Ben Stiller

I just watched an interview with him on the Actors Studio.Get this...did you guys know he was in Spielberg's Empire of the Sun? I know whatever...but he was,he played an american soldiar.Crazy.

That's definitely the one! A great line. Thanks!

Yeah.What girl wouldn't be flattered overhearing that conversation?

Still truly is the man. I wonder, though: when is he going to start to carry films on his own? When will he become a true leading man, capable of carrying a comedy squarely on his own two shoulders (like Jim Carrey)? I think he's getting close...but he's just not there yet. I do think he's made a lot of good career decisions as of late, though. What do you guys think?

I think he's better off nabbing some serious roles for awhile.He runs the risk of wasting his talents on comedies,when he's just as good in dramas...he could get top billing as a leading man...in fact I heard it rumored that stiller and Brad Pitt were going to star together in a remake of Starsky & Hutch...how cool would that be?

Oh boy....I like Ben...but that sounds like it might be painful to watch.

__________________
These days I can't be sure if life is passing me by or trying to run me over!

Well, if the Starsky and Hutch movie is anything like The Mod Squad movie, I'm not so much interested in seeing it.

Speaking of that flick, though, the original Hutch wrote a big long letter criticizing the idea of hiring Stiller and Pitt (or really anyone but him and Glaser) as Starsky and Hutch in a movie version of the show.

It's wrong to judge a movie by the mistakes of other "Movies based on T.V.shows" if that's the way critics evaluated movies...nothing would be worthy of our attention.

Actually, it's perfectly fair to judge a movie based on another movie because so often we get the same kind of movie over and over again.

But all I was saying was that IF the Starsky and Hutch movie is anything like pretty much 99% of movies based on TV shows that have come out so far, I'm not interested.

And personally, I don't think they should make a Starsky and Hutch movie, especially not with Brad Pitt and Ben Stiller. Those casting choices show an obvious change from the characters from the show, and it is unlikely that the producers would remain faithful to the original show in their movie productions. Why not just start with two new characters and put them in whatever situation they want to put them in? Why trade off an existing name when the product is unlikely to be anything like the previous incarnation?

Because it's all about marketing. And when it's all about marketing, you rarely get a good movie in the end.

That's so NOT fair.Yeah,we get the same movies over and over...but some of the regurgitated formulas are better than others.How many movies do we have about ghettos?How many do we have about mobsters? How many of those are better than others?

No, it's partially fair, IMO. Movies have to be judged in context. IE: Jaws isn't all that clever to me, because I've grown up with movies that imitate it...but I recognize that Jaws made up many of those cinematic concepts that are now cliche...so even if I wasn't amazed by it, I still see it's greatness.

But we're talking about a marketing-driven formula and those movies almost always stink. It's one thing to have formula movies. There are, after all, only so many ways to tell a story and so many settings to put a story in.

It's quite another to have a movie formula that starts out with marketing instead of starting out with the movie itself. This Starsky and Hutch movie, if it gets made, was thought of from day one as a way to make a lot of money with minimal effort. Movies like that are watchable maybe 1% of the time (and I'm being generous here).

Even movies that are overly commercial are not usually started under the pretense of making a lot of money with minimal effort. Movies like these are what you get when the marketing department starts greenlighting movies. If this movie gets made, odds are strongly in favor of it being a really bad movie.

This is the sort of a movie that has a poster before it has a script. And 999 times out of 1000, those movies stink.

That's true.I nkow there's a harry potter movie coming out.I haven't seen one preview...but I'll tell you what I have seen...commercial after commercial of Harry Potter related toys,games,and what-not.Shameless.The movie isn't even out yet.I see what you're saying ryanp,I'm just stoked to be talking movies again...sheesh,there's slim pickins in the thread department.Most of these threads are exasperated.I tried to start a new one,but that was shot down.

Harry Potter is different, IMO. I love it when a studio/some producers spend/s $100 million to complete what I call a "movie event." Harry Potter is a movie event...so is LOTR...so is "Attack of the Clones," and so are "The Matrix" movies. I've downloaded both the Harry Potter TV spot, and the big ol' trailer...and I've seen the latter in a theatre. I've probably seen each of them a half dozen times (more like a dozen with the trailer)...and I can honestly say that the movie looks amazing.

In the end, I don't care how a movie was conceived. Give me a look at the trailer, and I can decide whether or not I want to give it a shot. I can enjoy a movie made for marketing purposes...but yes, it is usually a bad sign.

All those movie events you are talking about(besides Harry Potter)aren't as in my face as Harry Potter is.Maybe LOTR just doesn't bug me because I want to see it.Same with Matrix sequel and Attack of the Clones...those are ligit movie events...Harry Potter is all kiddie-hype.

I don't want to see Harry Potter or LOTR. Nothing I've seen so far of either of them appeals to me at all. (And I doubt that those who are interested would be if Ben Stiller were cast as a Hobbit - that was LOTR, wasn't it? - and the movie was turned into a Buddy Comedy or some other genre and the movie only carried the LOTR name to get the built-in fans).

I honestly do not understand. I can see how people might not dig some of the movies I like, or am looking forward to, but how on earth could you NOT be looking forward to LOTR? Harry Potter is confusing, but understandable: if you haven't read the books, it won't be a big deal (if you have, it's huge...seriously)...but LOTR? How can you not be excited about that?

Have you seen the trailers? Is there something wrong with the casting, or special effects? Or do the books bore you? If they do, don't you want to see that vivid world come to life anyway? No like LOTR? DOES NOT COMPUTE!

I never read the LOTR books.

And I don't generally like fantasy movies.

Well, I don't like fantasy movies all that much either...but this is beyond that. LOTR is as much adventure as it is fantasy. It's not as much about unicorns as it's about a very simple creature who, out of nowhere, bears the largest burden in the world. It goes against what anyone of his kind has wanted for as long as they can all remember. They're all about eating and telling stories, and all of a sudden one of them is traveling the world to try to put an end to evil. It's someone we can relate to, in a way.

Anyway, you really ought to read the books...at least the first one. You'll enjoy the movies as a result...and besides, apart from being incredible classics, they really are great books.

I had to get this thread up again for a sec.I just watched Happy Gilmore again,I loved Ben Stiller's charactor as the mean retirement home nurse.He was great"Okay Granny,times up.Hang up the phone...NOW!"