Thomas Kinkade's tips on Filmmaking

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow another slam on a piece of art/film because it's fan base is conservative/Christian. Hm. So let me get this straight. This guy is so bad because he makes art for the masses and wants his movie to resemble his art. Didn't they go through pains taking trouble to make the "Grinch" film look like the cartoon? When Hulk let's loose in the first film he does a lot of what he does in those old comics with the same visual appeal.

The main jest of this article is how dare this person make films. Too many conservatives/Christians/religious people like him. Not to mention they're not edgy enough. Not enough drugs, sex or violence with their Christmas theme. How dare he even make a Christmas themed film. The article is bias BS (I understand it's an opinion piece so that means the OP is full of BS). And of course anyone who likes something not "edgy" can't think for themselves and is a moron.

Frankly I don't even like this kind of art but I do indeed have a black @$$ Paul Cullum and those like him can pucker up to. The line can start here. Since when did it become so wrong to have a fan based not rooted in depravity? Are any hint of traditional values simply wrong now? Think I may just drop Mr. Cullum a little note on his Facebook page and let him know I'm thinking about him.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
I´m far from beeing a conservative/Christian, but - call me a cheese nut - I like his paintings.

I would not hang them in my house, cause we have a different style of decoration, but I like them and I would be happy if I could get my pictures and footage look like those paintings.

Leaving #10 and #16 of his list out of the game because of DUH! - the rest is pretty straigt forward, thou nothing new.

Frank

Kicking ass starts in:

5

4

3

2

1
 
Last edited:
Religious assertiveness isn't anything I ever noticed, I looked at his paintings for what they were- Pretty settings with a cheesy gimmick, nothing more, nothing less. After reading this article (The first I had ever actually read about him), I have to say the boy is quite full of himself. Some of his stuff is pretty nice, but he certainly isn't nearly the same caliber as Rockwell, no matter how bad he wants to be. Now he wants to make films too? What is next... breakfast cereal?
 
I think the point of the slam on his 16 points is how inconsistent and weird they are. I am a Christian and I liked his paintings when they seemed different. But I would cringe if I saw these as instructions on a set.
 
There is no doubt about that Jim. As weird and wacky as they sound, there are plenty of people out there just like him. I had a client who did Jewelry, and wanted me to design her website to look like her business card. She did her business card herself on her new Mac (Because that is what Artists use, right?), using some sort of templates. Unfortunately, her card looked like Don Ho threw up on it. All sorts of neon orange and green with palm trees all over it. Her jewelry wasn't any better, but I did the job and gritted my teeth.
 
Unfortunately, her card looked like Don Ho threw up on it.

OMG! LOL.

I think the point of the slam on his 16 points is how inconsistent and weird they are. I am a Christian and I liked his paintings when they seemed different. But I would cringe if I saw these as instructions on a set.

It's just the writer's tone I don't like. Anyway smart person working on this would simply look at the points and say to the crew "Okay guys every scene must look like one of his painting." That all he's trying to say and this writer tries to make him look like some kind of idiot for wanting his own style like others have done. If Steven Spielberg had dropped this list for a film he was doing people would be fawning over it trying to see what the great master was trying to get at. It's all about the source.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
I do believe I've seen the card you're talking about. There's some multi-color template out there that looks horrendous (or maybe the person picks these colors) and people do use it and it sucks and you can't even read the working on it good. Is that the one we're talking about?

-Nate
 
. It's all about the source.

-Nate

Yes, it is all about the source. Spielberg being a seasoned, professional director who knows how to communicate with a crew, and Kinkade being someone who isn't and doesn't.

Just because you are good at one thing, doesn't mean you should walk in and tell people how to do their jobs in a completely different industry. If he has a vision he should absolutely communicate that. But if I were a DP/Gaffer or even a PA on this set, I would find this list patronizing and insulting.

The source of my criticism has nothing to do with him being a Christian, but at his ineptitude (is that a word?), and that's the tone I get from the article.
 
Well Jim, I just didn't see any connection to his beliefs, so I immediately dismissed that. It has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.
Yes, it is all about the source. Spielberg being a seasoned, professional director who knows how to communicate with a crew, and Kinkade being someone who isn't and doesn't.

Just because you are good at one thing, doesn't mean you should walk in and tell people how to do their jobs in a completely different industry. If he has a vision he should absolutely communicate that. But if I were a DP/Gaffer or even a PA on this set, I would find this list patronizing and insulting.

Now you are getting to the crux of the debate. He does have a vision and some talent at what he does. Every Producer and Director have their own quirks, but he is trying to translate his vision without the knowledge of how to do it. This would be where a skilled DP would step in, see the list, and say, "Ok, you want this, this is how I need to do it". "You want that many N's in the scene, that is the Production Artist's job".

Bottom line is, if you take the job, it is up to you to decide how best to translate their vision into your medium. That is what they hire you to do, and if it were easy, everyone would do it themselves.
 
Just because you are good at one thing, doesn't mean you should walk in and tell people how to do their jobs in a completely different industry. If he has a vision he should absolutely communicate that. But if I were a DP/Gaffer or even a PA on this set, I would find this list patronizing and insulting.

2nd that. That's what I noticed.
 
Okay, but first of all - Thomas Kinkade is known for a very specific look to his paintings. You can pick out a Kinkade painting in any gallery anywhere. They stand out, because of his style. Second of all, this film bears his name right across the top of the title.

So if there's a movie being made that's going to carry his name across the top, and the director wants it to look like it's shot in the style of a Thomas Kinkade painting, is it unreasonable to ask Kinkade how he creates his style?

When we did the "Blade Runner" game, you better believe we brought Syd Mead in to tell us how to art-direct the game and teach us everything he could about how he crafted that film's look.
 
Barry, you are sort of comparing apples and oranges. Syd is in the production biz, and knows how to speak the language that you speak. Kinkaid is not in the biz, so his directions are muddled to the production people. Still the same idea, just different results are interpreted. And in case you aren't sure about what I'm saying, I agree with you for the most part :)
 
Well, all I guess I'm getting at is: did this guy just imperiously decide to descend upon the set and tell everyone how to do their jobs? Or did the production designer ask Kinkade for his "magic recipe" and then distribute the memo to the crew? Seems like that'd make all the difference in the world.
 
That's true. Although I can't imagine an experienced production designer feeling the need to explain things that way.

Don't get me wrong. The guy has a recipe and it works for him. Transferring that look from one media to another must be some experience. I just gfound his comments a bit...odd.
 
Well, all I guess I'm getting at is: did this guy just imperiously decide to descend upon the set and tell everyone how to do their jobs?
As you previously stated, the movie is his, and why shouldn't he dictate what he wants to see? He may have done it poorly, or even been a jerk... but that has never happened in Hollywood before, has it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top