Racism isn't just someone saying, "Only white extras," because we don't live in 1895 anymore and that's not a line that any sane human being with even the absolute mildest of public personas is going to cross. It's the guy in charge looking at all-white extras for no damn reason and saying, "That looks about right."

But Jason is a white dude in Hollywood, so he should get chance after chance after chance after chance after chance after chance after chance.

And "the whole movie was in his head" is a 'fan theory' type argument. There's no evidence of it whatsoever, so it's impossible to counter other than to just shrug and say that I guess we just watched different movies.

Oh, no, I have nothing against long takes - that's what you're thinking of with Children of Men. Many of those are meaningless and show-offy, but they can work if done right. I'm talking about the 60+ minute, feature length ones that no one has yet successfully pulled off.

I've already said I'm fine with experimentation, I just believe that when the experiment fails, it's worth pointing that out too. If people want to try it, that's cool, but I think there should be a reason beyond, "Wouldn't it be cool if…."

I… actually don't think that any of those are the same. I think 'using color' or 'using b&w' are equally valid choices every filmmaker should consider, however briefly, when they first begin their project to figure out what is best for their story. Not using color isn't "removing a chunk of cinematic language" at all…

What sort of gimmicks are you thinking of?

No, paintings that only use the color red don't "take away" the color blue, but I don't believe I made such a claim anywhere, and its disingenuous to pretend like "all of editing" is comparable to "the color blue."

Thanks!

Nope!

Those all exist within editing, except, by definition, "a unique tone," which doesn't actually mean anything and differs in every single take film ever made. Again, writing a novel without nouns would certainly be a 'unique tone' that had a different pace and fucked grammar all the way up, but it was also be…

No, not everything is a gimmick. They're a language.

Like what? I'm serious. What does the single take add to replace 'editing'. What insane invention does it introduce?

It's purposely removing chunks of cinematic language without actually adding anything to replace what you lost. It's the equivalent of saying, "Hmmm… I bet I can write this novel without using a single noun!"

Because Birdman in no way thought that much about anything beyond how cool it would look.

Swinging is actually a little different, and still goes on. Again, the differences are very minor, but, at least in my community, polyamory is multiple relationships; swinging is just multiple sex partners.

I've never seen an interview on here that manages to both stay completely professional and discuss serious issues they have with the material with the creator.

And yet every new character he introduced was shit, he couldn't plot a story to save his life, he didn't know how to end a single season, and he argued more than once that powerful characters (which… he created…) ruined the show, somehow. Also, the fans. And the network. It was everyone else's fault.

Heroes' problem wasn't that its characters were too powerful or couldn't die. Heroes' problem was that they were shitty characters.

Nope.