David, Please stop.
Nobody on this list (or frankly any list) deserves this type of abuse. I find it odd that in a post where you admit that you cannot know "who or what" I am, you clearly feel that its acceptable attack me at a personal level. Again, I apologize for questioning your opinions on the quality of recent Woody Allen films. Evan ----- Original Message ----- From: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:55:25 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [MOPO] OT - Evan Zweifel and David Kusumoto in Public Taking this off the old thread so people can delete this at will. Yeah, Evan, I've noticed you routinely enjoy making smarty-pants remarks about the views of other MoPo'ers, despite the fact that your posts have added nothing to MoPo - other than fecal noise - since the dawn of man. You're not quite a "rodxmorgan," but as a veteran of these boards, you seem to be a lonely, malodorous chap making dodgy comments about theater concessions, posters and the like, often without grace or humility. However, I do accept your "deepest most heartfelt apology" - despite its inane context - because it may be the first stirrings of something more sarcastically complex at work - beyond the mono-cell life form you project on these boards. Alas, most MoPo'ers, myself included, still have no idea, nor any grasp - nor perhaps, any interest - of who or what - an "Evan Zweifel" is. It's difficult because Evan Zweifel (if that's you're real name) - doesn't understand that releasing short bursts of verbal flatus - isn't the same as sharing more of yourself that proves that you're a person with a life outside of the Internet. My deepest most heartfelt apologies - and sympathies - for your aggrieved state. David -----Original Message----- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:40:37 +0000 From: evanzwei...@comcast.net Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sorry, I didn't realize that that note would send you over the edge, David. Please accept my deepest most heartfelt apology. I mistook your email clearly addressed to @Evan as a personal email to me which you mistakenly forwarded to the group. The other alternative (that you think 500 movie poster colloctors could possibly be interested in your views on recent Woody Allen films) never occured to me. Evan -----Original Message----- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:37:16 -0700 From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Evan - I hit "reply all" on purpose because your "pick on Woody Allen" note was sent to the entire group. If you can dish it out in public, then you should be able to take it. However, I'll take your advice and get a refund for my "tickets." I'll then ship the proceeds to you - so that you can go to a school that can raise your remedial communication skills to a more customer-friendly level. More good news: the amount of money it will take to help you will be significant enough to allow me to claim a nice deduction under Schedule A of my tax return. In the meantime, while awaiting those funds, please apply a liberal dose of Preparation H four times/day to relieve the itch from whatever part of your body is expressing itself at any given snapshot in time. Always happy to help. -d. -----Original Message----- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:52:02 +0000 From: evanzwei...@comcast.net Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I'm pretty sure you are familiar with the "Reply" button and the difference between it an the "Reply All" button. I still pay to see his films in the theater and especially enjoyed "Vicky Christina Barcelona", "Whatever Works", "Match Point", "Curse of the Jade Scorpion", "Deconstructing Harry", "Bullets Over Broadway" and "Mighty Aphrodite". I am sorry that you have been let down. Perhaps if you wrote him a polite letter he would refund your tickets. -----Original Message----- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:29:49 -0700 From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU @Evan - What? I'm the biggest Woody Allen fan in the world! I'm CONSTANTLY defending him among work colleagues. However, I consider "Annie Hall," "Manhattan," "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Crimes and Misdemeanors" to be his quartet of "comedy-drama masterpieces" that he'll never top even if he lives to be 100, which is likely, given the genes for longevity he inherited from his parents. Going to a Woody Allen movie used to be a major event; we never missed paying to see a Woody picture from 1971's "Bananas" to 1997's "Deconstructing Harry." I got my wife, who hated to even see him on the screen, to fall in love with him. (Her favorite film is "Hannah and Her Sisters.") We still liked him in lesser pictures like "Mighty Aphrodite" and the "Curse of the Jade Scorpion." The "stake in the heart" was sitting through three pictures that made us feel ripped off at the box office: 1) "Hollywood Ending" (despite a great promo poster featuring 52 images of the endings of great film classics), 2) "Anything Else" and, 3) "Whatever Works." OTHER than "Midnight in Paris," when is the last time anyone you know has PAID to see one of his films in a THEATER? You're damn right I'm bragging. If there is a Woody Allen picture that I've missed, I'd like to know. I've seen all of them and I don't consider "Midnight in Paris," for which he won his 4th Oscar, worthy at all. But my opinion does not matter; the Academy chose. I had a stone face watching that picture. (I'll never forgive the Academy picking "Platoon" as the Best Picture in 1986 over "Hannah," despite "Hannah" having 9 nominations and picking up awards for best screenplay and best supporting actor and actress (Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest.) Honestly, the BEST Woody Allen picture I've seen during the past 20 years (other than "Small Time Crooks" and "Match Point," which I like a lot) - wasn't even directed by him. It's a 2011 picture called, "Woody Allen: A Documentary." This three-hour opus flies by in a flash, features Woody being interviewed about EVERYTHING, warts and all, and includes clips from all of his movies including "Midnight in Paris." It's a sophisticated, big budget documentary that aired on PBS late last year in two parts - and is now available on DVD. This is a film that's worth BUYING, it's that damn good. Hell, we even saw Woody in person during one of his rare visits to Los Angeles - when we scored tickets to watch him play a one-hour jazz concert at the Jazz Bakery in Culver City during his "Jade Scorpion" publicity tour. Please visit the two links below; even though the quality of his output, in my view, has been erratic since about 1990, I still think Woody Allen is a living legend. http://www.amazon.com/Woody-Allen-A-Documentary/dp/B0064NTZKI/ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:33:11 -0500 From: brucehershen...@gmail.com Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU It's funny, because I was just going to ask if it was "be kind to Woody Allen" day, because I personally think his last really fine movie was in 1980! But I imagine that we can agree that his streak of ten straight incredible movies from 1969 to 1980 was something no one could live up to: 1980 Stardust Memories 1979 Manhattan 1978 Interiors 1977 Annie Hall 1975 Love and Death 1973 Sleeper 1972 Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask 1971 Bananas 1969 Take the Money and Run On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Evan Zweifel <evanzwei...@comcast.net> wrote: Is it pick on Woody Allen day? Mostly mediocre output since 1989? Really? He's been nominated for 11 Oscars since 1990. Granted 8 of them were writing -- suggesting that he's doing something right. Evan ----- Original Message ----- From: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:04:21 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent That's an excellent point, Dave. I hadn't thought of that. Meanwhile, the NY Times delivered its verdict today. Despite better returns expected from the overseas market, "John Carter" is going to be one of the biggest financial disasters in film history. The AP also grimly noted that most of "Carter's" fans are men OVER 25, which is terrible news from a business standpoint for a film the NY Times now says cost $350 million to make AND to market. How can you make a profit from that? You need younger patrons who are more avid movie goers than older people, who tend to stay home. This afternoon's article further infers that while Disney is today adopting a "point no fingers" stance, director Andrew Stanton was given a blank check based on his past performance with "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E." Disney apparently so feared angering a box office golden boy like Stanton - that the result was a Mike Cimino-like "Heaven's Gate" fiasco (which occurred after UA gave Cimino a blank check after his prior success with the "The Deer Hunter" in 1978-79). While Hollywood has always cared about overseas box office, production chiefs still craft their films foremost with U.S. audiences in mind. This is a country, after all, of 300 million. This explains the American-centric drive of U.S.-financed pictures that puzzle sophisticated audiences in the U.K., for example, e.g., the casting of William Holden in "Bridge Over the River Kwai," the singular U.S. perspective of the D-Day landing in "Saving Private Ryan," the casting of Steve McQueen and James Garner in "The Great Escape," etc. Even today, a U.S. film that does poorly here but makes up its investment overseas is considered a blemish to its prestige in the industry, e.g., Costner's "Waterworld," last year's "Cowboys and Aliens" and 1963's "Cleopatra" - the latter which nearly destroyed Fox. (Incredibly, the #1 overseas market for U.S. films is not in Europe - but in Asia, specifically Japan.) In the end, for all the clamor for better made pictures, the Hollywood model is still geared towards making money by targeting young people, resulting in an overall poorer quality product unless you purposely chase mature audiences (as in temperament, and not necessarily age) - such as independent films which can still make money because of low production budgets. It's why Woody Allen is still making films despite a mostly mediocre output since 1989. One thing for sure - despite the quality of "John Carter," Disney's and director Stanton's original plans to make two sequels of this film in the years ahead are dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all ----- Original Message ----- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:55:41 -0400 From: posteropo...@bell.net Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU True, "John Carter" is meaningless except to ERB fanboys, but Disney has had terrible luck with any movie with "Mars" in the title. Both last year's Mars Needs Moms and, from years ago, Misson to Mars were major flops. So Disney may be shying away from the whole Mars thing. And if they weren't before, they sure will now. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:39 AM Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent The sad thing is a film like "The Artist," which has done poor business in the U.S. despite winning the Oscar last month for Best Picture - is not considered a flop because it had a modest production budget. (BTW, if you haven't seen that film yet, hold your dollars; the film is being released on DVD next month.) But "John Carter," despite its merits, is headed toward becoming one of the biggest box office flops in Disney's history. Some say the film, which cost a whopping $250 million to make, may even lose this weekend's Friday through Sunday box office in the U.S. to "The Lorax." CinemaScore, the market research firm, says "John Carter's" demographic is running at 65 percent male, indicating the picture turns off women. The business projections for "John Carter" are so dire - that there's talk Disney may lose $100 million to $165 million on the picture. Audiences have no clue about much of this negative chatter of course, but some analysts say Disney made a huge marketing mistake with the film's title, which only resonates with Burroughs fans and to comic-book fanboys - by dumping its original working title, which was a more intriguing and mysterious, "John Carter on Mars" - and not just "John Carter." Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-disney-carter-20120310,0,2000583.story Entertainment Weekly: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/03/10/box-office-john-carter/ ----- Original Message ----- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:14:38 -0800 From: ariricha...@yahoo.com.au Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Very happy to hear these comments, as a long time Edgar Rice Burroughs fan. Always thought the Barsoom adventures would be fantastic on the big screen. Ari --- On Sun, 11/3/12, Richard Auras <ilovefi...@flash.net> wrote: From: Richard Auras <ilovefi...@flash.net> Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Received: Sunday, 11 March, 2012, 3:14 AM Caught it last night myself and can echo your sentiments. Best movie I have seen in a while. ----- Original Message ----- From: "kainb...@aol.com"<kainb...@aol.com> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sat, March 10, 2012 7:17:47 PM Subject: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent What an amazing science fiction movie...maybe one of the best for some time...highly recommended. Philipp Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
