Which is why you are going mad
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by fireproof78
Which is why you are going mad
I agree with most of the posts here regarding the sequel. I've commented before and will add it now that the characters responses to the events in Good Day to Die Hard seemed off to me.
It would have been better to me to have a more vulnerable protagonist(s) or greater stakes.
I mentioned deGraf/Wahrman in this episode, that's the company where I got into this whole crazy "computer graphics" business in 1988. Michael Wahrman, the co-founder of that company, has an even longer and more jaded perspective on the industry than I do.
He's got a blog where he opines about various things, including the CG business, and his post this morning has some relevance to the topic at hand.
Computer Graphics and the Doctrines of Original and Derivative Sin
Only part way through the episode but I had some early thoughts and questions.
First of all, I do enjoy the video feed and find very fun. As long as it doesn't take away from your guys ability to do the show or its too much work for Teague to do.
Secondly, I have a question for the industry professionals here. Would a VFX union have helped companies like Rhythm and Hues or other companies? As Trey mentioned, having a union would have increased the cost of companies to produce works, so it could have driven the bankruptcy to occur sooner. I know its a mixed bag so I kind of want other perspectives on the idea of a union.
However, it is also interesting that the way this industry has gone, with the constant underbidding and underbidding by competing companies and creating this issue. Again, I'm not in the industry but the idea that companies are going out business because of bad business decisions is a painful but part of business, as glib as that sounds.
I am wondering at the future of the industry with this kind of downfall and the business practices that led to it if any lessons will be learned and practices will be changed. So, while the free market and have led to this, there is the potential that a new kind of VFX industry could come out.
When someone acts like an asshole in the first 10 minutes, I'm not going to listen to the rest of his opinion.
If you like listening to him, that's your business. Don't act like everybody really needs to listen to this guy's ignorant rants. Nobody owes Matthew a hearing out.
I'm afraid CM's style is being an ass at the movie's expense. And hey, that's not everyone's thing.
Also, there are several movies that are critical failures that are doing their best to entertain the audience. I am usually all for supporting the film company who makes a movie because that is a lot of work that the industry didn't have to put forward in order to entertain the audience. But, if it doesn't entertain a person, who's problem is that? Is it the viewer or the studio?
I thought the website was being hacked.
The dude who does SFDebris said (a few times) in his review for Stargate that Roland Emmerich worked with Kurt Russell before on Universal Soldier. You'd think he'd research that a bit more if he's doing a video, I assume he writes a script for it or at least has notes at hand while recording. Anyway, I do like some of his videos (I only watch the ones of stuff I have seen) and he's quite a smart and amusing guy at times. And, hey, we all make mistakes, right?
Emphasis added and recorded for posterity
Also, Chuck (guy behind SFDebris) is fun mostly because he says "Hey, its my opinion, take it or leave it."
Other than Threshold: http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-re … -1-5906920
fireproof78 wrote:I honestly would like to hear your thoughts, given you coming in cold, if you haven't posted in the Avengers thread already.
I don't think I have anything insightful to add, really, because the reason I came into it cold is that popcorn movies like this aren't really my thing, either. I'd seen the first Iron Man movie once and enjoyed it and watched the majority of Thor before falling asleep. Twice. But because so many movies get a delayed release in Japan, by the time they come out over here, I'm over the hype and have usually lost interest. Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Captain America all passed me by unnoticed. In the end, I watched only The Avengers for the DiF commentary, which for some reason, I haven't actually listened to yet.
I didn't hate The Avengers, or anything like that, I just thought it was kind of boring. Except for the whole poor dead Agent Coulson pep talk scene. That shit was hilarious. But aside from Robert Downey, Jr. being his usual brilliant self, there wasn't much there for me to like.
Your insights are probably more valuable than you realize. I am a curious sort and try to understand why people do (or do not) enjoy certain films. Avengers is a mixed bag because it is regarded as a tent pole film for the popcorn viewer but tries to do more with the characters. I think the character development can be missed if Captain America and Thor are not viewed first.
I know I have mentioned my reluctance to be a film critic but there is one other aspect of myself that can come across a bit, well, pretentious and dickish...I have studied psychology for about 10 years now and so think about characters and their motivation and influence in the world more than anything else. So I kind of get inside many character's heads easier than a lot of other people do and sometimes I sound like a complete jerk for saying that a character works for me when others don't.
I mean, there are some films were I disagree with DiF simply because the characters make sense to me-but not to the panelists. So, your perspective is interesting to be, especially how you like Coulson and Downey Jr's moments but the rest didn't work for you.
I guess its a matter of perspective
I think the Star Wars Pixar ones work better (and me be inevitable)
Pixar Spock and Bones scare me
bullet3 wrote:At least Ratner made Rush Hour 2, this guy literally doesn't have a single good credit to his name.
Rush Hour 2 is by far my favourite of that trilogy. Moore directed Behind Enemy Lines which I remember liking at the time. Haven't seen it in years, though.
Behind Enemy Lines is a good film, but definitely had its shaky moments. Might be worth a revisit.
I have a curiosity question-how should a Die Hard sequel be?
It's come out at last! Thanks for the heads up fireproof (and bullet3).
Glad you liked it
Thanks again to bullet3 (or blame bullet3, depending)
Quick addition here with a link from bullet3 who posted this in chat and is well worth a watch:
http://vimeo.com/seaquark/c299792
Didn't Lost do this?
The giveaway that it was a turkey was that there were no reviews before it opened, and even Bruce Willis couldn't summon much energy to be enthusiastic. Nevertheless, the Film Show here in Britain reported a 6th Die Hard has been greenlit.
Tentatively titled "Dieing Hard another day in a nursing home..."
I went and watched it with my dad, and honestly if you expected some well done piece of cinema then honestly you are bound to be disappointed. As stated, "Die Hard" never should have had sequels. Now Mclain has become almost a superhero
There were some nice character moments, but I I didn't have much invested in this film. It had some funny quips, some decent action and was a fun movie. Was it well written or original? Um, no, but I had not expectation of that. Honestly, Willis played it more like Red than Mclain which was an odd feel.
I didn't design the logo. There is currently no name for the show. I had a card in there all the way up until I delivered it.
Got it. Just a layman's uninformed opinion
Still works very well as a sizzle reel.
I've been kicking around this idea since listening to the Dredd commentary as to what makes good science fiction and what is poor science fiction. Teague discussed a good starting point for creating new science fiction is to theorize a world and then make an argument against it.
Science fiction is an interesting piece of work, because it can take many different forms. So, to start this thread out, feel free to define what you consider to be good or bad science fiction and any examples you would like to share.
I'll start with my own. I think that good science fiction fuels your imagination to consider possibilities beyond our own world. It can also comment on the human condition through these new worlds, but I don't feel that it has to have that to be successful. I consider some of the best science fiction to be works that challenge the reader to imagine the world, rather than providing all the details.
Examples of my own personal favorites (its a long list)
"Legends of the Star Wolf" by veteran Star Trek writer David Gerold
"Space Cadet" "Starship Troopers" "Tunnel in the Sky" by Robert Heinlein
"Dune" by Frank Herbert
"Mars" by Ben Bova
Feel freed to add on. Movies are obviously welcome too, but that's an even longer list
Edit: Clarified the title
I can only imagine how rough the cut was, but you did a great job editing it all together.
Since I am not an editor the one suggestion I might have is the logo at the beginning. But, I do hope this project gets approved because it looks like a fascinating camp and a great story to tell.
Also, my wife would love this camp!
http://www.slashfilm.com/monsters-unive … e-bonding/
Here's the first clip from the movie. Looks pretty funny to me. If they can capture the feeling of what college is like in an honest way, I think the movie will be really successful, and that trailer indicates to me that they will.
The only way that can be truly captured is if there is no parking:
fireproof78 wrote:His Avengers comments were odd because he was unfamiliar with the material and reviewed it anyway. While I can understand remarks about the beginning of Avengers, jumping in to the movie with little to no understanding of the film or past films can ruin your film experience.
Hmm. I'm not sure if I agree with that. This movie isn't a direct sequel in the same way as, say, the sixth Harry Potter movie. I never felt lost watching it; the plot didn't escape me and I was roughly familiar with most of the lead characters. There must be plenty of people who saw and enjoyed The Avengers without seeing all of the previous films. And I personally gave The Avengers a lot of leeway because I was unfamiliar with the other movies. But despite the best efforts of Joss and his writing partner, I thought this movie was pretty bad. Bad in the same way that Trey expected it to be bad (I'm guessing), except that I'm not as charmed by Mr. Whedon as he is, so there was less there to win me over.
Confused Matthew, on the other hand, has said many time that he only likes one superhero and that's Batman. So I highly doubt watching the inferior series of films that lead up to The Avengers would have improved his opinion of it much. Really, this movie never had much chance of winning him over, and he should've just told his fans, "No."
.
I agree on this point. Avengers really wasn't his type of movie and I think his own review reflects that fact. Going in to the Avengers cold, in my opinion, is not advisable. While not detrimental to the viewing process, I think that things such as the Tesseract and Loki require a little more than just passing comments by the characters.
"Loki? Brother of Thor?" Does little to tell me about Loki as a character, unless you are familiar with Norse mythology and garner he is a trickster and, at times, a villain. But, his whole grudge against Thor really isn't clear otherwise.
I honestly would like to hear your thoughts, given you coming in cold, if you haven't posted in the Avengers thread already
As far as other remarks about movie reviewers, I generally do not post reivews is that I am either a) unfamiliar with the material enough to post a good analysis b) I often come off as a fan boy of the film or unnecessarily critical. A good for instance is Constantine-an overall enjoyable movie that I would honestly eviscerate due more familiarity with Catholic theology rather than the comic book series.
I agree with others hear that people who have their mind made up regarding a film, or not familiar enough with the movie or its history don't really have much space to comment on a film, unless, they preface it with acknowledging their ignorance.
A good example, and one of my other go-to reviewers, is SFDebris, who did a video review of Evangelion 1.11 and 2.22 but went in to it cold and unfamiliar with the source material because that was the purpose of the film:
[video (unkown provider)]
If your primary goal is to make people laugh, I'm gonna have to give you guys 5 gold stars or a thumbs up or whatever for this Intermission. I was highly entertained!
![]()
Now, as a frequent listener of Confused Matthew, I had to overlook much of what you guys said about him specifically, since you admitted to knowing very little about him before placing him at the nadir of your film criticism spectrum. But I loved that idea that sometimes people have this gut feeling that something is wrong with a movie yet lack the tools and expertise to explain exactly what that something wrong is. Like fireproof78, I love the No Country for Old Men review by Confused Matthew because he perfectly articulates my own gut feeling that something about that movie was just off. And now, knowing what I know about where Confused Matthew is coming from with his reviews, I perfectly understand his rants against Cloud Atlas and the Avengers (and I agree heartily - Avengers was bo~ring). Those are not his most shining moments, however and make poor introductions for an unfamiliar listener.
Certainly, Confused Matthew can be a total asshat at times, and despite his fervent desire not to, he does box himself in quite a bit with his choices. But he's still capable of being very thoughtful and intelligent with regards to those aspects of a film that he's most interested in.
And since my intense rage over his review of Spirited Away (a film I don't even like) is directly responsible for me discovering DiF, I've learned to temper my feelings and accept the good with the bad.
I agree whole heartedly with your remarks but redexavier was the one who liked No Country for Old Men, while myself, I prefer his prequel comments
His Avengers comments were odd because he was unfamiliar with the material and reviewed it anyway. While I can understand remarks about the beginning of Avengers, jumping in to the movie with little to no understanding of the film or past films can ruin your film experience.
I'll ask a question for general consumption-how familiar should a critic be before watching and reviewing a film? I mean, some films you just walk in cold due to the new material but do others require more knowledge prior to reviewing?
Gotcha fire. Yeah, i really need to finish S10. S9 was kinda a let down story wise for me. It just kinda wandered around for a while and ended with Burnie giving himself a huge monolouge that supposedly....meant...something?...and fixed Church...somehow?
Anyways, it's been a while since I watched S9, so it might be better a 2nd time around for the Blood Gulch storyline.
You want to chat about it, hit me up in PM. I've got my own thoughts but Burnie definitely leaves a lot open to interpretation.
S10 is definitely worth a watch, even with only passing info about S8 and 9. S10 shows them expanding the story and their world again.
That was the end of S8. S10 is the most recent.
Unless you were referring to the last season of post Blood Gulch Freelancer.
Either way. Yeah. The fight scenes in S9/10 are freaking epic. The entire Falling Towards The Sky sequence gives me happy feelings all over.
It was a general reference to the epic fight scenes that they keep building upon and changing around. The script writing is also well done. Season 10 was such an interesting tale that I'm still sorting it all out in my head.
So, go watch it
Another element to the idea of film criticism is that it's not really there to serve the storyteller, to tell him or her how they messed up or how they got it right, it's there to inform the wider audience of the merits and flaws of the entertainment so that they can make an informed decision about whether to spend money on it. How that's communicated, a body gesture or a long tirade, is ultimately irrelevant.
I love Confused Matthew's review of No Country for Old Men, because it very effectively demonstrates why that movie is a complete and utter waste of your time. I wish someone had told me before I wasted mine.
I wish to emphasise this because an interesting development has recently occurred in the games industry with the release of Aliens: Colonial Marines. There was a review embargo on the game before it went on sale, which meant that no-one could post their review of the game before it was released (to have done so would have meant career suicide). Worse, no-one could also voice their concerns in previews due to NDAs. It has now received universal panning from critics, with scores far below what would be expected from a AAA title with 6 years of development time. It's a crap game really. And yet none of the critics could mention a word of it before it was released, before thousands of people pre-ordered the game or went out to buy it on its first day (based on PR and gameplay trailers which now appear to have been a lie). The entire review process failed.
It concerns me that this is the path of the video game industry because I am not willing to preorder anything but wait for reviews then buy the game. Now I have a reason to never preorder because the companies will withhold any negative press and rely on preorder sales.
So if the movie industry goes this way, then you have no way to separate crap from good because no one can talk about it
Yeah, that trailer is pretty crazy. Saw that at the end of their most recent Project Freelancer Season. Which, is also worth watching, if for no other reason than this:
http://forums.fighting118th.com/showthread.php?t=4368
Diorama.
Yes, please
Sorry for the double post but another video that takes a unique idea and tries it out:
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by fireproof78
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.