|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.fan.starwars » Oscars
| Oscars [message #228642] |
Mo, 06 März 2006 05:32 |
|
|
Why was not Star Wars ep III nominated for best visual effects?
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228643 ] |
Mo, 06 März 2006 06:19 |
|
none wrote:
> Why was not Star Wars ep III nominated for best visual effects?
I thought it was going to be nominated for Best Animated Feature. :P
Hayden got a Razzie nomination though.
H.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228644 ] |
Mo, 06 März 2006 06:21 |
|
In article <440bbb57$0$1141$afc38c87 [at] news.optusnet.com.au>, none
<none [at] none.com> wrote:
> Why was not Star Wars ep III nominated for best visual effects?
I think it was in the list, but didn't make the finalists.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228649 ] |
Mo, 06 März 2006 08:30 |
|
"Anybody" <anybody [at] anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:060320061821087932%anybody [at] anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <440bbb57$0$1141$afc38c87 [at] news.optusnet.com.au>, none
> <none [at] none.com> wrote:
>
> > Why was not Star Wars ep III nominated for best visual effects?
>
> I think it was in the list, but didn't make the finalists.
Ya.... they call that a "snub".
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228658 ] |
Mo, 06 März 2006 21:36 |
|
"Clue Rake" <anon [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vyROf.7557$S25.576 [at] newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Anybody" <anybody [at] anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> news:060320061821087932%anybody [at] anywhere-anytime.com...
> > In article <440bbb57$0$1141$afc38c87 [at] news.optusnet.com.au>, none
> > <none [at] none.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why was not Star Wars ep III nominated for best visual effects?
> >
> > I think it was in the list, but didn't make the finalists.
>
> Ya.... they call that a "snub".
A big snub. The top grossing film of 2005 by far. (Almost $100,000.00 more
than Harry Potter) It was also the most acclaimed of the prequel films. It
should have been nominated.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228665 ] |
Di, 07 März 2006 02:28 |
|
_Tuco_ spoke thusly on 06/03/2006 3:36 PM:
> A big snub. The top grossing film of 2005 by far. (Almost $100,000.00 more
> than Harry Potter) It was also the most acclaimed of the prequel films. It
> should have been nominated.
Just because a movie is the most successful at the box office, does not
mean it should be nominated for an academy award.
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228666 ] |
Di, 07 März 2006 02:34 |
|
<<Just because a movie is the most successful at the box office, does
not
mean it should be nominated for an academy award. >>
Seems more accurate than what they do now - give awards to whoever is
"due", makes a political statement that agrees with them, etc.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228667 ] |
Di, 07 März 2006 03:28 |
|
_frenchy_ spoke thusly on 06/03/2006 8:34 PM:
> <<Just because a movie is the most successful at the box office, does
> not
> mean it should be nominated for an academy award. >>
>
> Seems more accurate than what they do now - give awards to whoever is
> "due", makes a political statement that agrees with them, etc.
Actually, a community of people vote on the nominees and winners, they
are called the "academy". And when they vote on 'best picture', they
vote for the movie they thought was the best. The votes are tallied, and
the movie with the most votes wins.
This is different from, say, a movie that has been very anticipated, and
draws a lot of money from it's popularity before the movie is even
released. The best example is The Phantom Menace.
The film industry is funny that way. We pay money, before we can even
decide whether or not we like the film.
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228668 ] |
Di, 07 März 2006 04:11 |
|
Maybe it was because Darth Vader was replaced by Dark Helmut.
"none" <none [at] none.com> wrote in message
news:440bbb57$0$1141$afc38c87 [at] news.optusnet.com.au...
> Why was not Star Wars ep III nominated for best visual effects?
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228679 ] |
Di, 07 März 2006 14:17 |
|
"Solon" <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RfWdnZtom5NKfJHZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d [at] giganews.com...
> _Tuco_ spoke thusly on 06/03/2006 3:36 PM:
> > A big snub. The top grossing film of 2005 by far. (Almost $100,000.00
more
> > than Harry Potter) It was also the most acclaimed of the prequel films.
It
> > should have been nominated.
>
> Just because a movie is the most successful at the box office, does not
> mean it should be nominated for an academy award.
That has been made obvious but it has not always been the case. Even Attack
of the Clones was at least nominated for best visual effects. Box office
aside, ROTS was as deserving as King Kong, Narnia or War of the Worlds in my
opinion.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228685 ] |
Di, 07 März 2006 22:11 |
|
movies are made for people not for few critics who will wach them and say
it's a masterpiece.
L'Art pur L'art. Art for art is totally wrong point of view. People are the
ones who will decide what is worth of reward and what's not. If something
wins a lot of money that means that people like it and so it has to be
awarded.
"Solon" <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RfWdnZtom5NKfJHZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d [at] giganews.com...
> _Tuco_ spoke thusly on 06/03/2006 3:36 PM:
> > A big snub. The top grossing film of 2005 by far. (Almost $100,000.00
more
> > than Harry Potter) It was also the most acclaimed of the prequel films.
It
> > should have been nominated.
>
> Just because a movie is the most successful at the box office, does not
> mean it should be nominated for an academy award.
> --
> usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
> Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228686 ] |
Di, 07 März 2006 22:12 |
|
|
and one more thing .Masks in Narnia are shit!! Soooo bad...
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228688 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 00:29 |
|
_Shkope4_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 4:11 PM:
> If something wins a lot of money that means that people like it
So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie *before* you
pay to see it?
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228691 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 00:54 |
|
In article <N9udnUf8zq8XipPZRVn-rQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
<usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> _Shkope4_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 4:11 PM:
> > If something wins a lot of money that means that people like it
>
> So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie *before* you
> pay to see it?
People with intelligence would do - they'd watch the trailers, read the
reviews, etc. and therefore know which movies are garbage (in their
opinion) and not waste time and money on them.
The "social butterfly" of course simply goes to watch any old rubbish
because everyone else is going or because they "always" go to the
cinema on a Friday night no matter what rubbish is on.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228694 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 01:32 |
|
_Anybody_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 6:54 PM:
> In article <N9udnUf8zq8XipPZRVn-rQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> _Shkope4_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 4:11 PM:
>>> If something wins a lot of money that means that people like it
>> So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie *before* you
>> pay to see it?
>
> People with intelligence would do - they'd watch the trailers, read the
> reviews, etc. and therefore know which movies are garbage (in their
> opinion) and not waste time and money on them.
Why'd you see ROTS?
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228695 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 04:11 |
|
In article <coidnUVIcraru5PZRVn-og [at] giganews.com>, Solon
<usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 6:54 PM:
> > In article <N9udnUf8zq8XipPZRVn-rQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> > <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >> _Shkope4_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 4:11 PM:
> >>> If something wins a lot of money that means that people like it
> >> So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie *before* you
> >> pay to see it?
> >
> > People with intelligence would do - they'd watch the trailers, read the
> > reviews, etc. and therefore know which movies are garbage (in their
> > opinion) and not waste time and money on them.
>
> Why'd you see ROTS?
:-\
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228697 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 04:59 |
|
_Anybody_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 10:11 PM:
> In article <coidnUVIcraru5PZRVn-og [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 6:54 PM:
>>> In article <N9udnUf8zq8XipPZRVn-rQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
>>> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie *before* you
>>>> pay to see it?
>>> People with intelligence would do - they'd watch the trailers, read the
>>> reviews, etc. and therefore know which movies are garbage (in their
>>> opinion) and not waste time and money on them.
>> Why'd you see ROTS?
>
> :-\
C'mon, ya nerf-herder, answer the question. :-)
Out of all the people that saw ROTS, what was the most popular reason
for seeing it? How many of them decided they were going to see it,
before they saw any "trailers, read the reviews, etc."? How many of the
people that saw it, had decided to do so, before the script was even
written?
And Tuco wants ROTS to be nominated for awards, based on box office
sales? Bah!
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228705 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 15:59 |
|
Solon wrote:
> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 10:11 PM:
>> In article <coidnUVIcraru5PZRVn-og [at] giganews.com>, Solon
>> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 6:54 PM:
>>>> In article <N9udnUf8zq8XipPZRVn-rQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
>>>> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie *before* you
>>>>> pay to see it?
>>>> People with intelligence would do - they'd watch the trailers, read the
>>>> reviews, etc. and therefore know which movies are garbage (in their
>>>> opinion) and not waste time and money on them.
>>> Why'd you see ROTS?
>> :-\
>
> C'mon, ya nerf-herder, answer the question. :-)
>
> Out of all the people that saw ROTS, what was the most popular reason
> for seeing it? How many of them decided they were going to see it,
> before they saw any "trailers, read the reviews, etc."? How many of the
> people that saw it, had decided to do so, before the script was even
> written?
>
> And Tuco wants ROTS to be nominated for awards, based on box office
> sales? Bah!
I saw ROTS purely because it was a Star Wars movie. I really wasn't
excited for it, in fact I remember feeling distinctly uneasy when I
arrived at the theater. I had remembered feeling so anxious and excited
when ANH had been re-released and the disaster it had been. Ever since
that point, every single SW movie I saw in the theater was one
disappointment after another. From the travesties of the re-released
films to the poorly conceived prequel movies, each one took away from
the level of excitement I had first felt. I think one of the reasons,
aside from the quality, I became so jaded regarding the films was the
fact I never saw the originals in the theaters, I was too young. I'm
glad GL was able to make unbelievable amounts of money off of this
series of movies and he has become of the truly amazing success stories
in Hollywood, I just don't appreciate the films very much; it basically
turned me from a hardcore SW fan into an fanatic for the original,
unadulterated editions.
I do however, think RoTS should have been nominated for the things it
did possess. I can see why the Academy would not want to nominate it,
it is an epitome of why things are going downhill in the movie industry.
Movie creators are now seeing technology as a way around good
storytelling. To award or even nominate something like RoTS would go
against the ideal that movies should be good as a whole, not just
something pretty to look at. It still cannot be denied though, RoTS did
have spectacular effects and I think should have been commended for at
least that aspect. Basically I'm saying I UNDERSTAND why the Academy
snubbed them, I just don't particularly agree with it.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228706 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 21:02 |
|
In article <l9qdnbLMZqNYy5PZRVn-tQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
<usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 10:11 PM:
> > In article <coidnUVIcraru5PZRVn-og [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> > <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 6:54 PM:
> >>> In article <N9udnUf8zq8XipPZRVn-rQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> >>> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie *before* you
> >>>> pay to see it?
> >>> People with intelligence would do - they'd watch the trailers, read the
> >>> reviews, etc. and therefore know which movies are garbage (in their
> >>> opinion) and not waste time and money on them.
> >> Why'd you see ROTS?
> >
> > :-\
>
> C'mon, ya nerf-herder, answer the question. :-)
>
> Out of all the people that saw ROTS, what was the most popular reason
> for seeing it? How many of them decided they were going to see it,
> before they saw any "trailers, read the reviews, etc."? How many of the
> people that saw it, had decided to do so, before the script was even
> written?
>
> And Tuco wants ROTS to be nominated for awards, based on box office
> sales? Bah!
I went to see RotS because it's a Star Wars movie - they're the ONLY
movies I spend money to watch in a cinema. Anything else I simply watch
when it arrives on TV for free (usually in a silly timeslot so that I
miss the ending).
I never said anything about whether or not RotS deserved any award. I
simply said that intelligent people watch the trailers, etc. to decide
whether a movie is actually worth spending their time and money on.
Idiots just go along, watch any old rubbish, and then whine on and on
about it being so hopeless.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228707 ] |
Mi, 08 März 2006 23:56 |
|
_Anybody_ spoke thusly on 08/03/2006 3:02 PM:
> In article <l9qdnbLMZqNYy5PZRVn-tQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And Tuco wants ROTS to be nominated for awards, based on box office
>> sales? Bah!
>
> I went to see RotS because it's a Star Wars movie
<snip>
> I simply said that intelligent people watch the trailers, etc. to decide
> whether a movie is actually worth spending their time and money on.
So, what you're saying is, that you're not intelligent. :-)
Why else do you think Hollywood is rehashing so many old franchises
(Spiderman, Incredible Hulk, Mission Impossible, etc.)? This isn't
exclusive to Star Wars.
And who said all movie goers are intelligent? If that's not the case,
why only reference what you think intelligent people do, for a
discussion about 'box office sales = good movie'?
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228713 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 05:46 |
|
"Tuco" <tuco [at] frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:K%0Pf.1916$kg.133 [at] news02.roc.ny...
>
> "Clue Rake" <anon [at] nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vyROf.7557$S25.576 [at] newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > "Anybody" <anybody [at] anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
> > news:060320061821087932%anybody [at] anywhere-anytime.com...
> > > In article <440bbb57$0$1141$afc38c87 [at] news.optusnet.com.au>, none
> > > <none [at] none.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why was not Star Wars ep III nominated for best visual effects?
> > >
> > > I think it was in the list, but didn't make the finalists.
> >
> > Ya.... they call that a "snub".
>
> A big snub. The top grossing film of 2005 by far. (Almost $100,000.00
more
> than Harry Potter) It was also the most acclaimed of the prequel films.
It
> should have been nominated.
Gross should mean nothing to an award. That said, the film was ONE BIG
VISUAL EFFECT with actors and a story inserted. Of couse it had the best
visual effects of 2005, not even close. It was snubbed, period. New thread
please. :p
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228714 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 06:06 |
|
I think the reason why ROTS did not reach nomination level is because
all the Visual Effects used in ROTS was already used in AOTC and TPM.
Basically, the technology is the same, just that the movie was
different. So probably for the academy, ROTS' visual effects had a
"been there, done that" kind of impact for them.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228716 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 06:25 |
|
In article <FOWdnUW2ueva_JLZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d [at] giganews.com>, Solon
<usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 08/03/2006 3:02 PM:
> > In article <l9qdnbLMZqNYy5PZRVn-tQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> > <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And Tuco wants ROTS to be nominated for awards, based on box office
> >> sales? Bah!
> >
> > I went to see RotS because it's a Star Wars movie
> <snip>
> > I simply said that intelligent people watch the trailers, etc. to decide
> > whether a movie is actually worth spending their time and money on.
>
> So, what you're saying is, that you're not intelligent. :-)
>
> Why else do you think Hollywood is rehashing so many old franchises
> (Spiderman, Incredible Hulk, Mission Impossible, etc.)? This isn't
> exclusive to Star Wars.
>
> And who said all movie goers are intelligent? If that's not the case,
> why only reference what you think intelligent people do, for a
> discussion about 'box office sales = good movie'?
If you actually read what you write, you'd find that you wrote:
So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie
*before* you pay to see it?
which is what I was replying to. :-\
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228722 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 09:43 |
|
_Anybody_ spoke thusly on 09/03/2006 12:25 AM:
> In article <FOWdnUW2ueva_JLZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 08/03/2006 3:02 PM:
>>> In article <l9qdnbLMZqNYy5PZRVn-tQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
>>> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And Tuco wants ROTS to be nominated for awards, based on box office
>>>> sales? Bah!
>>> I went to see RotS because it's a Star Wars movie
>> <snip>
>>> I simply said that intelligent people watch the trailers, etc. to decide
>>> whether a movie is actually worth spending their time and money on.
>> So, what you're saying is, that you're not intelligent. :-)
>>
>> Why else do you think Hollywood is rehashing so many old franchises
>> (Spiderman, Incredible Hulk, Mission Impossible, etc.)? This isn't
>> exclusive to Star Wars.
>>
>> And who said all movie goers are intelligent? If that's not the case,
>> why only reference what you think intelligent people do, for a
>> discussion about 'box office sales = good movie'?
>
> If you actually read what you write, you'd find that you wrote:
>
> So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie
> *before* you pay to see it?
>
> which is what I was replying to. :-\
Okay, so stop ignoring the context. ;-)
BTW, after you saw the trailer, what did you think the phantom menace
was going to be like? Did the movie meet that expectation?
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228723 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 09:52 |
|
In article <f6CdnVgQycZrd5LZ4p2dnA [at] giganews.com>, Solon
<usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 09/03/2006 12:25 AM:
> > In article <FOWdnUW2ueva_JLZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> > <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 08/03/2006 3:02 PM:
> >>> In article <l9qdnbLMZqNYy5PZRVn-tQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> >>> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And Tuco wants ROTS to be nominated for awards, based on box office
> >>>> sales? Bah!
> >>> I went to see RotS because it's a Star Wars movie
> >> <snip>
> >>> I simply said that intelligent people watch the trailers, etc. to decide
> >>> whether a movie is actually worth spending their time and money on.
> >> So, what you're saying is, that you're not intelligent. :-)
> >>
> >> Why else do you think Hollywood is rehashing so many old franchises
> >> (Spiderman, Incredible Hulk, Mission Impossible, etc.)? This isn't
> >> exclusive to Star Wars.
> >>
> >> And who said all movie goers are intelligent? If that's not the case,
> >> why only reference what you think intelligent people do, for a
> >> discussion about 'box office sales = good movie'?
> >
> > If you actually read what you write, you'd find that you wrote:
> >
> > So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie
> > *before* you pay to see it?
> >
> > which is what I was replying to. :-\
>
> Okay, so stop ignoring the context. ;-)
I purposely took out the irrelevant bits (as far as my reply was about)
from the quoted material to make sure it was obvious that I was reply
to the messge, not the entire topic.
Welcome to newsgroups and forums. Messages go way off the original
topic almost all the time.
> BTW, after you saw the trailer, what did you think the phantom menace
> was going to be like? Did the movie meet that expectation?
*My* expectations - yes.
Then again I wasn't stupid enough to think that Star Wars was magically
going to become some horrid "grown up" movie simply because I'm now
older.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228724 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 10:03 |
|
_Anybody_ spoke thusly on 09/03/2006 3:52 AM:
> In article <f6CdnVgQycZrd5LZ4p2dnA [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, so stop ignoring the context. ;-)
>
> I purposely took out the irrelevant bits (as far as my reply was about)
> from the quoted material to make sure it was obvious that I was reply
> to the messge, not the entire topic.
>
> Welcome to newsgroups and forums. Messages go way off the original
> topic almost all the time.
Yes, they do; but an intelligent person reads posts in context.
>> BTW, after you saw the trailer, what did you think the phantom menace
>> was going to be like? Did the movie meet that expectation?
>
> *My* expectations - yes.
Liar. :-)
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228730 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 17:11 |
|
"Solon" <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l9qdnbLMZqNYy5PZRVn-tQ [at] giganews.com...
> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 10:11 PM:
> > In article <coidnUVIcraru5PZRVn-og [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> > <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 07/03/2006 6:54 PM:
> >>> In article <N9udnUf8zq8XipPZRVn-rQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> >>> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> So you know whether or not you are going to like a movie *before* you
> >>>> pay to see it?
> >>> People with intelligence would do - they'd watch the trailers, read
the
> >>> reviews, etc. and therefore know which movies are garbage (in their
> >>> opinion) and not waste time and money on them.
> >> Why'd you see ROTS?
> >
> > :-\
>
> C'mon, ya nerf-herder, answer the question. :-)
>
> Out of all the people that saw ROTS, what was the most popular reason
> for seeing it? How many of them decided they were going to see it,
> before they saw any "trailers, read the reviews, etc."? How many of the
> people that saw it, had decided to do so, before the script was even
> written?
>
> And Tuco wants ROTS to be nominated for awards, based on box office
> sales? Bah!
What you dont think War of the Worlds or King King weren't nominated because
they were projected as big box office hits?
Visual effects oscar winners/nominees shouldn't be picked based on their box
office results, but traditionally, big budget science-fiction fantasy films
always get nominated. One of the most anticipated films ever was ignored in
the visual effects category, something that the Star Wars series have
pioneered since 1977. That's a big snub.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228738 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 20:51 |
|
In article <eLWdncuDqKrgcpLZRVn-pQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
<usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> _Anybody_ spoke thusly on 09/03/2006 3:52 AM:
> > In article <f6CdnVgQycZrd5LZ4p2dnA [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> > <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, so stop ignoring the context. ;-)
> >
> > I purposely took out the irrelevant bits (as far as my reply was about)
> > from the quoted material to make sure it was obvious that I was reply
> > to the messge, not the entire topic.
> >
> > Welcome to newsgroups and forums. Messages go way off the original
> > topic almost all the time.
>
> Yes, they do; but an intelligent person reads posts in context.
Intelligent people trim the posts to leave just the bits they're
replying to. You did it yourself below.
> >> BTW, after you saw the trailer, what did you think the phantom menace
> >> was going to be like? Did the movie meet that expectation?
> >
> > *My* expectations - yes.
>
> Liar. :-)
Nope. As I said, that was MY expectation and is MY opinion. Whether
they match your's or not is completely irrelevant since that wasn't the
question. :-p
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228742 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 22:16 |
|
"Solon" <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> BTW, after you saw the trailer, what did you think the phantom menace
>>> was going to be like? Did the movie meet that expectation?
>>
>> *My* expectations - yes.
>
> Liar. :-)
actually, i'll have to agree with Anybody on this. i've never been naïve
enough to believe that Star Wars was my childhood. they're just movies, and
they've always been. i still think Ep4 is the best, too. GL didn't rape my
childhood by continuing the saga in the original style instead of completely
changing the way he makes movies just because it's almost 30 years later.
Star Wars was always about the f/x. that's why he started ILM. but the
stories don't revolve around the f/x. but they DO rely heavily on it,
because if you can SEE what's going on, it goes a hell of a long way toward
explaining the situation without adding in an hour of extra dialogue.
without the f/x, the stories really would go flat.
*gruff*
JAC
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228744 ] |
Do, 09 März 2006 23:03 |
|
Billy Gruff wrote:
> "Solon" <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> BTW, after you saw the trailer, what did you think the phantom menace
>>>> was going to be like? Did the movie meet that expectation?
>>> *My* expectations - yes.
>> Liar. :-)
>
> actually, i'll have to agree with Anybody on this. i've never been naïve
> enough to believe that Star Wars was my childhood. they're just movies, and
> they've always been. i still think Ep4 is the best, too. GL didn't rape my
> childhood by continuing the saga in the original style instead of completely
> changing the way he makes movies just because it's almost 30 years later.
> Star Wars was always about the f/x. that's why he started ILM. but the
> stories don't revolve around the f/x. but they DO rely heavily on it,
> because if you can SEE what's going on, it goes a hell of a long way toward
> explaining the situation without adding in an hour of extra dialogue.
> without the f/x, the stories really would go flat.
>
> *gruff*
> JAC
>
>
The story only NEEDS high-end f/x to make people go it if the movie is
bad without it. Think of Saving Private Ryan or Forest Gump; both
movies used f/x extensively but only because the technology was
available. Either movie could have stood on its own without the f/x
money poured into it. Many would argue that SW is a movie which needs
more f/x because it is Science Fiction. This is probably the reason why
90% of the Sci-Fi movies produced are real disasters. An example of a
Sci-Fi story where extraneous f/x isn't needed, and more importantly,
isn't used, is the Battlestar Galactica program on right now. It
doesn't need to hide behind all the pretty effects, it just uses them as
necessary to embellish the plot-lines, not substitute them. People seem
to be under the assumption special effects or dialogue are the only two
drives behind a story. When people, including myself, refer to many
modern movies as pure visual without substance, we are not saying there
needs to be a ton of dialogue added to make it a solid picture. I
believe we are saying there is so little value to the dialogue existing
in these films that it makes the movie of poor quality with or without
the f/x. A good movie is one in which the audience (whether long time
fans of a series or a one-off picture) actually cares about what happens
to the people in the film. This is done through quality writing,
professional acting, and skilled direction. The f/x should only be
there as something with which the story can flow through, without
interference. By interference, I mean scenes, long scenes, which are
created solely for the purpose of exhibition. The prequel movies are
full of this, and because of it, the movies feel stagnant even though
they are full of action on the screen. When the action in a scene is
finished, the audience is left with a feeling of emptiness which leads
to confusion and an overall dislike for what they are watching. To say
a movie is of better quality when more dialogue is added is ridiculous,
instead of more, what needs to be done is an increase in the quality.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228750 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 04:11 |
|
"Spencer Meffert" <smeffert [at] tds.net> wrote:
> Billy Gruff wrote:
>>
>> actually, i'll have to agree with Anybody on this. i've never been naïve
>> enough to believe that Star Wars was my childhood. they're just movies,
>> and they've always been. i still think Ep4 is the best, too. GL didn't
>> rape my childhood by continuing the saga in the original style instead of
>> completely changing the way he makes movies just because it's almost 30
>> years later. Star Wars was always about the f/x. that's why he started
>> ILM. but the stories don't revolve around the f/x. but they DO rely
>> heavily on it, because if you can SEE what's going on, it goes a hell of
>> a long way toward explaining the situation without adding in an hour of
>> extra dialogue. without the f/x, the stories really would go flat.
>>
>> *gruff*
>> JAC
>
> The story only NEEDS high-end f/x to make people go it if the movie is bad
> without it. Think of Saving Private Ryan or Forest Gump;
but we're not talking about that KIND of movie. we're talking about a series
of movies set in deep space and several alien planets. you can't fake that
kind of thing with low-end f/x and expect the movie to survive.
<snippage>
> Many would argue that SW is a movie which needs more f/x because it is
> Science Fiction.
so you can tell the future, too. yippee.
while you're at it, look back at Flash Gordon or any of the Buck Rogers
movies and tell me they were solid without all the flash-bang f/x.
> This is probably the reason why 90% of the Sci-Fi movies produced are real
> disasters.
no. 90% of SF movies are disasters because 90% of the population doesn't
particularly care for SF. that's why we're still "geeks".
> An example of a Sci-Fi story where extraneous f/x isn't needed, and more
> importantly, isn't used, is the Battlestar Galactica program on right now.
> It doesn't need to hide behind all the pretty effects, it just uses them
> as necessary to embellish the plot-lines, not substitute them.
think again. it doesn't use any f/x because most of the show is set inside
the ship. all it needs is a set. the space battles can be stock backgrounds
and minimum greenscreen, because--like Star Trek--their space battles suck.
and so did the original Battlestar Galactica (in terms of space battles). i,
however, don't really want to besmirch my memories of the original series by
watching this lame knock-off, so i'm not going to discuss it on a Star Wars
newsgroup.
> People seem to be under the assumption special effects or dialogue are the
> only two drives behind a story.
by "people", you're being too general. this statement doesn't include me or
my opinion, and yet i'm still a people.
i believe that story drives a story, which is why i happen to like the Star
Wars movies. all of them. and you know what? with a few exceptions (most
notably _The Crystal Star_), i like the EU material as well. because it
enhances my experience of the Star Wars universe.
> When people, including myself, refer to many modern movies as pure visual
> without substance, we are not saying there needs to be a ton of dialogue
> added to make it a solid picture.
ok. so don't add dialogue. then you have a lot of empty space to fill.
meanwhile, you're watching non-f/x-laced scenery and set. what's the point
of that?
> I believe we are saying there is so little value to the dialogue existing
> in these films that it makes the movie of poor quality with or without the
> f/x.
look at the originals too, then. the dialogue was just as poor.
> A good movie is one in which the audience (whether long time fans of a
> series or a one-off picture) actually cares about what happens to the
> people in the film.
yeah, and? so you're saying you don't care what happens to the people in the
film. fine. you don't like Star Wars anymore. why are you on this newsgroup?
> This is done through quality writing, professional acting, and skilled
> direction.
i'll believe you if you can prove you graduated film school with a 4.0. and
even then, that only works 75% of the time. and i'm being generous.
> The f/x should only be there as something with which the story can flow
> through, without interference. By interference, I mean scenes, long
> scenes, which are created solely for the purpose of exhibition. The
> prequel movies are full of this,
uh...huh. give me an example of a scene that was purely to exhibit the f/x.
i'm assuming you mean that it has no dialogue, because dialogue would
detract from the presentation of f/x, right? oh, and it wouldn't have any
bearing on setting, either, because that's part of story, as it lets the
viewer know where the action is taking place.
> and because of it, the movies feel stagnant even though they are full of
> action on the screen.
i know this makes logical sense, but once you think about it....
> When the action in a scene is finished, the audience is left with a
> feeling of emptiness which leads to confusion and an overall dislike for
> what they are watching.
you know what i think? i think you should stop watching movies at all.
either that or go to Hollywood and tell them what they're doing wrong. i'm
sure with your professional background and experience, they'll listen to
you.
> To say a movie is of better quality when more dialogue is added is
> ridiculous, instead of more, what needs to be done is an increase in the
> quality.
ah, finally you're making sense. but wait. you can't possibly be talking
about the Star Wars movies. since when has there EVER been quality dialogue?
(wait, i remember. in the South Passage at Echo Base! of course!)
*gruff*
JAC
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228754 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 06:29 |
|
>> The story only NEEDS high-end f/x to make people go it if the movie is bad
>> without it. Think of Saving Private Ryan or Forest Gump;
>
> but we're not talking about that KIND of movie. we're talking about a series
> of movies set in deep space and several alien planets. you can't fake that
> kind of thing with low-end f/x and expect the movie to survive.
>
high-end or low-end isn't the point; of course it would be high-end
because that is what is now available and would be used. My point is
not to use low-end effects to achieve the goal, but instead stop using
the f/x in an exhibitionist fashion. Exhibitionist=long, unnecessary
scenes that slow the pace of a movie, these are usually scenes in which
the camera is far away and setting is exhibited without any real
purpose. The audience doesn't need extraneous scenes just to show them
a setting, they can pick it up quite well as the characters move through
it or are surrounded by it. I love great special effects, I think they
are a huge advance to movie-making; I just don't like the way they are
being used at this point in time. I believe the trend will stop when
audiences dwindle to an amount that demands the attention of the
industry. Looking at the trend in box-office sales, I think that time
is coming soon.
> <snippage>
>
>> Many would argue that SW is a movie which needs more f/x because it is
>> Science Fiction.
>
> so you can tell the future, too. yippee.
>
I can tell the future? What exactly was I predicting here?
> while you're at it, look back at Flash Gordon or any of the Buck Rogers
> movies and tell me they were solid without all the flash-bang f/x.
I have to say I never really got into either of those, so I really can't
give an opinion.
>
>> This is probably the reason why 90% of the Sci-Fi movies produced are real
>> disasters.
>
> no. 90% of SF movies are disasters because 90% of the population doesn't
> particularly care for SF. that's why we're still "geeks".
>
I really don't feel that is the case. The popularity of original Star
Wars and pretty much all of Star Trek prove that the population really
enjoy a good Sci-Fi story when it is done well. Science Fiction was
also hugely popular in print from the 40's all the way through to the
present day. The fact it doesn't do well in the theaters isn't because
people can't get behind a good Sci-Fi story, it's because it is rarely
presented well. Independence Day was a hugely successful movie and the
MIB movies did very well also. The Alien series of movies also did
quite well at the box-office. These examples are unfortunately in a
very small minority of the total amount of Sci-Fi movies produced.
>> An example of a Sci-Fi story where extraneous f/x isn't needed, and more
>> importantly, isn't used, is the Battlestar Galactica program on right now.
>> It doesn't need to hide behind all the pretty effects, it just uses them
>> as necessary to embellish the plot-lines, not substitute them.
>
> think again. it doesn't use any f/x because most of the show is set inside
> the ship. all it needs is a set. the space battles can be stock backgrounds
> and minimum greenscreen, because--like Star Trek--their space battles suck.
> and so did the original Battlestar Galactica (in terms of space battles). i,
> however, don't really want to besmirch my memories of the original series by
> watching this lame knock-off, so i'm not going to discuss it on a Star Wars
> newsgroup.
If you don't watch the series than I suggest you refrain from commenting
on it, I wouldn't refute your comments any more than that because you
don't think talking about it would be appropriate in this newsgroup.
>
>> People seem to be under the assumption special effects or dialogue are the
>> only two drives behind a story.
>
> by "people", you're being too general. this statement doesn't include me or
> my opinion, and yet i'm still a people.
>
Sorry I guess? People can be specific or general, it's all a matter or
perspective and reference.
> i believe that story drives a story, which is why i happen to like the Star
> Wars movies. all of them. and you know what? with a few exceptions (most
> notably _The Crystal Star_), i like the EU material as well. because it
> enhances my experience of the Star Wars universe.
>
I completely agree with you on the Star Wars movies (IV-VI) and the EU.
I absolutely love the reading the novels and I think I have read every
single one (with the exception of the prequel related novels). As far
as story drives a story, that only works if the elements used to tell
the story are done well, elements I referred to below. There are many,
many stories that were excellent, but where destroyed when transfered to
movie form. One example would be Battlefield Earth, the novel was
brilliant and one of the best I've ever read, the movie however was
something I will never watch again.
>> When people, including myself, refer to many modern movies as pure visual
>> without substance, we are not saying there needs to be a ton of dialogue
>> added to make it a solid picture.
>
> ok. so don't add dialogue. then you have a lot of empty space to fill.
> meanwhile, you're watching non-f/x-laced scenery and set. what's the point
> of that?
>
I still think you missed the point of quality over quantity of
substance, both in the case of the dialogue in a film and the f/x used.
I think writers are not producing the quality scripts we've seen in
the past. There is more to the lack of quality in modern film making
than just adding or subtracting dialogue or f/x, there needs to be a
fundamental shift in the stories themselves.
>> I believe we are saying there is so little value to the dialogue existing
>> in these films that it makes the movie of poor quality with or without the
>> f/x.
>
> look at the originals too, then. the dialogue was just as poor.
I don't think the dialogue in the originals was quite as bad as what has
been produced lately. However it certainly wasn't the best ever
created, but the movies were good and people enjoyed them because of the
story they told. It eludes to the point you made, and I agreed with,
about the story driving the movie. So the dialogue wasn't spectacular
and the f/x were nothing compared to what is possible now, it really
doesn't matter because GL had a really great story. It seems as though
GL lacked a bit on the ingenuity of the story for the prequels and used
the f/x as a crutch.
>
>> A good movie is one in which the audience (whether long time fans of a
>> series or a one-off picture) actually cares about what happens to the
>> people in the film.
>
> yeah, and? so you're saying you don't care what happens to the people in the
> film. fine. you don't like Star Wars anymore. why are you on this newsgroup?
>
I love movies, and that is why I pick them apart. There are many movies
which I think are great, even in current film-making, unfortunately the
American movie industry just isn't producing many of them at this point
in time. I commented earlier that I enjoy the SW universe in general
and I've spent a lot of my time immersing myself in the total story
line. If I hadn't, I assure you I wouldn't be in this newsgroup. As
long as GL is done making crap and allows the talented people to
continue the saga I will always be a fan.
>> This is done through quality writing, professional acting, and skilled
>> direction.
>
> i'll believe you if you can prove you graduated film school with a 4.0. and
> even then, that only works 75% of the time. and i'm being generous.
So if I haven't graduated film school with 4.0 what I said would be
inaccurate? I would really be interested in seeing a movie where the
three attributes I mentioned where included and the movie still reeked.
This, of course, would be highly subjective, but I doubt such a movie
would fair poorly. I would say it is a far more accurate statement to
say those three things aren't done 75% of the time and that is why many
movies fail. The audience isn't stupid, when one of those things is
done in a shoddy manner, they can tell and they won't like what they are
watching.
>
>> The f/x should only be there as something with which the story can flow
>> through, without interference. By interference, I mean scenes, long
>> scenes, which are created solely for the purpose of exhibition. The
>> prequel movies are full of this,
>
> uh...huh. give me an example of a scene that was purely to exhibit the f/x.
> i'm assuming you mean that it has no dialogue, because dialogue would
> detract from the presentation of f/x, right? oh, and it wouldn't have any
> bearing on setting, either, because that's part of story, as it lets the
> viewer know where the action is taking place.
>
Refer to exhibitionist scenes which I explained earlier.
>> and because of it, the movies feel stagnant even though they are full of
>> action on the screen.
>
> i know this makes logical sense, but once you think about it....
By stagnant, I mean the story isn't being progressed and the pace is
slowed. Watching the third or fourth space battle scene really isn't
telling the audience anything other than "look at the pretty space
ships, isn't our CG team the shit".
>
>> When the action in a scene is finished, the audience is left with a
>> feeling of emptiness which leads to confusion and an overall dislike for
>> what they are watching.
>
> you know what i think? i think you should stop watching movies at all.
> either that or go to Hollywood and tell them what they're doing wrong. i'm
> sure with your professional background and experience, they'll listen to
> you.
>
Should I stop watching movies because I hold an opinion of them? I
don't think I ever said it tears me apart or that I can't sleep at
night, I was essentially pontificating on what I thought of them in
general. That is basically what forums like the newsgroups are for
isn't it?
Many, many people are telling Hollywood what they are doing wrong, THEY
AREN'T GOING TO MOVIES. I'm not really sure where your belligerent
attitude is coming from, but I don't care much either. I'll keep
writing, and you'll, I'm sure, keep arguing. It makes it more
interesting anyways.
>> To say a movie is of better quality when more dialogue is added is
>> ridiculous, instead of more, what needs to be done is an increase in the
>> quality.
>
> ah, finally you're making sense. but wait. you can't possibly be talking
> about the Star Wars movies. since when has there EVER been quality dialogue?
> (wait, i remember. in the South Passage at Echo Base! of course!)
>
I do feel I misspoke there, I should have said better story writing as
opposed to better dialogue, but the emphasis was the similar, better
writing.
> *gruff*
> JAC
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228755 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 06:33 |
|
>> The story only NEEDS high-end f/x to make people go it if the movie
is bad without it. Think of Saving Private Ryan or Forest Gump;
>
> but we're not talking about that KIND of movie. we're talking about a
series of movies set in deep space and several alien planets. you can't
fake that kind of thing with low-end f/x and expect the movie to survive.
>
high-end or low-end isn't the point; of course it would be high-end
because that is what is now available and would be used. My point is
not to use low-end effects to achieve the goal, but instead stop using
the f/x in an exhibitionist fashion. Exhibitionist=long, unnecessary
scenes that slow the pace of a movie, these are usually scenes in which
the camera is far away and setting is exhibited without any real
purpose. The audience doesn't need extraneous scenes just to show them
a setting, they can pick it up quite well as the characters move through
it or are surrounded by it. I love great special effects, I think they
are a huge advance to movie-making; I just don't like the way they are
being used at this point in time. I believe the trend will stop when
audiences dwindle to an amount that demands the attention of the
industry. Looking at the trend in box-office sales, I think that time
is coming soon.
> <snippage>
>
>> Many would argue that SW is a movie which needs more f/x because it
is Science Fiction.
>
> so you can tell the future, too. yippee.
>
I can tell the future? What exactly was I predicting here?
> while you're at it, look back at Flash Gordon or any of the Buck
Rogers movies and tell me they were solid without all the flash-bang f/x.
I have to say I never really got into either of those, so I really can't
give an opinion.
>
>> This is probably the reason why 90% of the Sci-Fi movies produced
are real disasters.
>
> no. 90% of SF movies are disasters because 90% of the population
doesn't particularly care for SF. that's why we're still "geeks".
>
I really don't feel that is the case. The popularity of original Star
Wars and pretty much all of Star Trek prove that the population really
enjoy a good Sci-Fi story when it is done well. Science Fiction was
also hugely popular in print from the 40's all the way through to the
present day. The fact it doesn't do well in the theaters isn't because
people can't get behind a good Sci-Fi story, it's because it is rarely
presented well. Independence Day was a hugely successful movie and the
MIB movies did very well also. The Alien series of movies also did
quite well at the box-office. These examples are unfortunately in a
very small minority of the total amount of Sci-Fi movies produced.
>> An example of a Sci-Fi story where extraneous f/x isn't needed, and
more importantly, isn't used, is the Battlestar Galactica program on
right now. It doesn't need to hide behind all the pretty effects, it
just uses them as necessary to embellish the plot-lines, not substitute
them.
>
> think again. it doesn't use any f/x because most of the show is set
inside the ship. all it needs is a set. the space battles can be stock
backgrounds and minimum greenscreen, because--like Star Trek--their
space battles suck. and so did the original Battlestar Galactica (in
terms of space battles). i, however, don't really want to besmirch my
memories of the original series by watching this lame knock-off, so i'm
not going to discuss it on a Star Wars newsgroup.
If you don't watch the series than I suggest you refrain from commenting
on it, I wouldn't refute your comments any more than that because you
don't think talking about it would be appropriate in this newsgroup.
>
>> People seem to be under the assumption special effects or dialogue
are the only two drives behind a story.
>
> by "people", you're being too general. this statement doesn't include
me or my opinion, and yet i'm still a people.
>
Sorry I guess? People can be specific or general, it's all a matter or
perspective and reference.
> i believe that story drives a story, which is why i happen to like
the Star Wars movies. all of them. and you know what? with a few
exceptions (most notably _The Crystal Star_), i like the EU material as
well. because it enhances my experience of the Star Wars universe.
>
I completely agree with you on the Star Wars movies (IV-VI) and the EU.
I absolutely love the reading the novels and I think I have read every
single one (with the exception of the prequel related novels). As far
as story drives a story, that only works if the elements used to tell
the story are done well, elements I referred to below. There are many,
many stories that were excellent, but where destroyed when transfered to
movie form. One example would be Battlefield Earth, the novel was
brilliant and one of the best I've ever read, the movie however was
something I will never watch again.
>> When people, including myself, refer to many modern movies as pure
visual without substance, we are not saying there needs to be a ton of
dialogue added to make it a solid picture.
>
> ok. so don't add dialogue. then you have a lot of empty space to
fill. meanwhile, you're watching non-f/x-laced scenery and set. what's
the point of that?
>
I still think you missed the point of quality over quantity of
substance, both in the case of the dialogue in a film and the f/x used.
I think writers are not producing the quality scripts we've seen in
the past. There is more to the lack of quality in modern film making
than just adding or subtracting dialogue or f/x, there needs to be a
fundamental shift in the stories themselves.
>> I believe we are saying there is so little value to the dialogue
existing in these films that it makes the movie of poor quality with or
without the f/x.
>
> look at the originals too, then. the dialogue was just as poor.
I don't think the dialogue in the originals was quite as bad as what has
been produced lately. However it certainly wasn't the best ever
created, but the movies were good and people enjoyed them because of the
story they told. It eludes to the point you made, and I agreed with,
about the story driving the movie. So the dialogue wasn't spectacular
and the f/x were nothing compared to what is possible now, it really
doesn't matter because GL had a really great story. It seems as though
GL lacked a bit on the ingenuity of the story for the prequels and used
the f/x as a crutch.
>
>> A good movie is one in which the audience (whether long time fans of
a series or a one-off picture) actually cares about what happens to the
people in the film.
>
> yeah, and? so you're saying you don't care what happens to the people
in the film. fine. you don't like Star Wars anymore. why are you on this
newsgroup?
>
I love movies, and that is why I pick them apart. There are many movies
which I think are great, even in current film-making, unfortunately the
American movie industry just isn't producing many of them at this point
in time. I commented earlier that I enjoy the SW universe in general
and I've spent a lot of my time immersing myself in the total story
line. If I hadn't, I assure you I wouldn't be in this newsgroup. As
long as GL is done making crap and allows the talented people to
continue the saga I will always be a fan.
>> This is done through quality writing, professional acting, and
skilled direction.
>
> i'll believe you if you can prove you graduated film school with a
4.0. and even then, that only works 75% of the time. and i'm being generous.
So if I haven't graduated film school with 4.0 what I said would be
inaccurate? I would really be interested in seeing a movie where the
three attributes I mentioned where included and the movie still reeked.
This, of course, would be highly subjective, but I doubt such a movie
would fair poorly. I would say it is a far more accurate statement to
say those three things aren't done 75% of the time and that is why many
movies fail. The audience isn't stupid, when one of those things is
done in a shoddy manner, they can tell and they won't like what they are
watching.
>
>> The f/x should only be there as something with which the story can
flow through, without interference. By interference, I mean scenes,
long scenes, which are created solely for the purpose of exhibition.
The prequel movies are full of this,
>
> uh...huh. give me an example of a scene that was purely to exhibit
the f/x. i'm assuming you mean that it has no dialogue, because dialogue
would detract from the presentation of f/x, right? oh, and it wouldn't
have any bearing on setting, either, because that's part of story, as it
lets the viewer know where the action is taking place.
>
Refer to exhibitionist scenes which I explained earlier.
>> and because of it, the movies feel stagnant even though they are
full of action on the screen.
>
> i know this makes logical sense, but once you think about it....
By stagnant, I mean the story isn't being progressed and the pace is
slowed. Watching the third or fourth space battle scene really isn't
telling the audience anything other than "look at the pretty space
ships, isn't our CG team the shit".
>
>> When the action in a scene is finished, the audience is left with a
feeling of emptiness which leads to confusion and an overall dislike for
what they are watching.
>
> you know what i think? i think you should stop watching movies at
all. either that or go to Hollywood and tell them what they're doing
wrong. i'm sure with your professional background and experience,
they'll listen to you.
>
Should I stop watching movies because I hold an opinion of them? I
don't think I ever said it tears me apart or that I can't sleep at
night, I was essentially pontificating on what I thought of them in
general. That is basically what forums like the newsgroups are for
isn't it?
Many, many people are telling Hollywood what they are doing wrong, THEY
AREN'T GOING TO MOVIES. I'm not really sure where your belligerent
attitude is coming from, but I don't care much either. I'll keep
writing, and you'll, I'm sure, keep arguing. It makes it more
interesting anyways.
>> To say a movie is of better quality when more dialogue is added is
ridiculous, instead of more, what needs to be done is an increase in the
quality.
>
> ah, finally you're making sense. but wait. you can't possibly be
talking about the Star Wars movies. since when has there EVER been
quality dialogue? (wait, i remember. in the South Passage at Echo Base!
of course!)
>
I do feel I misspoke there, I should have said better story writing as
opposed to better dialogue, but the point was similar, better writing.
> *gruff*
> JAC
>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228759 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 09:13 |
|
_Anybody_ spoke thusly on 09/03/2006 2:51 PM:
> In article <eLWdncuDqKrgcpLZRVn-pQ [at] giganews.com>, Solon
> <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, they do; but an intelligent person reads posts in context.
>
> Intelligent people trim the posts to leave just the bits they're
> replying to. You did it yourself below.
That doesn't eliminate the context.
>> Liar. :-)
>
> Nope. As I said, that was MY expectation and is MY opinion. Whether
> they match your's or not is completely irrelevant since that wasn't the
> question. :-p
I didn't say a thing about my expectation, or whether or not yours
matched mine. What made you say that?
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228760 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 09:23 |
|
_Tuco_ spoke thusly on 09/03/2006 11:11 AM:
> "Solon" <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l9qdnbLMZqNYy5PZRVn-tQ [at] giganews.com...
>>
>> And Tuco wants ROTS to be nominated for awards, based on box office
>> sales? Bah!
>
> What you dont think War of the Worlds or King King weren't nominated because
> they were projected as big box office hits?
I don't.
> Visual effects oscar winners/nominees shouldn't be picked based on their box
> office results, but traditionally, big budget science-fiction fantasy films
> always get nominated.
"big budget science-fiction fantasy films" does not equal "box office
results".
> One of the most anticipated films ever was ignored in
> the visual effects category, something that the Star Wars series have
> pioneered since 1977. That's a big snub.
Oh, so now you're saying it should have been nominated because:
- it was anticipated
- it was a prequel to a separate movie, which pioneered visual affects
Call me crazy, but I think the oscar for best visual effects should go
to the movie with the *best visual effects*. :-)
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228761 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 14:47 |
|
"Solon" <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Co-dnVjl1qg3qozZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d [at] giganews.com...
> _Tuco_ spoke thusly on 09/03/2006 11:11 AM:
> > "Solon" <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:l9qdnbLMZqNYy5PZRVn-tQ [at] giganews.com...
> >>
> >> And Tuco wants ROTS to be nominated for awards, based on box office
> >> sales? Bah!
> >
> > What you dont think War of the Worlds or King King weren't nominated
because
> > they were projected as big box office hits?
>
> I don't.
Then I'd say you're naive.
> > Visual effects oscar winners/nominees shouldn't be picked based on their
box
> > office results, but traditionally, big budget science-fiction fantasy
films
> > always get nominated.
>
> "big budget science-fiction fantasy films" does not equal "box office
> results".
Are you saying ROTS wasn't a big budget science-fiction fantasy film?
> > One of the most anticipated films ever was ignored in
> > the visual effects category, something that the Star Wars series have
> > pioneered since 1977. That's a big snub.
>
> Oh, so now you're saying it should have been nominated because:
> - it was anticipated
> - it was a prequel to a separate movie, which pioneered visual affects
>
> Call me crazy, but I think the oscar for best visual effects should go
> to the movie with the *best visual effects*. :-)
> --
> usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
> Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228763 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 16:29 |
|
"Spencer Meffert" <smeffert [at] tds.net> wrote:
>
>>> The story only NEEDS high-end f/x to make people go it if the movie is
>>> bad without it. Think of Saving Private Ryan or Forest Gump;
>>
>> but we're not talking about that KIND of movie. we're talking about a
>> series of movies set in deep space and several alien planets. you can't
>> fake that kind of thing with low-end f/x and expect the movie to survive.
>
> high-end or low-end isn't the point; of course it would be high-end
> because that is what is now available and would be used.
....which is exactly what Lucas has been doing since 1977. and where the
high-end isn't available, he invents it. he's ALWAYS pushed the envelope
because he's NEEDED it to tell the kinds of stories he wants.
> My point is not to use low-end effects to achieve the goal, but instead
> stop using the f/x in an exhibitionist fashion. Exhibitionist=long,
> unnecessary scenes that slow the pace of a movie, these are usually scenes
> in which the camera is far away and setting is exhibited without any real
> purpose.
i understand what exhibitionist means, thank you.
> The audience doesn't need extraneous scenes just to show them a setting,
> they can pick it up quite well as the characters move through it or are
> surrounded by it.
so... you expect them to move through and be surrounded by an alien planet
that doesn't exist without heavy reliance on f/x...how?
> I love great special effects, I think they are a huge advance to
> movie-making; I just don't like the way they are being used at this point
> in time. I believe the trend will stop when audiences dwindle to an
> amount that demands the attention of the industry. Looking at the trend
> in box-office sales, I think that time is coming soon.
doubtful. as long as the tek is there, it'll be used. it's also cheaper than
building sets or doing stunts with real people.
>> <snippage>
>>
>>> Many would argue that SW is a movie which needs more f/x because it is
>>> Science Fiction.
>>
>> so you can tell the future, too. yippee.
>>
> I can tell the future? What exactly was I predicting here?
my response.
>> while you're at it, look back at Flash Gordon or any of the Buck Rogers
>> movies and tell me they were solid without all the flash-bang f/x.
>
> I have to say I never really got into either of those, so I really can't
> give an opinion.
there's a reason most people never get into them. really BAD f/x. but as you
say, the f/x aren't important. trust me, the story is there. otherwise,
Flash and Buck never would have made it off the ground. as it is, they're
only cult films now. personally, i like Flash Gordon. i'll probably download
it soon just to watch it again.
>>> This is probably the reason why 90% of the Sci-Fi movies produced are
>>> real disasters.
>>
>> no. 90% of SF movies are disasters because 90% of the population doesn't
>> particularly care for SF. that's why we're still "geeks".
>
> I really don't feel that is the case.
oh really.
> The popularity of original Star Wars
not SF. space opera. it's actually a western, set in space.
> and pretty much all of Star Trek prove that the population really enjoy a
> good Sci-Fi story when it is done well.
Star Trek popularity had been on a steady decline since Gene Roddenberry
died. TNG carried its torch so long only because the characters were already
firmly established. DS9 was a soap opera, and Voyager was just one species
of face-prosthetics after another, but Enterprise was VERY cool. except that
no one cared. the writing was good, and the f/x were top shelf, but the
original fanbase has grown up. Star Trek (and SF in general) are for geeks.
> Science Fiction was also hugely popular in print from the 40's all the way
> through to the present day.
print is an entirely different media. judging from my retail bookstore
experience, i would hazard that up to 50% of the population of the United
States has no desire to read for pleasure, up from 30-40% back in the '40s.
> The fact it doesn't do well in the theaters isn't because people can't get
> behind a good Sci-Fi story, it's because it is rarely presented well.
no. it's because people in Hollywood don't ever read the books they buy the
screen rights to. SF specifically written expressly for the screen does
comparably well. but such SF is the fringe minority.
> Independence Day was a hugely successful movie and the MIB movies did very
> well also. The Alien series of movies also did quite well at the
> box-office. These examples are unfortunately in a very small minority of
> the total amount of Sci-Fi movies produced.
....exactly. however, this statement does nothing for your argument.
especially because the Alien and MiB movies were quite heavy with f/x.
>>> An example of a Sci-Fi story where extraneous f/x isn't needed, and more
>>> importantly, isn't used, is the Battlestar Galactica program on right
>>> now. It doesn't need to hide behind all the pretty effects, it just uses
>>> them as necessary to embellish the plot-lines, not substitute them.
>>
>> think again. it doesn't use any f/x because most of the show is set
>> inside the ship. all it needs is a set. the space battles can be stock
>> backgrounds and minimum greenscreen, because--like Star Trek--their space
>> battles suck.
that being said, they're probably more realistic. but i'm not arguing that.
>> and so did the original Battlestar Galactica (in terms of space battles).
>> i, however, don't really want to besmirch my memories of the original
>> series by watching this lame knock-off, so i'm not going to discuss it on
>> a Star Wars newsgroup.
>
> If you don't watch the series than I suggest you refrain from commenting
> on it, I wouldn't refute your comments any more than that because you
> don't think talking about it would be appropriate in this newsgroup.
so let's use the original series as comparison. i did watch those. or don't
you actually want my opinion to convince you?
>>> People seem to be under the assumption special effects or dialogue are
>>> the only two drives behind a story.
>>
>> by "people", you're being too general. this statement doesn't include me
>> or my opinion, and yet i'm still a people.
>
> Sorry I guess? People can be specific or general, it's all a matter or
> perspective and reference.
if you're using a word to be general, don't be specific. if you're using it
to be specific, you really need to refine your technique. the fact is that
_I_ don't fit into your general statement. ergo, your general statement is
fallacious.
>> i believe that story drives a story, which is why i happen to like the
>> Star Wars movies. all of them. and you know what? with a few exceptions
>> (most notably _The Crystal Star_), i like the EU material as well.
>> because it enhances my experience of the Star Wars universe.
>
> I completely agree with you on the Star Wars movies (IV-VI) and the EU. I
> absolutely love the reading the novels and I think I have read every
> single one (with the exception of the prequel related novels). As far as
> story drives a story, that only works if the elements used to tell the
> story are done well, elements I referred to below. There are many, many
> stories that were excellent, but where destroyed when transfered to movie
> form. One example would be Battlefield Earth, the novel was brilliant and
> one of the best I've ever read, the movie however was something I will
> never watch again.
Battlefield Earth? give me a break. honestly, that USED to be on my to-read
list, until i started reading a biography of L. Ron Hubbard. i described
Scientology as the religion of making money and subjugating women, and a
friend (who'd read the series) said i just described the book. go figure. so
from this viewpoint, i wouldn't even grace Battlefield Earth with the SF
label.
>>> When people, including myself, refer to many modern movies as pure
>>> visual without substance, we are not saying there needs to be a ton of
>>> dialogue added to make it a solid picture.
>>
>> ok. so don't add dialogue. then you have a lot of empty space to fill.
>> meanwhile, you're watching non-f/x-laced scenery and set. what's the
>> point of that?
>
> I still think you missed the point of quality over quantity of substance,
> both in the case of the dialogue in a film and the f/x used.
i haven't missed anything. quality scripting isn't what movies are about.
you want script, you go to Broadway. you get too much "quality" dialogue,
and you have Shakespeare. Hollywood has been a visual media since its
inception. scripting is for the ears, and story is a concept that works on
the subconscious the entire time. movies are about WATCHING them. and
without seamless f/x, the movie falls on its ass.
> I think writers are not producing the quality scripts we've seen in the
> past.
i think they are. on average. scripts by themselves suck.
> There is more to the lack of quality in modern film making than just
> adding or subtracting dialogue or f/x, there needs to be a fundamental
> shift in the stories themselves.
no, the scripts just suck.
>>> I believe we are saying there is so little value to the dialogue
>>> existing in these films that it makes the movie of poor quality with or
>>> without the f/x.
>>
>> look at the originals too, then. the dialogue was just as poor.
>
> I don't think the dialogue in the originals was quite as bad as what has
> been produced lately.
point to quality dialogue in the originals, and i may leave you alone.
> However it certainly wasn't the best ever created, but the movies were
> good and people enjoyed them because of the story they told.
i'm... having trouble following your logic. on the one hand, you're
commending the first three Star Wars stories--driven heavily by high-end
f/x--then backhanding the recent three for their heavy high-end f/x, saying
the stories are driven by them.
> It eludes to the point you made, and I agreed with, about the story
> driving the movie.
alludes. it's an allusion.
> So the dialogue wasn't spectacular and the f/x were nothing compared to
> what is possible now, it really doesn't matter because GL had a really
> great story. It seems as though GL lacked a bit on the ingenuity of the
> story for the prequels and used the f/x as a crutch.
ok, i take it back. i do understand your logic. but when you actually look
at it, you're basically just saying you hate the prequels because they suck,
and you can't give any examples that aren't also applicable to the original
trilogy.
<snippage>
>
> I love movies, and that is why I pick them apart. There are many movies
> which I think are great, even in current film-making, unfortunately the
> American movie industry just isn't producing many of them at this point in
> time.
in ANY point in time. go look through the mpaa archives and count "good"
movies in relation to total number.
> I commented earlier that I enjoy the SW universe in general and I've spent
> a lot of my time immersing myself in the total story line.
really, it's a pity so many share your opinion of the prequels. honestly, i
don't understand it. there's nothing concrete you can actually point to and
say, "that. that's different. GL never would've done that in the original
trilogy." the overall quality of both are exactly the same, and the specific
quality of 1) scripting, and 2) f/x are equally similar--the difference in
f/x only a product of time, which he went out of his way to try to align
when the SEs came out, then tweaked again for the DVD release.
> If I hadn't, I assure you I wouldn't be in this newsgroup.
i'll just take your word for it.
> As long as GL is done making crap and allows the talented people to
> continue the saga I will always be a fan.
the saga is complete. stories in the universe with no attachment to the
saga, however, may continue on the small screen.
>>> This is done through quality writing, professional acting, and skilled
>>> direction.
>>
>> i'll believe you if you can prove you graduated film school with a 4.0.
>> and even then, that only works 75% of the time. and i'm being generous.
>
> So if I haven't graduated film school with 4.0 what I said would be
> inaccurate?
no, uninformed.
> I would really be interested in seeing a movie where the three attributes
> I mentioned where included and the movie still reeked.
hrm. i could point to several in the not-so-distant past, but i'm assuming
now you mean "good story" instead of "quality writing". in which case, i
should apologize for my hasty response. because, as you know, Dickens,
Hemmingway, and Melville were all quality writers.
<snippage>
>>> The f/x should only be there as something with which the story can flow
>>> through, without interference. By interference, I mean scenes, long
>>> scenes, which are created solely for the purpose of exhibition. The
>>> prequel movies are full of this,
>>
>> uh...huh. give me an example of a scene that was purely to exhibit the
>> f/x. i'm assuming you mean that it has no dialogue, because dialogue
>> would detract from the presentation of f/x, right? oh, and it wouldn't
>> have any bearing on setting, either, because that's part of story, as it
>> lets the viewer know where the action is taking place.
>
> Refer to exhibitionist scenes which I explained earlier.
i can't. you didn't give me an example.
>>> and because of it, the movies feel stagnant even though they are full of
>>> action on the screen.
>>
>> i know this makes logical sense, but once you think about it....
>
> By stagnant, I mean the story isn't being progressed and the pace is
> slowed. Watching the third or fourth space battle scene really isn't
> telling the audience anything other than "look at the pretty space ships,
> isn't our CG team the shit".
it's telling the audience that there had to be another battle. it advances
the story. you can't very well start the movie with a declaration of war and
expect not to have to portray any of it. what, exactly, was the first 10
minutes of Saving Private Ryan about, besides telling the audience, "hey,
look at this sweet CGI gore! isn't it realistic?"
>>> When the action in a scene is finished, the audience is left with a
>>> feeling of emptiness which leads to confusion and an overall dislike for
>>> what they are watching.
>>
>> you know what i think? i think you should stop watching movies at all.
>> either that or go to Hollywood and tell them what they're doing wrong.
>> i'm sure with your professional background and experience, they'll listen
>> to you.
>>
>
> Should I stop watching movies because I hold an opinion of them?
oh no. hold all the opinions you want. but to tell other people that they
shouldn't like what they're watching because YOU think it sucks? no, that
detracts from my experience at the theater.
> I don't think I ever said it tears me apart or that I can't sleep at
> night, I was essentially pontificating on what I thought of them in
> general. That is basically what forums like the newsgroups are for isn't
> it?
which is why i'm completely free to tell you how you're wrong. *grin*
> Many, many people are telling Hollywood what they are doing wrong, THEY
> AREN'T GOING TO MOVIES.
i'm not 100% sure about this, but i'm guessing most people aren't going to
the movies because they're too expensive. i, for one, would rather wait 'til
it comes out on DVD and either rent it or download it from someone who
ripped it.
> I'm not really sure where your belligerent attitude is coming from, but I
> don't care much either.
then ignore my perceived "belligerent attitude". i haven't been doing
anything except refuting your opinion in an accepted manner. i haven't even
resorted to name calling or off-colour, off-topic suggestions.
> I'll keep writing, and you'll, I'm sure, keep arguing.
as long as i disagree with you....
> It makes it more interesting anyways.
something to read on the newsgroup, anyway.
>>> To say a movie is of better quality when more dialogue is added is
>>> ridiculous, instead of more, what needs to be done is an increase in the
>>> quality.
>>
>> ah, finally you're making sense. but wait. you can't possibly be talking
>> about the Star Wars movies. since when has there EVER been quality
>> dialogue? (wait, i remember. in the South Passage at Echo Base! of
>> course!)
>>
> I do feel I misspoke there, I should have said better story writing as
> opposed to better dialogue, but the emphasis was the similar, better
> writing.
and here is where your fallacy comes in. in a mainly visual (secondary
audio) format, dialogue is what presents the story. er. that...doesn't scan
well. but you have to...watch the actors speak. just having the camera pan
isn't going to tell you anything except the action. action, while integral
to the story, doesn't explain anything. without the dialogue, there is no
story.
*gruff*
JAC
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228765 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 19:20 |
|
Billy Gruff wrote:
> "Spencer Meffert" <smeffert [at] tds.net> wrote:
>>>> The story only NEEDS high-end f/x to make people go it if the movie is
>>>> bad without it. Think of Saving Private Ryan or Forest Gump;
>>> but we're not talking about that KIND of movie. we're talking about a
>>> series of movies set in deep space and several alien planets. you can't
>>> fake that kind of thing with low-end f/x and expect the movie to survive.
>> high-end or low-end isn't the point; of course it would be high-end
>> because that is what is now available and would be used.
>
> ...which is exactly what Lucas has been doing since 1977. and where the
> high-end isn't available, he invents it. he's ALWAYS pushed the envelope
> because he's NEEDED it to tell the kinds of stories he wants.
>
He has lost sight of what it means to produce movies which speak to the
audience. I never said GL wasn't, at one time, extraordinarily talented
and the things he has done are the basis of some aspects of film
production. I just think he has overextended his ability in regards to
everything he tries to do on a film. Sometimes simpler is better and
extraneous things just muddle the essence of the story.
>> My point is not to use low-end effects to achieve the goal, but instead
>> stop using the f/x in an exhibitionist fashion. Exhibitionist=long,
>> unnecessary scenes that slow the pace of a movie, these are usually scenes
>> in which the camera is far away and setting is exhibited without any real
>> purpose.
>
> i understand what exhibitionist means, thank you.
>
>> The audience doesn't need extraneous scenes just to show them a setting,
>> they can pick it up quite well as the characters move through it or are
>> surrounded by it.
>
> so... you expect them to move through and be surrounded by an alien planet
> that doesn't exist without heavy reliance on f/x...how?
My point is still being missed somehow, and at this point it seems
doubtful I will be able to overcome the miscommunication. Heavy f/x is
fine, apparently you responded before reading my comment directly below.
It is about the method of execution as opposed to the actual use.
>
>> I love great special effects, I think they are a huge advance to
>> movie-making; I just don't like the way they are being used at this point
>> in time. I believe the trend will stop when audiences dwindle to an
>> amount that demands the attention of the industry. Looking at the trend
>> in box-office sales, I think that time is coming soon.
>
> doubtful. as long as the tek is there, it'll be used. it's also cheaper than
> building sets or doing stunts with real people.
>
Still unable to grasp my meaning unfortunately; the idea isn't to
replace high-end with low-end, I'm not sure what to say to get my
intention across at this point, I feel I've explained my stance
adequately. I elaborated more on this point at the end of this post.
>>> <snippage>
>>> while you're at it, look back at Flash Gordon or any of the Buck Rogers
>>> movies and tell me they were solid without all the flash-bang f/x.
>> I have to say I never really got into either of those, so I really can't
>> give an opinion.
>
> there's a reason most people never get into them. really BAD f/x. but as you
> say, the f/x aren't important. trust me, the story is there. otherwise,
> Flash and Buck never would have made it off the ground. as it is, they're
> only cult films now. personally, i like Flash Gordon. i'll probably download
> it soon just to watch it again.
>
I enjoy TOS, and it is extremely low-tech. People forgave the visuals
at that point in time because the technology didn't exist. Again you
refer to my unstated belief in the unimportance of f/x, I never said
that and in fact I even wrote about how I appreciate the advances in f/x
in creating the ability to produce stories (movies) which would have
been difficult to accomplish years ago.
>>>> This is probably the reason why 90% of the Sci-Fi movies produced are
>>>> real disasters.
>>> no. 90% of SF movies are disasters because 90% of the population doesn't
>>> particularly care for SF. that's why we're still "geeks".
>> I really don't feel that is the case.
>
> oh really.
>
>> The popularity of original Star Wars
>
> not SF. space opera. it's actually a western, set in space.
So...you're saying SW isn't SF? Interesting, but just because a movie
is in one genre, but borrows elements from others, doesn't remove it
from its original genre. I would say any SF from this point of view
could be considered any other genre (comedy, western, action, drama) but
set in space. Basically a slippery way of arguing my point.
>> Science Fiction was also hugely popular in print from the 40's all the way
>> through to the present day.
>
> print is an entirely different media. judging from my retail bookstore
> experience, i would hazard that up to 50% of the population of the United
> States has no desire to read for pleasure, up from 30-40% back in the '40s.
You said the population can't get behind SF and I just stated this as an
opposing point. Stories are stories in the end, after all is said and
done, movies, as well as print, are essentially just a story. It
doesn't really matter what percentage of the population is involved in
reading, those that are, enjoy good SF.
>
>> The fact it doesn't do well in the theaters isn't because people can't get
>> behind a good Sci-Fi story, it's because it is rarely presented well.
>
> no. it's because people in Hollywood don't ever read the books they buy the
> screen rights to. SF specifically written expressly for the screen does
> comparably well. but such SF is the fringe minority.
>
The initial part of your statement here makes no sense, the "people"
involved in transferring a book into a script are writers who attempt to
produce something at least related to the original story. Many times
the writers have inadequate talent, and the result is terrible, but the
idea that the writers don't even read the original text is laughable; if
that was the case, then the movie wouldn't have anything to do with
book. Most writers fail at this task because it is very difficult to
take the huge amount of information contained in a book and condense it
enough to make an enjoyable movie. This being said, there are examples,
so obviously it isn't impossible, you just need the right people. I
assume you mean the "people" in Hollywood are the studio heads and
producers, it isn't their job to create a viable script, which is what
determines the potential quality of a film.
>> Independence Day was a hugely successful movie and the MIB movies did very
>> well also. The Alien series of movies also did quite well at the
>> box-office. These examples are unfortunately in a very small minority of
>> the total amount of Sci-Fi movies produced.
>
> ...exactly. however, this statement does nothing for your argument.
> especially because the Alien and MiB movies were quite heavy with f/x.
>
The fact they used "heavy" f/x still isn't the point, it's the method of
use I am referring to. There weren't many scenes that used f/x in the
way I find questionable found in either of the movies I mentioned. So
actually it does have something to do with my argument.
>
>>> and so did the original Battlestar Galactica (in terms of space battles).
>>> i, however, don't really want to besmirch my memories of the original
>>> series by watching this lame knock-off, so i'm not going to discuss it on
>>> a Star Wars newsgroup.
>> If you don't watch the series than I suggest you refrain from commenting
>> on it, I wouldn't refute your comments any more than that because you
>> don't think talking about it would be appropriate in this newsgroup.
>
> so let's use the original series as comparison. i did watch those. or don't
> you actually want my opinion to convince you?
I didn't watch the originals, so I can't compare those. I don't agree
with the claim the series produced currently doesn't use f/x because the
entire thing is filmed on a space ship, it's frankly inaccurate.
>
>>>> People seem to be under the assumption special effects or dialogue are
>>>> the only two drives behind a story.
>>> by "people", you're being too general. this statement doesn't include me
>>> or my opinion, and yet i'm still a people.
>> Sorry I guess? People can be specific or general, it's all a matter or
>> perspective and reference.
>
> if you're using a word to be general, don't be specific. if you're using it
> to be specific, you really need to refine your technique. the fact is that
> _I_ don't fit into your general statement. ergo, your general statement is
> fallacious.
>
People (including you) who get so worked up over technicalities in
speech are usually just looking for something to complain about. I
suppose you wouldn't have been so offended if I would have written "many
people"? I think you could have just adjusted the word to either fit
you or not fit you and continued reading without the need to make a fuss
over it. Most of the people I converse with can do this adjustment
without raising a red flag and wandering off into some tangent about
whether or not they personally should be included in whatever statement
I was making. So I guess I was just used to conversing with "people"
capable to do that, but for ease of communication I will try to be more
precise.
>>> i believe that story drives a story, which is why i happen to like the
>>> Star Wars movies. all of them. and you know what? with a few exceptions
>>> (most notably _The Crystal Star_), i like the EU material as well.
>>> because it enhances my experience of the Star Wars universe.
>> I completely agree with you on the Star Wars movies (IV-VI) and the EU. I
>> absolutely love the reading the novels and I think I have read every
>> single one (with the exception of the prequel related novels). As far as
>> story drives a story, that only works if the elements used to tell the
>> story are done well, elements I referred to below. There are many, many
>> stories that were excellent, but where destroyed when transfered to movie
>> form. One example would be Battlefield Earth, the novel was brilliant and
>> one of the best I've ever read, the movie however was something I will
>> never watch again.
>
> Battlefield Earth? give me a break. honestly, that USED to be on my to-read
> list, until i started reading a biography of L. Ron Hubbard. i described
> Scientology as the religion of making money and subjugating women, and a
> friend (who'd read the series) said i just described the book. go figure. so
> from this viewpoint, i wouldn't even grace Battlefield Earth with the SF
> label.
>
This comment is so ridiculous it is actually hard to find the correct
place to argue against it. Instead of getting into the whole
Scientology aspect of it, I will just go ahead and tell you your friend,
the one who said Battefield Earth is about subjugating women starting a
religion to make money, has either never read the book or is just plain
mentally deficient. There isn't a single point in the book where either
of these things is implied as being positive, nor does it promote
Scientology in any way. It's just a book. If you haven't read it, than
I would think being quiet about it would be the prudent course of
action, otherwise you sound pretty strange.
>>>> When people, including myself, refer to many modern movies as pure
>>>> visual without substance, we are not saying there needs to be a ton of
>>>> dialogue added to make it a solid picture.
>>> ok. so don't add dialogue. then you have a lot of empty space to fill.
>>> meanwhile, you're watching non-f/x-laced scenery and set. what's the
>>> point of that?
>> I still think you missed the point of quality over quantity of substance,
>> both in the case of the dialogue in a film and the f/x used.
>
> i haven't missed anything. quality scripting isn't what movies are about.
> you want script, you go to Broadway. you get too much "quality" dialogue,
> and you have Shakespeare. Hollywood has been a visual media since its
> inception. scripting is for the ears, and story is a concept that works on
> the subconscious the entire time. movies are about WATCHING them. and
> without seamless f/x, the movie falls on its ass.
Quality scriptwriting isn't what movies are about huh? I guess you feel
scriptwriting refers only to the dialogue? If that IS the case than is
reveals a lack of understanding on your part. There would be nothing to
VISUALIZE if there wasn't a script. If you actually read a script you
would see that a good writer includes many of the things you refer to as
subconscious. After it is written, it's up to the director and
cinematographer and actors to make these things work. They don't just
appear out of thin air, everything you see in a good movie has been
heavily analyzed and planned, starting with the script.
>
>> There is more to the lack of quality in modern film making than just
>> adding or subtracting dialogue or f/x, there needs to be a fundamental
>> shift in the stories themselves.
>
> no, the scripts just suck.
I think you mean, yes, the scripts suck. Stories are told by the
script, if the script sucks, than that means the writer doesn't know how
to tell a story and therefore, will not be able to produce a story worth
following.
>
>>>> I believe we are saying there is so little value to the dialogue
>>>> existing in these films that it makes the movie of poor quality with or
>>>> without the f/x.
>>> look at the originals too, then. the dialogue was just as poor.
>> I don't think the dialogue in the originals was quite as bad as what has
>> been produced lately.
>
> point to quality dialogue in the originals, and i may leave you alone.
There are many scenes in which memorable dialogue was produced. Many
things Sir Alec Guiness said was well thought out, such as the
conversation with Luke about the force and about Vader killing his
father. The scene in ROTJ when Luke is hiding from Vader in the
Emperor's chambers was very good as well.
>
>> However it certainly wasn't the best ever created, but the movies were
>> good and people enjoyed them because of the story they told.
>
> i'm... having trouble following your logic. on the one hand, you're
> commending the first three Star Wars stories--driven heavily by high-end
> f/x--then backhanding the recent three for their heavy high-end f/x, saying
> the stories are driven by them.
>
>> It eludes to the point you made, and I agreed with, about the story
>> driving the movie.
>
> alludes. it's an allusion.
Pardon me, I was mistaken and prostrate myself before you for
forgiveness. It seems thought that you still managed to make out what I
was saying regardless of my deplorable mistake. Brain wasn't fully
connected at the time I guess.
>
>> So the dialogue wasn't spectacular and the f/x were nothing compared to
>> what is possible now, it really doesn't matter because GL had a really
>> great story. It seems as though GL lacked a bit on the ingenuity of the
>> story for the prequels and used the f/x as a crutch.
>
> ok, i take it back. i do understand your logic. but when you actually look
> at it, you're basically just saying you hate the prequels because they suck,
> and you can't give any examples that aren't also applicable to the original
> trilogy.
>
You want examples of two things that just plain sucked in the prequels
aside from the superfluous use of f/x? How about Jar-Jar and the acting
quality of Hayden Christensen the human stone? I suppose you will point
to the Ewoks and Mark Hamill's acting ability but don't think they are
in the same realm of terrible. Certainly a subjective view. When it
finally comes down to it though, the story of the prequels just isn't as
interesting either. I think it was more than a lack of writing ability
on GL's part, many of things in the movies didn't feel real, and that is
what f/x is supposed to be there for at its current level. Everything
just felt strained and unnatural, the originals made me feel comfortably
in sync with the story and the prequels didn't. I put this blame on GL
solely because he took charge of all the important aspects of the film.
I know he isn't listed in the credits as an editor but I read in
DroidMaker that his favorite place is in the editing room. Maybe if he
wasn't there, the movie wouldn't have felt so bloated. An editor's job
is to make the film concise and create the correct pace. It clearly was
done poorly on the prequels and done well on the originals.
> <snippage>
>> I love movies, and that is why I pick them apart. There are many movies
>> which I think are great, even in current film-making, unfortunately the
>> American movie industry just isn't producing many of them at this point in
>> time.
>
> in ANY point in time. go look through the mpaa archives and count "good"
> movies in relation to total number.
>
That is because most movies do not have the three elements I mentioned
in high enough quality. It's an extremely hard thing to do, but that is
their jobs so they should be expected to get it done. One of the
reasons people in the industry get paid so much is because when they are
done well, the rewards to the studios are astronomical.
>> I commented earlier that I enjoy the SW universe in general and I've spent
>> a lot of my time immersing myself in the total story line.
>
> really, it's a pity so many share your opinion of the prequels. honestly, i
> don't understand it. there's nothing concrete you can actually point to and
> say, "that. that's different. GL never would've done that in the original
> trilogy." the overall quality of both are exactly the same, and the specific
> quality of 1) scripting, and 2) f/x are equally similar--the difference in
> f/x only a product of time, which he went out of his way to try to align
> when the SEs came out, then tweaked again for the DVD release.
I commented on this above. His ego grew as his fortunes increased and
the quality of the movies suffered in a corresponding fashion.
>
>> If I hadn't, I assure you I wouldn't be in this newsgroup.
>
> i'll just take your word for it.
>
>> As long as GL is done making crap and allows the talented people to
>> continue the saga I will always be a fan.
>
> the saga is complete. stories in the universe with no attachment to the
> saga, however, may continue on the small screen.
When I referred to Saga, I meant the SW universe as a whole. It has
grown, if the EU is taken into account, far beyond the scope of the
"saga" and references to it are no longer really needed to produce
interesting work. I don't know how far into the future GL will allow
the authors progress the story, but hopefully it will be indefinite.
>
>>>> This is done through quality writing, professional acting, and skilled
>>>> direction.
>>> i'll believe you if you can prove you graduated film school with a 4.0.
>>> and even then, that only works 75% of the time. and i'm being generous.
>> So if I haven't graduated film school with 4.0 what I said would be
>> inaccurate?
>
> no, uninformed.
So it would be inaccurate? Than so would your opinions, so why even
bother commenting on anything up to this point?
>
>> I would really be interested in seeing a movie where the three attributes
>> I mentioned where included and the movie still reeked.
>
> hrm. i could point to several in the not-so-distant past, but i'm assuming
> now you mean "good story" instead of "quality writing". in which case, i
> should apologize for my hasty response. because, as you know, Dickens,
> Hemmingway, and Melville were all quality writers.
>
As far as a movie goes, a good story is only produced when there is good
writing to initiate it.
> <snippage>
>
>>>> The f/x should only be there as something with which the story can flow
>>>> through, without interference. By interference, I mean scenes, long
>>>> scenes, which are created solely for the purpose of exhibition. The
>>>> prequel movies are full of this,
>>> uh...huh. give me an example of a scene that was purely to exhibit the
>>> f/x. i'm assuming you mean that it has no dialogue, because dialogue
>>> would detract from the presentation of f/x, right? oh, and it wouldn't
>>> have any bearing on setting, either, because that's part of story, as it
>>> lets the viewer know where the action is taking place.
>> Refer to exhibitionist scenes which I explained earlier.
>
> i can't. you didn't give me an example.
Any extended scene where there isn't a change in the dynamic of the
characters. I'm sure you are capable of detecting these the next time
you watch one of the movies.
>
>>>> and because of it, the movies feel stagnant even though they are full of
>>>> action on the screen.
>>> i know this makes logical sense, but once you think about it....
>> By stagnant, I mean the story isn't being progressed and the pace is
>> slowed. Watching the third or fourth space battle scene really isn't
>> telling the audience anything other than "look at the pretty space ships,
>> isn't our CG team the shit".
>
> it's telling the audience that there had to be another battle. it advances
> the story. you can't very well start the movie with a declaration of war and
> expect not to have to portray any of it. what, exactly, was the first 10
> minutes of Saving Private Ryan about, besides telling the audience, "hey,
> look at this sweet CGI gore! isn't it realistic?"
The significance of the space battle scenes in the prequels is
insufficient to the story in respect to the amount of time given them.
As far a Saving Private Ryan, the opening of the movie creates an
atmosphere of terror in which the audience will be using to create a
setting for the entire picture. This isn't the case in the prequels;
the film, as you mentioned before, is scattered from world to world, in
space and various starships.
>
>>>> When the action in a scene is finished, the audience is left with a
>>>> feeling of emptiness which leads to confusion and an overall dislike for
>>>> what they are watching.
>>> you know what i think? i think you should stop watching movies at all.
>>> either that or go to Hollywood and tell them what they're doing wrong.
>>> i'm sure with your professional background and experience, they'll listen
>>> to you.
>>>
>> Should I stop watching movies because I hold an opinion of them?
>
> oh no. hold all the opinions you want. but to tell other people that they
> shouldn't like what they're watching because YOU think it sucks? no, that
> detracts from my experience at the theater.
>
Why do you HAVE to listen to me? Your argument here makes no sense
unless you feel it necessary to hold my opinions as doctrine. I'm not
sitting next to you in the theater, pointing out everything that is not
all it could be in the film. If analyzing the elements of film creation
is too detrimental to you, than perhaps it would be best to ignore what
anyone else says about the subject.
>> I don't think I ever said it tears me apart or that I can't sleep at
>> night, I was essentially pontificating on what I thought of them in
>> general. That is basically what forums like the newsgroups are for isn't
>> it?
>
> which is why i'm completely free to tell you how you're wrong. *grin*
>
I am glad you have opposing viewpoints, it gives me cause to exercise my
opinions and create a stronger understanding of the subject as a whole.
I don't, however, think the animosity I can feel from your responses
are justified. Can't you debate without getting upset? Perhaps I am
reading to much into your posts, words on a screen can be deceiving as
to their intended meaning.
>> Many, many people are telling Hollywood what they are doing wrong, THEY
>> AREN'T GOING TO MOVIES.
>
> i'm not 100% sure about this, but i'm guessing most people aren't going to
> the movies because they're too expensive. i, for one, would rather wait 'til
> it comes out on DVD and either rent it or download it from someone who
> ripped it.
>
Of course I can't be 100% on my belief either because no one could. I
was just basing my statement on the fact that many people spend money on
entertainment above things deemed necessary and if that is the case, I
would suspect movies wouldn't be any different if there was just cause
to see them. As far as acquiring movies via illegal methods, I just
find it unethical and in regards to merely waiting for the DVD, the
experience of going to a movie and viewing the film in theater is
something irreplaceable.
>> I'm not really sure where your belligerent attitude is coming from, but I
>> don't care much either.
>
> then ignore my perceived "belligerent attitude". i haven't been doing
> anything except refuting your opinion in an accepted manner. i haven't even
> resorted to name calling or off-colour, off-topic suggestions.
If you are honest, than surely you can see more to your responses than
refutation of my opinions. An excepted manner? Now it seems you are
being a little general in view. You appeared to become agitated at a
few of the opinions expressed and told me to "not go to movies" as if
that were some sort of valid approach to correcting a problem. If you
had wandered into the realm or off-color or off-topic suggestions I
wouldn't have even wasted my time in reply.
>> I'll keep writing, and you'll, I'm sure, keep arguing.
>
> as long as i disagree with you....
>
I'm quite sure you'll find something to disagree with ;p
>>>
>> I do feel I misspoke there, I should have said better story writing as
>> opposed to better dialogue, but the emphasis was the similar, better
>> writing.
>
> and here is where your fallacy comes in. in a mainly visual (secondary
> audio) format, dialogue is what presents the story. er. that...doesn't scan
> well. but you have to...watch the actors speak. just having the camera pan
> isn't going to tell you anything except the action. action, while integral
> to the story, doesn't explain anything. without the dialogue, there is no
> story.
>
Here again, the concept of Story writing including everything from
dialogue to general scene instruction is missed. I'm not sure where my
"fallacy" of better story writing comes in. And I don't believe I ever
championed the need to pan a camera around to show off the setting, in
fact, that is what I was opposing from the beginning. A scene such as
that is weak and of little importance so it should be minimized in the
amount of time devoted to it.
> *gruff*
> JAC
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228768 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 21:38 |
|
none wrote:
> Why was not Star Wars ep III nominated for best visual effects?
Because the dinosarus and the so called intelligent artists in the jury
doesn`t like star wars and call it "light" entertainment, they don`t
want it to win an oscar. They want some other crap to win it just
because a famous artist or whatever has been involved in "the making of
the movie".
The Oscars are for sorry losers. Who need a golden figure on their desk
instead of the most succesful movie of the year.... Lucas can smile all
the way to the bank.
|
|
|
| Re: Oscars [message #228770 ] |
Fr, 10 März 2006 22:31 |
|
In article <AaednTws88AnfozZRVnzvA [at] telenor.com>, "Frank S."
<liverpoolkickass [at] anfield.co.uk> wrote:
> none wrote:
> > Why was not Star Wars ep III nominated for best visual effects?
>
> Because the dinosarus and the so called intelligent artists in the jury
> doesn`t like star wars and call it "light" entertainment, they don`t
> want it to win an oscar. They want some other crap to win it just
> because a famous artist or whatever has been involved in "the making of
> the movie".
>
> The Oscars are for sorry losers. Who need a golden figure on their desk
> instead of the most succesful movie of the year.... Lucas can smile all
> the way to the bank.
George Lucas is also an "independant movie maker" so those idiots in
"studio Hollweird" don't get any "kick-backs" from him. :-\
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 10:39:29 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08309 Sekunden |
