Yeah, he already filmed the movie. The work was done before all this came out, but nothing at all they do now will stop the questions of working with him, because that's a thing that already happened.

I don't think it'd be boycotted. People barely even knew the movie was a thing anyways. You take his name off promote meteral, don't show him in commercials or new trailers, and you probably wouldn't even have to push the movie back. The question comes up as to why he's in the movie, they say they made the movie before these things came to light, which is true. I'm sure most people would understand the weird situation they now find themselves in with the movie, and I doubt anyone would really expect them to reshoot his scenes. Some people might not show up because he's in the movie, but people don't go to movies because they don't like someone in it all the time.

Having said all this, there had also been some rumors about Spacey before this stuff came out. Think they go back to that one billionaire who was arrested some years ago. Now they were just rumors, but the rumors have been around for a few years now.
post #40 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBOB View Post


I don't think it'd be boycotted. People barely even knew the movie was a thing anyways. You take his name off promote meteral, don't show him in commercials or new trailers, and you probably wouldn't even have to push the movie back. The question comes up as to why he's in the movie, they say they made the movie before these things came to light, which is true. I'm sure most people would understand the weird situation they now find themselves in with the movie, and I doubt anyone would really expect them to reshoot his scenes. Some people might not show up because he's in the movie, but people don't go to movies because they don't like someone in it all the time.

And in this case quite a lot of people would decide not to see this film based on Spacey being in it. You can't hide it from the media, and if you did that's going to provoke even more questions, and an even bigger backlash. These reshoots seem like the simplest way to deal with the controversy and not handicap a film's opening weekend.
post #41 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones View Post


And in this case quite a lot of people would decide not to see this film based on Spacey being in it. You can't hide it from the media, and if you did that's going to provoke even more questions, and an even bigger backlash. These reshoots seem like the simplest way to deal with the controversy and not handicap a film's opening weekend.

 

It's also the most expensive, gruelling and borderline insane way, given their release date. But yes, it's the only way to keep the film in the Awards race and beat Danny Boyle's early-2018 series about the same subject.

 

I just find it endearing how there's so much positive energy and goodwill towards this endeavor. Shows that the best way to make us put aside our differences is to hand us pitchforks and point at a fleeing serial rapist.

post #42 of 79

I bet secretly Ridley just wanted to make sure he's on a movie set when he turns 80.

 

Also I don't know if he's the type to care that much about awards, but part of of the motivation might be that this was being hyped as his big late-career oscar shot before the scandal, so this last minute effort to snatch victory from the jaws from defeat might work as a way of reasserting himself and getting back in the running.

post #43 of 79
post #44 of 79
Plummer looks good.

The acting styles are so different.
post #45 of 79

And there you go.

 

 

Told you he was going to make it work.  Plummer's gonna take the Oscar for this, just you watch.

post #46 of 79

Nomination maybe. It's already a really tough category and it's not going to screen soon enough to pick up the critics' awards. 

post #47 of 79
Thread Starter 

I'm impressed at them pulling this off. Really looking forward to reading / watching the behind-the-scenes material on this.

post #48 of 79

Full trailer w/ full Plummer:

 

post #49 of 79

I still find it hilarious/amazing how they went full Damnatio Memoriae on Spacey. I mean, it couldn't have happened to a bigger piece of shit but still, rather impressive.

 

Trailer looks good. Plummer especially.

post #50 of 79

Yep, Plummer looks great.  He looks like he was waiting for the phone call and already knew his lines.  The man is a pro, and he's gonna get an Oscar nom (and probably win) for this just for the HOLY SHIT HE DID IT factor.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › All The Money In The World (Pre-Release)