 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> > 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.
I disagree. If they had chopped 40 minutes then it would simply have
been a regular hollywood blockbuster.
If you want depth in a movie, you need to spend time with your characters.
You can see lack of depth in most hollywood blockbusters. They are too short,
they don't develop their characters, it's just fast food, not a delicate
cuisine.
(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.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I mean, hell, Jabba the hut had more personality than Queen Amanda.
I thought it was Amidala, or something like that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
> "Warp" wrote:
> > As far as I remember, there has been only one movie which I have seen
> > twice in a movie theater (and I paid the ticket myself both times), but
> > I'm too ashamed to tell which... :P
> It was Titanic!
Nope. I own that movie on DVD. No shame in that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.)
Funny, that's exactly what the preview made it look like, and the reason
I didn't see it.
Now, if someone had told me that the characters had some depth to them,
I would have been interested. But I don't need anymore celluloid Big
Macs, thank you very much.
For that matter, I don't need anymore beef Big Macs either... we're
trying to cut out fast food for the whole year. It's been a little more
than a week, and I'm having serious cravings...
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> For that matter, I don't need anymore beef Big Macs either... we're
> trying to cut out fast food for the whole year. It's been a little more
> than a week, and I'm having serious cravings...
I assume you have seen "Big Size Me"?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> My cats act as if I am so irredeemably beneath their intellect that it's
> not worth their time to even contemplate speaking to me :)
Yes. That's what cats do.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> I actually like all of his movies, though The Village and Lady in the
> Water aren't his best. Personally, Unbreakable and Signs are my favorites.
Interesting. Of all his movies, I think The Village and Lady In The
Water are my favourites! Although I think Unbreakable is excellent too.
I think his movies are often maligned somewhat unfairly, either by
people who spend half the film looking for the twist and then saying it
was crap because they spotted it (boasting), or people who spend half
the film looking for the twist and then saying they didn't spot it
because it was a crap twist (defensive). Both categories entirely fail
to get anything from the movie as a result. Poor fools. This is one
reason I like Lady In The Water particularly, because it's entirely
without a twist.
I never spot twists in films anyway; I long ago learnt to concentrate on
the 'now' in a film and immerse myself without trying to think ahead.
This way, I get maximum enjoyment from it (twists are supposed to be
unexpected, after all).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:09:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> That, and the acting sucked. Which is hard to blame on the actors, given
>> how it was filmed.
>
> And the fact that the scripts generally sucked. There wasn't a lot for
> the actors to work with, since most of the budget was blown on the
> effects.
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.
> It isn't about fan expectations - I went in with no expectations, and
> still I was disappointed.
I went in with mixed feelings, but I was pleasantly surprised. That
suggests I was expecting to be disappointed...!
I like all the Star Wars films, but I'll be the first to admit that
they're all seriously flawed in one way or another. Except maybe ESB.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>> "Warp" wrote:
>>> As far as I remember, there has been only one movie which I have seen
>>> twice in a movie theater (and I paid the ticket myself both times), but
>>> I'm too ashamed to tell which... :P
>
>> It was Titanic!
If there's shame in that, then I share it, cos I saw that three times in
the cinema. I went with different people, but enjoyed it each time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
>> deserve a second watching at some point.
>
> Never saw it.
It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Gail Shaw wrote:
>>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>>>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>>>
>>> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about
>>> the other
>>> 2.
>>
>> Why has nobody mentioned the second film?
>
> Because it was comprehensible?
Yah, good point. Ding! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> For that matter, I don't need anymore beef Big Macs either... we're
>> trying to cut out fast food for the whole year. It's been a little more
>> than a week, and I'm having serious cravings...
>
> I assume you have seen "Big Size Me"?-)
>
No, but I've read enough articles about the subject that I get the
general gist of it.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > I assume you have seen "Big Size Me"?-)
> No, but I've read enough articles about the subject that I get the
> general gist of it.
I really recommend it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I never spot twists in films anyway; I long ago learnt to concentrate on
> the 'now' in a film and immerse myself without trying to think ahead.
Same here. And if I realize how the movie is going to end anyway, it's a
disppointingly trite movie. Far too much of the popular stuff is like that.
Or you get something like Vanilla Sky, where you get to the end and go
"Uh, huh??"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I disagree. If they had chopped 40 minutes then it would simply have
> been a regular hollywood blockbuster.
Could be. And Bruce Willis is good enough you can actually get something
out of it. I just thought the pace didn't fit the mood. I got bored
waiting for the next bit. Maybe I was anticipating a twist and hence
anxious to find out what it was.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I mean, hell, Jabba the hut had more personality than Queen Amanda.
>
> I thought it was Amidala, or something like that.
My point exactly. I watched her for three movies and I can't even
remember her name. ;-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
"You're making an assumption." Classic line.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
>> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
>
> "You're making an assumption." Classic line.
Just casting my eye down the quote list on IMDB is making me laugh out
loud. I reckon every one of Jackson's lines is a classic!
Check em out:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116908/quotes
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have seen movies with truely bad acting, and I didn't see any of that in
> the SW trilogy. I never understood what people are talking about when they
> say there's bad acting in the trilogy. Granted, perhaps not oscar-worthy
> acting, but bad?
Not so much bad acting as bad chemistry. You could really tell in
scenes with just Anakin and Amidala, they just weren't clicking, but the
second Ewan McGregor enters any scene, everybody else responds and
displays a much higher level of ability than otherwise. Kind of
interesting, really.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I disagree. If they had chopped 40 minutes then it would simply have
>> been a regular hollywood blockbuster.
>
> Could be. And Bruce Willis is good enough you can actually get something
> out of it. I just thought the pace didn't fit the mood. I got bored
> waiting for the next bit. Maybe I was anticipating a twist and hence
> anxious to find out what it was.
I had no complaints about Unbreakable. Of all his movies, I think this
was the most mature - he didn't seem to go for any sensationalism. I
didn't even care about the "twist". I liked it quite a bit till then anyway.
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> but that it failed to meet fan expectations.
>
>> That, and the acting sucked.
>
> I have seen movies with truely bad acting, and I didn't see any of that in
> the SW trilogy. I never understood what people are talking about when they
> say there's bad acting in the trilogy. Granted, perhaps not oscar-worthy
> acting, but bad?
I won't get into arguing about Star Wars too much, because while I
liked the original trilogy, it was only because I was quite young. I'm
sure if I saw them originally as an adult, I'd enjoy them, and forget
about them quickly.
But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting". What exactly
is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.
Friend of mine tried to insist good acting was, "They acted the way
real people would in that situation". He wasn't consistent with that
definition. He liked the acting in a lot of action movies, where almost
no one acts as they would in real life. I don't like that definition
(but hey, if someone really cares about realism...).
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
>>> deserve a second watching at some point.
>>
>> Never saw it.
>
> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
Samuel Jackson more or less made the movie. It's good entertainment
overall, but his character just kept cracking me up.
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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...
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting". What exactly
> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.
Bad acting is where they act like actors instead of like the characters
they're supposed to be. It includes body language, for example. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:19:25 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Gilliam's movies tend to be quite good.
>
> Tideland was weird, though.
I haven't seen that one, going to have to add it to my netflix queue. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:58:19 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:09:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> That, and the acting sucked. Which is hard to blame on the actors,
>>> given how it was filmed.
>>
>> And the fact that the scripts generally sucked. There wasn't a lot for
>> the actors to work with, since most of the budget was blown on the
>> effects.
>
> 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%.
>> It isn't about fan expectations - I went in with no expectations, and
>> still I was disappointed.
>
> I went in with mixed feelings, but I was pleasantly surprised. That
> suggests I was expecting to be disappointed...!
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.
I had low expectations for 2 & 3, and as I think I said elsewhere, 3 I
actually kinda liked because it went to where it inevitably needed to go
and ended with a pretty dark ending (just like ESB, for that matter). I
generally prefer films where the end doesn't wrap everything up all nice
and neat and everyone lives happily ever after.
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.
> I like all the Star Wars films, but I'll be the first to admit that
> they're all seriously flawed in one way or another. Except maybe ESB.
ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:02:00 +0000, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
>>> deserve a second watching at some point.
>>
>> Never saw it.
>
> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
I'll have to add that to my list as well, then. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:33:55 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps
>>>> even
>>>> deserve a second watching at some point.
>>>
>>> Never saw it.
>>
>> It's a good laugh. Good action, pleasantly trivial story, and some
>> cracking dialogue from Sam Jackson.
>
> Samuel Jackson more or less made the movie. It's good
entertainment
> overall, but his character just kept cracking me up.
I think that's one of the things about films he's in that make me want to
see them - you don't expect him to be funny, but he is. Same for Robert
DeNiro - I loved "Analyze This", because I just never thought of him as a
comedian.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:02:24 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> I actually like all of his movies, though The Village and Lady in the
> Water aren't his best. Personally, Unbreakable and Signs are my
> favorites.
Ah, yes, I didn't see The Village either.
> He focuses much more on the emotions of his characters than the events.
That's true, and that's what made Sixth Sense work for me.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> But anyway, I get amused with comments about "bad acting". What exactly
> is bad acting? Can't seem to come up with an objective criterion.
Acting is bad when you notice that they are acting, ie. when it makes
you think something negative about the acting. When you don't notice, ie.
you don't pay any thought about the acting, it's acceptable.
Defining *good* acting is harder, though.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Jar Jar was annoying
I have always noticed that I'm different than the majority of people,
and this is no exception: Jar Jar was not annoying when I watched the
movie for first time, and neither when I watched it a second time.
I actually found Yoda to be much more annoying the first time he appears
on screen in the older trilogy.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Jar Jar was annoying
>
> I have always noticed that I'm different than the majority of people,
> and this is no exception: Jar Jar was not annoying when I watched the
> movie for first time, and neither when I watched it a second time.
>
> I actually found Yoda to be much more annoying the first time he appears
> on screen in the older trilogy.
That's fair enough. Yoda was supposed to be annoying, at least to start
with - he appeared to be hindering Luke's quest.
Jar Jar is the same - he clearly tests the patience of the Jedi by his
clumsiness and carefree demeanor. That's all I meant, really, he didn't
spoil the film for me. Many people say they would have liked EpI were it
not for Jar Jar; I suspect these people would have found fault with the
film anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:47839f0a$1@news.povray.org...
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>>>> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
>>> Huh? Related how?
>> "My God, it's full of CARs..." ;-)
>
> The comic you linked to is titled Lisp, and wonders if god constructed the
> universe using lisp.
>
>
Perhaps you have not been subjected to LISP Gail. (Apologies in advance
if you have).
Two of the fundamental operations are taking the head item of a list
using CAR and taking the remainder of the list using CDR.
Sounds complete nonsense until you learn that CAR stands for 'Contents
of the Address Register' and CDR stands for 'Contents of the Decrement
Register' and that LISP is from LISt Programming. It is all about
processing lists, including lists of data and lists of instructions.
CAR and CDR were the assembler code mnemonics for the instructions that
performed the operations on some ancient machine (IBM 704 ?). Actually
I think they may have been assembler macros that expanded into a few
machine instructions each. Anyway programmers used to write this stuff
by hand. Later LISP would translate the program text into the instructions.
Starter exercises in LISP are all about understanding what (CAR (CDR '(A
B C))) returns.
So it is a neat pun and I had a chuckle at the cartoon.
Now I'm going to BXLE out of here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:59:34 -0000, Bill Pragnell
<bil### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:
> 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.
The major difficulty was trying to believe that Anakin loved Amadala so
much he'd turn to the darkside to save her; as has been mentioned the
spark just wasn't there.
>> 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!
My problem with the podrace was thinking "Ah yes let's stick a race in the
middle of this film so we've got something to liven up the inevitable game
version"
>> 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.
Ah yes the 'we know the audience better then you do' approach "Ending not
clear, Me no understand, is sequel coming? Me not happy. Hulk smash!"
> 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! ;-)
ESB was the best of the original three, which in turn automatically makes
it the best of the six ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.
> Best lightsaber fight of the series.
Episode 1 had the best lightsaber fight by far.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.
>
>> Best lightsaber fight of the series.
>
> Episode 1 had the best lightsaber fight by far.
Did you see the YouTube video where they took the fight scene from
Episode III and played it at 2x speed?
Damn that was amusing...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> ESB was definitely the best of the bunch - I really liked that one.
>
>> Best lightsaber fight of the series.
>
> Episode 1 had the best lightsaber fight by far.
I had to think carefully to put ESB ahead of PM, because PM's duel is
indeed superb. The swordplay is definitely better. And bonus points to
the double blade. However, I have to give it to ESB because of the
setting, the context, the climax, and the fact that lots of scenery gets
chopped up convincingly. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Bad acting is where they act like actors instead of like the characters
> they're supposed to be. It includes body language, for example. :-)
And you know how the characters are *supposed* to behave?
--
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
