what i dont understand is that Rodriguez has all this backup from studios and ****, WHY DOSNT HE DO SOMETHING REALLY REALLY AWESOME!? He's a famous name, im sure he's allowed to do just about anything, so why doesnt he? why does he make **** head movies like spy kids?! those arent movies, those are retarded crap, its like the studios brainwashed h im into making those, cause no way in hell would I ever do such stupid mindless movies. he needs to calm down (tarantino too) sit back and spend a lot of time working on a movie, (As in coming up with ideas and writing) im sure he could pull something crazy out if he put it to it.
I cant e ven imagine what i could do with all the money that these directors are given to make a film.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kyle Johnson,
Posts: 3927 | Location: Sacramento, CA | Registered: July 21, 2003
well all i know is i had fun watching sin city. and i will enjoy watching it again and again. and there are movies with super good drama and dialogue that, as whats his nuts said could be good in front of a brick wall. but to me sin city has replay value. and i will contenue to enjoy it.
as for the other guys comment about how crappy the spy kids movies were... he made those flicks for his kids, litterally. he probably let them think up half the stuff that was in them. so what do you expect? i think thats about the coolest thing a dad could do. so no matter how bad i think a movie that was made for 6 year olds is, i can not diss him for it. they werent made to make me happy.
what i dont understand is that Rodriguez has all this backup from studios and ****, WHY DOSNT HE DO SOMETHING REALLY REALLY AWESOME!?
HEY IDIOT DID YOU SEE SIN CITY??!
He gets funding for his projects because he consistently makes projects that are below budget and ahead of schedule. I think he hasn't reached his peak yet as an artist, since in terms of 'serious' productions there have only been Mariachi, Desperado, and Once Upon a Time in Mexico (part of the same sequence) and Sin City. Not counting 'Four Rooms'.
His main strength has never been in writing or devising plots, so Sin City was a great project because Frank Miller brought a great story, great characters, and good writing. Rodriguez brought it to the screen with excellent results.
He gets funding for his projects because he consistently makes projects that are below budget and ahead of schedule. I think he hasn't reached his peak yet as an artist, since in terms of 'serious' productions there have only been Mariachi, Desperado, and Once Upon a Time in Mexico (part of the same sequence) and Sin City. Not counting 'Four Rooms'.
His main strength has never been in writing or devising plots, so Sin City was a great project because Frank Miller brought a great story, great characters, and good writing. Rodriguez brought it to the screen with excellent results.
No, he gets funding for films soley becaause he makes the big wigs money, period. and he doesnt offend anyone with his films. look at a film that has a real opinion - right or worng whether u agree with it or not - like "Fahrenheit 9/11." Disney refused to release it because it was controvercial, becasue it was anti bush, and because it was Michael Moore. No one really cares about the actual filma nd it's subject matter. Even a film like F 9/11 wich was obviously going to make a lot of money for them they wouldn't do because it was an expression of emotion and opinion and therefore controvercial. Whereas a film like Sin City might get one or two ppl rowled up about violence, but I'm sure it has a aproper ratign and therefor eno 7 year old will see it. thing is that Rodriguez is working for a very constrictive boss, and even if Rodriguez wanted to do something outside convention, to take a risk, he couldn't. Sin City is a SAFE story, its got a following already, its cheap to make, its a low concept high prospect action movie that stands to make alot of $$$. That's why it will be played on over 3000 screens. They'd let Hitler make a movie for them if it meant making money and staying out of trouble.
Posts: 2173 | Location: n/a | Registered: May 06, 2003
Was anyone here behind the camera? Was anyone here on the set of any Robert Rodriguez film? Has anyone here ever directed a feature length film? No. So how can anyone have the nerve to say what is challenging and what is not? Nobody is in the place to say whether or not Sin City was difficult to make, because they weren't there. Nobody has the right to say Rodriguez didnt challenge himself, because THEY WEREN'T THERE. If the man says, it was difficult to make, it was difficult to make. Besides, what film ISN'T difficult to make?
Was anyone here behind the camera? Was anyone here on the set of any Robert Rodriguez film? Has anyone here ever directed a feature length film? No. So how can anyone have the nerve to say what is challenging and what is not? Nobody is in the place to say whether or not Sin City was difficult to make, because they weren't there. Nobody has the right to say Rodriguez didnt challenge himself, because THEY WEREN'T THERE. If the man says, it was difficult to make, it was difficult to make. Besides, what film ISN'T difficult to make?
So? I wasn't there when Orson Welles made "Citizen Kane." Doen that mean I'm not allowed to have ANY opinion whatsoever on it? That's just stupid. We will never know adsactly how a film was made, why it was made, or adsactly what it is. We can only be subjective and critical of it in either levels of positive or negative ways. The key is to support why we feel the way we do. If we need to be Robert Rodriguez in order to watch his film, then what's the point of having a site like this that hosts films?
Posts: 2173 | Location: n/a | Registered: May 06, 2003
Originally posted by Mark Denega: So how can anyone have the nerve to say what is challenging and what is not? Nobody is in the place to say whether or not Sin City was difficult to make, because they weren't there. Nobody has the right to say Rodriguez didnt challenge himself, because THEY WEREN'T THERE. If the man says, it was difficult to make, it was difficult to make. Besides, what film ISN'T difficult to make?
Actually, anybody can be in the right place to say whether or not a film is challenging to make or not. It's called an opinion. Mine was derived from evidence and my previous experiences with Rodriguez's films. Whether or not we were there does not objectively prove that the film was challenging or not. You and a lot of other people seem to be basing the level of his challenge from the creator himself: one man's subjective opinion of the work he did. If psychology has told us anything, it's that human beings overvalue themselves, hence, self-exaggeration is inevitable.
A.) Sin City`s screenplay is Hollywood blahblah. Rodriquez should start to make low-budjet films again. In Independent field he could make more personal films. When you have too much money, you have too much choices. Smaller budjet is for some directors like Lynch and Rodriquez better, because when making it low-budjet you have to be more creative: you need to use your whole brain capacity.
B.) Hollywood producer`s don`t usually allow you to make nothing very radical, everything has to be pretty neutral and based on some surveys.
Posts: 124 | Location: Finland(not a polar bear land) | Registered: December 03, 2005
What more is film than something for one to escape into or to feel or to imagine? Who says it needs to direct an opinion at you, when did it become necessary for a film to be purely to address important issues? (I know this sounds immature) Film at least in my opinion is a visual and auditory medium, both conveying emotion visually and through sound. It should be beautiful, in whatever way that is, it should challenge our imagination and make us believe we are there, and feel what the characters feel. Whether or not we come out of it feeling we have just learned what the director thinks about cheese (or another possibly more important subject) can be a plus or it can be irrelevant. To me, I’d rather see a beautiful film that makes me feel something through what I see that conveys what these characters feel and how they react no matter what that is (preferably not being chased by rabid moon squids through a space ship, but each to his own) than so see a movie that is “challenging” to the director. That’s not to say that a filmmaker’s progression through his different stages of expression is one of the most incredible things possible, but rather that I don’t really care whether or not the director “challenged” him/herself, but that they made a good film. And let’s not kid ourselves, the world works based on the almighty dollar (or yen or pound or euro, or Canadian dollar or and other currency). To think the film industry some insanely moral (artistically speaking) place is absurd, it is a business and businesses make money. That doesn’t excuse the fact that there is so much Hollywood crap, but you know, it happens I suppose, plus it doesn’t help that people are greedy. Anyway. Back to my point. I (as a cinematographer) love to see a beautiful picture and I love to feel what the characters feel (which you can do, but no as affectively without beautiful sound or shots) and just cause a director challenges himself or herself doesn’t mean that they’ve made a great film and just cause they don’t challenge him or herself, doesn’t make it a bad film. (in my opinion)
Good Luck
Posts: 87 | Location: Here | Registered: September 19, 2005
Studentfilms.com Filmmaking Forums 
