Gross. There should be a law banning biopics anyway, they're all lame.

databank said:

EmmaMcG said:

databank said:

Gross. There should be a law banning biopics anyway, they're all lame.

I wouldn't go THAT far but they are mostly crap. And I can really see a Prince one being worse than most.

The only ones I've ever seen that were decent films were Amadeus, The Doors and Gandhi. The rest was all crap. It seems reality can't beat fiction because even the most fascinating lives make lame movies. Maybe also because they all follow the same goddamn narrative pattern without a glimpse of anything innovative.

databank said:

EmmaMcG said:

databank said:

The only ones I've ever seen that were decent films were Amadeus, The Doors and Gandhi. The rest was all crap. It seems reality can't beat fiction because even the most fascinating lives make lame movies. Maybe also because they all follow the same goddamn narrative pattern without a glimpse of anything innovative.

The James Brown movie was pretty good too. And Lincoln. And The Aviator. And Goodfellas. I could go on but I think you get my point. There's no reason why biopics can't be good when done right. Unfortunately, I don't see a Prince movie being done right. There are so many ways they could fuck it up. Everything from the casting to the story needs to be spot on for these things to work and unless they can get talented people involved in making it, it won't work. And I can't imagine the likes of Scorsese lining up to be part of a Prince biopic.

I never knew Goodfellas was based on real ppl. Aviator was Scorcese so OK, and I haven't seen JB and Lincoln but usually, at least the ones about stars (and even Aviator) they're all based on the same narrative structure: origin -> rise -> snap or fall from grace -> either final fall or recover -> u don't see their later days, and surprisingly they're all super impersonal films, as if the director had to forget their style to make it as neutral as possible. I mean even Amadeus, The Doors, Gandhi or Aviator they're cool but they're not Fight Club or American Beauty. Even Lynch managed to fuck-up Elephant man. Goodfellas is a bit of an exception because it's set in a tradition of fictional stories, i.e. the great American gangster myth. It has more to do with Scarface than with your usual biopic.

Schindler's List of course' is brilliant but it's so much more about a moment in History than about Schindler himself that I never really thought of it as a biopic. Same could be said about Gandhi and I think that's y it's better than most biopics: it's as much a film about a slice of Indian history than about the man himself. But the worst really is the biopics about musicians, it's always the exact same shit.

databank said:

EmmaMcG said:

databank said:

Gross. There should be a law banning biopics anyway, they're all lame.

I wouldn't go THAT far but they are mostly crap. And I can really see a Prince one being worse than most.

.

.

The biggest reason it will be crap is because I don't think anyone can play Prince.

>

[Edited 12/13/16 9:36am]

Which girlfriend is doing this? Which songs will be in it that are all about her? And which way did he propose to her?

Yep, I'll watch it and talk crap through the entire thing. It's my self-appointed job.

[Edited 12/13/16 12:45pm]

morningsong said:

Which girlfriend is doing this? Which songs will be in it that are all about her? And which way did he propose to her?

Yep, I'll watch it and talk crap through the entire thing. It's my self-appointed job.

[Edited 12/13/16 12:45pm]

laurarichardson said:

databank said:

I never knew Goodfellas was based on real ppl. Aviator was Scorcese so OK, and I haven't seen JB and Lincoln but usually, at least the ones about stars (and even Aviator) they're all based on the same narrative structure: origin -> rise -> snap or fall from grace -> either final fall or recover -> u don't see their later days, and surprisingly they're all super impersonal films, as if the director had to forget their style to make it as neutral as possible. I mean even Amadeus, The Doors, Gandhi or Aviator they're cool but they're not Fight Club or American Beauty. Even Lynch managed to fuck-up Elephant man. Goodfellas is a bit of an exception because it's set in a tradition of fictional stories, i.e. the great American gangster myth. It has more to do with Scarface than with your usual biopic.

//Goodfellas is a biopic about Henry Hill. Malcolm X is excellent.

Malcolm X was super informative for me but didn't hit me as an exceptionnal work of art. Those films tend to be more interesting when they're about historical characters because, as I said about Gandhi or Schindler, they are about history as much as the character himself. But those movies about pop stars IDK. There's nothing in them for me. U may lear some stuff, I for example didn't know a thing about Johnny Cash so the Cash movie was usueful to me as reading his Wiki entry would have. But in terms of works of arts? Naw

TheLotus said:

EmmaMcG said:

databank said: I wouldn't go THAT far but they are mostly crap. And I can really see a Prince one being worse than most.

.

.

The biggest reason it will be crap is because I don't think anyone can play Prince.

>

[Edited 12/13/16 9:36am]

For us it's likely to look like a disaster no matter who plays him, because we are so familiar with the real Prince.

For your average person I fear any tiny clear skinned black MF with a feminine energy will do

databank said:

For us it's likely to look like a disaster no matter who plays him, because we are so familiar with the real Prince.

For your average person I fear any tiny clear skinned black MF with a feminine energy will do

so true. most people won't really care who the actor is.

EmmaMcG said: