[RIDance]

Anybody going to see Harry Potter tomorrow??

I would go to a midnight showing tonight but the movie theatre in this little town does not have one. Where I used to live- State College, PA (Penn State- college town)- people lined up all the way down the block as soon as the tickets were on sale! It was so much fun doing that for the first three films. Here, in bumf*k, you could go during the previews of the very first showing and there will still be tickets left. Goblet of Fire was the best book so far (in my opinion) so this movie should be sweeeeet.

If you don't like Harry Potter, just ignore my ranting. Even if you do like it, you should probably ignore me too. I've had a long week of working major overtime and the fact that this film is going to be out TOMORROW made me even more anxious during the week- I cannot sit still.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by TangentBlack

Thanks for backing me up Villain, I seemed not to have an ally in this whole bit. It is good to see that someone sees the way I do.

No problem man. I almost never have allies in discussions on these boards so I figured I'd at least be an ally. The thing is, there are allies hiding in the wings, but they rarely chime in. There was a Metal Gear Solid thread a month or two ago where it was me against three guys... It's such an incredible pain to respond to all of them, and if you only respond to one or two of them they assume you can't rebut their points (which are really just the same points the other guys make only dressed up in a new outfit). Anyway, my point is that for page after page I was debating with three guys. It appeared that NO ONE agreed with me or understood what I was saying. Finally, after 120 posts of argument, squarejawhero chimed in that he agreed with me "from the beginning" and that he just didn't want to get too involved. So, there are probably more people who agree with us, they just aren't saying anything. Heh.

[SakSquash]

Hollywood rules and all you art nerds suck!

[TangentBlack]

Haha, yeah, well there are some heated debaters here. I can see why some would rather just avoid being burnt all together.

[natalia]

Once a villian, normally I agree with your opinion on movies. But I can't say that I agree that there simply is no consistent talent regarding movies left anymore and that the majority of modern films are lousy (any more so then they were in the past, anyway). You posit that great directors like Hitchcock, Wilder, Peckinpah, etc… aren’t really coming around anymore, hence the greater percentage of crap movies. I disagree with that sentiment mostly because the idea of a director as auteur, the defining creative force behind a movie, has only been around since the 60s. Before then, the studio system in the early days of film churned out tons and tons of crap, even as they turned out a few gems that we are still watching. I read an article online that described Hollywood during it’s studio heyday as a “dream factory”. They’d churn out movies one after the other (some of which had only been shot in two weeks).

I’m not sure things are all that different today (except for the longer shoot times because of the much larger budgets that are at stake). Sure there is a ton of crap out there, but there are some very, very good movies still being made. I also think there are a lot more entertainment sources out their competing for our free time and increasing smaller amounts of discretionary funds (the Internet, video games), so maybe we feel worse when we get duped into shelling out 11 bucks for a bad movie.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by natalia

Once a villian, normally I agree with your opinion on movies. But I can't say that I agree that there simply is no consistent talent regarding movies left anymore and that the majority of modern films are lousy (any more so then they were in the past, anyway). You posit that great directors like Hitchcock, Wilder, Peckinpah, etc… aren’t really coming around anymore, hence the greater percentage of crap movies. I disagree with that sentiment mostly because the idea of a director as auteur, the defining creative force behind a movie, has only been around since the 60s. Before then, the studio system in the early days of film churned out tons and tons of crap, even as they turned out a few gems that we are still watching. I read an article online that described Hollywood during it’s studio heyday as a “dream factory”. They’d churn out movies one after the other (some of which had only been shot in two weeks).

I’m not sure things are all that different today (except for the longer shoot times because of the much larger budgets that are at stake). Sure there is a ton of crap out there, but there are some very, very good movies still being made. I also think there are a lot more entertainment sources out their competing for our free time and increasing smaller amounts of discretionary funds (the Internet, video games), so maybe we feel worse when we get duped into shelling out 11 bucks for a bad movie.

That wasn't my argument. There's plenty of consistent talent left in movies, just not so much in Hollywood movies. By the way, I happen to believe in the idea of director as auteur, but it doesn't necessarily matter when people started discussing it. Hitchcock, Wilder, Chaplin, etc...made films prior to the 60's. Auteurs have existed since the beginning of film, it doesn't matter when people decided to define it. Orson Welles was an auteur for sure, and he was making movies in the 40's.

There are good movies coming out of Hollywood today, but it's a rare thing. The majority of great American movies today are independent films. It used to be Hollywood making the best American movies. You say they would churn out movies that sometimes had only a two week shooting schedule as if that's a bad thing. Granted, wonderful movies would generally need a longer shooting schedule, but these massive Hollywood budgets today generally inhibit creativity. Most interviews with filmmakers about some of their best films involve them talking about how a smaller budget forced them to be more original, innovative, creative, whatever.

An example I can think of off the top of my head (you'll forgive me if I'm not as on top of things as usual...I've had a few beers, two shots of Jager, and several Vodka & Redbulls) would be Jaws. Spielberg had a decent budget on the film, so it's not a perfect example. However, the mechanical shark rarely worked correctly. Originally Spielberg intended to make the film with the shark in a lot more scenes, killing people on full display. Due to malfunctions, Spielberg was forced to think of different approach, a more "Hitchcockian" approach. We now rarely see the shark until the end. Most people will say this made the movie much better, the horror being more mysterious and forcing the camera to focus on the human characters that make the movie more than just a simple horror feature. Also, Spielberg's best film (Schindler's List in my opinion) only cost $20 million compared to Jurassic Park's $65 million, and had a shorter schedule as well. Both were made the same year.

As far as "gems" go that we still view as classics or whatever, I believe there are many more Hollywood gems in the 25 years prior to 1980, than in the 25 years after. Anyway, I've said more than I intended. My real point is simply that Hollywood needs to get its act together again, and that small budgets and limited shooting schedules aren't necessarily a bad thing. Massive budgets and huge shooting schedules make a filmmaker lazy. Smaller budgets and lesser schedules force the director to be creative.

[squarejawhero]

I bought an official copy of Nightwatch in Russia. Technically friggin' amazing for the money it was made on, it's also very wierd and highly satisfying... er... except for the bit it turns into a computer game in towards the end. WTF was THAT about.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by TangentBlack

Thanks for backing me up Villain, I seemed not to have an ally in this whole bit. It is good to see that someone sees the way I do.

Ha! Here I am arguing until my throat (fingers) is (are) sore, but does anyone give me credit?

Mf.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Ha! Here I am arguing until my throat (fingers) is (are) sore, but does anyone give me credit?

Mf.

Ha ha. Sorry Ninth. I give thee credit.

[natalia]

Hiya Once a Villian, thanks for responding (and sorry if I misunderstood the point you were making in the previous post). I don't want to ignore your post, but I'm wondering if we should start a different thread about general moviemaking so we won't derail this one.

Anyway, the most recent movie I've seen is Videodrome. Wowzers. It's kinda crazy to be watching a movie about mind control through VHS tape in the age of the Internet. I don't know if I always like Cronenberg's movies, but they are always weirdly fascinating. Almost like the horror/fascination with the human body and disease he shows in his films. Ewww, and yet I couldn't stop watching.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by natalia

Hiya Once a Villian, thanks for responding (and sorry if I misunderstood the point you were making in the previous post). I don't want to ignore your post, but I'm wondering if we should start a different thread about general moviemaking so we won't derail this one.

Anyway, the most recent movie I've seen is Videodrome. Wowzers. It's kinda crazy to be watching a movie about mind control through VHS tape in the age of the Internet. I don't know if I always like Cronenberg's movies, but they are always weirdly fascinating. Almost like the horror/fascination with the human body and disease he shows in his films. Ewww, and yet I couldn't stop watching.

Videodrome, uh?
It's very interesting, indeed, but... too organic for me. Also, I'm not sure I understood anything about the story.

It has Deborah Harry in it, though, which is a redeeming quality in my eyes.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Ha ha. Sorry Ninth. I give thee credit.

Thanks. And while I'm at it, I've been meaning to ask: did you choose a username with the initials OAV on purpose?

[natalia]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Videodrome, uh?
It's very interesting, indeed, but... too organic for me. Also, I'm not sure I understood anything about the story.

It has Deborah Harry in it, though, which is a redeeming quality in my eyes.

Heh, I'm not sure I understood everything that was going on either, but gaining a good understanding may require a second viewing for me, which I'm not sure I'm up for anytime soon.

[TangentBlack]

Remember, you guys, as far as I can remember from my earlier film classes and American history as well as world history, the book was the most popular form of entertainment around. As new generations approached, film became the faster, more exciting way to spend time. A story could be told within two hours that would normally take ten. The early movies however, not including silents, were plot based because of the technological lacking and because people were used to stories being driven by literary devices, such as irony, characters, setting, metaphor, foreshadowing, and dialouge. These tools (and more) were used to drive the PLOT and not necessarily the film techniques. This generation seems to be concerned with the action and reaction of the film rather than the story as a whole, because they are used to entertainment being quick and decisive. This is why dialouge based plots are not as popular with the mainstream crowd. Film used to compliment literature, and now, film is in a league of its own. (and rightfully so!) This is one of the reasons why film nowadays is considered "unintelligent"; it lost its grounds with its brother in media, which is the book.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

Hollywood rules and all you art nerds suck!

Tempsie, when people like me say things like :Rashomon is much better films than Titanic (or Matrix or any other HW blocknuster), do you really think they are just trying to look cool? It's a serious question by the way in case you are wondering.




Although I must admitt that I do find many HW movies entertaining, it's the independent films that leave a lasting impression. Like this one:



or this one



I rewatched both recently and both were as memorable as ever.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by natalia

Hiya Once a Villian, thanks for responding (and sorry if I misunderstood the point you were making in the previous post). I don't want to ignore your post, but I'm wondering if we should start a different thread about general moviemaking so we won't derail this one.

Anyway, the most recent movie I've seen is Videodrome. Wowzers. It's kinda crazy to be watching a movie about mind control through VHS tape in the age of the Internet. I don't know if I always like Cronenberg's movies, but they are always weirdly fascinating. Almost like the horror/fascination with the human body and disease he shows in his films. Ewww, and yet I couldn't stop watching.

Ah yes, Videodrome. Did you watch the Criterion DVD release or did you catch it on TV? Definitely a strange movie, but probably one of Cronenberg's best.

Originally Posted by Ninth

Thanks. And while I'm at it, I've been meaning to ask: did you choose a username with the initials OAV on purpose?

Nope. But I don't mind being called OAV at all either, so that worked out well. Heh.

[Lucien21]

Ok went to see Harry Potter and must admit.

I'm disappointed.

No where near as good as the last one.

The film seemed a bit rushed at times it seemed to skip huge forward in time at strange points that you were never really sure that this film was suppossed to be over a whole school year and not just about 1 week.

For instance the Quidditch world cup at the start of the film didn' last long and you don't see much.

It's probably because of the impossible 636 pages into 2.5 hours, but it sucked that they decimated the book in favour of just the Tri Wizard tournament.

It seemed like they were just giving you quick snapshots then on to the next bit.

The big action sequences were good enough to hold interest, but not a great film.

Distinctly average potter. Must try better.

[natalia]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Ah yes, Videodrome. Did you watch the Criterion DVD release or did you catch it on TV? Definitely a strange movie, but probably one of Cronenberg's best.

I ordered it on On Demand on TV. Would there be huge differences between the Criterion version and that one?

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by natalia

I ordered it on On Demand on TV. Would there be huge differences between the Criterion version and that one?

Well, the Criterion release is the unrated, uncut version of the movie, but if On Demand was using the Criterion print then the only difference was probably the aspect ratio. Unless they aired it in widescreen, of course. I suppose you do miss out on all of Criterion's extra content, but some people don't care about that anyway. Here are the extras:

Two audio commentaries: David Cronenberg and director of photography Mark Irwin, and actors James Woods and Deborah Harry

Camera (2000), a short film starring Videodrome’s Les Carlson, written and directed by Cronenberg

Forging the New Flesh, a new half-hour documentary featurette by filmmaker Michael Lennick about the creation of Videodrome’s video and prosthetic makeup effects

Effects Men, a new audio interview with special makeup effects creator Baker and video effects supervisor Lennick

Bootleg Video: the complete footage of Samurai Dreams and seven minutes of transmissions from “Videodrome,” presented in their original, unedited form with filmmaker commentary

Fear on Film, a 26-minute roundtable discussion from 1982 between filmmakers Cronenberg, John Carpenter, John Landis, and Mick Garris

Original theatrical trailers and promotional featurette

Stills galleries featuring hundreds of rare behind-the-scenes production photos, special effects makeup tests, and publicity photos English subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired

[Tobbe]

Recent movies, The Yes Men, and, Closer
I thought both were brilliant movies, nothing alike of course.

The Yes Men
Those guys are amazing, and so brilliant, It really showed what a single individual, or a small group of people can do, without having to be politicians, rich, etc. That you still kan make a different, and show your oppinion, in this case using sarcasm satir, and humour..

Closer Great actors, I liked Jude Laws performance the most, for eg. Julia Roberts performance I thought was a bit flat..In overall a great movie about confussion, love, difficulties, moral issues. And I really like the writing, the dialogues between charachters, it was pure brilliance!