Recent comments in /f/movies

BEE_REAL_ t1_je5mayv wrote

Reply to comment by unitedfan6191 in Of all the movies that were rushed through production and released very quickly, which ones amazed you most with the final product? by unitedfan6191

By all accounts the cast and crew were very up to it (the cast had to lobby the studio to let him direct, because he was essentially blacklisted at the time from directing), but Welles was probably the most talented director in the world at that point yeah. The Citizen Kane of directors, some would say lol

His previous few movies were actually the opposite: because of extreme budget and production constraints, they were shot over a period of years in bits and pieces and had to be cobbled together later. Orson was already very used to making films with extreme limitations

15

dalibor_gursky t1_je5lsg9 wrote

Reply to How accurate was The Social Network by dothingsunevercould

>there's no way anyone could come away with any opinion other than Zuckerberg 1000000% stole Facebook from the Winklevi twins

Since I did not come away with that opinion, "no way" and "100000%" is hyperbole here. I agree with the head of Harvard in that film. Get over it. Make a website.

29

HowIsYourBreathing t1_je5kwd0 wrote

Reply to How accurate was The Social Network by dothingsunevercould

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Network#Historical_accuracy

>Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz called the film a "dramatization of history ... it is interesting to see my past rewritten in a way that emphasizes things that didn't matter, (like the Winklevosses, who I've still never even met and had no part in the work we did to create the site over the past 6 years) and leaves out things that really did

>Speaking to an audience at Stanford University, Zuckerberg said that instead of making Facebook to "get girls", he made it because he enjoyed "building things".[90] He added that the film accurately depicted his wardrobe, saying, "It's interesting the stuff that they focused on getting right—like every single shirt and fleece they had in that movie is actually a shirt or fleece that I own."[90]

35

AdmirableTurnip2245 t1_je5kslr wrote

Reply to Of all the movies that were rushed through production and released very quickly, which ones amazed you most with the final product? by unitedfan6191

I'm not really sure about "rushed" per se but Tombstone (1993) comes close to fitting the bill. Director quit/fired -- they bring in another guy in name only to direct while Kurt Russell freaking actually directs the film while starring. He was drawing up the blocking and shooting schedule every evening the night before. It's by all accounts a masterpiece and given all that transpired really shouldn't have been. The odds were against it.

35

wjbc t1_je5kkvs wrote

Reply to Of all the movies that were rushed through production and released very quickly, which ones amazed you most with the final product? by unitedfan6191

Casablanca was shot in two months. It helped that it was shot in a studio, and not on location.

Memento, Christopher Nolan's first hit, was shot in 25 days. Guy Pearce only acted together with the movie’s other principals — Carrie-Ann Moss and Joe Pantoliano — on the first day of filming.

Halloween, John Carpenter's first hit, was shot in 20 days over four weeks on a shoestring budget of $300,000.

74