#76
Posted: 8/10/07 at 3:20pm
Okay, well the fact that you kept saying, "It looks like a scene from 'Sleepy Hollow'" without saying anything else about it led me to believe that you didn't know.
New Sweeney Pic! (With Lovett) — Page 4
#77
Posted: 8/10/07 at 3:24pm
i have my diamond encrusted brass knuckles on in that picture you just cant see them mateo
#78
Posted: 8/10/07 at 3:27pm
LOVES IT!
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
#79
Posted: 8/10/07 at 3:35pm
Thank you for that description and the other info. I haven't seen Sleepy Hollow yet so I will still be impressed. I think the casting is great and this will be a great Movie.
I know Burton loves those dark, vacant colors but it will look great in this Movie. Color sets the mood and carries a Movie. More and more Movie makers are getting this and I think there has been a great improvement on presentation.
Especially since this is taken from a Play. It should have a kind of surreal look to it. It is Burton vision of this that makes his Movies great.
I know I will make the Premiers and Midnight showings, on Christmas? I wish it was Halloween! Too old for Treat or Treating.
I know Burton loves those dark, vacant colors but it will look great in this Movie. Color sets the mood and carries a Movie. More and more Movie makers are getting this and I think there has been a great improvement on presentation.
Especially since this is taken from a Play. It should have a kind of surreal look to it. It is Burton vision of this that makes his Movies great.
I know I will make the Premiers and Midnight showings, on Christmas? I wish it was Halloween! Too old for Treat or Treating.
#80
Posted: 8/10/07 at 3:41pm
I love the expression on Johnny's face in this picture. The whole thing looks very visually rich as well.
#81
Posted: 8/10/07 at 3:43pm
I am excited to see these two in the roles...I definitely think they have the acting chops for it...I just get nervous because this is one of my all time favorite shows and hope it can live up to its theatrical predecessors...production-wise I'm not really worried, just mostly in the vocal department. I am a little weirded out by Johnny's white streak...I think I would've preferred overall graying...but I guess if you're gonna go with a bold choice, go with it!
#82
Posted: 8/10/07 at 3:48pm
Defying - HOT!
"Zac is sweet as can be. He's very much just a sweet kid from California who happens to have a face that looks like it was drawn by Michelangelo, (if Michelangelo did anime)."
-Adam Shankman.
"I haven't left this building since Windows 3.1!"
"Celebrating a birthday this week: Rene Descartes is 412! Do you know who he is? Then why are you watching this show? You could probably get into college and even get one of those job things. As for the rest of us; Amanda Bynes is 22! Yay!"
-E!'s "The Soup"
-Adam Shankman.
"I haven't left this building since Windows 3.1!"
"Celebrating a birthday this week: Rene Descartes is 412! Do you know who he is? Then why are you watching this show? You could probably get into college and even get one of those job things. As for the rest of us; Amanda Bynes is 22! Yay!"
-E!'s "The Soup"
#83
Posted: 8/10/07 at 3:53pm
"Sweeney is also MUCH stronger material than Phantom.
It's got to be hard to really f*ck up Sondheim/Wheeler's work."
I actually think it's easier to **** up the deep psychological drama than the light romantic thriller.
It's got to be hard to really f*ck up Sondheim/Wheeler's work."
I actually think it's easier to **** up the deep psychological drama than the light romantic thriller.
#84
Posted: 8/10/07 at 3:57pm
EDCT,
Go do your laundry. We can see it in your av.
Go do your laundry. We can see it in your av.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#85
Posted: 8/10/07 at 3:59pm
"Let us also not forget that Tim Burton is a FAR more acclaimed director than Joel Schumacher."
Ooh! Ooh! I can play, too!
Joel Schumacher:
The Lost Boys
Falling Down
Phone Booth
Tigerland
Tim Burton:
Planet of the Apes
Batman Returns
Mars Attacks
Corpse Bride
See, anyone can list the worst of one director against the best of another. But put my Schumacher movies against your Burton movies... Well, then we've got a real contest, don't we?
Ooh! Ooh! I can play, too!
Joel Schumacher:
The Lost Boys
Falling Down
Phone Booth
Tigerland
Tim Burton:
Planet of the Apes
Batman Returns
Mars Attacks
Corpse Bride
See, anyone can list the worst of one director against the best of another. But put my Schumacher movies against your Burton movies... Well, then we've got a real contest, don't we?
#86
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:01pm
:O
Batman Returns
Mars Attacks
= LOVE
Batman Returns
Mars Attacks
= LOVE
"Zac is sweet as can be. He's very much just a sweet kid from California who happens to have a face that looks like it was drawn by Michelangelo, (if Michelangelo did anime)."
-Adam Shankman.
"I haven't left this building since Windows 3.1!"
"Celebrating a birthday this week: Rene Descartes is 412! Do you know who he is? Then why are you watching this show? You could probably get into college and even get one of those job things. As for the rest of us; Amanda Bynes is 22! Yay!"
-E!'s "The Soup"
-Adam Shankman.
"I haven't left this building since Windows 3.1!"
"Celebrating a birthday this week: Rene Descartes is 412! Do you know who he is? Then why are you watching this show? You could probably get into college and even get one of those job things. As for the rest of us; Amanda Bynes is 22! Yay!"
-E!'s "The Soup"
#87
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:02pm
I Love MARS ATTACKS.
And I love the Sweeney picture.
And I love the Sweeney picture.
Updated On: 8/10/07 at 04:02 PM
#88
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:06pm
Well Edmund, if we're going off reviews, Corpes Bride got good reviews, so I don't see why you listed that.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
#89
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:06pm
Actually, I like Mars Attacks, too, but it is a bit of a mess, and aside from that, the poster I was replying to was referring to critical acclaim, which Mars Attacks definitely did not have.
I don't think that's a run-on sentence...
I don't think that's a run-on sentence...
#90
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:07pm
On the subject of "style" or "feel"... I'm currently working on a master's in Fine Arts and this is one of the concepts we regularly visit in school. Every instructor I've ever had has insisted we develop a "style" in our chosen art. Not surprisingly, this is also the thing that students rebel against more than anything else.
Inexperienced artists want to do something new and different with each work. They think it's exciting and the only way to discover all the varied ideas that only they can express. They also have lots and lots of different ideas they want to let out.
The reality is that flitting from idea to idea and style to style is a shallow approach to art. It's easier to do something different every time than it is to find a style and spend your life developing that style through different works and different ideas. Then each work will force you to grow and dig deep to find creative ways to make your work new, while exploring and expanding the known boundaries of that style. That's how you truly find something new and substantial that no one has ever done before.
Look at the works of any great artist in any medium. They all have a style, Sondheim, Van Gogh, Woody Allen, Seurat. You can spot their work never having seen/heard it before. Their work may develop and change over time into what seems to be a new style. But it's usually still just a developed expansion of their original style. The body of work should show the identifiable progress and growth of an artist as he develops ideas as only he can. The style is just the road he uses to guide his progress.
Inexperienced artists want to do something new and different with each work. They think it's exciting and the only way to discover all the varied ideas that only they can express. They also have lots and lots of different ideas they want to let out.
The reality is that flitting from idea to idea and style to style is a shallow approach to art. It's easier to do something different every time than it is to find a style and spend your life developing that style through different works and different ideas. Then each work will force you to grow and dig deep to find creative ways to make your work new, while exploring and expanding the known boundaries of that style. That's how you truly find something new and substantial that no one has ever done before.
Look at the works of any great artist in any medium. They all have a style, Sondheim, Van Gogh, Woody Allen, Seurat. You can spot their work never having seen/heard it before. Their work may develop and change over time into what seems to be a new style. But it's usually still just a developed expansion of their original style. The body of work should show the identifiable progress and growth of an artist as he develops ideas as only he can. The style is just the road he uses to guide his progress.
Art has a double face, of expression and illusion.
#91
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:07pm
re: Corpse Bride: Huh. So it did. Don't know why I thought otherwise.
#92
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:14pm
artscallion, that's a good point, but it doesn't always work. The Coen Brothers work excellently well in any number of genres, without much of a feel outside of a few camera tricks they like and a fondness for misunderstanding. The same goes for Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles, and Peter Jackson.
#93
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:15pm
I don't understand how people can whine that Mrs. Lovett isn't "clean-cut" enough, then turn around and hold her to the standard of Angela Lansbury. Honestly, have you even seen a picture Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Lovett? What exactly is clean-cut about this?
Also the people saying she looks too much like Bellatrix. Well, yeah, duh. And Sweeney looks too much like Edward Scissorhands. I don't see why you should fault them for looking similar to...themselves.
Also the people saying she looks too much like Bellatrix. Well, yeah, duh. And Sweeney looks too much like Edward Scissorhands. I don't see why you should fault them for looking similar to...themselves.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never knowing how
Wanting life but never knowing how
#94
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:44pm
Let's see...Who is Bellatrix? An English woman who loves a man she will never have. Not to mention, she just got out of prison.
Lovett is an English woman who loves a man she will never have. And is poor.
Big stretch.
Lovett is an English woman who loves a man she will never have. And is poor.
Big stretch.
#95
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:45pm
"artscallion, that's a good point, but it doesn't always work. The Coen Brothers work excellently well in any number of genres, without much of a feel outside of a few camera tricks they like and a fondness for misunderstanding. The same goes for Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles, and Peter Jackson."
You're correct. Nothing's an absolute in art. There are always exceptions. My only caution is to not tie the concept of "style" too closely with that of "genre" or "look" in this sense. It doesn't necessarily have to be a visual or literal style. It's not necessary that an artist should always work, say, in dark films or surrealistic paintings or whatever.
Style, in this sense, means finding a way of doing things that is consistent at its base and has some interest and meaning for you, then use that as a framework in which to develop new ideas, no matter what the genre. Sometimes that framework is tied into a specific genre. But often a style is not something you can point out. Though even with the examples you give, don't you think you could watch any of their films and "feel" that it is their work?
I'm not a film buff. So, I'm really asking.
You're correct. Nothing's an absolute in art. There are always exceptions. My only caution is to not tie the concept of "style" too closely with that of "genre" or "look" in this sense. It doesn't necessarily have to be a visual or literal style. It's not necessary that an artist should always work, say, in dark films or surrealistic paintings or whatever.
Style, in this sense, means finding a way of doing things that is consistent at its base and has some interest and meaning for you, then use that as a framework in which to develop new ideas, no matter what the genre. Sometimes that framework is tied into a specific genre. But often a style is not something you can point out. Though even with the examples you give, don't you think you could watch any of their films and "feel" that it is their work?
I'm not a film buff. So, I'm really asking.
Art has a double face, of expression and illusion.
#96
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:46pm
Wow so excited!!! Although Helena looks a little too young for Lovett...oh well...
So let me get this straight, it's being released on Christmas day Country Wide now, or is it still going to be january 11th? (I know its the 21st for select theatres)
So let me get this straight, it's being released on Christmas day Country Wide now, or is it still going to be january 11th? (I know its the 21st for select theatres)
#97
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:51pm
I hate Sweeney, but damn... this looks absolutely, fantastically crazy.
#98
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:52pm
I really like the Bellatrix look for her. It's translateable, and it kind of works for Lovett.
Agreed, Tobiasragg.
This photo is stunning. I love it.
Agreed, Tobiasragg.
This photo is stunning. I love it.
There wouldn't be lights bright enough!
#99
Posted: 8/10/07 at 4:56pm
There is way too much expectation for a Sweeney film- it can't possibly live up to the demands of everyone. I just hope this movie is a fair representation of the creative artists' visions- especially, of course Sondheim's, (if a composer has a "vision").
#100
Posted: 8/10/07 at 5:05pm
Can't wait! Can't wait! Can't wait!
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95