criterionforum.org

thirtyframesasecond wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:And Richard E. Grant was originally in Alien3, but either the studio or producers insisted on Charles Dance for the role instead.

Was that in the Vincent Ward version? I would've loved to have seen that.

Fincher cast him. There's even some brief footage of him in character in that great documentary made for the boxset.

MichaelB wrote:You mean Alien 3 was once going to have even more of the cast of Withnail & I than it already has?

I heard that Fincher was a big fan of Withnail and set out to do exactly that. That Fox went over his head and re-cast the part was one of the first problems between him and the studio that lead to such chaos throughout it's production.

As a devoted fan since its release, I am always open to more Withnail. But without having the benefit of seeing the final result, just on the drawing board Wthinail+Alien strikes me as a bridge too far, landing in some slag heap of Hollywood's 3rd dimension of death by committee reinvention, as.......

Bill and Ted's Excellent Alien Adventure. "I demand some booze. Now!"

hearthesilence wrote:And I'm sure in some cases, green screen may suffice.

And God knows Ridley loves his green screen.

Saw the Spacey trailer last night and it’s a very funny experience, especially after being struck by how hard the studio was gunning for Oscar gold, particularly for Spacey himself

I heard that Ridley decided to replace Spacey himself, without Sony's knowledge. I know this board has (at best) mixed feelings on his work, but damn if that doesn't make him a bad-ass in my eyes. With barely 2-3 months to spare before it hits theaters, he managed to get the guy he wanted all along and with just enough time will still meet the release date, and is confident enough to put out spots with Plummer in place now.

I think we can all agree that Plummer looks one hell of a lot more convincing than Spacey ever did - which quite aside from anything else makes it entirely believable that he was Scott's own personal first choice.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I heard that Ridley decided to replace Spacey himself, without Sony's knowledge. I know this board has (at best) mixed feelings on his work, but damn if that doesn't make him a bad-ass in my eyes. With barely 2-3 months to spare before it hits theaters, he managed to get the guy he wanted all along and with just enough time will still meet the release date, and is confident enough to put out spots with Plummer in place now.

Ridley had all the leverage to make this move. Even if Sony preferred Spacey they couldn't possibly challenge Ridley in the current climate.

With Donald Sutherland playing J. Paul Getty in the upcoming FX television series Trust, it's looks like the Canadians have the role all tied up. I have a feeling both octogenarians will wipe the floor with whatever Spacey was doing in his mounds of prosthetics.

New Plummer-ized trailer/tv spot. Hot take: I liked Spacey's reading of the "Nothing" line better. But it's just a short clip so I wouldn't call that a definitive assessment of the performance.

Regardless of the merits of this film or how seamless the reshoots feel, it’s still mind-boggling to me that taking a relatively young-looking actor and pasting prosthetics to him was viewed as preferable to this in the first place.

I think its a Guy Pearce in Prometheus situation where there are/were going to be scenes with him as a younger man and aging up makeup is better than aging down.

Just take footage of Plummer as Captain Von Trapp and CGI it over a body double.

Spacey just looked a bit off under that make-up, more of an abstraction rather than something convincing as the real Getty. To be fair could have worked in the film's favor, but I have my doubts that it would've played out that way.

Ribs wrote:aging up makeup is better than aging down.

As much as Marvel have made aging down into a gimmick, I think it's the much more convincing option.

willoneill wrote:New Plummer-ized trailer/tv spot. Hot take: I liked Spacey's reading of the "Nothing" line better. But it's just a short clip so I wouldn't call that a definitive assessment of the performance.

There was more of a build-up to it in the previous trailer. Something you couldn't afford to do if you had 30 seconds, unless it was devoted to that entire scene. This clip seems much more like a TV spot than anything you'll see in a theater.

Thought it might be of interest for some of you to see Ridley talk about all this post revelations in this new interview. I'll link the article here but I'll post some choice cuts here.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Where were you when you first heard about the allegations against Kevin Spacey?
RIDLEY SCOTT: I was finished with the film and was in [U.K. recording studio] Abbey Road finalizing the music. Someone was like: Guess what? And that’s where it began. I sat and thought about it and realized, we cannot. You can’t tolerate any kind of behavior like that. And it will affect the film. We cannot let one person’s action affect the good work of all these other people. It’s that simple.

Have you been surprised by all these revelations coming out of Hollywood?
I think it was about time. Harvey [Weinstein] definitely was way overdue. There will still be a few more people out there gritting their teeth who are way overdue.

What was the studio’s reaction to all this?
They were like, “You’ll never do it. God be with you.” [Laughs]

And you turn 80 the day after you wrap.
Yeah, but I don’t think about that. It’s a number. Just a bloody number.

Didn't realize they'd need Wahlberg for the reshoots. Considering how much garbage he's usually shooting at any given time, it's impressive that Scott was able to pull the needed strings to get the scheduling to work.

mfunk9786 wrote:Didn't realize they'd need Wahlberg for the reshoots. Considering how much garbage he's usually shooting at any given time, it's impressive that Scott was able to pull the needed strings to get the scheduling to work.

Love him or hate him he's absolutely one of the few people I can think of both crazy enough and capable enough to do this. It's impressive that at his age he's still able to do all this.

I'll admit that the film looks interesting as the sort of thing you'd check out on premium cable, but it almost seems more like it's going to arrive with a Black Mass or Runner Runner thud regardless of the Spacey controversy. Certainly doesn't look like a prestige pic outside of the cast.

I think for me, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens between now and the Oscar nominations and ceremony in March 2018. I think if the abuse cases had stopped at Weinstein and Spacey, we would be looking at this film getting some attention, but as the Hollywood sexual harassment scandals have dragged on, and continued to implicate very powerful people in entertainment (like Matt Lauer, who was fired from NBC News yesterday), I think this movie, destined as it is to be forever linked with these scandals, is pretty much dead in the water.

Maybe the HFPA will give it some love at the Globes, and maybe there will be one or two nominations at the Oscars or BAFTAs if some aspect turns out to be really amazingly well done. But after what we have seen this fall, I wonder if there aren't many people in the industry who now just want this film to go away.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it is quietly shuffled in and out of theaters, and then dropped onto UHD/Blu-ray (or maybe even just Blu-ray) in a stuffed release week.

I think it'll certainly be a curio for people. Frankly if anything it made me respect Ridley Scott more as a person (I stress person here). In a landscape with where even things like Justice League can fail this was a ballsy move.

Big Ben wrote:I think it'll certainly be a curio for people. Frankly if anything it made me respect Ridley Scott more as a person (I stress person here). In a landscape with where even things like Justice League can fail this was a ballsy move.

It will if they even remember it's on. You forget that there is a certain "taint-free" and "family-friendly" juggernaut releasing just one week prior to it, that could all but obliterate it from view.

And I think the longer these scandals go on, the more the public will foster a distrust in Hollywood in general. If it had stopped around the time of Spacey, then that's understandable, but if Louis C.K. and Matt Lauer and a number of others can be guilty as well, then so can anyone in Hollywood.

McCrutchy wrote:It will if they even remember it's on. You forget that there is a certain "taint-free" and "family-friendly" juggernaut releasing just one week prior to it, that could all but obliterate it from view.

Although those of us who last saw a Star Wars film in 1983 and have no interest in repeating the experience might welcome an alternative viewing choice. In three weeks or so, I can easily see my mother-in-law taking the kids to Star Wars Whatever The Fuck It's Called (genuinely don't know, absolutely don't care) while my wife and I pop in to see All the Money in the World, which is now an easy sell to her because she adores Christopher Plummer.