Better watch out... we have some hollywood cameramen on this board. Let's just rectify that with 'big-budget faceless studio' hollywood cameramen. That might be more specific...

;)

I am of course, just having a little fun. I do realize their are some Pro- Hollywood camera operators here, most notably Charles Papert. I have a lot of respect for them, and the skills of their craft. And more than a little envy.

I don't think it's the cameramen who sell their souls, just the directors and such. The cameramen have to listen to the DP, and he has to listen to the director, so maybe one or both of them are guilty of soul-selling. Directors have to be. . .come on people, no one volunteered to direct Dumb and Dumberer for the art of it.

I get suspicious when the director is also the producer... Or when a director also does a little too much producing as a whole. Like present day Spielberg... I wish he'd take it back a few notches. Back when he was stilling making almost flawless films...

Remember Jaws? Did the same guy do Minority Report? Yeesh.

I think that in Spielbergs case, he got caught up in the effects of the movie, and forgot about the story.

I thought Minority Report was pretty decent. Now AI on the other hand. . .

Alright, finally saw the flick via a matinee - procrastinating some real work I should be getting done. (As such, doesn't this count as research...)

Really enjoyable. I'm even considering incorporating Depp's inebriated mannerisms into my everyday activities. Seems to work for him.

SPOILER WANTED...

As ashamed as I am to admit I left before the credits were complete (too many swaggering, inebriated audience members walking in front of my legs.) I was wondering what happens at the end with our poor little monkey? Someone mind spilling the beans?

Thanks,
Clayton

Monkey's fate...
 

Clayton, they fed the monkey to Spielberg.

Back to my previous comment about Disney's new infomercials...

Do you think that Disney has run out of room for new rides in the park, based on their movies? Maybe they're using the money to do the opposite: make new movies about rides in the park. Discuss...

The Disney theme parks seem to be stagnating a bit. Money has been scarce in tourism since 9/11, and it really shows. Especially noticeable in my city of Orlando, which is a hop, skip and a jump from the Disney empire.

Last reports from those I know who've been to the main Magic Kingdom theme park lately say that the place is falling apart. Several rides keep breaking down, many need to be updated, and the whole place is in general need of an overhaul. Unfortunately, it's built in a way that makes it very difficult to keep certain parts open while still keeping the crowds coming. Especially these days with lackluster tourism; it's a tough thing to risk.

Long story short, heck yeah, they're looking to make bucks in the movies. Seems the worse the economy does, the better fantasy movies seem to do. We all want to escape!

It's the reason alcohol was so popular during the depression.

Chilled monkey brains!
 

Matt, Disney--and any studio at that--will look for source material for new features wherever it may be found. IMHO, adapting a classic ride--and also the many conceptual sketches and ideas that went into its making, and the merchandise spawned from it--is akin to adapting a short story or a short film into a feature: not at all a shameful act of recycling, or if it is, certainly much less so than remaking a Hitchcock champion like Psycho.

Word of a sequel in the works is all over the news tonight--the sure sign of a film's success with audiences and executives. I can't wait to see what Terry and Ted come up with next. They say they have two more stories in mind--just think: a Pirates trilogy!

Imran: Disney? Stagnating? With $6 billion in profits over the past three years? And quadrupled profits in the fourth quarter of 2002? Even if they're imaginatively bankrupt, they're not stagnant the financial sense. Disney's assets, ventures, and investments are so diversified, they could churn out no other filmed entertainment than crappy direct-to-video sequels for the next decade and still afford to give Michael Eisner his $30 million Christmas bonus.