Prometheus, in three short paragraphs

[bleeding heart]

Once the Wizard of Oz was subjected to a similar 'review' on IMDb. Some took it seriously and attacked the review and the reviewer in detail........funny stuff, good on yeh!

The credit is all Kimmy's, whose skill has pretty obviously been honed through writing fiction. (You can tell by concision, control, energy, and vocabulary.)

Edited June 29, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

This thread was pretty fantastic before, but this, this makes it Hall of Fame material.

Hear! Hear!

[Guest Peeves]

This is the faux film review WOO),I referenced from an IMDb site poster about 10 years ago in the same vein as kimmy's.

Those that enjoyed kimmy's might enjoy this too.As I said there were a few that though the poster (Pippin) was serious and took her to task.

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

"I'm amazed more people haven't spotted these film flubs:

* Part of the movie is in black and white, then inadvertently goes to color, and then back to black and white! An obvious continuity gaffe.

* Although the movie purports to be in Kansas, several scenes are obviously filmed on a Hollywood sound stage.

* The scene where the teacher rides past Dorothy's bedroom window in the midst of a tornado is physically impossible.

* When the characters sing you can hear music accompanying them but there are no radios or musicians in the area!

* For a land to exist "over the rainbow" it would have to be lighter than air, and as Dorothy was already shown to be composed of solid matter, how come she didn't

fall back down to earth?

* Some of the so-called "munchkins" are obviously children wearing fake facial hair and grown up clothes.

* The "yellow brick road" is not really yellow as much as it is golden. And there is some speculation that it isn't really made of brick either. (Thanks to the

International Brick Layers Union for providing that piece of information.)

* Scarecrows are inanimate objects moved solely by the wind. They can not move at will, much less dance.

* A "tin man" is a slang term for an aluminum siding salesman. The movie portrays the salesman as an actual tin man. And what's with the ax? Someone in the

research department should've gotten fired over this flub.

* Lions growl. They do not talk. There is no recorded evidence of one talking, ever. Perhaps the filmmaker's were thinking of the Biblical Balaam's ass, which is the

only recorded incident of an animal actually speaking coherent sentences.

* Lions are also quadrupeds, meaning they walk on all fours. The "lion" in the movie is obviously a man in a suit trying to pass himself off as the real thing.

* As for the ruby red slippers, well, despite the sure protestations from some of our lady-folk here, shoes do not have magical powers.

* The witch views the goings on through her crystal ball. A purely fictional device. Obviously special effects created the scenes she was supposed to be watching in the ball.

(Note: While there is a device on the market called "The Magic 8 Ball," which is a genuine fortune telling device, this is not the type of ball employed in the scene just

mentioned.)

* Monkeys do not have wings, and cannot fly.

* The witch flies on a broom and skywrites with it as well. Again, an invented fiction that would make Oliver Stone proud.

* Trees cannot talk, nor can they "throw" apples. Once an apple is ripe, however, it may fall onto the ground directly beneath it.

* Although there are many scenes with trees in them, not once does Toto mark his territory on them. This goes against common sense and ruins the believability of

the movie.

* For that matter no character in the entire movie goes to the bathroom. Although the "tin man" does leak at one point it's tears that overflow, not urine.

* Perhaps the biggest goof of all: Everything the characters went to the wizard to receive, THEY ALREADY HAD! The Scarecrow wanted a brain, YET HE DEVISED THE PLAN TO GET INTO THE CASTLE! The Tin Man wanted a heart YET HE CRIED TEARS OF SADNESS! The lion wanted courage, YET HE'S THE ONE WHO FOUGHT THE CROCODILES! (In an alternate, never-before-seen version currently in a locked vault in Ted Turner's Montana ranch.)

* Also, did anybody note that the same characters playing the tin man, scarecrow, lion, Mr. Oz, and the wicked witch, were also playing the farm hands, fortune

teller and teacher? Obviously a sign of a low budget, since the meager makeup on their alternate characters wasn't enough to make their faces look much different.

* Continuity flub: At one point Toto is played by a small sheep, but only for a few frames. I forget which scene this is in, but once seen it's obviously a sheep

stand-in."

[cybercoma]

Thanks for sharing that, Peeves.

[kimmy]

For every 9 Hong Kong 14 year old boys, there's 1 young woman in Alberta who simply enjoys the movie, and the irony of it all. That's not a successful business model; and it says little of the human condition.

And here, I guess, I'll just have to see this movie.

I fear rather that it will be another 3d, CGI extravaganza made for 14 year old boys - with the typical evil corporation/father figure who gets beaten up. (See Avatar.) Oh, the irony. A corporation pays Ridley Scott/James Cameron millions to make a crudely derivative commercial movie that denigrates corporations/rich people.

I tried to work as many of your classic memes as possible into the opening post, but I somehow missed "14 year old boys in Hong Kong". Shame on me.

I respect your contributions to the forum, August... you have given me a lot to think about over the years.

Except on the Arts and Culture sub-forum. On the Arts and Culture subforum, you turn into the senile old relative who has no idea what he's talking about, but talks on and on anyway. Like that senile old relative, people are content to smile and nod their heads and say "Sure thing, Uncle Joe." But when you attacked Bleeding Heart's review for being "pretentious" and "patronizing", I could not let that stand.

After I posted that, I felt a little guilty. "Perhaps that was mean... maybe I was a little rough on him..." I thought to myself. And then you come back and completely vindicate the opening post.

Applause for being a good sport about it, at least.

---

14 year old boys in Hong Kong do not decide what movies Hollywood makes.

14 year old boys in Hong Kong are not included in the domestic box-office grosses at all.

They barely even figure into international box-office, because they're more likely to pirate the film than to buy tickets or DVDs.

14 year old boys in Hong Kong are not some almighty cabal that has the power to decide which movies succeed and which fail. They're all but irrelevant to the decision-making processes of Hollywood studios.

I have no idea why on earth you keep talking about 14 year old boys in Hong Kong. I doubt that I will ever have any idea why you keep talking about 14 year old boys in Hong Kong.

But I am sure that you will keep talking about 14 year old boys in Hong Kong anyway.

-k

[cybercoma]

Let's talk about lady-boys in Thailand instead.

[Jack Weber]

Let's talk about lady-boys in Thailand instead.

What???

[cybercoma]

Erm... nothing to see here.

[Guest Peeves]

Erm... nothing to see here.

Look under the bed.

[wyly]

saw it today, it doesn't sync up with the alien series, disappointed with that otherwise it was ok...

[August1991]

On the Arts and Culture subforum, you turn into the senile old relative who has no idea what he's talking about, but talks on and on anyway. Like that senile old relative, people are content to smile and nod their heads and say "Sure thing, Uncle Joe." But when you attacked Bleeding Heart's review for being "pretentious" and "patronizing", I could not let that stand.

After I posted that, I felt a little guilty. "Perhaps that was mean... maybe I was a little rough on him..." I thought to myself. And then you come back and completely vindicate the opening post.

I stand by my criticsm of Bleeding Heart's review. I too hesitated before posting my criticsm but I reasoned that this is the Internet, and BH's review was "pretentious". He wrote it like a wannabe NYT film critic circa 1973. Internet forums don't work that way. You don't write that way here, Kimmy. Heck, even I don't write that way here.

I tried to work as many of your classic memes as possible into the opening post, but I somehow missed "14 year old boys in Hong Kong". Shame on me.

I thought your parody was good but then given my wooden style, I present a target the size of a barn door.

As to the "14 year old boys in Hong Kong" reference, I think that it comes from Cubby Broccoli, the producer of the James Bond franchise. (I can't find an Internet reference so I maybe wrong about the source.) He said that he made movies with that target audience in mind. Girls in bikinis, stuff getting blown up and dialog that didn't really matter since most of the audience spoke pidgin English.

(I lived in Sri Lanka for some time and I was surprised to learn that Buddhist Singhalese loved action-packed, violent American movies - but also slow, dialogue-heavy, homegrown melodramas. And then it dawned on me that the 14 year old kids (and their parents) couldn't speak English well enough, dubbing doesn't work and anyway, American movies are pure fantasy.)

The problem has grown worse with piracy and the Internet. Nowadays, the only way to make money is to present a loud, action-packed blockbuster that requires projection on a huge cinema screen with total sound; home theatre projection just won't cut it.

Hence, my reference to the target customer.

14 year old boys in Hong Kong do not decide what movies Hollywood makes.

I fear that they do, more now than in the past.

Hollywood has to make movies that 14 year old boys in Hong Kong will pay to go and see in a cinema because the pirated version looks so crappy on a home screen.

----

BTW, I'm abroad now and I managed to download a (crappy) version of Prometheus. I've managed to get to the 24 minute mark in VLN. IMHO, well before 24 min, the whole exercise fails utterly on my main criteria for art: the suspension of disbelief. For example, Charlize Theron may be a good actress but she did not convince me for one second that she is an evil corporate shill. Maybe it was the preposterous backstory worthy of Scientologists that defeated her acting skills.

(Whenever I see actresses like Theron in movies like Prometheus, I'm reminded of the scene in Notting Hill where Julia Roberts is practicing her lines for a submarine movie on the rooftop of Hugh Grant's home.)

For you Kimmy, I'll tough out the next 65 minutes or so of Prometheus. I just know that Theron (and the evul corporation) gets it in the end. But jeez, why can't they make a western like Liberty Valance anymore?

Edited July 5, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

August, you take yourself way too seriously sometimes.

[August1991]

August, you take yourself way too seriously sometimes.

This is a movie thread so let me quote a good script in response.

Yale: You are so self-righteous, you know. I mean we're just people. We're just human beings, you know? You think you're God.

Isaac Davis: I... I gotta model myself after someone.

Edited July 5, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

You're too much.

[bleeding heart]

I stand by my criticsm of Bleeding Heart's review. I too hesitated before posting my criticsm but I reasoned that this is the Internet, and BH's review was "pretentious". He wrote it like a wannabe NYT film critic circa 1973.

What the heck does that even mean?

Internet forums don't work that way.

And again: there are no rules; there's scarcely even civility and decorum (as your snide remarks here underline).

What is on the internet forums is what they are; they do "work that way"--by definition--by the simple tautology that what you object to is in fact there.

[Argus]

You people are all very strange. I don't know why I let you write things on my computer screen.

[bleeding heart]

I'm forced to agree; and we much appreciate it!

[bleeding heart]

I thought your parody was good but then given my wooden style, I present a target the size of a barn door.

I disagree, august, and against my better judgement, my disagreement has to take the form of a compliment.

You didn't present a target for Kimmy's (formidable) skill because your style is wooden. Quite the opposite. You presented a good target because your style is unique and interesting.

[August1991]

What the heck does that even mean?

Pauline Kael

And again: there are no rules; there's scarcely even civility and decorum (as your snide remarks here underline).

What is on the internet forums is what they are; they do "work that way"--by definition--by the simple tautology that what you object to is in fact there.

Good point. Maybe I should have done as Kimmy and written a parody of your review.

But frankly, I think I lack her writing talent in English. I may have a "unique, interesting" style (according to you) but good writing requires far more.

You people are all very strange. I don't know why I let you write things on my computer screen.

It's like a family meal at Xmas; you come back for more. Edited July 8, 2012 by August1991

[Black Dog]

This thread is even more of a jumbled mess than the movie it purports to be about.

Why does August have such a beef with Asian youths?

[bleeding heart]

Pauline Kael

Citing wiki doesn't even begin to explain your comment.

If you've got nothing, august, why not simply say, "I've got nothing"? No one will hold that against you.

Edited July 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

Citing wiki doesn't even begin to explain your comment.

If you've got nothing, august, why not simply say, "I've got nothing"? No one will hold that against you.

I read through the review of yours that's semi-referenced by this thread, and although I agree that We Need To Talk About Kevin is a good and interesting movie, August1991 is totally on-point when he describes your review as pretentious. That's exactly what it is.

[bleeding heart]

Dear kraychik,

Thanks for your letter of support. As I'm sure you understand, bleeding heart is too busy to answer all his fan mail, but I assure you that he reads each and every letter that is sent. His fans are important to him!

Be sure to check out his revamped website, and visit the online store for t-shirts, signed photos, ringtones, and lots more. Members get a discount, so be sure to sign up now!

Thanks again for writing, and we hope to see you on the Eastern leg of the new tour.

[Guest Derek L]

Not to sidetrack this topic with a review but:

So just watched it and thoroughly enjoyed the movie……….I’m wondering if Scott plans to further “reboot” the Aliens franchise? If so, would it incorporate the Alien vs. Predator films? The Mr Weiland thing could screw that up some I suppose………..

[Guest]

Ridley Scott was supposed to be making a movie of Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War". I hope he gets to it before I shuffle off...