Hudini wrote:He managed to ruin even Twin Peaks directed by one David Lynch.
Yoou think so? I reckon he was excellent as Dale Cooper in both the series and the film. In my opinion the silly plot is what ruined Twin Peaks wherein it started looking at alternate demsnions and things but Kyle was brilliant
I think so. I also think Twin Peaks might have been much better if the cast had been better. Most of the actors were all just like: 'Oh, were working for Lynch now, let's all act deranged'. Because the series was pretty much deranged itself, it became a farce thus.
Hudini wrote:I think so. I also think Twin Peaks might have been much better if the cast had been better. Most of the actors were all just like: 'Oh, were working for Lynch now, let's all act deranged'. Because the series was pretty much deranged itself, it became a farce thus.
I dunno, on Twin Peaks Lynch only wrote 2 episodes and directed 6 of them out of 30 so i don't think his contribution was a great one for it whereas Mark Frost wrote 25 episodes of it. This isn't me saying like 'oh Lynch does nothing bad' after all, he did make Dune which was a piece of shit
Quite liked the Twin Peaks film actually. Though it accmopanied the series well
Anyhoo, back on topic i think we can all agree Depp is far too old and would not be suitable for the role, and the film probably would not be great. I mean if they wanted to make it a proper biography there is very little known about his life for the last 30 years or so meaning the film makers would have to base a lot on assumption and fabrication if they even cover those years
David Smith wrote:This isn't me saying like 'oh Lynch does nothing bad' after all, he did make Dune which was a piece of shit
Of course.
David Smith wrote:I mean if they wanted to make it a proper biography there is very little known about his life for the last 30 years or so meaning the film makers would have to base a lot on assumption and fabrication if they even cover those years
If they want to make a proper biography they should first take an anonymous English actor for the role. Second, I don't know how they are supposed to figure out what he's been doing all those years. It's impossible that someone from Syd's family or a close friend (if he had one) would tell them a story for a screenplay. On the other hand, it's absolutely insane to call something that covers 5 years of a person's life and a funeral almost 30 years afterwards a biographical movie.
Yup, as far as the biography elements goes it is a lose/ lose situation for the film makers, and with the market not exactly crying out for a Syd film (or the fans seemingly) then i couldn't see it going ahead ever
God, please don't let this movie be made. Especially not by some oh-so-popular Hollywood director. Imagine if Depp played Syd, and for some reason the movie would become a hit, and all the kids would remember Syd as some Johnny Depp faced cool rocker or something, knowing nothing about Syd himself of course...Please let him rest in peace at least for a little while.
I wonder what the other Floyd members would think about this.
(and also: Ashton Kutcher as Rog?! Holy Mary!!! What are people thinking?! )
Because he is such a marketable star biography films with Depp have a habit completely indulging in their subject matter to make them seem more heroic, like for example Fear and Loathing, Blow or to far more an extent the frankly ridiculous movie The Libertine. I would hate to see the same thing being done with Syd with a totally romantisised view of mental breakdown being shown
I also don't think Johnny Depp is too old. I think the whole idea is silly.
I used to like Dune until I read the book and realized that the book is a masterpiece, and the movie is crap compared to it. That's why now I never watch the movies that were made upon books I've already read, like last year's Perfume.
Hudini wrote:That's why now I never watch the movies that were made upon books I've already read, like last year's Perfume.
I read the book before i saw the film and thought the adaptation was surprisingly strong. They miss out the bits and pieces to give it a much faster flow and the bits they add in work well, although they do make it in to more of a horror film
On the whole though i certainly was not let down by it. Sense of smell is something that is hard to represent on screen and they do it rather well in the film
David Smith wrote:I read the book before i saw the film and thought the adaptation was surprisingly strong. They miss out the bits and pieces to give it a much faster flow and the bits they add in work well, although they do make it in to more of a horror film
That is exactly what annoyed me. They gave the movie a faster flow, but in order to do that they cut out the underlying philosophy of the book. The movie isn't bad, I said it's crap compared to the book. It's only pretty shallow.
David Smith wrote:I read the book before i saw the film and thought the adaptation was surprisingly strong. They miss out the bits and pieces to give it a much faster flow and the bits they add in work well, although they do make it in to more of a horror film
That is exactly what annoyed me. They gave the movie a faster flow, but in order to do that they cut out the underlying philosophy of the book. The movie isn't bad, I said it's crap compared to the book. It's only pretty shallow.
Ah, i misread your post and thought you said that you never bothered watching it because you liked the book. Agrred that they do miss out a lot of the important aspects, but i suppose it depends what you think the real message of the book was.
Seemed to me like the main bit they cut was the sequence in the cave and the bit that followed it, which i was fine with missing out on anyway