criterionforum.org

Antoine Doinel wrote:Rumor is swirling that the studio is not pleased with the current amount of bloodletting and are asking Burton to tone down the gore for a PG-13 rating.

Well, that's bullshit.

malcolm1980 wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:Rumor is swirling that the studio is not pleased with the current amount of bloodletting and are asking Burton to tone down the gore for a PG-13 rating.

Well, that's bullshit.

Strongly agree, but I will risk making a jaw droppingly naive argument by saying this:
If a few cuts will result in a rating that gets younger viewers into the theater; and if those younger viewers get their first taste of one of our greatest contemporary composers; and if they then want to hear and see more ... well, Sondheim has plenty more to offer doesn't he?

great, now people will use the rating as an excuse for the film being shitty, as if burton/depp isn't overkill on an already macabre storyline.

and actually, maybe its just me, but sweeney todd has decent music (not sondheim's best) though the reason it was so big on the stage was that it was so shocking that a musical could be so dark and bloody. for a film, it's nothing. i compare this to eddie izzard's stand-up routine as to why eurodisney didn't do well at all. the guy building the castle was told "better make 'em bigger, they actually have those here." isn't blood and murder the same way?

Sweeney Todd is no darker than Carousel. What impressed on the stage was its scale. In terms of sheer physical grandiosity it's a close second to Follies.

And Follies was the biggest of them all.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Sweeney Todd is no darker than Carousel. What impressed on the stage was its scale. In terms of sheer physical grandiosity it's a close second to Follies.

And Follies was the biggest of them all.

First of all, Carousel may have been dark at times, but it certainly was never a grand guignold, which is part of Sweeney Todd's charm. For a film, this would be lost.

And Follies is a bad show.

I'm really excited for this one. I think this story sounds like it would translate excellently into a Tim Burton film. I prefer him working with darker material as opposed to Willy F-in Wonka (Kids & Squirrels).

cubebrick wrote:I prefer him working with darker material as opposed to Willy F-in Wonka (Kids & Squirrels).

Someone never saw the Gene Wilder version...

-Toilet Dcuk

...or read the original book.

Maybe I just don't remember Gene Wilder cutting those kids' throats or hacking their little bodies into pieces and baking them into Wonka pies...

cubebrick wrote:Maybe I just don't remember Gene Wilder cutting those kids' throats or hacking their little bodies into pieces and baking them into Wonka pies...

Gene Wilder's hair during the "Good day!!!" scene was even more terrifying.

Does Burton have to coat every film with his wacky halloween party, gingerbread house art direction? I realize it may reflect his sensibilities and thus the films, but it's as if he's trying to prepare for BurtonLand, his future theme park where all his characters run around and inhabit the same zany universe. It's probably no wonder I consider his best films Ed Wood and Batman.

Greathinker wrote: but it's as if he's trying to prepare for BurtonLand, his future theme park where all his characters run around and inhabit the same zany universe.

The funny thing is that you actually have the answer right there in front of you, but somehow something hasn't clicked and the light hasn't turned on.

But you're mistaken on one point: Burton is not preparing for "BurtonLand;" it's already been created--it's where he lives.

Greathinker wrote:It's probably no wonder I consider his best films Ed Wood and Batman.

Ironically enough, so do I, but I can only surmise it's for diametrically different reasons.

Mr_sausage wrote:The funny thing is that you actually have the answer right there in front of you, but somehow something hasn't clicked and the light hasn't turned on.

...uh oh, looks like I hit a nerve. You quoted me without the remark that Burton's 'look' is a reflection; yet what bothers me all the same are his tired aesthetics.

It's just my own position that filmmakers shouldn't wallow in their own defined niche that they've created, and most of Burton's filmography could almost be pieced together in the cutting room and still find coherence.

Sondheim talked briefly about the film when in Australia recently. From the gin-soaked memory, he mentioned the film did cut a number of songs from the orginal due to length, and that he requested a couple be put back in. He was confident Depp could pull it off due to his background fronting a band in his youth (!?), and that from the footage he had seen, there was blood, "lots and lots of blood. Which is good. Very bloody".

The demand/request for a PG rating is hilarious. I can see all the 12 year old drama queens now, "but Mommy, you promised me I could see the new Sondheim musical, and see it I will!!!"

Greathinker wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:The funny thing is that you actually have the answer right there in front of you, but somehow something hasn't clicked and the light hasn't turned on.

...uh oh, looks like I hit a nerve. You quoted me without the remark that burton's 'look' is a reflection; yet what bothers me all the same are his tired aesthetics.

Well, no, you haven't. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, nor do I feel strongly about it. I'd apologize if I thought my post actually reflected undue or undeserved feelings.

His aesthetic bothers you, in which case what you really want is Burton to be someone else entirely. What then is the point of your criticism, given you have so many other places to find aesthetics you do like?

Greathinker wrote:It's just my own position that filmmakers shouldn't wallow in their own defined niche that they've created, and most of Burton's filmography could almost be pieced together in the cutting room and still find coherence.

This statement is puzzling because you offer no distinction between when a filmmaker has a highly personal mode of filmmaking and when they are "wallowing in their own defined niche," since you can use either description for the same thing at any given moment with just about anyone with a recognizable style.

Mr_sausage wrote:His aesthetic bothers you, in which case what you really want is Burton to be someone else entirely. What then is the point of your criticism, given you have so many other places to find aesthetics you do like?

No it's just that I'd rather he be the filmmaker he was during Batman and Ed Wood; those both exhibit a certain style, though characteristic of Burton, that the films themselves can claim. Batman is a masterpiece in art direction-- I don't know how much Burton had lent to that, but for more reasons than one I'm glad he was director. His aesthetic in those films is not overbearing like in so many others, where each frame practically says "Burton, Burton, Burton."

This statement is puzzling because you offer no distinction between when a filmmaker has a highly personal mode of filmmaking and when they are "wallowing in their own defined niche," since you can use either description for the same thing at any given moment with just about anyone with a recognizable style.

Other filmmakers may have a stamp, things that are recognizable and personal to them that appear with frequency-- but often this isn't intentional, deliberate, it isn't some way of solidifying their own identity, carving out their territory. Which is what I think Burton does, at least visually, and that's problematic since he's more of a visual director.

New poster.

Antoine Doinel wrote:New poster.

Niiiiice. Very Carol Reed. It would have been better, though, to have the sailor's bag over his shoulder, as the only time he's really walking the streets is when he's just arrived portside. And that has a cool parallel to Santa Claus and the Christmas release. Missed opportunity.

Here's the trailer.

Should we be worried that this trailer contains pretty much no music at all, and that the brief bit with Depp singing is absolutely terrible? Visually it looks great, but everything else looks awkward at best. The only shining spot in the entire trailer was the brief moment with Sacha Baron Cohen.

I had relatively high hopes for this one, cause I am not a theater purist, and thought that maybe if Depp could maybe alter the vocal parts a bit and still make it work, I would be fine with it. But their was hardly any singing in the trailer, which is odd for a musical, and the singing was terrible, it didn't seem like it had any of the power that the musical had. I have a bad feeling, their is hardly any singing in the trailer, cause it all was that terrible.

...or because the studio wants to appeal to a male audience, which stays away from musicals.

domino harvey wrote:...or because the studio wants to appeal to a male audience, which stays away from musicals.

Doubt it. Usually I see girls get a huge kick out of Tim burton more often than men.

Need I only site the slew of Nightmare Before Christmas merchandise, and the use of heart-throb Johnny Depp.

Looks great though, and I usually don't dig Tim Burton.

I was carefully looking forward to this during production, given how disappointing Burton's films have been to me this decade (particularly his 2005 efforts), but this trailer is thrilling and full of astonishing imagery (every cent of the massive budget is proudly on display, and the formal elements appear to glow). Johnny Depp also appears to be in great form (and as somebody who was an early fan of his as a child, but has grown incredibly sick of his resurged hype since Pirates, it's wonderful to see him at his best again).

As a final note, I love the deliberate artificiality of that outdoor dock shot, which for me visually recalls Fellini's later work at Cinecitta (Casanova, City of Women, And the Ship Sails On).

Usually I see girls get a huge kick out of Tim burton more often than men.

Oddly enough, this is more than true (with the exception of Ed Wood and Pee-Wee...those ones the guys, typically, like more)...oddly only because I remember a time (1999 or 2000) when Tim Burton was completely unfashionable with the typical crowd, particularly youngsters, and it's just strange now when I see people (and they're everywhere) with Nightmare t-shirts...oh how times change.

I generally liked watching this trailer and I am certainly a fan of Burton but this trailer made me feel some pain when the more 'zany' music randomly kicked in. I realize yes it is Burton but does the music really need to make people aware Burton will be that way and there are those moments? I don't know just a bit of an issue for me.

Looking forward to some more Depp musical magic after it has been so long since Cry Baby (I am aware he didn't sing in that but still).

I generally liked watching this trailer and I am certainly a fan of Burton but this trailer made me feel some pain when the more 'zany' music randomly kicked in. I realize yes it is Burton but does the music really need to make people aware Burton will be that way and there are those moments? I don't know just a bit of an issue for me.

The music didn't bother me, nor did it sound like Burton music (which to me means Danny Elfman), but I suppose what may be bothering you is just the tendancies of modern trailers. To me, it's those cliche "sped up" CGI town shots that need to go...every fucking trailer these days does that, pretty much ruining the effects artist's work (imagine a Blade Runner trailer that would do that...yikes).