 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Captain Jack" <Cap### [at] comcast net> wrote:
> There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this
> movie. Most of the time, when that happens in a movie (Armaggedon, anyone?)
> I find the film unwatchable. I was so caught up in Avatar that it didn't
> even register with me until later, and even then, I shrugged it off with a
> "who cares, it was great" attitude. :-)
Cameron is good at that. Aliens (and to a lesser degree, Terminator) also manage
to get enough detail right, in a well-paced story, that you don't mind (or
indeed notice) the potential problems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 01:33, Warp wrote:
> Every story is always based on what was before. There's rarely anything
> truly original and innovative.
>
> It's the execution that counts.
And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd
have liked the movie more.
I actually like unoriginal movies that were made really well (e.g. A
Simple Plan). This won points on the effects front, but little else.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 06:39, Captain Jack wrote:
> Also, a film is not just a story, although I think a compelling story is
> important. This one has the classic
> "boy-meets-girl-boy-loses-girl-boy-does-something-heroic-boy-gets-girl",
> which is one of my favorites. But, to each his own.
Oh, I don't mind it either. I just wish it was a bit different in
execution, though. Did they really need that jealous guy, for example?
It was as if the writer was following some recipe book to the letter.
> To me, a compelling story is not just one that's interesting, it makes me
> wonder, "what happens next?" My favorite novels always leave me wanting to
> know more about the lives of the characters. That certainly happened for me
> with this film.
Not for me. Some of the (human) characters were so heavily stereotyped
that there was little left to wonder about them after you'd seen each of
them for a few minutes.
I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better characters
- even if the plot was completely unoriginal.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> something *genuinely* original,
I think that the cost of a movie prevents you from doing something *really*
original. Some of the stuff like Total Recall or Jumper would have been a
pretty original story had it not come from a book. But I don't think you'll
find too many people spending $200million on a completely new and untested
story.
Books? Lots of books with genuinely original stories out there.
> Every story is always based on what was before.
It's easy (so to speak) to do completely original short stories, for
example. That's one of the hallmarks of science fiction.
Of course, you can always generalize a story to the point where it's no
longer original. You can take something like Jumper and say "there are lots
of stories where someone with something special is fleeing from those who
fear him" or dismiss Total Recall with "it's a boy-meets-girl romantic
comedy". There's some level of detail you have to retain for a story to be
unique, as every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Captain Jack wrote:
> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea. I note, for the
> record, that this is neither an absolute nor an accepted theory in all
> circles, but I think the concept has merit.
You should note that the original formulation was that there were only seven
basic plots that work well in a theater play.
Movies? Books? Lots more than seven. Stories you can tell with live actors
on a stage? OK, maybe 7 counts, if you lump all of comedy as one plot and
all of tragedy as another.
To some extent, there's only so much you can do in a movie, too, as movies
are very expensive to make and you still can't learn stuff except by seeing
it happen. Altho "flashbacks" and voice-over narration can help, you still
can't get as much of that in as you can in a novel.
> There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this
> movie.
It wasn't really a science fiction movie, unlike Armaggedon was. Hence,
since the science wasn't really driving the movie per se, the fact that the
science was bogus didn't hurt the story.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Did they really need that jealous guy, for example?
I suspect he comes up in the part of the story that was cut from shooting
because the movie was already too long. :-)
> It was as if the writer was following some recipe book to the letter.
Indeed. There's *always* a rejected and hence jealous boyfriend, even when
completely unnecessary.
> I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better
> characters - even if the plot was completely unoriginal.
I understand much of the complexity was cut. There were scenes on earth
motivating the need to attack the planet, drug abuse amongst the marines,
marine leaders taking bribes (altho for what I don't remember), etc etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
> something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into any
> form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious incomprehensible cheap
> art films don't count because that's not storytelling, it's randomness)?
It doesn't count because you don't understand it?
That's kinda like asking:
When's the last time you counted to 10 and didn't use odd numbers? Oh,
and you can't use even numbers, because they don't count.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 09:23, Darren New wrote:
> I think that the cost of a movie prevents you from doing something
> *really* original. Some of the stuff like Total Recall or Jumper would
> have been a pretty original story had it not come from a book. But I
> don't think you'll find too many people spending $200million on a
> completely new and untested story.
Timely. I was just watching the Fawlty Towers DVD's, and in the
interview section, John Cleese said that a marketing person told him the
most difficult thing to sell is something original. People are too
worried it will fail. Cleese's perspective was that original material
takes time to become popular (Fawlty Towers wasn't a great hit until its
reruns), so it's better for TV series than movies.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/10 09:30, Darren New wrote:
>> I'd say it was a pretty good movie if they'd just had better
>> characters - even if the plot was completely unoriginal.
>
> I understand much of the complexity was cut. There were scenes on earth
> motivating the need to attack the planet, drug abuse amongst the
> marines, marine leaders taking bribes (altho for what I don't remember),
> etc etc.
Sigh. Guess I'll suspend judgment till the director's cut comes out.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> And if they hadn't made the characters so one dimensional, then I'd
> have liked the movie more.
Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
character". I assume it's something related to character development,
but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
"non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
considered such) could help understanding better.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
