Love it, or hate it, and don’t try to tell me that it’s the latter, a sequel, of sorts, is on the way for New Zealand born director Richard Curtis’ 2003 rom-com drama, Love Actually. It won’t be a full-blown feature though, rather a ten minute short film, that seeks to discover what those from the original are up to now.
The film is being produced to support Comic Relief’s Red Nose Day fundraiser next month. Previous Red Nose Day specials have seen spinoffs of Mr Bean, The Vicar of Dibley and Blackadder. Curtis told Deadline he thought it would be a “fun idea” to do a short sketch based on one of his previous films while raising money for an important cause.
Most of the original cast have agreed to reprise their roles for the spin-off that will be broadcast on the BBC on 25 March. I’m sure you’re counting the days. Don’t try to tell you’re not.
Interestingly, the original three Star Wars movies all won the visual effects Oscar, but not the prequel films, nor Episode VII. On that basis, I’m tipping Rogue One for the win, since it is the Star Wars “follow up” film most closely linked to the originals. Chronologically anyway.
Australian short film festival Tropfest, which also marked its twentieth-fifth anniversary this year, took place in sweltering conditions – temperatures of 40° Celsius were recorded at one point during the day – last Saturday night, at Parramatta Park, in Sydney’s west.
The Mother Situation, by veteran Melbourne actor and filmmaker Matt Day, was named the winner. Meat and Potatoes, by Arielle Thomas and Ellenor Argyropoulos, and Wibble Wobble, said to be made in a single day, by Daphne Do, took out second and third places respectively.
Attendees where saying good things about Love, Steve by Alex Roberts, The Wall by Tristan Klein and Nick Baker, and Accomplice by Michael Noonan. I’m looking forward to the work of all finalists being made available, and will try and post a few of them here, when that happens.
News that the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is closing its discussion forum, as of 20 February, will doubtless come as a disappointment to movie buffs. According to the statement announcing the closure, members are now more often using one of the IMDb’s social media channels to discuss movies, rather than the forum:
Increasingly, IMDb customers have migrated to IMDb’s social media accounts as the primary place they choose to post comments and communicate with IMDb’s editors and one another. IMDb’s Facebook page and official Twitter account have an audience of more than 10 million engaged fans. IMDb also maintains official accounts on Snapchat, Pinterest, YouTube, and Tumblr.
IMDb also noted that the forum was “no longer providing a positive, useful experience” for the majority of its members. It’s a sentiment that will, unfortunately, resonant with anyone who has witnessed any of the less than cordial exchanges in some of the discussions there.
While discord on a discussion forum is by no means exclusive to IMDb, it was probably determined that the time and effort spent weeding out noxious comments could be put to better use elsewhere. And in this regard, IMDb is not alone in foregoing a forum, as Andrew Liptak, writing for The Verge, points out:
The decision appears to mark the latest website to question the value of forums and comments, which can require heavy moderation. Other major websites, such as National Public Radio and Popular Science, have closed their own commenting sections because patrolling them for toxic users became a costly and time-consuming chore.
The great thing though about the IMDb discussion boards, is the dedicated forum for every film, and the separate threads within each. This allows members to discuss whatever aspect of a title that they wish to. Want to ask different questions about, say, the school dance from Back to the Future, and Doc Brown’s 1950s residence?
Not a problem. Discussion of a particular movie remains in the one, easy to find, place. This is something that cannot really be replicated on platforms such as Facebook or Twitter. Even if separate pages, or accounts, were set up for each movie. Whether someone sees an opportunity here though, remains to be seen.
In the meantime, there are other places where you can go and talk about the films you’ve seen. The Digital Fix, Movie Forums, reddit, and of course Rotten Tomatoes, spring to mind. Again, you can’t quite discuss a movie as you can on IMDb, but you will among other fans of film.
Who knows how many film trailers I’ve posted here over the years, but never in that time have I given any thought as to why they’re called trailers. It’s all quite logical however, as once upon a time they used to follow, or be shown, at the conclusion of a feature, when they first appeared, a little over a century ago.
At first that seems like an absurd idea. Why try to a promote an upcoming release at the end of the show, when audience members are surely scrambling for the exits? As it happened though, the movie going experience of the early twentieth century was unlike that with which we’re accustomed to today:
You would pay your admission – usually just a couple of cents – and you could basically sit inside a movie house all day and watch whatever was playing, often a combination of feature-length movies, short films, and cartoons.
Doesn’t sound too bad at all. Especially on a rainy day, or the like. Pay a couple of cents, and stay all day. But I’m wondering how cinemas made money, if people stayed in their seats all day? Return custom was the answer. With trailers advertising upcoming new features, patrons were sure to come back.
I wonder if we could go back to the days of trailers being screened after a film, in return for being able to stay at the cinema all day?
The second trailer for Dunkirk, the new feature from US film director Christopher Nolan. A story set around the evacuation of Allied forces from France in 1940. Due for release in July. Nolan’s work is consistently top notch. I’m looking forward to this one.
It’s a fan made film, so I know you sometimes need to be in the right place, at the right time, to hear about these sorts of things, but I’m still not sure how I missed Star Wars Downunder. Made by filmmaker Michael Cox in 2013, “Downunder” brings a distinctly Australian taste, in the form of beer no less, to the popular sci-fi saga.
While the return of Ektachrome will surely delight aficionados of film photography, are we all about to give up on the likes of Instagram, or stop using the now not too shabby cameras in our smartphones? I doubt it.
Here’s the thing. Film photography is for the patient. For those skilled in the art of capturing the right image at the right time, without using up the limited allocation of shots, usually thirty-six, that’s available to them on a single roll of film.
That excludes me. Then there’s the matter of the time and cost of processing. Some might call digital photography fake and cheap, and the domain of those seeking instant gratification. But not me. There’s simply too much quality digital photography for that to be possible.
Yes, we may be seeing more film photography, which is fine by me. And true, we have may reached peak digital photography, but I don’t think we’re about to see it spiral out of favour anytime soon. Also, I took the above photo, in London’s Richmond Park, with film. So there.