criterionforum.org

That's terrible make up on Spacey.

Finch wrote:That's terrible make up on Spacey.

I guess they didn't have enough money in the budget to do a good job in that department.

The make up on Guy Pearce in Prometheus was shoddy as well.

Can someone point me to a good example of this?

Brad Pitt in Benjamin Button is probably the best one out there, though it's a blend of prosthetics and CGI, I believe. Johnny Knoxville in Bad Grandpa is another good example, if a little rubbery looking.

It's funny because with all the talent and money out there, Hollywood almost always seems to have a hard time completing this particular task convincingly. Agreed that Spacey looks horrendous here.

A great job of aging a young acting talent onscreen is the case of Agent Carter in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

They can at least sell it on how he looks nothing like himself in it.

Have the distributors changed the marketing yet? The trailer made such a big deal out of the Spacey reveal. He's so unrecognizable that they could probably do what they did with Gary Oldman in Scott's Hannibal and leave him uncredited.

Sony's pulled this from the AFI Film Festival, but it will still come out as scheduled.

This hasn't been a good year for Ridley.

They've recast Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and the movie is still coming out in 45 days

Ribs wrote:They've recast Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and the movie is still coming out in 45 days

I don't see how this is possible, unless they're counting on including a whole lot of Spacey's footage on the grounds that he's unrecognizable in that hilarious make-up. This might just bump this film from 'of no interest whatsoever' to 'trainwreck!'

What are they talking about with Wind River-- that came and went before the Weinstein scandal. Did something happen recently?

zedz wrote:

Ribs wrote:They've recast Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and the movie is still coming out in 45 days

I don't see how this is possible, unless they're counting on including a whole lot of Spacey's footage on the grounds that he's unrecognizable in that hilarious make-up. This might just bump this film from 'of no interest whatsoever' to 'trainwreck!'

According to the article he only worked 8-10 days on it, so maybe it could work if Plummer manages to do it all in that time. And plus he won't have to do all that makeup too so that could cut down time as well.

I can def see Plummer getting an Oscar nom if he is even remotely okay just for jumping in like this at the 11th hour

domino harvey wrote:What are they talking about with Wind River-- that came and went before the Weinstein scandal. Did something happen recently?

Article from Deadline

willoneill wrote:

domino harvey wrote:What are they talking about with Wind River-- that came and went before the Weinstein scandal. Did something happen recently?

Article from Deadline

Looks like they're leveraging the scandal for an ingenious 'For Your Consideration' campaign to me.

It won't work - first, because Wind River doesn't have the enthusiasm Hell or High Water somehow achieved, and second because despite the theatrics it's a movie that made a lot of money for Weinstein and just by scrubbing his name from it doesn't magically not make him a producer when he was credited as such for literal months after release.

Ribs wrote:It won't work - first, because Wind River doesn't have the enthusiasm Hell or High Water somehow achieved, and second because despite the theatrics it's a movie that made a lot of money for Weinstein and just by scrubbing his name from it doesn't magically not make him a producer when he was credited as such for literal months after release.

I agree with that, but I think that they're trying to artificially create an "Oscar Narrative" around a film that's been and gone (and wasn't that good in the first place), including its topical political correctness, a 'poor good filmmakers versus evil rapey corporation' David & Goliath story (that's resolved way too neatly to be compelling, but whatever), and the - ahem - 'fact' that this was a movie tipped for a lot of awards attention (really?). Mostly, it's a way of weaving yesterday's film into the biggest Hollywood story of the year.

zedz wrote:

Ribs wrote:They've recast Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and the movie is still coming out in 45 days

I don't see how this is possible, unless they're counting on including a whole lot of Spacey's footage on the grounds that he's unrecognizable in that hilarious make-up. This might just bump this film from 'of no interest whatsoever' to 'trainwreck!'

Apparently Spacey only shot 8 or 9 days, and mostly without the other major stars. Say what you want about the quality of his films, but Ridley Scott is pretty efficient, so if this could work in any situation, this is probably the one.

willoneill wrote:

zedz wrote:

Ribs wrote:They've recast Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and the movie is still coming out in 45 days

I don't see how this is possible, unless they're counting on including a whole lot of Spacey's footage on the grounds that he's unrecognizable in that hilarious make-up. This might just bump this film from 'of no interest whatsoever' to 'trainwreck!'

Apparently Spacey only shot 8 or 9 days, and mostly without the other major stars. Say what you want about the quality of his films, but Ridley Scott is pretty efficient, so if this could work in any situation, this is probably the one.

Yup. I think this will be easier than people are claiming. If it were difficult I doubt Scott would be doing it.

When is the most recent example of something like this occurring on this scale? Back to the Future? There Will Be Blood? Not even sure if either of those were this much of a last chance high wire act.

I mean, it's literally unprecedented on this scale and timetable, but probably September's infamous being-shot-then-totally-reshot-with-slightly-different-cast is in the mix.