03-16-2010, 05:15 PM
<!--quoteo(post=82943:date=Mar 16 2010, 04:00 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Mar 16 2010, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82942:date=Mar 16 2010, 03:53 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 16 2010, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82939:date=Mar 16 2010, 03:41 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Mar 16 2010, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82935:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:55 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 16 2010, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82934:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM:name=funkster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (funkster @ Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It works and they do it well. Its a good story and done in a manner that makes it interesting...that's all you can ask for right?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it's not. The opposite of Ken Burns is the Coen Brothers. New and different stories, told differently.
The history buff in me will succumb and watch The Pacific when it's on video.
"Let's do what we did before but this time about this similar thing" isn't high concept. It's now ripe for parody.
Stephen Spielberg and Tom Hanks present "Grenada."
It's a mini-series on HBO in half a part.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So Scorcese shouldn't have done "Casino" (after Goodfellas)?
The Coen's shouldn't have done "Burn After Reading" (after Raising Arizona)?
Coppalla shouldn't have done "Godfather 2"?
Spielberg shouldn't have done any Indiana Jones after the first one?
Wes Anderson shouldn't have done pretty much anything after "Bottle Rocket"?
The War in the Pacific is an entirely different animal than the War in Europe. As long as they have a story to tell, I don't see a problem with them revisiting the same genre.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes.
Manic action comedies separated by how many years?
Godfather II was a continuation of the story and the better film. Sequels don't count.
Sequels don't count.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a Wes Anderson film.
I'm gonna watch a series about the war in the Pacific. I'd rather watch one by a different filmmaker with a different visual vocabulary and story telling style. I'd rather Spielburg/Hanks sank their teeth into something other than a multipart dramatization of a theater of war during WWII.
I'm sure it will be good. It just doesn't seem like the most interesting approach to this story or the most interesting thing for this pair to do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong
What would separation of years have to do with anything? When does the statute of limitations expire on "Band of Brothers"?
How is "The Pacific" any different than "a continuation of the story" or a sequel?
Why not?
Rushmore? Royal Tennenbaums?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok.
Never.
Maybe Spielberg/Hanks should just be the official WWII guys from now on.
Because sometimes a filmmaker plans a series. Indiana Jones was based on serialized adventure films.
Saw Tennenbaums. Sucked.
You can't debate me into becoming excited about WWII with artillery fire blowing up palm trees as a whole new dramatic motif.
They told the last story well and I'll watch this but I anticipate a buttload of familiarity. More sweat, less frostbite. Bataan Death March instead of the camps...more sailors and marines, fewer infantry.
They can do this justice and still be predictable. I'm predicting predictability.
No, it's not. The opposite of Ken Burns is the Coen Brothers. New and different stories, told differently.
The history buff in me will succumb and watch The Pacific when it's on video.
"Let's do what we did before but this time about this similar thing" isn't high concept. It's now ripe for parody.
Stephen Spielberg and Tom Hanks present "Grenada."
It's a mini-series on HBO in half a part.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So Scorcese shouldn't have done "Casino" (after Goodfellas)?
The Coen's shouldn't have done "Burn After Reading" (after Raising Arizona)?
Coppalla shouldn't have done "Godfather 2"?
Spielberg shouldn't have done any Indiana Jones after the first one?
Wes Anderson shouldn't have done pretty much anything after "Bottle Rocket"?
The War in the Pacific is an entirely different animal than the War in Europe. As long as they have a story to tell, I don't see a problem with them revisiting the same genre.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes.
Manic action comedies separated by how many years?
Godfather II was a continuation of the story and the better film. Sequels don't count.
Sequels don't count.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a Wes Anderson film.
I'm gonna watch a series about the war in the Pacific. I'd rather watch one by a different filmmaker with a different visual vocabulary and story telling style. I'd rather Spielburg/Hanks sank their teeth into something other than a multipart dramatization of a theater of war during WWII.
I'm sure it will be good. It just doesn't seem like the most interesting approach to this story or the most interesting thing for this pair to do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong
What would separation of years have to do with anything? When does the statute of limitations expire on "Band of Brothers"?
How is "The Pacific" any different than "a continuation of the story" or a sequel?
Why not?
Rushmore? Royal Tennenbaums?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok.
Never.
Maybe Spielberg/Hanks should just be the official WWII guys from now on.
Because sometimes a filmmaker plans a series. Indiana Jones was based on serialized adventure films.
Saw Tennenbaums. Sucked.
You can't debate me into becoming excited about WWII with artillery fire blowing up palm trees as a whole new dramatic motif.
They told the last story well and I'll watch this but I anticipate a buttload of familiarity. More sweat, less frostbite. Bataan Death March instead of the camps...more sailors and marines, fewer infantry.
They can do this justice and still be predictable. I'm predicting predictability.