and if you don't think there is such a thing.....YOU WRONG.

Bicycle Thieves
Late Spring
Winter Light
Vertigo
Mccabe & Mrs. Miller

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the original 1990 one)
Punch-Drunk Love
Donnie Darko
Solaris (the Clooney one).

these are movies i could watch a million times and love it more and more. i see no faults in them.

V.

> Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the original 1990 one)


Classic movie.

The Godfather Part II
Casablanca

three kings
shaun of the dead
se7en
rushmore
raising arizona

!sig!
www.myspace.com/gemini2one

"When I heard they were banning the word Nigger I got on the phone with my accountant and told him to buy 800 shares of Coon" - Chris Rock

and I know it's not a movie, but The Wire.

------------
It must be spring, because I have a Papelboner.

The punch. That's it though.

>The punch. That's it though.

If it's not 100 though, it's definitely a 99.

------------
It must be spring, because I have a Papelboner.

but The Wire - is this the best TV show ever made? I think it is.

I mean you can rave about the Simpsons et al all you want, but lets face it there are dozens of wack simpsons episodes. The Wire has been nothing but pure brillaince in every episode (though I've only seen season 1-3, 4 is currently standing at 61.5% on my torrents though!). But even just based on seasons 1-3 man that show is just more gripping than anything else I've ever seen on TV. Now I know PTP rides The Wire hard, but still whos with me on this?

Twilight Zone. Not to discredit the Wire. It's up there. But the Twilight Zone tops all.

-- Nate

Mirror
The Circus (Chaplin)
Early Summer
Nights of Cabiria
Flowers of St. Francis
The Third Man
Passion of Joan of Arc
Winter Light
Young Mr. Lincoln
Dumbo
In the Mood For Love
Aguirre, the Wrath of God

I wouldn't touch a frame on any of these films.

There are a lot of great films that seem as if they could improve from some slight alteration but aren't really any less great because of it. I think a desire for perfection can actually hamper a lot of artists from tackling the stuff that is actually more important. Pasolini films are less perfect than, say, Wes Anderson films, but they are much greater works of art.

can't wait

M
Fight Club
Bicycle Thief
Sugarcane Alley
South Park the movie
Battle of Algiers
Within Our Gates
Children of Men
Miller's Crossing
Old Boy

and quite a few others

probably my favorite movie.


PEACE

The Thin Red Line
Badlands
L'Avventura
Les 400 Coups
Swingers
North by Northwest
E.T.

currently under consideration: Children of Men

I don't understand why this movie isn't given more classic status.

4 minutes shy of 2 hours, CLASSIC lines, extremely rewatchable, tons of bit parts filled by future 'names' - everyone acknowledges it's good, so why isn't it on every greatest movie list?

How many of those AFI 100 movies are this good?

V.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount

Buchwald v. Paramount
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Buchwald v. Paramount (1990) was a breach of contract lawsuit filed and decided in California in which humorist and writer Art Buchwald alleged that Paramount Pictures stole his script idea and turned it into the 1988 movie Coming to America. Buchwald won the lawsuit and was awarded damages, and then accepted a settlement from Paramount before any appeal took place.

The decision was important mainly for the court's determination in the penalty phase of the trial that Paramount used "unconscionable" means of determining how much to pay authors. Paramount claimed, and provided accounting evidence to support the claim, that despite the movie's US$350 million in revenues, it had earned no net profit, according to the definition of "net profit" in Buchwald's contract, and hence Buchwald was owed nothing: a classic example of Hollywood accounting. The court agreed with Buchwald's argument that this was "unconscionable", and therefore invalid. Fearing a loss if it appealed, and the subsequent implications of the unconscionability decision across all its other contracts, Paramount settled for undisclosed terms. The case was the subject of a 1992 book, Fatal Subtraction: The Inside Story of Buchwald v. Paramount by Pierce O'Donnell, the lawyer who represented Buchwald, and Los Angeles Times reporter Dennis McDougal.

Timeline

In 1982, Buchwald wrote a screen treatment that was pitched to Jeffrey Katzenberg of Paramount, with the intention of starring Eddie Murphy, who was under contract to Paramount at the time. Paramount optioned the treatment in early 1983 and commissioned several unsuccessful scripts from several screenwriters. John Landis was considered as the director from time to time. After two years of development hell, Paramount decided to abandon the project in March 1985.

In May 1986, Paramount's rival Warner Bros. optioned Buchwald's treatment.

In the summer of 1987, Paramount began to develop a movie that was credited as being based on a story by Eddie Murphy, and which was to be directed by John Landis. The story outline seemed similar to Buchwald's story idea, and to the failed Paramount scripts that had been based on it.

In January 1988, Warner Bros. cancelled their version of Buchwald's project, citing the Paramount project.

When the movie Coming to America was released by Paramount in 1988, Eddie Murphy was given story credit. Buchwald was not paid, or credited as the story writer. Buchwald sued Paramount for breach of contract, as his contract with Paramount stated that he would be paid a certain amount if his treatment were made into a film.

Decision

The California Superior Court decided in 1990 that Buchwald had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his story treatment—and Paramount's unsuccessful scripts based on the treatment—were "similar" to that of the Coming to America movie. Together with the evidence that Murphy and Landis previously had access to Buchwald's treatment, the court determined that the movie's story was indeed "based upon" Buchwald's treatment. Since Paramount never paid Buchwald, as the option agreement specified would occur if a movie based on his treatment were ever released, Paramount did indeed breach the contract.

(The court went out of its way to avoid criticizing Murphy, who, it said in its holding, was a "creative genius" just as Buchwald was, and the fault in the whole matter lay with Paramount.)

In the second phase of the trial in which the court determined the appropriate amount of damages to be paid to Buchwald, Paramount testified that despite the movie's US$350 million in ticket sales, it had spent so much money on the movie's development and marketing that, according to the formula specified in Buchwald's contract, Paramount had made "no net profit". The court then found that the formula was "unconscionable" and that Buchwald therefore could pursue a separate tort lawsuit against the company.

Fearing a loss on appeal and, presumably, a wave of lawsuits by authors claiming they, too, had been wronged by the unconscionable net profit formula, Paramount settled with Buchwald for an undisclosed amount of money. As part of the settlement, the "unconscionability" decision was vacated.

Implications

Hollywood accounting has long been derided as a cynical attempt by movie studios to cheat individual authors out of royalty payments. The accounting formulas used by the studios have allegedly been designed specifically to ensure that it is almost mathematically impossible for any movie to show a net profit. Specifically, the net profit formula in authors' contracts does not correspond to the net profit formula of generally accepted accounting principles that the movie studios use when creating their financial statements that are reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and to the investing public. The "unconscionable" formula in the authors' contracts effectively double-counts many costs borne by the movie studio.

Some commentators have claimed this lawsuit was a watershed that would affect Hollywood's payments to anyone who enjoyed "profit participation", by forcing a change to the net profit formulas. However, another California Superior Court ruled in Batfilm Productions v. Warner Bros. in the case of the 1989 Batman movie that a similar formula was not unconscionable. To date, there has been no review of this type of claim by an appellate court, meaning that the superior courts cannot look to an appellate court's decision for guidance. The "watershed" role of this lawsuit has therefore not been demonstrated.

Still, the case has caused nearly all studios and production companies to be more careful about how they handle scripts. Concerned that "similarities" between future script drafts and movies could cause lawsuits, nearly all studios and production companies now return unsolicited scripts to their authors unopened.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount"

Categories: United States contract case law | United States tort case law | California state case law

V.

If I thought dude wrote any more than "Eddie Murphy is an African prince that comes to QUEENS to find a wife" there may be a problem.

If I thought Washington Post columnist Art Buchwald had Soul Glo in him, Sexual Chocolate, Eddie as numerous characters - if he wrote the Peaches breast rap - maybe my appreciation would be tainted.

Dude was one of a million people that pitched a story for the hottest comedian/actors on the planet & SETTLED for a little piece for his effort.

Hell, I'd like to see Buchwald's script and compare. I'm sure he, like most Jewish writers, held the African prince, and all of the Black characters, in the highest regard...cause you know how Jewish writers are always writing for Black actors.

In conclusion, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.
Who's next.


(I say fuck you in jest, not as a direct insult.)

>If I thought dude wrote any more than "Eddie Murphy is an
>African prince that comes to QUEENS to find a wife" there may
>be a problem.

He did write more than that. If you look at the Wikipedia entry that I posted you'll see the following:

"In 1982, Buchwald wrote a screen treatment that was pitched to Jeffrey Katzenberg of Paramount, with the intention of starring Eddie Murphy, who was under contract to Paramount at the time."

A treatment is much, much more than "Eddie Murphy is an African prince that comes to Queens to find a wife." You don't lose a huge lawsuit because a guy had a half of an idea.

>Dude was one of a million people that pitched a story for the
>hottest comedian/actors on the planet & SETTLED for a little
>piece for his effort.

Again, you're wrong. Dude was THE GUY who wrote a complete treatment for a very specific movie idea. Just so you know a treatment is usually a pretty detailed description of the story idea, the characters, the setting, ideas for jokes, etc. There's a reason they lost the lawsuit.

i'm not arguin that Art didn't get the ball rolling, but i'm convinced that the truly classic parts of the movie came from eddie....no one can convince me Art came up wit randy watson, "martin luther the king", mcdowells, etc....i think he did come up wit alot, the studio tried to screw him and eddie didn't give a fuck cause he was gonna get a bigger check...

when I was growing up, and although I believe that people should be paid for their work, I don't believe that he could have written a screenplay that approaches cult or classic status.

Also, Wallace Stegner had a similar theft problem and the result was one of his best books, Angle of Repose. Not many people seem to know that about Stegner. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but the book is certainly brilliant and I strongly suspect that what he did with the material was immeasurably better than what his student could have done with it.

He came up with the concept and wrote the treatment. The movie doesn't exist without Buchwald.

>Also, Wallace Stegner had a similar theft problem and the
>result was one of his best books, Angle of Repose. Not many
>people seem to know that about Stegner.

The only reason I even know his name is because of the fellowship. That, and someone in my wife's family had a professional relationship with the guy. I never knew he was a thief.

And there's something to be said for "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels."

touch of evil
psycho
heat
in the mood for love
good bad ugly
children of men
kill bill
lost highway
eyes wide shut
memento
le samourai
unforgiven
straw dogs
hero
the killer

Psycho
Children of Men
Fantasia
Pinocchio
Rear Window

n/m

V.

V.

i overlooked this post. but co-sign nonetheless.

!sig!
www.myspace.com/gemini2one

"When I heard they were banning the word Nigger I got on the phone with my accountant and told him to buy 800 shares of Coon" - Chris Rock

Children of Men

that's off the top... I don't got many lol

>Children of Men
>
>that's off the top... I don't got many lol

ikiru
dr strangelove
barry lyndon
the pianist
the wild bunch
the apartment

City of God
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Seven Samurai
Rear Window
Goodfellas
Fight Club
Raging Bull
Amelie
Old Boy

I damn near also offered Chasing Amy



!sig!
www.myspace.com/gemini2one

"When I heard they were banning the word Nigger I got on the phone with my accountant and told him to buy 800 shares of Coon" - Chris Rock

thats it!!!

i NEVER thought i would fall so hard for another, as i did for kill bill.

i watch lady vengeance about once a week.

> Back to the Future

Yeah, I gotta agree with Back To The Future.

goodfellas

big fish
good will hunting
rounders
lion king
road to perdition
ronin
life aquatic
and the goonies (truffle shuffle seals the deal)

>


I recently saw this one, I liked it but c'mon . . . perfect?

Children of Men
City Of God
Kill Bill
Motorcycle Diaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoboCop

and Casablanca wasn't bad either.

uh...theres more but i cant think of em now


barack is my homeboy:
www.barackobama.com

top 3 songs for spr. 07 (so far)
1) git it shawty
2) git me bodied
3) imma buy you a drank

City of God
Carlito's Way
The Goonies
Terminator II