 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
I just rented it because it's more than 10 years since I last saw it.
It's surprisingly good, especially considering that it was made in 1968.
While not perfect, many space movies made decades later with better
movie-making technology look worse and have more physical inaccuracies.
Anyways, as for being incomprehensible... Only the last 15 minutes or
so were incomprehensibly abstract (and, according to the director,
completely on purpose), but everything before that was quite clear and
straightforward.
It would be cool to know that if Kubrick had decided to make a more
comprehensible ending (perhaps something dark), how it would have affected
the popularity of the movie.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:32:25 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
There's another one I need to see. OK, flixing all of his films just to
make sure I haven't missed any others. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:59:34 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> 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.
No, I think that scene worked - ironically, the scenes that worked the
best in 1-3 were the ones where nobody talked. There's some good
cinematography there, no doubt.
That wasn't the case in eps 4-6, though - the characters didn't feel so
wooden in 4-6.
>> 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!
The podrace was probably my second favourite scene there. The fight with
Darth Maul was my first, but it wasn't long enough IMO. The fact that
Ray Park was actually doing the stunts himself and there was very little
(if any) wire work made it that much better.
>> 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.
Well, the original theatrical release.
>> 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! ;-)
I can't disagree with any of those - though I have to admit the
lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
And the wide shots of that fight were very good. Too much today fight
scenes are a series of close-up cutaways, and while the "action" is
faster, it doesn't feel as authentic. I wish fight scenes were more
often shot from a distance sufficient to see the combatants and the
camera was more or less stationary. With good fighters, many fight
scenes would be absolutely beautiful if they just let us watch it in one
shot.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:40:42 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't rate the second one very high either.
So really, probably just worth it (barely) for the effects and
rendering? That's disappointing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:26:40 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> 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?).
>>
>> I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...
>>
>>
> That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
> close to fifteen years later?)
2^2677009:1 against.
(Name that number!)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> But we're not necessariy talking real-life we're talking self-contained
> film universe.
Fair enough, but I've found people's expectations of how people should
behave in those universes differs widely.
> But the 'just reciting lines' is more then what is said it's all the
> accompanying body language too; just watch some old (or not so old)
> silent movies to see the difference. If you want some fun watch all the
I've watched a number of old movies, including silent ones.
I see patterns in acting behavior for different eras. Some quite
different from the modern era. Yes, they had a different acting style,
but what's your point? It just means that people expected something
differently back then.
I have a colleague who used to badmouth B&W movies because they're
acting was "horrible". So I finally got sick of it and asked, "And the
acting these days is better how?". He's a smart guy. Thought about it
for a few minutes, and then retracted his statement.
And then I've seen old B&W movies from a number of other non-English
cultures. Some really, really vary from the style you saw in Hollywood
at that era.
It really is all subjective.
>> I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
>> Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes down
>> to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.
>
> But what else have you got to measure it by? If 90% of the audience say
> "Wow that acting was bad" how can you say "Well that's only your
> subjective opinon"?
Yes.
Have you never liked music that 90% of the world dislikes? Would you
change your mind and say the music is bad because they do?
Or movies?
Or books?
It seems you're trying to _define_ the quality of acting to be more or
less: Whatever the audience at the time expects...
--
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I can't disagree with any of those - though I have to admit the
> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
> And the wide shots of that fight were very good. Too much today fight
> scenes are a series of close-up cutaways, and while the "action" is
> faster, it doesn't feel as authentic. I wish fight scenes were more
> often shot from a distance sufficient to see the combatants and the
> camera was more or less stationary. With good fighters, many fight
> scenes would be absolutely beautiful if they just let us watch it in one
> shot.
You've got a problem there - most actors can't do an entire fight in one
shot.
That was one of the unmentioned strengths of the second Matrix movie,
that the shots for the fight scenes were much longer than in the original.
Also, the recent version of "Pride and Prejudice" (the one with Keira
Knightley) had some rather long shots in it, with the camera moving
through various rooms and people / events / conversations coming into
and out of focus in it. In one scene in particular, I was like "That's
cool, moving the camera that way... Huh, they haven't cut yet... Wow,
this is still the same take!" It's the kind of thing you can imagine
getting all the way to the end, and someone making a dumb mistake and
ruining the whole shot, but nobody did. I was very impressed by that :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> While not perfect, many space movies made decades later with better
> movie-making technology look worse and have more physical inaccuracies.
My physics prof had us work out the numbers for things like rotational
speed, acceleration & deceleration, etc just to prove that the movie was
physically correct.
(This is the same guy that had us build a catapult and a fort as a final
exam).
> Anyways, as for being incomprehensible... Only the last 15 minutes or
> so were incomprehensibly abstract (and, according to the director,
> completely on purpose), but everything before that was quite clear and
> straightforward.
>
> It would be cool to know that if Kubrick had decided to make a more
> comprehensible ending (perhaps something dark), how it would have affected
> the popularity of the movie.
I'd bet on more popular at first, less popular over time.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Also, the recent version of "Pride and Prejudice" (the one with Keira
> Knightley) had some rather long shots in it, with the camera moving
> through various rooms and people / events / conversations coming into
> and out of focus in it. In one scene in particular, I was like "That's
> cool, moving the camera that way... Huh, they haven't cut yet... Wow,
> this is still the same take!" It's the kind of thing you can imagine
> getting all the way to the end, and someone making a dumb mistake and
> ruining the whole shot, but nobody did. I was very impressed by that :)
I've seen a couple of movies which take the long shot to its extreme and
film the entire movie in essentially one uninterrupted shot. There's
Rope by Hitchcock and a more recent film Russian Ark. The former is a
pretty good suspense film, and the latter, while a bit dull, has
absolutely stunning camera work. I'd take a look if you're interested
in that sort of thing. Apparently Russian Ark also took only two takes
to get right, which is very impressive for a movie which is over an hour
and a half long.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
But watching the beginning of Episode I definitely shows the difference
between a couple of lame old men and an under-trained too-old-to-start
amateur and a couple of fully-trained young jedi knights, fighting-wise. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
