Page 4 of 4

Re: Aussie Cin.

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:47 pm
by The Last Word
Deuce, would I be right in thinking the Aus. Govt. seem more concerned in promoting Aus. as a place for outside, namely American companies to invest in rather than its own home-grown product? I know several companies have studios there now (inc. Fox/Lucasfilms). Is it a tax thing? Our own Govt. did the same a while ago and tried to pass it off an investment for the British Film Industry, but no-one was fooled.

(And by the way - Breaker/Picnic/Gallipoli. Fair crack of the whip, as they say).

--
"Let's do it..."

Re: Aussie Cin.

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:40 pm
by Deuce Bigolo
Sydney has become the place for hollywood to make its blockbusters for one reason-it has all the facilities and a good crop of Aussie extras at dirt cheap prices

Not sure how much concessions and funding the government is giving but I would assume its substantial through the grants system

The state of Australian produce is pretty poor
Funding is one issue but not the major one IMHO

If you look at the best known Aussie/NZ actors/actresses the one thing they have in common with one or 2 exceptions is that they bypassed the Soaps
Too many of our current Aussie productions are full of ex-teen/20 something soap stars who were OK in that enviroment but shite and unbelievable outside of it

cheers
B....OZ

bryan brown

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:42 pm
by steve56
one of the best aussie actors around at the moment.

Re: bryan brown

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:36 pm
by Deuce Bigolo
They don't make em like him anymore...he's got that on film prescence that very few of todays light weight stars have

I've yet to see a bad performance of his

Similat sort of stature to Aussie Jack Thompson...larrikins...a dieing breed alas

cheers
B....OZ

Re: bryan brown

Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 7:48 am
by steve56
yes hes good in anything,the 1 where he finds old people being treated bad ray barret fellow aussie helps him in it too.

Re: Hand(job)made Films

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:30 am
by Bronson Lee
Ace wrote:

> Actually, Handmade(HMF) did not rescue the British Film
> Industry. The sucess of Chariots of Fire and Ghandi showed that
> we were still a force.

But Chariots of fire (1981) and Ghandi (1982) do not make up a decade !

Handmade(HMF)made some of the best and some of the worst British films ever . The list includes: Life of Brian (1979), The Long Good Friday (1980), Time Bandits (1981), Scrubber (1982), The Missionary (1982), Privates on Parade (1982), Bullshot (1983) A Private Function (1984), Water (1984), Mona Lisa (1986), Shanghai Surprise (1986), With-nail and I (1987), Bellman and True (1987), The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne (1987), Powwow Highway (1988), Checking Out (1988), How To Get Ahead in Advertising (1989), Cold Dog Soup (1989) and Nuns on the Run (1990).

Although there were triumphs to the end, Harrison also found himself bank-rolling some real turkeys. The problem was exacerbated by the tendency of Denis O'Brien, who suffered appalling lapses in judgement, to involve himself in the artistic side of the business

It was Harrison's money which kept the show on the road, though it had been drained at an alarming rate before he called it a day. Nuns of the Run was the final effort, ironically providing a modest success, as the curtain fell.

In 1994, HandMade Films, the most important British film company since the halcyon days of Ealing comedies, was sold to Paragon Entertainment Corp of Canada for a Miserable $8.5m

The following year, Harrison filed a $25m, 18-page lawsuit at the Los Angeles Superior Court against Denis O'Brien for allegedly mishandling his investments.

The case was decided in Harrison's favour, but it was not until February 1998 that he received $11m in damages.

The Long Good Friday (1980), Time Bandits (1981), The Missionary (1982), Privates on Parade (1982), A Private Function (1984), Mona Lisa (1986), With-nail and I (1987), How To Get Ahead in Advertising (1989)

As I said before Singlehandedly saved the British film industry during the Video revolution of the 80's.

And now what was so Phoney about BeatleMania ?

The crapy products Like Beatle Wigs , Beatle Boots ,Beatle tights !!!

Yes all that was Phoney .....but nothing to do with the band !

It was the merchandising deal with Nicky Byrne that gave the Beatles 10% of revenue from licensed products. Byrne and his partners set up offices in New York and began making millions of dollars on products that the Beatles
had NO say in ,and to be fair to Epstein, few music industry professionals at the time-let alone a music industry novice like Epstein-could ever imagine just how much money music merchandising could generate. To Epstein, any revenue from the sale of such ancillary "Beatle products" was just "found money" to supplement the Beatles' live and recording income .

So how come a Punk Public school boy who collects stamps gets to tell us whats Phoney ?

Re: Phoney Beatlemania

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:16 pm
by Ace
Strummer declared what most of us have thought for years, it was phoney......not the band, but the bollocks that went with it.
Y'know, Bigger than Jesus, Most original and complete band ever etc
No, right time and place, granted, but Rolling Stones were better than Beatles IMO.

I accept Harrison bankrolled HMF for years, but it WAS a hobby of his, British Films. And he wasn't short of a few quid was he?
What does irk me is the talent here selling out to the Yankee Dollar. We've lost great writers and that IS a pity.


Re: Phoney Beatlemania

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:53 pm
by steve56
much as i like the beatles ,you must admit that evreything went their way money wise,heard epstein would bribe local record shops to get beatles in 1st course it was only a rumour,the stones are still around ace,as is status quo 2 of englands finest bands no contest

Make cents?

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:30 pm
by The Last Word
I'm sure the 'talent here'(?) would love to sell out to the British dollar, were it available.

--
"Let's do it..."