The Official ANNA KENDRICK and/or OLIVIA WILDE Thread

[tragabigzanda]

Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

[Buby]

One more vote for Anna Kendrick.

[tree_]

Saw Woman of the Hour today. Anna Kendrick is a good director. She shoots like a total cinephile. Very weird title for that movie though

agreed

[tree_]

this is nothing like how it was portrayed in the movie

[VinylGuy]

I havent seen the movie, but it kinda makes sense right

[The Argonaut]

I did the same thing, tree, looked up the original video after watching the movie

[tree_]

I did the same thing, tree, looked up the original video after watching the movie

not even close, right?!

she doesn't quiz them with philosophical questions. it's playful sex banter the whole time. also I just learned that she didn't even actually go on a date with him after the show.

[Buby]

You're basically describing what happens on every "based on a true story" adaptation.

[tree_]

You're basically describing what happens on every "based on a true story" adaptation.

that doesn't make it OK

[Jorge]

But it is OK. It's a movie.

[tree_]

But it is OK. It's a movie.

Maybe make it more clear that it is a highly fictionalized version of SOME actual events and people, as a gesture of respect.

[Jorge]

It really doesn't matter

[tree_]

It really doesn't matter

It does to some of the people being represented who actually lived through it.

[Jorge]

Too bad

A film is a piece of artistic expression, not a historical document

All "based on a true story" movies are fiction, you're better off just taking them as such

[tree_]

yeah i get that, taking liberties where you have to, but i mean, we have the actual dating show being depicted for all to see, and then you watch the movie and you're like "whaaaaaaat?!" .. not even close

[tragabigzanda]

Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

[Jorge]

Your stance on whether it's acceptable to take artistic liberties is based on rights agreements? So it's more a legal position than an ethical one?

How about when an artist depicts public or historical events and life rights aren't secured? You know they're not legally necessary, right?

"Broad artistic license" is a given in these films; you're talking about life rights, but all they do is help avoid legal disputes or provide access to unique personal stories or insights that aren’t publicly known. The don't necessarily represent a commitment or responsibility to stick to the facts by the letter, if the filmmakers even choose to pursue them.

[tragabigzanda]

Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

[tree_]

Specifically what frustrates me is in the movie the chick on the dating show takes this dramatic stance by directing questions to the contestants like "what are women for?" as like an "F you" to all the chauvinist pigs in the world, depicting her as some kind of feminist icon, but in reality she just played along with all the sexual banter. It's not even trying to get the most basic facts right when they're on display for all to see.

[Jorge]

How about when an artist depicts public or historical events and life rights aren't secured? You know they're not legally necessary, right?

I have no idea what the law is. I'm not sure what the legal difference is between a living household name like Donald Trump; a dead household name like Julius Caesar; and a living no-name, like the guy from the Beanie Babies movie.

Basically, anyone can make a movie about anyone they like. You could get sued if the person you're representing feels your depiction is defamatory. Securing life rights accomplishes three things: 1- It shields you from legal action, 2- It can get you insights/info that's not publicly available, and 3- It gives your movie more credence in the public eye. Like having an "authorized biography." But you don't really need it.