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!
Don Burgess, who did Contact, has a pretty distinguished career (both with Zemeckis [Forrest Gump, Polar Express, and without [Spider-man, Terminator 3, Source Code]).
Pretty much anything by Roger Deakins (Assassination of Jesse James), Conrad Hall (Road to Perdition), and Christopher Doyle (Ashes of Time, Hero) is exceptional cinematography. These 3 are among my favourites. Roger Deakins has his own forum where he answers questions about shots and lighting set ups from his movies (and general tips too) - http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/. Very cool person.
So far, the only review of his I can't seem to bring myself to watch is his episode on "No Country For Old Men". Apparently, he considers it "objectively bad", similar to Brian Finifter's feelings on "Spider-Man 2". I hope to one day get to a place where I can hear him out without weeping for humanity.
He has a point though, NCFOM is objectively bad. Roger Deakins' cinematography is the only good thing about that film.
I was a child of the 80s so my favourites growing up were Action Force (aka GI Joe), Thundercats, Transformers, Galaxy Rangers and the old He-Man. I remember enjoying the New Adventures of He-Man too, which taught me that when you pick something heavy up you should bend your knees.
Visionaries was also awesome.
I'll argue that 80s/90s cartoons were the pinnacle of TV animation - and they had the best openings of all time. Great music, great animation, great characters and great action.
It's cute for a few seconds but sometimes its use is really out of place and it can break the illusion as you recall that yup, you are in fact watching a movie.
Yeah... I don't get this. If I don't like Prometheus, I can't just make the film again myself. Films require enormous investment of money and time, and require a lot of people to work on them. Further, there are copyright issues to consider. It's just not in any way practical to 'do it yourself'... which is precisely why sensitive people make the argument.
And it's doubtful that producing a superior piece of work will actually teach those people anything, in the same way as my mother producing a lasagne for supper doesn't tell me a thing about how to make a better one myself. I need to be privy to the making itself not the end result. We are all witnesses to exceptional films that peak out above the clouds and are universally praised, isn't that essentially already someone 'critiquing by doing it better'? Kevin's films have gotten worse over the years despite all the superior films he's seen...
Hmm... it's important to not fall into the trap of arguing that only those who create can criticise. Swap out films for food or sports (or anything really), and it's apparent how inane that argument is. If you're not a master chef, does that mean you can't not like the food you've been served? Criticism is ultimately elaboration of dislike, it's feelings given form in word.
That's my feelings listening to the first Kevin Smith video. Also, Kevin Smith has a pretty shitty approach to receiving criticism of his movies, and appears (on the face of it) to be thin-skinned. Receiving criticism is a fact of life, all work regardless of whether it's amateur, professional, artistic or scientific, receives it. Trying to go through life insulating yourself from that only stunts your growth. It's probably why Kevin Smith's not getting any better as a film-maker or storyteller.
Further, if one argues that no film is bad, then no film is good either - it swings both ways.
I've been listening to a lot of the Nerdist Podcast recently and I count myself a fan. Some great guests and I'm always delightfully surprised at how nice and cool the guests are, from the obvious ones like Nathan Fillion and Marh Hamil to Zachery Levi and Michael Rooker.
I think we've kind of reached the point culturally where just transposing Romeo and Juliet into random movie premises is not enough to hold up your idea.
I mean, it's been over 10 years since Romeo Must Die, screenwriters need to stop doing this. .
The 'Star Crossed Lovers' is one of the original seven story premises, I don't think it's going to stop being in films any time soon.
And for what it's worth, Romeo Must Die hardly featured a romantic subplot at all. The title's based off a line in the movie that's a pithy quip by the villain.
What's the worst physical pain you've inflicted on somebody, intentionally or otherwise?
I once stamped on a guy's balls during a 'fight' when I was 13. I can't remember what started it, but he came at me and I put him down quickly then stamped. I imagine he was in pretty severe agony after that.
Among my friends, we also try to 'gully-ma' each other, that is attempt to replicate the Temple of Doom ritual, whenever defenses are lowered for too long. I know it hurts like hell.
What's the worst thing you've ever said to somebody?
I think I was 7 at the time. Maybe I had latent psychic powers brought on by exposure to ewoks and I can't remember it because the trauma of escaping Bruce Willis has blocked it.
I'm good with it. Star Wars needs the same break from decades of canonical dogma that Abrams gave to Star Trek. His Star Trek wasn't perfect, but at least it was fun to watch. Star Wars hasn't been fun since 1983, so he sure can't hurt things any.
Clone Wars is fun, and some of the Dark Horse series are pretty good too (though I realise you are referring to cinematic ventures).
On another note, Paramount must be beaming at this point in time - hordes of curious viewers are going to flock to see Star Trek Into Darkness this summer, eager to see just what all the fuss is about with 'the new Star Wars guy'.
Well 'The Verge' is merely regurgitating what 'The Wrap' is reporting so it's not like there are 2 sources. I put these sites in quotes because I've never heard of either, which essentially puts them one step above my neighbour's tennis partner on the reliability scale, which isn't then helped by them calling their source an individual with knowledge of the production. No shit, what about an individual without knowledge of the production?
No doubt their 'exclusive' will attract lots of hapless souls to their site, which is probably the intention.
I found Iron Sky to be unwatchable. I'm sure some folks worked really hard and did some great work on it, but it's a cinematic mess (and really quite awkward to watch).
You have my vote for Heat though. Perhaps you can do a double bill with The Town as avatar hints at above?
I liked this one. Good movie and good commentary. I'd actually class this as a perfect movie, and apart from my personal irritation with the slowness of the slow-mo scenes, I can't recall a bum note. Sure, you guys raised a few criticisms but these are mostly on the pernickety side and aren't egregrious.
I've not really read any Dredd stories (one or two perhaps decades ago) but I imagine that this movie has everything you could want from a movie adaptation. It's easy to go in and expect something more like the Watchmen or with characters and setting that are more nuanced, but I guess Dredd is what it is.
Quite surprised Avengers got the nom, must have been for the Hulk which while impressive isn't really Oscar worthy.
I finally got around to watching Avengers again and I'd probably say the nomination is due to the overall package and not to any one specific thing. Trey has talked about how it's often the range and diversity of the effects rather than just a single breakthrough, and Avengers has a wide range of different things - from the helicarrier and jets to the Hulk and the utterly convincing Iron Man, and from the seamless wirework of Captain America and folks getting pulled around when hit to the practical cars blowing up in the street. It's got everything done to a high standard and it's all melded together really well. Even when Thor is trapped in cell as it's hurtling to ground, it's a great sequence.
Looking at the credits made me wonder though. More than half a dozen visual effects studios worked on Avengers, who gets the nom? The Oscars website cites 4 individuals - Janek Sirrs, Jeff White, Guy Williams and Dan Sudick - are these representatives from the biggest contributers then?
As for Life of Pi - is there anything special apart from the tiger? (I've not seen it). I'd argue that Lord of the Rings didn't just win because of Gollum, but due to the miniatures and everything else involved (indeed, they did win for Fellowship even before Gollum was really shown).
I very recently got my hands on the old "ILM: Art of Special Effects" book which is an amazing book covering ILM's work on their 80s films. I've only briefly perused it so far, but would definitely recommend. Lots of neat pictures too. One thing that consistently surprises me is the extent of use of matte paintings back then (and still now I guess) in films I never thought were anything but mostly real. Indy and Co. walking up to Pankot palace for example.
And Avengers got on there as well despite the feeling that it was too similar to Transformers 3/other movies where skyscrapers are destroyed. I have a feeling that it made the cut on the basis of having 'special' effects as well (effectively knocking out Skyfall).
As predicted, Spiderman didn't make the cut. I've already forgotten the others in the bake-off.
For some reason, I hated the slo-mo in Dredd and actually got irritated during them (well, the latter ones at least). It was so slow that I began to lose interest and wish it would just get on with it - and then some were just unnecessary to begin with. By the time of the second superfluous sequence, my 'goodwill' had been used up. Otherwise, it's a great movie.
With regards to Looper, I confess I'd forgotten about it, to that point where I wouldn't include in a top 10 list because it would slip my mind entirely...
Wow, this is a bit mind-bending. I don't think I've actually ever seen any BTS pictures from the Terminator like this. It sort of breaks it for me... really, so the Terminator isn't real?
That happened to me with Shogun Total War 2. I was less than amused as it's not a small game - fortunately I was able to cancel it and find a workaround. I find the real strength of Steam is that you can get games without having to go out (which is more important than you might think since non-new PC games are actually pretty hard to find in stores these days), but you are subjected to the whims of your internet connection and the Steam servers and that can be frustrating. I've not yet run into a situation where I've not been able to play a game at all for longer than a few hours - though I have been hit with a temporary 'can't play this right now' messages from Steam.
It makes me wonder though, at what point can/should a company legally/morally/economically stop supporting a product/service you paid for?
