 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Is it just me, or is Hollywood trying lately to cash on the success of
> the LotR movies by making tons of similarly-themed fantasy movies based
> on random fantasy books? Take a more or less successful fantasy book,
> pour staggering amounts of money to produce a movie from it, and success
> is guaranteed? For me the whole thing is getting tiresome.
Just about anything that is successful will be emulated. This is why
our politicians claim to be the next Kennedy or Reagan (depending on
their party affiliation).
The success of the Spiderman and Fantastic 4 films has led to a heap of
movies based on all manner of DC and Marvel superheroes, although some
of them have been quite good; since the characters are someone's IP, if
they're smart they'll ensure that the scripts are good.
There has also been a slew of computer animations, many of which are
boring and/or stupid. At first Pixar was the only real player in the
game, and then Dreamworks joined and had some success, and then there
were several from other studios that weren't very interesting.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <48668b27@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tag povrayorg says...
> I'm not really sure what I expected when I rented this movie, but I rea
lly
> didn't expect it to be boring. However, it resulted to be, at least in my
> view, just a parade of famous actors, one after another, none of which
> really had a good role which would have shown their acting prowess and
> charisma, excellent but not really innovative CGI (I hate to admit it, bu
t
> nowadays CGI has become more or less vulgar in most modern movies) and a
> really confusing plot, which felt like they wanted to fit a very thick
> book into 1 and a half hours of movie (which is most probably the case,
> in fact, although I have not read the book so I can't really tell).
>
> It felt like you could perhaps enjoy the movie more if you had read the
> book (although I wouldn't bet on that, as we all know about movie adaptat
ions
> of books), but without knowing anything at all about the story it was a b
it
> confusing and boring.
> It's not like movie adaptations of fantasy books couldn't be enjoyable.
> I liked the Harry Potter movies even though I haven't read even a single
> line of the books. However, The Golden Compass was just too erratic and
> fast-paced for my liking. While it had its moments, overall it was more
> boring than entertaining.
>
> Is it just me, or is Hollywood trying lately to cash on the success of
> the LotR movies by making tons of similarly-themed fantasy movies based
> on random fantasy books? Take a more or less successful fantasy book,
> pour staggering amounts of money to produce a movie from it, and success
> is guaranteed? For me the whole thing is getting tiresome.
>
>
Well, as someone that did read the book. Its missing some story line in
at the arctic lab, which got fudged in some place else as dialog, how
she gets to the lab is inaccurate, bits and pieces of other parts where
not "quite" as badly squashed together. The ending... Just ends before
the first chapter, probably because it would have required a next movie,
which didn't seem likely to start, given the fervor of religious
ignorance and sight unread insanity just making it induced in many
people. Not that the real end did anything more, really, than suggest
even more strongly than some bits of the surviving story, that a sequel
existed (it would have practically demanded one).
All in all, watching it a second time I felt it was *slightly* less bad
than I original thought, but its not the most horrible adaption I have
ever seen either.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4866909a$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> > It felt like you could perhaps enjoy the movie more if you had read t
he
> > book (although I wouldn't bet on that, as we all know about movie adapt
ations
> > of books), but without knowing anything at all about the story it was a
bit
> > confusing and boring.
>
> It was fairly confusing an boring as a book, too. It was, however, a
> fairly good adaptation, methinks.
>
> I read all three books, out of curiousity and boredom. I'd say it was an
> attempt at an epic story whose intention was to teach you that epic
> stories aren't important. So it kind of got wrapped around its own axle.
>
> It's a book about how not to believe in religion, full of evil people
> who see the light, magic vague conciousnesses talking to prophesied
> children, beings made from pure thought, inexplicable evil leaking into
> the world when science goes awry, and heaven forbid don't believe in
> religion.
>
Umm. Its a "series" about not believing in organized religion. Some of
the later bits did annoy me a lot, since it simply replaced one type of
mysticism with another, but the central premise was, in fact, "Don't
follow dogma from people who desperately want to control things they
can't comprehend at all, imagine are dangerous when they are the exact
opposite and who know absolutely nothing about what they claim to be
telling you about." The is the magesterium. A group of people convinced
that, in this case, the one single force in the universe that "derives"
life is actually the thing creating corruption and chaos, and
simultaneously desperate to destory it, even as they are scared to death
that someone will figure out where it actually comes from and actually
bring "more" of it, instead of helping them destroy it.
It wasn't evil leaking into the world, it was "life" leaking out. They
would literally destroying creation itself by trying to "get rid of" the
perceived evil of sin, i.e., dust, which made people think for
themselves and act on adult ideas, instead of happily obeying the
authorities. The mess with the angels and stuff got a bit confusing,
but, in essense, it put god in the position of being a being so
disconnected from the world and so fragile from being disconnected, that
he literally "blew away" and dissolved back into the dust, the moment
someone opened the gilded cage his power hungry second in command made
for him. His second was so power mad that he spread the ideas the
Magesterium taught, because it made him more powerful, while, like the
morons following him, he had no clue it was destroying *everything* in
the process.
I think you have misread some of it quite a bit, not the least getting
what "dust" really was wrong. It wasn't evil spilling into the world, it
was renewal. The Magesterium simply couldn't abide those that refused to
"obey", therefor, anything the discouraged people obeying had to, in
their view, be "evil". Much like you see in the definitions of the same
among the nuts of real religions.
I wouldn't even call it anti-religious, save in the sense that its main
message was, "Don't limit yourself to the silly BS some church come up
with. They don't have a clue, just dogma, and they might be completely
wrong about *everything*."
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Umm. Its a "series" about not believing in organized religion.
True.
> Some of
> the later bits did annoy me a lot, since it simply replaced one type of
> mysticism with another,
That's kind of what I was saying, yes.
> but the central premise was, in fact, "Don't
> follow dogma from people who desperately want to control things they
> can't comprehend at all, imagine are dangerous when they are the exact
> opposite and who know absolutely nothing about what they claim to be
> telling you about."
Except the scientists who understood exactly what they were doing were
all evil as well. At least those from Laura's world.
> It wasn't evil leaking into the world, it was "life" leaking out.
I was referring the the monsters that only ate the adults that came in
from between the worlds. The invisible shades monsters. Not the dust.
> I think you have misread some of it quite a bit,
No, I think I was trying not to fill a whole message full of spoilers,
ya see. ;-)
> not the least getting what "dust" really was wrong.
I know what dust was. I wasn't talking about dust.
> I wouldn't even call it anti-religious, save in the sense that its main
> message was, "Don't limit yourself to the silly BS some church come up
> with. They don't have a clue, just dogma, and they might be completely
> wrong about *everything*."
Yeah. Except the *author* said it's anti-religious, and indeed that was
his purpose in writing it. Just as the author of the Narnia stuff said
he explicitly wrote it to make children more credulous so they'd more
easily believe in the fantastic claims of religion without any proof.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Some brilliant techno/indie pieces would have worked wonders for that
> series.
Didn't you see the party scene in the second movie?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The success of the Spiderman and Fantastic 4 films
The success of the Spiderman movie I can somewhat understand (although,
honestly, it still shows a bit of the chaotic quality of the collective
human mind why exactly that movie was so popular and not many other
equally good movies; and by the third movie the entire series has got
really, really tired, IMO), but the Fantastic 4 movie I really can't
understand. In my opinion it was dull, unimaginative, without any kind
of novelty, lacked good character development almost completely and its
script had the depth of a teaspoon. (And the coolest character in the
whole movie, Dr Doom, was shown in full costume for less than a minute,
which is something absolutely incomprehensible.)
Too many of these movies based on popular comics seem to be written
assuming that people already know the comics in question very well.
This inevitably causes the movies to feel kind of fast-forwarded, with
relevant character (and other) development compressed, if not even
completely skipped. It's like "everybody knows who character X is anyways,
so there's no need to spend a half an hour on showing his personality and
history." This usually results in a rather shallow and unimaginative
average action movie.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> Pixar's success is largely due to their ability to weave a good story
> together with good animation. Without good storytelling, all the special
> effects and top-notch CG in the world won't help a movie succeed. Pixar,
> therefore, places good storytelling at the same level of importance as
> high-quality CG.
Agreed.
As Pixar themselves often say, "it has to be about characters, 100%".
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> The success of the Spiderman and Fantastic 4 films has led to a heap of
> movies based on all manner of DC and Marvel superheroes, although some
Fantastic 4 was successful?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> (I hate to admit it, but
> nowadays CGI has become more or less vulgar in most modern movies)
By the way, it's curious that sometimes special effects which are too
good can be detrimental to the movie, while bad special effects can,
quite ironically, have the opposite effect. There's a rather curious
example of the latter:
The movie Jaws was originally intended by its director to have a lot
more of the shark itself. However, in 1975 animatronics were at a rather
lousy level, and post-production was also in its infancy (so that flaws
could not be removed or improved in post-production) so the shark looked
very unrealistic.
This caused the director to drastically change the contents of the
movie, and instead of concentrating so much on the shark, it concentrated
more on the human characters.
The end result was a movie which is considered one of the best of all
times.
(The sequels were all about the shark itself, and they are examples
of the worst movies ever.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> Pixar's success is largely due to their ability to weave a good story
> together with good animation.
Went to see WALL-E yesterday. Delightful characters, completely original
story, incredible graphics, lots of in-jokes. I'll have to utterly
disagree in every way with John VanSickle on this one.
> The political element is out of the Green Book of Scary Futures
I think if you wanted to read politics into it, any story that starts
with the premise of an Earth that everyone has fled from is going to
have *some* "political" content. Whether it's pollution, nuclear wars,
biological disaster, etc, there's going to be a bad-guy involved.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
