 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > battered cameras looked a lot like Woody Allen's sad expression...
>
> Yes! Thank you! I've been trying to figure out who Wall-E looked like from
> the first time I saw a movie poster!
They always manage to make their characters look a bit like their voice actors,
but Wall-E doesn't have a voice. So, I guess they settled on someone iconic
enough... :)
The name also resembles WAlle n... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Haha, I prefer to see films in the big screens, but I also prefer it
>> if the rest of the audience are dead quiet, or, if I can possibly
>> manage it, absent. I usually find other people far distracting from
>> the film.
>
> I went to see a vampire movie in the middle of the afternoon on a
> thursday once. It was the least memorable movie I ever saw, because
> there were 3 others in the audience.
I like to focus on a movie. If the guy behind me is nattering on his
phone and the guy in front is wrestling with a plastic bag, well, it
really grinds my gears!
> On the other hand, I saw "The Grudge" and there were dozens of teens
> down near the front who'd obviously seen it several times already and
> were raising hell, and it was still rather disturbing. :-)
I've not seen the Grudge, but from what I've heard I think I'd be quite
thankful of the extra noise in that particular case. In fact, I think
horror movies nullify my previous claim - when I saw 'Identity' I was
the only person in the screen and it scared the sh*t out of me!
> And of course, Rocky Horror Picture Show wouldn't be the same without
> the audience.
Well, that's different! Or sing-a-long Sound Of Music for that matter
(not that I'm likely to rush into that either)
> But I find commedies greatly enhanced by having an audience, which is
> why people put in fake soundtracks on the ones you watch by yourself at
> home.
Fair enough. I don't usually bother with pure comedies in the cinema,
they lose nothing on a small screen and I'm more often disappointed by
them these days. I'd rather be disappointed by big-budget eye candy
instead! (SWII:AOTC anyone?)
Yes, I think you're right actually, it depends on the movie. If it's a
serious drama/thriller I'd prefer my co-viewers to keep it down, but I'm
not that bothered otherwise. I think the few truly bad experiences jade
my attitude a little!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> I don't know what it was about the film that didn't do it for me,
>
> Did you watch the ones you *did* like on a movie screen, with an
> audience around you? It can make a tremendous difference, depending on
> the movie.
>
I think that it depends on the movie.
I've been to some movies where the audience atmosphere helped to make
the movie really fun. And when watching the same movie with a different
audience it fell flat because it was so quiet in the theater.
I do have to agree that at least in most cases having a quiet theater is
best.
In all cases it is best when the audience is 'with' the movie.
Whatever noises they make is in 'emotion' with the movie.
No crumpling paper noises, no talking.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Overall story was good, but not great.
>
> Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to seem
> fairly trite to an adult? I'll settle for novel, myself. :-)
Yes.
In terms of story quality, I thought Toy Story and Monsters Inc were
both great.
--
BREAKFAST.COM Halted... Cereal Port Not Responding.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> In terms of story quality, I thought Toy Story and Monsters Inc were
> both great.
OK. I guess you can be formulaic without being trite. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:36:12 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Her birthday is also the same week (the 27th, same as my younger
> brother's, coincidentally - but a 9 years difference), and that's going
> to be trickier. I've worked out what to get her, but it is mail order
> from a specialty shop and she knows the name. That makes shipping a bit
> tricky.
The retailer made this easier - the item's out of stock, they can't ship
until January.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:39:24 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Overall story was good, but not great.
>
> Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to seem
> fairly trite to an adult?
I've seen a few that worked well that way - though at the moment I'm
having a bit of a memory access issue and can't come up with the name of
one.
But basically it's kinda like something like Animaniacs - the humour has
a tinge of double-entendre to it - the jokes have dual meanings (not all
of the dual meanings are of an "adult" nature, but require a greater
understanding/experience of the world than a kid is likely to have).
We've been watching a bit of the first series of Animaniacs, and have
found this to be the case. Our son, who just turned 21, has commented on
this because he watched it as a kid, and he's pulling entirely different
levels of humour out of it now as an adult.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:12:07 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> In terms of story quality, I thought Toy Story and Monsters Inc
were
> both great.
Agreed, we loved Monsters Inc and watch it fairly regularly.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:11:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> I don't know what it was about the film that didn't do it for me,
>
> Did you watch the ones you *did* like on a movie screen, with an
> audience around you? It can make a tremendous difference, depending on
> the movie.
There's a reason we've just purchased a projection system for our TV
room. Can't wait for it to get here - Wall-E will probably be one of the
first on the new screen, followed shortly by our annual LOTR marathon.
Then it'll be time to retire "the monolith", as we call it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Overall story was good, but not great.
>
> Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to seem
> fairly trite to an adult? I'll settle for novel, myself. :-)
Also, the Wallace & Grommit shorts come to mind...
--
BREAKFAST.COM Halted... Cereal Port Not Responding.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
