It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:25 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Crisis in Six Scenes
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
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.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: Crisis in Six Scenes
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crisis in Six Scenes
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:17 am
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crisis in Six Scenes
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:15 pm 

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:45 am
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crisis in Six Scenes
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crisis in Six Scenes
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
He's saying that Scoop is the last thing in the general vicinity of this degree of weakness, though this is even weaker.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crisis in Six Scenes
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:17 am
Has anyone else seen the show or are you gentlemen going to argue over semantics? If so, I can recommend a symposium.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Woody Allen
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack
Ribs wrote:

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Woody Allen
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Ribs wrote:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Woody Allen
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
How can you measure failure for something like that though?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Woody Allen
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Woody Allen
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Woody Allen
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Woody Allen
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Maybe lots of the money went to "marketing"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Woody Allen
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Woody Allen
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection