|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 26, 2008 16:14:22 GMT
and Eurostar didn't "fund" the film. it wasn't some philanthropic or charitable gesture. they went to mother and said "we need an ad, something different, our budget's 3/4 of a million". Yes.... but they got a Shane Meadows film. Lucky sods! So long Bill Hicks! |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbaxter on Aug 26, 2008 16:15:15 GMT
Well, I decided NOT to go and see this film - I don't even like trains! Instead, I went to see "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" - now I'm not impressed with that either... it was Elves, Goblins, Tooth Fairies, Weapons, Special FX etc. etc. - a blatant advert for fantasy fiction I reckon - and Tolkien's had enough money out of me what with buying the books, the games, the comics, the "I can't believe it's not Baggins" butter substitute etc. etc. I'm not cynical, but from now on I'll sneer at EVERYTHING and decide to 'pooh-pooh' it - in fact, I'm going to start doing this in advance! Thanks very much Mr. Meadows - I'm frankly disgusted! Plus I arranged a 'tug-of-war' contest with me mates in Asda right near the bacon counter, and was thrown out - I blame YOU"  N> |
|
|
|
Post by shindig on Aug 26, 2008 17:03:16 GMT
Well it's convinced me - I'm going to burn all my Meadows DVDs... and the 'Romeo'script ... DIBS! Why burn when you can share? Advertising's a fact of film, these days. As long as it's not mind-blowingly off-putting, there's no shame in it. The fact is, Shane decided that there was obviously another story to tell, rather than to bring awareness of the Eurostar brand. For example, let's say Nexus approached me to produce a short to drum up passenger numbers for the Sunderland line of the Tyne and Wear Metro. However, I decide that I can use this opportunity to tell the story of two star-crossed lovers who are rightously pissed off about a recent survey that named Sunderland a useless hole. As a result, the short lasts a canny while longer than originally billed and can now be seen by cinema-goers. No harm done, unless the advert/narrative balance is completely up it's chunt. |
|
|
|
Post by RydCook on Aug 26, 2008 18:54:22 GMT
Is it too late to put *SPOILERS* in the title of this thread?!!
Bugger it... I will anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by billywizz on Aug 26, 2008 19:21:41 GMT
maybe shane's entire career is a viral campaign for pot noodle...? dankeane - you've a few valid points, but to dismiss somers town as the equivalent of an asda ad is a bit unfair.....it has provoked a bit of debate and rightly so, knowing about the eurostar link before watching the film made me well aware of all the nods to the funder....but if you didn't know before you saw it would you have clocked on....? and does it really matter...? still a great story, well acted....the dough comes from some folk with some conditions whatever the film...?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulblackpool on Aug 26, 2008 22:58:26 GMT
I had never even considered somthing like this, yeah ive heard about product placement/advertising in films before, like the italian job remake springing to mind, but before reading this was unaware the film was funded or part funded whatever by Eurostar.
I heard that this was ment to be a short film then somthing about being shown on tv originally but snowballed into a feature film. So if it had of intended to a short film with the Eurostar in it, i suppose it would be nothing more than a advert, which we all know Shane makes from time to time, but i suppose this growing into more makes it a film, but what would be if the clause be made by Eurostar that the film could only be funded by them if the Eurostar is in it? I can see both sides of the arguement and yes it does draw a fine line between film making and blatant advertising.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Aug 27, 2008 9:31:18 GMT
its about shane meadows prostituting his ability to make honest and socially resonant films, in the most cheap and dishonest way. Bit strong isn't it? I know the guy is bald, but he's not Dr Evil, out to screw us all over. Funding for MOST films comes from numerous sources - INCLUDING blue chip backers. You could say Eurostar is funded by, er, customers, and those customers are funded by, er, their jobs and the list goes on. How ANY company chooses to spend their money is up to them. Shane is a filmmaker, not a socialist martyr. If you didn't like the movie, I'm sure you'll get over it. But slinging righteousness at the bloody movie is daft. It's a film that is light-hearted and NOT a sequel to 24/7. But that doesn't mean that Shane is NOT allowed to do these things. That's narrow-minded and means that just about every artist who ever earned a bean must be selling out somewhere. I would say your view is distorted and unrealistic. And whilst you're allowed it, it's still pushing the realms of what filmmaking is actually all about. If we say it's okay for the BBC, National Lottery or anyone else to fund films, but not okay for Eurostar, isn't that a bit odd? Why the fuck would we NOT want big money sponsors getting involved in films? As long as the balance is right (which you don't think it is, but many people do) why does it matter? It's not an elitist club where only the outsiders are let in. That's a small angled view backing up your dislike for the movie. I'll send you a flaming torch and you can go and lead a mob to the doors of Eurostar and chase them away before they taint any other filmmakers careers. The fact is, Shane does whatever he wants - just like anybody else. We can slag him off for it, but that doesn't make the slightest bit of difference - it's still the guy's choice. I hate the pariahs who claim that money and art don't mix. That's stupid. It's about balance. And whilst not all Bluechipper will care about integrity, they're not all out to take over our cinemas and feed us bilge. Truth is Eurostar could've demanded a helluva LOT more shots of their shiny trains and station in the film, but then, Shane wouldn't have made it. It's these attitudes that stunt the growth of film and Arts in general. How many galleries are sponsored by big banks and companies? Does that mean that the art is worth less? I would suggest you get over it, think seriously about why you hate Eurostar getting involved, and learn to see the value that can be placed on directors getting fresh funding when the traditional routes are often a dry riverbed. It's not selling out, it's called working. |
|
|
|
Post by jill on Aug 27, 2008 9:57:13 GMT
Crikey, this is getting a bit out of hand maybe. I don't think Dankeane was complaining about corporate bodies/commercial interests funding films necessarily, but rather when a work is presented as a film, but subtly advertises a product. Another way to look at it I suppose is that Shane took the money because it allowed him to make a film that had it's own merit/validity (it has afterall won a prestigious award) and threw in a few cursory references to the financial backers (which more of a f*ck you than 'thank you' maybe).
If you really love Shane's stuff (this one excepted) Dankeane, maybe you should stick around and post your thoughts on the other films?
|
|
|
|
Post by fan on Aug 27, 2008 16:03:51 GMT
Hello, I am a Meadows fan from Ireland. Yes this is my first time posting on this site, so I appreciate that I probably have no credibility here, but rest assured I have been a Shane Meadows fan ever since I saw ‘Where’s the Money Ronnie’ as part of the gangsters series on Channel 4 in 1996! Also if dankeane can sign up to critisize Shane on this site, then I hope you will allow me to do the opposite!
Dankeane, Somerstown was made at the absolute height of Shane Meadows career. To suggest that he would risk credibility with his audience and the film making community now by cynically taking a cheque and attempting to fool everyone, is so absurd I can’t believe anyone here has bothered even replying to it. How much money do you think he got for this? Even though it started as a bloody short?
Shane Meadows films’ have moved you in the past. This film has moved people in a similar way. It has. Pointing to some other critics on the web doesn’t justify your opinion that you are smarter than everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by shindig on Aug 27, 2008 17:05:46 GMT
Ryd's bang on the money about funding. I know Shane's a keen benefactor from the UK Film Council. That kind of money does you a canny favour for getting any project, big or small, off the ground. The money's simply came from a different source and, possibly with a few deliverables written in (i.e. portray an cross-channel train service in a positive light... or just show it once or twice, as long as they can see the logo) so it's no big deal.
The fact he beefed it to 74 minutes indicates he wanted, and was allowed to say more than just "Ride this train because it only takes 3 hours and it's a bugger to swim."
Keane-o here is either on the wind up or completely confusing the film/film-maker's intentions.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulblackpool on Aug 27, 2008 19:14:44 GMT
To me this forum attracts a number of quite obsesive Shane Meadows fans(in my opinion have a unhealthy obsession, please see the thread asking Shane what toilet roll he uses, but thats my opinion so dont kill me) who will rush in to defend Lord Shane, half of repys complete nonsense, just to think they can get a little closer to the man, without fully reading what has been said. Ive not seen the film just yet to really see if the advertising is quite clear in it, so cant say, but yeah dankeane words did seem a bit harsh at first and he has addressed them. However he does have some valid points about the advertisment in the film and shows concern about future work done by Shane, which i agree is a dark path to go down, no matter how sutle it is. Comparing EuroStar involvement to the lottery fund are two totally different as the lottery fund ask only for there logo to be in the credits and not in the film its self, which no matter how sutle is altering a film, but I dont think Shane has sold out completely.
To me anyway i never really got that excited about seeing this film as of previous ones being how it came about, making more a stop gap in Shanes career, a sort of starter before the main course (being King of the Gypsies).
Anyway best thread ive read yet, lets have more of this kind of controversial threads like one on Andrew Shims Acting range.
|
|
|
|
Post by johartley on Aug 27, 2008 20:08:16 GMT
Yeah, to be honest id like to say that Shane is bang out of order for ruining Tomo's life and mine and shimmy's and Paddy's and Vicky's and everyone he has ever given a break to because all he was doing it for was to further his career and ruin our lives. Bastard!! I cant believe somerstown is so wank and that he put trains in it and not the tube, he could of had a peugeot at the entrance then at least he would be promoting a car and not the frikkin eurostar, what a sell out merchant, bet he just does it for the money RONNIE!!!!!!!
Dankememainman has got it right. More acid mate more acid.
What bitter pill you may have swallowd my friend.... Wheres that come from? Im in shock! No rights no wrongs i say!
shit im missing paddy's film, fuck... must dash.
Shane you t...er! Yeah ya big idiot, stop makin films they are rubbish and no-one likes em!
GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!
phww.... im back, erm im really confused. lol lol thats so funny. I think i just tripped out man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 27, 2008 21:09:34 GMT
To me this forum attracts a number of quite obsesive Shane Meadows fans(in my opinion have a unhealthy obsession, please see the thread asking Shane what toilet roll he uses, but thats my opinion so dont kill me) who will rush in to defend Lord Shane... I didn't label the top contributor category on this forum as MEADOWS MANIACS for nothing. ;D There have been loads of heated debates on here PaulBlackpool, they've just been before your time. This whole business basically boils down to whether you give a flying cack about some bullshit notion of integrity that you've taught yourself. That's not aimed at you PaulBlackpool.. it's a general comment to everyone. Am I the only person who didn't see the Eurostar logo in the film? Not much of a Eurostar advert when you get name-checks for Carling and Head & Shoulders but not your own product. As many have mentioned, if people didn't know about it, there's no way people would come out of it thinking it was an advert for Eurostar. I can't help but keep posting on this thread, no matter how misguided my opinions may be! ;D The filthy National Lottery money is fine then eh? I bet you'd be happy if films were funded by the BNP as long they didn't stipulate any conditions for the films.  (Joke!) |
|
|
|
Post by RichK on Aug 27, 2008 21:11:09 GMT
I'd like to point out that this thread only highlights why this is such a quality forum. A disparaging post is met with interesting and informative replies.
Thank you all.
|
|
|
|
Post by fan on Aug 27, 2008 21:18:14 GMT
Paulblackpool, these guys have a right to defend their favourite film maker. This IS a fan site. Who are you to say it’s obsessive?
|
|
(Joke!)