You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Squiggly_P
Yeah, from what I understand the process they use to convert a film to 3D in post is similar to the way they make simple 3D matte paintings. They basically take the various composite elements and project them onto some geometry in 3D. A lot of the time it's just flat planes, so you end up with a 3D effect that's more like one of those "magic Eye" posters instead of something that's really 3D. I mean, they can use whatever geometry they want and have that geometry recede into the distance or seem uneven or whatever, but they're not about to use geometry that's anywhere near as detailed as it needs to be to make the 3D effect not look like crap projected onto some basic geometry.
I like 3D and I think in the right DP's hands it could be used to add a whole extra layer of 'depth' (see what I did there?) to visual compositions. I think Cameron had the right idea, I think he just went overboard and had too much crap going on in any given shot. There are some really great moments in Avatar where the depth adds a hell of a lot to the film, in my opinion. The movie just suffers a lot from the same sort of over-indulgent big-budget CGI masturbation that the Star Wars prequels had. It's not as bad, but Cameron is kinda drifting in that direction lately.
I think there's so much hate for 3D because there's really two different fights going on. There's the pro-3D people who go see movies in 3D and the anti-3D people who talk about what a worthless gimmick it is and how it gives them headaches and whatnot. But within the pro-3D group, there are also two factions: The "I want stuff to jump out at me" people and the "I want an immersive experience" people. No matter what 3D movie comes out, you're always going to have at least two different groups of people talking about how shitty the 3D is - and then potentially a third crowd if it's a movie like The Last Airbender that looks like crap in 3D.
I was raised baptist and I remember going to sunday school every week and all that, but I'm not religious, nor have I ever really been. Even when I was a kid I never bought into it. The best way I can describe how I felt in church was the same way you feel when you're stuck in a store about to check out or just walking around and one of the employees starts trying to get you to buy some random crap or 'take advantage of this great promotion' they're having. It's just an awkward feeling where you don't want to utterly crush this poor bastard's soul by telling him to fuck off, but you really just want him to go away as soon as possible. I felt like that at church.
Anyway, I think you guys did a really good job of talking about this flick's theology (or lack thereof) and of thinking up some pretty simple and obvious ways that it could be tied into the myths and make so much more sense if you're aware of the various rules and dogma. With a few tweaks to the plot you could probably remove any trace of religious aspects of the film and make it a military cover-up of human experimentation on the public in some random little desert town, or made it a movie about some non-christian cult who are obsessed with this woman's child for some reason.
Two scenarios for how this movie got screwed up:
1) Like you guys say, it started out as a script about the apocalypse that was probably pretty decent, but re-written to remove a lot of the theology so it wouldn't offend people and to give it more action / horror beats OR
2) It was some other kind of movie (monster / zombie / whatever) that someone decided to re-write to shoehorn some theological bullshit into to give it a more original sort of feel from your typical horror / monster movie.
Either way, this movie amounts to a dumptruck full of "meh".
Everyone where I worked said that this movie was "awesome", which is exactly why I knew to avoid it like the plague. These people loved Transformers 2 and Last Airbender and hate anything I find even remotely decent. Most of them have never even heard of movies like The Prestige. I guess if the trailer has people talking and not shooting and stuff exploding, then they don't even register its existence or something. Living in Alabama is one of the most depressing things I've ever done in my life. Some days I actually consider moving back to Detroit...
EDIT!!!
All of you should go out and buy a copy of Good Omens. Terry Gilliam was going to make it into a film, and I think it might still be on his slate somewhere but god knows what his slate looks like lately. It's one of the most interesting takes on christian theology / end-of-days / four horsemen stuff I've read. I also love that the horseman Plague gave up after penicillin was invented, so the job went to Pollution instead.
The Razzie nominations got posted a couple of days ago as well. I expect Last Airbender to run away with everything it's been nominated for.
Total Recall.
I'm about 50 pages in, and from what I've read thus far, the majority of this kid's arguments are retconns he's made up to explain away a lot of the idiocy in the movie. He takes things that the movie implicitly states like "Planet Core" and argues that they COULDN'T have been talking about the actual center of the planet - cause that would be stupid - or that OBVIOUSLY "Force her to sign it" really means "give her tea and cake and politely ask her to publicly sign it with a smile on her face"... or that the signing the treaty wouldn't matter because it would be defeated in the senate or some stupid shit.
Basically, the guy isn't reading between the lines of the review, so he's tackling specific things that Plinkett says instead of inferring that, for instance, there was no real reason to have R2D2 in the film at all, that making the movie about taxes and politics with no clear conflict or antagonist was a bad idea from the start, etc.
I'm sure Obama's got a glock taped under his desk in the Oval Office, you know, just in case.
You know your argument is in trouble when you open your response with a line of dialogue as bad as "He was deceived by a lie." By a lie? Really?
When talking about the character stuff, it appears that he's making arguments in favor of the review rather than against. When he's talking about Qui-gon the guy takes 5 paragraphs to say that he's a father figure and compassionate and patient. His arguments in favor of this opinion are about 20 seconds worth of screen time where qui-gon says a few things to various characters. The point of the exercise is to briefly give people an idea of the character's personality. You kinda know what Han Solo's gonna do in a given situation given his attitude and personality. I have no idea what Qui-Gon will ever do, aside from talk a lot. His most defined character trait is that he likes to hear himself talk.
I'm probably going to read this whole thing. It's interesting to know what the mindset of someone who likes TPM is. I wonder if this guy actually believes all of this stuff, or if he just likes the movie and thus needed to legitimize that by attacking a popular negative review of it.
I wonder if Heat has been suggested yet?
Or Rocky?
How about Open Range or Unforgiven or Appaloosa?
I'd also be down for doing original / remake shows. Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, The Day The Earth Stood Still, etc.
Next time I watch it I'll take this conversation into account and try to see it from that point of view. When I saw it in the theater I found it hard to imagine a series of events that would have created a situation like the one presented in the film. The movie tries to show you elements that give them some 'humanity', but then like you say, it also tries to make them seem as inhuman as possible.
I mean, I liked it well enough. The ending made me very happy, I love the character stuff in the middle, and the opening set-up doesn't annoy me that much. I will go see Neil B's next movie, cause I think he's a good director. The movie is just 30% questions with no answers, and part of my brain is saying "they couldn't have given answers because those answers would not have made any sense in the world they created".
OK, I guess I hit a nerve in another thread by saying that District 9 has some racist stuff in it, and that the ignorant monkey ghetto-bots in Transformers 2 weren't actually racist. This is gonna be a long-ass post, so I apologize in advance.
First of all, I will say that I was disappointed by District 9 is a number of ways, but it has it's good points - mainly concerning Wikkus, Christopher and his son and how their relationships evolved throughout the film. I will wait until after I get the racism stuff out of the way before I go further into the film as a whole and why it bothered me a lot, but I don't hate it or anything. After having seen it a few times, I just think it could and should have explored some of the interesting culture-clash potential. The reason the film didn't actually do that, in my opinion, was because the writer wanted to put in this allegory and some neat effects stuff instead of exploring his basic concept and taking a more interesting direction.
It's an allegory for apartheid, right? The film takes the idea of segregation and removes the human element from the equation. Instead of these things being black humans, they are a really ugly alien species. Now it's not just white humans repressing black humans, it's all of humanity repressing aliens. I think that's an interesting idea, but if you look at it in a certain way, it's really sort of insulting. These aliens are described as being lazy, shiftless idiots with no direction or motivation to better their situation. They eagerly trade everything they can find for cat food, which gets them high. They go out and steal shit to trade it for
cat food.
There's this one alien that seems intelligent enough, but the rest of them are a basically one step above wild animal.
Now, while I can see the parallels the film is trying to draw, where the people are making the broad generalized statements about the aliens, about how they're all stupid violent idiots who wallow in filth and have this dangerous addiction to cat food that can get out of hand, or they're these naive morons who get taken advantage of and can't help themselves because they just don't know any better, etc. Drawing a line between those aliens and black people during apartheid I feel is just a bit insulting.
You may as well just come out and say that most of the black people in south africa were crackheads who went around stealing shit to get their fix, and when they weren't doing that they were just being lazy and letting their living conditions become terrible because they didn't have anyone intelligent to tell them how to live. The thing about real racism and repression is that people who otherwise would go out and work and do the best they could to try to better themselves, support their families, etc can't do that because they are of a certain group and thus are restricted either by law or by society and that makes it very difficult for them to survive and prosper. These aliens don't really make any attempt to better their situation, and that comes off as a very unsympathetic trait to me and breaks a lot of the racism stuff going on. It turns them into a species of bums rather than a group that I can feel any empathy for.
Christopher just becomes "that one alien" who is different from the others, thus emphasizing how all the other aliens behave in basically the same manner. He's the one smart one, the one that seems to understand what's going on, the one that isn't apparently addicted to cat food, etc.
All of them are the same, except for this one. It's like the movie is just trying to tell me that because I identify only this one alien as being different from the others, that it is actually me who is the racist. Like "Oh, I hate most of them but this one guys is cool..." If I were to say that about black people it would be racist, because black people all behave differently because they're human. But saying that about these aliens seems to make sense to me, because they all actually do act the same.
In a way, the movie isn't really an allegory about racial injustice / equality so much as the film needed that sort of character arc for Wikkus. It wasn't really crucial to the plot or anything. you could have made the aliens quite happy on earth and well integrated, and just had Wikkus be the one asshole on the planet who hated them and he was the one in charge of some aspect of their society or whatever. You cook up some other insane reason for turning him into an alien and his character goes through the same sort of arc, and possibly causes everyone else to suddenly fear the aliens as well, making the event even more significant.
But, you know, it wouldn't have been as 'subtle' as making the film mimic apartheid.
I hope this all makes sense. My brain isn't very good at communicating ideas well with words.
As for Transformers 2 and it's supposed racism... Making them look like monkeys could be argued as racist ,but their behavior, on the other hand, is totally not. If they didn't behave the way they do, then would the fact that they look like monkeys even matter? If the robots were voiced by white guys who just spoke the way the average white dude speaks be racist? I mean, wouldn't that imply that white people look like monkeys? That's totally racist, right?
I never got why people consider Jar Jar to be racist, either. Is it just because they have a black dude kinda swagger and talk funny to do the voice? I mean, is there some rule that says black people aren't allowed to play dumb people in any media because it would misrepresent their race as a whole? No other race I can think of has that problem. You see white guys play morons all the time. You see mexicans play morons, you see asians play morons... but a black guy plays a dumb guy or comedy relief and it's just racist?
Don't get me wrong, there's some pretty racist shit out there in films, but the transformer twins' behavior can be found in films that have entirely black casts and were written and directed by black people. Suddenly the ignorant ghetto talk is perfectly normal and OK? I mean, it doesn't seem to bother the tons of black people who are there working on the movie, right?
EDIT
I guess what I'm trying to say is that while the portrayals of the twins in T2 relies on stereotypes, you can find the same stereotypes in films that are made by black people, or for black people, or however you want to think about it. I like a lot of movies like Friday and Undercover Brother and Black Dynamite. The characters all behave in stereotypical ways and a lot of the jokes hinge on those stereotypes. I guess it's just the fact that a white guy made T2, or that the rest of the cast is largely white and they're supposed to be comedy relief, so that made it racist? Like Al Jolston making fun of black people? But if you made them human characters in a movie like Belly or Friday or Big Momma's House, they would just be another character. Hell, they'd probably seem more like straight characters when you put them next to someone like Chris Tucker or Martin Lawrence.
/EDIT
Anyway, blah on the racism stuff and back to District 9 and why it angers me:
See, I think the racism thing is a decent angle to take that story in, but I think they missed a whole lot of opportunities to add some depth to it. I think in the end they ultimately wanted to make it an action-type movie. If he had stuck with a more drama / suspense sort of plot he probably could have explored some really interesting things. The kids were a really good idea that they never explored. It bothered me that Christopher's kid didn't consider the planet he had been born on to be his home. Maybe as he had grown on earth he would have hit his teenage years and figured out that he'd been on Earth his whole life. May as well try to make it home, you know?
I would have liked to have seen the aliens here for a longer period of time and seen a couple of generations of aliens and their differences. You'd think the younger ones would be a lot more eager to try to integrate with the human society, and that would have probably made them a lot more sympathetic as characters than their parents.
I would have liked to have seen the story be more of a slice-of-life drama that just happened to be about a couple of aliens and maybe a couple of humans. The film as it is turns me off at the beginning because the characters are all totally lifeless, then it switches out of POV mode and Wikkus' plot takes over and it starts getting really really good, and then they start lining up action sequences for the last half hour of the film, and while there are some nice moments in those, the story went from interesting and unique with a couple of really great characters to genre-cliche predictable bullshit.
For what it's worth, tho, between when the characters stop being caricatures and archetypes up until Wikkus smacks Christopher over the head with that 2x4 in his shack... That's a pretty solid 45 minutes or so of great character building, great acting, great pace, pretty decent action with some nice little comedic bits and some nice dramatic moments with christopher. It's like this really awesome movie that's bookended by stuff I just didn't care for.
A while back I was thinking about doing something like that with District 9, because everyone seems to love that movie and I find it mediocre but seriously racist and condescending. The reason I got so pissed about D9 was mainly because a few months earlier there were a couple of 'black' robots in Transformers 2 which everyone and his brother decided were racist while I totally disagree with that opinion as well. Either I'm totally wrong about what racism is, or people have trained themselves to have knee-jerk reactions to any sort of racial stereotype while being unable to identify when something is actually racist.
I ultimately decided it would have been a boring video, tho. Maybe I should reconsider and just do it with funny voices and poop jokes.
But I do love Plinkett's reviews (all of them... The Star Trek ones are also funny). I kinda like that this one was less crazy serial killer humor and more comparison and analysis.
Beldar, check the earlier podcasts. They did Avatar a little bit after it came out on DVD.
I'd like to see Man On Fire get a DIF. I just watched it, and it's a great movie that has way more "Tony Scott" going on in it than I remember. I watched it a couple times when it first came out and loved it, but watching it now I can see why I loved it, but it's like Scott was trying to make it as unlikeable as possible. Way too much cheesy 90's music video stuff going on. It's still undeniably awesome, tho.
OK, I love this movie and I have some thoughts on it and Shyamalan and his career and his other movies...
First of all, I agree with the sentiment that this feels like a Nolan-style film. It's very well thought out. I generally like to look at his first three films - this, Unbreakable and Signs - as examples of his strengths as a film maker, and his next three films - The Village, Lady in the Water and The Happening - as examples of his weaknesses as a film maker (and specifically as a writer).
I think the most important thing about Shyamalan is the way he writes characters and relationships. His first three films are all equally great in that they have interesting characters and those characters have some fairly complex and well developed relationships with each other. Even if you don't like Signs, you have to admit that it's really pretty damn good until the last twenty minutes or so, and even then there are nuggets of awesome character stuff toward the end. His first three movies all deal with four main characters each. In this it's Bruce and his wife and Cole and his mom. In Unbreakable it's Bruce and his wife and kid and Sam Jackson. In Signs it's the four people who make up Mel's family.
When fleshing out this small number of characters and developing their relationships with each other, I think Shyamalan comes up with a lot of really interesting stuff and has a lot of good ideas about how to inject their relationships with more depth than is typical in most films. His first three flicks have some really great great character stuff going on, but aside from Unbreakable there's really not a sense of a single protagonist in any of his movies. There are usually two or three characters that sort of share the mantle of 'protagonist' in his flicks.
His next three films start introducing a lot more characters into the mix. The Village has got Pheonix and his girlfriend, A couple of the adults, a few of their siblings, Adrien Brody's oddity of a character and a bunch of little side characters. Shyamalan spends a whole lot of time fleshing out these characters and I think that cripples the films. It's like he's trying to give every character some sort of arc, but there's just so god damn many of them that none of them really stand out. There's way too much noise going on and he is not efficient with his character building and relationship stuff like he is in his earlier flicks. Lady in the Water has the same problem. There are tons of characters that all have their little back stories and little arcs and stuff and he spends too much time trying to make sure all of them are fleshed out. The Happening, again, same thing. Fewer characters in that one,but there are still too many, and he spends way WAY too much time fleshing out these little side characters that are only in the film for ten minutes and then get killed off, so the main characters don't really get that much attention. The relationships in his films become more shallow and simple in each following one, and yet he crams more and more characters into them and then gives them all these weird quirks and ... insanities?... instead of making them relatable human characters.
Also, I get the sense that he doesn't understand when and why to use the whole 'stillness' thing. It works in Sixth Sense in the same way a gunshot will feel much louder in a quiet dew-covered meadow than in an automobile manufacturing plant. The few scenes where emotions do run high end up feeling all the more emotional because the rest of the film is more or less drained of emotion. It's there throughout the film, but it's way more subdued. With his more recent films, it feels more like he's just decided that it's his 'style' or something, so he just makes everything awkwardly lethargic when people should be really emoting. Giamotti pulled it off pretty well, tho. It's just that by the time he started getting overwhelmed with emotion we still didn't know jack shit about his character. He was just a maintenance man. Look at all the clues in the movie!!! Here's another totally bizarre character! LOOK! ANOTHER METAPHOR!! I'm so god damned clever!
So yeah, that's my take on the guy and my theory on why his early stuff is good or great, and why his later stuff is totally unwatchable and baffling.
Also, I was really bummed out about Last Airbender. I watched the entire show a couple weeks before the flick came out, and after the first few episodes I was absolutely in love with it. It definitely feels like a kid's show, but if you look past some of the obvious pandering and stuff, there's a pretty awesome little set of characters (four or five of them...) who all have these kinda complex and subtle relationships and are very well characterized. I honestly thought that that movie was going to fucking rule because the show is almost entirely focused on the characters and their relationships and motivations. The fact that they can move water and shoot fire with their hands is just extra character stuff, really. They only use it as a crutch for an action sequence once in a blue moon. Halfway through the first season, the character who's supposed to be teaching this kid how to water bend ends up hating him because he's already surpassed her, yet the kid has this huge crush on her...
Long story short, I watched that show and thought to myself "holy crap, it's like a few characters on a road trip on a flying buffalo who have these interesting relationships and all of whom have these very well thought out character arcs... This is exactly the sort of shit that Shyamalan could be good at writing..."
And then, you know, he totally changed everything that was good in the show so he could have more pointless action sequences and cut out all that needless character development stuff. Who needs that stuff, anyway...
If you're gonna do a Coen Bros series, please stick The Hudsucker Proxy, Ladykillers or The Man Who Wasn't There into the mix somewhere, mainly because those are the Coen flicks that people seem to either forget about or dislike (or both). I actually kinda liked all of them, and all of the Coens' films in general.
Also, Barton Fink.
Anyway, I see that you guys haven't done anything recent (aside from Moby Dick) in quite a while, with 2012 being the last film you've done that was made in the last ten years or so. I dunno what you've got slated for your next couple of releases, but might I suggest something like Inception, The Town or Last Airbender?
The thing about action sequences, tho, is that they don't really add anything to a movie. Some of the most effective action sequences I've ever seen have lasted less than a minute and just did what they had to do and moved on. Having a ten minute fight sequence with crazy choreography can work in some films, like The Matrix, but a lot of the flicks that attempt that stuff end up falling flat because they aren't doing anything with the characters during those scenes beyond just having them hit each other - there was generally more going on in the matrix' fights than that (aside from the lobby scene, which was just setup for the roof scene). Die Hard is a good example of a movie with pretty short action sequences and fights that all end pretty abruptly and last only a minute or so.
Anyway, The Crow might not have the best action scenes, but you really dislike the guys getting killed. They spend the whole first half of the movie just setting up what huge assholes they are. I guess that kinda helps make fights feel better than they are. Lee's characterization of Draven helps a lot as well.
I thought it was good, but I like pretty much everything Tarantino has done. I thought IB was kinda middle of the road for Tarantino, but that's still generally better than most other movies that come out.
I even liked Death Proof.
But I seem to like his lesser-liked movies more than his more popular ones. I'd watch Jackie Brown before Pulp Fiction. I preferred the second Kill Bill to the first one. I guess I'm just into slower flicks.
I've been having a conversation about this movie with some people over the last couple of days, and after some reflection, I have to say that I think this film is a LOT smarter than I thought after initially watching it. This movie is like reverse fridge logic. You go to get a beer when something you thought was really trivial and pointless in the movie suddenly makes sense and thus feels more important to the scene / film.
Like you guys, I was quite entertained by this movie. I don't get the bad rap it's getting. It's got some rough edges to be sure, but it's not nearly as clumsy or broken as the majority of big action/effects movies tend to be. I'm probably gonna see it again Sunday.
Too bad there's no IMAX screen within a reasonable distance from me.
I am a fan of the Asylum. I like and collect this sort of movie. Assuming that "Faith Films" is somehow connected to The Asylum - there are an awful lot of similar credits going on - then I've got about a dozen of their flicks. Maybe you know if that's the case or not? It's something I've always wanted to know for certain...
This is definitely one of their better flicks, so congrats ![]()
Also, this was one of the most entertaining commentaries so far in my opinion.
I love the way Ripley says "Well, we saved the world" at the end, regardless of the pretty massive nuclear explosion they caused by crashing the ship into the planet.
"We saved the world. Well... except for that one bit we turned to glass... but the rest of it is totally saved!"
I distinctly remember seeing this flick in the theaters during a pretty massive all-day theater-hopping session with some buddies. We caught this, Star Ship Troopers, Mortal Kombat and The Jackal. The Jackal was the last one we saw, and I'm so glad we saw that one, cause otherwise it would have been a waste of money. No, I didn't like Star Ship Troopers. Sorry.
I also remember someone in the audience loudly asking "Is she fucking the alien!?" and the whole theater laughed for like five minutes. Good times...
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Squiggly_P
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.