After the apparently disappointing box office opening weekend for Tomorrowland, Variety posted an article "'Tomorrowland' exposes Hollywood's Originality Problem",which points to it as a shining example of why studios would rather make franchises than gamble on original movies. Nobody should be surprised to hear it's because franchises continue to make money, and Bret Lang, the article's writer, seems to suggest that viewers are less likely to see films based solely on the actors involved. And while he does mention that films like Inception, Gravity, and Interstellar have all been hits, he claims that today movies like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, War of the Worlds, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith wouldn't get made, due to waning star power and the risks they carried.
Firstly, to nitpick, I have to point out that two of the three 2005 films he mentioned are only sort of original; with franchises reigning it's easy to call anything that's not a major part of the current cultural climate "original," but Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is based on an extremely well known children's book, and even War of the Worlds is an adaptation. I think we tend to complain too much about adaptations (particularly young adult fiction, but that's a different discussion); it's terrible and annoying until it's your favorite book or tv show. Johnny Depp and Tom Cruise also aren't the best examples of how star power is waning; in the last ten years Depp has become a caricature of himself along with Tim Burton, and Tom Cruise has lost almost all of his goodwill with fans from his erratic behavior (remember the couch jumping? denying all of psychiatry? That hadn't happened quite yet.) and Scientology ties. Both films also had household name directors; Burton's prior film was Big Fish, which at the time I remember hearing nothing but good things about, and Spielberg's last collaboration with Cruise, Minority Report, was also a hit.
But regardless, I still think "originality" isn't the problem; it's marketing. Lang does mention in his article that Tomorrowland's trailers were too vague to give people a reason to see it, and that's definitely something that needs to be examined further. You can't take a step without tripping over some hype for the latest Marvel movie or DC project or the Star Wars still of the day, so of course when people make decisions on what to see this weekend, those will be the first things they go to. On the other hand, there are "original" movies that don't have a fraction of the effort put into their marketing. Trailers are great, but for someone who doesn't see a lot of movies in theaters, commercials are incredibly important. I remember last year I found out about Edge of Tomorrow* from the trailer, but when the commercials started on tv, they told you nothing about the film besides Tom Cruise, desert, guns. When it underperformed, the studio recut the ads, not to show any context or try to sell anything about the story, but to rebeand it as Live, Die Repeat, which was originally the tagline. . Because when you want more people to see your film, the solution is to completely rename it. Personally, I knew people who would have loved Edge of Tomorrow, but
never saw it in theaters because they had no idea it existed. John Wick came out later that year, and I only knew about it because of the internet; I never saw a single commercial for it, and "Keanu Reeves fights dudes" should not be particularly hard to sell.
Unfortunately this problem is far wider than summer and action films; remember how Selma got ignored in practically all the industry awards nominations? One of the reasons for that was that they didn't have enough in the marketing budget to send out screeners. It had a great release date, Christmas Day, but that was only in limited release, and it had way less incoming advertisment fanfare compared to what Birdman and Boyhood got. If the marketing can't compete with bigger films, of course the film isn't going to do as well. It seems like the studios expect their "original" films, when they do deign to make them, to sell themselves, and then they're disappointed when the box office revenue won't power the gravy train.
*I'm aware that Edge of Tomorrow is actually based off of a manga named All You Need Is Kill, but for this conversation it's "original" enough.
Showing posts with label film industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film industry. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Friday, December 30, 2011
Below The Line, or Goddammit the technical awards are fucking important!
[originally posted 12/15/11]
I know I shouldn’t, but I do take awards shows pretty seriously. I’ve been trying the last few years to keep up with movies well enough to have a halfway-formed opinion (last year I saw 6/10 of the Best Picture nominated films), and I do get a bit frustrated when most people only care about the big, flashy categories: Best Picture, Best Actor / Supporting Actor, and Best Actress / Supporting Actress. Maybe Best Director too, and if they’re particularly interested, Best Screenplay / Adapted Screenplay. And while that sounds like a lot, even people who really like movies tend to see Cinematography, Visual Effects, Editing, and both Sound categories as the ‘boring’ stuff that you can chat during, as if it isn’t important.
And guess what? It really, really is.
Let’s start with my favorite category: Cinematography. To boil it down to its essence, cinematography is the lighting and camera choices for each shot and scene. I say choices for two reasons: one because I find it hard to explain cinematography and so I cribbed a little bit from the wikipedia article, and, more importantly, because there are many ways to shoot the same shot, and cinematography is about making the right choice for the scene and film at hand. Think of cinematography as a dynamic version of photography; for any one photo, the photographer has to make decisions about the intensity of light on the subject, the direction of the light, the framing of the shot, the focal length of the lens, the shutter speed, and the depth of field. Even in outdoor conditions with no other light sources but the sun, the angle and intensity of light still must be kept in mind. (There is also the issue of film stock and white balancing, but that would get me into a film/digital discussion and this is not the place for that.) Most people who have ever taken a picture understand this: if you take a picture of someone with the sun behind them, you’re just going to get a silhouette of the person because they are backlit.
The same concepts apply to cinematography, with an added element: time. Unlike the still camera, the lens length, depth of field, and lens length can be changed within one shot. The camera position can also be changed during a shot, giving a new option of camera motion. Every one of these choices can change the mood and impact of the shot.
So why do I get pissy when people don’t care about the cinematography category? Simply put, all of those choices put together are what make the movie a movie. The moving image is the essence of what you’re watching; without it, you’re not watching anything, just listening or reading. Cinematography, even over acting, sound, and story, is the most important element of film.
“So wait wait wait,” you say. “If cinematography is the choices that cause everything you see on screen, what the fuck is Visual Effects?” Good question! Visual Effects sounds like it’s really cinematography, but the difference is that visual effects are what you see that isn’t produced by lighting or camera choices. We’re talking about things like CG, although I would say there are other things that would count. To explain this difference, there was a kerfluffle when Avatar was nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Visual Effects at the Oscars. Since Avatar was completely computer rendered, many people argued that it had no actual cinematography. There are camera movements and lighting decisions in Avatar, of course, but since there was no physical camera or physical light, why should it count as cinematography? Avatar won both categories, so I guess for the Academy, it counts enough.
(In my opinion it shouldn’t count, but I am far from the authority on anything ever.)
But visual effects don’t necessarily have to be flashy. Take for example, the Black Swan visual effects reel. The most noticable effects are of course, Natalie Portman’s transformation into the Black Swan, but look at the more subtle changes. The floor of the stage was stylized, crew were erased from mirror shots, and the backdrop was extended on the stage. In my opinion, Black Swan should have been included in the Best Visual Effects category, simply because the cleanup and animation were both well done and effective.
Next topic: Editing. I think most people who watch movies have the basic understanding of editing; it’s putting the shots together to create scenes, and linking the scenes together to tell the story. But like visual effects doesn’t have to be flashy to be effective, editing is also very important in very subtle ways. In his book, Making Movies, Sidney Lumet mentions that he knew a director that didn’t want his editors winning Best Editing awards because then the editing was distracting from the story. I don’t think that’s true at all, but it is indicative of awards ceremonies’ tendencies to take “Best” whatever as meaning “Most” whatever. (I am far from the first person to make that distinction; in fact, I may have read it from the same book!)
Remember how I said there are choices to be made about each shot and each scene? Editing is the choices made about how to juxtapose each shot to make a scene, and juxtapose each scene to make the movie. The juxtaposition of scenes is laid out by the screenplay, of course, but scenes can also be moved or deleted to tell the story more effectively. Editing decides whether a shot or scene is necessary or effective for the movie. The director and cinematographer may shoot a scene in more than one way, or include closeups along with wider shots, and the editor must choose what combination of shots is most effective. The combination of shots, speed of cuts, and number of cuts in a scene can change the tempo and feel of a scene, and the combination, speed and number of scenes will set the tempo and mood for the entire movie.
And now we get to Sound. Now, I can understand why most people don’t care about the sound awards. Sound is maligned everywhere. I’m sure any sound person has seen ads on cragislist and Mandy for smaller films where it’s obvious that location sound is an afterthought. “Need sound guy tomorrow. Must have his own equipment, no pay but copy and credit.” People just kind of assume that you just need a camera with a microphone, or maybe a boom mic if you’re fancy, and everything’s gonna come out alright. Sound is pretty much an afterthought even for some filmmakers who are starting out.
Sound is incredibly important. I can’t even tell you.
Well, actually I can, because I’m going to, but you know what I mean. Location sound, the sound that is picked up when shooting, is the first thing you think of. The dialogue is the most obvious; of course you have to hear what the actors are saying (unless you’re not supposed to, of course). But you can’t just record the actors. Absolute silence in a film is very different from real life silence. The best way I can describe it is that absolute silence, or dead air, is startling; it sounds like something’s wrong somewhere. To prevent this, the location sound guy will always take room tone, which is a recording of the regular silence at the location. Room tone makes silent movies seem more real and picks up background noises in the area. There are different types of microphones that are best at picking up specific types of sounds, but to be honest, I’m a bit out of my element when it comes to sound, and this post is long enough already.
So what is Sound editing? Well, the location sound and dialogue tracks don’t pick up everything, at least not realistically. Some sounds also can’t be created on set, like sounds caused by things in visual effects. Most sounds you notice in films are actually added in post-production. Footsteps, gunshots, rustling of clothes, and other sounds are added in larger productions by foley artists. They use objects to recreate sounds that sync up with the actions in film, or to add flavor to the background noise. In addition to foley, sounds are also used from sound libraries. Sound editing is the process of putting all these sounds together to sync with the film images.
Sound mixing is the last step in sound production. All of the sounds that are in the film must be balanced so that they do not drown each other out. The room tone and foley noises must be present, but not so much that they distract from the dialogue. Without sound mixing, movies would be unwatchable because all the sounds would be fighting each other for dominance. You don’t want one piece of dialogue to be too loud, or the sound level to change drastically between scenes. Even if two characters can’t hear each other over a loud noise in the film, we as the viewer need to hear both of them.
Now, will all of these categories personally interest you? Maybe not. . But they’re important, and all of these departments and crew members deserve recognition and respect just as much as the writer and director and actors. Movies, especially features on the award show scale, are a collaboration, and I think that’s important to keep in mind.
I know I shouldn’t, but I do take awards shows pretty seriously. I’ve been trying the last few years to keep up with movies well enough to have a halfway-formed opinion (last year I saw 6/10 of the Best Picture nominated films), and I do get a bit frustrated when most people only care about the big, flashy categories: Best Picture, Best Actor / Supporting Actor, and Best Actress / Supporting Actress. Maybe Best Director too, and if they’re particularly interested, Best Screenplay / Adapted Screenplay. And while that sounds like a lot, even people who really like movies tend to see Cinematography, Visual Effects, Editing, and both Sound categories as the ‘boring’ stuff that you can chat during, as if it isn’t important.
And guess what? It really, really is.
Let’s start with my favorite category: Cinematography. To boil it down to its essence, cinematography is the lighting and camera choices for each shot and scene. I say choices for two reasons: one because I find it hard to explain cinematography and so I cribbed a little bit from the wikipedia article, and, more importantly, because there are many ways to shoot the same shot, and cinematography is about making the right choice for the scene and film at hand. Think of cinematography as a dynamic version of photography; for any one photo, the photographer has to make decisions about the intensity of light on the subject, the direction of the light, the framing of the shot, the focal length of the lens, the shutter speed, and the depth of field. Even in outdoor conditions with no other light sources but the sun, the angle and intensity of light still must be kept in mind. (There is also the issue of film stock and white balancing, but that would get me into a film/digital discussion and this is not the place for that.) Most people who have ever taken a picture understand this: if you take a picture of someone with the sun behind them, you’re just going to get a silhouette of the person because they are backlit.
The same concepts apply to cinematography, with an added element: time. Unlike the still camera, the lens length, depth of field, and lens length can be changed within one shot. The camera position can also be changed during a shot, giving a new option of camera motion. Every one of these choices can change the mood and impact of the shot.
So why do I get pissy when people don’t care about the cinematography category? Simply put, all of those choices put together are what make the movie a movie. The moving image is the essence of what you’re watching; without it, you’re not watching anything, just listening or reading. Cinematography, even over acting, sound, and story, is the most important element of film.
“So wait wait wait,” you say. “If cinematography is the choices that cause everything you see on screen, what the fuck is Visual Effects?” Good question! Visual Effects sounds like it’s really cinematography, but the difference is that visual effects are what you see that isn’t produced by lighting or camera choices. We’re talking about things like CG, although I would say there are other things that would count. To explain this difference, there was a kerfluffle when Avatar was nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Visual Effects at the Oscars. Since Avatar was completely computer rendered, many people argued that it had no actual cinematography. There are camera movements and lighting decisions in Avatar, of course, but since there was no physical camera or physical light, why should it count as cinematography? Avatar won both categories, so I guess for the Academy, it counts enough.
(In my opinion it shouldn’t count, but I am far from the authority on anything ever.)
But visual effects don’t necessarily have to be flashy. Take for example, the Black Swan visual effects reel. The most noticable effects are of course, Natalie Portman’s transformation into the Black Swan, but look at the more subtle changes. The floor of the stage was stylized, crew were erased from mirror shots, and the backdrop was extended on the stage. In my opinion, Black Swan should have been included in the Best Visual Effects category, simply because the cleanup and animation were both well done and effective.
Next topic: Editing. I think most people who watch movies have the basic understanding of editing; it’s putting the shots together to create scenes, and linking the scenes together to tell the story. But like visual effects doesn’t have to be flashy to be effective, editing is also very important in very subtle ways. In his book, Making Movies, Sidney Lumet mentions that he knew a director that didn’t want his editors winning Best Editing awards because then the editing was distracting from the story. I don’t think that’s true at all, but it is indicative of awards ceremonies’ tendencies to take “Best” whatever as meaning “Most” whatever. (I am far from the first person to make that distinction; in fact, I may have read it from the same book!)
Remember how I said there are choices to be made about each shot and each scene? Editing is the choices made about how to juxtapose each shot to make a scene, and juxtapose each scene to make the movie. The juxtaposition of scenes is laid out by the screenplay, of course, but scenes can also be moved or deleted to tell the story more effectively. Editing decides whether a shot or scene is necessary or effective for the movie. The director and cinematographer may shoot a scene in more than one way, or include closeups along with wider shots, and the editor must choose what combination of shots is most effective. The combination of shots, speed of cuts, and number of cuts in a scene can change the tempo and feel of a scene, and the combination, speed and number of scenes will set the tempo and mood for the entire movie.
And now we get to Sound. Now, I can understand why most people don’t care about the sound awards. Sound is maligned everywhere. I’m sure any sound person has seen ads on cragislist and Mandy for smaller films where it’s obvious that location sound is an afterthought. “Need sound guy tomorrow. Must have his own equipment, no pay but copy and credit.” People just kind of assume that you just need a camera with a microphone, or maybe a boom mic if you’re fancy, and everything’s gonna come out alright. Sound is pretty much an afterthought even for some filmmakers who are starting out.
Sound is incredibly important. I can’t even tell you.
Well, actually I can, because I’m going to, but you know what I mean. Location sound, the sound that is picked up when shooting, is the first thing you think of. The dialogue is the most obvious; of course you have to hear what the actors are saying (unless you’re not supposed to, of course). But you can’t just record the actors. Absolute silence in a film is very different from real life silence. The best way I can describe it is that absolute silence, or dead air, is startling; it sounds like something’s wrong somewhere. To prevent this, the location sound guy will always take room tone, which is a recording of the regular silence at the location. Room tone makes silent movies seem more real and picks up background noises in the area. There are different types of microphones that are best at picking up specific types of sounds, but to be honest, I’m a bit out of my element when it comes to sound, and this post is long enough already.
So what is Sound editing? Well, the location sound and dialogue tracks don’t pick up everything, at least not realistically. Some sounds also can’t be created on set, like sounds caused by things in visual effects. Most sounds you notice in films are actually added in post-production. Footsteps, gunshots, rustling of clothes, and other sounds are added in larger productions by foley artists. They use objects to recreate sounds that sync up with the actions in film, or to add flavor to the background noise. In addition to foley, sounds are also used from sound libraries. Sound editing is the process of putting all these sounds together to sync with the film images.
Sound mixing is the last step in sound production. All of the sounds that are in the film must be balanced so that they do not drown each other out. The room tone and foley noises must be present, but not so much that they distract from the dialogue. Without sound mixing, movies would be unwatchable because all the sounds would be fighting each other for dominance. You don’t want one piece of dialogue to be too loud, or the sound level to change drastically between scenes. Even if two characters can’t hear each other over a loud noise in the film, we as the viewer need to hear both of them.
Now, will all of these categories personally interest you? Maybe not. . But they’re important, and all of these departments and crew members deserve recognition and respect just as much as the writer and director and actors. Movies, especially features on the award show scale, are a collaboration, and I think that’s important to keep in mind.
Movie piracy: let's be reasonable here
[originally posted 12/9/11]
So my friend ombrophilia just made an interesting post about music piracy, so I wanted to put in my two cents about film piracy. I’m not going to sit here and pretend I’ve never pirated a film, or tell you that you’re a bad, mean person for doing so. But let’s not pretend that piracy isn’t affecting people. And not just bigwig producers and popular studios; don’t kid yourself by thinking that you’re sticking it to Big Hollywood by pirating movies. It has more of an effect than you think.
Remember those anti-piracy PSAs that used to be shown before trailers with below the line crewmembers telling you that you’re cutting into their pay by pirating movies? Remember how we all wrote it off as guilt trip shit? Well, it totally was, but they’re also not lying. The thing is, not paying for a movie you’d otherwise see in theaters doesn’t just mean that you’re not giving revenue for that movie. How do you think studios pay for films? It’s by profits from other films. And less profits means a possibility for less productions, and less productions means less work not just for producers and big name stars and big directors, but for everyone. And it takes a ton of people to make a movie. If you’ve sat and watched the credits of…well, anything forever, you’ll see how many people work on films. There’s enough competition for those below the line jobs anyway without the job market shrinking.
Some people justify these things by saying that Hollywood is producing a ton of bullshit anyway, so why should they support it? And yeah, I have no intention of telling you that The Smurfs and Jack and Jill are pinnacles of American comedy and you should throw money at them. (Please don’t oh my god.) And tons of people complain about remakes, and that Hollywood only makes them to make money.
Well, duh. The reason studios do these things is because people go to see them. Now I could tell you that remakes are far from something new, but that’s not the point. The point is that the film industry makes things that they think or hope people will see. If you really wanna see something new, go give it your money in theaters. Instead of taking your money away from bad stuff, take a chance on something new. I of course understand that you don’t want to possibly spend the hilariously expensive amount of money for a movie ticket to something you might not even like, but in my opinion, if you’re going to see something, that thing doesn’t have an obligation to come to you. Otherwise, as I said before, you’re not just stiffing the studio directly on that movie, but indirectly for everyone else involved. There’s more to movies than just the lead actors, director, and producers.
Which comes to my last point: supporting indie/smaller films. You know how I basically said up there that I wasn’t going to judge you about pirating?
Okay, okay, I may have lied a tiny bit. If you pirate smaller films, I am a little pissed at you. Now, I understand that if you live in the middle of nowhere, you probably don’t have an indie theater nearby. But really, is it that horrible to just wait for that DVD? (hint: my answer is ‘no.’) But if you live near an indie theater, or for fuck’s sake, in or near LA or New York, you’ve got to be kidding me. With indie movies (or movies directed / written by up and comings like Source Code), there’s a ton more on the line. Studios need to see profits to be convinced that 1) making more off-beat movies like this is worth their time and money, and 2) there’s enough of a market to open the film wider, where more people can see it. If you’re pirating these types of movies, you’re helping to fuck over the talent and kind of movie that you wish big studios were making. Directly.
Waaah, you might spend money on a movie you don’t like. It happens. But unless it was three hours of the director pooping or something, you didn’t waste two hours of your life or whatever excuse people might use to get pissy at the chance of paying for a film. You supported an smaller film, which might help other small films to get made. If you saw it at a smaller theater, congratulations, you helped that theater out a bit too! (Theaters needing more money is one aspect of why movie prices are so ridiculous nowadays.)
And if you’re bitching over anything less than $10, stop. Seriously. People in major cities (especially New York and LA) are paying $12-$13.50. I really hate the “consider yourself lucky” shpiel, but…come on.
And if you’re too poor to see movies at the moment, you know what? Tough. I think we all think we’re entitled to entertainment ever since piracy got super-big, and let’s be honest, we’re not. As I said, I’m not trying to tell you you’re a terrible person for pirating anything or trying to guilt trip you into stopping (I’ve made myself stop pirating movies but I have done it quite a bit in the past!), but I think we all need to stop kidding ourselves about what’s going on here. We think that we deserve entertainment for free, when…that’s just not true.
Also if you have a chance to see an smaller / quirkier movie and decide to pirate it instead, I am a little pissy at you.
So my friend ombrophilia just made an interesting post about music piracy, so I wanted to put in my two cents about film piracy. I’m not going to sit here and pretend I’ve never pirated a film, or tell you that you’re a bad, mean person for doing so. But let’s not pretend that piracy isn’t affecting people. And not just bigwig producers and popular studios; don’t kid yourself by thinking that you’re sticking it to Big Hollywood by pirating movies. It has more of an effect than you think.
Remember those anti-piracy PSAs that used to be shown before trailers with below the line crewmembers telling you that you’re cutting into their pay by pirating movies? Remember how we all wrote it off as guilt trip shit? Well, it totally was, but they’re also not lying. The thing is, not paying for a movie you’d otherwise see in theaters doesn’t just mean that you’re not giving revenue for that movie. How do you think studios pay for films? It’s by profits from other films. And less profits means a possibility for less productions, and less productions means less work not just for producers and big name stars and big directors, but for everyone. And it takes a ton of people to make a movie. If you’ve sat and watched the credits of…well, anything forever, you’ll see how many people work on films. There’s enough competition for those below the line jobs anyway without the job market shrinking.
Some people justify these things by saying that Hollywood is producing a ton of bullshit anyway, so why should they support it? And yeah, I have no intention of telling you that The Smurfs and Jack and Jill are pinnacles of American comedy and you should throw money at them. (Please don’t oh my god.) And tons of people complain about remakes, and that Hollywood only makes them to make money.
Well, duh. The reason studios do these things is because people go to see them. Now I could tell you that remakes are far from something new, but that’s not the point. The point is that the film industry makes things that they think or hope people will see. If you really wanna see something new, go give it your money in theaters. Instead of taking your money away from bad stuff, take a chance on something new. I of course understand that you don’t want to possibly spend the hilariously expensive amount of money for a movie ticket to something you might not even like, but in my opinion, if you’re going to see something, that thing doesn’t have an obligation to come to you. Otherwise, as I said before, you’re not just stiffing the studio directly on that movie, but indirectly for everyone else involved. There’s more to movies than just the lead actors, director, and producers.
Which comes to my last point: supporting indie/smaller films. You know how I basically said up there that I wasn’t going to judge you about pirating?
Okay, okay, I may have lied a tiny bit. If you pirate smaller films, I am a little pissed at you. Now, I understand that if you live in the middle of nowhere, you probably don’t have an indie theater nearby. But really, is it that horrible to just wait for that DVD? (hint: my answer is ‘no.’) But if you live near an indie theater, or for fuck’s sake, in or near LA or New York, you’ve got to be kidding me. With indie movies (or movies directed / written by up and comings like Source Code), there’s a ton more on the line. Studios need to see profits to be convinced that 1) making more off-beat movies like this is worth their time and money, and 2) there’s enough of a market to open the film wider, where more people can see it. If you’re pirating these types of movies, you’re helping to fuck over the talent and kind of movie that you wish big studios were making. Directly.
Waaah, you might spend money on a movie you don’t like. It happens. But unless it was three hours of the director pooping or something, you didn’t waste two hours of your life or whatever excuse people might use to get pissy at the chance of paying for a film. You supported an smaller film, which might help other small films to get made. If you saw it at a smaller theater, congratulations, you helped that theater out a bit too! (Theaters needing more money is one aspect of why movie prices are so ridiculous nowadays.)
And if you’re bitching over anything less than $10, stop. Seriously. People in major cities (especially New York and LA) are paying $12-$13.50. I really hate the “consider yourself lucky” shpiel, but…come on.
And if you’re too poor to see movies at the moment, you know what? Tough. I think we all think we’re entitled to entertainment ever since piracy got super-big, and let’s be honest, we’re not. As I said, I’m not trying to tell you you’re a terrible person for pirating anything or trying to guilt trip you into stopping (I’ve made myself stop pirating movies but I have done it quite a bit in the past!), but I think we all need to stop kidding ourselves about what’s going on here. We think that we deserve entertainment for free, when…that’s just not true.
Also if you have a chance to see an smaller / quirkier movie and decide to pirate it instead, I am a little pissy at you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)