"Roughly 1,000 people." In what universe is that a serious sampling? Across what ages/ demographics/locations/income levels? Non-story.
Dull. Pretentious. And far too long--3 minutes of this would be painful enough.
I'm going to get shit for saying this, but who the hell thought of doing a podcast about the visual aspects of filmmaking??? With the money these people have available, it could easily have been a visual presentation illustrating what's being talked about. On the same note, I chose to sample "Location scouting" to check it out and Deakins mentions a dozen people simultaneously checking out a possible location. Obviously, this is the province of the monied Gods of Olympus. Yes, he's brilliant. Yes, some of the best films are often the most expensive these days, but what about the rest of us in the real world: making or trying to make non-ma$$ively-budgeted, non-globe-trotting, non-superstar-studded films. All of us likely would love to work at the top of the game, but hearing the Gods chatting and sharing anecdotes won't put us there.
I agree with you about Giger's work. Something about the last 40-50 years in film--even/especially in film--and in design and art and music: once you're recognized for something "new and exciting" and especially if it $ucceed$, you are forced/expected to keep churning out the same stuff endlessly. Sequels/prequels/spinoffs, "from the makers of _____" (i.e., "more of the same"), on and on. Hitchcock was the first "branded" director, and to meet expectation$, he had to stretch his recognizable "style" until by the end his films were awkward and silly and forgettable. I know I'll be crucified for saying this, but this includes Tarantino, Lynch, DePalma, on and on.
And as if no one has seen "2001" or "Inception," where this has been copied/hommage'd. (Okay, those weren't dancing scenes.)
Sounds interesting. So why do all the links go to a black blank page?