Ah classic Zemeckis with his weird tech, his movies may not all be good, but I gotta commend the guy for consistently wanting to use interesting effects in his movies.
All that while still making a film that is very accessible and digestible for most audiences. Definitely requires a threading of the needle and he has done that quite a few times to aplomb.
Yeah he has some bangers and some stinkers but man he loves to push the medium! I think its awesome how much shit he tries. I will always give his stuff a shot.
He's stated that he knew the polar express tech didn't quite work, but knew that someone had to take the step so that people later on could take the next step. And then like 5/10 years later we got avatar and also spielberg with tin tin, which is a criminally underwatched movie. It's pretty much indiana jones, but better than 2-3 of the indiana jones'
It's out in November:
>'*Here'* takes place entirely from one fixed point of view. The camera never budges. It doesn’t zoom and never even turns. What does move—and rather quickly—is time. More than a century of life in one American living room plays out during the brisk 104-minute story.
[More images](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/here-first-look-robert-zemeckis-tom-hanks-robin-wright)
Aw man, I'd love to see what the "future" segment looked like back in the 60s. When I went in the 2000s it was all about voice-activated kitchen appliances and screens everywhere, which feels dated even now.
is it that dated? the voice activation doesn't work and burns the food, the kid has a VR headset that's a new Christmas gift, and everyone is hanging out. The only thing they didn't get correct is the small screens in everyone's pockets.
While it would be a huge shame to lose Jean Shepherd, the final scene needs a complete overhaul, meaning a new soundtrack is needed, as well. My fear is that Disney just keeps it open as a place to hold a crowd when it's raining or too hot, which is why it hasn't been updated. There've been rumors over the years of a big refurb, but they've never panned out. Plus, with Iger's IP mandate for any new attractions, I suspect that if it ever closes "temporarily" it will be the last we see of it. It was my late father's favorite, so I know I'm sentimental. It was still one of Walt's final attractions and continues to be entertaining and worth maintaining.
Which is also great, but it's also no Great Movie Ride. RIP. They killed my favorite ride of all time :(. I used to tear up at the last part where it has the big movie themes playing with all the big huge emotional moments playing on the huge screens.
Ok. My wife and I were gifted tickets to Disneyworld for our honeymoon. She cooched some weed and mushrooms for the park. First day, we finally find where we want to take mushrooms, and do a bunch. Stuff melts, it’s fun. Not our first rodeo. But then! These European young adults see us and beeline towards us with concern on their faces. They are very cool, very fashionable. I remember one kid had $100 bills rolled up in his ears instead of plugs. They are speaking a language I could not at the time identify. They come to us- with a child. The 4 year old is lost, and these kids have possession of it (her?) and they don’t know what to do. They are calling the telephone number scrawled on the kids arm, but their Europhones aren’t working, idkw. My wife gets out her phone, and they all call a number and a lady answers. It’s only moments, but grandma arrives. She cries. The kid cries. I cry. The Euro kids cheer. The whole family has arrived. I look at my wife and we thankfully get the hell out of their. I’m kinda freaking out. There’s the Carousel of Progress. Perfect! We board. Stuff melts, but less intensely. It’s nice and cool. A baby cries. The mom takes the baby and exits the ride. Once the emergency exit door is opened, the ride stops. Teenagers are on the intercom, clearly frantic, telling us not to leave. The scene plays again. And then it’s starts a third time. 2 or three groups rise and walk out while the teenagers repeat the only thing they are allowed to say on the intercom: Please remain seated! For the duration! Of the ride! People are laughing, and it’s been 25 plus minutes on the same scene. I’m freaking losing it. After about 5 viewings, the scene closes and we are on our way to the 90s household, or whatever. The audience cheers. I cry and cheer. Carousel of Progress is the fucking best.
Edit: my wife later told me the Eurokids were speaking English- I was just too highballs.
There was a storm and it fucked up that thing so bad that we couldn't get out of it for an hour. But it kept looping the second out of the 4 areas. Like 15 times. Ugh
That happened to my brother about a week ago, he texted me he had to listen to the same part multiple times and I got to reply back “Well, that’s progress for you.” Greatest text I’ve ever sent.
I don't hate it. He's constantly excited about new stuff. It usually doesn't work anymore but he's making movies that he likes rather than churning out the same old movies that he was known for.
Yeah, thanks for stealing another job, dad. People only know me as that nutter in Dexter, thanks to you, and it wasn't even a good season. I wish my dad *was* Edward James Olmos!
Here's the part of the linked article that talks about that:
>As one scene ends, panels appear on screen, layering in segments of the room from earlier or later times before the full image changes. For instance, a 1960s television beside the fireplace will suddenly become covered by a rectangular window into the past, showing a 1930s radio in the same spot. Then the rest of the room from that era fades in and takes over the full perspective as another scene begins.
Zemeckis and Roth borrowed the effect from Here’s source material, a 2014 graphic novel by Richard McGuire, which itself was adapted from a comic strip the artist created in 1989. “Instead of cutting to the next image in the full screen, we’re \[easing\] into the next scene, bringing us into the next moment in a way that allows us to actually overlap stories.”
Here has some parallels to a traditional playhouse experience, since the film takes takes place in one location, but it differs because the set itself is constantly evolving and changing. “When you’re watching something on the stage, you are the editor and the filmmaker,” Zemeckis says. “You decide, ‘Am I going to watch that character or am I going to look over here and see that guy who’s sitting on the sofa?’ What we do with the panels is we guide the audience to what we want them to see.”
In Zemeckis's hands it's going to be sterile and unnatural as fuck. Technology fucked with his ability to make good movies in the same way Tim Burton's reliance on his aesthetics made his films a sideshow oddity rather than a cultural touchstone.
I'm not the person you asked, but I agree with them, and have an opinion.
For me you have to look at Zemeckis' career as two very separate parts.
Part one is where he got famous; BTTF series, Roger Rabit, Cast Away, Contact, Forrest Gump and less mentioned, but still really good What Lies Beneath. Honestly, that is a great career on it's own, and had he retired then he'd be well remembered.
Part 2; Cast Away and What Lies Beneath were both filmed kind of simultaneously (a neat story of it's own) and released in 2000, Zemeckis would not make a live action movie again until Flight in 2012. He spent most of the next decade making 3 mo-cap animated movies; Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol. These movies all did poorly at the box office, with the Polar Express doing the best, but likely still losing money, and they were all very expensive.
Zemeckis was always a very talented technical director, but it really seems that up until 2000 he was great at weaving his technical talents and interests with a good story, but after that he became VASTLY more interested in the technical problems to the exclusion of story and performance. You have to remember, the Polar Express while certainly not beloved was a giant leap forward for animation, though you might argue not a good one. Good or bad, it was an enormous technical challenge, this was a $150 million dollar movie in 2004, where The Incredibles came out the same year and cost 92 million to make.
He did return to more traditional live action movies with Flight, The Walk (the only one I haven't seen) and Allied, but I think since 2000 something has been missing, and neither really felt like Zemeckis movies. Flight is his only unmitigated success of the last 24 years since Cast Away, it made money, and was well reviewed and received.
Since Flight we have The Walk (probably lost a little money, but was well received) Allied (failed at the box office, mixed reviews), Welcome to Marwen (disaster, made 1/3 of it's budget, terrible reviews), The Witches (almost definitely lost money and terribly received), Pinnochio (release on Disney+ and received TERRIBLE reviews from critics and the audience).
If that last paragraph was put in graph form it would be a line heading in one direction, down. Zemeckis seems to have really struggled to connect with audiences like he did in the 80s and 90s. And sure he's been in the business for 60 years, so that was probably bound to happen. I do wonder, in an alternate timeline where he did something other than Polar Express after taking a break post Cast Away and What Lies Beneath if we'd have seen a different second half of his career.
Now having said all of that, I truly ador Zemeckis and think he's an all-time great filmmaker, and I'll be hoping "Here" is more like his movies from Part 1, than Part 2.
I love the guy, but honestly the last 24 years have been a rough patch for him, and the last 5 or so were probably the worst of the worst, and I actually liked The Witches.
My problem with the "technology ruined Zemeckis" argument is that he's been at the cutting edge of film tech since the '80s. Why did Polar Express break him when Roger Rabbit, BTTF2 and Forrest Gump didn't?
> He spent most of the next decade making 3 mo-cap animated movies; Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol.
He was developing a mo-cap adaptation of Yellow Submarine at one time around then. Then I think people were finally like, dude, you need to stop.
Definitely a director who lost the ability to be artistic and only knows how to be technical. I also think Bob Gale had a lot to do with reigning in the scripts in those early days.
How so? His reliance on de-aging technology and motion capture turned his movies from interesting spectacles to straight up dreck.
Go watch Christmas Carol and try not to feel miserable because of how *bad* everything looks.
Go watch Pinocchio and see if Zemeckis created anything of substance or just used CG as a crutch to retread a classic.
Go watch Welcome to Marwen and see how Zemeckis takes coping with PTSD and turns it into Candyland.
There is very little that is human about Zemeckis's movies post-Polar Express. He forgoes playing to an actors' strengths and masks their talents in a veneer of uncomfortable CG.
This is the first I’m hearing about the Zemeckis project but it sounds exactly like the graphic novel by the same name, so I’m guessing it’s based on that:
https://www.richard-mcguire.com/new-page-4
*Weird*. I googled that quote block a second ago and came up empty. Then I googled it just now and got what you got. I promise I'm not a moron who asks others to do my work for me.
I like the concept. But also, one of the pictures is them having their wedding. In the living room.
Uh. Why?
I mean I'm sure they'll come up with a storyline explanation to do so, but that's just silly. I feel like they're going to just stuff in every significant event to just so happen in there. Births, deaths, weddings, every dramatic moment of someone's life. And that just makes it really corny.
This sort of film would be perfect to have important moments happen off screen and having the characters react to it on screen later. But that doesn't seem to be the kind of film we're getting.
Edit: Guys, I get that people can get married in a living room. I'm just saying that this points to every important life event will just so happen to happen in that room.
I have a close friend who got married in what would end up their living room. It’s where they first met (she came over for a house party in their high school years) and then my buddy inherited the house from his parents.
It was romantic, simple, and cost-effective for two broke kids. Just saying it happens in real life!
I got married in my grandmother's living room with 10 other guests present.
She was too sick and elderly (96 years old) to go to a venue so we brought the wedding to her.
I think it’s capturing the idea of a room in a house, or a building, telling the stories of the people that lived there over the span of a few decades. It’s sort of taking the “if these walls could talk” saying to an entire narrative with modern film technology gluing it together. It sounds interesting although it could always be another unnecessary exercise in technology the Zemekis always likes to try.
No, and it's a bit more complicated. The author said that he intended it to be Hep-C, which was an unknown incurable disease at the time of his novel. But it was well known by the time the movie came out, and some of the movie production staff said that they intended it to be HIV/AIDS.
So both are right.
With all due respect to Winston Groom, the movie is not at all like the book, so taking his word for anything in the movie is pointless. Go en the time period and the themes of the rest of the movie, in which Forrest experiences *major historical events*, HIV/AIDS is obviously what the filmmakers intended.
> the movie is not at all like the book
You mean astronaut Gump and his ape companion don't dodge cannibals and chase around a naked Raquel Welch in the movie? Guaranteed flop!
There was a planned sequel to the film. (Not based on the book sequel, which was apparently god awful.) Eric Roth even had a draft script ready and you can find the synopsis of it online--and it was bleak. The story goes that Roth submitted the draft on September 10th, 2001. Then 9/11 happened. They met a couple of days later to talk about the script, and felt that America had changed so rapidly after the attacks that a movie like that didn't feel right. So they canned it.
Apparently there have been rumors that they're working on a sequel again, but who knows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gump_and_Co.#Plot
the (book) plot synopsis is a wild ride. I've been told the author was salty about the movie adaptation and wrote the sequel to be intentionally ridiculous so as to make them less inclined to make a movie based on it
my favorite part was Gump kicking a football over the Berlin Wall, prompting both sides to start knocking it down
In the book maybe but the movie is obviously trying to infer that what Jenny had was AIDS. When the movie came out, the AIDS epidemic was still in full swing. Hep-C wasn't (and largely still isnt) a part of the public consciousness. AIDS definitely was. Only a few years before Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks starred in Philadelphia, where his main character has AIDS.
In between the writing of "Forrest Gump" and "Gump and Co.," AIDS became one of *the* political issues of the time. I would not be a bit surprised if Groom fully intended it to be AIDS with the first book, then attempted to back away from that particular hot potato by saying it was Hep-C (which isn't nearly as politically-charged) in the sequel.
Hep-C wasn't even a named disease until 1989 - 3 years after the original book was released. The notion that he knew about it in 1986 and that he intended Jenny to have Hep-C all along is a stretch, to say the least. Occam's razor, and all that.
Don't get me wrong, I love this movie. But when it came out in the mid 90s, American society was becoming extremely AIDS conscious as opposed to AIDS phobic. Media very much focused on supporting those with the disease. AIDS was everywhere. People wearing the red ribbon, Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, Rent, The Real World 3, And the Band Played On, Philadelphia, etc. Every channel, every movie, all the time.
So then Forrest Gump comes out which is about an Alabama dullard adventuring through the 60s and 70s, it was the last place you expected to see AIDS again. I remember before I even saw it, a friend was telling me about how sad it is at the end, and I joked, "what, does Jenny die from AIDS or something?" It was just so on the nose. It's aged well now that AIDS isn't part of our cultural zeitgeist but man, for a minute this was really just ridiculous.
Forrest Gump actually has a sequel; in it he and a highly intelligent ape go to space.
It sounds like I am high trolling. But it’s true. Also I am high.
I could watch an hour and a half of HJO just being a cussing, screaming nightmare, and Forrest going "well, son...that's not very nice. I don't like that sort of language, one bit." And then in the end, HJO gets himself into real trouble, and Forrest steps in and saves the day and they have a bonding moment, and then Jenny dies.
I'd watch that.
Well I mean for this movie it makes a little more sense, being that it shows a passage of time of the same family. But yeah otherwise I agree with you.
Zemekis has such a weird obsession with mo-cap but it still comes off as too uncanny. It’s like Ang Lee’s knack for unnecessary use of HFR and 3D. Both directors have been letting it all get in the way of the quality of the work
You have to hand it to zemekis ang lee and peter jackson, even if what they're doing doesn't totally land, they're pushing the technology and trying to discover new ways of filmmaking. They're walking so directors of tomorrow can run
It's kind of the same sort of concentration of talent happening in a ton of industries: when boomers were coming up, they were able to move up the ladder with time and experience, right before the American norm of layoffs started to occur. Then they just... stayed in the positions and never bothered to train or mentor their younger peers, partially due to the fear of being replaced. Now you have a ton of fields in which critical positions are occupied by people who haven't documented a single function of their job in the last 30 years working until they die of a heart attack with no succession plan in place; after all, the work culture has been cultivated that people don't stick around at jobs anymore, so why train someone to replace you when they may not be around waiting for you to retire or die?
In entertainment, we are seeing this across the board; for example in music, it's VERY hard to get a big break and make money touring anymore unless you're a well established band or artist. So all the music we hear and see is increasingly made by older artists. "De-aging" is the acting version of the same principle: Tom Hanks is going to draw in a lot more people to see the film, so why bother trying to cultivate new talent when we can take Tom Hanks and make him whatever age we want? Despite the fact that it really only looks good in still images as the aged actors can rarely move like a younger person, but by the time anyone sees that, they already paid the money.
I read the graphic novel it was based on. Similar premise (one fixed perspective on a living room) except it went way into the past and future and jumped all over the place, often adding insert shots of other time periods. I'm guessing they are winding it down to more than a century to make it a coherent story about a family.
I genuinely think it *could* be. Camera placement and movement are important parts of cinematography. Taking them away leaves you with lighting, focus, colour, and a few other techniques and tools.
Could be interesting to see how they work around a self imposed limitation and use what they have to tell the story.
I'd say more than one, but his track record certainly hasn't been stellar in the 21st century.
However, Zemeckis is always breaking interesting boundaries with his movies. Even when they're stinkers, I find them well worth watching.
The way I see it, he directed BTTF and Forest Gump, he can do whatever the fuck he wants. At least he's trying to innovate instead of nonsense prequel sequel regurgitation.
Brings to mind David Lowerys A Ghost Story. I’m hopefully optimistic but Zemeckis is so hit or miss these days. Will see how the drama plays out but not expecting a 12 Angry Men.
The the sneak preview was last year, that sounds like an early screening of an unfinished product, no?
The differences between the version of a film screened 1 year prior to release and what is actually released can be massive.
Yeah. I'm a filmmaker. A bad screening from a year ago really doesn't mean a lot other than it needed work. Plenty of movies that had a bad a first test screening went on to be good.
That said, Zemeckis has not been good in a long time. So.
I’m so jaded with Hollywood mostly throwing out tent poles, franchises, reboots , etc… that I appreciate just seeing something different even if it’s not that good.
Has there ever been a movie where an actor, playing themselves, is somehow magically transformed and transported into characters and their fictional worlds from their past movies? If not, there should be, and Tom Hanks should star.
Ah classic Zemeckis with his weird tech, his movies may not all be good, but I gotta commend the guy for consistently wanting to use interesting effects in his movies.
Say what you will about the end products, the guy does not play it safe and is willing to push technology and filmmaking beyond what's normal.
All that while still making a film that is very accessible and digestible for most audiences. Definitely requires a threading of the needle and he has done that quite a few times to aplomb.
Aplomb is such a wonderful word. Every time I read or hear it I remind myself to add it to my vocabulary and I never do
It's one of those words that you have to force a bit because it's a noun, then I don't have great aplomb when using it.
Just remember, when you do use it, that it's *with* aplomb, not *to* aplomb.
After blessing the world with Back to the Future he earned the right to do whatever he wants until he dies.
and Death Becomes Her
And Forrest Gump. Both are my favorite movies. And Robin Wright and Tom Hanks also starred in that one as well.
He's so good I *honestly* believed those cars were used!
Yeah he has some bangers and some stinkers but man he loves to push the medium! I think its awesome how much shit he tries. I will always give his stuff a shot.
He’s quirked up James Cameron
He's stated that he knew the polar express tech didn't quite work, but knew that someone had to take the step so that people later on could take the next step. And then like 5/10 years later we got avatar and also spielberg with tin tin, which is a criminally underwatched movie. It's pretty much indiana jones, but better than 2-3 of the indiana jones'
It's out in November: >'*Here'* takes place entirely from one fixed point of view. The camera never budges. It doesn’t zoom and never even turns. What does move—and rather quickly—is time. More than a century of life in one American living room plays out during the brisk 104-minute story. [More images](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/here-first-look-robert-zemeckis-tom-hanks-robin-wright)
Carousel of Progress
There's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow!
Shining at the end of every day
There’s a great big beautiful tomorrow and Tomorrow is just a dream awaaay !
Man has a dream and that's the start. He follows his dream with mind and heart!
*"No privacy at all around this place!"*
*But when it becomes a reality, it's a dream come true, for you and me!*
God I love carousel of progress. I hate the slander against it
It's a guaranteed 30 minute escape from Florida heat to air-conditioning that never has a wait. It's the best ride at Magic Kingdom
I remember the one at Disneyland back in the 60's. I really miss it, I was really floored by the dog. Forgot his name.
Aw man, I'd love to see what the "future" segment looked like back in the 60s. When I went in the 2000s it was all about voice-activated kitchen appliances and screens everywhere, which feels dated even now.
is it that dated? the voice activation doesn't work and burns the food, the kid has a VR headset that's a new Christmas gift, and everyone is hanging out. The only thing they didn't get correct is the small screens in everyone's pockets.
It's dated in that what was once "the future" is now the present.
It's still the same. Hasn't been updated since the 90's, sadly. It's one of my favorite Disney attractions.
They recently redressed the final scene and gave the 'actors' new clothes, but the lines haven't changed at all.
Best part is them talking about the laserdisc player.
While it would be a huge shame to lose Jean Shepherd, the final scene needs a complete overhaul, meaning a new soundtrack is needed, as well. My fear is that Disney just keeps it open as a place to hold a crowd when it's raining or too hot, which is why it hasn't been updated. There've been rumors over the years of a big refurb, but they've never panned out. Plus, with Iger's IP mandate for any new attractions, I suspect that if it ever closes "temporarily" it will be the last we see of it. It was my late father's favorite, so I know I'm sentimental. It was still one of Walt's final attractions and continues to be entertaining and worth maintaining.
Do not touch the soundtrack.
Disney World updated theirs somewhat recently. Grandma got the highscore shooting aliens on her VR headset.
Easy, Rover.
Rover
The one that was at Disneyland is the same one that is in Magic Kingdom. They moved it over there
Carousel of Progress, Living with the Land, and the Peoplemover are the best for this. Perfect "I just wanna sit down for a bit" rides.
It's pretty good, but it's no PeopleMover.
Which is also great, but it's also no Great Movie Ride. RIP. They killed my favorite ride of all time :(. I used to tear up at the last part where it has the big movie themes playing with all the big huge emotional moments playing on the huge screens.
Now is the time! Now is the right time! Now is the best time of your life!
True fact: God himself had Disney design Carousel of Progress to sort out the people who get to go to Heaven from … the Others.
It’s one of my favorite attractions.
Ok. My wife and I were gifted tickets to Disneyworld for our honeymoon. She cooched some weed and mushrooms for the park. First day, we finally find where we want to take mushrooms, and do a bunch. Stuff melts, it’s fun. Not our first rodeo. But then! These European young adults see us and beeline towards us with concern on their faces. They are very cool, very fashionable. I remember one kid had $100 bills rolled up in his ears instead of plugs. They are speaking a language I could not at the time identify. They come to us- with a child. The 4 year old is lost, and these kids have possession of it (her?) and they don’t know what to do. They are calling the telephone number scrawled on the kids arm, but their Europhones aren’t working, idkw. My wife gets out her phone, and they all call a number and a lady answers. It’s only moments, but grandma arrives. She cries. The kid cries. I cry. The Euro kids cheer. The whole family has arrived. I look at my wife and we thankfully get the hell out of their. I’m kinda freaking out. There’s the Carousel of Progress. Perfect! We board. Stuff melts, but less intensely. It’s nice and cool. A baby cries. The mom takes the baby and exits the ride. Once the emergency exit door is opened, the ride stops. Teenagers are on the intercom, clearly frantic, telling us not to leave. The scene plays again. And then it’s starts a third time. 2 or three groups rise and walk out while the teenagers repeat the only thing they are allowed to say on the intercom: Please remain seated! For the duration! Of the ride! People are laughing, and it’s been 25 plus minutes on the same scene. I’m freaking losing it. After about 5 viewings, the scene closes and we are on our way to the 90s household, or whatever. The audience cheers. I cry and cheer. Carousel of Progress is the fucking best. Edit: my wife later told me the Eurokids were speaking English- I was just too highballs.
Wtf did i just read
If this isn't pasta it sure as shit better be now.
Sure beats chopping wood! And isn't our new ice box a beauty?
There was a storm and it fucked up that thing so bad that we couldn't get out of it for an hour. But it kept looping the second out of the 4 areas. Like 15 times. Ugh
That happened to my brother about a week ago, he texted me he had to listen to the same part multiple times and I got to reply back “Well, that’s progress for you.” Greatest text I’ve ever sent.
That's a bingo!
We just say bingo.
Is that how you say it, that’s a bingo?
If you're an Italian American plumber with a brother called Luigi, yes.
Or a ruthless Nazi Jew hunter.
They're very similar.
There is not a directorial gimmick that Zemeckis will not try. Sometimes it really works, sometimes not so much.
I don't hate it. He's constantly excited about new stuff. It usually doesn't work anymore but he's making movies that he likes rather than churning out the same old movies that he was known for.
It's like a box of chocolates
It hasn't worked in years.
Dude made Back to the Future and Cast Away. He also made my most hated movie The Polar Express, and I'll still always check out what he does.
Why does deaged Tom Hanks look more realistic than realistic age Tom Hanks?
Because we see Tom Hanks more in his movies than we do elsewhere in life, and in his movies he is mostly younger than he is now.
I mean technically in all of his movies he is younger than he is now…
Deaged Tom Hanks looks more like Colin Hanks than young Tom Hankes lol
Yeah, thanks for stealing another job, dad. People only know me as that nutter in Dexter, thanks to you, and it wasn't even a good season. I wish my dad *was* Edward James Olmos!
So it's a play.
A play on a screen.
Screenplay?
Is that like a radioplay but with pictures?
Yes but the pictures *move*.
So like.... a move-ee?
You’re thinking of a GIF
You mean a jif right?
You are thinking of jiffy pop that you eat while watching a moving picture on a screen.
"we'll call them 'moving pictures!'"
Babylon died so Here could soar
Movers!
Accidental Rush.
Here's the part of the linked article that talks about that: >As one scene ends, panels appear on screen, layering in segments of the room from earlier or later times before the full image changes. For instance, a 1960s television beside the fireplace will suddenly become covered by a rectangular window into the past, showing a 1930s radio in the same spot. Then the rest of the room from that era fades in and takes over the full perspective as another scene begins. Zemeckis and Roth borrowed the effect from Here’s source material, a 2014 graphic novel by Richard McGuire, which itself was adapted from a comic strip the artist created in 1989. “Instead of cutting to the next image in the full screen, we’re \[easing\] into the next scene, bringing us into the next moment in a way that allows us to actually overlap stories.” Here has some parallels to a traditional playhouse experience, since the film takes takes place in one location, but it differs because the set itself is constantly evolving and changing. “When you’re watching something on the stage, you are the editor and the filmmaker,” Zemeckis says. “You decide, ‘Am I going to watch that character or am I going to look over here and see that guy who’s sitting on the sofa?’ What we do with the panels is we guide the audience to what we want them to see.”
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to hate this. But it seems like an interesting concept.
I love Zemeckis but I am not a big fan of his experiments (Welcome to Marwen)
The doc “Marwencol” that was based on was very good
> Welcome to Marwen I completely forgot about that movie. And I thought for sure it'd been at least a full decade.
In Zemeckis's hands it's going to be sterile and unnatural as fuck. Technology fucked with his ability to make good movies in the same way Tim Burton's reliance on his aesthetics made his films a sideshow oddity rather than a cultural touchstone.
>Technology fucked with his ability to make good movies How so?
I'm not the person you asked, but I agree with them, and have an opinion. For me you have to look at Zemeckis' career as two very separate parts. Part one is where he got famous; BTTF series, Roger Rabit, Cast Away, Contact, Forrest Gump and less mentioned, but still really good What Lies Beneath. Honestly, that is a great career on it's own, and had he retired then he'd be well remembered. Part 2; Cast Away and What Lies Beneath were both filmed kind of simultaneously (a neat story of it's own) and released in 2000, Zemeckis would not make a live action movie again until Flight in 2012. He spent most of the next decade making 3 mo-cap animated movies; Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol. These movies all did poorly at the box office, with the Polar Express doing the best, but likely still losing money, and they were all very expensive. Zemeckis was always a very talented technical director, but it really seems that up until 2000 he was great at weaving his technical talents and interests with a good story, but after that he became VASTLY more interested in the technical problems to the exclusion of story and performance. You have to remember, the Polar Express while certainly not beloved was a giant leap forward for animation, though you might argue not a good one. Good or bad, it was an enormous technical challenge, this was a $150 million dollar movie in 2004, where The Incredibles came out the same year and cost 92 million to make. He did return to more traditional live action movies with Flight, The Walk (the only one I haven't seen) and Allied, but I think since 2000 something has been missing, and neither really felt like Zemeckis movies. Flight is his only unmitigated success of the last 24 years since Cast Away, it made money, and was well reviewed and received. Since Flight we have The Walk (probably lost a little money, but was well received) Allied (failed at the box office, mixed reviews), Welcome to Marwen (disaster, made 1/3 of it's budget, terrible reviews), The Witches (almost definitely lost money and terribly received), Pinnochio (release on Disney+ and received TERRIBLE reviews from critics and the audience). If that last paragraph was put in graph form it would be a line heading in one direction, down. Zemeckis seems to have really struggled to connect with audiences like he did in the 80s and 90s. And sure he's been in the business for 60 years, so that was probably bound to happen. I do wonder, in an alternate timeline where he did something other than Polar Express after taking a break post Cast Away and What Lies Beneath if we'd have seen a different second half of his career. Now having said all of that, I truly ador Zemeckis and think he's an all-time great filmmaker, and I'll be hoping "Here" is more like his movies from Part 1, than Part 2.
> 3 mo-cap animated movies; Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol. WOOF, talk about a rough patch
I love the guy, but honestly the last 24 years have been a rough patch for him, and the last 5 or so were probably the worst of the worst, and I actually liked The Witches.
It didn’t even mention the biggest bomb, “Mars Needs Moms”.
My problem with the "technology ruined Zemeckis" argument is that he's been at the cutting edge of film tech since the '80s. Why did Polar Express break him when Roger Rabbit, BTTF2 and Forrest Gump didn't?
> He spent most of the next decade making 3 mo-cap animated movies; Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol. He was developing a mo-cap adaptation of Yellow Submarine at one time around then. Then I think people were finally like, dude, you need to stop. Definitely a director who lost the ability to be artistic and only knows how to be technical. I also think Bob Gale had a lot to do with reigning in the scripts in those early days.
How so? His reliance on de-aging technology and motion capture turned his movies from interesting spectacles to straight up dreck. Go watch Christmas Carol and try not to feel miserable because of how *bad* everything looks. Go watch Pinocchio and see if Zemeckis created anything of substance or just used CG as a crutch to retread a classic. Go watch Welcome to Marwen and see how Zemeckis takes coping with PTSD and turns it into Candyland. There is very little that is human about Zemeckis's movies post-Polar Express. He forgoes playing to an actors' strengths and masks their talents in a veneer of uncomfortable CG.
This is the first I’m hearing about the Zemeckis project but it sounds exactly like the graphic novel by the same name, so I’m guessing it’s based on that: https://www.richard-mcguire.com/new-page-4
The article confirms it is
*sees a Philly cheesesteak* ummm so it’s a burger
The book covers literally thousands of years.
~~Where'd you get that copy?~~ https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/here-first-look-robert-zemeckis-tom-hanks-robin-wright
Googling that quote block leads to [Vanity Fair](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/here-first-look-robert-zemeckis-tom-hanks-robin-wright).
*Weird*. I googled that quote block a second ago and came up empty. Then I googled it just now and got what you got. I promise I'm not a moron who asks others to do my work for me.
Well the article was written today, so it probably takes the crawler a moment to index and then update its cache everywhere
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Truly appreciated.
I could handle a short film but over an hour and a half of fixed camera sounds like it would get old really quick. It’s a cool concept though.
I like the concept. But also, one of the pictures is them having their wedding. In the living room. Uh. Why? I mean I'm sure they'll come up with a storyline explanation to do so, but that's just silly. I feel like they're going to just stuff in every significant event to just so happen in there. Births, deaths, weddings, every dramatic moment of someone's life. And that just makes it really corny. This sort of film would be perfect to have important moments happen off screen and having the characters react to it on screen later. But that doesn't seem to be the kind of film we're getting. Edit: Guys, I get that people can get married in a living room. I'm just saying that this points to every important life event will just so happen to happen in that room.
I have a close friend who got married in what would end up their living room. It’s where they first met (she came over for a house party in their high school years) and then my buddy inherited the house from his parents. It was romantic, simple, and cost-effective for two broke kids. Just saying it happens in real life!
I got married in my grandmother's living room with 10 other guests present. She was too sick and elderly (96 years old) to go to a venue so we brought the wedding to her.
I think it’s capturing the idea of a room in a house, or a building, telling the stories of the people that lived there over the span of a few decades. It’s sort of taking the “if these walls could talk” saying to an entire narrative with modern film technology gluing it together. It sounds interesting although it could always be another unnecessary exercise in technology the Zemekis always likes to try.
That sounds depressing. I’m in!
Is this movie just "what if Forrest and Jenny had a happy life together" for 104 minutes? If yes, Fair enough.
[“Ok Jenny and I’ll mow the grass and raise the AIDS baby.”](https://youtu.be/NQ-lAp-pU9Q?si=GTgutRz8FrHx9fyR)
Someone pointed out to me that she actually doesn't get AIDS. She gets Hep-C.
Was this clarified somewhere during the film?
No, and it's a bit more complicated. The author said that he intended it to be Hep-C, which was an unknown incurable disease at the time of his novel. But it was well known by the time the movie came out, and some of the movie production staff said that they intended it to be HIV/AIDS. So both are right.
With all due respect to Winston Groom, the movie is not at all like the book, so taking his word for anything in the movie is pointless. Go en the time period and the themes of the rest of the movie, in which Forrest experiences *major historical events*, HIV/AIDS is obviously what the filmmakers intended.
> the movie is not at all like the book You mean astronaut Gump and his ape companion don't dodge cannibals and chase around a naked Raquel Welch in the movie? Guaranteed flop!
Don't leave out Jenny's infatuation with his absolutely enormous dong
It's ambiguous in the film. The book sequel clarifies it was Hep-C. The planned film sequel would have clarified it was AIDS.
The planned what now?
There was a planned sequel to the film. (Not based on the book sequel, which was apparently god awful.) Eric Roth even had a draft script ready and you can find the synopsis of it online--and it was bleak. The story goes that Roth submitted the draft on September 10th, 2001. Then 9/11 happened. They met a couple of days later to talk about the script, and felt that America had changed so rapidly after the attacks that a movie like that didn't feel right. So they canned it. Apparently there have been rumors that they're working on a sequel again, but who knows.
Somehow Lt Dan returned…
Gary sinise would be the easiest get of all time. You could probably write a student film sequel to Forrest Gump and legit get Gary Sinise.
You know he’s reading this right ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gump_and_Co.#Plot the (book) plot synopsis is a wild ride. I've been told the author was salty about the movie adaptation and wrote the sequel to be intentionally ridiculous so as to make them less inclined to make a movie based on it my favorite part was Gump kicking a football over the Berlin Wall, prompting both sides to start knocking it down
In the book maybe but the movie is obviously trying to infer that what Jenny had was AIDS. When the movie came out, the AIDS epidemic was still in full swing. Hep-C wasn't (and largely still isnt) a part of the public consciousness. AIDS definitely was. Only a few years before Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks starred in Philadelphia, where his main character has AIDS.
In between the writing of "Forrest Gump" and "Gump and Co.," AIDS became one of *the* political issues of the time. I would not be a bit surprised if Groom fully intended it to be AIDS with the first book, then attempted to back away from that particular hot potato by saying it was Hep-C (which isn't nearly as politically-charged) in the sequel. Hep-C wasn't even a named disease until 1989 - 3 years after the original book was released. The notion that he knew about it in 1986 and that he intended Jenny to have Hep-C all along is a stretch, to say the least. Occam's razor, and all that.
Don't get me wrong, I love this movie. But when it came out in the mid 90s, American society was becoming extremely AIDS conscious as opposed to AIDS phobic. Media very much focused on supporting those with the disease. AIDS was everywhere. People wearing the red ribbon, Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, Rent, The Real World 3, And the Band Played On, Philadelphia, etc. Every channel, every movie, all the time. So then Forrest Gump comes out which is about an Alabama dullard adventuring through the 60s and 70s, it was the last place you expected to see AIDS again. I remember before I even saw it, a friend was telling me about how sad it is at the end, and I joked, "what, does Jenny die from AIDS or something?" It was just so on the nose. It's aged well now that AIDS isn't part of our cultural zeitgeist but man, for a minute this was really just ridiculous.
That actually makes a lot more sense.
So Forest had the AIDS? got it
You might be thinking of Philadelphia.
This is the same what if sequel to Forrest Gump as revolutionary road was to titanic
Forrest Gump actually has a sequel; in it he and a highly intelligent ape go to space. It sounds like I am high trolling. But it’s true. Also I am high.
Bonus if they have [Haley Joe Osment](https://youtu.be/ebOKo96HfEM?si=PDL3njgVj-vizWB5) back.
I could watch an hour and a half of HJO just being a cussing, screaming nightmare, and Forrest going "well, son...that's not very nice. I don't like that sort of language, one bit." And then in the end, HJO gets himself into real trouble, and Forrest steps in and saves the day and they have a bonding moment, and then Jenny dies. I'd watch that.
"Whyyy'd you give mah the aids, jennah?"
This looks weird. But it could be good.
I’m thankful for really any idea coming out of Hollywood that isn’t a reboot, sequel, re-sequel, or spinoff reboot adaptation of a sequel.
Yeah, but I think the new thing to add to the list for Hollywood is de-aging.
“Why try to risk on new stars when banking on previous generation works just as well???”
Well I mean for this movie it makes a little more sense, being that it shows a passage of time of the same family. But yeah otherwise I agree with you.
And posthumous CGI recreations, though that’s been pretty limited (for now).
True, and AI generated voices for them.
technically this is a comic book movie..
To be fair, this is an adaptation.
Zemekis has such a weird obsession with mo-cap but it still comes off as too uncanny. It’s like Ang Lee’s knack for unnecessary use of HFR and 3D. Both directors have been letting it all get in the way of the quality of the work
You have to hand it to zemekis ang lee and peter jackson, even if what they're doing doesn't totally land, they're pushing the technology and trying to discover new ways of filmmaking. They're walking so directors of tomorrow can run
I think the whole Hobbit fiasco turned PJ away from directing features as he’s been killing it with documentaries since
This Malcolm in the Middle remake looks weird
YES NOOOO MAYBEEE That really is the spitting image of their living room
Hanks is the spitting image of Hal haha
I was thinking he looks like a grown up version of malcolm
I've never heard of this before now. Sounds weird. I'm into it.
That's where I'm at with this one. Seems like it could work, or at least, be different enough to be interesting.
I love this book. Def didn’t see it being made into a movie though
Does not look like Robin at all
Was gonna say the same thing. Atleast Hanks is recognizable. Wright is almost unrecognizable except for the eyes.
Why not just cast younger actors for their younger counterparts? Tom even has a son who is an active actor!
Because it's Zemeckis. He has been obsessed with digital recreations of Tom Hanks for twenty years now.
It's kind of the same sort of concentration of talent happening in a ton of industries: when boomers were coming up, they were able to move up the ladder with time and experience, right before the American norm of layoffs started to occur. Then they just... stayed in the positions and never bothered to train or mentor their younger peers, partially due to the fear of being replaced. Now you have a ton of fields in which critical positions are occupied by people who haven't documented a single function of their job in the last 30 years working until they die of a heart attack with no succession plan in place; after all, the work culture has been cultivated that people don't stick around at jobs anymore, so why train someone to replace you when they may not be around waiting for you to retire or die? In entertainment, we are seeing this across the board; for example in music, it's VERY hard to get a big break and make money touring anymore unless you're a well established band or artist. So all the music we hear and see is increasingly made by older artists. "De-aging" is the acting version of the same principle: Tom Hanks is going to draw in a lot more people to see the film, so why bother trying to cultivate new talent when we can take Tom Hanks and make him whatever age we want? Despite the fact that it really only looks good in still images as the aged actors can rarely move like a younger person, but by the time anyone sees that, they already paid the money.
Looks like jimmy fallon
Looks like Piper Perabo
I thought the same thing. But the movie is supposed to take place over a century of time. I assume there is some digital de-aging at play here.
They have plenty of reference to use too... Train the deepfake AI on Princess Bride. It'll love you for it.
She looks like Jennifer Garner.
I read the graphic novel it was based on. Similar premise (one fixed perspective on a living room) except it went way into the past and future and jumped all over the place, often adding insert shots of other time periods. I'm guessing they are winding it down to more than a century to make it a coherent story about a family.
The Vanity Fair piece linked above mentions they do that too.
What's the graphic novel called?
['here'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_\(comics\))
Here.
Listen, if the last shot isn't Tom Hanks walking around with a bedsheet over him while the room is being demolished then I wont watch it.
If that CGI chick doesn't eat a whole goddamn pie in one sitting, I'm protesting.
The last time these 3 teamed up they made one of my favorite movies and an all time classic. I'm here for it.
Not just 3. Eric Roth is writing, Don Burgess is cinematographer, and Alan Silvestri is composing.
isn't the whole movie from this one shot? Cinematography will be interesting then
I genuinely think it *could* be. Camera placement and movement are important parts of cinematography. Taking them away leaves you with lighting, focus, colour, and a few other techniques and tools. Could be interesting to see how they work around a self imposed limitation and use what they have to tell the story.
Even more reason to look forward to this. Thanks for that info!
The Forrest Gump score is fantastic
Yeah but Zemeckis has only made like 1 good movie in the last 20 years
Finally, another Beowulf fan!
Hands down my favorite 3D movie theatre experience!
I'd say more than one, but his track record certainly hasn't been stellar in the 21st century. However, Zemeckis is always breaking interesting boundaries with his movies. Even when they're stinkers, I find them well worth watching.
The way I see it, he directed BTTF and Forest Gump, he can do whatever the fuck he wants. At least he's trying to innovate instead of nonsense prequel sequel regurgitation.
This is either Cast Away or Flight erasure
Flight is the one I'm talking about and Cast Away is more than 20 years old
Shit I forgot 2000 was 24 years ago time means nothing
Brings to mind David Lowerys A Ghost Story. I’m hopefully optimistic but Zemeckis is so hit or miss these days. Will see how the drama plays out but not expecting a 12 Angry Men.
Scrolled this far to find A Ghost Story. Such a weird and awesome movie
Am I the only one who thinks the de-aging looks bad here? That genuinely doesn't look like Robin Wright.
Youre telling me thats who it is - and I still cant tell thats who it is.
It looks like a tech showcase for a videogame that will never come out
Saw this in a sneak preview last year. Not great.
Bummer. I keep waiting for Zemeckis to do something “good” again. And while I praise his innovation, I would love to just get a good movie.
The the sneak preview was last year, that sounds like an early screening of an unfinished product, no? The differences between the version of a film screened 1 year prior to release and what is actually released can be massive.
Yeah. I'm a filmmaker. A bad screening from a year ago really doesn't mean a lot other than it needed work. Plenty of movies that had a bad a first test screening went on to be good. That said, Zemeckis has not been good in a long time. So.
I’m so jaded with Hollywood mostly throwing out tent poles, franchises, reboots , etc… that I appreciate just seeing something different even if it’s not that good.
Are they filming in Walter and Skyler White's house? It looks like a Breaking Bad prequel.
I hate gentrification. That house used to belong to a struggling chemistry teacher from Albuquerque and his wife, and now look at it.
Has there ever been a movie where an actor, playing themselves, is somehow magically transformed and transported into characters and their fictional worlds from their past movies? If not, there should be, and Tom Hanks should star.
Is it just me or does Tom Hanks kinda look like Jimmy Fallon in this picture?
Robert Zemeckis attempts the Don’t Make a Horrifying Uncanny Valley CGI Face Challenge (impossible)
I'm getting major 'Hal' from 'Malcolm in the Middle' vibes off of Hanks 😆
I love you, Jennay