Lindsay Lohan: "Hot, Ready, and Legal!"

well everything can't be an eagerly anticipated masterpiece like Spring Breakers

I will def watch it when it's released, based on this article

Yeah, as much of a trainwreck as it sounds like, the article is probably the best PR it can get.

Like, when you watch the orgy scene, now you can picture a naked Paul Schrader behind the camera...

i kind of think once an article this entertaining has been written, the movie can only be a companion piece to it as opposed to vice versa

That was an awesome read and otm re Bowfinger

As long as colleges still screen movies, there'll be an afterlife. if anyone gets through the first 15 minutes.

I enjoyed that article but have never seen Bowfinger. Now I'm thinking I should.

i might put the dvd on tonight i'm getting nostalgic

bowfinger's awesome

it makes sense that he'd pass on that

It doesn't imply anything other than letting him do a cut. If nothing else, he might like some of it and keep it. The whole what-would-soderbergh-say-if-I-asked-to-cut-his-movie thing is just pre-emptive butthurt.

ehh he'd been struggling to get to direct a movie again for years and years, maybe he just didn't want to cede editing to anyone else? could be his favorite part of the process!

i don't think i would take kindly to the offer

and SS would probably drench everything in sepia tones

it totally makes sense that it would be his response though, since the offer from soderbergh implies that the film isn't very good and schrader has never come across as a guy who is keen on having other people interpret his vision, unless their name is scorsese.

moody cliff martinez score
film a quick cameo by the cloon
slightly fractured time structure

Man Hollywood is such a fucked up and weird place. I mean, I knew that, but glimpses like this just remind of how different of a world it really is the kinds of egos needed to survive there.

well everything can't be an eagerly anticipated masterpiece like Spring Breakers

― trey songza (some dude), Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:14 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark

is this some sort of zing at me? when have i ever given any indication that i care about spring breakers?

i am intrigued by spring breakers much for the same reasons that i'm intrigued by the canyons

One of my favorite shots in The Limey looks like it was some kind of light-meter test or something, with Peter Fonda standing on his deck. Imagining Soderbergh coming back with lots of Lindsay drinking soda for the camera and the like (and I'd be there opening day).

Hmm, now I'm wondering if Lohan wouldn't have been great in the Limey

Lohan circa now, that is.

not really a zing on you personally, just was thinking about ilx's attitude towards this trainwreck vs. that trainwreck

i don't think i would take kindly to the offer

I would. What do you have to lose, except your ego? It was already rejected by Sundance, you don't owe Soderbergh anything, not even using a single cut of his in your final release, and you might get some help in what appears to be a pretty slack, at times, 90 minutes.

i care about my ego

that's just me tho

I care about my money more

of all the decisions Schrader made in this project, is that really one of the more puzzling or objectionable ones by any measure?

also considering what generation he's from and who he's worked with, maybe he just considers Soderbergh a worthwhile person to talk to and consult but not someone he'd shit his pants over working with?

it's also just like . . . why WOULDN'T you be insulted? i think my instinct would be to preserve my sense of personal accomplishment and integrity rather than think about money

if some singer offered to step in front of my microphone and lay down some of my tracks for me i would be . . . pissed

then again i don't know how movies work, if this stuff happens all the time or not

just speaking personally

anytime anything gets taken away from you (or even the implication that it could get taken away), ppl get pretty defensive. you have to imagine having worked on something for a long time and then someone who has no involvement w/it offers (or is offered) to change it up.

people aren't thinking from the perspective of a lunatic legendary filmmaker who thought it was a good idea to team up with lindsay lohan and bret easton ellis for a micro-budget movie, they're thinking from the perspective of someone who wants to salvage some $$$ from this adventure

if you think about it in creative terms, ie this is something you've created from start to finish, and had your hands in every aspect of its development and realization, showing it to a peer for feedback and having them offer to edit it...I mean, there's no way Shrader says anything but no in this situation, to me at least

If it was something he hated working on and was just a ringer or whatever, that would be different.

yeah there are lots of directors who would be like HAVE AT IT, STEVIE, BETTER YOU THAN THAT VP OVER THERE if this was some studio fiasco but they probably wouldn't touch this movie in the first place

exactly

i would be . . . pissed

Film is famously collaborative. You can be a director and not have final cut, for example. Or it can be like Bertolucci's final cut of 'The Last Emperor' and be worse than the studio release. Editing is an immensely important part of cinema but relatively cheap compared to actually shooting. I'm just saying when there are that many red lights and you can not only talk to Soderbergh but he offers you three days of editing, I'd just be curious to see what he came up with and if any of it worked for me, I'd be all, "Sweet! Thanks, Steve!"

i feel like your premise requires that a guy who was working with Scorsese when Soderbergh was in short pants to be all STEPHEN SODERBERGH with stars in his eyes

"gee, thanks, steve!" vs "i was having awful sex with natassija kinski on the set of cat people when you were cutting together Yes concerts you fuckwad"

Actually, it means that someone who's been in film that long should be aware that a freebie from someone who's been that successful is something you shouldn't just refuse in a fit of pique. Fuck stars in your eyes. Give him a shot, see what he sees. Use what you like and don't use what you don't like. All Soderbergh could really do in 72 hours is re-cut some scenes to change the pacing. Given that the Marmont opening scene sounds like it's kinda limp, see what Sbergh can do with that since plausibly it's gotta be a shotcoming he sees too.

LOL @ da croupier

Michael your magical utopia denies the existence of ego ie the thing that powers the entirety of hollywood

I'm never making a microbudget with any of you fart-through-silk 'artists', that's for sure, esp. not with my own money.

is it just me or did it just get real in here

Man, I worked on small budget movies where the line producer would have ordered me to persoanlly blow Soderbergh if they could just get him to talk to the DP for 15 minutes much less spend 72 hours of his valuable time to re-edit the friggin' movie...

I respect Shrader, though. He probably didn't take umbrage at an offer so much as felt that 72 hours wasn't enough time to 'fix' the movie and the condescending thing was to offer so little.

The director is Shrader. Sure if it's you or anyone else who's struggling to get their movie made they'd do it. But given who Shrader is, his work up to this point, the fact that even when he's desperate he's still Paul Shrader and he knows it and he wants HIS name on it even if it tanks, it makes sense that he would turn down Soderbergh. This isn't just any small-budget movie. It's Shrader's small-budget movie

Anyway, cool article. I love that he brought up 'The Misfits'. My gf's a huge Gable fan and she basically blames Monroe for killing him. The comparison between Lohan and Monroe and the implication that Deen is an old-fashioned studio-style pro was pretty interesting. I wonder what LiLo even knows about Gable apart from GWTW.

it makes sense that he would turn down Soderbergh.

Why did he screen it for him in the first place?

i assumed for a critical point of view

undoubtedly for his two cents, and yeah i think you're right that he was shutting down that specific scenario (in the article he talks about how he'd need 72 hours to even go through the footage) rather than any input whatsoever

how many directors screen their movie for other directors with the intent of 'please edit this for me'