?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
Apr 30th
05:38 pm
Roundup: Out & About in LA plus TLO Interviews, his Parade recipe, and Second Weekend Box Office  


From JJ, though fwiw I think that's actually Laurel Canyon Country Store,
not Country Mart as the paparazzi labeled it.

entertainment.ie



Glamour.uk



VIP.de



BTS from Inside Punk'd
Zac's part starts around 8:20


Link if embed doesn't work.



Zac's Parade recipe
Via ZacEfron_News





Box Office actuals finally came in a little while ago.
Sadly TLO got kicked to fourth by THG and a difference of just
$6,248
:''''(

lol.



It's not a super-great holdover number but that's okay and expected with the reviews and a demographic target under heavy competition. Plus this weekend the box office was just down in general in anticipation of The Avengers which will kill everyone next week.
 
 
Mood: tiredtired
23 23 comments Comment
 
 
butterflybee260butterflybee260 on April 30th, 2012 11:40 pm (UTC)

I contributed my $10 last night!

Didn't like it though. :/
hunny miss (aka lets fead him to the gators)ehs_wildcats on May 1st, 2012 12:40 am (UTC)
[”mythoughts”]i didn't comment in the post about it just cause i don't really want to be a debbie downer. i felt about it like i felt about the book. the characters have interesting potential but the story lets everyone down. zac and taylor and cast were fine though imo. and scott did what he could. the only majorly bad decision on his part (imo) was the way they filmed the scene where he tells her about the picture. that was ridiculous and pretty sure what the wall street journal review was calling out as zac not being able to string two lines together... which is so stupid as he clearly can in other movies so clearly not his fault.

Edited at 2012-05-01 12:40 am (UTC)
butterflybee260butterflybee260 on May 1st, 2012 03:09 am (UTC)

I thought the editing and pacing was awful. The fucking montages every five minutes killed me. The soundtrack was way overdone and melodramatic, along with having no consistent theme and then having actual songs just in the sex scenes. Taylor, despite being a sweetheart irl, seemed all over the place and mentally unstable as the character. Zac had so little to work with that he might as well not been there. That scene you're talking about, they filmed it like a stage monologue which was a BAD choice. I think that was the worst Nick Sparks movie I've seen tbh. It wasn't Zac's fault though, which I am thankful for, it was a bad script and bad editing. There was potential too, it just wasn't executed well at all.

The sex scenes were hot though. And I swear to God I saw boob sucking!
hunny miss (aka lets fead him to the gators)ehs_wildcats on May 1st, 2012 04:25 am (UTC)
[lol]i probably don't need to use the spoiler tag but i am, lol. cause i don't want to fight with people who are happy with it the way it was. that's fine, they can enjoy it, different strokes for different folks. anyway i had issues with the pacing (a book problem tbh) and montages and soundtrack too. taylor i didn't mind. idk if i ever really felt like there was great potential, at least if they wanted to hold to the book, but i did go in with an open mind. and i could enjoy it, in between or while ignoring its weaknesses but i'm happy we get to move on now.

Edited at 2012-05-01 04:26 am (UTC)
butterflybee260butterflybee260 on May 1st, 2012 04:50 am (UTC)

Yeah I am really happy to be moving on. I'll probably see it again to try to enjoy the good parts. But oh well, what can you do?
Sapphirasapphia on May 1st, 2012 09:59 am (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how to hide comments.

This film is an example of how you can with the bad stuff (the book), to make good material for filming, and then spoil all the good editing it.

But ... I liked the film because Zac did his job well. He is surprised me! It was interesting to look at him, and I believed him. It was very good!

But I agree with many of your opinions.
For a spoiled movie I put the blame on the director and editor. It was very bad.

Unfortunately, signing a contract, Zac and all the other actors playing roulette. Cause after work, the film will make hundreds of people. And you do not know what will happen in the end...

Edited at 2012-05-01 10:25 am (UTC)
butterflybee260butterflybee260 on May 1st, 2012 04:10 pm (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't Zac's fault at all, it was just bad editing unfortunately. Which is frustrating but hey it made decent money, he got and experience out of it, and now it's over lol. But yes I agree with you.
countessm3countessm3 on May 1st, 2012 11:12 am (UTC)
Well tell us how you really feel, BB! (-: I mean, I despise sentimental romances, girly music, and chick flicks but even I didn't disparage it that much. (Btw, I'm just giving you a hard time. (-; )
Seriously, however, I'm interested in hearing what you found wrong with the pacing.
While I didn't read the book, I skimmed through it at the bookstore to grasp the general plot and characters and noticed the war scene was not part of the novel. Also, while Sparks has a - dare I say it? - a pleasant writing style, the first chapter contained too much character exposition, a big no-no when it comes to fiction writing. In addition, the bad dude (whats-his-face) was a stock "bad" character. The movie gave him some dimension at least.
Now what I am wondering is if in the transposition of book to film the weaknesses of the novel became weaknesses in the film. Sparks developed his characters too early in the book - the idea is to slowly reveal them over time. Consequently, the plot came after the character development.

I agree about the sex scenes though - that shot of Zac's half-covered butt undulating in the doorway made my girl bits contract!

Now THAT I would love a .gif of!

Edited at 2012-05-01 11:13 am (UTC)
butterflybee260butterflybee260 on May 1st, 2012 04:09 pm (UTC)

lol I'm notoriously picky. *shrug*

I wish they had spent more time developing Logan's PTSD because I thought those were the scenes Zac did the best in and he really could have made something out of it if he had more to work with. I felt like they tried to put too much in, started with Logan's ptsd, then going onto all of Beth's issues with her brother dying and her ex, you almost forget about Logan's issues until the picture comes back up and then it wraps up too fast. For the middle of the movie it felt like Logan became a background character because he had nothing to do but play with dogs, have sex, mumble, and be cute with the kid.

None of this was Zac's fault. The editing was awful, truly it was. They picked awkward versions of his line deliveries as well in a few cases, which really didn't help.

I think it had potential. If Nick Sparks hadn't been involved as much maybe they could have deviated from the book and made it into a decent film, I do think the novel's weaknesses translated to the film.

I know Zac's all about working with directors right now, but he really needs to get a good producer on his side.
countessm3countessm3 on May 2nd, 2012 01:11 am (UTC)
One of the problems with the book is that Sparks jumps from one character's point of view into another, often without signalling the transition (a new chapter, for instance.) I found this head hopping a bit like that Denzel Washington movie, where the evil demon/devil would jump from one host into another, simply through proximity.
If you happen to be Tolstoy and you're writing Anna Karenina (or Matthew Lewis and you're writing The Monk), then this transition from one character group to another is okay - after all, it's a Russian novel set in old Petersburg society; plus, it's at least 300 pages. But Sparks does it on such a simple book, and what happens with all this head hopping is that characters get "dropped" until they come back into play.
That's pretty much what the movie did. It started out as Logan's story, but ended up being Beth's story, because the only character that changed in the end is Beth.