“ I could do the least amount of work for the most amount of money and then be home with the kids.” Gary Oldman and I share the same philosophy about work.
Actually, he won it for playing Churchill in The Darkest Hour.
Although I do believe Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy should have won all kinds of awards. And that includes Oldman for doing the nearly impossible as George Smiley: reprising a truly iconic Alec Guinness role and actually making it his own.
EDIT: well it took me a minute to catch your real meaning.
Well, least amount of work for him. He always brings his A-game from what I’ve seen, but a nice payday for a fraction of the number of days worked is nice!
The thing about these ones is that he is a side character for multiple movies. Both series had large casts and he was a key component to small sections of each. Large pay for little work is ideal. It’s not that he didn’t go all in. Just went all in for less time.
Definitely agree, but then I want to see a movie where he went all in for a bigger part of it. I have gotten some good suggestions, that I will ad to the list.
I’ve never thought about about it but I don’t think Gordon is in the first movie all that much. They’re just little scenes here and there, really.
He’s at his desk with a stapler. He’s at the docks for ten seconds. He takes out the trash once. The batmobile scene. And the end when he plays with the batmobiles rockets. Aren’t those the major scenes with him? I’m curious now.
Either way he even says he worked for less than a month on it. That’s pretty cool.
That and Bram Stokers Dracula were my introductions to him and some of my favorite characters to this day. He just completely owns the roles and defines the characters in ways nobody else can. He can be completely over the top and at the same time be completely believable. Gary Oldman is a great fuckin actor and any movie he's in automatically gets chance from me.
I mean we all know what about clickbait and titles. The headline here is a perfect example. Because it makes it seem like Gary oldman wasn’t getting offers potentially for movies or didn’t have opportunities for movies. And he was worried about going under or not being able to support himself etc etc. But if you read the actual article, it’s made very clear that he wasn’t sparse for opportunity as an actor, but rather these movies gave him an opportunity to be with his children more while they were all going through a very rough time and still earn an income presumably to support their lifestyle and this is what he feels saved him personally.
Gary oldman is a good dad. And it seems like he wanted to put that first and foremost. Which I think is wonderful. I was raised by a father who was given soul custody of his kids during a very messy divorce. And now that I’m older i can see how much sacrifice he made for me and my sister. Cool that gary oldman seems willing to do the same for his kids.
The title does not need to be a quote to give you information about the article. They use the quote out of context specifically to twist it slightly and get more clicks.
Asking a question as a separated dad which I think I know the answer to. I get my kids every other week. Outside of that I also take them one on one (I have 3 of which 2 are special needs) when it isn’t my week. I have no idea why my ex doesn’t do the same. She comments I never have alone time because I’m using my week off from them, but I love my kids and they deserve one on one time. They also never leave my house early when the week is up but they’re always eager to come to my house even when it’s not time to show up yet.
I’ve always assumed it will pay off in the long run and they’re aware.
As a kid who survived through this maybe not special needs. But a kid who’s arrived through this. The best you can do is just show them how much you love and care for them no matter what. That will mean the world to them. Also, just hope your ex-whaterver e isn’t a bitch who warps and twists your kid’s minds. Cuz I don’t say this lightly. My dad with the way the court systems are was not awarded full custody lightly. The court system in America very much prefers the mother. And my mother was a crazy psychotic bitch who made me go to a fucking two week inpatient facility because she fucked up my head so bad. But my dad is the greatest thing I’ve ever had and he is caring and he has sacrificed more than I think anyone will ever know. And for all of that I said the best you can do is just put love first. Because love is what ultimately prevailed for my father despite my mother’s twisted fucked up words
I don’t even like Tolkien (find his writing to be just excessive, I don’t need to know the color of the buttons on the shirt of the dead character with no name), and even I have to agree, lol.
Too many re-interpretations of authors’ works. Tolkien is highly detailed - not reflecting that (or worse, substituting your own details) in a movie or show is just hubris. If you’re so damn good why don’t you write your own shit. Oh, your name doesn’t sell instantly is why.
We've seen this with the Witcher, we've seen it with GoT, we've seen it with LOTR: super artistic production teams which have their heads so deep up their own arses and are entrenched so deeply inside that weird removed-from-reality Hollywood bubble that they legitimately think they know better how to interpret the lore some world renowned author made than the author himself. Always ends in mediocre showsand hilarious interviews with said production teams where
Oh God The Witcher. The production team was handed an incredibly strong female lead character who was smarter, more politically astute, and more feared/respected than almost any other character in the series. And they immediately tore her down and made her a petty whining brat while claiming it was about female empowerment. A pox on Netflix and the entire production team.
Didn’t the show runner say that the dumb public was to blame for the failure of the show?
Edit: he blamed dumb Americans.
Baginski said, “When a series is made for a huge mass of viewers, with different experiences, from different parts of the world, and a large part of them are Americans, these simplifications not only make sense, they are necessary.”
He has a point about simplifications when it comes to media and art being approachable by the masses (and I say this with no insult intended, simplification of anything will always have broader appeal). See popular music vs avante-guard jazz (i.e. Miles Davis, probably the most-approachable of the type!)
But holy cow what a condescending, arrogant, insulting pick.
Thing is: They are working from the basis of media that has been successful already. So the amount of "dumbing down" neccessary to achieve a somewhat broad appeal has already been done by the author of the original, so to speak. Their argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever on no level imaginable.
There is some stuff I don’t dislike about Netflix’s Witcher, but god damn, I feel like they actively set out to do the worst rewriting ever with how they treated/portrayed basically the entire Lodge of Sorceresses
My hopes were so high for the stupid thing. They couldn’t tell the story in front of them that was already loaded with allegirical social justice issues. They had to reinterpret the entire thing and just plain fucked it up. Just sad.
Game of Thrones is an odd one, because what they did was fuck up the characters. All of them. I don’t think a single character who survived to the end was left unscathed by shitty writing outside of a couple minor characters. It doesn’t really help that they obviously rushed the ending out, which only made it worse by making the actions of the characters make absolutely no sense.
My problem is that Galadriel was treated like an impatient, naive child by other characters when in Tolkien’s Lore she is already well-respected and older than most others.
Why? Because female? Bullshit, she was already strong and established by the time the events in Amazon’s LotR take place. They dumbed her down and made her look like an impulsive idiot incapable of seeing evil when that’s literally her whole character.
The showrunners did not give Galadriel the respect she deserved.
I wouldn’t say naive, but definitely reckless. And I would 100% say they portrayed her as strong in the tv series. Hell, it begins with her on an incursion on the remains of angband, which if you know the lore I’d say it’s pretty badass. Her arc in season 1 was about how she was so blinded by revenge and recklessness, that she couldn’t see the evil in front of her. Which is pretty fitting for a noldor elf. It shows that even trying your hardest to make good, your actions can and will have unintended consequences, even ‘evil’ ones. Which perfectly sets up her eventual rejection of the one ring, during the mirror scene in fellowship of the ring. She knew then she’d have good intentions using it, but she also knew more evil will come with that
Galadriel shouldn’t be blinded by revenge and recklessness, because Feanor murdered thousands of his own kin over his stolen Silmarils and Galadriel knew he would do something horrible for his own selfish reasons.
If she can see evil inside another person’s soul, surely she can see the consequences of her own actions 5 minutes before she takes said actions? Like jumping out of a boat hundreds of miles from any land mass? Or maybe she would know how and why the Queen of Numenor felt about helping her, prior to getting upset and yelling?
Nothing about her character in the Rings of Power has any respect for Tolkien’s work, because they dumbed her down and made her act incredibly stupid on multiple occasions, completely ignoring the power and wisdom she already possesses.
I don’t mean to start a discussion here, but this is your interpretation and it’s valid. But galadriel’s character has contradictory history depending on your sources (even regarding the kinslaying). And it’s debated even between Tolkien’s scholars the extend at which she can ‘sense evil’. After all, she herself was deceived by saruman after his corruption during the third age.
In your last paragraph you say ‘nothing about her character in the series has any respect for Tolkien’s work’. That’s simply hyperbole, and arguably not true, as even a surface level reading can prove otherwise. Such words are not Tolkien’s way.
Anyway, I don’t want you to change your mind, just want you to be aware of the possibility of other interpretations. Take care!
The story lines they fabricated were (mostly) formulaic, the effects were (mostly) poor, and the characters were (mostly) unlikable. Apart from that I liked it! :P
It had a few moments that I enjoyed but overall it fell flat because the characters where flat.
To me, it just seemed … dull. Like, the conversations characters were having weren’t interesting. What was happening on screen wasn’t interesting. I felt myself suddenly snapping back to reality several times each episode after my mind aimlessly drifted away from what I was watching. And I’m someone who doesn’t need Michael Bay explosions and constant action to enjoy a tv show. Really hope they turn it around and do something interesting with it. Absolute snooze fest.
Yeah. It had a few moments of character interaction that I liked but it mostly felt forced and dull. Sad really as it could have been much more than flashy.
You can’t just extend copyright indefinitely. It’s not like a patent, where you can make minute changes and claim it’s a new product. The original works have a copyright limit of 95 years after the first date of publish (thanks Disney and other corporate lobbyists).
If we go by The Return of the King, it was published in 1955. That means the words, the story, the settings, and the characters will be public domain in 2050. Steamboat Willie, on the other hand, was published in 1928. That means it expires at the end of this year. Unless Disney can convince Congress to change copyright law again, these copyrights all have hard expiration dates.
ETA: Disney might have a case where they can claim copyright on the information they added or changed from the original works, just like how they can still claim copyright over Mickey after losing Steamboat Willie.
And I’m sure they will, because fuck society, amirite? /s
Works made for hire are 95 years from publication. LotR is not a work for hire, so it goes by life of the author plus 75 years. It goes public domain in 2044.
I think an argument could be made to set it to the date of death of the author. I agree with the other guy that it should only apply to commercial works though.
I also don’t think that the copyright should be transferable. The trading of ideas is an absurd concept to me. But then us humans do a lot of absurd things so I guess it’s just par for the course.
not exactly. You can of course still get existing works by pirating them.
But if the Tolkien works entered the public domain, anyone could use them for any creative purposes freely. And yes, a lot of the new material would be trash. But some excellent works would appear to.
A good example of this is Lovecraft’s works and the Cthulhu Mythos, that although not public domain until recent years, Lovecraft encouraged others to use his own creations on their own stories, thus expanding the literary universe of his own creation. Some stories are awful, but there has also been a ton of great works based on Lovecraft’s creations that couldn’t have existed otherwise.
Also Sherlock Holmes. Now, the BBC might have done a terrible job, but a lot of other people have written great stories because Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain
Another character in the public domain is Zeus, and the rest of his family. Liked Disney’s Hercules? Supergiant’s Hades? Netflix’s Blood of Zeus? Riordan’s Percy Jackson? Only possible because of public domain.
Well how else are we supposed to encourage people to be related to people who develop intellectual property? It makes sense from a neponomic standpoint.
Believe it or not, some people do work extra hard in order to ensure their descendants have an easy life. I’m not weighing in on whether that is wise or not but it is definitely a thing.
Yeah, and that’s why white people are richer than black people today, even though slavery ostensibly ended 200 years ago. It’s time that we outlaw this behaviour.
you’re gonna get downvoted but no amount of downvotes will change the fact that black people weren’t allowed to own things in america until most things were already owned by white people.
Honestly I don’t really care, I’m more inclined to strategy and 4x games.
If you don mind me recommending a game, check out against the storm, it’s a city builder with rogue like elements, and it came out recently out of early access, it’s reaaaaally addicting
The books go into public domain in 20 years. Now that Christopher Tolkien is out of the way (who tended to block a lot of stuff, for better or worse) , the current heirs want as much out of it as they can.
20 years might sound like a lot, but that’s about as much time as between the Peter Jackson movies and now.
Tbh they seem to be a lot more “hands off” with non-canon stuff, which I think includes all of the LOTR/middle earth licensed games, and that’s not a bad thing imo.
First two books in the series were "Fellowship of the King" and "The Two Trees" so...I'm not entirely convinced they were even very original stories...
Going after the copyright holder for infringing on your work, which by merely existing commercially infringes on their copyright, is one hell of a way to get sued out the arse...
Having said that, it is a crime that LOTR still hasn't entered the public domain yet.
variety.com
Oldest