*snort* Somebody call me?
Oh... I... uh...
I'll just go listen...
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by BigDamnArtist
*snort* Somebody call me?
Oh... I... uh...
I'll just go listen...
Oh my god, thank you for giving thoughts of Jason Momoa as Azog. That would have been amazing!
And absolutely agree about him btw. Easily the worst creature. Most of the other orcs I could pretty much buy. Although the entire Goblin town sequence was just so fucking balls to the wall ridiculous I can't even remember if the render/comp was decent on them...cause I know for sure the design work sure as hell wasn't gettin it.
And she was there, she just pulled a Batman when she left, for whatever reason.
I'll be there if you need me... except for right now *poof*
My parents let me believe in Santa til I was about 3, So I can't even remember those Christmases, but I've been told they were perfectly pleasant.
So...yeah.
Seeing as there are a few of us around here I know of (myself included) and I'm sure just as many lurkers, that are starting to move out of the DV camera phase of filmmaking and move into something closer-too-but-not-quite-professional level; what say we get something of a general guide going for people who are getting to the stage where they are ready to drop a bit of cash onto gear, but still not at the point where they can either afford to/ really need to spend 8K on a camera (for example)?
There are tons of guides out there for absolute no-budget filmmaking, and some for what to look for in really high end equipment and such, but I haven't found much for the inbetween phase (the "Well I can't really keep using Halogen construction lamps to light all of my shots, but I don't have the money to throw down on a professional lighting kit either" phase)
So cameras, general must-have gear for an indie shoot, lighting, sound, general tips and tricks, really good recipes for rabbit stew, whatever you got, throw it out there.
Or, if I'm just talking out my ass here, what you guys actually use when shooting your own little shorts films and projects.
The
Road
To
El Dorado
This.THIS.THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS!!
Holy shit yes!
Ow, my brain hurts trying to understand the geography of that photo.
My documents folder is filled with "Detective Movie Thing Script," and "Horror Idea" kind of titles. Often if a story has a strong central character it'll be "[Character Name] Script," that sort of thing. Very occasionally I come up with a concept and the perfect title for it all at the same time, but it's far from the norm, for me at least.
Heh, all the files for the thing I'm writing right now are all named as "Unnamed Miniseries".
But otherwise, yeah, I'm pretty much the same way.
The only thing I can really think of that I named fairly early on in the Process was Lily In The Wind. And that was mostly because I needed to have a name because our mentors told us we had to.
Elephant Bar is no good.
That is the weirdest thing to read without context.
This is a thing that came up in the Alan Rickman Talks About Galaxy Thread, but I thought it could be a cool discussion.
So what makes a good title? A bad one? How do you pick a title? Does a good title even matter?
I'll pull Zarban's post to get things rolling, but I'm sure there's a lot of different opinions on this.
Teague wrote:Aaaaaaand "Out There" is a worse title. Thoughts?
Yeah, that's awful. The point of the title "Galaxy Quest" is that it's the title of the dumb sci fi TV show and so it's kind of a dumb title in exactly the same way as "Star Trek" is kind of a dumb title.
A good title, in my opinion, is one that is intriguing but doesn't make a lot of sense until you watch the movie/read the book and then it makes perfect sense.
The Pixar films run the gamut. Toy Story, Cars, and A Bug's Life are meaningless and could literally be about anything involving toys, cars, and bugs. Whereas Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, and Ratatouille are peculiar until you see the movie and then seem like they could ONLY be stories about a company run by monsters, the search for a fish (or else a submarine captain), and a rat who wants to be a French chef.
EDIT: But if you do choose a simple title, it has to be the be-all and end-all of that thing. If you make a movie called The Godfather, it needs to be the last word on godfathers.
The main character needs to be a godfather in every sense, conventionally a gangster, literally a godfather to someone, figuratively a father to everyone, and even metaphorically god-like. If possible, his son even needs to die / sacrifice himself / be reborn after being away / take over for him.... AND ALL THAT HAPPENS.
Yep, I'm going to snap at that bait - the book doesn't need fixing. The problems of the movie have little to nothing to do with the book, i.e., the beats of the story,
Red we're actually on the same page when it comes to this. I think I just didn't really convey what I meant properly. I don't think that the book (meaning the plot and the story and what actually happens) needs to be fixed, in fact I said almost as much,
you look at the actual bare bones plot points and story of the Hobbit, and you look at it through the eyes of what the Universe of Middle Earth is actually like (Namely through the eyes of the Lord of The Rings), and you begin to realize just how FUCKING terrifying everything that's happening is.
But what needed to be fixed was the tone of the book, the fact that the narrator had this nostalgic,gaussian blurred bokeh sense of the events as he was retelling them to us. What I think needed to happen was for Jackson to strip the story of that overlaying sense of nostalgia, down to it's bare bones. And then build it back up in the actual universe of Middle Earth that has already been built, and that we know to be middle earth.
ALthough I don't agree about all the extra stuff being added being the cause of the movies failing. Honestly the necromancer stuff and everything else could have been amazing if it had taken place in the Middle Earth of The Lord of The Rings. But instead Jackson took these very scary concepts and tried to force and cram them into this weird storybookland tone, and it feels completely out of place and just...horrible.
I do agree about the crowded fights and lack of physics, but that really just ties into the fact that the entire movie has that weird storybookland overcoating to it.
Granted, but you would miss out on Hug Weaving, which I'm not one to do
Oh my gods, Hug Hugo Weaving Day sounds like the best event ever!!
Sam: you have to remove the "s" from the "https" in order for it to register.
That video is pretty crazy though.
So having had a day to think about it, my opinion still hasn't changed but I think I can put into words some of what I was trying to convey better now.
SO I've only rerally read aboput the first 2/3rds of The Hobbit book, and there's a couple things I think I need to address. I can understand where people who shield themselves behind the claim of "But it's a childrens book!!" are coming from, and I still call it bullshit. THe thing about the Hobbit is that it's told fromt he point of view of a narrator who already knows that everything is going to be fine, in fact there's almost an aire of nostalgic whimsy about the way the story is told. BUt the thing is, you look at the actual bare bones plot points and story of the Hobbit, and you look at it through the eyes of what the Universe of Middle Earth is actually like (Namely through the eyes of the Lord of The Rings), and you begin to realize just how FUCKING terrifying everything that's happening is.
For example, and the one that really stuck with me after coming out of the movie is the entire Goblin sequence. So we have gotten an idea of what Goblins are from the Lord Of The Rings, they are pretty fucking terrifying.
Smile pretty for the camera. (Which btw, look absolutely nothing like the Goblins of the Hobbit. Call me crazy but an entire race doesn't go from that /\ to the staypuft marshmallow man in 60 years, magic or not)
They are a race distinctly known for being great at designing and building all sorts of mechanical devices, namely, torture devices. Really really good, torture devices. So we have our entire gang of heroes, trapped in the underground lair of a race of beings known for being awesome at toture devices, calling out for thier best and most horrible torture devices to be brought out and used on our heroes.
Fucking.
Terrifying.
The problem is that the movie decided to take the point of view of our narrator freind back there that knows everything is alright and is actually kinda missing those days of excitement and danger instead of actually living in the real Middle Earth and showing us what actually happened.
This. Does. Not. Make. For. Good. Movie.
And before everyone starts screaming at me me "But oh, that's what the book was so they had to do it like that! Wha." Shut the fuck up.
No they god damn well didn't, and you know it. Jackson has shown us that he was perfectly willing to mess with the structure of the book and rip it apart and assemble it back together into something else. He also went into this project in the complete knowledge that this movie was going to have to fit into the Lord of The Rings canon.
HE COULD HAVE FUCKING FIXED THE BOOK. This is not a new concept, DiF mentions it often, a movie needs to be able to stand on it's own apart from the book, and with the Hobbit, doubley so since it also needs to fit together with the already established universe of Lord of the Rings.
It wouldn't have been that hard, all he would have had to do was treat it with the same sense of reality and world building that he did with Lord of The Rings. But instead he chose to sit back on his laurels and "do the book".
And that is my major issue with The Hobbit. It feels lazy and Jackson feels like a wimp. It's as though he cared so little about the universe he had built that when it came time to build more into it, he didn't have the balls to go, "No, the tone of the book is wrong for the movies I need to make and for the universe that has been built, and I need to fix this."
(If you wanna get a little depressed, imagine the entire Goblin sequence set in a Mines of Moria type setting, The Goblins (The real ones, the fucking terrifying ones, not the staypuft marshmallow ones) are crawling over the rocks hissing and spitting thier song out as the giant creaking sounds of some unknown torture devices is beings wheeled in as our heroes are tied helpless at the base of a giant throne, the Goblin King surveying the scene with a bemused and evil smile.... then imagine the entire movie like that. Goddammit that would have been amazing.)
(*Yes, I know Orcs and Goblins mean the same thing in the Tolkein-verse, substitute where necessary to placate your conscience)
(I'll preface this by saying I went to a 2D showing, so I can't speak to the HFR or the 3D.)
So, my 30 minutes after walking out of the theater review is that I am of 2 very distinct minds about this movie. The first mind went into the theater KNOWING, absolutely and without a doubt, that it was just going to have to accept the fact that this was basically going to be Hellboy 3 and just treat it for what it is on it's own terms. But the second half of me can't help but be intensely disappointed; because despite KNOWING for certain and without a doubt that they weren't, he still retained hope that they would treat this series with the same sense of reality and gravitas* that the Lord of The Rings was. So I walked out of the theater, an incredibly conflicted individual.
Now this isn't to say I didn't enjoy the movie, I did, and though I can understand the point of some people complaining about the length, when that credit popped up at the end, I said "Already?"
This one is gonna take some time to settle in my brain. I think at the end of the day, I'm just going to have to accept that this is not the same universe I came to love, it's some sort of weird parallel Hellboy-styled universe offshoot, and just move on from there.
I'll probably do a full write up for this one, I think I've got a lot to say, I just need to get it organized in my head.
*I don't mean gravitas in the GRAAAAVITTAAASS sense of it, but more in the fact that the universe of LoTR felt big and it felt detailed and it felt real, you got the sense that there was this entire universe of very real, very grounded... stuff out there, as well as everything you actually saw on screen.
An amazing talk by John Green about the power of the internet as a medium for community and learning.
An outtake from Return of the King.
If anyone was curious, this was just confirmed as fake. In fact it was part of Montreal's Centre NAD's (A visual effects and digital design school) annual "Hoax the Internet" contest.
http://www.livescience.com/25697-golden … -hoax.html
Also if you speak french (Or get google to translate) the school itself has a blog post about it: http://www.centrenad.com/
KNOWLEDGE!
Hansen, you give me hope that I'm gonna love this shit out of this thing. I'm very much all of this:
I'm not looking for the tight, bare minimum version that'll appeal to as many people as possible. I want as much Middle Earth time as Peter Jackson can get away with giving me.
Gonna try and get out to it tomorrow, since it's my one day off between now and the new year.
Maybe it's just me, but anytime there's that many voices singing acapella at once I get chills.
I loved that so hard.
I'm okay with the two-pilot thing. You don't get a single person to captain a ship, or fly a rocket.
Actually you do... he's called the Captain.
del Toro stated that the two pilots are neurally linked so they move in sync. One controls the right side of the robot, one controls the left.
I assume that because the robots are so massive, it's safer to split the control between two people.
Ah yes... the best plan for doing something that our brains do pretty well on their own (namely control 4 limbs at one time) is too make 2 people have to do it all together!! That'll work! And as we all know... 2 pairs of eyes are better than 1, especially when they are both in the same room with access to the exact same information as each other.
Now if you had a pair of eyes outside the frickin thing maybe that arguement could hold some weight... but what on earth could 2 pilots do that 1 pilot couldn't??
I'm losing faith in this movie fast.
EDIT: This one. He also calls the trailer "Howard's End" compared to what the movie actually is.
Aaaaaaaand fuck you location based content restriction.
Oh fuck yea.
And the only reason I'm not horribly dejected thinking it will be just another Transformers things blow up movie is Guillermo.
Fingers crossed he can can pull this thing off.
EDIT: ALthough yeah, the Glados rip is a little weird.
Also... why on earth would you need 2 pilots trussed up for a machine that is built with only 2 arms and 2 legs?
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by BigDamnArtist
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.