|
Post by marilyn on Feb 22, 2007 2:35:32 GMT -5
Fall 2007 un-freakin-believable.
|
|
|
Post by thisisliz on Feb 22, 2007 2:49:54 GMT -5
NOOOOOOOO!!! So now it's basically been pushed back an entire year. That will make it over two years that I will have been following this movie by the time it is released. Hey Fox Searchlight: you might get a few extra people interested with more time before it's released, but you're also going to inevitably make a lot of people lose interest. You're pissing off your clientele.
|
|
|
Post by filmbuff on Feb 22, 2007 10:57:15 GMT -5
Fall 2007?
Chero where did you see that?
|
|
|
Post by chero on Feb 22, 2007 11:10:07 GMT -5
IESB.netThis video has been online for a few days now. As a warning, it takes forever to download. Judging by this interview, Mr. Rothman seems like a very nice guy.
|
|
|
Post by Amanda on Feb 22, 2007 13:23:41 GMT -5
I won't even comment on the way I see Mr. Rothman. What a douche.
I agree with thisisliz, though. They're totally pissing off the fans who've been following this film around. None of us are ridiculous enough to say, "Well, that's that and I'm not watching it anymore because you guys are stupid!" but I think it's pretty close. We aren't even working closely with anything and we are only getting the side effects and I'm still about ready to just give up.
It's so frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by brittany on Feb 22, 2007 13:25:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by punctuator on Feb 22, 2007 23:12:15 GMT -5
I just had a grim thought:
What if the "religion" angle is killing "Sunshine" in the U.S.?
I mean-- and I may not be entirely clear here-- I had a sharp gut reaction when I saw on the crew bios that Capa and Cassie are atheists. I'm an atheist (read: recovering Catholic), but it's not something I like to broadcast to people in the "real" world: as I see it, labeling yourself an atheist in the present-day righty-tighty-wing United States is the equivalent of saying "Hey, check it out: I'm a WITCH!" in seventeenth-century Salem. I've heard that such labeling isn't an issue in present-day Europe, and that people from the U.K. are surprised to find out that it IS in the United States (where, I guess, freedom FROM religion is not nearly as important a right as freedom OF religion).
So... is it possible that "Sunshine" is suffering censorship at the hands of U.S. marketing people who are uncomfortable with the film's examination of the relationship between science and religion...? Worse, are they saying, "This sucker's too deep to be a hit with the kids...?" In which case, dust off a place on the shelf....
Arrrrgh....
|
|
|
Post by sunshinedna on Feb 23, 2007 6:42:11 GMT -5
The 'religion' thing isn't the issue. 'Sunshine' isn't 'Contact'... Though the depiction of 'religion' isn't exactly *good* in 'Sunshine', it certainly isn't the main theme... Alex Garland said about the 'religious' aspect of the film: "The question is, is 'Sunshine' about people who believe they see God or people who actually see God.". I don't think, however, that 'religion' is one of the main themes... although a couple of the actors will disagree! Imagine it's 1968, but the film business is run by modern American marketing departments. Imagine that Kubruck's '2001' was shown to focus groups of randomly chosen Americans who were then asked to give their opinions on the film. What if some semi-literate oaf shared his opinions with the 1968 version of AICN? What would he say? " I didn't get what that monkey bit was all about, they just seemed to run around and hit some bones on the ground for about half an hour. And why didn't they just unplug the British f*g computer from the start? The ending was stupid." What do you think the marketing department would do with that film? They'd say it's too slow, the acting is wooden, audiences won't 'get' the monoliths and the ending, well, that's got to go. You know they would. What kind of trailer do you think they'd make for 2001?! Now, I'm not comparing 'Sunshine' to '2001' at all, but when the director, writer and members of the cast all have different ideas of what is the main theme of the film (and they are all valid interpretations), then you can see that marketing departments used to dealing with 'simpler' films might struggle. They did the exact same thing with '28 Days Later' which is a far less complicated film than 'Sunshine'. Actually, take a look at this... They messed the released around and then pulled it forward by two months, I think, because it had done so well everywhere else that they were no longer 'nervous' and 'confused'... So there's still hope...
|
|
|
Post by punctuator on Feb 23, 2007 16:46:03 GMT -5
Thanks, Gia. It's just that I've read so much about the Hays Code and the freakish state of motion picture censorship in the US in the early- to mid-twentieth century (no: make that throughout the twentieth century) that the situation here has me uneasy. Reminds me of an article I read recently on David Fincher, who talked about the marketing mess behind "Fight Club." "It's a movie about people hitting themselves," he said. "No--!" said the Brain Trust in Marketing. "It's about people hitting PEOPLE. You silly director, you! What do you know?"
|
|
|
Post by sunshinedna on Feb 23, 2007 17:02:15 GMT -5
Reminds me of an article I read recently on David Fincher, who talked about the marketing mess behind "Fight Club." "It's a movie about people hitting themselves," he said. "No--!" said the Brain Trust in Marketing. "It's about people hitting PEOPLE. You silly director, you! What do you know?" That's interesting... I never went to see 'Fight Club' in the cinema cos I just thought it was some crappy fighting film- based entirely on the marketing.... I kept hearing people say how brilliant it was, but I knew it wasn't my kind of film. Then one time I was at Blockbuster and had seen pretty much everything there I wanted to see... saw 'Fight Club' and thought, 'Well, everyone says it's good... I'll try it.' I loved it so much I bought it the next day! Hey... have you ever watched "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" with Ferris as a Tyler Durden-like character and Cameron in the Ed Norton role...?
|
|
|
Post by kagerou on Feb 23, 2007 19:14:58 GMT -5
They did the exact same thing with '28 Days Later' which is a far less complicated film than 'Sunshine'. Actually, take a look at this... They messed the released around and then pulled it forward by two months, I think, because it had done so well everywhere else that they were no longer 'nervous' and 'confused'... So there's still hope... I suppose if this happens I should be grateful for 2 less months to wait...but that will still be, say, 4 months more than was originally planned. I don't blame the idea that since it's a British film, it should be released in Britain first, but I just can't express how irked I am that America makes more money on stupid films than interesting ones. Just the entirety of America can be amazingly idiotic...Haha, not sure how to say what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by brittany on Feb 23, 2007 22:46:53 GMT -5
Worse, are they saying, "This sucker's too deep to be a hit with the kids...?" In which case, dust off a place on the shelf.... Who are these "kids" you speak of? Sunshine is rated "hard R."
|
|
|
Post by punctuator on Feb 23, 2007 23:44:10 GMT -5
Worse, are they saying, "This sucker's too deep to be a hit with the kids...?" In which case, dust off a place on the shelf.... Who are these "kids" you speak of? Sunshine is rated "hard R." It's not a "hard" R, is it...? (A hard R in the States usually requires graphic violence and/or graphic sex, which'll bump you up to NC-17 right quick.) And-- speaking, if nothing else, as a former theatre employee-- funny, isn't it, how the underaged always manage to find their way into R-rated features.... (Defining "kids" generally: that primo demographic comprising males between the ages of 16 and 24. Of course, the age dips lower; and, of course, young women enter the mix, too. And, yep: I'm that old. "Twenty-four" is kid territory to the Ancient One.) Coming at it from another angle: Would the film's release path here in the US be smoother if the rating were PG-13...? (I'm thinking "just-past-possibly"-- and sometimes it's a simple matter of asking the thoroughly unbiased, completely professional, and utterly qualified folks at the MPAA [of course they're qualified to rate films: they're PARENTS, for goodness' sake! ] for an appeal screening-- while smiling politely and reassuringly and nodding a lot.)
|
|
|
Post by punctuator on Feb 23, 2007 23:54:17 GMT -5
No, I haven't-- but I certainly will now! Always thought there was something slightly creepy about that film.... (Observation: "Fight Club" was tailored EXACTLY for burned-out manic-depressive cube-dwellers. Just precisely. Errm, yeah. Right. Not that I personally fit that description or anything.... )
|
|
IIC
Doctor
Someone please justify my childhood!
Posts: 112
|
Post by IIC on Feb 24, 2007 1:22:44 GMT -5
Who are these "kids" you speak of? Sunshine is rated "hard R." It's not a "hard" R, is it...? (A hard R in the States usually requires graphic violence and/or graphic sex, which'll bump you up to NC-17 right quick.) And-- speaking, if nothing else, as a former theatre employee-- funny, isn't it, how the underaged always manage to find their way into R-rated features.... (Defining "kids" generally: that primo demographic comprising males between the ages of 16 and 24. Of course, the age dips lower; and, of course, young women enter the mix, too. And, yep: I'm that old. "Twenty-four" is kid territory to the Ancient One.) Coming at it from another angle: Would the film's release path here in the US be smoother if the rating were PG-13...? (I'm thinking "just-past-possibly"-- and sometimes it's a simple matter of asking the thoroughly unbiased, completely professional, and utterly qualified folks at the MPAA [of course they're qualified to rate films: they're PARENTS, for goodness' sake! ] for an appeal screening-- while smiling politely and reassuringly and nodding a lot.) A total side note Punctuator, have you seen the film "This Film is Not yet Rated"? I think everyone needs to see it. From watching this and hearing stories from friends, the MPAA isn't all what it's cracked up to be. I don't think it's necessarily the PG-13 and/or R rating that will deter Sunshine's opening, but possibly the subject of the film? I'm only getting bits and pieces from the boards so who knows. Then again I'm just rambling.
|
|