You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by gzarra
Agreed on the restaint aesthetic point. One of the reasons the lightsaber shot felt a little...off...to me. A little too 21st century in its sensibility. The Falcon shot felt like this too, though it was cool. Overall this looked more restrained than standard JJ. Not a lot to go off of, but I hope he can keep it mostly conservative.
Also I'm an idiot, I walked around all day thinking that was Mark Hammil in the X wing. Had no idea it was Llewyn Davis.
Wuhhhh, I'm the first to the punch. I planned on coming here to read pages of talk.
My thoughts though, I liked it. It was kind of surreal. Was expecting more from a JJ trailer + Star Wars, but I liked it. Seeing Luke in the cockpit made my eyes light up.
But what was with the fan filmy forest shot of the (triple bladed?) lightsaber? A lil tacky. Besides that, looking forward to more.
Ok understood, that's exactly what I needed to hear then. I guess kids are a little more diverse in their thinking than we sometimes give them credit for. I'm glad the movie worked for you. I was really looking forward to it myself, but not every movie has to be made for everybody.
Finally caught up with this one, and I'm sad to say it fell kinda flat for me. I definitely plan on revisiting it, I am hoping it will grow on me after repeat viewings.
But as for my theater experience, I really wasn't into it. I get the whole only show the "mundane-day-to-day snippets" approach, I get this is supposed to be real life. I was expecting and looking forward to that. But shit, my own childhood was pretty uneventful...and what I did on the day-to-day was wayyyyyy more interesting than Mason.
It seems silly to break out the screenwriting book for a film like this, but he was just too inactive of a protagonist to keep my attention. For the first half, I felt like I was watching Warhorse. Mason just wanders from vignette to vignette, all cute, and big-eyed, and blank-slatey. There were some quiet, interesting moments happening around him for sure, but it wasn't enough.
I'm not asking for him and his buddies to uncover a dead body on a camping trip, but for heaven's sake make a decision Mason! Do something stupid, pick on a kid at the playground and then learn and feel shitty about it. Fight with your mom about making you a healthy dinner. Just do or say something.
As far as the high school years and the psychology-babble, I haven't seen a lot of Linklater, so this may be a taste thing. I am just less partial to movies where characters talk about stuff they are gonna do or that they did. I'd rather see them do the stuff. Again, probably just a taste thing.
I do want to check this out again, because there was a good amount that I enjoyed...particularly the adult characters, and the sibling interaction in the earliest scenes. But boy are millennials uninteresting people sometimes. I am just a few years older than Mason, and this makes me a little weary of my generation. Is this what happens when you make a movie about us? I'm starting to get the too-many-video games thing.
lol...good one.
Yeahh, looks like this shot is just going to have to get cut. Most of the others in the scene were fine, but as you said...too bright here, too much sky.
For those lonely tuesday nights when you've already listened to your DIF for the week. I'll start.
Scriptnotes (John August podcast)
Slashfilm Podcast
I've been looking at all the options floating around to add film grain to footage. The four that keep popping up are Cinegrain, Indiescans, Gorilla Grain, and Rgrain. The former two being the more expensive and the latter two being the cheaper.
I've been hearing mixed things around the internet over whether there's a discernable difference between the four, and even if any of them are significantly better than just rendering out a grain plate in AE.
Has anybody ever fooled around with these?
Oh, it was loads better. I still had several issues with it though. And it's more of a taste thing.
That might have not been the fairest comparison. My larger point was towards the film industry in general.
I might be off-base with this. I seem to be in a forgiving mood lately, as I didn't mind prometheus. But here it goes...
I had a weird relationship with Star Wars. Revenge of the Sith came out when I was 13, and I saw all six films that following summer. Not enough of a Star Wars fan to have my childhood raped by any of the films, and not old enough really to pick out the "good ones," I just sort of casually enjoyed all six. Years went by, flaws grew apparent, and I tried to distance myself from them.
But last night I did a weird thing. It was the middle of the night, I couldn't fall asleep, and I went over to a pretty sizable DVD/Bluray collection and decided to pop in...Revenge of the Sith. And for the following 2 hours, I laid in bed watching the film for the upteenth time, and was genuinely engaged with it.
This is not the first time this has happened. While never really crossing that threshold into Star Wars geek (I had always been more drawn towards Spidey and Pirates), I can safely say that I have spent much of the past decade watching the prequels. On DVD, and on TV. And I always find myself enjoying them. First out of excitement and curiosity, then out of shame, and lately with a genuine (if glossy, and distant) appreciation.
The transition from shame to appreciation has happened in the last two years, as my own admiration of the movie industry itself has plummeted to an all-time low.
Now, I guess my question is....given all the shit we have to put up with now at the movies, were the prequels really that bad? I mean, they had cringeworthy dialogue, were often incoherent, and clearly valued spectacle over characters. But given that's what seems to be what's in style nowadays, I find there to be a lot of redeeming qualities to them.
1) The spectacle has some form of context.
2) Even given the 30 years of blockbuster cinema, and thousands of years of storytelling, they don't feel nearly as derivative.
3) John Williams score
4) The overall ambition, and (forgive me) artistry behind them. They do not feel cookie-cutter and cranked out by a studio. They all feel like they were made by someone, and are all of a piece. George Lucas is (forgive me, again) an auteur. An incompetent auteur. But an auteur nonetheless.
Is this really a good, and productive, reason to like a movie? Justifying crap with other crap? I guess not, but it is at least interesting. I think there's something to be said about expectations and the state of film in general, when in the dreaded summer of 2011, any given Star Wars prequel might have been my favorite movie (Maybe, save for Super 8. Was unimpressed by X-Men and Planet of the Apes).
So how do the prequels measure up for you in 2012? Are they any better than battleship and snow white, or should they all rot in movie hell just the same?
Wow, I guess agree to disagree then. I really liked that score a lot, particularly the life track posted above. Haven't really bothered with the alien franchise, save for aliens several years ago, so don't know how it holds up against any of those.
As bullet said, they were going for wonder and mystery. Seems to fit to me. Noomi rapace on a noble cause on another planet to search for the meaning of life. The film may have not pulled it off, but I don't think it's fair to blame the score for the film's other shortcomings. It fits for what they were "trying" to do.
To be honest, I don't care for surround sound either haha.
Wow...shocked at the titanic response. Glad y'all didn't mind the 3D, but it reaaaally bothered me on this one. I spent most of the movie trying really hard to not pay attention to it, but eventually just gave up and was completely taken out of the story.
Personally I think cameron's view on 3D is backwards. I don't think any movie can play in 3D, and I don't think it brings you any closer (emotionally) to the story. In fact, I think it does the opposite. To use one of them obnoxious film school terms, a story is supposed to take place in its own diegetic universe. That's the entire point of the medium!
Now when jack and rose are screwing in the back of a car on a ship in 1912, I should NOT be there. I am sitting in a movie theater in 2012. Why exactly am I supposed to be part of their world, or they mine? To me, it makes the entire world of the story lose credibility. When the ship is sinking, through story I should be able to experience it emotionally...but I should not actually BE there, because I WASN't there. Only the characters should be there.
To me, the only media that should be in 3D are the ones that acknowledge their audience...at least thematically or in the premise. Video games, concert films, any given IMAX exploration film. Narrative films I enjoyed in 3D like Hugo and Avatar were predicated on openly inviting their audience to a visceral experience. And, personally, neither of them play for me in 2D.
But a standard, old-fashioned narrative like Titanic? I'd rather see the 2D version any day of the week. 3D has its place in a small niche, but if Cameron has his way we are all in trouble. Not only does it not add anything meaningful to the experience, but it ruins and demeans 100 years of storytelling.
Sorry...rant end.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by gzarra
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
