I'm just really happy its 2013 and Robert Redford is still acting in awesome movies.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by bullet3
I'm just really happy its 2013 and Robert Redford is still acting in awesome movies.
Clerks doesn't hold up well in 2013. Having characters talking about LOTR and Star Wars in a movie seemed novel back then, now it's been beaten into the ground and is usually the mark of extreme laziness. Dogma has it's moments, I have mostly stayed away from his other work (because what I've seen of it is utter garbage).
Do yourself a favor and watch his stand-up An Evening With Kevin Smith instead, which is brilliant. What's baffling about the guy is that he's one of the most entertaining verbal story-tellers I've ever seen on stage, but that just completely does not seem to translate into his work at all.
I'll say this right now, I think Gravity is a much bigger game-changer than Avatar was, both in terms of VFX and filmmaking technique. This feels like a new cinematic medium entirely, something ultra immersive and experiential that takes the in-the-moment intensity from first person videogames, and adapts it for the film format.
I honestly think this could be a blue-print for many movies going forward as a fundamentally different way of telling a story visually. It's the best next step past the Found Footage genre. That genre tries to disorient the user to try to simulate the visceral experience of being there, but the end result is usually that the movie actually distances you from the events happening by making you feel like you're watching a recording.
Cuaron's approach is like the next best version of those kinds of movies, where instead of disorientation, you feel completely and utterly like you're there in the moment, and there's no cuts to break you out of that reality. It's almost less of a movie, than it is an experience. Wanna feel like you're in space? Watch Gravity in Imax 3d. What's stopping us from having an "Abyss"-style thriller filmed in this same aesthetic to capture the experience of being underwater? It feels like a whole host of possibilities has been unleashed by the success of this one movie.
I think they'll have to get to some of the Bond movies at some point, but I think personally you have to tackle Casino Royale before you look at Skyfall. In my opinion it's the more interesting one to look at anyway, as they went from arguably the worst movie in the series (Die Another Day) straight to not only the best movie in the series, but one of the best blockbusters of that decade.
Casino Royale I think is in many ways the textbook grade A example of how to construct and build momentum within an action sequence. And of course, it also manages the crazy balancing act of completely rejecting most of what the series was known for, while still capturing the "vibe" of classic bond. It's funny how it came out around the same time as Batman Begins, and Nolan went on to get so much credit for how he re-invented that character, while Martin Campbell doesn't seem to have gotten nearly as much praise, despite making (in my opinion) a far superior film.
Skyfall succeeds on the strength of it's cinematography, set-pieces, and a really unique choice of a Bond movie climax, but some of the story beats, and the villain in particular, just don't work.
I'm with Zarban on this. She was smart when writing the later books to look at minor things she'd mentioned off-handedly (and without much detail) before and appropriate some of them where she could, but none of these examples look like detailed forward planning.
Confession time...
Still haven't seen Deathly Hallows part II.
Here's what I'm thinking:
I WON'T see it before the commentary. At 20 hours straight, and cooking literally all damn day, I want to watch it for the first time and see how it plays for me in real time. Thoughts?
I mean it's up to you. Personally, I think you should give it a shot and watch it as it's meant to be seen. I still thinks it's a really solid wrap-up, with lots of great stuff. It's in my top 3 of the movies in the series, since it's one of the few movies with basically no down-time and constant action and plot momentum. Book fans seem to hate on it because it could've been transcendentally amazing and ends up just being serviceable, and I agree with them to an extent, but there's a reason it's got a 96% on RT.
I always hear those complaints and have never gotten it. Maybe I need to re-read it again with a critical mind, but at the time OOTP was my favorite book in the series, it might still be. The fact that the characters shift from being kids solving mysteries at Hogwarts, to actively having to go out and fight bad guys out in the real world was always awesome to me. I think the entire finale at the ministry is amazing, I think Umbridge is one of the series' best villains, it's got possibly my favorite Quidditch match of the series. But again, maybe it is all just filler and I'm only remembering the good stuff, I'd have to re-read it.
I hope you mention some of this long-term stuff during the podcast, because I completely do not remember any of these "hidden seeds" that you're talking about from the early books. I'd imagine it's the kind of thing you'd only pick up on in a re-read as an adult, so I'm real curious what kind of stuff was set up early.
You have to realize that a lot of people like myself were growing up just as the books were coming out, so they end up connecting pretty deeply to your own life experiences as you read them. I don't think they're the greatest thing ever or anything, but as someone born in 91, the books lined up pretty much perfectly for me, where I would age just as the characters aged (each book takes place over a single year, for the uninitiated).
Thus, the books end up being a pretty powerful story about adolescence and growing up, and get progressively darker and more complex just as my own sensibilities and outlook did.
It's pretty great that they start as very fun, lighthearted scooby doo mysteries, which is what you're super into when you're 8, and then by the time you're 15 they're about epic battles to the death. This means that you really feel it when the stakes get raised above the more innocent earlier adventures. I remember Order of the Phoenix being the turning point for me, where suddenly our kid protagonists are in these life or death duels with expert mass-murdering sorcerors, and there is an immense sense of "This shit just got real".
So ya, generally speaking, they're really good books, with good positive messages for kids (unlike garbage like Twilight) that I think end up resonating especially strongly with an entire generation of readers who grew up with them. I don't know how well it'd hold up if I went back to read them now as an adult, but I think it's the perfect series to start someone out on when they're 8 or 9.
I hated that section when I read it in the book, and I hated it in the movie. It's a super-contrived reason to have our heroes start in-fighting when they've been good friends for 7 years, and a blatant ripoff of the Frodo storyline from Lord of the Rings. When your story is supposed to be ramping up into it's climactic chapter, having your characters go hiking in the woods for 300 pages for contrived reasons is not effective storytelling. But I look forward to your argument for it on the show (:
As for the battles, I'm torn, because on the one hand I like the instinct of taking magic, which is usually done in a cheesy overblown fantasy way, and grounding it in a way that feels like a totally real thing that could just exist in our world. When it's done in a familiar mundane location like the diner sequence, I think it's really effective at selling the tangibility and danger of magic.
I agree though that when it comes to the big extended duels, they really don't get as inventive with it as they should. The Dumbledore vs Voldemort duel is the high-point of the series as far as creative magic ideas, and it never rises to that same level again. The big final battle in particular feels like a wasted opportunity throughout a lot of it.
Eh, some of the magic duels work. I still think Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a really weak movie (they REALLY should've cut the shitty boring middle of that book and just made a single amazing movie instead of 2 kinda decent ones), but I LOVE the magic battle in the diner that's filmed like a movie shootout. When the series went for it, there were some really cool battles, they just never pushed it far enough in general. Like, imagine what someone like Terry Gilliam could've done with the concept of a MAGIC battle.
I brought this up briefly in the chat, but I think a thread might be more appropriate since it's a complex issue and it's probably worth discussion (and may help others out in the future).
As I've recently started making videos, I've stumbled issues with exporting videos in .h264, the most common codec out there at the moment.
Specifically, when exporting h264 out of Premiere CS6 on Windows systems, the resulting video will have the gamma values all screwed up and washed out looking on Quicktime players. Some players display correctly, but Quicktime and many web browsers in particular will have the washed out color-palette.
This is something you don't notice if you're just uploading to Youtube or Vimeo, because they seem to work around this problem somehow on their backend when they re-encode your original video for online distribution.
Digging into this online, I've discovered that this appears to have been an issue for years going back, and what's most baffling, no one seems to have a real solution for it. The most common suggestion I'm seeing is "encode it on a Mac, because Apple refuses to fix this", which is just insane to me.
Apparently it has something to do with a special gamma related tag that gets embedded in the exported file, which some players will read and others will ignore.
That makes the problem particularly annoying, because it means I can't just fix it by boosting the gamma before the export, since then the previously unaffected players will show the image over-saturated.
So, as I'm sure lots of people in this community work with Premiere and AE regularly, I'm wondering if anyone has run into this, knows any solutions for this, or what kind of export settings you recommend in general. I wasn't able to find an agreed upon solution for the gamma issue anywhere online, but that can't be the case, can it? How the hell have people been encoding their videos for the last decade?
Just saw that myself. Wish there was more to it, but it's still really cool that they took the the time to make it.
2 Wonderful 2 Live
Karolyn Grimes, who played George Bailey’s daughter “Zuzu” in the original, will return for the “Wonderful Life” sequel as an angel who shows Bailey’s unlikeable grandson (also named George Bailey) how much better off the world would have been had he never been born.
HAHA WHAT. The whole movie is just her going, "Yeah, you kinda fucking suck. Go ahead and jump you piece of shit. You'll be doing the world a favor." This movie cannot be real.
And it ends with him killing himself.
Directed by David Fincher.
"This Christmas".....
Bwwaaaaaaa......
"One man"
Bwaaaaaaaa.......
"will decide our fate"
As long as it doesn't turn into a Spiderman 2 style unanimous hatefest. I'll still take Rises over pretty much any Marvel movie, at least it looks like a real movie instead of animated concept art
Oh god yes. Fuck that movie. I don't get how you spend 3 times as much as District 9 and end up with a smaller scale, more boring climax. I think an Oblivion and Elysium double feature might be in order to do the most underrated big-budget sci-fi of the year followed by the most overrated.
But I do get his perspective to an extent. Ultimately, what is the value in watching in detail the suffering of other people for 2 hours, what does that illuminate about the human condition or our modern world? If the takeaway of the movie is "slavery was really really terrible", well, I believe you, but that's not something I want to sit through. There's a reason Spielberg makes Schindler's List about the people that were saved.
I don't agree that we should only tell the uplifting stories and not the depressing ones, but I'm generally not a fan of watching movies about people being systematically beaten down.
That being said, it sounds like this one is exceptionally well made from both a filmmaking and acting standpoint, so I'm curious to check it out.
The latest slashfilmcast has Armond White on to discuss this film, and it's definitely worth a listen, as he's one of the lone voices who hates it. As usual I don't agree, but he makes some interesting points and it's a good discussion.
I'm partial to Adywan's fan edits myself. If you're going to fuck around with the originals, at least do changes that make the movies better, not worse.
But ya, I'd love to see the original theatrical edits in a blu-ray format at some point, since I literally have no memory of them at this point, my only exposure being the VHS release when I was like 5.
Don't you worry, Disney will continue to release new editions of Star Wars and charge for them until the end of civilization itself. I wouldn't be surprised if there's another 10 re-releases just in my lifetime alone. We'll have the originals untouched released, then they'll release 3d conversions, then 4k, then whatever the next format is, not to mention probably another anniversary edition at every major milestone date. If you like Star Wars, corporations will find a way to get your money
I'm assuming this was meant to be ironic, because there's no way in hell I'd show "the Schwarzenegger/Stallone/Van-Damme back catalog" to a 6 or 7 year old.
Really? I guess I kinda just grew up watching HBO, so that stuff was my bread and butter. Don't think I turned out particularly messed up or anything, though I suppose your mileage may vary. I mean you wanna cherry-pick the less scary ones. I wouldn't show a 7 year old The Terminator, but T2 would be fine I think. When you get down to it, a lot of those 80s flicks are just more violent GI-Joe cartoons, so I think stuff like Eraser, Last Action Hero, Commando, and Tango & Cash would go over fine at that age.
Also around that time, Army of Darkness is a great intro to horror, since it's very slapstick and largely just an action-adventure movie.
BTW, if you for some reason haven't read it, Drew McWeeny's Film Nerd 2.0 column should be your first stop when deciding these movies, since he documents his kids' reactions and the kinds of questions they'll ask:
http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/f … things-are
Mr.Bean might be a great choice for young kids as well, I know I loved it when I was younger (still do, Rowan Atkinson rules). It's about as universal as comedy gets. Ditto for Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton if you want to go old-school. Anything Pixar will work great. Who Framed Roger Rabbit will play awesome once they're like 4.
Also, classic Nickelodeon cartoons would be a great choice. Get them watching the good stuff now, before they get hooked on the garbage "sitcoms" Disney plays all the time now (Disney channel kids shows are seriously shit nowadays).
I'm talkin Rugrats, Hey Arnold, Spongebob, and my personal favorite, Rocko's Modern Life.
As for when they're a bit older, once they're around 6-7 you can probably safely start introducing them to proper action movies like the Schwarzenegger/Stallone/Van-Damme back catalog. AKA, the best part of childhood.
Man if the rest of the clips are on this level, I've gotta get my hands on that ftp link
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.