|
>I was not saying that it >was the reason MOST people >didn't like it. Those are >the main two arguments I >hear over and over again.
There have been WAY too many low-budget and no-budget movies that were better - much better - than this for people to let it slide just because it had people we could relate to. This is the point I've made in my other posts on this movie, and I don't think it can be said enough. Good movies are good movies, regardless of the budget, props, actors, makeup whatever. And bad movies are bad.
>The script was >simple because it was a >story about his weekend how >deep do you want this >man to get?
I want him to get REAL deep. Else why bother? I don't mean he has to be serious and make message movies or whatever. But get serious about storytelling. Get deep about about character development. Go deeper within himself to offer us something more than his shallow relationships. I've had much more eventful weekends, yet I don't try to pass them off as stories.
This movie could have been a lot better if he simply would have done a solid rewrite and edit on the script. The problem most low budget films have really has nothing to do with the budget. The one thing that costs nothing - the script - is what they need to work harder on. Especially if you can't cover plot holes and paper-thin characters with special effects or cool shots (which doesn't work either). It's when you have no money that you have to make sure you have a solid script. And the less money you have, the tighter the script needs to be - or else people are going to be paying attention to his zits. That right there is a true sign of a weak script. If the story is riveting and involving, he could of had a booger hanging out his nose. No one would have cared.
>He was up against a wall. >He had no one else >to play him so the >eff else could have done >it. If you can't play >yourself in any scene thats >pretty sad.
A good rule for writing is that if the character is simply a stand-in for the writer, then it's a bad character. He's charming, maybe even charismatic, but that's not a solid character. From a production standpoint, the wise thing may have been to postpone the shoot. I guess it all worked out for him, though, so oh well.
But this brings up another good point with low budget films. Here is my impromptu list of the three most essential things for a low budget film: 1) tight script 2) solid acting 3) someone to keep the filmmaker in check, tell him when he's making a bad decision.
I don't remember who produced his film, whether he did it himself or not. But one of the roles of a good producer is to tell the director "no."
But, once again, it all worked out for him, so oh well. It's just that when a filmmaker (or anyone in any field) succeeds in spite breaking the rules, they have no incentive to go back and learn the rules. So while I'm happy for the guy, I'm not exactly excited about his next project, whatever it is.
>This was meant for peeps who >think that friday is a >better film when all that >damn movie does is bring >the culture back 5 steps >by bein a movie about >two weed smokin porch monkeys >man.
This is what happens when you try to address multiple audiences with one post.
>I love this >movie cause it was a >definite labor of love.
That doesn't make it a good movie. As I said in a different post, there are some good things in this movie. And it's okay to have guilty pleasures.
>this man did a million and >one things that half of >ya'll haters wouldn't even try.
Once again, the problem of addressing multiple audiences.
>It was funny and something >relatable unlike alot of black >movies. Plus it has sentimental >value...me and my sister really >didn't start bein close til >we watched this movie together...so >don't front on me til >you know real reasons thanks...
Okay, you're telling on yourself. It's okay to like the movie. It's okay to love the movie. But that doesn't make it a good movie.
Sorry for jumping in the middle of this.
RED (support GOOD film, not just black film)
RED http://arrena.blogspot.com
|