Jimmy B wrote:

Raven wrote:

50 years is so long ago that it doesn't matter.

Well no, 50 years is a huge anniversary. They made a big deal out of it with all the documentaries and stuff. So, clearly it does matter to many people. Again, I don't particularly care (although, apparently I do more than the other non-Americans which is worrying ) I just thought releasing it in the same week as people were remembering and paying tribute was a bit off.

I'd say the 50th is less important than the 49th which is less important than the 48th, etc.  The 50th anniversary stuff is an arbitraty number that society has decided to make falsely important.  In reality if we actually cared then we would still care as much on the 49th and the 51st anniversary and not only then, but the rest of the year as well.  My dad passed away a few years back and I miss him almost every day, but not any more on his birthday or the anniversary of the day that he died.  Anniversaries make sense from a programming perspective and so does this ad campaign.

True, Stargate SG-1 is much better, it lasted 10 seasons and took the basic premise of Stargate and took it in every direction possible, tTelling stories about humanity in the way the best tradition of old Trek. I liked Atlantis (which was admittedly more flash) too as well as Universe (which had an altogether different  tone that I admired).

You should do an Extended Edition on it 

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/24/doctor-wh … f-4199592/

A commentary on a documentary about faking the moon landings could be the funniest commentary in the world!

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.

Don't get me wrong, it's certainly a topic of interest - but it's not because copyright has no more purpose.  Its purpose is the same as it's always been, but due to technology it's become much harder to enforce. 

And there's also the societal trends that have led many people to believe copyright is somehow a bad thing.  For any of us who work in the arts, it's pretty much the only thing that enables us to make a living at all.

As for doing a show on it, didn't we pretty much cover it in the Fair Use episode?  I admit I haven't listened to that one in a while, tho.

fireproof78 wrote:

avatar wrote:

At least if Hobbit 2 & 3 are bland/lame, we'll have the superb extras to look forward to.

I'm surprised how 'honest' these behind-the-scenes are - very rare for tentpoles so soon after they're released. Ian McKellen is shown spitting the dummy at least twice, the production crew are shown resistant to Peter Jackson's hare-drawn sled idea (is he becoming Lucas?) , the actors who played goblins are shown disappointed at being replaced by digital goblins, the actors are shown workshopping the script in the council of Eldrond scene, the AD is shown impatient with Christopher Lee's endless stories, etc.

I missed the AD part, but wow...really?

Anyway, I love the honesty of the BTS and making off featurettes. The actors are incredibly generous with their time and and I love the way they describe the process of getting in to character and working. Scene 88 is incredible.

As for Jackson's excess, I think he is becoming Lucas in the sense that he feels he will never get to visit Middle Earth again so he is pouring so much in to it, possibly without thinking. That may be one of the reasons Christopher Tolkien is getting so annoyed with the films is the amount of liberties they are taking due to Jackson's whim.

It is an incredible process that is going on, and I personally, am looking forward to seeing the rest of it unfold.

I've now seen all the Hobbit 1 extras, and the video blogs / trailers for the upcoming Hobbit 2, and to be honest, there's no indication these prequels will improve.

1. The move away from models and prosthetics to CG has allowed endless consequence-less action sequences that are shot/edited too fast for the audience to enjoy, especially in 3D. Having it PG13 and with indestructible characters doesn't help. Just looks and feels cartoony.

2. There's too many dwarves, and most have no personality or individual skills. It's a movie limitation that you have an upper limit on the number of characters the audience can have empathy for, especially if 50% of the movie is chasing/action/fighting scenes. In addition, half the dwarves don't even look like dwarves. Killi and Filli look like rangers. And at least two of the dwarves look retarded. Only Balin and Thorin stand out.

3. The humour doesn't work. At all. We get it - dwarves aren't well behaved at dinner.

4. Martin Freeman - wanted to like him, but he's too whiny. All he does is bitch. The emotional beats with Thorin were forced. And Bilbo is bland e.g. he expressed no wonder at seeing Rivendell the first time. Why does he suddenly want to help the dwarves with their quest at the end of AUJ - it was a pay-off with no set-up, as was the Thorin reconciliation. In LOTR, as Frodo became possessed, Sean Astin carried the emotional weight of the quest. There is no equivalent character here.

5. I get the sense Peter Jackson now has too much money and time and an sense of infallibility and he's lost his ability to generate interesting new ideas. This has happened to Lucas and Ridley Scott and no doubt other directors what have been showered with accolades.

fireproof78 wrote:

The extras are very much worth it, delving in to so much of the production and actors and character development. I loved all of that stuff and well worth it.

At least if Hobbit 2 & 3 are bland/lame, we'll have the superb extras to look forward to.

I'm surprised how 'honest' these behind-the-scenes are - very rare for tentpoles so soon after they're released. Ian McKellen is shown spitting the dummy at least twice, the production crew are shown resistant to Peter Jackson's hare-drawn sled idea (is he becoming Lucas?) , the actors who played goblins are shown disappointed at being replaced by digital goblins, the actors are shown workshopping the script in the council of Eldrond scene, the AD is shown impatient with Christopher Lee's endless stories, etc.

I'm likely alone on this, but I think Rises is the best of the trilogy. For some reason that I've never quite been able to articulate, I found BB to have an underwhelming third act. The action on the train seems off and the plot seems a bit too implausible. Dark Knight seemed a little too self-indulgent and it suffers from being an obvious middle film (the ending isn't that great).

Come to think of it, I don't think any of the Batman films are that great.

bullet3 wrote:

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 read his review, and it was interesting. I disagree with his idea that the level of violence amounts to "torture porn," though, because like I said, I think it's to serve a point. I think he misses the point of the film entirely, though. He asserts that McQueen wants us to enjoy watching Solomon and the other slaves being tortured, when that's clearly not the case. The way he feels about the film is the way that you're SUPPOSED to feel. He says that "good art elates and edifies," but that's a reductive definition. I don't feel elated when I look at Picasso's Guernica, but that doesn't take away from its artistic merit.