Podcast - Adam Savage Project
Still Untitled: The Adam Savage Project #9 – Spoilers – 8/21/2012
Adam explains why he read the script for the as-yet-unfinished Tarantino movie, Django Unchained.
Comments (17)
Adam explains why he read the script for the as-yet-unfinished Tarantino movie, Django Unchained.
One Day Builds
Adam embarks on one of his most ambitious builds yet: fulfil…
Show And Tell
Adam recently completed a build of the royal St. Edwards cro…
Making
Viewers often ask to see Adam working in real-time, so this …
One Day Builds
Adam and Norm assemble a beautifully machined replica prop k…
One Day Builds
One of the ways Adam has been getting through lockdown has b…
Making
Adam unboxes and performs a quick test of this novel new hel…
Making
When Adam visited Weta Workshop early last year, he stopped …
One Day Builds
Adam tackles a shop shelf build that he's been putting off f…
Show And Tell
Time for a model kit build! This steampunk-inspired mechanic…
One Day Builds
Adam reveals his surprise Christmas present for his wife--a …
http://files.tested.com/podcast/stilluntitled-009-20120821.mp3
Some very interesting ideas are presented here. There really are so many different ways in which a reader or viewer can approach any given story. All approaches can be said to be equally valid depending on what you are looking for, but you can only choose one so do it wisely. I love it. =D
This might be my favourite Cave-segment.
Can we please have Gary and Adam on a single podcast?
Kudos for Tarantino not casting the most “beautiful” people in his roles. We’ve got to get past this obsession with looks! Jamie Foxx is very handsome man, all the same.
Now, it’s not that actors have to be good looking, but sometimes a certain look for an actor is part of the story, and in the script Will Smith physical presence was part of the way the transformation of the character was told. The casting of Foxx will result in a different tone in some parts of the story, may be an improvement for all we know at this point =)
If I remember correctly, Guillermo Del Torro is to blame for the “man cave” designation. “The Cave” really should have been it from day one. Glad we took care of that, too bad its codified in all videos previous to this with Adam.
The discussion was really cool, this was a great one. I’m with Will on the whole figuring it out before thing as that happened to me very recently finishing Ghost Trick and I love it for that.
The two films sited always seemed weird to me because I just assumed Bruce was dead from the moment he was shot, nobody’s getting up from being shot like that. And the ending of fight club didn’t make sense to me because some of the stuff that happens in the movie is physically impossible for a single person (no matter how schizophrenic) to do.
But that is my stupid brain and the reason I keep quiet in cinemas, unlike the bloke who keeps having to describe out loud what just happened on the screen.
Django looks awesome, waiting for the giant pipe to make a reappearance.
While some things in Fight Club might be impossible to do for one person, you have to remember that we are probably dealing with an ‘unreliable narrator’, so you can always ask, ‘how much of the narrator’s story is actually reality and how much of it is a subconscious fabrication or delusion?’ I believe it is even possible that the narrator, during an episode, has applied the Tyler Durden persona onto other people he has interacted with.
Another great podcast! Excellent!
Will it at one point be possible to send in a question for Adam? I’m interested in knowing if he’s ever gets bored at all. I know he said in this podcast that he actually found himself in a situation with nothing to do, but he always seems to have so many things going on. Oh, and nice “I would go blind” comment there. I laughed quite a bit at that.
still untitled?
In regards to Quentin Tarantino being the only filmmaker to combine humor and violence…(cough)…Coen brothers…..(cough)
On viewer (or reader) involvement in mystery genre:
Quick way to separate a top notch piece of mystery with a mediocre one is the amount of information the viewer has in comparison to the main characters. Optimal scenario is the viewer/reader knowing exactly the same information as the protagonist does. In that case the director/author can create a sense of involvement for the viewer/reader in puzzling out the mystery themselves as the plot goes along. Ideally, the viewer/reader should start to get an inkling of the solution at right around the same time as the protagonist does even if this happens a little bit prior to the official reveal.
Sub optimal, on the other hand, is to have the protagonist know key pieces of information that are not revealed to the audience. In this case, the final reveal can feel cheap, hamfisted. Audience feels slightly betrayed at being the only party involved that was left in the dark about key information.
Keep in mind, I;m not saying that the audience needs to have all the information. The ideal is parity between what the audience knows and what the protagonist knows.
Also, as in Norm’s case, if you ever feel that you need to dumb yourself down and forcibly try not to think about possible solutions to the mystery, the author or director has failed. The narrative is too transparent.
In some cases though, I think there is a lot of truth to what Adam is saying, that the plot *can* be just a prop to drive the characters, and that their development and actions are the most interesting thing for the reader/viewer to observe and analyze. If you take the famous crime-novels, it is often the character, their idiosyncrasies and in some cases their adversaries, that are memorable and not the mystery that drives them to make their choices.
Yeah I get that. I’m not a big fan of character centric narrative though. Just personal preference.
I’m gonna agree with Nicked and say that story revelations can be enthralling whenever you experience them. I didn’t see the Empire Strikes Back until it came on TV in the 80s, but I had the book and tape version – and was still blown away by reading (and hearing) the big reveal in that story.
I just thought of a name for the show (if one need be used) – The Cabinet of Awesome. This works two ways. First, much like the president has various cabinets of people for various tasks, this show serves as a cabinet of awesome. Also, it would be an homage to the awesome cabinet that was constructed during the first few episodes.
Just want to say, the video is incredibly clear this time, and I like the camera angle in the shop. There’s so so much to see in that shop that you couldn’t in the normal close up angle. Dealing with the hammering was worth it for a podcast when you have a huge display area immediately on display for the camera for all of us to marvel at.
Also, it’s interesting to hear that in the Inglorious Basterds script that they didn’t originally kill Hitler. There was a very well thought out (semi-conspiracy theory) cracked article linking all the Tarentino movies through that one act in that movie. The genesis of it was “what would the world look like where going to a movie premier ended in the death of the entire Nazi regime?”, and ended with, “Pop culture is no longer the side bar of the news, it’s something that radically changed the world and discussing it is as important, and in some cases the same as, discussing politics and history”.