|
|
Post by AnnaKonda on Nov 29, 2003 21:17:53 GMT -5
The borders of the film or television producer are not clearly defined & often limitless. "Producing" can involve the original conception of an idea, the acquiring of intellectual property, the commissioning of a book or a screenplay, the assembling of a creative team, handling legal contracts, marketing & distributing the finished product, playing psychologist team players -- all the way down to making sure that there is hot coffee on the set. Yes. But which of the above mentioned definition would best suit Otis Williams? It is clear that he was involved in the creation of the story -- as the movie is based on his book. |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Nov 30, 2003 0:36:27 GMT -5
Yes. But which of the above mentioned definition would best suit Otis Williams? It is clear that he was involved in the creation of the story -- as the movie is based on his book. The operative word here is based.......you watch made for tv movies all the time.....check out any movie docudrama and it will say based on such and such a story. That's what the man is trying to say. He is not saying Otis had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT...but it is entirely possible that once that book reached a screenwriter, said screenwriter had to make it fit TV. How do you do that....you take poetic license so that the story becomes LOOSELY BASED on the book written by Otis Willams so as not to make HIM liable for the changes made to his story. I swear this is not rocket science...it happens on any and everything produced for tv taken from someone's accounts of events as they may have seen them.....Ok?.....so now back to your the whole thing was Otis fault mode. I don't understand why you can't get off the blame game.......who really gives a d%$# anyway.......without the freaking book and movie....we don't exist here... get over the Otis is to blame cause that is really not the story of the Temptations.....There is so much more to their story and Otis was only 1/5 of it...or 1/6, depending on how you look at it....He gets way too much credit for his role, good and bad. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Nov 30, 2003 7:52:24 GMT -5
The operative word here is based.......you watch made for tv movies all the time.....check out any movie docudrama and it will say based on such and such a story. That's what the man is trying to say. He is not saying Otis had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT...but it is entirely possible that once that book reached a screenwriter, said screenwriter had to make it fit TV. How do you do that....you take poetic license so that the story becomes LOOSELY BASED on the book written by Otis Willams so as not to make HIM liable for the changes made to his story. I swear this is not rocket science...it happens on any and everything produced for tv taken from someone's accounts of events as they may have seen them.....Ok?.....so now back to your the whole thing was Otis fault mode. I don't understand why you can't get off the blame game.......who really gives a d%$# anyway.......without the freaking book and movie....we don't exist here... get over the Otis is to blame cause that is really not the story of the Temptations.....There is so much more to their story and Otis was only 1/5 of it...or 1/6, depending on how you look at it....He gets way too much credit for his role, good and bad. EXCUSES,EXCUSES! Why would you say 'without the freaking book,or the movie ...we don't exist? Didn't you know that there were TEMPTATIONS before the book or the movie came out? As far as you talk about the blame game.....I agree...as long as you get off the only one who was right is Otis-game. Lets even things up here,stop the substance abuse-crap.Let's talk about the music. But as long as you keep putting Otis on a pedistal,we can't talk about the music. Is that why it is done? If you talk about the music,you can't talk about Otis because you feel that there is not enough to speak on as far as he's concerned without going to fiction? I don't understand?   |
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Nov 30, 2003 13:06:17 GMT -5
Aba, I think you and I should play a game. Let's see if it's possible to create a thread that doesn't eventually turn into a "why I Otis is a jerk" thread. :laughing Anyway. I got a question. There were clearly scenes in the movie that made Otis look like a egomaniacle jerk. IF Otis had as much input into the movie as some of us claim, why, lemme yell that, WHY would he have allowed those scenes to be included? Huh? ............. gives you something to think about.  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Nov 30, 2003 13:19:44 GMT -5
Aba, I think you and I should play a game. Let's see if it's possible to create a thread that doesn't eventually turn into a "why I Otis is a jerk" thread.  Anyway. I got a question. There were clearly scenes in the movie that made Otis look like a egomaniacle jerk. IF Otis had as much input into the movie as some of us claim, why, lemme yell that, WHY would he have allowed those scenes to be included? Huh? ............. gives you something to think about. Yeah,but that is never brought up. Why? Huh? |
|
|
|
Post by AnnaKonda on Nov 30, 2003 13:37:30 GMT -5
Ivory,
I just can't remember a scene like that ... help me out, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by AnnaKonda on Nov 30, 2003 13:43:08 GMT -5
He gets way too much credit for his role, good and bad.
Well, I don't think so. See, even if we leave the movie out of our considerations, he was responsible for creating the opinions many of us hold of the indivcidual Temps. I said that before, but as soon as someone takes it upon himself to tell (hi)story, he must be held to a certain standard. And as soon as he presents different renditions of the same story -- or even allows his name to be used in that effort -- he should not be left off the hook.
He, like the rest of us, would certainly love to be praised for the good only. Yet, that's not how things work in real life.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Nov 30, 2003 13:43:52 GMT -5
Ivory, I just can't remember a scene like that ... help me out, please. When Otis steps off the tour bus with Flo Ballard. :crying |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Nov 30, 2003 13:45:50 GMT -5
He gets way too much credit for his role, good and bad. Well, I don't think so. See, even if we leave the movie out of our considerations, he was responsible for creating the opinions many of us hold of the indivcidual Temps. I said that before, but as soon as someone takes it upon himself to tell (hi)story, he must be held to a certain standard. And as soon as he presents different renditions of the same story -- or even allows his name to be used in that effort -- he should not be left off the hook. He, like the rest of us, would certainly love to be praised for the good only. Yet, that's not how things work in real life. Damn,girl...that's DEEP ! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AnnaKonda on Nov 30, 2003 14:02:58 GMT -5
When Otis steps off the tour bus with Flo Ballard.  I don't think he's portrayed as egomanical in that scene. To me he looks rather mixed up, starry eyed, completely enamored by Flo ... something he couldn't really help. I even felt a bit sorry for him -- until I saw Josephine, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by AnnaKonda on Nov 30, 2003 14:07:02 GMT -5
What I like about Dennis' story is, that he seems not to simplify the issues. He also talks about the problems of artistic development and progress -- that is probaly an important point in the history of the group. One the one side, there are those who know that time does not stand still; on the other there's the attempt bey those in charge to keep the status quo.
Very interesting insight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Nov 30, 2003 15:18:37 GMT -5
Totally understandable. Apparently there were a lot of copies of the movie that got out to people that had apparently had these scenes deleted or somehow edited to show Otis in a more positive light. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why think they movie portrayed him as an angel. Seriously, the scene were they voted David out and the scene backstage after Cloud Nine are a couple of examples. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Nov 30, 2003 17:16:43 GMT -5
Totally understandable. Apparently there were a lot of copies of the movie that got out to people that had apparently had these scenes deleted or somehow edited to show Otis in a more positive light. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why think they movie portrayed him as an angel. Seriously, the scene were they voted David out and the scene backstage after Cloud Nine are a couple of examples. Funny you should bring this up . If this did happen...how come in other interviews in Soul with Melvin,Paul,Dennis,& Eddie...they all say that they saw David quite often. So he knew where they were going to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Anna K on Nov 30, 2003 17:55:28 GMT -5
Okay. I see. You know I think it's all a matter of interpretation. The scene where David is voted out appeared to underpin Otis' determination not to let any one member of the group become bigger than the group itself. I have not considered that an act of egotism on behalf of Otis, but rather the only logical consequence possible ... I can't recall the Cloud Nine scene at all.
But I must admit that overall Otis was shown as kind of a heartless business guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThezeThreeWordz on Nov 30, 2003 19:15:35 GMT -5
Funny you should bring this up . If this did happen...how come in other interviews in Soul with Melvin,Paul,Dennis,& Eddie...they all say that they saw David quite often. So he knew where they were going to be. Where can one read these interviews?? and where can i read other interviews that Paul did?? let me know hon!!   |
|
