Stevie Movie in Pre-Production/Lohan to Play Stevie

[goldustsongbird]

Originally Posted by nightbird89

wouldn't it be great if she wrote the script?

If she did, it'd look
~like this
with ~'s and ...'s...
all over.... the place.~

... for dramatic~ effect.

[johndoe]

Originally Posted by goldustsongbird

If she did, it'd look
~like this
with ~'s and ...'s...
all over.... the place.~

... for dramatic~ effect.

Enter Stevie~

Stevie: I AM A BEAUTIFUL ENCHANTRESS~~~

Lindsey: Packing up ~~~and shacking up is all you want to do. Isn't that WIERD~~~

Stevie: I felt I knew you in a past life~~~

Lindsey: I belive everything goes in cycles~~~

Enter ~~~~Mick, playing synth ~vest

Mick: Moveyabody, Moveyabody, ARE YOU READY FOR SOME HANKKKKY~~~ PANNKKY

[goldustsongbird]

Originally Posted by johndoe

Enter Stevie~

Stevie: I AM A BEAUTIFUL ENCHANTRESS~~~

Lindsey: Packing up ~~~and shacking up is all you want to do. Isn't that WIERD~~~

Stevie: I felt I knew you in a past life~~~

Lindsey: I belive everything goes in cycles~~~

Enter ~~~~Mick, playing synth ~vest

Mick: Moveyabody, Moveyabody, ARE YOU READY FOR SOME HANKKKKY~~~ PANNKKY

Where's ~
Chris?

And how did you get your hands on an advanced copy of the script?

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by ELIUD

I'm sure in real life they are pretty funny and interesting people. Not to mention the immense talent, especially Christine, whom I believe got way better musically as she aged. She never lost a thing. HOWEVER, her persona would have to downplayed as kind of a wallflower/wise old owl to the wild child, drug crazed young nubile Stevie Nicks in a movie. Come on David, they could cast Bea Arthur as Christine and no one would flinch.

Bea Arthur!!!! LMFAO!!!

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by goldustsongbird

Where's ~
Chris?

And how did you get your hands on an advanced copy of the script?

~Enter Chris in maids attire

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by ELIUD

Yet somehow this formula for successful film-making won't work with a movie about Stevie?

I know exactly what you and johndoe said and what was implied. And that was that Stevie isn't as famous (or as iconic - whatever) as what's his name and therefore a movie about her would be "a minor hit".

And CHRISTINE AND JOHN ARE BORING.

We wont have anymore BS!
Stevie is an ICON. Period!
Just thinking about the McVie's puts me to..Zzzzzzzzzzz.

[goldustsongbird]

Originally Posted by BlackWidow

~Enter Chris in maids attire

Is this the sex scene?

[GypsySongbird]

Originally Posted by ELIUD

And CHRISTINE AND JOHN ARE BORING.

you obviously dont know alot about them.....fair enough

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by goldustsongbird

Is this the sex scene?

no..just some light housecleaning.

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by GypsySongbird

you obviously dont know alot about them.....fair enough

well, I may not know a lot about them, but they aren't as interesting as Stevie. nothing against them and it's not necessarily a negative comment.

even if I had no bias towards Stevie, she'd still be the most interesting.

[ELIUD]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

...I do concede that if someone like Steven Spielberg decided to direct and Reese Witherspoon starred and/or the movie was a big awards-winner, then a movie about Stevie would probably be huge. This would largely depend on the studio and whether the script is any good as to how much support it would give the movie. Sony had the recent Brian Jones (of Rolling Stone fame) biopic, which was great, but it didn't demand a big star in the main role, sold it as a indie-style movie and gave it a limited theatrical release for example.

Well, it took a while but I see you've started to agree with me. Especially on the need to market this film correctly with a good script in order to make it a big hit. But big name actresses and directors aren't necessary if the buzz is that good. That's where we differ. After some good Hollywood buzz the Reese's and the Spielbergs of the day would come CRAWLING. I never disagreed with anybody on this level of iconic importance bull****, I DON'T CARE that Johnny Cash is more famous than Stevie Nicks. All I know is that everyone pretty much agreed her life is interesting enough to make a great movie. It wasn't until Johnny came into the discussion that suddenly the idea became absurd.

But obviously you know my mind better than I do myself, and I can't have opinions separate to Johndoe.

Oh come on now seriously, I was only going from what you had posted. I'm not a mind reader.

[ELIUD]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

well, I may not know a lot about them, but they aren't as interesting as Stevie. nothing against them and it's not necessarily a negative comment.

even if I had no bias towards Stevie, she'd still be the most interesting.

and they're not a pretty as Lindsey and Stevie either!

I kid.

[David]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

even if I had no bias towards Stevie, she'd still be the most interesting.

The very concept of "interesting" is a function of an observer's subjectivity--of his preferences & proclivities.

Stevie is no more inherently interesting than Christine McVie or Jeff Beck or Elie Wiesel or even (God forgive me) Beethoven. It's all in the observation--in the perspective of the viewer/reader/listener.

That is why everybody in the world does not like exactly the same music, books, films, paintings, politicians, folk songs, & architectural styles. Different people derive different pleasures from different things. Some people think Stevie Nicks is interesting; others do not. Some people think Christine McVie is interesting; others, obviously, do not. You might find Stevie's love affairs, unconquerable spirit, trials & tribulations interesting, but somebody standing next to you might not think any of that is interesting. The mole on Christine's elbow might be decisively more interesting to him. One person thinks "Bleak House" is interesting, but another thinks it's dull. There's just no way to treat "interesting" as some sort of objective quality that resides in the thing viewed rather than in the viewer.

[BTFLCHLD]

David, IMO this post reads like a script from TLC

"Whatever you say POPS!"

Originally Posted by David

The very concept of "interesting" is a function of an observer's subjectivity--of his preferences & proclivities.

Stevie is no more inherently interesting than Christine McVie or Jeff Beck or Elie Wiesel or even (God forgive me) Beethoven. It's all in the observation--in the perspective of the viewer/reader/listener.

That is why everybody in the world does not like exactly the same music, books, films, paintings, politicians, folk songs, & architectural styles. Different people derive different pleasures from different things. Some people think Stevie Nicks is interesting; others do not. Some people think Christine McVie is interesting; others, obviously, do not. You might find Stevie's love affairs, unconquerable spirit, trials & tribulations interesting, but somebody standing next to you might not think any of that is interesting. The mole on Christine's elbow might be decisively more interesting to him. One person thinks "Bleak House" is interesting, but another thinks it's dull. There's just no way to treat "interesting" as some sort of objective quality that resides in the thing viewed rather than in the viewer.

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by David

The very concept of "interesting" is a function of an observer's subjectivity--of his preferences & proclivities.

well duh. I was speaking for myself.