#scott nash

[fredalan]

Our failed logo presentation for MCA Records

MCA Records logo, 1985 

Of course, not every project worked. 

Our former MTV colleague and Swatch client Nancy Kadner Feingold introduced us to MCA Records' Larry Solters, the new executive vice president and right hand of CEO Irving Azoff. He had Fred/Alan create a few TV spots for their artists Joan Jett and The Fixx. But Irving and Larry wanted to give MCA a complete facelift, since it was a bit of an also ran in the hipster record business. Enter Fred/Alan, developers of the most famous music logo of the 80s. 

Our first take was, in our humble opinion, shot down immediately. MCA's original parent was the Music Corporation of America, and according to their 1950s  logo they controlled the world! Perfect, and they already owned it. It would only require a contemporary graphic execution. 

     Logo: Music Corporation of America 1956 

Nope. That's old. We're new! Next. 

One of our favorite design groups, Corey & Co. in Boston had a instinctive attraction to our notion of a constantly morphing logo (see Nickelodeon), and we asked them to work with us on MCA. 

They delivered, you can see their logo  presentation on the opposite page. 

We loved it. MCA didn't. What was their solution? Absolute genius! 

     Logo: MCA Records 1990

.....

MCA Records logo designed by Tom Corey & Scott Nash; Corey & Co., Boston Creative directors: Alan Goodman & Fred Seibert

[creativekidstc]

(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsmn5WFZnWU)

[existimatum]

Scott Nash’s “The Desolation of Smaug” Is One-Sided and Unclear

★★★⅔☆

3.65 stars for Scott Nash’s 792‑word review of “The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug” on Three Movie Buffs

http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/review/hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug

If you’re hoping to find out in Scott Nash’s “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” what the reviewer thought of the film itself, you might be a bit disappointed. He’s more interested in comparing the film to the original Tolkien book source, accusing the film’s director/co-screenwriter of being “more concerned with telling his version of this story rather than Tolkien’s.” Since that could be said of any writer adapting someone else’s work, perhaps the reviewer’s main problem is that the writer/director did not film the critic’s version of the story.

It’s an old argument in filmmaking, how best to adapt stories told in one medium into another, and it isn’t going to be solved here. But Nash’s constant referral back to the book only brings the overall piece down. Certainly there are going to be those seeing the film that have not read the book; they deserve an honest review as well.

Because of the film’s creators “dragging this story out,” Nash says “what could have been a great film is now a good one.” But it’s hard to find what “good” things he has to say about it. He perks up during the times when “the movie resemble the book,” then grumbles at the changes. He admits that in his version, every scene without Bilbo in it would be edited out. But since that hardly seems likely, it’s hard to tell what would really please him.

Perhaps he’s saying his version is the only real one worth making. If so, that hardly warrants the 792 words he uses to say it.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/thehobbit3athedesolationofsmaug2013_158474

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/7WH2

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771315407

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771315407

IMDB: imdb.com/title/1170358

[existimatum]

Scott Nash’s “Nebraska” Is a “What We Learn” Review

★★★⅛☆

3.15 stars for Scott Nash’s 1049‑word review of “Nebraska” on Three Movie Buffs

http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/review/nebraska

Scott Nash and his reviewing partner in crime, Scott, produce an enjoyable read with “Nebraska,” however they spend more time describing the action with “what we learn” statements rather than analyzing.

Nebraska is a review that takes the term literally. The review connoisseur isn’t looking for a play-by-play of the action or basic thoughts on the characters and performances. The “conno” desires critique, just like the typical reader does when searching out film reviews.

Patrick’s section of Nebraska is satisfactory, but he definitely didn’t need to reference the ending at the conclusion of his first paragraph. Let the audience have that moment. The commentary on director Alexander Payne essentially lets one know that he offers an honest portrait of Nebraska since he is from there.

Both Patrick and Scott acknowledge the actual performance of Will Forte with detail in Nebraska, but when it comes to Bruce Dern they simply transition into the character of Woody without breaking down the actor’s work. The use of “cantankerous” may not upset the average reader, but it has become the go-to word for critics. Everybody else is doing it, right?

Scott’s opening paragraph of Nebraska is plain weird. The critic offers statements such as “we learn what we learn about him from the mouths of others and their reactions to him.” The style is choppy and the critic doesn’t seem to understand that describing what the character of Woody does is not the same as explaining why Bruce Dern is deserving of an Oscar nomination.

Nebraska is just average across the board.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/nebraska_164654

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/363N

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771355253

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771355253

IMDB: imdb.com/title/1821549

[existimatum]

Clunky Prose Extinguishes Scott Nash’s “Catching Fire”

★★★⅛☆

3.08 stars for Scott Nash’s 773‑word review of “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” on Three Movie Buffs

http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/review/hunger-games-catching-fire

Scott Nash, one of the three brothers who make up Three Movie Buffs, is not a professional movie critic. None of the three claim to be and that refreshing self-awareness lets them off the hook to some degree. Especially in a time when so many amateur critics pretentiously and earnestly try to pass themselves off as the real deal.

Nash’s “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” offers itself up as a review of a film, though, and, as such, does not get a complete pass. That may sound menacing, but it’s not that bad.

He’s a film buff to be sure. There’s a very tangible passion that comes through here. He’s a lover of the art of filmmaking and that love is infectious; it makes you want to root for him and it’s almost, just almost, enough to overcome the problems with the prose.

Though Scott is the best writer of the three, there is still considerable room for improvement. He’s got a real talent for analysis and the critiques are in-depth, satisfying, and insightful, but the writing struggles to find a consistent flow and can’t quite organize these great criticisms into a meaningful whole.

There’s fantastic content here, but the literary hiccups make for a frustrating read.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/thehungergames:catchingfiredoublefeature2013_167747

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/777R

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771250004

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771250004

IMDB: imdb.com/title/1951264

[existimatum]

Scott and Eric Nash’s “Ender’s Game” Does Just Enough to Graduate

★★★¼☆

3.2 stars for Scott Nash’s 613‑word review of “Ender’s Game” on Three Movie Buffs

http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/review/enders-game

The brothers Nash, who founded and run the website Three Movie Buffs, don’t claim to be professional film critics and that’s a wise move. It lowers the expectation of quality and sands out some of the rougher edges in the reader’s mind, ostensibly giving the Nash’s a little more freedom for mistakes.

That said, the Nash’s “Ender’s Game” is still being offered up as a review and will be treated as such. Scott, the best writer of the three, opens with a caveat; he’s never read the book on which the movie is based and doesn’t intend to. Brave, because this opens him up for attack from all the fan boys who think Orson Scott Card’s novel is a profound work because they’ve never read anything of true depth.

They also seem to think a reviewer can’t review the film properly unless they’ve read the book, a point which Scott correctly rebuffs.

The critique is solid enough, and Scott very methodically goes point by point through the acting, the visuals, the pacing, and the ending (you can almost see the outline showing through the text).

The writing is nothing to, well, write home about. It’s sufficiently serviceable, though, making this one a good second or third tier effort.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/endersgame_155544

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/9R3X

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/770673035

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/770673035

IMDB: imdb.com/title/0400403

[existimatum]

Scott Nash Can’t Find His Footing in “Thor: The Dark World”

★★⅛☆☆

2.15 stars for Scott Nash’s 376‑word review of “Thor: The Dark World” on Three Movie Buffs

http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/review/thor-the-dark-world

For such a tiny review, there’s an awful lot of rambling going on in Scott Nash’s “Thor: The Dark World.” Nash seems to have forgotten that critical writing needs to adhere to at least some modicum of structure to be an enjoyable read and the results here are disastrous.

Nash opens his review on a low note, devoting an entire paragraph (where one sentence would have sufficed) to deriding Thor’s love interest Jane for being boring (“but she does still look like Natalie Portman”) but doesn’t give readers any reasons why. He then turns his attention to Thor, who is just as boring as Jane. Again, no explanation is given.

As a writer, Nash might be a good cook. There are punctuational and grammatical errors galore, and, even at a meager 376 words, Nash fails to be concise, saying things in 10 words where one would be enough. The arguments are labyrinthine as well, circuitously wordy and meandering.

He comments that Thor: The Dark World “desperately needs more humor.” Nash would do well to take that advice to heart. There is not a single shred of humor or even joviality in the piece, a factor that could have at least provided some buoyancy and made this one mildly readable.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/thor:thedarkworld_149455

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/6PGQ

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771247277

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771247277

IMDB: imdb.com/title/1981115

[existimatum]

Scott Nash’s “The World’s End” Has Fun Moments but Doesn’t End Well

★★⅔☆☆

2.68 stars for Scott Nash’s 1418‑word review of “The World’s End” on Three Movie Buffs

http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/review/worlds-end

In “The World’s End (2013)”, the trinity of reviewers, the Brothers Nash: Scott, Patrick and Eric are all equally awesome.  

Scott gets the first salvo, and it’s mighty. It’s dissected as film, as an argument for male bonding, and the secret world of pop culture references and other assorted Easter eggs scattered around the piece.

This straight away review is then smacked by Patrick, who makes it clear he’s no big fan of the franchise, but likes beer. Clearly, Patrick’s the common man of the group, the one who represents the failed football star from the old hometown who drinks too much and understands too little. Not too insightful, but charming, Patrick leaves you wishing for a better ending (but not too much better.)

The final assault comes from Eric. While as disdainful as Patrick, he also shares Scott’s well-considered writing style. He then has the audacity to quote Scott! As if this was an academic paper, or readers had hyper short term memory! Someone has something to prove, it seems.  

The sum of the parts does not, however, exceed expectations. Instead of three acts ending with a climax, we get an intro,  some rising tension, and then a diplomatic marrying of the first two. The result, sadly, is somewhat unsatisfying. Most reviewers do more with less, and don’t quote their own reviews (even if they are written by their kin.)  

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/theworldsend_159769

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/3K39

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/770783489

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/770783489

IMDB: imdb.com/title/1213663