 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> followed shortly by our annual LOTR marathon.
Annual marathon? Every year you watch them again?
I don't get how people have time to watch so many movies, let alone multiple
times. Or why they'd want to...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:26:56 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> followed shortly by our annual LOTR marathon.
>
> Annual marathon? Every year you watch them again?
Yeah, pretty much every year.
> I don't get how people have time to watch so many movies, let alone
> multiple times. Or why they'd want to...
It's the sort of thing we make time for - it's a chance to do something
as a family that we enjoy doing. And this year, if I can get the
projector positioned correctly, it'll be a cinematic experience for us
again, but without the crowds. :-)
We do rent a fair number of films using Netflix, so it's not all "old"
stuff. It's just good old escapism. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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?
No, I don't think so, nope the only time I went to the cinema in the last
few years or so was to see Borat.
> It can make a tremendous difference, depending on the movie.
Yep, although maybe when I watched Wall-E I was just in the wrong frame of
mind or something, will give it another shot probably, if only to try and
spot Burn-E more times :-)
BTW watching Borat at the cinema was unreal, I have never been in a cinema
where the entire audience was laughing out loud and clapping for almost the
whole film.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I don't get how people have time to watch so many movies, let alone multiple
> times. Or why they'd want to...
Well, if you reduced the time you spent on these newsgroups by half,
you'd have time. It's all about priorities.
--
BREAKFAST.COM Halted... Cereal Port Not Responding.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez escreveu:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> followed shortly by our annual LOTR marathon.
>
> Annual marathon? Every year you watch them again?
>
> I don't get how people have time to watch so many movies, let alone multiple
> times. Or why they'd want to...
I've watched quite a few movies again and again. And again whenever
there's a new and better media format! XD
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
The Muppets (including the movies) still have a pretty reasonable adult
following -- partially because of the double-entendre aspect that you
mention. Other than Pixar films, I think a lot of Miyazaki's stuff also
holds up very well to an adult viewing.
> But basically it's kinda like something like Animaniacs
I miss the Animaniacs, and the zany other shows they inspired too (like
Freakazoid). Out of curiosity, are there any good kids shows on these
days? In the few times I've tuned in recently I've only seen Yu-Gi-Oh
and some other highly non-interesting shows.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> I don't get how people have time to watch so many movies, let alone
>> multiple times. Or why they'd want to...
>
> Well, if you reduced the time you spent on these newsgroups by half,
> you'd have time. It's all about priorities.
True.
And yesterday I joined Facebook, that's soooo not gonna help with my time...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:02:07 -0800, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The Muppets (including the movies) still have a pretty reasonable adult
> following -- partially because of the double-entendre aspect that you
> mention. Other than Pixar films, I think a lot of Miyazaki's stuff also
> holds up very well to an adult viewing.
Ah, yes, the Muppets. You've just reminded me of something else I wanted
to get my wife. :-)
>> But basically it's kinda like something like Animaniacs
>
> I miss the Animaniacs, and the zany other shows they inspired too (like
> Freakazoid). Out of curiosity, are there any good kids shows on these
> days? In the few times I've tuned in recently I've only seen Yu-Gi-Oh
> and some other highly non-interesting shows.
I don't know myself - I spend a fair amount of time watching things like
Spooks, 24, and Law & Order. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:49475bb5$1@news.povray.org...
> > Anyways, if you haven't seen it, I suggest you go to rent it. Like now.
> > Don't even bother reading any further, just get up and go rent it.
> I bought it a couple of weeks back and watched it for the first time at
the
> weekend. I must admit that I found several earlier Pixar films more
> enjoyable to watch. I don't know whether I will feel like watching Wall-E
>
[...]
>
> From a purely CG viewpoint, excellent though. There was one nit-pick I
had
> during the film but I forgot it afterwards so it can't have been that bad
> :-)
(Spoiler alert)
I agree that it's not one of the better movies from Pixar. It was in fact
rather disappointing, given all the rave. A 4 out of 10, 5 tops on a
charitable day.
The story is flat. Very flat, for a feature length film. Sometimes, it feels
like Pixar should stick to shorts.
Yes, CGI is top notch for portrayal of Wall-E and earth, and a short space
sequence. It fails for everything else (more later).
I won't go into logical flaws in detail. I am sure anyone who's remotely
interested in sci-fi will find dozens of major flaws. Yes, I know it's an
animation and a kid's movie. But it still cheapens the whole thing, and
creates an ambiguous atmosphere, when it's apparent that the writers cannot
be bothered with a straight story. It fails spectacularly on the consistency
front. The suspension of disbelief only works when the movie is consistent.
I can take realism. I can take fantasy. I can even take absolute nonsense.
But when you try to mix them all, it fails.
Speaking of cheapening, the humans were the poorest depiction in a CGI in
recent years. It feels like they ran over the budget with CGI for Wall-e and
decided to have a high school kid model and animate the humans and a B-movie
actor play the live one. The latter being the more inexplicable decision.
Actually the rationalization is transparent (so don't explain to me), but
it's just an admission of failure. Something like "we couldn't do it in CGI,
we couldn't do it with humans, so here, take this cheap mish-mash of a
solution and call it artistic license".
The movie plagiar- I mean, references, especially 2001 was also very cheap.
Yes, it's all been done before, but real artists at least try to construct
their own version. What appears cute on a Simpson cartoon does not go with
well on a feature length movie, that is supposed to be a "film".
Anyway, just because it's Pixar, and just because the animator mastered
putting droopy eyes on a robot does not make this a good movie. At the end
of the day, it was very average as a movie. Every CG artist should see it,
however, because of the hype and to learn from its successes and failures.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 05:23:08 -0700, somebody wrote:
> Speaking of cheapening, the humans were the poorest depiction in a CGI
> in recent years.
Did you watch it on DVD, and if so, did you watch the extras where they
talked about this?
I would agree that it wasn't the best Pixar film. I don't know that I
could say which was, though, because I've liked them all.
I have to admit, though, I did like "Presto!" better than the main
feature.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
