View Full Version : Castaway Interview with Tom Hanks
poolking
28-12-2001, 15:34
I watched Castaway the other night and was watching the Tom Hanks Interview on Disc 2. What did that interview have to do with Castaway? Sure there were a few references to the film, then there was 35 mins that had nothing to do with the film.
Why?
Was it just to pad out the bonus material??
Don't get me wrong, the interview was great!! Just on about how relevant it was to the film.
Yonathan Gal
28-12-2001, 23:59
Are you referring to the Charlie Rose interview? It was an excellent interview, it wasn't padding at all, it was quality stuff, and was to do wit the film completely for about 90%... I'm really happy they stuck it on the disc, in fact, it's one of the dvds of the year in my opinion :)
Tony Keats
29-12-2001, 01:53
Yes, it's much more detailed and interesting than the usual 'soundbite' garbage you usually get. It certainly makes a change to have lengthy (un-edited) questions and answers.
Most supplementary interviews are split into irritatingly brief bits with idiot-proof headings (things like "On working with Mr X" or "On playing this difficult role" etc etc). So it's commendable on that basis alone...
The Criterion version of Rushmore also has a full 'Charlie Rose Show' on it (with Bill Murray).
Castaway should have been called "2 hour Fedex and Wilson advert". The most irritating product placement since Goldeneye.
Tony Keats
03-01-2002, 12:20
Originally posted by rgfinch
Castaway should have been called "2 hour Fedex and Wilson advert". The most irritating product placement since Goldeneye.
Would you have honestly preffered it if they'd made up some hokey names (like ParcelFed and Wilco) just to avoid complaints of PP?. I really hate it when other films do that...
Err , yes .
It was the blatantness of the advertising that annoyed me. Had the real companies' names not been used I'm sure there would have been a lot less references to them.
It's about time films were forced to say in the opening credits how much cash was received by the producers for such shameless advertising during the film.
Tony Keats
04-01-2002, 01:15
Posted by rgfinch
It was the blatantness of the advertising that annoyed me. Had the real companies' names not been used I'm sure there would have been a lot less references to them.
The filmmakers always intended for the film to be 100% believable though and (as I'm sure you're aware) Hanks genuinely lost weight & grew a beard to this end. They also ignored certain soundtrack conventions that could have disturbed the "reality" of proceedings and Zemeckis & co simply extended their ideals to Hanks' job. Why go to all that trouble of making everything so real and then have him working for ACME deliveries?.
It's about time films were forced to say in the opening credits how much cash was received by the producers for such shameless advertising during the film.
I'd defend Cast Away all night, but I do agree that movies can be spoilt by cynical product placement. It would certainly be interesting to see what the arrangement entails (other than the obvious) and how money changes hands.
You mentioned Goldeneye (which is a fair example), but I think Tommorow Never Dies is much worse. Brosnan himself said he was surprised by the sheer quantity of company names/brands and he made no attempt to hide his disapproval. He may even have thrown his weight around behind-the-scenes because The World Is Not Enough isn't anything like as bad.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.