In 50-100 years, all we'll need to do is get a cheek-swab and a computer will spit out our family ancestry back to East Africa 60,000 years ago. We're all cousins.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by avatar
In 50-100 years, all we'll need to do is get a cheek-swab and a computer will spit out our family ancestry back to East Africa 60,000 years ago. We're all cousins.
The new 50th anniversary FOLIO SOCIETY edition of DUNE (with newly commissioned illustrations) is coming in a few months...
More on the Hobbit's lack of a VFX nomination...
Agree with all the above. Aliens balances memorable characters, quotable dialogue, action, humour, suspense, horror, and an unparalleled escalation of tension in the final hour. As a sequel that both respects the first and expands the universe, it's rarely been done better. Given the limited budget and difficult working conditions with a British crew that wasn't taking Cameron seriously (he was only about 31!), it's an astonishing achievement. It's the only movie in the franchise with a single writer-director. As TechNoir said, the Superior Firepower 3 hour doco (even longer with the extra-extra supplements) is well worth watching.
I also recommend watching the movie with the James Cameron commentary.
Yeah, the rear projection and drop ship model don't quite hold up now. But what today's film-makers don't get is that fans would rather forgive the odd dodgy-VFX and have a strong story than the other way 'round.
I saw it in the cinema back in 1986 and it just freaked me out when they started coming out of the walls!
Aliens (1986) - 10/10 (8.4)
Rewatch and a score bump. Fantastic. Incredible. Masterclass in pretty much all areas of filmmaking..
Fuck yeah! A million pale imitators in its genre. Don't know how many times I'm said something like... "yeah, _____ was okay, but not as good as Aliens"
Academy Award for VFX - Marvel edition.
Pretty much what I would of guessed except switching Winter Soldier for Hobbit.
X-Men gets in for one 3 minute scene, pushing out Hobbit which hasn't won shit despite 9 hours of solid effects including Smaug.
Jake Gyllenhall didn't get nominated for Nightcrawler?!? FFS! I'm out.
Sarah Snook - totally off the radar, but her role in Predestination beats any acting in any category this year.
I gotta hunch Colbert might just beat Trey at a Tolkien trivia night
Will Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy stand the test of time...
It's 2015... what did Back to the Future II get right & wrong...
Hail Caesar!
fireproof78 wrote:But, I will not hold against the Hobbit that it doesn't feel like LOTR. For me, those are two separate entities in terms of tone and style, at least based upon source material.
I think a comparison is warranted, if for no other reason than the success of the adaptation of LOTR. Though, I guess the real lesson is that condensing rather than expanding is what makes for a better film.
I think they were constrained with what material they could legally harvest from non-LOTR/Hobbit sources. Initially there was speculation about a bridging movie between Hobbit and LOTR using other published material, but Saul Zaentz didn't have the rights to that, and the Tolkien estate aren't enthusiastic about participating in these Jackson adaptations. New Line probably offered them a blank cheque but the Estate must have enough (1) principles (2) money.
The books will become public domain sometime in the mid-21st century, so expect a remake from scratch of everything around December 2060. Choose between ordinary 2D and high-frame rate 128fps 4D hologram neural-implant.
Surprise!
Full disclosure, this "Christmas present" episode
Thanks for the present! Happy Life Day everyone...
Did you guys mention the 300 sequel? Just like the Sin City sequel, it featured Eva Green's obligatory breasts (it's in her contract), but no one cared either way.
The Feel Bad Movie of the Year! - Teague Chrystie
That needs to go on the Gone Girl poster.
I plan on doing a full audio recording regarding my thoughts on Battle of Five Armies, and the Hobbit trilogy as a whole,
I look forward to it. It'd be great if you can post a link here in this thread.
In the meantime, here's EMPIRE MAGAZINE's 90 minute 2-part spoiler special podcast...
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=42996
And the clowns from Red Letter Media have a go here...
For Interstellar, I would also say, if you didn't see it in 70mm Imax, you can't judge the effects work. That may seem harsh, but having seen it both ways, there's just no comparison. The experience of Interstellar with the full vertical framing was way superior to anything in Gravity for me, even if Gravity was doing much more technically sophisticated things. Yes, the blackhole/workhole sequences are CG, but they've also got model and full-scale practical ships and robots, not to mention actually throwing massive clouds of dust around, filming in Iceland, etc. That stuff goes a long way. Ultimately, whatever the mix of practical and cg was on Interstellar, the end result is breathtaking and I don't see it losing the oscar. Remember, it's not just purely about tech, it's how it's applied to convey an experience.
Edit: Also, no way in hell Hobbit will win anything. Those movies are incredibly ugly, and still despite all the tech look like fake video-game cut-scenes half the time
I saw Interstellar in 70mm and Imax. One screening was ruined by an atrocious dialogue track. But both were not as sharp as a digitally shot movie projected digitally. I think Nolan's flogging a dead horse with film. Digital in 2014 has tipped the balance, and is now unequivocally sharper than (even IMAX) film and will only improve as sensors go to 8K and beyond. Film loses something in the mastering, copying, and scanning process.
As for Interstellar's VFX work: it was alright, but nothing NEW in the sense that Gravity was pushing the envelope. Most of the Ranger shots weren't that interesting i.e. camera mounted to a fuselage giving the same view over and over again, whether it's the launch, or flying or landing. I suppose Nolan was going for a 'grounded' look. Fair enough, but my jaw didn't drop.
Also, for all of Nolan's experience with IMAX, he doesn't seem to edit with IMAX in mind. Such a large frame needs fewer shaky close-ups and longer times between cuts. Alfonso Cuaron got it perfect for Gravity - with the long takes.
Sure, Interstellar may get the Oscar for its prestige value as the guys said. But it didn't break any new ground, like, say Matrix's bullet time, or LOTR's Gollum, or Life of Pi's creature work, or Gravity's lighting box.
Jackson made a big point about filming in 3D HFR, and "future-proofing" the Hobbit movies. I'm confident that 20 years from now, LOTR will hold up visually better than the Hobbit will. Was Dain CG? He looked so fake in his introduction that I wanted to just leave. Azog did look very real in his death scene, but I never thought Bolg looked any good. Just a silly cartoon.
Avatar made great points, and I agree with most of them, but I actually thought Freeman's Bilbo was one of the best parts of this movie. He gave me my only chuckle: his reaction when Thranduil confronted him about the incidents in Mirkwood. Maybe he would have been a less fascinating part of a great movie, but this was no great movie.
I'm not a purist, but only a fraction of the events of this movie were represented in the book in any way. This isn't a problem if the movie turns out great, but in this case, it's just a crappy rewrite.
Mr. Shore, what happened? So many beats didn't land due to a score that couldn't find the right tone.
This movie was missing some establishing shots. Up on the pillar where Thorin went to meet Azog, the dwarves split up and they kept cutting between them; on the move, without establishing where they were. I didn't need a geolocation, but I needed more information than just a head shot with a sky in the background. In fact I found a lot of the editing choices in this film appalling. How many honest and trustworthy eyes saw cuts of this movie before its release?
All in all, I find myself a bit saddened by how these films turned out. I had hoped for the best, and I even had myself convinced for a while that AUJ was much better than it is (It's still the only one of the three I find tolerable). I was pretty young when Episode I came out, and I didn't grow up with Star Wars, so I guess I can say that Peter Jackson is my George Lucas. I spent most of BotFA pondering what happened to him– where his senses went. LOTR was certainly no fluke, so I've got no explanation for it all.
Now that we've had time to digest the third one, we're just about ready for a post-mortem on what went wrong.
Here's a couple of suggestions:
1. The book. Having 13 dwarves (plus Bilbo and Gandalf) is just too many. Tolkien didn't flesh them out either. No screenwriter would assemble his protagonists like that. This wasn't aided by Jackson's adaptation that didn't attempt to give them special skills or their 'moment in the sun'. There was time enough to give them personalities. A good writer only needs a five minute scene to make someone memorable. 13 x 5 = 65 minutes (out of 8 hours). On top of that, half the dwarves didn't look like dwarves, but 'hot men'.
2. Tone difference between The Hobbit and LOTR books. One's for children, one's for adults. And The Hobbit was rewritten by Tolkien in a second edition to make it more a prequel to LOTR (it was never the original intention). In hindsight, one should have begun filming The Hobbit first and built up from there in stakes and epic scope. Having invincible heroes put through physics-free gag after gag throughout endless action sequences undermines any tension.
3. Jackson is now God, showered with umpteen Oscars, and unlimited budget and years of production time and his own private studios. Probably surrounded by a thousand 'yes men'. Carte blanche is never healthy in Hollywood, rarely ending well. Lucas had the same 'problem' - a victim of his own success. He's also in his 50s, rather than late 30s, so there's a loss of creativity with age (same with Howard Shore who literally phoned it in from Canada).
4. Judging by the behind-the-scenes, Jackson's film-making process now seems like an automated assembly line. Through sheer brute force (throw enough cameras & second-unit directors & takes & money & time) at a scene and you'll eventually get something useable.
5. From Fellowship to Battle of the Five Armies - the green-screen kept encroaching more and more.
6. The decision to expand the movies from two to three undermined the emotional beats and pacing.
7. The writing for Thorin just wasn't good enough. He needed to be more consistent and have an overall arc.
8. The acting from Freeman just didn't cut it (in my opinion anyway), compared with Frodo and Sam.
9. Tauriel turned out to not be a complete disaster, but the 'love story' with the dwarf didn't convince.
10. The return actors from LOTR didn't have enough to do for the plot: Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Gollum, Legolas.
But there are positives. It wasn't an unmitigated cluster-fuck.
1. The Riddles in the Dark scene with Gollum was great.
2. Smaug was bloody impressive - both inside Erebor and over Laketown.
3. A few action gags were entertaining: barrel roll of the fat dwarf, etc.
4. Richard Armitage gave Thorin real screen presence.
5. The production design was, as usual, extremely high.
6. The spider sequence was well done.
7. The creature design: Goblin king, giant trolls, Gollum, Azog, Bolg, wargs, Beorn, etc were mostly solid.
8. In 8 hours of score, there are about 30-40 minutes of nice cues.
There's no obvious stand-out like Gravity this year, so I'd be surprised if The Hobbit doesn't get best VFX as a recognition to the trilogy. It hasn't won yet (Life of Pi won against Hobbit 1). Dawn of the Planet of the Apes will be a close contender as the creature acting was superb. Weta v Weta.
I don't think Interstellar was that impressive from a VFX viewpoint. We've seen all that done better elsewhere e.g. Gravity.
Yes, Noah was robbed, but everything in Edge of Tomorrow was mid-budget standard CG fare. Nothing remarkable.
So my three finalists would be Hobbit, Apes and Godzilla.
And yes, fuck Transformers.
WARNING - Spoilers!
I've now seen Hobbit 3 in both 24fps IMAX and 48fps HFR. Despite it being visually non-cinematic, I actually prefer the HFR version because you can see more detail, the action is smoother, the image sharper. You get used to the look pretty soon. The HFR doesn't suit every genre, but this trilogy that has so much over-the-top production design, HFR is worth a look.
Some observations about The Hobbit 3 & the trilogy in general:
• The opening sequence of Smaug attacking Laketown was awesome, only undermined by a bit of lame humour with Stephen Fry. Stephen Fry is not a villain and the audience is not rooting for his death. The tone here should have been unrelenting menace from the impressive Smaug. This is a catastrophic blitz from a massive dragon as he strafes the wooden town. Throw-away gag humour is not needed at this point.
• Alfrid (the deputy under Fry) is over-used "comic relief" and cringeworthy, dangerously close to becoming Jar Jar. Instead of one or two opportunities to tell us that Alfred is a slimy coward, Jackson gives us about seven. That's what editing is for! The humour wears thin. Bard cuts him way too much slack and Bard’s generosity is not justified by any redemptive (save the cat) moment by Alfrid.
• Tauriel and Kili. Lilly does her best with the material and gives a great performance under the circumstances. Poise and elegance and cheekbones. But I don’t buy the ‘love’ story. It’s a pay-off that doesn’t work because it isn’t earned. Given that Tauriel is not canon and doesn’t appear in LOTR, perhaps her character should have been killed off, saving Kili or Legolas or Thranduil or someone.
• Battle sequences: in short, fantastic. A couple of great moments e.g. the elves jumping over the in-formation dwarves in slow-mo, and the eagles swooping down on the second Orc army. Too little Beorn though. There's an extra 30 minutes coming in the EE November 2015. The actual hand-to-hand fighting gets pretty dull after a while, especially in this bloodless PG13 incarnation. Giant armoured Orcs seems to go down with just a tap.
• CGI: overall it’s impressive what can be achieved given that 95% of this was on a green screen soundstage at Stone Street Studios. But nevertheless, there is an artificiality about it.
• The boss Orcs (Azog and Bolg) have great physicality. Props to Lawrence Makoare, who was impressive in the original LOTR as head henchman wherever needed, and drove Bolg’s performance here. Bolg’s look with metal 'skin' grafts is imaginatively twisted. And when Azog dies, he looks completely solid.
• The creature design of the giant trolls, (and 'sandworms'!), is great. As in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, WETA’s creature work can steal the limelight from the humans. A few great gags, such as headbutting the wall and falling over, which got a laugh. Thranduil's steed collecting five orcs for a mass decapitation was also a hoot.
• Thranduil – haughty charisma, high camp. Lee Pace did a good job, but the final resolutions with Tauriel and Legolas were unsatisfying.
• White Council swing into action – finally. Galadriel cranks it up to 11, but like a computer game her ‘manna’ is depleted rapidly by a god-spell.
• Dwarves: most of the company get no speaking lines. We still don’t know them after more than 8 hours. No excuse for that. For some strange reason Dwalin gets an emotional scene with Thorin, when he’s supposed to be the strong silent type. That could have been better given to Balin or one of the others. Kili declares he's not going to stand around waiting out the battle, while standing around waiting out the battle.
• Thorin – Richard Armitage imbues Thorin with presence. Great baritone voice, great look, great heavy metal hair (enhanced by slow mo and wind machines) and armoured costume. But the way the character is written throughout the trilogy is terrible. Now he’s a dick, now he’s a leader, now he’s a dick again, now he’s a leader. Especially his schizophrenic relationship with Bilbo. Why are we sad when he dies? Why is Bilbo sad? Thorin spent most of the trilogy trash-talking Bilbo.
Too much dragon-sickness moments with Thorin and how/why does he suddenly overcome it? Why does Thorin seem to give up just before Azog is driving the sword in?
• Legolas – ascending on falling stones? Really? He’s an elf so that’s how. Whatever. But what is Legolas doing when Thorin has his final fight on the ice with Azog? Legloas has just defeated Bolg on the horizontal tower just below the ice lake, and should be now free to assist Thorin. But Thorin is left to fight Azog for the next ten minutes alone. What’s Legolas doing during this time? Having a beer?
And after six movies, the writers finally think they have to contrive some sort of character arc for Legolas... so they suddenly make him hung up over his mother, with a one-line set-up and a half-hearted one-line pay-off resolution.
• Martin Freeman. I can’t read him. He’s opaque or repressed. Bilbo never seems to be enjoying himself, even at moments you’d expect him to. I suspect Freeman’s range is not that great and judging from the behind-the-scenes, he’s treating the whole experience as a bit of a joke. There’s a scene when he’s sitting next to Gandalf who’s lighting a pipe, and it’s just a sustained blank look. I’m surprised Freeman passed his audition tests, if he was given any.
• Mithril vest – why doesn’t everyone wear one? Seems pretty handy. Thorin sure could have done with one.
• Ring – why doesn’t Bilbo wear the (what he thinks is an) invisibility ring all the time during battle? And into Dale.
• The ending - it in no way wraps up as nicely as Return of the King. We could have done without the silly auction. Hanging up some souvenirs from the journey would have been better (allowing flashbacks). But there's more still to come.
• The score - mostly just dissonant battle music. Like the movies themselves, a pale imitation of the original trilogy.
• No one last glimpse of Gollum? No bridging scenes between Hobbit and LOTR as originally speculated. That would have been more interesting. Nice to see Ian Holm's Bilbo one last time, who has a more more expressive face.
In summary: it's a big-screen spectacle, with much to enjoy. But given the very high benchmark of the LOTR, the Hobbit trilogy ultimately disappoints, let down by poor characterization, bloat-scenes expanding a 300 page book into 8+ hours, and over-reliance on green-screen instead of locations.
Nightcrawler. Highly recommended.
It'll make a great double-feature with Scorsese's The King of Comedy.
avatar wrote:The list of movies that Cate Blanchett sucks in is indeed a short one: I can only think of Crystal Skull.
I wouldn't even say she sucks in that one; the movie sucks, and the writing for her character sucks, but her performance is doing the best it goddamn can, and she at least recognizes what kind of movie she's in.
I dunno - I felt it was a bit flat. She's versatile, but that was stretching it too far. Like Jodie Foster in Elysium, it's hard to create a great female villain in a PG13 movie. Cate is such an ethereal beauty that she'd need to do something really twisted, like kill a child in cold blood or claw a man's dick off for us to hate her. Any examples of successful PG13 female villains?
So just how shit is this? Bloody shit? Fuck'n shit? Or just plain ol' shitty shit?
The list of movies that Cate Blanchett sucks in is indeed a short one: I can only think of Crystal Skull.
Can someone report on Dorkman's reaction (yes or no card)?
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by avatar
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.