You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by bullet3
I'm 100% in. Especially after Oblivion ended up being pretty awesome, Cruise clearly knows what he's doing.
Also it's fascinating to watch video-game influences creep into mainstream movies. This looks like a game more than anything I've seen in a long time.
Alright...maybe a small submersible.
You kid, but that is literally the ending of Meg (the novel).
Ya, I wasn't a fan of the Unexpected Journey score either. One decent theme and that's pretty much all it has to offer, compared to like 6 amazing themes in Fellowship.
Exactly! I would argue that even at it's worst (Insurrection, Final Frontier), Trek has still felt like it was trying to be about ideas, or had a cursory respect for science. Into Darkness plays like a slightly more coherent Michael Bay movie. It may be competent from a directorial standpoint, and better made than many of the movies in the series, but it fundamentally goes against everything the series stands for. If Roddenberry was pissed off at Star Trek 2 and 6 for somewhat betraying the spirit of the series, he would have probably set himself on fire in protest if he ever saw Into Darkness.
No, if you do Blade, you gotta do Blade 2 aka "The best comicbook movie ever made"
I have the same feeling towards Speed Racer that I do Cloud Atlas: Goddamn that's impressive, amazing amazing story construction and editing, but totally misguided and unsuccessful.
Making your energetic kids racing movie 80% about international corporate politics is a fucking bizarre choice, and cartoon physics in a live action movie do not work (at least the way they execute them). I think the choice to have the cars all look totally weightless and stupidly bouncing around in the action scenes was a real mistake, and on top of that, for a movie called "Speed Racer" the races are few and far between.
But damn is it pretty. It may not work but I'm glad something that off-the-charts weird got made.
Ohh, Threshold!
I remember watching that pilot episode the day it aired and thinking it was amazing.
The show definitely goes downhill after that and becomes pretty boring "monster of the week", also it was cancelled before it ever really got going.
Of course, I was like 12 at the time, so the dialogue didn't really bother me then.
Directed by Peter Hyams of all people.
It's also really weird to go back and watch network dramas from 10 years ago, living with HBO and AMC for 5 years, you forget how shitty TV production values used to be.
Lets hold off on the marathons for at least another 100 episodes, eh?
It's in everyone's best interest to keep the FIYH crew alive
Ya, Upstream Color would be a real interesting one. There's people that can argue it's pretentious bullshit, and the flipside is that it's just hyper-restrained story-telling. I would love someone to do an actual in-depth analysis of some of the filmmaking/editing techniques involved, because I happen to think there's a ton of fascinating stuff going on that's really effective. Like, it has the aesthetic of a lyrical art film like a Tree of Life or David Lynch or something, but the difference is that the pacing is EXTREMELY fast-paced and structured. It's like a Nolan movie if you cut out all the dialogue and just had to rely on the visuals. Every shot is conveying either an important piece of plot info or a thematic connection, and he's counting on those 1-2 seconds to be enough to connect the dots in the audiences head. And then on top of that he's doing really cool stuff from an editing standpoint, where he'll play the audio from the middle of a scene while cutting back and forth between the beginnings and ends of the scene. Just all sorts of stuff aimed at compressing the narrative as much as possible into as little space as he can.
As you've all said, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a repeat of last year, where there's a best director/best picture split. Life of Pi got best director and a bunch of the technicals, and best picture went to Argo (which won very little else). Barring some serious bullshit, I see Cuaron finally getting his best director oscar this year. 12 Years a Slave takes Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay, as well as all the acting awards (with Bullock maybe getting Best Actress).
But we'll have to wait and see, I think Wolf of Wall Street could shake things up from what I've heard of it.
If Into Darkness is anything, it's sexist. Frankly it's insulting for a series that pioneered equality and was a step forward in gender roles to take a character that was a brilliant anti-war scientist and make her do a gratuitous Michael Bay style stripping scene, while contributing nothing to the story. And all Uhura cares about now is her relationship problems.
Argh, lets get off this and stop talking about Star Trek, we're just going to derail the thread with bitching
Ughhhh. Another "chosen one" plot. If you told me this was based on a Young Adult novel for teens I would believe you. I know you guys love Cloud Atlas, but I really don't think they've pulled off a narrative since The Matrix. They really could use a third collaborator to rewrite some of their dialogue.
Sean Bean is in it though, so that's a plus.
OH! I want to add Uptream Color! FOrgot it was this year.
Ya, it was such an early release (March?), I hope people don't forget it for their year-end lists. It's the kind of movie that gives you hope that the whole "anyone has the tech to make a movie" thing will actually result in some legitimately great, original films, instead of just endless fan films and video-game parodies.
This may change after I see Wolf of Wall Street and American Hustle. That being said:
1. Gravity - basically renewed my faith in cinema after an atrocious year of movies. Astounding.
2. Upstream Color - Was sure this would be my #1 until Gravity hit. Carruth is a master at short-hand visual storytelling. Hypnotic, beautiful, seen it 6 times and can't wait to watch it again.
3. Europa Report - In many ways this is the hard sci-fi movie I've always wanted to see. Smart characters, accurate science, just an interesting what-if that makes the most of it's smaller budget. Great score too.
4. Fast & Furious 6 - best action movie of the year, also the best superhero movie of the year. This movie incorporates character development into its action scenes better than almost any big budget series out there.
5. Riddick - Awesome piece of R-rated sci-fi action. First 1/3rd in particular is amazing, some of the best stuff I've seen this year. It suffers from starting out original and great, and then getting more and more conventional as it goes along, but it's still solid. Kind of this year's Dredd, though not quite at that level.
Honorable Mention: Oblivion as the biggest surprise of the year, and being waaay better than it had any right to be.
Worst:
1. Star Trek Into Darkness
2. Red 2
3. Pacific Rim (seriously internet, WTF)
4. Elysium
5. Man of Steel
The degree of escalation from the LOTR marathon to this cannot be over-stated, both in terms of endurance and technological complexity. My mind is still blown that you guys had a full-on multi-cam setup going with fully updating overlays on the whole stream.
Oblivion is an interesting example. The gorgeous sky house was largely 'in camera' so to what extent is it VFX? Maybe it should be nominated for cinematography, and if it won, would make it back-to-back wins for DP Claudio Miranda (following up from Life of Pi).
Academy has a history of liking practical FX. Didn't Inception win the year it was up? Doesn't matter how the effect is achieved if it looks amazing, and if it's done for real, all the better.
But it's irrelevant, Gravity is gonna sweep the technical awards (including cinematography).
Ya, what you guys said, though I think (and really hope) Oblivion takes it over Star Trek. Oblivion is seriously gorgeous.
But ya, for the winner? Gravity is the surest lock in this category since Avatar.
Huh, interesting episode. Hadn't ever even heard of Fraggle Rock, never watched Muppets or Sesame Street. I'm getting the feeling this is a generational thing (I'm guessing you guys grew up in the 80s), since I wouldn't have really been watching TV a lot till the mid-90s, so I'm guessing most of these weren't airing regularly on TV anymore at that point (well, Sesame Street has been around forever, but I had outgrown it by the time I started watching TV).
So for me it'd be more Looney Tunes and Nickelodeon cartoons (and maybe Power Rangers, I vaguely remember that still being a thing when I was a kid).
Ok, you've convinced me. Well done.
Right, but my point is, if you have a direct killing spell, there's no reason not to use that every time, as it's the most efficient way of taking down your opponent. So if you have wizards dueling to the death, ya, it's gonna be them really quickly firing short-burst killing spells at each other, and ya, it's gonna look like a laser-gun battle. All the creative magicky-type spells to get a bunch of vines to show up and incapacitate your opponent or whatever, end up being a waste of time.
Now, throwing logic aside, there's something to be said for a "fun" type of magic battle where it's constant wacky inventive things attacking the characters. This is something I'd imagine Spielberg could have a field day with in his prime. However, this requires a totally different tone, that doesn't fit with the later books/films in the series. The fun, lighthearted magic stuff fits in the first half of the series, but when shit gets dark and the movies are committed to their ultra-serious tone, having a suit of armor choking out professor snape is gonna seem WAY out of place.
I'm kinda with DocSub on this one. It shifts to the more direct "gunfight" style spells, because otherwise, the whole notion of wizards being more powerful than muggles kinda breaks down. Like, if Voldemort has to do some fancy spell to get my car to turn into a monster to chase me down and eat me, while he's busy doing that I can pull out a gun and shoot him in the face.
I think they could've (and should've) used splashes of more inventive magic throughout the movies, but fundamentally I don't have a problem with the laser-gun style approach to the battles.
I remember feeling like they kinda botched Dumbledore's end scene. Otherwise, it's fine. I was never a huge fan of that book though, you really feel the "middle-chapterness" of it as its just setting up all this stuff for the finale.
As for Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, I'm genuinely surprised that people seem to love that one. I have to wonder if it's just the fact that it stays super faithful to the book, because to me, it does not really work if you're not bringing your knowledge of the books in with you. Dobby's death scene in particular feels woefully unearned, as he's had like 15 minutes of screen-time 5 movies ago, and then another 10 in this one, and suddenly we're supposed to feel like this is some huge moment. If you pretend the books don't exist, I don't think it works as a fulfilling narrative (unlike other "part 1" adaptations like Fellowship of the Rings for example).
Part 2 may deviate in ways fans hate, but it's at least enjoyable as a magic-themed extended action movie. But I admit to being odd man out on this one. I was never a fan of how that book handled the final duel (with Harry winning on basically a technicality), and I much prefer just having a full on magic battle between the two of them. That movie does lose major points for not showing how several major side characters bite it, I don't know what the hell they were thinking there.
Books Films
1.) Order of the Phoenix 1.) Prisoner of Azkaban
2.) Chamber of Secrets 2.) Chamber of Secrets
3.) Prisoner of Azkaban 3.) Deathly Hallows Part 2
4.) Deathly Hallows 4.) Order of the Phoenix
5.) Sorceror's Stone 5.) Sorceror's Stone
6.) Half Blood Prince 6.) Half Blood Prince
7.) Goblet of Fire 7.) Deathly Hallows Part 1
.
.
.
8.) Goblet of Fire
I should note that my book list is tentative, since I've never gone back and re-read any of them, meaning it's been over a decade since I read the first one. As for the movies, I generally like most of them, with Goblet of Fire being the obvious terrible one. Deathly Hallows Part 1 is one of the best in the series for about an hour, and then turns into a shitty twilight movie for the last hour. I admit to being biased because I hate the trend of splitting stories in half and releasing them as seperate movies, meaning you get no climax and feel shitty walking out.
Prisoner of Azkaban and Chamber of Secrets are both great though. Like, for as progressively adult as the stories get, I'm always impressed by how dark Chamber of Secrets is for being only the 2nd one in the series. They're fighting giant killer spiders and snakes, and you've got your 12 year old kid protagonist bleeding to death at the end of it.
I love the movie (and the filmmaking especially), but I don't know if it's a good fit for a commentary. You'd need a really good panel to keep interesting discussion going for 2.5 hours on it.
The difference is doing it right around the big anniversary of the event. I do think it's in bad taste
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by bullet3
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
