http://io9.gizmodo.com/director-says-cg ... 1792253940MintyTheCat wrote: I would have preferred it if they had have used models in addition to CGI but I would say that
Might as well watch Arrival, too.I cannot allow myself to be optimistic but the director did Sicario which was not bad so I shall give him a chance before I see it
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
That is good to read - I like little modelsGaijinPunch wrote:http://io9.gizmodo.com/director-says-cg ... 1792253940MintyTheCat wrote: I would have preferred it if they had have used models in addition to CGI but I would say that
Might as well watch Arrival, too.I cannot allow myself to be optimistic but the director did Sicario which was not bad so I shall give him a chance before I see it
Not Charlie Sheen The Arrival, which I mini reviewed here not long back, that's a pile of goat shit.Zen wrote:Geddoudahere! Arrival was a stinkerGaijinPunch wrote:Arrival was great
Maybe skykid was referring to The Arrival (1996) - David Twohy? Which is an hilariously bad film.
ChurchOfSolipsism wrote: ALso, this is how SKykid usually posts
imdb has this one line synopsis:Skykid wrote:Not Charlie Sheen The Arrival, which I mini reviewed here not long back, that's a pile of goat shit.Zen wrote:Geddoudahere! Arrival was a stinkerGaijinPunch wrote:Arrival was great
Maybe skykid was referring to The Arrival (1996) - David Twohy? Which is an hilariously bad film.
Why did you think Arrival by Denis Villeneuve was a stinker tho? Do tell (but no spoilage please)
If sister in type to these two, Jessica Chastain also offends, it's third strike, 25 to life, throw away the key certain.
Yes, and in the trailer. The film revolves around language... totally... which is what sets it apart, and it's adhering to that is what makes it a good film and not just another alien film. Superb audio mixing gives it a full point on a scale of 10 for me as well. Maybe it'll speak a bit more to Skykid being surrounded by Mandarin every day, but he's already done himself a disservice unless his at home setup can compare to a theater's sound system."When twelve mysterious spacecraft appear around the world, linguistics professor Louise Banks is tasked with interpreting the language of the apparent alien visitors.", so you pretty much know the whole thing going in.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
ChurchOfSolipsism wrote: ALso, this is how SKykid usually posts
My quoting the imdb synopsis was simply to advise that there is not much danger to spoiling, with regards general discussion of this film. It was not meant in any way to be taken as a criticism of the theme of the film, which is obviously language/communication and a human attempt at the seemingly impossible puzzle of how to connect with an alien form of same.GaijinPunch wrote:Yes, and in the trailer. The film revolves around language... totally... which is what sets it apart, and it's adhering to that is what makes it a good film and not just another alien film.
RegalSin wrote:New PowerPuff Girls. They all have evil pornstart eyelashes.
I thought it was not bad. The visual language was interesting. Lighting and look was well done. The aspects of time got me thinking.GaijinPunch wrote:I'm not a huge fan of Amy Adams... I'm not a hater either though. I guess I don't see where all the hate is coming from. Is she well known enough to be hated?
Yes, and in the trailer. The film revolves around language... totally... which is what sets it apart, and it's adhering to that is what makes it a good film and not just another alien film. Superb audio mixing gives it a full point on a scale of 10 for me as well. Maybe it'll speak a bit more to Skykid being surrounded by Mandarin every day, but he's already done himself a disservice unless his at home setup can compare to a theater's sound system."When twelve mysterious spacecraft appear around the world, linguistics professor Louise Banks is tasked with interpreting the language of the apparent alien visitors.", so you pretty much know the whole thing going in.
It's a given that Disney/Lucasfilm will release the Star Wars: The Last Jedi flick on DVD/BR in April of 2018. It's a given that SW:TFA & SW:RO were released on DVD/Blu-Ray formats in April 2016 and April 2017 respectively (for the North American marketbase) following their proper North American theatrical screen release (back in December of 2015 and December 2016 respectively).Mills wrote:Well it's a couple of months wait till the release date, so I hope we don't get to see any more trailers.
Not going to bother with The Last Jedi until dvd release.
heli wrote:Why is milestone director in prison ?, are his game to difficult ?
It's an old school film noir detective story. If you're expecting anything more you're approaching it wrong.cj iwakura wrote:I feel like there must be something wrong with me. I watched the original again over the weekend and it just felt boring.
It's a beautiful film and I respect the hell out of it for its influence on everything cyberpunk, but the story just loses me for some reason.
ChurchOfSolipsism wrote: ALso, this is how SKykid usually posts
I like noir detective stories though, I don't get why BR loses me.Skykid wrote:It's an old school film noir detective story. If you're expecting anything more you're approaching it wrong.cj iwakura wrote:I feel like there must be something wrong with me. I watched the original again over the weekend and it just felt boring.
It's a beautiful film and I respect the hell out of it for its influence on everything cyberpunk, but the story just loses me for some reason.
I suggest the Workprint over all other versions - it's certainly better paced - but either way it's a wonderful movie through and through.
heli wrote:Why is milestone director in prison ?, are his game to difficult ?
I kind of agree. It's brilliant in so many ways - no film has come close to it since - but something about it leaves me cold. It's austere and not too much happens but that gives the film space and time to soak it all in. I don't think Harrison Ford is well cast. Deckard isn't particularly proactive and even though he does "do things" the film still seems to happen around him. The supporting cast are all brilliant though, especially Rutger Hauer.cj iwakura wrote:I feel like there must be something wrong with me. I watched the original again over the weekend and it just felt boring.
It's a beautiful film and I respect the hell out of it for its influence on everything cyberpunk, but the story just loses me for some reason.
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
I wouldn't say that, Le Samourai feels timeless, and the story is great. I think BR just fails to have a compelling story to back up the visuals, while some classics are the full package.Xyga wrote:The best stuff gets old too, more importantly it seems many of those once almost universally praised works fit perfectly in the particular era they were created, but seem off/bland after some decades.
On that we agree. I just hope they leave Gremlins alone.The real sad thing is that we're trying to revive and reboot everything, massively so, and as expected it only very rarely works out fine.
heli wrote:Why is milestone director in prison ?, are his game to difficult ?
I disagree, the best stuff never gets old. There are some things that don't stand the test of time and do lose their luster, but Blade Runner isn't one of them. On the contrary, some film gets better with age, and I'd definitely put BR Workprint in there (got so much better with age, in-fact, that Scott forgot about the eminence of his original cut completely and proffered the lesser Final Cut instead).Xyga wrote:The best stuff gets old too, more importantly it seems many of those once almost universally praised works fit perfectly in the particular era they were created, but seem off/bland after some decades.
ChurchOfSolipsism wrote: ALso, this is how SKykid usually posts
I really don't see things this way for a lot of productions. It's the same with many other things like games and music, you need to have lived the years they came out and experienced why those works were made that way and what they meant at that moment. Those who discover stuff decades later no matter the dedication can never completely reproduce and 'live' the real shit, this is why I believe what can really be called 'timeless' is something that doesn't have any too significant flavours of a specific era of our then-reality in it, being timeless isn't necessarily an enviable thing as I see it.Skykid wrote:I disagree, the best stuff never gets old. There are some things that don't stand the test of time and do lose their luster, but Blade Runner isn't one of them. On the contrary, some film gets better with age, and I'd definitely put BR Workprint in there (got so much better with age, in-fact, that Scott forgot about the eminence of his original cut completely and proffered the lesser Final Cut instead).Xyga wrote:The best stuff gets old too, more importantly it seems many of those once almost universally praised works fit perfectly in the particular era they were created, but seem off/bland after some decades.
I've revisited a lot of movies over the last few years and while some haven't held up, others have simply gotten even more impressive. Robocop's wonderful satirical humour and ultraviolent blend springs to mind, it's aged like fine wine.
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
I don't intend to be that radical, note that I'm saying its constituent influences fade way with time, an that's it's not a general fixed rule either, not everything loses its vibe or not in the same fashion/the same pace.MX7 wrote:@Xyga: It's pretty far-fetched to assume there's a single privileged reading of something based on living in a particular place in a particular time.
There's a distinction I think is important to make, related to what I've just mentioned; not everything is affected by time the same way.MX7 wrote:Something like Blade Runner required an 80's audience to either decode, overlook or ignore references to 40's Film Noir (a movement they doubtless would have had little 'first hand') experience of with transnational references to contemporary issues like Japan as an economic powerhouse, themes of sentience and identity, consumerism, commodity fetishism and so on. These aspects 'speak' to people just as much now as ever, and in as many different ways, because watching a film isn't just a process of a director pouring something in to an audience's brain.
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
You're looking at the art far too superficially. When I say aged like a fine wine, I mean the brilliance of the composition: the era is inconsequential.Xyga wrote:I really don't see things this way for a lot of productions. It's the same with many other things like games and music, you need to have lived the years they came out and experienced why those works were made that way and what they meant at that moment. Those who discover stuff decades later no matter the dedication can never completely reproduce and 'live' the real shit, this is why I believe what can really be called 'timeless' is something that doesn't have any too significant flavours of a specific era of our then-reality in it, being timeless isn't necessarily an enviable thing as I see it.Skykid wrote:I disagree, the best stuff never gets old. There are some things that don't stand the test of time and do lose their luster, but Blade Runner isn't one of them. On the contrary, some film gets better with age, and I'd definitely put BR Workprint in there (got so much better with age, in-fact, that Scott forgot about the eminence of his original cut completely and proffered the lesser Final Cut instead).Xyga wrote:The best stuff gets old too, more importantly it seems many of those once almost universally praised works fit perfectly in the particular era they were created, but seem off/bland after some decades.
I've revisited a lot of movies over the last few years and while some haven't held up, others have simply gotten even more impressive. Robocop's wonderful satirical humour and ultraviolent blend springs to mind, it's aged like fine wine.
Since we're mentioning the 80's well from everything I remember and I've also re-watched several times again and again up to today, what I mean is that most of it is too far away already, there's no way the stuff from then can work and feel like it did anymore, it's memories for us, and because of the gap; practically nothing to younger generations.
BR and Robocop are almost quintessential examples of movies that worked perfectly when they came out, to the point they're prime examples if not genre textbook definitions, radiating tons of things of their time in so many aspects they're inseparable from it. Whether it's the treatment of the sci-fi themes, the visions of the techno-dystopian future, the characters, scenario, the music, atmospheres, fucktons of things brewed and brought to light because they were either new or spoke to people in their reality of the time.
In fact, there's a timed cultural experience that's required to fully appreciate the things that make/made X or Y past work, and without going as far as saying it's ephemeral the clock certainly ticks and the many constituent influences fade away, for some things more than others of course, but my point was the stronger the stuff is tied to its era, the more likely and obviously it will lose its real character over time for future audiences. This is why revivals/reboots of things that fit perfectly in their time, icons of their time, almost never work today.
I think there's a lot of mistaking love/respect and nostalgia for a kind of perpetual excellence, this is kind of what we do with games going through cycles of bitterness about what school/gameplay/type of games are worth more than the rest and what was dope 10y ago has now lost respect and we go back two or three decades and more to the rawer/older stuff, in an unhealthy manner like angry old farts arguing over what thing of the past is better (the 'is' is the anomaly).
The best movies, games, music, books, whatever, will alway be remembered for having deserved their laurels, but forever granting the same level of paired praise and relevance? Hum...timelessnes is a status hard to acquire and also a label potentially damaging culturally speaking to the generations that come after.
I mean this 21st century so far is all about going in circles in bitterness, I can't help but see letting the past go as a significant part of what we really need, history is only meant to serve as reference - past reference - for helping us think in the present and move on to really new stuff.
(also I can't help but think it's because whe haven't killed the old gods that we see the somewhat new and more original stuff sprout and grow where we wouldn't have expected it before. an example you cite yourself: tv now producing better stuff than hollywood)
Huh /rant :p
ChurchOfSolipsism wrote: ALso, this is how SKykid usually posts
I agree at my level but this isn't what I'm talking about. And you know like most people you talk with here I'm a film science peasant so yeah go on an keep calling people's appreciation superficial, this isn't a film school community so I don't mind (personally at least). But I can tell a film isn't exclusively about filmaking, it's not a machine or a fixed formula.Skykid wrote:You're looking at the art far too superficially. When I say aged like a fine wine, I mean the brilliance of the composition: the era is inconsequential.
Performances, directorial stamps and control of visuals, camera, and a beautifully written script are elements I consider ageless because they are. These aspects don't get old in the same way good stage performance has been entertaining for thousands of years.
Citizen Kane may be an old black & white movie, but look at the wonderful creativity of its framing and camerawork and it suddenly becomes as new as anything can be.
Yes that's right several aspects of the dystopian predictions somewhat came true, very true sadly even, so yes films such as Robocop are totally relevant to reality now. But his isn't the goal of sci-fi.If we are being more superficial and simply looking at thematic properties, some movies, like Robocop with its hard satire, are actually more relevant today. Trump in the White House, propaganda in the news and 100% pure undiluted dogshit being pumped into people's brains by mass media. We're right there.
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
ChurchOfSolipsism wrote: ALso, this is how SKykid usually posts
Yeah that was rather aggressive sorry, but because you know, it was obvious I'm not really talking about the same stuff you do (I couldn't efficiently anyway) yet you're here again for the hundreth time with the film science like it's the only thing there is to talk about, so I was like 'gah not again'. hope you get where that came from.Skykid wrote:You know use of the word superficial isn't a slur? I used it contextually to describe the way you're relating to aspects of film that date based on changes of attitudes over time.
You've noted I definitely don't limit my description of what will 'go missing' to visual or sound design but indeed to a whole lot of things. I'm sorry but precisely because I look at a movie like a bubble I can't ignore/exclude all that's not purely about artistic achievements, and I can't dissociate them from the texbook structure either, everything that's in the bubble comes from the outside anyway.Skykid wrote:The superficiality is that Back To the Future II's future, as it were, has now been outdated by actual technology (to a degree) and therefore is less impressive to children and adults.
My point was that I don't consider the visual design of a movie to be its most salient quality or that which stands the test of time.
Apocalypse Now is a great example of a period film that barely dates at all, while the 80sness of Back to The Future is kept alive by brilliant writing, casting, and a high bar for entertainment production by its team.
Yes I can agree that visions of the future or fashions or even cultural and topical aspects of films can date, because thematically it's rare to keep something relevant forever. But take a movie as a bubble and look for the qualities in its artistic achievements rather than its thematic stylings, and the Strangeloves and Blade Runners are just as impressive as ever - and in many cases more so, thanks to the climate of film today; one that has fallen so low in terms of anything EXCEPT thematics that they're basically colorful shit smeared on recycled toilet paper.
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
