Ridley Scott talking about his exposure to RED
I like how he says the first thing to focus on to get the people back in the cinema is the story. Prometheus was a masterpiece, wasn't it Ridley?
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Sam
Ridley Scott talking about his exposure to RED
I like how he says the first thing to focus on to get the people back in the cinema is the story. Prometheus was a masterpiece, wasn't it Ridley?
Had my first screenwriting class today. Mind you, I'm not even a Film student......I'm a Medical student, but I decided to stray outside my comfort zone for my 'free choice module' (what us Brits call Gen Ed.). On the way to class I decided to listen to this episode and all of it was addresses in the lecture. I looked like a fucking boss reciting Joseph Campbell and relating it to Propp and storytelling. Made the actual film students look stupid.
Just wanted to say thanks for making me sound smarter than I actually am.
We did something kind of like that with The Heroine's Journey episode, but yeah, maybe we could do one for storytelling in general. Cool idea.
Also, How We Write Movies has some of that.
I haven't actually listened to the Heroine's Journey yet. Will definitely check it out now.
How about an episode on just adaptations? If you don't particularly fancy repeating yourself.
A key feature or term I've noticed when listening to intermissions (particularly the blockbuster and pixar ones) is the reference to the storytelling aspect of films and it would be great if you guys could expand on that.
Something like 'what makes a good story? What components does one need?' and maybe you can divert off onto the idea of adaptations and how having source material to go on to effect the film in general.
That would be awesome to listen to......hope you guys take it into consideration!
After probably one of the most successful trilogies of all time (and one of the worse sequels ever), Spider-Man is back on the big screen.
After being announced in late 2009 that it was to be rebooted, I had mixed feelings. Initially, I felt Raimi still had some more story to tell, but then again, I didn't really like his take on Spidey anyway. After the announcement of Webb I was quite optimistic. This is what franchises need. An, essentially, indie director to come in who is more accustomed to doing more character driven films so even if the movie sucks, you can at least say the characters were interesting. You can teach most people how to direct action, you can't teach them how to tell a good story.
Does this mean I think Spider-Man is a well told story? Fuck no.
STORY, SCRIPT AND STRUCTURE
Now it's plain to see from the first ten minutes that they have tried to separate this film from the origin of not even ten years ago. They did this by shoehorning in some stuff about his parents. More specifically, his dad. I won't go into the details of what is so interesting about his dad because even I'm not too sure. but
What I quite hate about this film is that they really downplay Peter's intelligence. He comes across this formula his dad wrote and they really could've had him figure it out himself. He builds the webshooters as though he's baking a cake. They barely explain why he needs to websling around and have a split second scene of him stealing the main component of it i.e. the web. They could've done a lot more with that. Perhaps he makes a prototype then goes back to Oscorp and then re-hones his device....you know? like real science?
Connors has been expertly fucked up in this film. They failed to grasp any of the motives that were present in the comics.
Structure wise it's fine though the first hour seemed very slow.
The characters are written adequately even if they may stray away from the comics at some points. Peter in the first half of the film could barely string two sentences together. For Gwen it seemed like they were unsure whether they wanted the character from the original comics or the ultimate series. So naturally, you'd make a mess and clump them together.
Dialogue was a bit cheesy at times, though we see more of the quipping spidey which we missed in the original trilogy. Also, Uncle Ben never says his most important line, but some weird implicated version.
PERFORMANCES
Andrew Garfield is a spectacular actor and I see big things for him. He gave it all he could and he really outshines Tobey (though so could a bath mat). The problem being that he doesn't have much to do dialogue wise. He nails the performance though and the death of uncle Ben (SPOILER) was very well done. Emma Stone is wonderful as usual and you could see how she was cast with the great amount chemistry between her and Andrew. Ifans is also superb in the scenes where he isn't a lizard. It did surface recently that many of his key scenes were cut so he may have put on an even better show, but we may never see it. Martin Sheen just needs to turn up and you know that shit will be cash. Sally Field was surprising brilliant as Aunt May and was, in my opinion, the best 'adult' in the film.
The acting, generally, was great considering how much the script sucked. Let's put it this way: They made the best of what they were given.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
By far the best aspect of the film. It's a very dynamically shot film with a wealth of different shots used. A specific fight scene in the school has a good amount of dollying and whip-panning making the sequence come to life. The film looks great and though the CG lizard looks like a dinosaur with leukaemia the special effects overall were wonderful. The biggest improvement over the Raimi series being that of the webslinging. It looks superb and I recall them making a big deal about having a wealth of practical stunts done during production. And I can see why. It really is an improvement in both the webslinging and action sequences.
The 3d was ok. They used a few of those 1st person shots that frequented the trailer to add the effect of the 3d, but I would see the film in 2d if given the choice now. I specifically remember more than a few scenes that were completely 2d and could be enjoyed without the glasses on.
The only thing I didn't like about the cinematography was that it seemed very dark. I understand it's a darker film in tone and that this should be reflected in the movie itself, but it seems like they did some DI to make it intentionally difficult to see small features in the day time scenes.
Overall, I am disappointed. I had high hopes for this and I felt empty inside after I left the cinema. A kind of...That was it?
It could have been a lot better with the cast that they had. The story was weak and it seemed unnecessary to redo the origin only 10 years after the orginal Raimi attempt.
I have yet to see a good Spider-Man film.
I initially thought Thor was pretty good. Well guess I was wrong. Am I wrong in thinking that it was at least entertaining? Yes it has a plethora of issues, but it's not like it dragged on or anything...
still a piece of trash structurally
pretty good read.....Nolan really rips into digital
Pretty self explanatory. I initially had to watch the movie with the commentary (alcohol included) to the get full feel of the show haha, but after 'Source Code' which basically meant I couldn't watch it congruent with the film, I started listening to it just on my journey into school on the tube (that's subway for you yanks/former colonies) along with the intermissions and etc. Eventually, I just said 'fuck it' and ditched the movies mostly and have been listening to the commentaries on their own with some exceptions (Dark Knight, LOTR)
Obviously with the new format of the show, this makes it more possible and in my opinion, more accessible generally.
So yeah.......how do you enjoy the show?
This has been my favourite intermission/podcast/conversation/whateverthefuckyouwanttocallit so far. You guys were really in the zone for a lot of the discussion, using parallels with the kindle and a bunch of other shit.
question though, if RED come up with this answer to imax, will we see a big influx of big name directors shifting to digital? since this really seems the only thing thats shot on film with the big advantage right now
p.s. a nice little quote from Nolan I found which was quite interesting
'In fact, I've never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I've just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change'
so do i need to watch the film while listening to the commentary? would love to have something to listen to on my way to school that is longer than the intermission
I would like to see an intermission on sequels.
When is it OK to actually do one? Talking about good ones and bad ones.....Why is the Trilogy structure normally the way it's done in media nowadays?
Great commentary.
Its a film of missed opportunities, the main being that they really do not address Batman's issues whatsoever.
Clooney would be a good choice. However, I have always though Jon Hamm (Mad Men) would be great playing an older Bruce.
I went on Trey's suggestion and checked out 'Waking Sleeping Beauty'. Great doc by the way. When they show Tim Burton early on I just cracked up.
An 'intermission' on adaptations, and more specifically, comic book adaptations would be awesome.
The creative process behind it, why some are better than others, is it mostly the studios fault when its rubbish?, what makes a good comic book movie?
I personally love all the commentaries that criticise the film heavily (Star Wars prequels and Matrix sequels)
I have recommended DIF to a few friends and I have always told them to start with the Spider-man trilogy. I initially thought the films were not too bad. My opinion made a complete 180 once I heard the commentaries for them.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Sam
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.