Cakebug Tranch

Particularly since the 'I'm never having children' line comes RIGHT before she joyously celebrates that the love of her life is coming home from Vietnam, so undercuts her love for this guy by saying 'yeah I like that dude but due to my principles I'm never having kids'. This is the worst possible situation for such a line to be added. And, gotta say it. She forgets buddy is dead SUPER fast.

Okay, serious answer now. Favourite Romantic Movie: That's easy: Favorite Love Song: I'll pick two current favourites:

Easy Cam! Two answers, one video!

Hey, yooo https://www.bustle.com/p/will-lin-manuel-miranda-star-in-the-hamilton-movie-he-just-teased-the-possibility-37881

I think the reason I keep comparing it to 'Mamma Mia' is that as a jukebox musical, 'MM' is unabashedly doing Abba as Abba: that's how it is in the stage musical, that's how it is in the film. They're not really doing anything much with the music itself, and if the soundtrack popped up on your iTunes you'd be forgiven for thinking initially that it was Abba themselves. It's basically Abba's orchestrations sung by different people. As such, I don't find it as musically interesting as what's done here. Same goes with other jukebox shows like 'Rock of Ages' or (god help us) 'We Will Rock You'. In this, I appreciated that some thought had gone into taking ownership of the tracks. That's all!

Yeah, the big difference between rebel Lucy in this film and rebel Jenny in 'Forrest Gump' was that Jenny came from an abusive childhood and poverty; Lucy turns down a trip to Europe with her parents so she can go slum it with her brother in New York. Zero obstacles for Lucy in her life, so zero sympathy for her throughout.

Yes, me too. I figure that its continued presence is a trade-off for the hard work Avaryl does behind the scenes, and putting up with skipping 90 seconds ahead to ensure quality pro-bono work that makes the podcast better seems okay to me. I don't enjoy the tone of people being bitchy about things (as opposed to HDTGM, which is much more analytical about it) so this isn't for me. I remain mystified by the sound quality though.

Bladed woman is Arachne, the spider-god. Someone mentioned for 1 page in 1 comic book once, that nutbar Taymor built the entire show around. Check this out: http://www.blastr.co...nal_wtf_end.php God damned hubris! ETA: here's an even better article on the whole thing. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2012/01/bruce-handy-spiderman-countersuit-julie-taymor-broadway This seems particularly pertinent when applied to 'Across the Universe', as she's sued for her artistic tunnel vision that's all over AtU.

In case you haven't seen any footage from 'Spider Man: Turn Off the Dark', feast your eyes on this mess. Don't stop the video before you get to the Green Goblin's Sinister Six song (that was parodied in the Comedy Bang! Bang! TV Musical episode). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9LK2SBGeYg

It's been a long time since I've seen it but I still have a framed poster of the movie poster somewhere in the house. I remember at the time being very fond of a lot of what they did with it, to an extent. I thought it was overly stylised - at the time I didn't know who Taymor was so didn't know why she was doing what she was doing - but for a play like 'Titus' it felt appropriate. The framing device of Young Lucius coming in from a modern world into Rome is troubling and unnecessary, but once we get to Rome there are enough performances that sustain the adaptation. Hopkins is great as Titus, as is Lange, Cummings, and Harry Lennix as Aaron. It's a hard-ass play to adapt, and we have to suspend a lot of assumptions to find our way around the world, but I think by indulging Saturnine's hedonistic lifestyle, Chiron and Demetrius's savagery, and Aaron's detachment, they did a good job at building a sandbox to play in. I think the biggest issue I had was that all graphic violence happens off-screen, and in a play like this, we need to be on-edge that something terrible is going to happen at any time. If we know all things are off-screen (like Lavinia's assault) we lose that edge. The killing of Alarbus off the top is a great opportunity to show us what they're capable of, and then if all else is off-screen then we continually wonder when we're going to be shocked again. I know that we can conjure more horrible things in our mind than they can show, but this was a missed opportunity, although I love the image of Lavinia opening her mouth to scream and blood pouring out. I really like 'Titus', but it's not particularly cohesive. And compared to Taymor's 'Tempest', it's a bloody masterpiece. What a DISASTER that was. No, I didn't see it - I get to NY so infrequently that I like to curate what I see, and that never made the cut. I heard horrible things about it, mostly. Theatre people hate it because the story is a mess and the music is so forgettable, but the people who go for the shiny flashing lights and flying Spider Men were into it. It just shows what happens when 'art' (or spectacle) is privileged over story. The same thing we're complaining about with AtU was what killed Spider-Man.

I remain astonished and overjoyed by the vitriol that this pick has stirred up. I honestly didn't expect such a reaction. Even from mild-mannered Cam Bert! This is a treat. I think for me the thing that ruins this movie is hubris. Julie Taymor, who I've already identified many times as a raving lunatic, got her McArthur genius grant nearly 30 years ago and since, she's been creating boondoggle after boondoggle, with the notable exception of The Lion King. She studied puppetry in Indonesia and is one of the most self consciously 'artistic' artists out there, who is all about the art without giving a shit for the audience. Seriously, read the Song of Spider-Man book to get a better view, where she sabotaged that project by making it not about Spider-Man, but Arachne, the spider-god, and the ridiculous costuming of the Sinister Six, because that was her way in and she refused to relinquish control. Has anyone seen 'Titus'? It's one of my favourite Shakespearean films, but only because I was playing Titus Andronicus in a production around the same time so felt fondly towards the play, and enjoyed the scope of the thing, but objectively - what a bloody mess. I think 'Frida' did quite well, but I didn't see that. Sidebar real quick: Jim Sturgess and Evan Rachel Wood were the original Peter Parker and Mary-Jane Watson in the development readings of the Spider-Man musical. And TV Carpio (Prudence) played Arachne the Spider God on Broadway. Anyway, Taymor's the kind of artist whose vision far outstrips her capabilities and doesn't care what others think (witness her reaction to the studio recutting her film, or to how Spider-Man wound up), but that is evident in this film. It's art for art's sake. Add to that, Evan Rachel Wood fancied herself much more a singer than an actress, and her attitude towards being an actress pervades Lucy throughout. She's so fucking solemn and 'serious' every time she gets to sing that I check out and hate her. Like that pregnancy speech or the Thanksgiving lines that Cam mentioned. She epitomises the hubris for me - someone who clearly thinks she's better than the material and that we're damn lucky to have her. Add her to Taymor and we're in trouble. And I really like Jim Sturgess. Always have. He's pretty good in '21'. This was supposed to be a one-line post. Oopsie.

You got VALENTINES at HIGH SCHOOL?

Psych

Well, fair enough. The more we talk the more I wonder why I loved a lot of this film when I first saw it (less so on subsequent views) but I'm nowhere near as precious about this film as if I'd picked Moulin Rouge! and everyone was crapping on it. So, crap away! Fister hasn't even got to unload on it yet! And Cam Bert!

Reading back over the above and I think it's just clear that I'm just a sensitive boy.

Okay, I'm solo parenting tonight while my wife's off at her burlesque class, so just catching up after feeding and bathing kids. I read all of this and agree with nearly everything said above. I had multiquoted a bunch of stuff but we're all keeping along the same lines, so I'll stick with Cam's insight here. First of all, I have always taken the little boy singing 'Let It Be' (100% agreed with Taylor Anne that this is the best cover version of the song ever) as a prayer for peace; that he's an innocent victim hoping that thinking pacifist thoughts will save him. The transition into the choir always slays me. And that's going to lead me to my second point - Cameron, you ask about how I could be impacted by these characters, and scenarios, since so much in this thing is soulless and kind of meh. I KNOW. Totally agreed. But I have a hair-trigger when it comes to emotional connections to music. I get so fucking emotional when I listen to Australian music because it makes me think of home. For example, this track here: Makes me weep every time. Like, WTF! And this one too: I mean, COME ON. It's the emotional trigger of the accents, and in the second one, it's hearing a beat-perfect cover of Paul Kelly FEATURING PAUL FUCKING KELLY that messes me up. Anyway. In this film, Let It Be, Hey Jude, and All You Need Is Love wreck me every time, and I don't think it has anything to do with Jude or Max (although I love when Max does the 'Judey Judey Judey Judey Judeyyy' when Jude gets off the boat - SHIT my eyes welled up as I typed that god damn it) but entirely to do with the content and context. I mean, honestly, I truly believe that all you need is love, and when Jude is able to express that (even though Lucy's mostly pretty awful throughout), that makes me happy. I think it's the Beatles that make me emotional more than Jude and Lucy and Max. I can see the awfulness of a lot of this movie, but it's moments like that which elevate it for me and make it worthwhile. This isn't meant to be a negative comment, Cam, but do you maybe think you went in expecting to hate it and then, by analysing the lyrics, you proved yourself right? I kept searching for things to like, but maybe you were searching for things to hate?

So many buns!

Welcome! Join in often!

I found this article from the New York Times of March 20, 2007 very interesting. Highlights: comparison to Gigli; comparison to Orson Welles; confirmation of a 90 minute version. Confirmation Taymor's a nutbar. Film Has Two Versions; Only One Is Julie Taymor’s By SHARON WAXMAN LOS ANGELES, March 19 — In Hollywood creative differences among moviemakers often make for more interesting results on the screen. But rarely do those battles escalate so much that a studio takes a movie away from an award-winning director. Such is the case — for the moment — with “Across the Universe,” a $45-million psychedelic love story set to the music of the Beatles, directed by Julie Taymor, the stage and screen talent whose innovative interpretation of the Disney animated film “The Lion King” is one of the most successful modern stage musicals. After Ms. Taymor delivered the movie to Joe Roth, the film executive whose production company, Revolution Studios, based at Sony, is making the Beatles musical, he created his own version without her agreement. And last week Mr. Roth tested his cut of the film, which is about a half-hour shorter than Ms. Taymor’s 2-hour-8-minute version. Mr. Roth’s moves have left Ms. Taymor feeling helpless and considering taking her name off the movie, according to an individual close to the movie who would not be named because of the sensitivity of the situation. Disavowing a film is the most radical step available to a director like Ms. Taymor, who does not have final cut, one that could embarrass the studio and hurt the movie’s chances for a successful release in September. Ms. Taymor declined to be interviewed, but issued a carefully worded statement: “My creative team and I are extremely happy about our cut and the response to it,” she wrote. “Sometimes at this stage of the Hollywood process differences of opinion arise, but in order to protect the film, I am not getting into details at this time.” Mr. Roth, a former Disney studio chief who proclaimed his ’60’s-influenced, artist-friendly ethos in 2000 by naming his new company Revolution Studios, is himself a director, of films like “Christmas With the Kranks,”“Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise” and “Freedomland.” He said that Ms. Taymor was overreacting to a normal Hollywood process of testing different versions of a movie, something he has done many times before, including with Michael Mann’s “Last of the Mohicans.” He called his version of “Across the Universe” “an experiment.” “She’s a brilliant director,” he said. “She’s made a brilliant movie. This process is not anything out of the ordinary. Her reaction through her representatives might be. But her orientation is stage. It’s different if you’re making a $12-million film, or a $45-million film. No one is uncomfortable in this process, other than Julie.” And he warned that the conflict could hurt the movie. “If you work off her hysteria, that will do the film an injustice,” he said. “Nobody wants to do that. She’s worked long and hard, and made a wonderful movie.” A spokesman for Sony Pictures Entertainment declined to comment, saying the project was developed by Revolution. “Across the Universe” stars Evan Rachel Wood as Lucy, an American teenager, and Jim Sturgess as Jude, a British import, who fall in love during the turbulent 1960s. The movie, set to 35 Beatles songs, seems to spring from Ms. Taymor’s experimental sandbox, combining live action with painted and three-dimensional animation and puppets, and featuring cameos by Eddie Izzard, dressed as a freakish Mr. Kite; Bono, singing “I Am the Walrus”; and Joe Cocker, singing “Come Together.” Mr. Roth said he had been working with Ms. Taymor on and off during nine months of editing, and that the problem was merely one of length.Ms. Taymor has been editing the film for the better part of the last year, after completing the shoot in 2005. An initial release date of September 2006 was pushed off. Under pressure from Mr. Roth and after test screenings, Ms. Taymor trimmed the film from an initial 2 hours 20 minutes. She told associates she considered the film finished. Fights between visionary filmmakers and studios are nothing new. Orson Welles spent most of his career fighting with studios that took away his movies, editing options and even limited his film stock. And those fights commonly focus on the running times of movies, which, as critics have noted, seem to grow inexorably longer. But it is rare for an executive to step in and cut the movie himself. Ms. Taymor was still making her own final edits to the film when she learned several weeks ago that Mr. Roth had edited another, shorter version. That version was tested last week in Arizona, to a younger audience than the more mixed test group than saw Ms. Taymor’s cut in Los Angeles on March 8, according to an individual close to the film. Mr. Roth, who vowed never again to allow a director final cut after the disastrous 2003 Martin Brest movie “Gigli,” said that the various versions were testing well, but that he had a responsibility to find the most successful incarnation. “It’s ‘show’ and it’s ‘business,’ ” he said. Ms. Taymor has been showered with numerous awards, including a MacArthur “genius” grant in 1991. The stage version of “The Lion King,” which currently has nine productions worldwide, is notable for Ms. Taymor’s unusual staging and the use of mechanical masks that make the actors seem like real animals. (Mr. Roth, who ran Disney at the time, admitted to having been skeptical about the masks but later told Ms. Taymor he’d been wrong.) Ms. Taymor has had more mixed results in Hollywood. Her bloody Shakespeare adaptation, “Titus,” bombed at the box office, taking in just $1.9 million. “Frida,” in 2002, about the artist Frida Kahlo, was successful, winning two Oscars and a moderate financial windfall. Mr. Roth said he believed that the current tensions would be worked out, and that Ms. Taymor would find the best, final version of the film somewhere between his own and her last cut. But those in Ms. Taymor’s camp were more skeptical, saying the director was not inclined to make any more changes. Ms. Taymor herself struck a more conciliatory note in her statement: “I only hope that we will be able to complete the film we set out to make.”

100% guarantee you that's actors making improvised filler talk. Julie Taymor IS BATSHIT INSANE.

To be fair, they did go ALL OUT in the soft-eyed-bearded-revolutionary-guru-who-seduces-his-acolytes casting trope.