Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I don't really need your CGI you film makers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I don't really need your CGI you film makers

    I just had the pleasure of watching Reach for the Sky, finally digital and freeing me from my being stuck with my vhs copy.

    Another film leaps out of the mid 20th century for me

    It's black and white, not even in colour eh.

    The planes look good, might be some gaffes but only a prissy nit picker is going to get that aggravating. Still it was made in 56, so I guess they actually still had a lot of these machines available.

    I liked the acting, and I liked the story of course. It was made with people that were also not clearly incorrect. Limeys with limey accents after all. Because who wants to watch a film where the British sound like they're from the states.

    And this is a good film, even though no glitzy CGI is present. As I mentioned, it isn't even in colour.

    Would a remake be better, hardly likely. And why is it that modern film even thinks it's required? I don't care if you ARE a fan boy of the same time period as me, make something new, make something different, don't cop out and copy what doesn't need to be redone.

    I see the thread about the Spielberg/Eastwood film. I'll probably like it, I'm a prejudiced Eastwood fan after all. But it will diminish the film, even if they make it, if they cop out and try to make a rehash of anything already done.
    I have plenty of Marine movie greats, but that war still has room for some good original titles.
    Life is change. Built models for decades.
    Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
    I didn't for a long time either.

  • #2
    I agree that original works are far better than remakes, but Hollywood loves proven winners, and imagination as well as a knowledge of history seems in critically short supply.

    As you say, there are countless historical occurences that would make great films, but they aren't going to happen until you get directors and producers who are also history buffs, as Spielberg is.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Actually, I would have used a generic "Hollywood" slag put down sort of remark, but it's not like it's only Hollywood that is capable of being guilty.

      I think tooooo many films are more about the person making it, making money.

      And while that IS the spirit of captalism, it still looks no better than it is.

      Which is why I am rather guarded in my viewpoint when praising films that seem nothing but cash makers. Loved LotR, but the remake of Kong was both craptastically overkill cgi, as well as a shameless exploitation of someone else's work (that being a successful film).

      As such, even though I loved LotR, I am not going to just claim that Jackson is a great film maker out of hand. Nope, he also more than capable of just making a film for the sake of making some cash. And I don't care if he DOES have a love of the content. Thus, I'm not buying that his love of the Dam Busters mission will ensure his feature is stellar film making. It could easily end up as lame as his Kong movie.

      I love Eastwood as an actor, I think he's a good director. Speilberg, mostly the same sentiments. Personally, I'm more inclined to think THEY will be more apt to produce a historic film that is meritorious. I'd be much happier if THEY were doing the Dam Busters.

      The opening of SPR as compared to 3 T rexes that can solidly bite the arms of a large gorilla, and yet not do it any serious harm, all while in near free fall, all while the ape succeeds of juggling a human female with it's feet, and not cause her noticable bodily harm.

      One used CGI to brutally depict a horrible moment in time. The other over used CGI to make a moment in time look horrible.
      Life is change. Built models for decades.
      Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
      I didn't for a long time either.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Aries
        Actually, I would have used a generic "Hollywood" slag put down sort of remark, but it's not like it's only Hollywood that is capable of being guilty.

        I think tooooo many films are more about the person making it, making money.

        And while that IS the spirit of captalism, it still looks no better than it is.

        Which is why I am rather guarded in my viewpoint when praising films that seem nothing but cash makers. Loved LotR, but the remake of Kong was both craptastically overkill cgi, as well as a shameless exploitation of someone else's work (that being a successful film).

        As such, even though I loved LotR, I am not going to just claim that Jackson is a great film maker out of hand. Nope, he also more than capable of just making a film for the sake of making some cash. And I don't care if he DOES have a love of the content. Thus, I'm not buying that his love of the Dam Busters mission will ensure his feature is stellar film making. It could easily end up as lame as his Kong movie.

        I love Eastwood as an actor, I think he's a good director. Speilberg, mostly the same sentiments. Personally, I'm more inclined to think THEY will be more apt to produce a historic film that is meritorious. I'd be much happier if THEY were doing the Dam Busters.

        The opening of SPR as compared to 3 T rexes that can solidly bite the arms of a large gorilla, and yet not do it any serious harm, all while in near free fall, all while the ape succeeds of juggling a human female with it's feet, and not cause her noticable bodily harm.

        One used CGI to brutally depict a horrible moment in time. The other over used CGI to make a moment in time look horrible.
        I don't agree with King Kong being a good example of cashing in. I wasn't a fan of it, but I don't think he truly made it to cash in. Cashing in was a likely result of it, that let him get away with it, but I have to give the man credit. He really did do it for the reasons he stated. The original was the movie that made him want to be a film maker, and he genuinely wanted to bring that experience to a new generation - updated for them.
        “To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.”

        Comment


        • #5
          Well myself, I am of the opinion, that if a man TRUELY wants to allow a new generation the joy of a past film, but with a bit of tech thrown in, then they film THE SAME MOVIE, not just a film with the same name.

          Sure, you can't use the same actors, but, you CAN use the same script. You might be going from black and white to colour, or from low tech special effects to newer technology.

          But lets face it, how much of Jackson's Kong film was just idiotic usage of tech to make outrageous scenes really?

          The movie has good moments, but, most of the people I have talked with have been of the view, the island sequence is the only "fun" part, and that's only because most films today are only rated as fun if the action is a non stop barrage of cheesy action.

          Most people would be irritated to have someone imply they are stupid, but, considering how easily people willingly go to movies with incredible quantities of intellectually insulting content, how can so much of the movie watching public be regarded as anything else.

          I enjoy anime, but it's all fake, it's all animation, there is NO illusion any of it is real. The content does not bother me a such. But, in mainstream film, so much of the content, is so blatantly insulting to the intellect in too many instances. And they pander to the viewer with such overt barrages of over the top CGI imagery only good for appealing to our base natures.

          I've mentioned it before in other dialogues. The "sex scene" found in most films, it's there only to appeal to your animal. It rarely has any substantive contribution to the film. The in your face foul language, is only appealing to our vulgar nature, and trying to appear "hip".

          I like most of the old movies primarily, because most of them have not been drenched in modern content. In the old movies, the sex scene was really only implied. You didn't really watch them actually having sex. The language wasn't just there to seem cool. The action sequences were harder to do, thus, your film had to make it or break it on solid plot, and superior acting.
          I think most of today's actors would be lucky to get parts as extras in films of the early years.
          Life is change. Built models for decades.
          Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
          I didn't for a long time either.

          Comment


          • #6
            Okay, not now, but I need to remember to reply to this when I have some more time. Someone PM me if I haven't replied by Saturday.
            “To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Aries
              I just had the pleasure of watching Reach for the Sky, finally digital and freeing me from my being stuck with my vhs copy.

              Another film leaps out of the mid 20th century for me

              It's black and white, not even in colour eh.

              The planes look good, might be some gaffes but only a prissy nit picker is going to get that aggravating. Still it was made in 56, so I guess they actually still had a lot of these machines available.

              I liked the acting, and I liked the story of course. It was made with people that were also not clearly incorrect. Limeys with limey accents after all. Because who wants to watch a film where the British sound like they're from the states.

              And this is a good film, even though no glitzy CGI is present. As I mentioned, it isn't even in colour.

              Would a remake be better, hardly likely. And why is it that modern film even thinks it's required? I don't care if you ARE a fan boy of the same time period as me, make something new, make something different, don't cop out and copy what doesn't need to be redone.

              I see the thread about the Spielberg/Eastwood film. I'll probably like it, I'm a prejudiced Eastwood fan after all. But it will diminish the film, even if they make it, if they cop out and try to make a rehash of anything already done.
              I have plenty of Marine movie greats, but that war still has room for some good original titles.
              I agree with you to a point. There are some great movies from the '40's and '50's that were done on relatively small budgets. In fairness there is also some junk from the period, but most of the bad stuff isn't shown with any regularity (if at all). What the film makers of WW II era films greatly benefited from was the abundance of surplus hardware that was available for next to nothing............now most of those planes, tanks, etc. have been scrapped. A good example is "Sahara", where else (except on the History Channel) do you ever see a M3 Grant tank. Sure it had Bogart to anchor the cast, but to me the tank is the real star.

              BTW, I'd give Jackson a chance to remake "The Dam Busters". I didn't think that "Kong" was so bad. It's not like the original had the best acting in the world. I mean Bruce Cabot was about as big a joke as they come. The only reason he had a long career in films was because he was one of John Wayne's favorite drinking buddies. I really think Jackson's heart is in the right place.........I mean after the LotR trilogy he's financially set for life, the money made from "Kong" was just a drop in the bucket.
              Last edited by Lance Williams; 07 Sep 06, 18:20.
              Lance W.

              Peace through superior firepower.

              Comment


              • #8
                I agree with Aries - Kong was bad, beginning with the introduction of the dinosaurs. Just stick with the ape. Of course, a lot of it has to do with the short attention spans and immaturity of the audidences of today. And that is what makes remakes to "bring the experience to the audiences of today" such a bad idea. The audiences of today have no idea what the previous movies were like, or what truly good acting really is. But they will pay to anything that guarantees lots of non-stop action no matter how inappropriate, explosions, chase scenes and T&A. I doubt if Hitchcock himself could much of anything with today's audiences.

                Jackson is capapble of being an outstanding film maker, on a par perhaps with Spielberg as witness The Ring Trilogy, but he seems to have shot his bolt on that project.

                I will personally wait until Dam Buters comes to free television to see it; I won't shell out big bucks to see it on a mega-screen. I will, however, pay to see the Spielberg-Eastwood film, and to see Flyboys.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X