Godzilla - What a Turkey
Brett O'Callaghan
Yuck.
Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
Godzilla.
JP2 (not exactly a great flick itself) did it all and did it better.
IMO.
I rather watch ID4 again, or even Stargate, or even Universal
Soldier....
Byeeeee.
--
Visit my webpage - http://www.cbl.com.au/~boc/
Home of WhoINFO, free Doctor Who database for W95/NT.
Grant Watson
>Yuck.
>Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
>Godzilla.
I haven't seen it yet. I was supposed to go on Saturday but went to
see a friend's play instead.
Several of my friends went and they all liked it.
>JP2 (not exactly a great flick itself) did it all and did it better.
The Lost World is a *great* movie.
Cheers!
Grant.
Mark Robinson
I saw it a couple weeks ago, and I liked it, too--and I don't usually like
monster movies. I can't watch the original series without Mike and the
robots!
Nyssa
Chad Millar
Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> Yuck.
>
> Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
> Godzilla.
>
>
>
> I rather watch ID4 again, or even Stargate, or even Universal
> Soldier....
I was astonished at how bad it was. You can pretty much sum it up as 5
pages of story, the exploding buildings from ID4, and the dinosaurs from
Jurassic Park. One of the worst movies I've had the misfortune to see in
recent history. I saw it in a midnight marathon with "Hush" and "As Good
as it Gets" so the night wasn't a complete waste of time.
---
Chad Millar
c_mi...@hotmail.com
Stephen Kelly
Brett O'Callaghan wrote in message <357a621...@news.cbl.com.au>...
>Yuck.
>
>Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
>Godzilla.
I just saw Godzilla today and thought it was excellent. It was a bit
predictable and formulaic but was still a great story with great effects.
It was as much as, or more than, could be expected from this storyline. What
did you expect when you went to this movie?
I would definitely recommend this movie.
Jason Stokes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>I just saw Godzilla today and thought it was excellent. It was a bit
>predictable and formulaic but was still a great story with great effects.
I was going to be nice about this, but, frankly, no matter how bad the
movie, no matter how crass and commercial, no matter how big the
ripoff, there is always *some* poor misguided media fan who will turn
up on Aus.sf the next day and say how great it is. Let's face it:
media fans are people who are prepared to pay $25 for original episodes
of 'Lost in Space', and thousands of dollars for a bunch of plastic
kids toys. Godzilla is probably perfect for an audience with tastes
that lowbrow. But let's not confuse it with anything halfway
intelligent.
I actually enjoyed 'Godzilla vs. Biolante' (sp?) and the original
Gojira/Godzilla, but this remake sounds dreadful. Admittedly I'm not
going to give the filmakers the satisfaction of getting revenue just to
confirm my suspicions, but my points stand on their own.
- --
Jason Stokes: js...@bluedog.apana.org.au
Due to a forger pretending to be me on Usenet this message is digitally
signed. See my homepage: http://bluedog.apana.org.au/~jstok/index.html
for my PGP key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNXv4xjXsitsNFJm1AQFSFAQA4Yq+Me7MknZulz2ePLW6+FDPqBhGqKPE
CIahzM8eEvAmscoBm0c64+pnCf8r1lljM3GJEycC8iCkNT6bi/et0xvf3d/p3xQ4
RQpuQmRGL2vLyl7+iTdFb1a+ppH6hVD1oe3utaXnJSb8o+u9m0rpiUS6rsq28VN0
elgaj7vuddE=
=Xze4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark Robinson
Actually, I like a lot of highbrow movies (and hate most monster movies,
slasher movies, shoot-em-up action thrillers, etc.), don't own any "Lost
in Space" (or "Star Trek") episodes, and would never pay thousands of
dollars just for plastic kids' toys. So I don't consider myself a "media
fan." I would rather watch "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern" than "Batman."
Yet, I happened to like the new Godzilla movie. I don't like the old ones
much at all. I think it's just a matter of taste, not intelligence.
Nyssa
Sean Tudor
>Yuck.
>Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
>Godzilla.
>JP2 (not exactly a great flick itself) did it all and did it better.
>IMO.
>I rather watch ID4 again, or even Stargate, or even Universal
>Soldier....
The really sad thing is that even some of the special effects are
extremely dodgy. Look closely at the CGI and you will notice some bad
edge artifacts where it is blended into the background.
It's particularly noticeable if you look closely at the baby
Godzilla's. Now I know why they filmed Godzilla with continual
pouring rain - to disguise all the crappy special effects.
------------------------
Sean Tudor
Sydney, Australia
------------------------
This is my cannon, this is my gun
One is for bandits, and one is for fun
------------------------
vicious at magna dot com dot au
Brett O'Callaghan
n...@spam.com (Sean Tudor) wrote:
>b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett O'Callaghan) wrote:
>>Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
>>Godzilla.
>>JP2 (not exactly a great flick itself) did it all and did it better.
>The really sad thing is that even some of the special effects are
>extremely dodgy. Look closely at the CGI and you will notice some bad
>edge artifacts where it is blended into the background.
Yep, I noticed that, a sign of not enough time and doing it on the
cheap I expect. And yes, the rapt... baby godzilla's were very
ordinary in a number of shots. You can cover up all sorts of things
with a bit of rain, but put your CG critters in front of a nice shiny
floor and wall and they better be good. They weren't.
Like I said, JP2 did it all and did it better.
Brett O'Callaghan
Chad Millar <c_mi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
>> Yuck.
>> Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
>> Godzilla.
>I was astonished at how bad it was. You can pretty much sum it up as 5
>pages of story, the exploding buildings from ID4, and the dinosaurs from
>Jurassic Park.
Yep. And Matthew Broderick has very nearly used up all the
credibility points he's got with me from "Ferris Bueller's".
He tried, but... I guess there's only so much you can do with that
little script.
Stephen Kelly
Mark Robinson wrote in message <6lhmk0$o...@newsops.execpc.com>...
>I think it's just a matter of taste, not intelligence.
>
>Nyssa
Exactly!
Stephen Kelly
Jason Stokes wrote in message
<6lgt83$lbq$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>Godzilla is probably perfect for an audience with tastes
>that lowbrow. But let's not confuse it with anything halfway
>intelligent.
Why should a movie be intelligent? If you want intelligence go
study mathematics or physics. Intelligence (If thats what you have)
doesn't make you better, just different.
If you over analyse any movie, the plots have been done many times
before. Does that mean we should give up making movies altogether.
There should be a wide variety of movies, for a wide variety of tastes.
If you don't like it, don't go. If you do go, accept it for what it is. Its
a story
to entertain many people, but not all of them.
Your denigration makes me wonder about your intelligence. Perhaps you
should think about it too.
Stephen Kelly
Dean Hollister wrote in message <6lgrhv$6m1$1...@odyssey.apana.org.au>...
>Stephen Kelly <step...@dove.mtx.net.au> wrote:
>
>> I just saw Godzilla today and thought it was excellent. It was a bit
>> predictable and formulaic but was still a great story with great effects.
>
>A bit like The Lost World?
>
>Regards,
Yes, and I'm sure there are many others to varying degrees.
Chad Millar
Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> Chad Millar <c_mi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
> >> Yuck.
> >> Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
> >> Godzilla.
>
> >I was astonished at how bad it was. You can pretty much sum it up as 5
> >pages of story, the exploding buildings from ID4, and the dinosaurs from
> >Jurassic Park.
>
> Yep. And Matthew Broderick has very nearly used up all the
> credibility points he's got with me from "Ferris Bueller's".
>
> He tried, but... I guess there's only so much you can do with that
> little script.
It was Jurassic Park blended with ID4, minus the big name stars.
---
Chad Millar
c_mi...@hotmail.com
Jason Stokes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <357cc...@news.mtx.net.au>, Stephen Kelly
<step...@dove.mtx.net.au> wrote:
>Jason Stokes wrote in message
><6lgt83$lbq$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>
>>Godzilla is probably perfect for an audience with tastes
>>that lowbrow. But let's not confuse it with anything halfway
>>intelligent.
[snip]
>Your denigration makes me wonder about your intelligence. Perhaps you
>should think about it too.
Ok, to clarify:
I agree that appreciating a movie is about taste, not intelligence. I
am just completely frustrated by the sheer misguided taste shown by the
public, and that post was borne out of that frustration. I am *sick to
death* of people reducing critical standards to 'the effects were nice'
or 'what did you expect from a movie like this' or 'we *like* camp and
schlock' or (about Starship Troopers) 'it was really a comedy in
disguise.'
Movies deserve better than this.
- --
Jason Stokes: js...@bluedog.apana.org.au
Due to a forger pretending to be me on Usenet this message is digitally
signed. See my homepage: http://bluedog.apana.org.au/~jstok/index.html
for my PGP key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNX0IBTXsitsNFJm1AQH/9AQAhJ+F43MCOHS07DXnYzkndtfg6gT0RfGd
idipilzPid8idoW5TZewB8eY+vQp0wVYakCU+gKVDbOJELEngp0XjQsw9bbaWW8C
Hp0PSLhEo6zdF/UFbuzZTaEBB2Fa4IpqtnikdQLi+POmplFiEtjZr6ZOmmSGSbzW
N1HJ/nyCIWc=
=meie
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Grant Watson
>Yep. And Matthew Broderick has very nearly used up all the
>credibility points he's got with me from "Ferris Bueller's".
>
>He tried, but... I guess there's only so much you can do with that
>little script.
You can see why he took the project on, though. Look where Will Smith
is now...
Cheers!
Grant.
Grant Watson
On 8 Jun 1998 14:42:11 GMT, js...@bogus-address.apana.org.au (Jason
Stokes) wrote:
>I was going to be nice about this, but, frankly, no matter how bad the
>movie, no matter how crass and commercial, no matter how big the
>ripoff, there is always *some* poor misguided media fan who will turn
>up on Aus.sf the next day and say how great it is.
Oh *please*!
Is there no such thing any more as differences in taste? Maybe this
"poor misguided" fan happened to enjoy the movie? Did they say it was
a classic? On a par with Welles or Hitchcock? Deserving of an Oscar?
No. They liked it. People are allowed to like things, you know.
Personally, I loathed Starship Troopers to a point beyond which I can
harp on about. But I don't discourage others from liking it - I can
tell them what I think of it, but I'm not going to cut into them
because they enjoyed a movie.
>Let's face it:
>media fans are people who are prepared to pay $25 for original episodes
>of 'Lost in Space', and thousands of dollars for a bunch of plastic
>kids toys. Godzilla is probably perfect for an audience with tastes
>that lowbrow. But let's not confuse it with anything halfway
>intelligent.
Your post is looking suspiciously like one of those litfan vs mediafan
debates that are so incredibly stupid and pathetic and do nothing more
than irritate people.
WTF has Lost In Space got to do with anyone liking or disliking
Godzilla?!!
>I actually enjoyed 'Godzilla vs. Biolante' (sp?) and the original
>Gojira/Godzilla, but this remake sounds dreadful. Admittedly I'm not
>going to give the filmakers the satisfaction of getting revenue just to
>confirm my suspicions, but my points stand on their own.
So in other words you're going to tear someone down for liking a film
you haven't seen nor are even planning to.
Clever. ;-)
Cheers!
Grant.
Jason Stokes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <357d206b...@news.iinet.net.au>, Grant Watson
<nz...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>Oh *please*!
> Is there no such thing any more as differences in taste?
I'm *talking* about difference in taste!
>Maybe this "poor misguided" fan happened to enjoy the movie? Did they
>say it was a classic? On a par with Welles or Hitchcock? Deserving of
>an Oscar?
> No. They liked it. People are allowed to like things, you know.
>Personally, I loathed Starship Troopers to a point beyond which I can
>harp on about. But I don't discourage others from liking it - I can
>tell them what I think of it, but I'm not going to cut into them
>because they enjoyed a movie.
I used to take this attitude. But recently I've formed the attitude
(and opinionated sod that I am, I'm not going to hide it even though
politically it's not a clever thing to say on Aus.sf and isn't going to
enamour me to my friends) that the biggest thing holding back quality
SF moviemaking is the fans.
I wouldn't care about this at all, except for one thing: SF is
expensive. The stakes are high and hence there is no niche for highbrow
SF. But the SF moviemaking industry is market driven. If more people
took the time to examine their choices and decide if they are really
seeing a movie that's worthwhile, or whether they are just jumping on a
marketing bandwagon, there might just be some blockbuster SF movies
made that are worth watching.
>>Let's face it: media fans are people who are prepared to pay $25 for
>>original episodes of 'Lost in Space', and thousands of dollars for a
>>bunch of plastic kids toys. Godzilla is probably perfect for an
>>audience with tastes that lowbrow. But let's not confuse it with
>>anything halfway intelligent.
>Your post is looking suspiciously like one of those litfan vs mediafan
>debates that are so incredibly stupid and pathetic and do nothing more
>than irritate people.
I've never seen one. In my experience we're all too diplomatic to do
that kind of thing. After months of ignoring the Starship Troopers
thread, my patience has finally snapped. That Starship Troopers was
butchered in the movie adaptation is an act of moral turpitude that
should have been *shouted* from the media rooftops, but instead we get
this mindless appreciation from people who don't read anything except
media tie-ins and hence have no frame of reference for what really
constitutes quality.
> WTF has Lost In Space got to do with anyone liking or disliking
>Godzilla?!!
Ok, I'm stereotyping viciously I know. But my point is there is in
fact a major problem with the culture of media SF fandom. I've been
around the scence long enough to recognise it; it's a tolerance for
sheer shyte and middle class mundanity. It's a tolerance for the
mindless gossip you read in 'Frontier' and at Star Trek conventions.
It's a tolerance for actors cynically touring the world on the fan's
pointless obsession with the most minor acting personalities behind the
show (just the actors, mind you -- the writers don't get nearly enough
attention.) But those are harmless compared to the real problem -- a
tolerance for the absolute detritus of human creativity, with the most
appalling junk elevated to cult status. It started with the baby
boomers; the simpleminded interests of childhood elevated to a full
scale industry in TV nostalgia. But now it's an intergenerational
thing. From the movie version of 'Lost In Space' to the movie version
of 'Godzilla', they are all symptoms of the same malaise of retrenched
junk culture.
I'm afraid it's just not good enough.
And before you start, the same problem is evident in literary fandom as
well. It's just not as pronounced.
>So in other words you're going to tear someone down for liking a film
>you haven't seen nor are even planning to.
Damn right. I know when I'm being manipulated. I'm officially
boycotting all blockbuster SF movies commencing from now.
- --
Jason Stokes: js...@bluedog.apana.org.au
Due to a forger pretending to be me on Usenet this message is digitally
signed. See my homepage: http://bluedog.apana.org.au/~jstok/index.html
for my PGP key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNX1CgDXsitsNFJm1AQEw7wP/cK3ddi3+u6HX1YxIDT1iCLExqpDbH+pm
kJK11kyZIZ9iMQGvAEfgtM+j3D9yDaXbbdW8012qV1qu+5eTX1/XgL7HRo/O+V4v
d5nUbpatrWPE7mxdZjXByuxsgjCv1VHl4YxXx0Mtb23bWsx0DChKkPRRzZ25NP4T
+2NFWssIHnA=
=CxQ/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
snail
Chad Millar <c_mi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>For now it seems that we who want more story than FX will be neglected
>for the time being.
I think that's a little over the top myself. There are some out there,
not as many as the blockbusters certainly, but a few at least are released
each year. eg 1997 saw both Contact and Gattaca, This year still to come
there's Dark City, The Truman Show, and Conceiving Ada. The last is
listed for the Sydney Film Festival, and looks like it'll be more of an
arthouse thing (which is a good thing for me).
As for Starship Troopers, I don't consider myself a media junkie, but
I preferred the movie over the book (which I read last year).
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
Sean Tudor
>Yep, I noticed that, a sign of not enough time and doing it on the
>cheap I expect. And yes, the rapt... baby godzilla's were very
>ordinary in a number of shots. You can cover up all sorts of things
>with a bit of rain, but put your CG critters in front of a nice shiny
>floor and wall and they better be good. They weren't.
>Like I said, JP2 did it all and did it better.
As did Starship Troopers.
Here is the big difference between ST and Godzilla :
Godzilla had a poor story and was poorly made
Starship Troopers had a poor story and was well made (the battle
scenes were phenomenal)
Here is a question for the realism junkies : What is the likelyhood of
a 30 floor skyscraper still standing with most of its internal
structure torn out ?
Stephen Kelly
Jason Stokes wrote in message
<6lj120$t8d$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>I agree that appreciating a movie is about taste, not intelligence.
Thank you.
>Movies deserve better than this.
I agree. I would always love to see the highest level of quality in SciFi
effects and story lines. I believe we are unlikely to see them reach the
levels you would hope for. Sad, but true.
I still enjoy the films that do come out. I know they are not works of art.
(That includes Starship Troopers and Lost in Space)
What is the likelihood you could unite the SciFi community and influence
Hollywood to change their ways. Buckleys. If you controlled the making of
these films, you would still have many people complaining in a newsgroup
that the quality was still not good enough.
I would rather see these SciFi movies, than none at all. Hopefully the
quality will improve and we will both be happy.
Regards,
StephenK.
Stephen Kelly
Jason Stokes wrote in message
<6ljfno$mjc$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>(and opinionated sod that I am
Arn't we all.
>the biggest thing holding back quality SF moviemaking is the fans.
The problem is there is not enough of them.
>there might just be some blockbuster SF movies made that are worth
watching.
You can add my name to the petition. I hope it happens.
>I'm afraid it's just not good enough.
You are worked up. Please don't have stroke. Take a breath and keep calm.
>Damn right. I know when I'm being manipulated.
Your probably right.
>I'm officially boycotting all blockbuster SF movies commencing from now.
Good for you.
If all SciFi fans did this we would not see better SciFi. Its more likely we
would see no SciFi.
Regards
StephenK
Chad Millar
Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
> >there might just be some blockbuster SF movies made that are worth
> watching.
> >I'm officially boycotting all blockbuster SF movies commencing from now.
The key word here is 'blockbuster'. Americans are swallowing up these
big effects/little story movies, so naturally more are going to be made.
Jurassic Park 1 & 2, ID4, Starship Troopers, Deep Impact, Godzilla, Star
Trek: First Contact, the list goes one. Good storys have been dropped in
favour of the big exciting FX. (Even more laughable since the effects in
Godzilla are *not* that good - quite the opposite).
Its a sad trend that is invading tv series as well as movies (DS9,
Voyager) and unfortunately I can't see it ending any time soon.
For now it seems that we who want more story than FX will be neglected
for the time being.
---
Chad Millar
c_mi...@hotmail.com
Chad Millar
Sean Tudor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 04:47:56 GMT, b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett
> O'Callaghan) wrote:
>
> >Yep, I noticed that, a sign of not enough time and doing it on the
> >cheap I expect. And yes, the rapt... baby godzilla's were very
> >ordinary in a number of shots. You can cover up all sorts of things
> >with a bit of rain, but put your CG critters in front of a nice shiny
> >floor and wall and they better be good. They weren't.
> >Like I said, JP2 did it all and did it better.
>
> As did Starship Troopers.
>
> Here is the big difference between ST and Godzilla :
>
> Godzilla had a poor story and was poorly made
>
> Starship Troopers had a poor story and was well made (the battle
> scenes were phenomenal)
*sigh* it depends how you look at Starship Troopers' story. On a scale
of 1-10, ST gets 4, Godzilla get -2.
> Here is a question for the realism junkies : What is the likelyhood of
> a 30 floor skyscraper still standing with most of its internal
> structure torn out ?
Please, this could turn into a 600 line post if you brought out all the
realism flaws in Godzilla.
---
Chad Millar
c_mi...@hotmail.com
David Wareing
> Jason Stokes wrote in message
> <6lgt83$lbq$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>
> >Godzilla is probably perfect for an audience with tastes
> >that lowbrow. But let's not confuse it with anything halfway
> >intelligent.
> Why should a movie be intelligent?
On the other hand, why shouldn't a movie be intelligent?
There is such a thing as intelligent entertainment. Simply
because a movie is "popular entertainment" and uses a well
known genre doesn't automatically exclude it from using
well written scripts and good actors.
> If you want intelligence go study mathematics or physics.
What is the relationship?
> Intelligence (If thats what you have)
> doesn't make you better, just different.
Intelligence does make you better. Greater intelligence is
better and quicker reasoning and understanding. Please don't
go all New Age and airy-fairy on us and claim that these
things aren't better attributes in humans.
> If you over analyse any movie, the plots have been done many times
> before. Does that mean we should give up making movies altogether.
It may be true that there's nothing really new under the sun. But that
doesn't mean that new films can't excite the watcher through novel
or unusual twists, clever dialogue, pacing, direction and so forth.
Just because the Giant Monster genre is an old one doesn't mean
that only tired old repetitive movies can be produced in this
genre.
> There should be a wide variety of movies, for a wide variety of tastes.
> If you don't like it, don't go. If you do go, accept it for what it is.
> Its a story to entertain many people, but not all of them.
Simply because the film doesn't aim to please your intelligent
mathematicians and physicists doesn't mean it is beyond criticism.
If it is a stupid film then it deserves reviews critical of its
stupidity.
> Your denigration makes me wonder about your intelligence. Perhaps you
> should think about it too.
Whatever. Criticising the critic is an old sport. It'd be more
interesting to argue the merits of the film.
--
David Wareing dwar...@adelaide.on.net
Macintosh Game Development <www.ambrosiasw.com/~dwareing>
Get Mars Rising: <www.marsrising.com>
John Whear
Jason Stokes <js...@bogus-address.apana.org.au> wrote in article
<6ljfno$mjc$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
> >Maybe this "poor misguided" fan happened to enjoy the movie? Did they
> >say it was a classic? On a par with Welles or Hitchcock? Deserving of
> >an Oscar?
> > No. They liked it. People are allowed to like things, you know.
> >Personally, I loathed Starship Troopers to a point beyond which I can
> >harp on about. But I don't discourage others from liking it - I can
> >tell them what I think of it, but I'm not going to cut into them
> >because they enjoyed a movie.
>
> I used to take this attitude. But recently I've formed the attitude
> (and opinionated sod that I am, I'm not going to hide it even though
> politically it's not a clever thing to say on Aus.sf and isn't going to
> enamour me to my friends) that the biggest thing holding back quality
> SF moviemaking is the fans.
What holds it back is the dollar making potential of any given movie.
This is really a "chicken or the egg" argument. If the movie
producers/backers don't think they'll make a profit on their investment,
then the movie won't be made. If the audience attends these movies, the
circle is complete, the studios make their bucks & hence more movies will
be made. If audience attendance declines, the money disapears & the genre
declines as a visual medium. Depending on your POV, this may be either a
good or bad thing, but as a result, the really good sf ma never make the
screen. The problem is sorting the wheat from the chaff.
> I wouldn't care about this at all, except for one thing: SF is
> expensive. The stakes are high and hence there is no niche for highbrow
> SF. But the SF moviemaking industry is market driven. If more people
> took the time to examine their choices and decide if they are really
> seeing a movie that's worthwhile, or whether they are just jumping on a
> marketing bandwagon, there might just be some blockbuster SF movies
> made that are worth watching.
Agreed that the sf visual industry (as is all of hollywood) is market
driven, but I think you are missing the point of movies/tv, it is a visual
medium.
To "watch" a movie involves stirring the optic. To read a good book (sf
or otherwise) involves stirring the imagination.
Personally, I watch "visual" sf for entertainment value of an easy
nature. If I want to challenge my own imagination, I will read a book,
(again, sf or otherwise).
> >>Let's face it: media fans are people who are prepared to pay $25 for
> >>original episodes of 'Lost in Space', and thousands of dollars for a
> >>bunch of plastic kids toys. Godzilla is probably perfect for an
> >>audience with tastes that lowbrow. But let's not confuse it with
> >>anything halfway intelligent.
>
> >Your post is looking suspiciously like one of those litfan vs mediafan
> >debates that are so incredibly stupid and pathetic and do nothing more
> >than irritate people.
>
> I've never seen one. In my experience we're all too diplomatic to do
> that kind of thing. After months of ignoring the Starship Troopers
> thread, my patience has finally snapped. That Starship Troopers was
> butchered in the movie adaptation is an act of moral turpitude that
> should have been *shouted* from the media rooftops, but instead we get
> this mindless appreciation from people who don't read anything except
> media tie-ins and hence have no frame of reference for what really
> constitutes quality.
I also mainly kept out of the Starship Trooper's debate. While Starship
Troopers didn't keep to the literal content of the book, it was as good a
"piss take" of Heinlein as he was trying to make on society all those
decades ago.
Admittedly, I am placing my own twist on Heinlein's books in general (&
ST in particular), but his political, social/moral standards are
hypocritical at best, utterly self serving at worst, IMHO. I fail to see
the quality which you refer to above.
--
SEE YOU OUT THERE!
<*>
J.W.
jo...@nectar.com.au
Brett O'Callaghan
n...@spam.com (Sean Tudor) wrote:
>Here is a question for the realism junkies : What is the likelyhood of
>a 30 floor skyscraper still standing with most of its internal
>structure torn out ?
Sweet FA and bugger all would be my guesses.
Here's another one - since when will two sidewinders shear the top 15
or so floors clear off a skyscraper?
Brett O'Callaghan
nz...@iinet.net.au (Grant Watson) wrote:
>b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett O'Callaghan) wrote:
>>Yep. And Matthew Broderick has very nearly used up all the
>>credibility points he's got with me from "Ferris Bueller's".
>>He tried, but... I guess there's only so much you can do with that
>>little script.
>You can see why he took the project on, though. Look where Will Smith
>is now...
Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
I really hope Matthew Broderick doesn't get stuck in the brainless-FX
flick genre from now on.
Sean Tudor
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:54:54 +1000, Chad Millar <c_mi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>> Here is a question for the realism junkies : What is the likelyhood of
>> a 30 floor skyscraper still standing with most of its internal
>> structure torn out ?
>Please, this could turn into a 600 line post if you brought out all the
>realism flaws in Godzilla.
<laugh>
Nick Caldwell
>Chad Millar <c_mi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> Yuck.
>>> Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
>>> Godzilla.
>
>>I was astonished at how bad it was. You can pretty much sum it up as 5
>>pages of story, the exploding buildings from ID4, and the dinosaurs from
>>Jurassic Park.
>
>Yep. And Matthew Broderick has very nearly used up all the
>credibility points he's got with me from "Ferris Bueller's".
>
>He tried, but... I guess there's only so much you can do with that
>little script.
I wasn't going to see it, but I hear it's got Jean Reno in it, doing
an American accent. Now this strikes me as being worth at least $4 to
see. How long is he in it for, and does he get squashed?
--
Nick Caldwell--------------------------------------------------
"Never thought you'd get converted, `cos Cybermen are so passe"
s32...@student.uq.edu.au | http://student.uq.edu.au/~s326954
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Caldwell
On 9 Jun 1998 14:10:00 GMT, js...@bogus-address.apana.org.au (Jason
Stokes) wrote:
>In article <357d206b...@news.iinet.net.au>, Grant Watson
><nz...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
(snip)
>> No. They liked it. People are allowed to like things, you know.
>>Personally, I loathed Starship Troopers to a point beyond which I can
>>harp on about. But I don't discourage others from liking it - I can
>>tell them what I think of it, but I'm not going to cut into them
>>because they enjoyed a movie.
>
>I used to take this attitude. But recently I've formed the attitude
>(and opinionated sod that I am, I'm not going to hide it even though
>politically it's not a clever thing to say on Aus.sf and isn't going to
>enamour me to my friends) that the biggest thing holding back quality
>SF moviemaking is the fans.
Hyperbole. Fans make up a mere fraction of the audience of a
successful movie.
>I wouldn't care about this at all, except for one thing: SF is
>expensive. The stakes are high and hence there is no niche for highbrow
>SF. But the SF moviemaking industry is market driven. If more people
>took the time to examine their choices and decide if they are really
>seeing a movie that's worthwhile, or whether they are just jumping on a
>marketing bandwagon, there might just be some blockbuster SF movies
>made that are worth watching.
I don't think the problem you're addressing is exclusive to the visual
SF genre.
>>>Let's face it: media fans are people who are prepared to pay $25 for
>>>original episodes of 'Lost in Space', and thousands of dollars for a
>>>bunch of plastic kids toys. Godzilla is probably perfect for an
>>>audience with tastes that lowbrow. But let's not confuse it with
>>>anything halfway intelligent.
Do you mean "intelligent" to stand for "narrative and plot coherency"?
I don't think people go to see "blockbuster sf" films for those
elements, but I don't think it's because they're dumb. If you go to
see a blockbuster sf film these days, you can reasonably expect to see
technically stunning, *real* images of things that can't possibly be
happening. It often is really impressive stuff. Remember heavy metal
back in the 80s and early 90s: lots and lots of showy, over-the-top
guitar work that was impressive to listen to, but eventually got
boring because it said nothing.
SF films are at this stage at the moment because special effects
techniques have very quickly advanced in realism and have, for the
moment, become more important than storytelling techniques. We're
very nearly at over-saturation point - to go to the metaphor again,
it's probably only going to take one more Whitesnake album to kill the
genre stone dead. Or a new Nirvana.
Anyway, putting on my film student hat, plot is maybe 10% of how
cinema produces its effects: psychoanalytic theory would say more of
it is to do with things like suture (the way the viewer is encouraged
to make certain identifications onscreen through the gaze of the
camera).
>>Your post is looking suspiciously like one of those litfan vs mediafan
>>debates that are so incredibly stupid and pathetic and do nothing more
>>than irritate people.
>
>I've never seen one. In my experience we're all too diplomatic to do
You know, you're a very odd mix of raging cynic and insane optimist.
>that kind of thing. After months of ignoring the Starship Troopers
>thread, my patience has finally snapped. That Starship Troopers was
>butchered in the movie adaptation is an act of moral turpitude that
>should have been *shouted* from the media rooftops, but instead we get
>this mindless appreciation from people who don't read anything except
>media tie-ins and hence have no frame of reference for what really
>constitutes quality.
"Moral turpitude?" Urr, sure, whatever, dude.
I'm writing my thesis on, in part, how Starship Troopers was recieved
by fan culture, so I'm not sure how much I should stir up my database
here (-:. But with that reservation:
I think mindless appreciation is a bit much. Certainly, ST allows for
(encourages)a sort of slackjawed gaping as a way of watching it, but
people who refuse to allow that it's working on other levels as well
probably haven't watched it. Now whether you think those other levels
worked or not is another story entirely.
I enjoyed it; I was a bit disturbed by some of its aspects (it
mischaracterises Heinlein's attitude about guns, and its mixing of
generic conventions is a little unsettling) but all in all I thought
it was good cinema.
>> WTF has Lost In Space got to do with anyone liking or disliking
>>Godzilla?!!
>
>Ok, I'm stereotyping viciously I know. But my point is there is in
>fact a major problem with the culture of media SF fandom. I've been
>around the scence long enough to recognise it; it's a tolerance for
>sheer shyte and middle class mundanity. It's a tolerance for the
>mindless gossip you read in 'Frontier' and at Star Trek conventions.
>It's a tolerance for actors cynically touring the world on the fan's
>pointless obsession with the most minor acting personalities behind the
>show (just the actors, mind you -- the writers don't get nearly enough
>attention.) But those are harmless compared to the real problem -- a
>tolerance for the absolute detritus of human creativity, with the most
>appalling junk elevated to cult status. It started with the baby
>boomers; the simpleminded interests of childhood elevated to a full
>scale industry in TV nostalgia. But now it's an intergenerational
>thing. From the movie version of 'Lost In Space' to the movie version
>of 'Godzilla', they are all symptoms of the same malaise of retrenched
>junk culture.
>
>I'm afraid it's just not good enough.
>
>And before you start, the same problem is evident in literary fandom as
>well. It's just not as pronounced.
Er, evidence?
Chad Millar
Nick Caldwell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 04:48:02 GMT, b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett
> O'Callaghan) wrote:
>
> >Chad Millar <c_mi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
> >>> Yuck.
> >>> Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
> >>> Godzilla.
> >
> >>I was astonished at how bad it was. You can pretty much sum it up as 5
> >>pages of story, the exploding buildings from ID4, and the dinosaurs from
> >>Jurassic Park.
> >
> >Yep. And Matthew Broderick has very nearly used up all the
> >credibility points he's got with me from "Ferris Bueller's".
> >
> >He tried, but... I guess there's only so much you can do with that
> >little script.
>
> I wasn't going to see it, but I hear it's got Jean Reno in it, doing
> an American accent. Now this strikes me as being worth at least $4 to
> see. How long is he in it for, and does he get squashed?
He's in the whole movie, he doesn't die, and he's about the best thing
in it.
---
Chad Millar
c_mi...@hotmail.com
Ian Galbraith
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 01:18:29 +0930, "Stephen Kelly"
<step...@dove.mtx.net.au> wrote:
[snip]
:I agree. I would always love to see the highest level of quality in SciFi
:effects and story lines. I believe we are unlikely to see them reach the
:levels you would hope for. Sad, but true.
:I still enjoy the films that do come out. I know they are not works of art.
:(That includes Starship Troopers and Lost in Space)
:What is the likelihood you could unite the SciFi community and influence
:Hollywood to change their ways. Buckleys. If you controlled the making of
:these films, you would still have many people complaining in a newsgroup
:that the quality was still not good enough.
:I would rather see these SciFi movies, than none at all. Hopefully the
:quality will improve and we will both be happy.
And as long as people settle for less that's what they'll get, lesser
quality films and TV. Look at Star Trek, Trekkies will take anything
Paramush throw at them, and the quality has gone far downhill as a result.
There is no incentive to do any better. Like Jason I am making a point of
not seeing Dogzilla. I'll wait for The Truman Show and Dark City for my SF
film fix.
Be Seeing You
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.audelete_this ICQ#: 7849631
(To email me remove delete_this from my address)
"Only those whose lives are brief can imagine that love is eternal. You
should embrace that remarkable illusion, it may be the greatest gift your
race has ever received."
Babylon 5, Into The Fire, Lorien, written by J. Michael Straczynski
Ian Galbraith
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 22:13:18 GMT, n...@spam.com (Sean Tudor) wrote:
[snip]
:As did Starship Troopers.
:Here is the big difference between ST and Godzilla :
:Godzilla had a poor story and was poorly made
:Starship Troopers had a poor story and was well made (the battle
:scenes were phenomenal)
Yeah phenomenally stupid, although the CGI was phenomenally good.
[snip]
Be Seeing You
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.audelete_this ICQ#: 7849631
(To email me remove delete_this from my address)
"What is the use of straining after an amiable view of things, when a
cynical view is most likely to be the true one?"
- George Bernard Shaw
Nick Caldwell
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:45:19 +1000, Chad Millar <c_mi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Nick Caldwell wrote:
>> I wasn't going to see it, but I hear it's got Jean Reno in it, doing
>> an American accent. Now this strikes me as being worth at least $4 to
>> see. How long is he in it for, and does he get squashed?
>
>He's in the whole movie, he doesn't die, and he's about the best thing
>in it.
Heh. Now nothing will stop me from seeing this film. Except the
essay I should be doing now instead of reading newsgroups. Bother.
John Leister
How does a 20 storey lizard manage to project a particle beam, or was that a
laser from it's eyes in the first place. Another reality flaw picked from
Godzilla, but I have seen it and I must admit I liked it. Just good fun. I
like big monsters squashing cars and people.
Chad Millar wrote:
> Sean Tudor wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 04:47:56 GMT, b...@lin.cbl.com.au (Brett
> > O'Callaghan) wrote:
> >
> > >Yep, I noticed that, a sign of not enough time and doing it on the
> > >cheap I expect. And yes, the rapt... baby godzilla's were very
> > >ordinary in a number of shots. You can cover up all sorts of things
> > >with a bit of rain, but put your CG critters in front of a nice shiny
> > >floor and wall and they better be good. They weren't.
> > >Like I said, JP2 did it all and did it better.
> >
> > As did Starship Troopers.
> >
> > Here is the big difference between ST and Godzilla :
> >
> > Godzilla had a poor story and was poorly made
> >
> > Starship Troopers had a poor story and was well made (the battle
> > scenes were phenomenal)
>
> *sigh* it depends how you look at Starship Troopers' story. On a scale
> of 1-10, ST gets 4, Godzilla get -2.
>
> > Here is a question for the realism junkies : What is the likelyhood of
> > a 30 floor skyscraper still standing with most of its internal
> > structure torn out ?
>
> Please, this could turn into a 600 line post if you brought out all the
> realism flaws in Godzilla.
>
> ---
> Chad Millar
> c_mi...@hotmail.com
--
"Most of the cows have gone home, some stayed, some are alone.
Now none of us who we have known can safely say that we are alone,
or far from home"
Visit me at the land of cows at:
http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/shores/6340
Running up to my mailbox at:
joh...@academy.net.au
John D Leistere
David Golding
In article <357ece2...@news.cbl.com.au>, Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
>I really hope Matthew Broderick doesn't get stuck in the brainless-FX
>flick genre from now on.
He's Inspector Gadget. Coming soon...
higs, Dave
--
david by default ...
'And we scientists are clever - too clever - are you not satisfied? Is
four square miles in one bomb not enough? Men are still thinking. Just
tell us how big you want it!' --Richard Feynman
Warp
My main bugbare was, you could not see the reptile. The way the entire film
was done - in the dark, with a creature that pretty much was the same color
as night.
To boot, the animation was done by Micro$oft....I won't even touch that one
as we will be here for decades.
Wayne
Chad Millar wrote in message <357BC70A...@hotmail.com>...
>Brett O'Callaghan wrote:
>>
>> Yuck.
>>
>> Imagine the most predictable, formulaic film you can and you have
>> Godzilla.
>>
>> JP2 (not exactly a great flick itself) did it all and did it better.
>>
>> IMO.
>>
>> I rather watch ID4 again, or even Stargate, or even Universal
>> Soldier....
>
>I was astonished at how bad it was. You can pretty much sum it up as 5
>pages of story, the exploding buildings from ID4, and the dinosaurs from
>Jurassic Park. One of the worst movies I've had the misfortune to see in
>recent history. I saw it in a midnight marathon with "Hush" and "As Good
>as it Gets" so the night wasn't a complete waste of time.
>
>---
>Chad Millar
>c_mi...@hotmail.com
Joan McGalliard
In message <3582b28c...@203.22.213.17>, n...@spam.com (Sean Tudor) wrote:
>
> Starship Troopers had a poor story and was well made (the battle
> scenes were phenomenal)
Terminology quibble: ST had high production values, but it was not well made.
Acting, and the direction of the acting stank.
joan
--
Posted with Ink Spot (for the Newton) from DejaVu Software, Inc.
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.martnet.com/~dejavu/
Joan McGalliard
Joan McGalliard
In message <357e5fe0...@news.uq.edu.au>, s32...@student.uq.edu.au (Nick
Caldwell) wrote:
>
> I wasn't going to see it, but I hear it's got Jean Reno in it, doing
> an American accent. Now this strikes me as being worth at least $4 to
> see. How long is he in it for, and does he get squashed?
Intermittently throughout the film, and no.
He plays a Frenchman.
Another urrghh from the film: when the French fail to communicate with a
Japanese man via a translator, they successfully (!!) get an answer using
the Universal language: English. WTF?
OK, one more. Why is it Muaroa (sp? ) & not Bikini Atoll? [That's a rhetorical
question. the answer is "because the French are bastards"]
Grant Watson
>I used to take this attitude. But recently I've formed the attitude
>(and opinionated sod that I am, I'm not going to hide it even though
>politically it's not a clever thing to say on Aus.sf and isn't going to
>enamour me to my friends) that the biggest thing holding back quality
>SF moviemaking is the fans.
In what way? Fans make up a ridiculously small percentage of any given
film's audience. Fans aren't the problem.
>I wouldn't care about this at all, except for one thing: SF is
>expensive. The stakes are high and hence there is no niche for highbrow
>SF. But the SF moviemaking industry is market driven. If more people
>took the time to examine their choices and decide if they are really
>seeing a movie that's worthwhile, or whether they are just jumping on a
>marketing bandwagon, there might just be some blockbuster SF movies
>made that are worth watching.
But it isn't the fans who make the blockbusters so successful - it's
the millions of ordinary people who flock to see a movie because it's
a fun distraction and an enjoyable two hours.
>After months of ignoring the Starship Troopers
>thread, my patience has finally snapped. That Starship Troopers was
>butchered in the movie adaptation is an act of moral turpitude that
>should have been *shouted* from the media rooftops, but instead we get
>this mindless appreciation from people who don't read anything except
>media tie-ins and hence have no frame of reference for what really
>constitutes quality.
Comparing a book to a film of that book is a futile exercise: they're
based in different mediums, obey different rules and are contructed
and read in different ways.
I don't dislike Starship Troopers because it's a massacre of the
original novel. That's entirely irrelevant. I dislike Starship
Troopers 'cause it's a crap, crap movie.
Cheers!
Grant.
Joan McGalliard
In message <357EB11E...@academy.net.au>, John Leister
<joh...@academy.net.au> wrote:
>
> How does a 20 storey lizard manage to project a particle beam, or was that
a
> laser from it's eyes in the first place.
Was this in Godzilla (1998)? I didn't notice it,
Sean Tudor
On 11 Jun 1998 12:39:31 GMT, jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan
McGalliard) wrote:
>> Starship Troopers had a poor story and was well made (the battle
>> scenes were phenomenal)
>Terminology quibble: ST had high production values, but it was not well made.
>Acting, and the direction of the acting stank.
Thanks Joan. I think that is what I meant. :-)
John Leister
Godzilla's eye lit up and something comes out of them.
I'm pretty sure it's in the movie as I stayed awake for most of it.
Joan McGalliard wrote:
--
David Golding
In article <6lpisu$gk7$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, Joan McGalliard wrote:
>In message <357EB11E...@academy.net.au>, John Leister
><joh...@academy.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> How does a 20 storey lizard manage to project a particle beam, or was that
>a
>> laser from it's eyes in the first place.
>
>Was this in Godzilla (1998)? I didn't notice it,
Well, yeah, because it wasn't in it. Either John is confused or
trolling.
I saw the movie. Was fun. Certainly wasn't a great film, or even a
good one, really. Neither was it so-bad-it's-good. It didn't really
work on any level. But I still enjoyed it. So sue me.
John Leister
I stand to be corrected here perhaps I wasn't paying as much attention to the
film as I should hve maybe I should see it again. My mistake. And no I was not
trolling, God you people are serious. I was mistaken about the eye thing.
David Golding wrote:
--
Joan McGalliard
In message <3580BEF6...@academy.net.au>, John Leister
<joh...@academy.net.au> wrote:
>
> Godzilla's eye lit up and something comes out of them.
> I'm pretty sure it's in the movie as I stayed awake for most of it.
>
**Laughs** Well, you got me there! To my shame I have to admit I couldn't
stay awake for all of Godzilla. I had a nice refreshing nap during the Madison
Square Garden sequence.
Phil Herring
In article <6lojea$mvo$2...@otis.netspace.net.au>,
jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan McGalliard) wrote:
> OK, one more. Why is it Muaroa (sp? ) & not Bikini Atoll? [That's a rhetorical
> question. the answer is "because the French are bastards"]
If I may be permitted to answer your rhetoric...
I expect that Muroroa was chosen to allow the subsequent redemption of the
French character played by Jean Reno -- IOW, the French *were* the bad
guys, but now they're reformed. Parallels real life, and gives you a neat
"mysterious" hero to help the bumbling-but-lovable efforts of the
character played by what's-his-face. Possibly (if I may be permitted to
allude to the unfashionable, but still occasionally useful, theory of
character types in narrative) Jean Reno's character is of the "he comes by
night, with the wind" variety... kind of an old-fashioned movie hero, who
doesn't stick around to be thanked afterwards.
If you know what I mean.
FWIW, the film footage of the blast was actually from a US test. (You
can't miss it - it's the one with the WWII battleships in the foreground
of the blast. I can't recall which it was, exactly -- possibly the Bravo
test, the first hrdrogen bomb.) Why, in this day and age, do film makers
have to resort to old stock footage like that? Why can't they do a fake
CGI atomic blast?
Chris Hadgis
In article <revdoc-1906...@bastardo.cc.uow.edu.au> rev...@uow.edu.au (Phil Herring) writes:
> chr...@mincom.oz.au (Chris Hadgis) wrote:
> > At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious - it's much cheaper to use
> > stock footage than to generate a CGI atomic blast from scratch.
> Yes, *but*, we've all seen that same footage before, so I'm sure
> that a lot of people would have recognised the test in question as a
> US test, not a French one, which results in the suspension of
> disbelief being dropped for a moment.
"suspension of disbelief being dropped for a moment"
If the atomic blast being from a US test rather than a French test
bugged you, how did you cope with all the other technical errors?
* A building with a whopping great hole in it still standing.
* Sidewinders shearing off 15 stories of a skyscraper
etc, etc, etc.
I can't remember all the other plot points for now, and I haven't
seen the movie yet, but I am sure you have seen other nitpicks.
ChrisH