• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Hangover 3

deacdiggler

deacdiggler

"Well known member"
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
23,980
Reaction score
12,104
Meh. It was okay at best. Mildly entertaining but not as funny as 2.
 
wait not as good as 2? that was awful
 
Saw that it was between 25 and 27% on Rotten Tomatoes. I still plan on seeing it, but now have much lower expectations. The first remains one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.
 
the reviews I've read said it's not funny, but not in the sense that the jokes aren't funny, just that there aren't a lot of actual jokes in the movie
 
If it's somehow worse than 2, it would be an absolute turd.
 
Well, then many "film critics" will say it's actually a "satire" on comedy films.

Remember if your film absolutely tanks, it immediately becomes a "satire".
 
I've heard that it's more of a straight action/chase movie than a comedy. Either way, Todd Phillips is one of the worst directors working today.

And RJ, your ineptness in understanding film continues to amaze me. I'd recommend this book to you, and if you don't read it, keep this quote in mind: “A prime characteristic of satire: its double-edged ambiguity. Nothing is inherently funny, satiric, tragic, or absurd. Context and perspective are all.”
 
Fast and Furious 14 it is!
 
WakeFanatic said:
I've heard that it's more of a straight action/chase movie than a comedy. Either way, Todd Phillips is one of the worst directors working today.

And RJ, your ineptness in understanding film continues to amaze me. I'd recommend this book to you, and if you don't read it, keep this quote in mind: “A prime characteristic of satire: its double-edged ambiguity. Nothing is inherently funny, satiric, tragic, or absurd. Context and perspective are all.”
Click to expand...

If you want to make it personal we can.

Rookie, the "context" of the movies you have been suckered into believing are "satires" is that the director, producers and stars invent stories after the films flop to cover their asses and keep them in the game.

They realize that if their big budget flops are seen as that their futures are less bright. They understand there are pseudo-intellectuals like you and and other internet hipsters who can be led like lemmings to "cool insights".

What you don't get is this is a huge business that is most often based on "what have you done lately". There is an entire industry that does nothing other than trick people like you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DG3
All you ever seem to be interested in is the business side of things. What a movie says outwardly (it's plot, narrative, characterizations) is all you care about, and all that you are able to acknowledge. I'm not talking about business here, I'm talking about reading a film, and most often that involves going beyond the surface of "what is it about." Just because you seem to have some deep seated hatred for film theory doesn't mean that it isn't a valid exercise. I've not been duped by anybody, nor do I see anybody trying to dupe me. I don't even know what you mean by that.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
If you want to make it personal we can.

Rookie, the "context" of the movies you have been suckered into believing are "satires" is that the director, producers and stars invent stories after the films flop to cover their asses and keep them in the game.

They realize that if their big budget flops are seen as that their futures are less bright. They understand there are pseudo-intellectuals like you and and other internet hipsters who can be led like lemmings to "cool insights".

What you don't get is this is a huge business that is most often based on "what have you done lately". There is an entire industry that does nothing other than trick people like you.
Click to expand...

Alright, I'll bite. Some examples? And contrast with some true satires?
 
DC, I can give you an indication of how things work even before one scene has been shot.

I don't remember the exact year. It was something in the 86-88 span. Peter Bogdonovich and Larry McMurtry came up with a sequel to their great movie The Last Picture Show. It was the less memorable Texasville.

A friend was working on the film and asked if I might be able to help find financing. Another friend arranged for a meeting with one of the world's largest PR/media firms. It was owned by a Japanese group and had close to double digit billions of revenues at that time.

My two friends,Bogdonovich and I went to their LA office to make a pitch. As we were led into the conference room, there was a Korean guy sitting in the corner. The other door opened four Japanese guys in their late 20s/early 30s entered. Before they went to their seats each gave us their business card. Then their boss came in. He was introduced to us by the most senior other guy. The person who did the introduction handed us the big guy's card. They sat down.

We made our presentation. They thanked us and we left.

I was puzzled. I asked my Japanese friend what the dynamic was. She told me if they invested and it was a success the others would uniformly give credit to the boss. If it broke even or lost a little, it would be on the young Japanese guys. If it failed, the Korean guy would get blamed.

That may be a little drastic and racist on their part, but it's not that unusual.

At studios, people's jobs are on the line. If you don't think, they would tell line people what to say to try to cover for a flop, you'd be mistaken.

Another example was about the same time, Jack Nicholson made an awful movie. My friend's father's company was tasked to put together a trailer to make the movie look funny or good enough to get anyone to the theaters. After the first two days (and I mean two days. They worked 18-20 hours/day), they asked the director and producer for the out takes. Finally, they a a scene that didn't make the final cut to use to trick people.

The Grisham movie The Rainmaker also did this as do many other movies.

It's basic marketing. Film companies and distribution companies will do whatever they need to do to sell the movie.

I've been at screenings when we've been asked questions, "will this work as a comedy?" That's a dead giveaway that the film sucks and they are looking for a way out.

" I'm talking about reading a film, and most often that involves going beyond the surface of "what is it about." Just because you seem to have some deep seated hatred for film theory doesn't mean that it isn't a valid exercise."

Again with the baseless insults. Take a deep breath buddy. I have no hatred for them. I have a better idea how it works than you do.

To show you how late some of this happens, when the movie Ed TV came out they were so scared that they were doing screenings and even re-writes a week before they shipped the prints.

If you are crisis mode and need someone to thing something to help you, you'll do what you have to do.

It's creative and sometimes funny to see.
 
RJKarl said:
DC, I can give you an indication of how things work even before one scene has been shot.

I don't remember the exact year. It was something in the 86-88 span. Peter Bogdonovich and Larry McMurtry came up with a sequel to their great movie The Last Picture Show. It was the less memorable Texasville.

A friend was working on the film and asked if I might be able to help find financing. Another friend arranged for a meeting with one of the world's largest PR/media firms. It was owned by a Japanese group and had close to double digit billions of revenues at that time.

My two friends,Bogdonovich and I went to their LA office to make a pitch. As we were led into the conference room, there was a Korean guy sitting in the corner. The other door opened four Japanese guys in their late 20s/early 30s entered. Before they went to their seats each gave us their business card. Then their boss came in. He was introduced to us by the most senior other guy. The person who did the introduction handed us the big guy's card. They sat down.

We made our presentation. They thanked us and we left.

I was puzzled. I asked my Japanese friend what the dynamic was. She told me if they invested and it was a success the others would uniformly give credit to the boss. If it broke even or lost a little, it would be on the young Japanese guys. If it failed, the Korean guy would get blamed.

That may be a little drastic and racist on their part, but it's not that unusual.

At studios, people's jobs are on the line. If you don't think, they would tell line people what to say to try to cover for a flop, you'd be mistaken.

Another example was about the same time, Jack Nicholson made an awful movie. My friend's father's company was tasked to put together a trailer to make the movie look funny or good enough to get anyone to the theaters. After the first two days (and I mean two days. They worked 18-20 hours/day), they asked the director and producer for the out takes. Finally, they a a scene that didn't make the final cut to use to trick people.

The Grisham movie The Rainmaker also did this as do many other movies.

It's basic marketing. Film companies and distribution companies will do whatever they need to do to sell the movie.

I've been at screenings when we've been asked questions, "will this work as a comedy?" That's a dead giveaway that the film sucks and they are looking for a way out.

" I'm talking about reading a film, and most often that involves going beyond the surface of "what is it about." Just because you seem to have some deep seated hatred for film theory doesn't mean that it isn't a valid exercise."

Again with the baseless insults. Take a deep breath buddy. I have no hatred for them. I have a better idea how it works than you do.

To show you how late some of this happens, when the movie Ed TV came out they were so scared that they were doing screenings and even re-writes a week before they shipped the prints.

If you are crisis mode and need someone to thing something to help you, you'll do what you have to do.

It's creative and sometimes funny to see.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that you can address DC directly, immediately after his post, write such a long response and not once answer his question. It's actually sort of impressive.
 
Who cares if the movie sucks...this thread alone has provided tons of entertainment.
 
RJ, I have no idea what argument you are even trying to make any more. We get it, you worked in the business. I'm not talking about the business side of things at all. I'm aware what studios try to do to insure that their movie is a hit and what kind of financial risk they are taking. When you say you have a "better idea of how it works than me" what exactly are you talking about? You seem incapable of answering a direct question, and instead just throw in some random personal stories that have absolutely nothing to do with the question.

I was gonna write a whole other paragraph here, but I'm not even sure what the argument is at this point. Sorry for the thread highjack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top