EPISODE 540: artist profile of STAN LEE by · Published July 24, 2017 · Updated August 30, 2017 In this episode, Tyler and David talk about their favorite Stan Lee cameos as well as what constitutes existing IP.Related Posts:Episode 831: Individual Achievements 2022Episode 835: Oscars 2023 (Tyler's Take)Episode 839: Movies About AmnesiaTyler Takes On the Oscars and Other Stuff You Might Have…Episode 844: Movies About Old HollywoodEpisode 833: Top Ten Films of 2022Episode 840: Michael SnowEpisode 845: May Flowers Share
you don’t like ET?! Have you heard about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
Just kidding. I’ve never liked ET, but that’s mostly my aversion to movies about kids (including Pinocchio). Especially the Spunky Kids that were so popular in the ’80s.
I never understood the love for How I Met Your Mother. I’m not a huge Friends fan, but by and large those actors are genuinely funny and talented. The cast of HIMYM are bland “network TV good-looking” people robotically mimicking the rhythm of better sitcoms, never made me laugh. Exception is NPH, but his character, the incorrigable sexist ladies man, is so tired and gross and unfunny. Can’t believe David loves this show.
David, the problems you’ve cited with your recent watch of E.T. are probably specific to the Director’s Cut. There are extra scenes, only two, adding only four minutes of footage, yet they kind of screwed up the pacing. It seems insignificant, and they’re not terrible in themselves, but the only time I saw that cut was also the only time I noticed a little drag in this movie, and was more detached.
Also, some of the new shots (there are about 50) are just less cinematic. The new E.T. looks real as he runs up to a precipice to see the ship leave him behind, but in the original, the shot itself was lovely, and carried the emotion of the moment better. There are a few of those, especially early on, mere comparative sweeteners, I suppose, but that can be the difference between registering a plot fact and being drawn in.
I’m sure you won’t race to revisit this one anytime soon, but if you do ever, maybe try the original video cut rather than the 2002. The differences matter with this one, beyond mere purism.
I mostly agree with you. Here’s a question: do we consider Moonlight to be based on an IP? It technically is, but the play it’s based on was never produced. This is a different story from Whiplash, which was erroneously nominated for best “adapted” screenplay, even though it had all been written before Chazelle made the short film in order to fund attract funding for the feature.
Stan Lee is credited as appearing in X-Men Apocalypse, he wasn’t in First Class or Days of Future Past. He’s in Deadpool, but not any of the solo Wolverine films.
I guess I’m late to the party, but I feel you guys missed a possible interpretation when it comes to the IP discussion. Of course A Wrinkle in Time is existing IP. But depending on perspective, there are two kinds of IP. From the academic perspective here is literally Intellectual Property, basically not-an-original-screenplay. But from the economic perspective, IP basically means “inbuilt audience”. Are there rabid fans of A Wrinkle in Time that are counting down the days until release? Probably, but enough to actually have any economic impact? Maybe not. Basically, from this perspective A Wrinkle in Time “might as well” be an original story.
Of course, I’m guessing here. And I don’t think this reasoning is correct. After all, it’s not like Uwe Boll’s oeuvre (almost completely based on existing IPs) had any real economic success. And Assassin’s Creed showed us that merely using existing IP does not a succesful endeavour make.