- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:41 pm to DelU249
quote:
the titanic set is pretty fricking awesome though
I give the film an "A" visually. But the running length and only, remotely solid performances were by the antagonist and support - at the end of the day, Kate Winslet and Leo SHOULD be able to out-act those mannequins from Twilight or NP/HC from the "prequels" - but they were no better. Overall - for almost 3 hours of my time, despite the budget, hoopla (and the stunning visuals), just a really blah, C minus (and that's generous).
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:43 pm to DelU249
I'm expecting it to be literally the worst thing I have ever seen on a movie screen.
I am hoping that I am not disappointed.
I am hoping that I am not disappointed.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:43 pm to Patrick_Bateman
All I don't know is if there aren't at least 30 lens flares I will riot right there in the theater in my Darth Maul costume.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:43 pm to Tommy Wayne
quote:
He knows the elements to make this film good.
Lens flares, fakey, cartoonish-looking CGI and fast, random action beats are not "good" - but they are popular with the millenials, I guess.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:43 pm to DelU249
quote:
every movie should be directly influenced by empire
Agree.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:44 pm to DelU249
I have high expectations. Lawrence Kasdan (writer of TESB and ROTJ) is back on board as the writer and George Lucas (writer of the prequels) is nowhere to be found. Disney knows that they have to nail this. Literally everything that has leaked/been shown looks amazing, especially the use of practical effects and less CGI. I'm excited and I think it will deliver.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:44 pm to Tommy Wayne
quote:no, they just suck arse now. Occasionally there is a dawn of the planet of the apes...a big budget sci fi that manages to be both blockbuster and serious film making, but the 70s and 80s, especially the 80s just pumped out classic sci fi movies left and right
the numbers show that SciFi adventure films arent a thing of the past
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:45 pm to The_Joker
quote:do not credit him with ROTJ...lucas rewrote and perverted his treatment for the third film. He, lucas and Kurtz had all agreed upon a great story, then lucas shite canned them both and rewrote it and hired a puppet to direct.
Lawrence Kasdan (writer of TESB and ROTJ
what they really should have done is hire gary Kurtz as a personal consultant to JJ Abrams...if they had done that, I would be anticipating another chapter worthy of the first 2 movies
This post was edited on 3/6/15 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:46 pm to DelU249
quote:
Occasionally there is a dawn of the planet of the apes...
Meh.
District 9 and Interstellar are much better examples of:
quote:
serious film making
I can't stand the marketing focus of blockbusters, so maybe films like Moon, and About Time are more my speed, which are "good" in the classic sense of that word, meaning, "high quality", "emotionally engaging", "great storytelling", as opposed to "expensive" and "heavily promoted", which is some strange, inadequate substitute for what I consider "good".
This post was edited on 3/6/15 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:48 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:49 pm to Ace Midnight
district 9 is so great, but I am shocked that dawn isn't getting lavish praise
maybe it will grow on people and be later be recognized for what a great film it is.
you don't have to build elaborate sets, models, worth with timing and optics for special effects.
I think one day people will come around to dawn and see how fricking brilliant it is. Empire was critically acclaimed upon release but wasn't nearly as revered as it is today. Dawn is critically acclaimed but lacks the admiration of movie goers IMO
maybe it will grow on people and be later be recognized for what a great film it is.
quote:I love Moon. When I say blockbuster, it's because sci fi movies were ungodly expensive back in the day. computer animation is quicker and cheaper
so maybe films like Moon, and About Time
you don't have to build elaborate sets, models, worth with timing and optics for special effects.
I think one day people will come around to dawn and see how fricking brilliant it is. Empire was critically acclaimed upon release but wasn't nearly as revered as it is today. Dawn is critically acclaimed but lacks the admiration of movie goers IMO
This post was edited on 3/6/15 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:51 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Lens flares, fakey, cartoonish-looking CGI and fast, random action beats are not "good" - but they are popular with the millenials, I guess
So im assuming you hated both of the new Star trek films? I dont see much of that(besides the lens flares
in them. When I mentioned elements, I meant that JJ was a huge fan of the OT and what made them memorable and great. 
Posted on 3/6/15 at 1:56 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Lens flares, fakey, cartoonish-looking CGI and fast, random action beats are not "good" - but they are popular with the millenials, I guess.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 2:00 pm to DelU249
quote:
it's because sci fi movies were ungodly expensive back in the day. computer animation is quicker and cheaper
I'll just say it like this Fox - when they had to work hard (or work around problems), the care and quality typically shone through.
Take Star Trek: The Original Series - they had serious budget issues (noticeable on screen during the final season) AND the technology hadn't been invented yet to do some of the things - they were pioneers (as was Lucas and his ILM team in the 1970s, and the folks that worked on the later Star Trek shows and films).
And setting a mad genius like Kubrick aside for a moment, look at my favorite film - Bladerunner - because of the care and effort required to make such a film, (watch Dangerous Days: The Making of Bladerunner) it shone through in other areas, despite an insane leading lady and a leading man who wasn't sure what to do with the character, one of the best supporting casts in a science fiction film of this type, led by an obsessive, brilliant director - the quality shines through - even in the flawed theatrical release and original "director's cut". It will probably stand as the finest in-camera special effects film for all time.
Now, when those CGI tools are used with care, and only to supplement physical set, tradecraft, competent directing, acting, storytelling (and I'm looking really hard at LOTR right here), it can be a great boon to science fiction and fantasy filmmaking.
When it does not - and is there merely for its own sake, as if the filmmakers are saying, "Just look at what we can do with CGI and ignore the fact that our storytelling is poor and our acting is so-so, or worse" (and I'm looking really hard at the prequels and many blockbuster films of the past 20 years - and heck, it's no secret, Star Trek (2009) and its terrible sequel - which I did not watch and don't have to in order to say it's terrible). Even Jackson, himself, fell victim of this with The Hobbit - bad enough I didn't watch after the first film, but better than Abrams and Lucas combined for those other films.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 2:00 pm to Tommy Wayne
quote:
So im assuming you hated both of the new Star trek films?
Your first trip to the movie board?
My thread from 2 years ago
This post was edited on 3/6/15 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 3/6/15 at 2:09 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:I had this written this exactly, including the reference to LotR, earlier but decided not to post it
Now, when those CGI tools are used with care, and only to supplement physical set, tradecraft, competent directing, acting, storytelling (and I'm looking really hard at LOTR right here), it can be a great boon to science fiction and fantasy filmmaking.
my point was going to be that aside from LotR, I can't think of too many examples of responsible cgi use. What makes LotR great is the costume design, makeup, the props, the models, matte paintings...they used every tool in the history of cinema and blended it all together so well (two towers gets the nod here for special effects and production values, though fellowship is the best film)
quote:this is where I expect to see abrams star wars end up (and face it, he had no love or respect for star trek, but the movies also show that he does love star wars because that's essentially what the star trek remakes are)the hobbit movies are good, but they are just ok, good movies. The fact they could crap those movies out is a testament to the talent of peter Jackson...that is what his movies look like when no fricks are given...whereas the star wars prequels...well, they're just the most disappointing and awful movies in the history of cinema. Attack of the clones may be the single worst movie ever made.
Jackson, himself, fell victim of this with The Hobbit -
Gary Kurtz has praised the "retro" and "pracital" special effects being used in the force awakens...abrams is well suited to the task of star wars...I'm not even concerned about the special effects aspect of it. It will be good, but star wars isn't just great special effects. It's everywhere else that I am unconvinced of abrams ability as the director. the effects, from what I've heard and seen...he understand perfectly
Posted on 3/6/15 at 2:15 pm to Ace Midnight
back to what I was saying...sci fi movies that aren't cgi extravaganzas are a pain in the arse to make, the sets and effects are more expensive, you need more people, shooting on location is more expensive...the prequels really show how George lucas was only concerned with crapping out a movie to sell toys because staying under budget (and going apeshit about the budget is why his relationship with kershner and Kurtz eroded)was his number 1 priority.
sci fi movies should be blockbusters...because to make one well, it cost a lot of money and there is fighting about delays and budgeting. like you said, they had to invent things that couldn't be done, but this is why these movies were so great. art through adversity.
but there are no lands left to conquer, but I wish the genre would really shift back to the special effects of the 70s and 80s...cgi was the worst thing to happen to sci fi
and sci fi is what the movies are all about...wonder, imagination, the impossible, adventures. We don't love movies because of fricking Oscar bait flicks and sean penn performances...that's why people love the theater.
sci fi movies should be blockbusters...because to make one well, it cost a lot of money and there is fighting about delays and budgeting. like you said, they had to invent things that couldn't be done, but this is why these movies were so great. art through adversity.
but there are no lands left to conquer, but I wish the genre would really shift back to the special effects of the 70s and 80s...cgi was the worst thing to happen to sci fi
and sci fi is what the movies are all about...wonder, imagination, the impossible, adventures. We don't love movies because of fricking Oscar bait flicks and sean penn performances...that's why people love the theater.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 2:16 pm to DelU249
quote:
The fact they could crap those movies out is a testament to the talent of peter Jackson...that is what his movies look like when no fricks are given
Excellent point. I'm in the minority, but I enjoyed the hell of his King Kong.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 2:17 pm to DelU249
quote:
It's everywhere else that I am unconvinced of abrams ability as the director. the effects, from what I've heard and seen...he understand perfectly
His mentor is Michael Bay.
/rant
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News