You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics Mark all as read
Friends In Your Discord!
Miss having friends in your forum? We've migrated over to discord! Many of the threads that started here years ago continue on in a new setting.
Come join us!
Search options (Page 18 of 62)
There's a tremendous difference between standing in an audio booth recording lines and actually being given the space to perform. Letting Cumberbatch get into being Smaug, letting him stalk around, leap on piles of "gold" or play with a trinket, will change the way he delivers the lines. The rhythm and intensity and inflections will all be different. And while an actor of his caliber could no doubt fake it just fine standing in a booth, the animators at the other end would have no idea what was in his mind when he paused here, huffed there.
So you put him in a space and let him do it, and at that point there's really no reason not to gather mocap data too, just to have it. It would have to be retargeted, yes, and possibly much of it discarded as inapplicable, but certain nuances you might gather -- the fractional tilt of his head, say, or a small hesitant motion of the arm -- could make all the difference in translating Cumberbatch's specific performance to the final animated character.
Trey wrote:And of all the reveals and reversals they could choose to end the season on, Lady Stoneheart is far and away the biggest bombshell.
Yeah, the more I think about it, if they're not going to kill Joffrey, revealing Catelyn's resurrection is the only ending this season can have that would get broken-hearted viewers amped for Season 4.
Saniss wrote:The show works the same way the books do - each sequence follows one particular character. Which character would that particular sequence be following?
Which character were we following when they reveal her in the book?
It's not like the books don't sometimes introduce a POV character just for one chapter, at the end of which they die horribly and in so doing reveal something to us. And honestly, if we got a stinger where some random Freys were captured by the Brotherhood and brought before Stoneheart for execution, I don't think there'd be much outcry about the show breaking the POV conceit.
I can't say I remember what Benjen Stark looks like in the show, nor would I as a viewer-only be likely to remember he even existed -- in the books we were reminded of him pretty much every Jon chapter, but in the show it's easy to forget he's partly the reason they went North of the Wall in the first place.
Anyway, they could just have him cover his face with a scarf if they want to hide his identity, though if they show some Benjen Stark action in a "previously on Game of Thrones" intro that'll kind of tip their hand.
I think the people who don't like her are still judging her based on the way she acted at the beginning of the series, and since then she mostly just looks scared and close to tears all the time. Which is COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE, but not especially interesting.
The few times she's bucked up the courage to sass the Lannisters back have shown the promise of something interesting, though.
Phi wrote:I did the audiobooks. Haven't a foggy how to spell anyone's name
I can pronounce them all though (and get annoyed when the show does it WRONG I TELL YOU WRONG! It's VAY-lar mor-GUL-is)
I'm still bothered by the fact that they pronounce Brienne's name "Bree-ENN" rather than "Bry-EEN," same reason.
Dave wrote:Joffrey's wedding would be an excellent way to open a new season
I'd be shocked if they did that, just as much as if they did it in this last episode. It needs a few episodes of dedicated build-up to really land the payoff, IMO. They've referenced it but the show hasn't really focused on the idea of the wedding like it did with the Red Wedding.
I wonder if they'll take next season, and said build-up to re-introduce Ser Dontos into the story. They did the whole thing with her saving the drunken knight then seemingly decided, nah, and just abandoned that plotline. But maybe their conspiracy will be her story leading up to the wedding.
Jimmy B wrote:everythingshiny wrote:For the record, Stephenie Meyer has gone on record saying that in her head, Edward looked like Henry Cavill (specifically from his scenes in "The Count of Monte Cristo").

See, THAT Edward, I get.
Trey wrote:
My life, the changing of it.
fireproof78 wrote:I didn't even know Shamylan was directing it
And don't for a second think that wasn't completely deliberate.
Trey wrote:I'm a fairly intelligent person, but that was so frickin' convoluted I'm not even sure if he thought it was good or not.
Armond White laughs at your binary hoo-man ratings. Just ignore him. He's a real life Ignatius Reilly.
The EXPENDABLES films aren't satire. They're more like JACK SLATER 5 and 6.
Yeah, when it comes to marketing American film, Poland is... well, they're something special.
Doctor Submarine wrote:Star Trek Into Darkness is a sci-fi adventure with some great action setpieces, great character work, a balanced script, and some interesting things to say about justice and morality.
Are they only showing this version in IMAX? Because I don't think I saw this version. The movie I saw was a confused jumble of references to Wrath of Khan, lazy callbacks to the previous film, "characters" who exist almost entirely in shorthand, and a lot of punching.
I wanted to come out of this thrilled, and amped for Episode 7, but instead I'm already putting the walls back up.
Doctor Submarine wrote:Well, I guess the problem is that the actual person isn't all that interesting to begin with. "He had a failed music career, but TWIST! He's actually a nice guy!" There's not much more to Rodriguez than that.
More like "He was a legendary candle-in-the-wind a la Kurt Kobain, but TWIST! He's still alive and has no idea he's a superstar!"
I thought it was great.
AshDigital wrote:But about Del Toro.
Sometimes I have wondered if his sense of storytelling skews more European than American. He has a strong base in Spain and to me his storytelling is grounded in myths, fables, folklore and fairy tales from Southern Europe. These stories are much more grotesque originally than the watered down versions we have come to know them as.
Yeah, I get it that Del Toro is influenced by darker, O.G. European fairy tales. This is not my problem at all. I like that aspect of what he does. It's that his storytelling skews more nonsensical than sensical, and unlike classical folklore and fairy tales, I come away not knowing what the point was. He's a European-flavored Tim Burton. Lots of style, but any substance is purely coincidental.
AND BUT SO ANYWAY VAN HELSING
drewjmore wrote:I have a 'Free Willy' VHS which has never been released from its cellophane.
Every day Drew looks at the title on his shelf, and he whispers, "No."
bullet3 wrote:Hellboy 2 is awesome, don't know what y'all are smoking. Great creature designs/effects, great action setpieces, some really beautiful sequences (the elemental dying, the ending).
Yes, I'm sure the "Art of Hellboy 2" book is well worth the money, but I don't want to sit down and watch someone flip through it for two hours. As with Pan's Labyrinth, cool production design =/= good movie.
EDIT: To be fair, though, seeing as how my brain's hate-center has been recalibrated the last few years, maybe I'd like HELLBOY 2 better if I gave it another shot.
Considering HELLBOY 2, I'm not convinced we'd see an improvement.
Invid wrote:Card got his money when it was optioned, so not seeing it hurts him not at all.
Unless his agent is a complete imbecile, he'll also be getting a cut of the gross receipts. So every ticket purchased is more money in his pocket.
I personally thought the book was garbage before I knew OSC was too, so put em both together and I have no intention of watching this film.
Zarban wrote:So, what is really wrong with Van Helsing? I mean, I can point to specific things I don't like, and the panel did as well, but what's the bottom line? Is this script just too much of a mess to save?
To me, it's got about three movies' worth (or a whole TV season's worth) of monsters and villains and crazy happenings.
I think this is exactly the answer to your question. There is simply too damn much going on to engage meaningfully with it. It's like every character always has three goals pulling him or her in three different directions, with no really meaningful throughline for anyone, and no tension can be built because to juggle all these threads the movie has to essentially change the subject every couple of minutes, particularly at the climax when things start happening all on top of each other.
You save the script, IMO, by making the story about dealing with ONE monster, and Van Helsing just has to incidentally wade through some other monsters along the way because that's the world he inhabits. As Trey said, it's the attempt to create the Grand Unified Theory of Classic Monsters that sinks it.
If it makes you guys feel any better, with tomorrow's recording including VAN HELSING -- a movie I've always hated -- plus coming at the end of a brutal pilot season, plus being Cinco de Mayo, there's a decent chance the inaugural WAYDM recordings will feature an appearance by special guest Drunkman. Be there and find out!
Doctor Submarine wrote:@friendsinyourhead is an available twitter name. I'd jump on that.
Too long by two characters. We could do @friendsinurhead but I think we'd all hate that. Perhaps @FIYHpodcasts?
That's part of the deal, yes. But they don't have to be unique to each episode, just a note that the episode is actually one of the new show and not related to the trademark owners.
michaeljb wrote:Hello World
...
Computer Science
Hah. I get it.
Just finished 11/22/63. Really enjoyed it, thanks to everyone for encouraging me to give it a chance. According to King's afterword (on the audiobook at least), the reason the ending was actually good is because his son, Joe Hill, came up with it. Speaking of, the audiobook is quite well done. Craig Wasson does a very good job of keeping consistent voices for each of the characters, and has a surprising range. It's also a performance, not just a narration, really enhancing the emotions of the story. It's laid on a little thick in a few places - at one point his voice gets so full of grief and horror it's a little hard to quite understand - but only a few. Recommend both the book and the audio recording.
I'll be getting around to reading Under the Dome soon. I don't really want to, if I'm honest, but it looks like I'll be working on the show, so I should be familiar with the material. But I try not to read the same author back to back or their writing voice will start to unduly influence my own, so I'm cleansing my palate listening to a book Trey recommended, Larry Niven's Footfall.
Jdubs wrote:Deepak Chopra Vampire Hunter
I should not find this as funny as I do.
We should be Movie Talk with Linda Richman.
Ooo. Fridge Logic has a nice ring to it...
Posts found: 426 to 450 of 1,535