Is he a hack?

Is he a hack?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=F4wh_mc8hRE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No. Show me one, just ONE scene from his filmography where his characters use a forced exposition. Just one damn scene, show it to me.

I don't know about hack, but can someone tell me if he's a hypocrite?

He is clearly against produt placement in this interview, but blatnatly advertised Heineken and another beer in Blue Velvet. Was he not paid to do it in Blue Velvet or something - what makes it different from any other product placement?

youtube.com/watch?v=F4wh_mc8hRE

>She wore Blue Velvet
Walked out of the cinema right there.

Also out of interest, was he not meant to swear in the interview or something haha? It just goes dead silent.

The only "hack jobs" he ever did were The Elephant Man and Dune, and The Elephant Man is fantastic.

Besides that he's the real deal, one of very few genuine artists who ever managed to work in the Hollywood system. You might not LIKE his films but it just wouldn't be correct to call him a "hack"

It's easy to avoid exposition if you're okay with people having no clue what's going on.

Newsflash, moron: Lynch has made other films than Inland Empire, you 15 yr old balding faggot.

Oh, so you're an idiot.

Gotcha.

This, some people may also see the Straight Story because of Disney distribution, but I don't see it that

>Watch a film
>Don't get it
>Other people seem to like it
>Am I stupid? No!!
>Self-doubt turns to rage
>HE'S A HACK AND YOU'RE ALL JUST PRETENDING!!!

It was Pabst Blue Ribbon the other beer. I think he did as some sort of plot device for the protag to show he was mature or something, not inherently product placement because he said the real name of some beer brands.

he is a true artist

also DREAMZ DUDE LMAO

I would hope so, thats the end of the movie you fucking idiot

I would hardly call it a plot device - it would have worked just as well if he said "Ah - that's a good beer". Instead he says Heineken repeatedly, and the only reason to not think it's product placement is because Frank tells him it's shit/for pussies/etc - but in doing so he then brings up Pabst Blue Ribbon.

I mean I didn't really have an issue with it - I thought it was funny when the beers were brought up - but I don't see how it isn't hypocritical.

When you do actual, paid-for product placement, a representative of the brand basically directs the scene for you - they dictate how the product must be shown, how characters may talk about the product, etc. If it was "real" product placement, they wouldn't allow Dennis Hopper to yell "Heineken?? Fuck that shit!!!"

You can choose to include real brands in your movie without being paid to advertise - it's called "fair use" and you're allowed to make fun of it, or just let it sit in the background without mentioning it, whatever. Lynch obviously chose to call a lot of attention to the different beer brands, but for some directors it's just a matter of realism - the real brand is less distracting than making up a fake one.

But yeah, the difference is that with real product placement, the brand has a say in how the scene plays out. In cases like this, the brand has no say, and the director controls his own film

It's also at the very beginning, fuckface.

An example of obvious product placement would be BMW in Live another day and the Apple products in TED. Sony movies have also plenty of it.

>there's a famous song called Blue Velvet being played
>in a movie called Blue Velvet
>where an antagonist literally kisses some piece of blue fabric made of velvet
>somehow this is a major no-no
>somehow this a roll credits tier lines from LOTR

fuck yourself

>Sony movies have also plenty of it.
Yeah "Sony Pictures" is literally just a medium for advertising Sony electronics. They're the worst studio in Hollywood

>where an antagonist literally kisses some piece of blue fabric made of velvet
Holy shit, if I could've walked back in to walk out again, I would have.

sure mate one of the greatest directors of all time is a hack

gtfo