Very true. I agree with you there.TheVoxHumanus wrote:I disagree. A singular "vision" in the hands of the proper person is a very good thing. There is such a thing as "too many cooks in the kitchen".
See, that's where I'm gonna have to diagree with you. I think Chloe looks good. Does she look as good as Lina? Of course not. But it's unfair to think that she will. And, honestly, if she does "ape Lina's performance", I'm not gonna be that annoyed. In fact, I'm actually gonna be somewhat impressed, as it means that Chloe watched the original, which very few people in her position would, I think.TheVoxHumanus wrote:I just watched the trailer for the second time...I'm still really having trouble warming up to what's-her-face.
I really think the reason Lina did so well was because she didn't act at all like a child. What's-her-face seems to just be aping Lina's performance. But I will overrule my own objections until I see the finished piece...
That being said, even bad performances can be saved by good editing.
Well, from what I've heard, the story's gonna be told in a flashback until the "caretaker" falls from the window (which we see in the opening). After that, I think it follows conventional chronology.TheVoxHumanus wrote:I'd also like to add that I don't think it's fair to judge the look of snippets of scenes or the information contained therein -- it's important to note that we don't know where the scenes actually fall in the movie. In fact if I remember right, the story is going to be told out of chronological order. Certain information that would be "giving away too much" might fall in a place in the story where that information would be appropriate for the viewer to know.

