 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:33:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Far too much of the popular stuff is like
> that.
Agreed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:19:38 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sense was IMO the best of them.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good
>
> Way, *way* too long. If they'd chopped out 40 minutes or so, it would
> have been excellent.
Agreed, now that you mention it - that was the problem with it for me the
second time I watched it; I couldn't remember enough from the first time,
and it's because the story was too drawn out.
Drawing a story out can be done well (think LOTR books), but it's
something that takes a great degree of skill. For me the LOTR books
demonstrated that because I just kept reading and didn't realize how much
I was reading.
>> Signs was just a confusing mess IMO.
>
> It wasn't too confusing to me. It was trying to be scary or something,
> or suspenseful, but it failed that too. The only good bit of acting was
> when the brother or whoever it was was watching the TV and saw the
> creature and jumped back. *That* was convincing acting.
Yeah, that's what I meant - it was confusing not in plot or story, but in
what it was trying to be. But you're right, that jump was very
convincing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:25:24 -0500, Warp wrote:
> (One relatively recent prime example of this was IMO the first
> Fantastic4
> movie: It was *way* too short, it didn't develop its characters *at
> all*, and in the end it felt completely hollow. Like a cheap fast food
> ration.)
Agreed. We haven't seen the second one because the first was so
disappointing; I'll probably flix it just to see the Silver Surfer
effects.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:25:05 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:30:29 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the
>>> other 2.
>>
>> There were other sequels? I only knew about 2010 (which I quite
>> liked).
>>
>> Jim
>
> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time). I
> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo when
> I tried to read it?).
Ah, I'm going to have to search those out as well now. I think I did
hear about them, but had other things on my mind/plate at the time.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I thought it was a very good movie as well; Gilliam's movies tend to be
> quite good.
Mirrormask had some amusing moments, but it was overall not as fun as
his other movies. I have to admit the sphynxes cracked me up.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I think the actors tried hard, but the script, as you say, was sub-par.
>> Additionally, Lucas wasn't interested in honing dialogue or shooting
>> any re-takes at all (except for completely fluffed lines, sets falling
>> over etc). Consequently, the action and effects are awesome but the
>> actual character interaction feels really fake and unbelievable.
>
> Oh, I do think that the actors tried hard and didn't have a lot to work
> with, absolutely. Agreed 100%.
There is one scene in EpIII that I think transcends the normal StarWars
feel with powerful, subtle meaning: the completely dialogue-free scene
where Anakin and Padme are in separate locations across the Capital,
each looking toward where they know the other must be and each thinking
about the other. It's just before Anakin makes the decision that pushes
him past the point of no return - to go to Palpatine's office when Windu
tries to arrest him. It might just be me, but I really like that scene.
> I guess it's fair to say that going into ep1 I had no expectations, but
> then I was confronted with Jar Jar, and I just wanted to hit something
> Lucas-like.
Jar Jar was annoying, but I didn't think EpI was as bad as everyone else
thinks. I absolutely love the podrace, even if they did use F1 car sound
effects when they should have been using turbine engines!
> I really liked the uncut version of Blade Runner better than the
> theatrical release specifically for this matter; RS was told he needed a
> "clean" ending with no uncertainty, but his original vision was far, far
> better because you just didn't know how things ended up.
Which theatrical release? There have been 3! ;-)
I've not seen the recent iteration, only the second (the original
'director's cut')... the ending is nicely open in that version.
> ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.
Best lightsaber fight of the series. Best effects shot (for me) - when
the Falcon escapes Bespin at full pelt with the sun peeking from behind
the planet in the background. Best acted scene of the series - "I love
you" - "I know". And no ewoks! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I absolutely love the podrace, even if they did use F1 car sound
> effects when they should have been using turbine engines!
Clearly you haven't heard an F1 car recently. ;-)
[It sounds more like an angry mosquito than a roaring bear...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>
>> I absolutely love the podrace, even if they did use F1 car sound
>> effects when they should have been using turbine engines!
>
> Clearly you haven't heard an F1 car recently. ;-)
Well, not at close range, but some of the dopplered sounds made by the
podracers going past the camera were identical to the sounds made by F1
cars going past the camera. Some of the in-cockpit sounds effects had
gear-shift noises, too, which you absolutely don't get with a turbine.
> [It sounds more like an angry mosquito than a roaring bear...]
Yes. I wasn't implying that *all* of the sound effects were F1. Mainly
the high-speed flybys. They did the same thing in ROTJ with the speeders
on Endor, except the car-like sounds were masked more cleverly in that.
Not a major criticism, it definitely works well and evokes speed!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> [It sounds more like an angry mosquito than a roaring bear...]
>
> Yes. I wasn't implying that *all* of the sound effects were F1. Mainly
> the high-speed flybys. They did the same thing in ROTJ with the speeders
> on Endor, except the car-like sounds were masked more cleverly in that.
>
> Not a major criticism, it definitely works well and evokes speed!
I suppose theoretically a flying machine of this type wouldn't make any
sound at all (except wind turbulence). That wouldn't be very exciting
though, would it? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> [It sounds more like an angry mosquito than a roaring bear...]
>>
>> Yes. I wasn't implying that *all* of the sound effects were F1. Mainly
>> the high-speed flybys. They did the same thing in ROTJ with the
>> speeders on Endor, except the car-like sounds were masked more
>> cleverly in that.
>>
>> Not a major criticism, it definitely works well and evokes speed!
>
> I suppose theoretically a flying machine of this type wouldn't make any
> sound at all (except wind turbulence). That wouldn't be very exciting
> though, would it? ;-)
Which? A speeder? They have very small turbines tucked under their rear
ends, those would make some racket. And antigravity in the starwars
universe always seems to make at least a droning noise...
As for the podracers, they'd be deafening at close range. I once
experienced Concorde's engines from fifty yards and that was just
ridiculous.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
