Talk:Brian De Palma

message: HARRY GEORGATOS:Doesn't De Palma have final cut in his movies? According to a website Hollywood bigwigs treat De Palma with contempt. His films have generated little box-office buisness with only a small handful making respectable takings. MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE and THE UNTOUCHABLES have been his most successful. SNAKE EYES and MISSION TO MARS did some minor buisness. SNAKE EYES and MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE seem like severely compromised films. MISSION needed more real sweat and violence. The scene where Ethan has the black hood removed to finally meet Max was building to an explosive piece of gun violence. When there was no extensive gun battle it seemed like the film was desperatly missing something. The way Max Von Sydow CIA assassin crew eliminated Robert Redfords bookworms in THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR was a scene that should have been applied at that moment in MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE. SNAKE EYES would have to have the worse ending in Hollywood history! There was an extensive CGI set-piece removed from the film by the brutal force of the studio to that appalling ending. De Palma had a more violent version with a higher sex quotient in his original cut. The studio forced him to change the film and thus damage the movie. It's like telling Scorsese, Spielberg or the Coen brothers to water down the violence in films like THE DEPARTED, MUNICH or NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. If anyone has a bootleg director's copy of De Palma's original cut of SNAKE EYES contact me harry.georgatos@yahoo.com.au, and will pay good money! Organic violence is what one expects in a De Palma film. SNAKE EYES and MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE should have been a volatile cocktail of secret spy violence. Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTERDS was a violent piece of mayhem and has become Tarantino's most successful film alongside PULP FICTION. Why shouldn't De Palma be given the same freedom then some compromised film as a result of market research test screenings which have destroyed so many films in Hollywood. De Palma has been unable to make a great film since CARLITO'S WAY. FEMME FATALE was brilliantly directed with appalling performances from the two leads. De Palma's great films started with SISTERS, OBSESSION, CARRIE, THE FURY, DRESSED TO KILL, BLOW OUT, SCARFACE, THE UNTOUCHABLES, CASUALTIES OF WAR and his last great film CARLITO'S WAY. De Palma's other films have failed to excite as those previous films. I would desperately love to see De Palma's original cut of SNAKE EYES on Blu-Ray. HARRY GEORGATOS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.131 (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is this tension, at once removed from the superficial elements of the plot or characters, yet intended to elicit emotional responses, that drives De Palma's work; the somewhat notorious reputation he has earned and the critical dismissal De Palma has experienced is a direct result of the distantiation techniques he employs in films that use the methodology of thrillers to engage the audience.
-That was me in 2006. My first experience writing on Wikipedia. My bad.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.227.107 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What windbag wrote this? 

message: This is a good article to use as a source or to update the article with  Mad Jack 18:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: This article seems to contain a great deal of unfounded commentary that ignores NPOV - particularly concerning the so-called violent reactions to De Palma's gangster films. The article also substantially glosses over a lot of De Palma's major successes in the 1990s such as The Untouchables and Mission: Impossible, as well as the notorious flop of The Bonfire of the Vanities
I am going to try and tackle this entry over the next week or two. It's a mess. I'm thinking of using Martin Scorsese's entry as my model.
:The Untouchables was mid-80s. The problem I see with this article is a clear inflation of the director's influence and talent by fans, with virtually no criticism of a filmmaker who has often been accused of ripping off other directors like Hitchcock, has had few (or no) unqualified successes, very few box office successes, many critical flops, and a large comparative number of horrible "Mission to Mars"-like films, compared to the relatively even careers of those who are considered his contemporaries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Swearengen (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildly unfounded article 

message: This article is in pretty bad shape for an important film director, especially in comparison to the articles on some of his contemporaries/peers.  It also hasn't changed appreciably in content or structure in the past 5 years, despite several noted criticisms on this page.
I may endeavor to re-do this entry in the coming weeks; I just revamped the article on Blow Out, so I've got a lot of my De Palma materials out.  Any objections or thoughts? Jedgeco (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write? 

message: Is he a Catholic now? If not, the cat American Roman Catholics should not be present. Qzm (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic? 

message: A remember very well Brian De Palma's prizewinning entry in the Philadelphia-area science fair...1957-58 school year, I believe, the same year I got an honorable mention in the same science fair for a mathematical project. I remember being quite impressed by it. When later Mr. De Palma became famous as a film director, I was really surprised that he hadn't followed a career in electronics/computers where it was clear he had many talents. I appreciate the article having discussed how he changed from a science/engineering orientation to his life in film. Bill Jefferys (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fair 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brian De Palma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728223053/http://www.labiennale.org/en/cinema/festival/lineup/off-sel/venezia69 to http://www.labiennale.org/en/cinema/festival/lineup/off-sel/venezia69/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey, figured I'd start the thread about the ongoing edits in the Criticism section. Vaselineeeeeeee's concern is about the sources I've cited being unreliable/blogs and the number of paragraphs/length of the quotes being undue for the topic. While the sources are reliable and none are blogs (Film Comment is a magazine published by the Film Society of Lincoln Center, Lola is an online film journal), I've removed the long block quote about Dressed to Kill, which in retrospect would be more appropriate on the page for the film itself. 2601:1C0:CF00:6D2:59F4:1E72:9711:7C4D (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: References in this new area were incorrectly formatted, causing a number of errors in the page rendering. I've fixed the problems, though since it seems like the changes might be contentious, I feel like it's important to point out that the fix is just a fix -- it's not an endorsement of the material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Edits  

message: It's been suggested that this section be removed, so what does the community think about this? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent collaborators 

message: Just a heads up that I deleted unsourced claims in this article per WP:V and WP:OR. Please don't add unsourced information. If there are sources that can support this (including ones already in this article), please do re-add the table, but with proper semantics per MOS:TABLECAPTION, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you re-added this material without adding citations. Did you read WP:V? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced information removed