Home

October 27, 2006

let’s make a movie

10 Comments

[Click on image to enlarge/download/print etc. Licen­sing terms here etc.]

10 Responses to “let’s make a movie”

1. fg says:

   October 27, 2006 at 3:02 PM

   by the tone of this one, i guess that somebody’s movie didn’t quite work as expected ?
2. robert says:

   October 27, 2006 at 3:26 PM

   Please do not call it The Pro­du­cers II
3. Mike Peter Reed says:

   October 27, 2006 at 3:31 PM

   Ah, sweet new wave post-modern dada irony!
4. Marti says:

   October 27, 2006 at 4:39 PM

   et tu, hughtus?
5. Joe Valdez says:

   October 28, 2006 at 1:35 AM

   I love this car­toon, Hugh. I don’t know if Ale­jan­dro Gonzá­lez Iñá­rritu and Gui­llermo Arriaga were thin­king this when they made Babel, but it’s still funny.
6. Hugh MacLeod says:

   October 28, 2006 at 9:35 AM

   fg– Hallam Foe is doing fine n’ dandy.
   I just like dis­sing Holly­wood, regardless…
7. oliver Franks says:

   October 28, 2006 at 11:52 AM

   Let’s make a movie that ever­yone will want to see, then it will be great!
   In the 1940’s, during the pin­nacle of Hollywood’s movie making powers, it is said a mvie was made so ama­zing, so per­fect, that abso­lu­tely ever­yoone who ever saw it said it was the best film they’d ever seen. Howe­ver, as any self res­pec­ting moron knows, all govern­ments are inhe­rently evil, and so the par­ti­cu­larly tyran­nous office of Harry S. Tru­man denoun­ced the film as ‘too good by half, the­re­fore being 1 and a half good, or 150% exce­llent’ and so he orde­red it buried fore­ver in a sea­led cap­sule along with the con­tents of the ros­well inci­dent and a poorly phra­sed note he wrote to his second cou­sin when her dog had pas­sed away. The note had been a cons­tant source of emba­rra­se­ment to him, and had for months dis­tur­bed his sleep.
   Anyone who had been asso­ciat­ted with the making of the film was were orde­red to the front in the hope they would soon die, but as it trans­pi­red their silence was bought for a mere $50,000 and a life­time pass to Bible­land (Dis­ney­land for Jesus freaks) along with a per­mit to be drunk on the rides. Tru­man is repor­ted to have siad: “I love those movie types. Nothing but cash and belly laughs for them. God bless Ame­rica.“
   But what of the film? What was it about? It cen­tred around an every­day man’s quest to find a bath­room during a nasty bout of simul­ta­neous cons­ti­pa­tion and diarhoea. Along the way he saves the life of an inno­cent shia­tsu and falls madly in love with a colo­nos­copy.
   It is, of course, a terri­ble idea, poorly exe­cu­ted. That’s why ever­yone loved it. But that is the enigma of film-making, terri­ble films are of course suc­ces­ful, while mea­ning­ful, bri­lliant works of art are igno­red by all but a select few inte­llec­tuals who try in vain to explain to the mas­ses how the film which sent them to sleep was in rea­lity, enter­tai­ning. But they only suc­ceed in sen­ding those mas­ses into an even dee­per sleep with their mono­tone and patro­ni­sing phrasing.
8. Phil says:

   October 28, 2006 at 6:51 PM

   This theory see­med to work for such clas­sics as “Deep Blue Sea” and “Arma­ged­don”. There’s no accoun­ting for the tas­tes of 90% of the movie-going public.
9. v says:

   October 28, 2006 at 9:06 PM

   I guess no one is as fuc­king crea­tive as they think they are.
10. Tim Clague says:

    October 28, 2006 at 10:56 PM

    It would cer­tainly seem to be a way of making a you­tube hit film. The crap­per the better!