Norman Lovett – Movie star and genius

[Jo]

http://www.bignews.biz/?id=785377&keys=film-production-preproduction-studios

It would appear that our Norm’s got some films in the pipeline…

“Roswell 1847” a western SciFi adventure. Starring Norman Lovett (of Red Dwarf fame) Geoff Eyers, Tracy Reddington ( From the new bond film), Peter Ward, Mike Konik, Anabell Ward, Cheryl Bennet, Sky Wilson, and many more notable actors. Directed by Ian Paterson, Produced by William Cheney and Geoff Eyers.

Hmmm… a western scifi eh? that sounds familiar. Maybe Norm was bitter about not appearing in Gunmen, or perhaps he’s a big Firefly/Serenity fan?
Anyone heard of the other people involved?

“Call me a physco” (A action comedy) Starring Norman Lovett, Peter Ward, Tracy Reddington, Geoff Eyers, and many more notable stars. Directed by Ian Paterson, produced by Peter ward and Executive produced by William Cheney.

Intentional comedy spelling mistake, or just a twat who can’t spell?
Mostly the same people but apparently with “many more notable stars” Ooooh!

Topic

[Zombie Jim Undead]

They both sound like top quality productions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pete Part Three]

>and many more notable actors.

Who are so notable they’re not worth noting.

So, have Ian Paterson and William Cheney got photos of Norm or something?

[Phil]

>?Roswell 1847? a western SciFi adventure.

Is this that movie someone mentioned on this site a while back, only to have one of the producers or something drop by to call us all jackasses?

That was fun.

[Pete Part Three]

*taps foot impatiently*

[Danny Stephenson]

Is this that movie someone mentioned on this site a while back, only to have one of the producers or something drop by to call us all jackasses?

I think it was us judging the film based on the Trailer, which made the film look shit. SO that being the only outlet of the film we were able to see we were being bollocked for not knowing about the possible better parts that they should have put into the trailer…

[Zombie Jim Undead]

“Hi, I’m Norman Lovett. You might remember me from such science fiction comedies as ‘Roswell 1847’, ‘Martian Mambo’ and ‘Doctor Thistlewick’s Fantabulous Saucy Space Bicycle”

[Dave]

I nearly auditioned for this, but at the bottom of the breakdown it said:

NAMED ACTORS ONLY

which it then clarified to mean some form of celebrity status rather than a fear of working with the untitled. Since I was reading it on the sort of website I’d wager ‘NAMED ACTORS’ have no need to trawl through for work, I assumed it was going to be shit and would take my lack of NAME elsewhere.

[Tarka Dal]

> Hmmm? a western scifi eh? that sounds familiar. Maybe Norm was bitter about not appearing in Gunmen, or perhaps he?s a big Firefly/Serenity fan?

Or y’know Westworld ;-)

[Jo]

Never heard of it, but then I’m not as old as you :oP

[Tarka Dal]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070909/

The video for Nights in Snowdonia is hugely Westworld inspired. Also Meltdown is essentially one big Westworld reference.

According to IMDB and Wiki it’s due for a remake in the next couple of years too.

[Phil]

I loved Westworld when I first saw it…I was probably 13 or so. Don’t know if I’d still like it so much now, but I’m sure I’d still have some residual fondness for it.

[ChrisM]

I find old films a bit overrated particularly considering the overacting and over enunciation involved. Conversely, I find modern acting a bit too realistic at times. The amount of times I’ve rewound the DVD or slipped on the subtitles cos the actor mumbled his lines or spoke too quickly. Whats the point if you can’t hear what they’re saying? Obviously some middle ground needs to be taken.

Westworld though is definitely one of the good-uns.

[Andrew]

> I find old films a bit overrated

I don’t know where to begin describing what’s wrong with this statement.

[Ian Symes]

I find old films a bit overrated particularly considering the overacting and over enunciation involved. Conversely, I find modern acting a bit too realistic at times. The amount of times I?ve rewound the DVD or slipped on the subtitles cos the actor mumbled his lines or spoke too quickly. Whats the point if you can?t hear what they?re saying? Obviously some middle ground needs to be taken.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present the most stupid paragraph ever posted on the internet. Congratulations.

[ChrisM]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present the most stupid paragraph ever posted on the internet. Congratulations.

(I originally wrote something unkind in response to the above quote… but I’d rather not go down the offensive route, so one edit later…)

Please bear in mind I did give a brief critique of modern acting too, it wasn’t a blind ‘old films are rubbish, modern films are good’ comment. And different opinion doesn’t = stupid, although I accept the way I phrased it maybe could have been better.

Anyway, I accept, ‘overrated’ was perhaps the wrong term, as there are many good old films, and taste is subjective. Let me elaborate exactly what I mean.

I’m not saying all old films are bad. Note I said ‘bit overrated’ in my other post. Not ‘all dreadful’. There is a tendency for reviewers to point at old films and say “Those were the days, don’t make those any more.”, and I wonder if they’re just saying that because they’re old. Of course they might actually think they are good, but I think nostalgia tends to gloss the past with a rose tint…

When I have watched old films, or old TV shows (and I accept, ‘old’ is subjective, mainly pre 70s inclusive, although some 80s stuff feels dated.) my perception is that the stories are usually rather good (although some are rather linear, I like the twist of modern films… but I accept they don’t all have to be like that). In fact a lot of modern filmakers could learn something from the older style storytelling. I’m not saying all modern films don’t have their faults either. Without meaning to sound narky, please read the entire post before picking out one line.

The main problem I have is that in old films (and TV) people tend to act as if they are acting. Lots of clipped tones and, as I said, overacting and exaggeration. The further back you go, the more apparent it seems. I think part of the reason is that, many of the people who appeared in old film (and I use the term generally to include TV too) moved there from the theatre. (That’s stage acting I mean, in case any Americans read this. I know you use the term ‘theatre’ for cinema too.)

The type of acting on stage is purposely, and rightfully more exaggerated, to get the point across, mainly because visibility is limited depending on where the audience members are placed, and due to the mic placements etc. Also on film in the olden days, the technology was also less sophisticated hence possibly reason for the clipped tones and enunciation. I accept it’s not the actor’s fault, but my point remains, on film, a more realistic medium (in my mind) the acting in older films comes across rather unrealistic, and (dare I say without being flamed) a bit cheesy as a result.

Modern acting/dialogue etc, on the other hand is generally more realistic. (Bad action movies aside.) As such I prefer it (although I do get a kick out of the old Hammer Horrors.) Ok, I retract my statement concerning older films being overrated, (I love a few 70s films for example, but 40s, please, I’d rather not) but by large I generally prefer the modern acting style. As I said, too realistic can also be a problem, what with the mutterings etc, we get in modern film, hence a middle ground between the two would not be a bad thing.

Hope that’s more balanced and clear. (Turned into a bit of an essay that.)

[Nakrophile]

Westworld is amazing. A remake will no doubt be shit, unless they get The Rock to play Yul Brynner’s gunsligher, in which case it will be really funny and shit.

[Phil]

I’m horny.

[Andrew]

Chris, you think modern acting is realistic because of the age you live in. You think modern writing is more subtle and clever because of the age you live in. Your preference is no different than one hears from 13 year olds about pop music – “Muuum, turn it off, old music’s borin’!”

‘Old Films’ aren’t a single style, and when you talk about them as such you come across a little…ill-informed. You’re talking about a century of work from across the globe, covering all genres. To lump The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, The Bicycle Thief and A Streetcar Named Desire together is patently ridiculous. (When did ‘old’ cease, by the way? What year? When were ‘the olden days’? After ‘Yore’ before before ‘recently’, one assumes.)

“Realism” is merely a codified system, as is melodrama or any other performance style. Do you have the slightest notion how significant, say, Brando was in the 50s? How what he was doing was praised as immensely realistic and transcendent? That it appears stylised now is down to a million factors – American speech patterns have changed, as have movement communications, and what we deem ‘real’ has massively changed. And it will continue to do so – what you see now as realistic will look every bit as stylised to future generations.

You’re talking about ‘modern films’ as a similarly lumpen group (300’s acting is realistic but Breathless’s isn’t?!). Which is ridiculous, too. But whatever films you mean, you’re talking about a filmmaking grammar that has evolved for 100 years, and we along with it. That the process has somehow now ‘peaked’, getting things right where before they didn’t, is nonsensical. The style simply suits the era, the audience. And it will perpetually change.

[Phil]

I’m still horny.

[TheLeen]

And I’m in love with Andrew’s posting.

> (When did ?old? cease, by the way? What year? When were ?the olden days?? After ?Yore? before before ?recently?, one assumes.)

Can I have that sentence please?

[Phil]

If I dress up as Andrew’s posting, will you sleep with me?

[Andrew]

Ah, me and Marleen. The love that dare not speak its name. (It’s name is Cecil. We’re embarrassed by it.)

> Can I have that sentence please?

Only if I can have…

…hmm, what’s John’s brain doing in my head?

[TheLeen]

> If I dress up as Andrew?s posting, will you sleep with me?

Hmm… probably.

> Only if I can have…

Yes, you can have the dots. :) …

[John Hoare]

?hmm, what?s John?s brain doing in my head?

My mother – who never used to swear at all – now keeps using “fucking” because of me.

[Phil]

I’m horny again.

[Tarka Dal]

I wish I was more attractive like Ellard.

[Andrew]

I’m a one-track lover down a two-way lane…

[Nakrophile]

> I?m a one-track lover down a two-way lane?

Win.

[pfm]

> My mother – who never used to swear at all – now keeps using ?fucking? because of me.

D’you know, that might just be the single greatest sentence ever posted on here.

[TheLeen]

I’m happy.

[Arlene Rimmer BSc SSc]

>(I love a few 70s films for example, but 40s, please, I?d rather not)

And what about the late 1920s through the 30s? Because the Marx Brothers were fucking awesome, and if you don’t think so you’re the wrongest thing on the internet, and possibly on the planet.

[Andrew]

Also dismissing Citizen Kane, there.

[peas_and_corn]

>I?m horny again.

Would you like a worm do?

[Pete Part Three]

>(I love a few 70s films for example, but 40s, please, I?d rather not)

Four Words.

It’s A Wonderful Life.

Don’t take my words for it. Take Rob and Doug’s.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

Citizen Kane is a technical marvel but I do find it a chore to sit through. Think that’s the case with a lot of films from the era. I can appreciate them in their historical context and their technical achievements / importance…but I don’t actually enjoy many of them.

[Ian Symes]

And different opinion doesn?t = stupid

No, but it does when the different opinion is “old films are overrated”.

[Tarka Dal]

Of course, old football is rubbish.

[Jo]

>(I love a few 70s films for example, but 40s, please, I?d rather not)

‘It’s a Wonderful Life’

That is all.

[Nakrophile]

Dismissing old films is essentially just another way of saying “I am wrong and also an idiot.”

Hollywood in particular hasn’t been any good for about three decades anyway.

[Jonathan Capps]

> Hollywood in particular hasn?t been any good for about three decades anyway.

Heh.

[ChrisM]

Westworld is amazing. A remake will no doubt be shit, unless they get The Rock to play Yul Brynner?s gunsligher, in which case it will be really funny and shit.

I would agree with that. Despite my ‘old film’ stance. I also love Omega man, Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green, and a few others.

[ChrisM]

>No, but it does when the different opinion is ?old films are overrated?.

Ok. That line was a bit stupid I’ll admit.I did amplify during the rest of the paragraph though.

[ChrisM]

>(I love a few 70s films for example, but 40s, please, I?d rather not)

And what about the late 1920s through the 30s? Because the Marx Brothers were fucking awesome, and if you don?t think so you?re the wrongest thing on the internet, and possibly on the planet.

I haven’t seen their work although I have heard of them and I’ve seen clips. If I come across them I’ll certainly take a look.

[ChrisM]

Chris, you think modern acting is realistic because of the age you live in.

I think you’ve got something there, what we grow up with certainly affects ones taste. In terms of actual ‘realism’ though, I’m referring to people talking something like how we might chat in real life, and in many old films, (and I accept ‘old’ is subjective, but it seems to become more apparent the further back you go.) people just don’t seem to talk like that. They over emphasize. They speak lines like they’re speaking lines. I accept they might have a good reason for doing so (I won’t go into that as I blathered on about that in my essay above.), I just prefer the modern style, that’s all. (Again I’m not saying all modern acting and dialogue is great either.)

You think modern writing is more subtle and clever because of the age you live in.

Partly, although I did say I think a lot of the old storylines are actually rather good and modern films and programmes could learn from them. It’s mainly the acting and dialogue I’m referring to. A good example would be to compare Old Who with New Who. Many of the stories in Old Who (from the grantedly little I’ve seen) were actually rather good… but again with the ‘acting like we’re acting’. Modern Who… stories tend to have easy quick resolutions. Acting… more realistic overall, (although some of the companion acting has been a bit… oo-er. Ok maybe not such a good example after all.)

Your preference is no different than one hears from 13 year olds about pop music – ?Muuum, turn it off, old music?s borin?!?

Gnnnn! I wouldn’t go quite that far …. I have thought it through. And I don’t automatically like everything of my generation now or growing up. (I disliked a lot of pop music as way of example.) My views mainly concern film and tv, although I agree I’m somewhat biased.

?Old Films? aren?t a single style, and when you talk about them as such you come across a little?ill-informed. You?re talking about a century of work from across the globe, covering all genres. To lump The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, The Bicycle Thief and A Streetcar Named Desire together is patently ridiculous. (When did ?old? cease, by the way? What year? When were ?the olden days?? After ?Yore? before before ?recently?, one assumes.)

Yeah fair point. I said it was mainly pre 70s (inclusive) in my above post (but it’s loooong, so you might have missed it. (Actually I do like a few 70s films so I guess that would be a kind of a ‘border’ period for me.) You’re right about being ‘a little … ill-informed’ as you politely put it. Previous experience put me off, and maybe I should give more of these films a chance.

?Realism? is merely a codified system, as is melodrama or any other performance style. Do you have the slightest notion how significant, say, Brando was in the 50s? How what he was doing was praised as immensely realistic and transcendent? That it appears stylised now is down to a million factors – American speech patterns have changed, as have movement communications, and what we deem ?real? has massively changed. And it will continue to do so – what you see now as realistic will look every bit as stylised to future generations.

I know style of speech has changed somewhat as has slang etc, but I didn’t think the patterns had changed to that extent. Could be wrong though, but I have an idea, people really don’t change all that much. As for the acting style, I remember a certain actor of the day (I believe it was Omar Sharif) talking with Michael Aspel. Aspel said “They don’t make films like that any more do they?” (I think referring to Laurence of Arabia) and Sharif actually said that he felt that in those days he felt people tended to over act. You’ll just have to take my word for it (or not) though I don’t have the reference to hand. (I might check youtube late see if someone put it up.) Point is, a guy from the day is saying the same thing.

I accept though that it’s not necessarily ‘bad acting’ just a different style. I’m just saying I tend to prefer much of the modern style. (The general modern style I mean, I accept thats a generalization as well.)

You?re talking about ?modern films? as a similarly lumpen group (300?s acting is realistic but Breathless?s isn?t?!).

I don’t think I’ve seen either of those (I might have seen Breathless, it rings a bell), but I have an idea of what you mean from the clips I’ve seen of 300.

But whatever films you mean, you?re talking about a filmmaking grammar that has evolved for 100 years, and we along with it. That the process has somehow now ?peaked?, getting things right where before they didn?t, is nonsensical. The style simply suits the era, the audience. And it will perpetually change.

Fair enough. I think it mainly comes down to taste, but I’m certainly not saying a lot of older films (sigh, yes, I know a generalization) were all bad. Or that modern is ‘all good’ (although I largely prefer it.) Indeed I dislike the plot devices of some modern film, and older films plot is generally rather good (although less twisty in general. I likes a good twist me. Oo-er.)

For what it’s worth, I’ll keep an open mind and maybe, if I see an old black and white film is on, I will give it a chance rather than just turn over. I might even seek some out. (Film 4 should be good for this)

Thank you Andrew for stating your views rather that just being dismissive anyway.

[ChrisM]

>Dismissing old films is essentially just another way of saying ?I am wrong and also an idiot.?

I didn’t. Not entirely. Although I have my idiotic moments, I’ll admit. *GNNN! Resist the, ‘and so have you with that statement’ comment… damn, slipped through…*

Oh, Wonderful Life! I’m not sure I’ve seen it all the way through, but I agree there. A touching story. That is the one with the man who considers suicide, and the angel who shows him how his life has affected others yes?

Apologies for the multiple replies. I’ve been away from the board for a while, it just seemed easier to go piecemeal rather than cutting and pasting etc.

[Jonathan Capps]

Chris M, there.

[Andrew]

> I?m referring to people talking something like how we might chat in real life, and in many old films…people just don?t seem to talk like that.

Okay, I’m trying to remain calm, because this is actually getting stupider.

REALISM IS A CODIFIED SYSTEM!!!!!!

Nope, struggled there…

> I said it was mainly pre 70s (inclusive) in my above post (but it?s loooong, so you might have missed it.

I read it. But that’s still 70 YEARS OF INTERNATIONAL CINEMA LUMPED INTO ONE BOX.

No, it’s no good. I can’t hold it in.

For crying out loud, man – you’re talking about ‘all modern films’ as a single unit. Don’t you see how dumb that is? As if the acting in School of Rock and Secrets & Lies are the same style. And you’re doing it all from the present day – where you THINK the style is more ‘realistic’ because it’s what you’re culturally developed into. Every era gets the styles that people of the time buy into. (That’s EVERY era. ‘Old’ isn’t an era.)

‘Modern’ is NOT a style.

> Point is, a guy from the day is saying the same thing.

Omar Sharif. For crying out loud. OMAR SHARIF! He’s talking about films like Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivagio. It’s…

Oh for crying out loud. What is the point?

Chris, you win. Teh old akting is, like, totaly not wiv da realizm and modurn akting so iz.

[Phil]

I think it might help slightly, Chris, if you gave us an example of an “old film” that you think is lacking realism. Because you’re making a sweeping statement…and, for all we know, all you’ve done is watch a bunch of really lousy old films.

Just off the top of my head–and taking obvious examples only–The Maltese Falcon, It’s a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane and Casablanca are full of characters who don’t speak the way we speak in 2008, but are nonetheless speaking very realistic dialogue for their day. (And, well, it holds up really well, doesn’t it? So much so that whatever no-longer-used expressions and particles of speech are present actually add to the charm of the film rather than distract from it.)

Certainly there are counter examples, but you can’t really use those as your only reference point.

What film(s), specifically, are you referring to? By narrowing your attack to a single movie, or even a handful, you’ll cease to sound quite so dismissive…

[The preceding post was made entirely in the interest of peacekeeping. Thank you.]

[Jo]

>Oh, Wonderful Life! I?m not sure I?ve seen it all the way through, but I agree there. A touching story. That is the one with the man who considers suicide, and the angel who shows him how his life has affected others yes?

‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ and yes, and if you haven’t seen it all the way through then you should. It’s also a film with a Dwarf connection.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

Not worth heated arguments and name-calling, is it now?

[Author]

Replies