About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Friday, December 15, 2006 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My system is even simpler: does it keep me awake?  The Matrix didn't.  My last, hazy memories are of a routine chase story tarted up with amateur philosophizing.  Bring in the high schoolers with the first and the college kids (first two years anyway) with the second.

Post 21

Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 6:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     "Does it keep me awake?" is an interesting criterion for evaluating the worth of time spent...staring at...a movie-story. 'Simple' it definitely is, no argument. Makes me wonder about book-reading (Shakespeare or SpiderMan) evaluation criteria (there, I guess the term is 'readability', non?)

     It certainly makes any review/analysis of the subject 'simple.' But...worth reading for being informative content itself?

     I try to keep things 'simple'; however, I try to keep that from being 'simplistic,'
including my comments on any movie...especially ones I dis-like (which I rarely bother commenting on.)

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 12/16, 7:54am)


Post 22

Sunday, January 7, 2007 - 7:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan,

My biggest objections to the movie were its anti-Americanism and its moral equivalency. The fact that they smeared the drug industry was just a mold on the icing on the cake. Fixing that alone would be pointless, while still acting as if there is no difference between homosexuality (unchosen) and isl*m, a chosen evil or blaming the US for the War on Terror.

Chris,

The darkness of the Matrix was from its use of CGI and bluescreen filming techniques which unsaturate the film in the same way that marred LoTR. I found the "reality is an illusion plot" to be as boring as that of any rehashed Star Trek episode, but enjoyed the first Matrix film for the martial arts special effects. Having since seen Hero and House of Flying Daggers, I will never voluntarily rewatch the Matrix.

Given that you like color in film, have you watched any Almodovar? I would strongly recommend Women on the Verge, Flower of My Secret, and especially Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down.

Ted

Post 23

Monday, January 8, 2007 - 7:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The darkness of the Matrix was from its use of CGI and bluescreen filming techniques which unsaturate the film in the same way that marred LoTR. I found the "reality is an illusion plot" to be as boring as that of any rehashed Star Trek episode, but enjoyed the first Matrix film for the martial arts special effects. Having since seen Hero and House of Flying Daggers, I will never voluntarily rewatch the Matrix.
I don't know the other films. I like action when it's a supplement to a film. I don't like action when it is the film. Action should be like ketchup on a hamburger, but it should never be the meat. My guess is that CGI has gotten better since the days of Matrix.

I think I saw another movie which may have used these techniques. It was called Darkwolf. They used CGI to create a werewolf. That came out in 2003. The first Matrix came out in 1999.
Given that you like color in film, have you watched any Almodovar? I would strongly recommend Women on the Verge, Flower of My Secret, and especially Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down.
I have not seen any of those. Who is Almodovar?

If you watch early episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you may also notice that they are also kind of dark. But if you watch later ones, they are brighter.


Post 24

Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 4:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I never got into Buffy, scheduling conflicts, and I don't like to join such series half way. Plus I lived with a detestable girl who resembled buffy to a T and which turned me off on the show, and still does.

CGI requires the live actors be filmed before a "bluescreen" where the effect will be added. The bluescreen can be any color actually (usually blue or green) and that color must be deleted from the costume of the actors and the other real props or their will be "invisible" splotches on them where the screen behind will show thru. You can sometimes see this on weathermen who accidentally wear the wrong color suit or tie.

this deletion of one of the three primary colors ends up removing one thirds of the brightness and one third of the color range from the film. It can be remedied in part as with amelie where one primay colr (usually blue) was always missing, but the other colors were supersaturated, restoring the brightness. If the budget is high enough, and the bluescreen color varied enough, one can restore most of the luster of a rewalistic film as in some of the better visuals in harry potter, but even here the defects are undeniable.

LOTR was a total disaster in my book. Tolkien's books are the most visually evocative I have read, even better than Rand. The prevalence of CGI and the misrely way the budget was used ruined the entire work for me, even morse than the plot deletions and the inexplicable stupid plot revisions. Ther is not one scene in which one can see red yellow orange green blue and purple at once. Red yellow and green in Rivendell and such, blue green and grey in most othe shots. Ugh.

Pedro Al;modovar is a te3rrific Spanish Director, he discovered Antonio Banderas (long before he became a wor4n out seeming drunk) and Penelope Cruz. His films are very visual, and he uses bold primary colors to dramatic effect. I speak fluent spanish, so ignore the often silly subtitles. You must see Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down, just not with your mom in the room.

Ted

Post 25

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 7:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I never got into Buffy, scheduling conflicts, and I don't like to join such series half way. Plus I lived with a detestable girl who resembled buffy to a T and which turned me off on the show, and still does.
If you have never seen it, start with the first epsiode. Get the DVD's and just watch the episodes in order. I wish I could have done that. Unfortunately, when I watched reruns, I knew what would happen.

Well, deleting some color does create enormous problems.

Where was their animation in Amelie? I never noticed any.

Thanks for telling me about this stuff works. It was enlightening.


Post 26

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 6:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I hated Amelie, but didn't she occasionally imagine dancing tschotschkies? In any case, the color was intentionally supersaturated, the Reds & Greens were richer than technicolor. Didn't watch long enough to see if they got to enhanced blues. You should pick up a book on color theory from the art section of a good bookstore, and make sure it deals with both additive (projected) and subtractive (pigmented) primary colors. Sorry, but I can't recommend one by title.

As for Buffy, I wouldn't spend the money, but will borrow if I get the chance.

Post 27

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Since we're seguing into TV shows, gotta admit that Buffy was just never something that 'caught' me (though I found cute her 'Valley Girl' aspect in the original movie; not worth watching a 2nd time, though...duh!)  Years ago I would've lapped up Buffy, X-Files, Charmed, Angel, etc, but now...call me too 'jaded from reading Skeptical Inquirer. My 'tastes' nowadays filters these story-series (especially TV) as seeming too 'overboard' in trying to make (or take-for-granted?) magical-fairy-tales (nightmarish or not) 'believable,' especially as an ongoing series.

LLAP
J:D


Post 28

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 8:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Strangely, contrasted to others here, other than his prelude The Hobbit, I appreciated n-o-t-h-i-n-g from Tolkien's L-O-T-R trilogy. I really couldn't understand the popularity of this fable of his other than it's association to the also thence college-popular (and probably derivative) D&D games (which I also was not into...then ['till vid-games came along].) It was 'work' to finish the 3rd volume.

     But, Jackson's visionary visuals in the cinema version floored me re what 'kind-of-world' Tolkien was attempting to verbally paint. I'm a fan of the movie-version. One can only wonder what Tolkien would say.

LLAP
J:D


Post 29

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

I don't understand. Are you saying that you read all three LoTR books, were unimpressed, and loved the movies? I found the movies a very poor substitue for the visual imagges in my head. I loved Rand's concretely evocative visual style of writing, but I could picture every emerald blade of grass, every leaf on every tree in the Books. When did you read them - at what age & how long ago?

Ted

Post 30

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ye have to put it into context of the times - the mid 60's, when Ace put out a 'pirated' edition [meaning it made use of the lack of copyright protection under the convention Tolkein used], and the countering by Ballintine to gain author's approval of an 'authorized' edition, along with all the rest of the Tolkein work - in the midst of the hippy counterculture.......  before then, it was just a British 'scholarly kind' of work..... since then, after the Tipping Point was reached, it's become a 'classic'.....
(Edited by robert malcom on 1/15, 10:47pm)


Post 31

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 1:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Assuming the text was largely the same, what do your commentys have to do with the visual images evoked by Tolkien's writing style?

Post 32

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 2:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Was referring to John's comment on 'the popularity of the fable'.....

Post 33

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 3:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, I also enjoyed The Hobbit, but although I tried several times, could not stay interested enough to get in to The Fellowship

Post 34

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 12:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I thought the movies were good, despite some flaws.  I thought the CGI was good for CGI.

Post 35

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 9:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

I'm still lost, but no prob.

Kurt,

Yes, as CGI, the CGI was fine, much better than the Return of the Mummy.

Jonathan,

Well, since I had to start the Fountainhead over three times before I could get into it, I guess I can't condemn you. Assuming you still think you'd enjoy the Hobbit today, IO'd stronly recommend you retry Fellowship.

Ted

Post 36

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since we're seguing into TV shows, gotta admit that Buffy was just never something that 'caught' me (though I found cute her 'Valley Girl' aspect in the original movie; not worth watching a 2nd time, though...duh!)
Don't judge the series by the movie. Many fans of the show think the movie is crap.


Post 37

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 6:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Don't judge the series by the movie. Many fans of the show think the movie is crap.


I am a big fan of Buffy as well, and just started renting and watching the spinoff, Angel. It's nice to see a show absolutely free of moral relativism. But besides that, even though it has 'mystical' aspects, they are at least internally consistent, one episode does not wantonly contradict the next episode or ignore everything that happened in previous episodes.

The writer, Joss Whedon, is much more of who I am a fan of than the series or story it is centered around, I think Whedon is one of the most enjoyable television writers around today (He also wrote "Firefly")

Stargate SG-1 is a great show as well.

Post 38

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Continuity has always been a strength of BTVS. Joss Whedon was apparently planning out the whole series years in advance. During season three, for example, he apparently told Kristine Sutherland (who played Joyce) that she would die in season five. You will also see subtle references to past episodes in later episodes--such as Evil Willow's behavior in season six referencing Vamp Willow in season three.

I always thought the morality of the show was summed up best in Buffy's refusal to kill Ben in the season five finale. Giles even explains that "she's a hero" and that she can't kill innocent human life, even though Ben's death is the only way that that evil Glory can also be killed. Giles ends up killing him.

Unfortunately, the show hurt its credibility a whole lot with the Buffy-Spike relationship. This seems to have been done to kiss up to the airhead fan base, and Spike was a charcter who had long outlived his usefulness. When Buffy let Spike do her, she simply stopped being a hero.

Spike has also been a disaster for James Marsters, as he completely typecast himself in that role. It's a shame because James is a great actor and a great guy.

I have been fortunate enough to meet Amber Benson, Robia Lamorte, and Iyari Limon. I would love to meet Michelle Trachtenberg!

I only became a fan of Firefly after it was dead. Of course, what the network did with it reminds of the reasons why I hardly watch television.


Post 39

Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 11:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How About Farscape then?

What a visually stunning and original show utterly murdered by network stupidity, never showing the show in the same slot twice, repeating episodes five times a week, six month hiatuses between shows, and then the show being cancelled as "too expensive" when it was the only asset with a fanbase that the German company that bought out the Henson production company had. Even now in syndication at 1 am Monday morning they show the episodes out of order! If art ever justified violence...

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.