+- +-

+- User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Stats

Members
Total Members: 137
Latest: Bushtree
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 102365
Total Topics: 4118
Most Online Today: 8
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 2
Guests: 2
Total: 4

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
General Movie/Television Discussion Board / Re: The Movie Pitch Thread
« Last post by Diego Tutweiller on October 18, 2017, 05:39:56 pm »
Honestly, it's refreshing to find out we can still have these sudden, out-of-the-blue, multi-page arguments on the subjects unrelated to blockbusters or politics. That alone makes the thread worth it. Now, a few things from both sides of the argument:

You stated it yourself.  If no one is going to see Blade Runner 2049, no one will see a film that would have no action. 

This is a stupid comparison, as Blade Runner 2049 is only considered a failure because it cost 150 million. Its actual B.O. would have been considered pretty great as far as biopics go. Of course, it owes a lot of that to the very same CGI/production design that made it cost so much, and which Diego's biopic is unlikely to have, so it's a moot point regardless. You mentioned Coen brothers before: Hail Caesar! would've been a far better comparison.

Having said that:

I don't see why we have to cater to the lowest common denominator with our entertainment.

You keep bringing this up as if someone rejecting your idea instantly sides with nothing but cheap blockbuster thrills.  You don't have to appeal to the least common denominator.  Many great films exist that teeter the line of intelligence and blockbuster thrills.  No one wants a 3 hour biopic on fucking Socrates.

And again, I have no idea why you'd reject this at face value. So many films have done so much more with so much less. These are among the greatest things ever written in the history of the world, and together they can construct a great narrative arc. Your objections sound like you're dismissing it because it sounds 'boring,' which is why I'm saying your input on this subject is shit. This thread is not for pitching highly marketable ideas. It's for pitching good ones.

And where was the good idea again?  I am not judging your film on whether it is marketable.  I am judging it on whether I'd see it based on what I know and based on what I know, it's a no.  It sounds incredibly tacky. This thread is for you to post your film idea and for others to says how they feel on it. 

Anways, I have to go to sleep soon, so say whatever you want, I guess.  At the end of the day, it's a no.

Your only complaint was that "no one wants to see it." You didn't give any reasoning behind that statement. I'd honestly like to know why you don't think people would see it, even though that wouldn't be particularly surprising given some of the films moviegoers choose to support. But just saying "nobody wants that" is not constructive. It only serves to make you look ignorant.

You stated it yourself.  If no one is going to see Blade Runner 2049, no one will see a film that would have no action.  I can't go further on your idea because you haven't expanded it, leading me to believe that you came up with it on a whim.  You don't share an idea until you have a full grasp on what the core of the story is.  The concept you put forward sounds jumbled, especially when you added that last bit about the film being 3 hours long with edits.  And frankly, that 3 hour run time sounds incredibly forced.  A majority of the time when I see a film longer than 2 1/2 hours, I always come out saying that there is stuff that shouldn't have made the cut.  Only so few films I can see have utilized that well and all of them were made in the 50s to 60s. I feel like there isn't anything you can't accomplish in 2 hours. 

And again, I said that I think the concept would work better as a History channel doc with dramatization. 

With the insane amount of material to work with here, it'd be well over two hours. You could cut it down, but I kind of wanted to make this somewhat informative as well (like Silence was). And I say again, "no one will see this because there's no action" is an insanely irrelevant and unhelpful comment. That is so clearly not what I'm aiming for here. I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.

If your input is really limited to "make it a History Channel doc" (and presumably put aliens in there while we're at it), yeah, I don't know why you bothered. You might as well say we should get Michael Bay to direct it.

You asked why I thought no one would see the film and I responded that most general audiences don't care about much outside of the way of action thrills and conflict.  If what you're going for is something similar to Silence, I will ask this:  What is the selling point of the film?  What'll make me the viewer interested in sitting down and watching your film as opposed to another?  Your entire film idea boils down to a biopic about Plato, with very little in the way of much else.  Films like Silence work because it zeroes in on a certain specific time period in said person's time and their conflict.  The two main characters are out searching for their mentor in Japan, an era not to kind to Christians.  There, that's the hook.  There is conflict and tension and a goal.  If you want to achieve something different, focus in on Socrates being wrongfully executed for his teachings.  His final days would make for much more compelling filmmaking than random spots of his life told through Plato.  You want an engaging film?  Introduce the conflict.  My point is that you should focus in on the most interesting point of the character's life and zero in on it. 

But if you're going for a biography of Socrates's life, just make a documentary.  That way, you can insert whatever information into it and not worry about anything on a filmmaking standpoint.

Everything else above is spot on. Here's something in particular I want to focus on:


I don't see why we have to cater to the lowest common denominator with our entertainment.

You keep bringing this up as if someone rejecting your idea instantly sides with nothing but cheap blockbuster thrills.  You don't have to appeal to the least common denominator.  Many great films exist that teeter the line of intelligence and blockbuster thrills.  No one wants a 3 hour biopic on fucking Socrates.

vs.

Your only complaint was that "no one wants to see it." You didn't give any reasoning behind that statement. I'd honestly like to know why you don't think people would see it, even though that wouldn't be particularly surprising given some of the films moviegoers choose to support. But just saying "nobody wants that" is not constructive. It only serves to make you look ignorant.

As you can see, when asked to justify the premise, Diego constantly reaches back to "Justice League", "lowest common denominator", "films moviegoers choose to support", etc., pitching his cerebral entertainment in opposition to them. Here's the key point: the existence of Justice League, Thor: Ragnarok, Ant-Man and the Wasp or whatever is actually almost totally irrelevant to his proposed film's fortunes, because they exist in a separate box office category in the first place.

You do not have to worry whether people would rather see a film about Socrates or Infinite War: if you only focus on that, you have pretty much guaranteed they'll see the latter, because you'll ignore your actual competitors: any other biopic/historical film that's playing, and every one of them on Netflix. If Diego somehow time-travelled and managed to get this released the past winter, the question asked would not be "Should I see Rogue One or Socrates and Plato?" but "Should I see Socrates and Plato or Hidden Figures?"

Even then, that's only a secondary concern. The real opposition to your film consists of...ancient Greek philosophy itself. The main question going through everyone's mind when they first hear the premise would be "Why should I spend however long going to the cinema, paying for the ticket, sitting there for 3 hours, then getting back home, when I can spend the same 3 hours at home or in the library, reading them both for free?" The core audience of such a film would always be people at least mildly interested in Plato, Socrates and Greek philosophy in general, and those people always have the option of (re)-reading their actual works for free. You have to convince them your film somehow will enlighten them more than reading the original works for a similar length of time would, (preferably within the confines of a trailer), before you can even begin to compete with other biopics (unless they also fail at that task, in which case it's fair game), let alone the blockbusters.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know this idea isn't even half-formed. I just find it hilarious how quickly Cutler dismissed it, going so far as to compare it to the glut of biopics we've had recently about historical nobodies. I thought the fact that he was so violently opposed to it was kind of weird, given how important of a subject it is. I'm not trying to be a pretentious fuckboy here. I'm legitimately confused about why this movie hasn't been made yet.

If we want to get serious about discussing this, the draw mainly has to do with the synthesis of the writings themselves and real-life biographical information, all told in one coherent story. That's something you can't accomplish with a biography or a documentary. A documentary would switch between some guy narrating the story of Socrates' life and random dramatizations of the dialogues. I personally think it would be more interesting to see a fluid narrative that incorporates both elements. You can't get any of this just from reading the dialogues themselves.

It would have to take place towards the end of Socrates' life. We could have scenes of him interacting with government officials, asking his nosy questions, but set against the looming backdrop of what is to come. The dialogues themselves would be given context within the narrative, so that they aren't just random discussions of virtue and holiness. Euthyphro would work really well here, as it has a great setting within the context of Socrates' life. It shows that even in the face of impending death, he doesn't stop asking questions, and the subject is relevant to that chapter in his life. The Republic could be included as well, though that's probably too ambitious. I also think there's a lot that can be done with the visual style of the movie-- I'm thinking maybe a Barry Lyndon-esque use of natural lighting.

As I said, the humor would be a draw as well. I don't think many people realize how genuinely funny these dialogues are. I sure didn't until I read them.

Of course, a key aspect would be getting the right people for the roles. I really have no idea who I'd cast here, but if we got it right, it'd probably start some Oscar buzz. Then again, the story is only about old white dudes, which isn't trendy right now, so maybe not.
22
General Movie/Television Discussion Board / Re: 41 minutes until ah... It Follows
« Last post by Jeffblum on October 18, 2017, 05:16:06 pm »
How was it?
Solid film! The rules surrounding the monster didn't always make sense but it was a nice change of pace from ghosts and slashers. The score was excellent and really pumped up the tension.
23
General Movie/Television Discussion Board / Re: The Movie Pitch Thread
« Last post by Robert Neville on October 18, 2017, 05:06:36 pm »
Honestly, it's refreshing to find out we can still have these sudden, out-of-the-blue, multi-page arguments on the subjects unrelated to blockbusters or politics. That alone makes the thread worth it. Now, a few things from both sides of the argument:

You stated it yourself.  If no one is going to see Blade Runner 2049, no one will see a film that would have no action. 

This is a stupid comparison, as Blade Runner 2049 is only considered a failure because it cost 150 million. Its actual B.O. would have been considered pretty great as far as biopics go. Of course, it owes a lot of that to the very same CGI/production design that made it cost so much, and which Diego's biopic is unlikely to have, so it's a moot point regardless. You mentioned Coen brothers before: Hail Caesar! would've been a far better comparison.

Having said that:

I don't see why we have to cater to the lowest common denominator with our entertainment.

You keep bringing this up as if someone rejecting your idea instantly sides with nothing but cheap blockbuster thrills.  You don't have to appeal to the least common denominator.  Many great films exist that teeter the line of intelligence and blockbuster thrills.  No one wants a 3 hour biopic on fucking Socrates.

And again, I have no idea why you'd reject this at face value. So many films have done so much more with so much less. These are among the greatest things ever written in the history of the world, and together they can construct a great narrative arc. Your objections sound like you're dismissing it because it sounds 'boring,' which is why I'm saying your input on this subject is shit. This thread is not for pitching highly marketable ideas. It's for pitching good ones.

And where was the good idea again?  I am not judging your film on whether it is marketable.  I am judging it on whether I'd see it based on what I know and based on what I know, it's a no.  It sounds incredibly tacky. This thread is for you to post your film idea and for others to says how they feel on it. 

Anways, I have to go to sleep soon, so say whatever you want, I guess.  At the end of the day, it's a no.

Your only complaint was that "no one wants to see it." You didn't give any reasoning behind that statement. I'd honestly like to know why you don't think people would see it, even though that wouldn't be particularly surprising given some of the films moviegoers choose to support. But just saying "nobody wants that" is not constructive. It only serves to make you look ignorant.

You stated it yourself.  If no one is going to see Blade Runner 2049, no one will see a film that would have no action.  I can't go further on your idea because you haven't expanded it, leading me to believe that you came up with it on a whim.  You don't share an idea until you have a full grasp on what the core of the story is.  The concept you put forward sounds jumbled, especially when you added that last bit about the film being 3 hours long with edits.  And frankly, that 3 hour run time sounds incredibly forced.  A majority of the time when I see a film longer than 2 1/2 hours, I always come out saying that there is stuff that shouldn't have made the cut.  Only so few films I can see have utilized that well and all of them were made in the 50s to 60s. I feel like there isn't anything you can't accomplish in 2 hours. 

And again, I said that I think the concept would work better as a History channel doc with dramatization. 

With the insane amount of material to work with here, it'd be well over two hours. You could cut it down, but I kind of wanted to make this somewhat informative as well (like Silence was). And I say again, "no one will see this because there's no action" is an insanely irrelevant and unhelpful comment. That is so clearly not what I'm aiming for here. I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.

If your input is really limited to "make it a History Channel doc" (and presumably put aliens in there while we're at it), yeah, I don't know why you bothered. You might as well say we should get Michael Bay to direct it.

You asked why I thought no one would see the film and I responded that most general audiences don't care about much outside of the way of action thrills and conflict.  If what you're going for is something similar to Silence, I will ask this:  What is the selling point of the film?  What'll make me the viewer interested in sitting down and watching your film as opposed to another?  Your entire film idea boils down to a biopic about Plato, with very little in the way of much else.  Films like Silence work because it zeroes in on a certain specific time period in said person's time and their conflict.  The two main characters are out searching for their mentor in Japan, an era not to kind to Christians.  There, that's the hook.  There is conflict and tension and a goal.  If you want to achieve something different, focus in on Socrates being wrongfully executed for his teachings.  His final days would make for much more compelling filmmaking than random spots of his life told through Plato.  You want an engaging film?  Introduce the conflict.  My point is that you should focus in on the most interesting point of the character's life and zero in on it. 

But if you're going for a biography of Socrates's life, just make a documentary.  That way, you can insert whatever information into it and not worry about anything on a filmmaking standpoint.

Everything else above is spot on. Here's something in particular I want to focus on:


I don't see why we have to cater to the lowest common denominator with our entertainment.

You keep bringing this up as if someone rejecting your idea instantly sides with nothing but cheap blockbuster thrills.  You don't have to appeal to the least common denominator.  Many great films exist that teeter the line of intelligence and blockbuster thrills.  No one wants a 3 hour biopic on fucking Socrates.

vs.

Your only complaint was that "no one wants to see it." You didn't give any reasoning behind that statement. I'd honestly like to know why you don't think people would see it, even though that wouldn't be particularly surprising given some of the films moviegoers choose to support. But just saying "nobody wants that" is not constructive. It only serves to make you look ignorant.

As you can see, when asked to justify the premise, Diego constantly reaches back to "Justice League", "lowest common denominator", "films moviegoers choose to support", etc., pitching his cerebral entertainment in opposition to them. Here's the key point: the existence of Justice League, Thor: Ragnarok, Ant-Man and the Wasp or whatever is actually almost totally irrelevant to his proposed film's fortunes, because they exist in a separate box office category in the first place.

You do not have to worry whether people would rather see a film about Socrates or Infinite War: if you only focus on that, you have pretty much guaranteed they'll see the latter, because you'll ignore your actual competitors: any other biopic/historical film that's playing, and every one of them on Netflix. If Diego somehow time-travelled and managed to get this released the past winter, the question asked would not be "Should I see Rogue One or Socrates and Plato?" but "Should I see Socrates and Plato or Hidden Figures?"

Even then, that's only a secondary concern. The real opposition to your film consists of...ancient Greek philosophy itself. The main question going through everyone's mind when they first hear the premise would be "Why should I spend however long going to the cinema, paying for the ticket, sitting there for 3 hours, then getting back home, when I can spend the same 3 hours at home or in the library, reading them both for free?" The core audience of such a film would always be people at least mildly interested in Plato, Socrates and Greek philosophy in general, and those people always have the option of (re)-reading their actual works for free. You have to convince them your film somehow will enlighten them more than reading the original works for a similar length of time would, (preferably within the confines of a trailer), before you can even begin to compete with other biopics (unless they also fail at that task, in which case it's fair game), let alone the blockbusters.
24
General Movie/Television Discussion Board / Re: The Movie Pitch Thread
« Last post by Cutler de Chateau on October 18, 2017, 01:24:15 pm »
I don't see why we have to cater to the lowest common denominator with our entertainment.

You keep bringing this up as if someone rejecting your idea instantly sides with nothing but cheap blockbuster thrills.  You don't have to appeal to the least common denominator.  Many great films exist that teeter the line of intelligence and blockbuster thrills.  No one wants a 3 hour biopic on fucking Socrates.

And again, I have no idea why you'd reject this at face value. So many films have done so much more with so much less. These are among the greatest things ever written in the history of the world, and together they can construct a great narrative arc. Your objections sound like you're dismissing it because it sounds 'boring,' which is why I'm saying your input on this subject is shit. This thread is not for pitching highly marketable ideas. It's for pitching good ones.

And where was the good idea again?  I am not judging your film on whether it is marketable.  I am judging it on whether I'd see it based on what I know and based on what I know, it's a no.  It sounds incredibly tacky. This thread is for you to post your film idea and for others to says how they feel on it. 

Anways, I have to go to sleep soon, so say whatever you want, I guess.  At the end of the day, it's a no.

Your only complaint was that "no one wants to see it." You didn't give any reasoning behind that statement. I'd honestly like to know why you don't think people would see it, even though that wouldn't be particularly surprising given some of the films moviegoers choose to support. But just saying "nobody wants that" is not constructive. It only serves to make you look ignorant.

You stated it yourself.  If no one is going to see Blade Runner 2049, no one will see a film that would have no action.  I can't go further on your idea because you haven't expanded it, leading me to believe that you came up with it on a whim.  You don't share an idea until you have a full grasp on what the core of the story is.  The concept you put forward sounds jumbled, especially when you added that last bit about the film being 3 hours long with edits.  And frankly, that 3 hour run time sounds incredibly forced.  A majority of the time when I see a film longer than 2 1/2 hours, I always come out saying that there is stuff that shouldn't have made the cut.  Only so few films I can see have utilized that well and all of them were made in the 50s to 60s. I feel like there isn't anything you can't accomplish in 2 hours. 

And again, I said that I think the concept would work better as a History channel doc with dramatization. 

With the insane amount of material to work with here, it'd be well over two hours. You could cut it down, but I kind of wanted to make this somewhat informative as well (like Silence was). And I say again, "no one will see this because there's no action" is an insanely irrelevant and unhelpful comment. That is so clearly not what I'm aiming for here. I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.

If your input is really limited to "make it a History Channel doc" (and presumably put aliens in there while we're at it), yeah, I don't know why you bothered. You might as well say we should get Michael Bay to direct it.

You asked why I thought no one would see the film and I responded that most general audiences don't care about much outside of the way of action thrills and conflict.  If what you're going for is something similar to Silence, I will ask this:  What is the selling point of the film?  What'll make me the viewer interested in sitting down and watching your film as opposed to another?  Your entire film idea boils down to a biopic about Plato, with very little in the way of much else.  Films like Silence work because it zeroes in on a certain specific time period in said person's time and their conflict.  The two main characters are out searching for their mentor in Japan, an era not to kind to Christians.  There, that's the hook.  There is conflict and tension and a goal.  If you want to achieve something different, focus in on Socrates being wrongfully executed for his teachings.  His final days would make for much more compelling filmmaking than random spots of his life told through Plato.  You want an engaging film?  Introduce the conflict.  My point is that you should focus in on the most interesting point of the character's life and zero in on it. 

But if you're going for a biography of Socrates's life, just make a documentary.  That way, you can insert whatever information into it and not worry about anything on a filmmaking standpoint.
25
General Movie/Television Discussion Board / Re: The Movie Pitch Thread
« Last post by Diego Tutweiller on October 18, 2017, 12:51:27 pm »
I don't see why we have to cater to the lowest common denominator with our entertainment.

You keep bringing this up as if someone rejecting your idea instantly sides with nothing but cheap blockbuster thrills.  You don't have to appeal to the least common denominator.  Many great films exist that teeter the line of intelligence and blockbuster thrills.  No one wants a 3 hour biopic on fucking Socrates.

And again, I have no idea why you'd reject this at face value. So many films have done so much more with so much less. These are among the greatest things ever written in the history of the world, and together they can construct a great narrative arc. Your objections sound like you're dismissing it because it sounds 'boring,' which is why I'm saying your input on this subject is shit. This thread is not for pitching highly marketable ideas. It's for pitching good ones.

And where was the good idea again?  I am not judging your film on whether it is marketable.  I am judging it on whether I'd see it based on what I know and based on what I know, it's a no.  It sounds incredibly tacky. This thread is for you to post your film idea and for others to says how they feel on it. 

Anways, I have to go to sleep soon, so say whatever you want, I guess.  At the end of the day, it's a no.

Your only complaint was that "no one wants to see it." You didn't give any reasoning behind that statement. I'd honestly like to know why you don't think people would see it, even though that wouldn't be particularly surprising given some of the films moviegoers choose to support. But just saying "nobody wants that" is not constructive. It only serves to make you look ignorant.

You stated it yourself.  If no one is going to see Blade Runner 2049, no one will see a film that would have no action.  I can't go further on your idea because you haven't expanded it, leading me to believe that you came up with it on a whim.  You don't share an idea until you have a full grasp on what the core of the story is.  The concept you put forward sounds jumbled, especially when you added that last bit about the film being 3 hours long with edits.  And frankly, that 3 hour run time sounds incredibly forced.  A majority of the time when I see a film longer than 2 1/2 hours, I always come out saying that there is stuff that shouldn't have made the cut.  Only so few films I can see have utilized that well and all of them were made in the 50s to 60s. I feel like there isn't anything you can't accomplish in 2 hours. 

And again, I said that I think the concept would work better as a History channel doc with dramatization. 

With the insane amount of material to work with here, it'd be well over two hours. You could cut it down, but I kind of wanted to make this somewhat informative as well (like Silence was). And I say again, "no one will see this because there's no action" is an insanely irrelevant and unhelpful comment. That is so clearly not what I'm aiming for here. I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.

If your input is really limited to "make it a History Channel doc" (and presumably put aliens in there while we're at it), yeah, I don't know why you bothered. You might as well say we should get Michael Bay to direct it.
26
General Movie/Television Discussion Board / Re: The Movie Pitch Thread
« Last post by Cutler de Chateau on October 18, 2017, 09:59:56 am »
I don't see why we have to cater to the lowest common denominator with our entertainment.

You keep bringing this up as if someone rejecting your idea instantly sides with nothing but cheap blockbuster thrills.  You don't have to appeal to the least common denominator.  Many great films exist that teeter the line of intelligence and blockbuster thrills.  No one wants a 3 hour biopic on fucking Socrates.

And again, I have no idea why you'd reject this at face value. So many films have done so much more with so much less. These are among the greatest things ever written in the history of the world, and together they can construct a great narrative arc. Your objections sound like you're dismissing it because it sounds 'boring,' which is why I'm saying your input on this subject is shit. This thread is not for pitching highly marketable ideas. It's for pitching good ones.

And where was the good idea again?  I am not judging your film on whether it is marketable.  I am judging it on whether I'd see it based on what I know and based on what I know, it's a no.  It sounds incredibly tacky. This thread is for you to post your film idea and for others to says how they feel on it. 

Anways, I have to go to sleep soon, so say whatever you want, I guess.  At the end of the day, it's a no.

Your only complaint was that "no one wants to see it." You didn't give any reasoning behind that statement. I'd honestly like to know why you don't think people would see it, even though that wouldn't be particularly surprising given some of the films moviegoers choose to support. But just saying "nobody wants that" is not constructive. It only serves to make you look ignorant.

You stated it yourself.  If no one is going to see Blade Runner 2049, no one will see a film that would have no action.  I can't go further on your idea because you haven't expanded it, leading me to believe that you came up with it on a whim.  You don't share an idea until you have a full grasp on what the core of the story is.  The concept you put forward sounds jumbled, especially when you added that last bit about the film being 3 hours long with edits.  And frankly, that 3 hour run time sounds incredibly forced.  A majority of the time when I see a film longer than 2 1/2 hours, I always come out saying that there is stuff that shouldn't have made the cut.  Only so few films I can see have utilized that well and all of them were made in the 50s to 60s. I feel like there isn't anything you can't accomplish in 2 hours. 

And again, I said that I think the concept would work better as a History channel doc with dramatization. 
27
General Movie/Television Discussion Board / Re: The Movie/TV Facts Thread
« Last post by John Tyler on October 18, 2017, 08:23:37 am »
Rob Zombie was considered to direct Freddy vs. Jason, but turned it down to work on House of 1000 Corpses.
29
General Movie/Television Discussion Board / Re: The Movie/TV Facts Thread
« Last post by John Tyler on October 18, 2017, 08:08:11 am »
La La Land was initially set up at Focus Features with a budget of just $1 million. The studio demanded the character of Sebastian be changed from a jazz pianist to a rock musician and both the complicated opening musical number and the bittersweet ending be dropped. Heartbroken, Chazelle scrapped the project and moved on.
30
General Movie/Television Discussion Board / Re: The Movie Pitch Thread
« Last post by Diego Tutweiller on October 18, 2017, 01:29:24 am »
I don't see why we have to cater to the lowest common denominator with our entertainment.

You keep bringing this up as if someone rejecting your idea instantly sides with nothing but cheap blockbuster thrills.  You don't have to appeal to the least common denominator.  Many great films exist that teeter the line of intelligence and blockbuster thrills.  No one wants a 3 hour biopic on fucking Socrates.

And again, I have no idea why you'd reject this at face value. So many films have done so much more with so much less. These are among the greatest things ever written in the history of the world, and together they can construct a great narrative arc. Your objections sound like you're dismissing it because it sounds 'boring,' which is why I'm saying your input on this subject is shit. This thread is not for pitching highly marketable ideas. It's for pitching good ones.

And where was the good idea again?  I am not judging your film on whether it is marketable.  I am judging it on whether I'd see it based on what I know and based on what I know, it's a no.  It sounds incredibly tacky. This thread is for you to post your film idea and for others to says how they feel on it. 

Anways, I have to go to sleep soon, so say whatever you want, I guess.  At the end of the day, it's a no.

Your only complaint was that "no one wants to see it." You didn't give any reasoning behind that statement. I'd honestly like to know why you don't think people would see it, even though that wouldn't be particularly surprising given some of the films moviegoers choose to support. But just saying "nobody wants that" is not constructive. It only serves to make you look ignorant.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

+- Hot Topics

Geostorm by Suspect #1
Today at 10:46:46 pm

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by John Tyler
Today at 10:19:48 pm

The Official "Going to see..." Movie Thread by J. Kashmir
Today at 07:08:51 pm

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by John Tyler
Today at 07:40:05 am

The Movie Pitch Thread by Diego Tutweiller
October 18, 2017, 08:00:08 pm

41 minutes until ah... It Follows by Jeffblum
October 18, 2017, 05:16:06 pm

The Movie/TV Facts Thread by John Tyler
October 18, 2017, 08:23:37 am

Tut's Tutillating Reviews™: The Return by Diego Tutweiller
October 15, 2017, 08:43:58 pm

The AFI Top 100 Master Thread by J. Kashmir
October 15, 2017, 11:07:43 am

THE TV SHOW WATCHING THREAD!! by John Tyler
October 15, 2017, 09:23:34 am

Game of Thrones by Diego Tutweiller
October 14, 2017, 01:58:09 am

Official Star Wars Discussion Thread by Cutler de Chateau
October 12, 2017, 03:31:34 pm

The Movie/TV Alternative Facts Thread by J. Kashmir
October 11, 2017, 10:42:37 pm

Blade Runner 2049 by J. Kashmir
October 10, 2017, 12:24:09 am

Metastasis: The Mexican Breaking Bad by Jeffblum
October 09, 2017, 08:08:19 am