Crisis in Six Scenes

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Message
Author
User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Crisis in Six Scenes

#26 Post by The Narrator Returns » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:22 am

I'm only on the second episode (the first was mediocre but tolerable), but I think I can say with some certainty that Allen reprising the "I'm forbidding you!" bit from Manhattan Murder Mystery nearly word-for-word, with half the energy level and a tenth the amount of laughs, is the saddest moment of his career.

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Crisis in Six Scenes

#27 Post by The Narrator Returns » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:23 am

Okay, I've watched it all, and episodes two and three are awful, one and four are mediocre, and five and six are inexplicably really good. I'd still probably put it as my least favorite thing Allen has ever done, but I expected it to be a lot worse overall.

User avatar
ShellOilJunior
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:17 am

Re: Crisis in Six Scenes

#28 Post by ShellOilJunior » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:36 pm

This is bottom shelf Woody Allen. I have no problems with the casting. Cyrus is satisfactory, Elaine May is always fun, the old gals were hilarious and it's always good to see Rappaport (Even in such a small role). I thought the production was dull and checked my watch a few times. It's Allen's trademark neurosis/hypochondria/paranoia just in the 1960s. There are several riffs on classic Allen jokes on god and religion. All in all, it's Woody's weakest effort since Scoop (which is better than Crisis).

Crises appears like it was filmed as a feature and simply cut into 6 20-minute+ episodes.

Noiradelic
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:45 am

Re: Crisis in Six Scenes

#29 Post by Noiradelic » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:15 pm

ShellOilJunior wrote:All in all, it's Woody's weakest effort since Scoop (which is better than Crisis).
Doesn't "weakest effort since" imply that Scoop is weaker? Or are you making some fine point I'm missing?

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2843
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Crisis in Six Scenes

#30 Post by Ribs » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:19 pm

"Weakest since" would not be an inclusive statement and therefore it is saying Scoop was his most recent thing worse than this. This is a common grammatical conception that drives me batty.

User avatar
swo17
Posts: 13483
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Crisis in Six Scenes

#31 Post by swo17 » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:48 pm

He's saying that Scoop is the last thing in the general vicinity of this degree of weakness, though this is even weaker.

User avatar
ShellOilJunior
Posts: 498
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:17 am

Re: Crisis in Six Scenes

#32 Post by ShellOilJunior » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:32 am

Has anyone else seen the show or are you gentlemen going to argue over semantics? If so, I can recommend a symposium.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Posts: 1628
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: Woody Allen

#33 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:46 pm

To be fair, that $80m includes not just the production costs and but also licensing fees equivalent to most or all worldwide rights, possibly in perpetuity. But given that the production costs were probably similar to one of Allen's cheaper recent movies (let's say $10-15m), that's still a pretty hefty premium. Not that Amazon really worries much about turning a profit.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11701
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Woody Allen

#34 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:47 pm

Did anyone here, um, watch that? That budget is wild and likely establishes it as the biggest failure of Allen’s career, right?

User avatar
knives
Posts: 13963
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#35 Post by knives » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:49 pm

How can you measure failure for something like that though?

User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11701
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Woody Allen

#36 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:56 pm

Level of interest even among Allen’s fanbase + reviews (very unkind in this case, particularly in the more forgiving world of television) + how much money was spent ($80-100 million, way over what Allen’s films typically cost) = seems like a runaway with that title if one is going by those metrics.

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2843
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#37 Post by Ribs » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:12 pm

Presumably Allen just really didn't want to do it but they offered him a payment of like $20 million and gave him a ton of other money to pad out the cast. I really can't begin to imagine what other than on-camera talent would cause it to get that high.

User avatar
The Narrator Returns
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Woody Allen

#38 Post by The Narrator Returns » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:15 pm

I watched it, and I am just as baffled as you or anyone as to that cost. The money sure as hell wasn't on-screen (it's mostly set in one, not particularly elaborate, set, and it's maybe the least visually-ambitious thing Allen has ever made), so I can only guess the rest went into maintaining the furnace in Miley Cyrus's trailer.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Posts: 7318
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Woody Allen

#39 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:23 pm

Maybe lots of the money went to "marketing"?

User avatar
swo17
Posts: 13483
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Woody Allen

#40 Post by swo17 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:25 pm

As someone just mentioned earlier on this page, that budget includes a lot more than just production costs, which were probably more like $10-15 million.

User avatar
movielocke
Posts: 2320
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Woody Allen

#41 Post by movielocke » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:28 pm

Ribs wrote:Presumably Allen just really didn't want to do it but they offered him a payment of like $20 million and gave him a ton of other money to pad out the cast. I really can't begin to imagine what other than on-camera talent would cause it to get that high.
the big two, Amazon and Netflix, prepay residuals so that they don't ever have to pay them. A lot of people (like soderbergh were refusing to work with them because of the lack of residuals, so it seems their solution was massive wads of cash in lieu of residuals.

Allen has probably made twenty million in residuals from his top tier films like Annie hall, so I'm sure the number they asked for was near the top of what he's earned for his biggest hits. Then they paid it.

Post Reply