great Blade Runner ref in The Fifth Element
Lars Joreteg
On Mon, 12 May 1997, Ira . Hessel wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 1997, Sal Id wrote:
>
> > Did anyone else notice the great Blade Runner reference in The Fifth
> > Element?
> >
> > Think about the two movies, and both of their scenes involving Chinese
> > food. Great parallel!
> >
> I beleive the general in 5th was a cyborg in Blade runner.
Yeah, that's right. Luc Besson fans might get a chuckle out of the fact
that he was playing a character (the replicant from the opening scene)
name "Leon". :)
> BTW-Blade Runner is great SF-Film Noir as well-12 monkeys was great SF
I agree, both are genre classics.
> The 5E is nowhere in their class-just another example of technology in
> the wrong hands
Wrong hands? *In my opinion* Luc Besson is one of the best directors in
the world, perhaps even the best one. With 5th element, Besson tries to
do something very different from typical "hollywood" sci-fi, and wether
or not you think the result was good or not, he should be applauded for
that effort. We need to get away from the hollywood -sm that only SW,
Trek, Arnold, James Cameron can make good sci-fi, and the rest is "crap".
I do enjoy all of these above examples, but seeing 5th element felt so
refreshing.
I loved every minute of the 5th element, and I think it will be a
classic.
- Lars ________
| _____] "It was a new age.
Lars F. Joreteg | | ___ It was the end of history.
|__|[_ \ It was the year everything
<ljor...@puc.edu> B A B_ Y \L |O N changed.
http://www.puc.edu ( \__/ | The year is 2261.
/Students/ljoreteg \______/ The place: Babylon 5."
Sal Id
Did anyone else notice the great Blade Runner reference in The Fifth
Element?
Think about the two movies, and both of their scenes involving Chinese
food. Great parallel!
sal id
--
Tim Masterson --- Mass...@haven.ios.com
http://haven.ios.com/~masson12 - Home Of The Danny
Boyle Fan Page - Sal_Id on IRC - #couzin-ed
Remove #NOSPAM from my address to e-mail.
Ira . Hessel
On Mon, 12 May 1997, Sal Id wrote:
I beleive the general in 5th was a cyborg in Blade runner.
BTW-Blade Runner is great SF-Film Noir as well-12 monkeys was great SF
Mik Warmington
Lars Joreteg wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 May 1997, Ira . Hessel wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 May 1997, Sal Id wrote:
> >
> > > Did anyone else notice the great Blade Runner reference in The Fifth
> > > Element?
> > >
> > > Think about the two movies, and both of their scenes involving Chinese
> > > food. Great parallel!
> > >
>
> that he was playing a character (the replicant from the opening scene)
> name "Leon". :)
>
>
>
> > the wrong hands
>
> the world, perhaps even the best one. With 5th element, Besson tries to
> do something very different from typical "hollywood" sci-fi, and wether
> or not you think the result was good or not, he should be applauded for
> that effort. We need to get away from the hollywood -sm that only SW,
> Trek, Arnold, James Cameron can make good sci-fi, and the rest is "crap".
> I do enjoy all of these above examples, but seeing 5th element felt so
> refreshing.
>
elements of European and American films to create something with just
that little extra to distinguish his films from the rest of the pack.
Mik
Stargazer
Ok folks. I have read so many posts about this that I can no
longer let this comment bother me. Could someone please point
out what was so different from Hollywood sci-fi in the Fifth
Element? I was watching very hard but couldn't see it.
That was actually the core of my great disappointment. Besides
the great visuals (and even those owe a debt to Hollywood) there
was nothing in that film that was different from any Hollywood
big-budget sci-fi. Even 12 Monkeys was more original in that
respect.
What is your reference point?
--Stargazer
Stargazer
In article 5d92...@ns.indigo.ie, "Count Zero" <a...@indigo.ie> () writes:
>The tone. The pacing. The non dystopia-drenched-in-acid-rain
>and-eternal-blackness presentation of a future.
Has been done in Back to the Future II., Lost Horizon, Saturn 3
(of all disasters), and many, many more films. Blade Runner and
Mad Max are but a couple of films, my friend. BladeRunner
actually started a trend, mind you. Prior to that film the
future's been mainly bright. I only remember serenity from 2001.
Star Trek ring a bell????
>The use of modern
>music.
This is so silly I am not even going to address it.
(Starting with "modern music...")
>The anticlimactic ending where a bigger weapon doesn't
>save the world but a very unexpected weapon - an emotion - does.
How many times has this been done? If I remember correctly, "The
Force" saves the day in Star Wars. Geee... dat ees one beeg weapon...
An anticlimactic ending for this choice of a theme and material is
donwright amateurish, BTW from a purely cinematic perspective.
It would be like Jaws ending with all them bozos returning from the
big hunt having done nothing, and just forgetting about the whole
thing. That plastic/metal shark was more threatening than "evil"
in TFE.
>The sense of irony. The lack of action beats every five minutes. The
Lack of action beats? hehe... Made up for it with explosions... :-)
In any case, the action beats in TFE were in same proportion as
any other sci-fi film in its sub-genre (future-hero-vs.-evil-save-
the-world-from-annihilation). <g>
And if you want tongue-in-cheek (which you seem to be confusing
with irony,) Austin Powers works better. Maybe I can recommend
"Dollman vs. Demonic Toys". <g>
>eccentricty of the characters. The unity of visuals with the thematic
Eccentricity. Tsk, tsk... Shall we also count in the yellow hair of
Bruce Willis? I mean the man's got blonde hair in the film. That
makes it different. No other film has that. Yeah. It makes it a
downright masterpiece.
>concerns (rather than just being eye candy). The open handed full
What unity was there between visuals and thematics? A non-threatening
evil = big fireball? How did the depicted future even have anything
to do with the story? Everything was patched together without true
cohesiveness. The future could have been just as acid-rain drenched
as in BladeRunner and it would not have made a hill of bean of difference.
That's unity of thematics and visuals? At least if the evil would have
been truly threatening and we could have gotten a glimpse into how that
world came into being (as is always discussed in Star Trek), maybe it
would have been just a bit more consequential. As it is, it's just
neat. Not much more.
The story was wondering all over the place with no real focus.
>out satire. The mockery of technology rather than the fetishistic worship
>of its sci potential or full blown Luddite criticism of it.
>
I don't get it. You keep bringing up points in such a fashion that I
am reminded of a joke:
A helicopter's instrument panel goes kablooie at night and the 2 pilots
get completely lost. All of a sudden they find themeselves in a
city of high rise buildings. As they fly by one of the skyscrapers
they notice many of the lights still on. They get close and flash a
large sign that reads in plain block letters: HELP US PLEASE!
WHERE ARE WE? After a few minutes the people inside start nodding,
disappear, then come back with a big sign of their own:
YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER.
The pilots give them thumbs up, fly off and safely land at Sea-Tac
Airport ten minutes later.
Upon hearing their story the controller asks them:"How did you figure
out where to fly with that kind of response?"
"Oh," comes the reply, "we figured we must have been at the Microsoft
headquarters building and we knew how to get to the airport
from there."
"How did you figure out it was the Microsoft building?"
"Well, we received a technically accurate, yet wholly irrelevant answer
to our question."
The points you bring up (besides being applicable to many other films)
say nothing about the film NOT being another Hollywood big-budget
flick.
>BTW, 12 Monkeys is a remake of a French film called La Jetee.
I am afraid your information is incomplete. La Jetee is a short film,
created almost entirely by assembling a series of still images. It
inspired 12 Monkeys but the latter is in no way a remake in the true
sense. La Jetee is very different from a conventional film, and it
would have been extremely hard to make a feature that emulated that
structure.
>Unfortunately,
>instead of using the plot device of La Jetee to comment on the nature of
>memory
>and time as reflected in the nature of love, 12 monkeys ditched it for a
I suggest you go back and watch La Jetee again. Then watch 12 Monkeys.
Quiz:
An essay on the purpose of the lone moving image in La Jetee and how
it fits in with the thematic/visual unity/cohesiveness.
>standard thriller... Terry Gilliam's worst movie in my opinion, and apart
>from the reality games, hardly original.
More original in its thematic/visual unity than TFE, that is for certain.
And hey, the film was actually about something. TFE element wants to be
about something, but the way it goes about it completely drains what little
there is. Fortunately for it the visuals are spectacular enough to warrant
at least one viewing.
Besson can do more and I hope that he will exercise his gifts to that end
in the future.
Cheers,
--STargazer
>
Stargazer
In article 2...@dopey.magg.net, crai...@DELETETHIS.magg.net (Craig Hamilton) writes:
>star...@oakhill.sps.mot.com wrote:
>>Ok folks. I have read so many posts about this that I can no
>>longer let this comment bother me. Could someone please point
>>out what was so different from Hollywood sci-fi in the Fifth
>>Element? I was watching very hard but couldn't see it.
>
>
>different than in a purely Hollywood style film. Instead of an operatic
>musical score in the consistent style of a Goldsmith or a Williams it used
>very different sounding pieces of rock & roll which often went against
>the grain of the visuals, like contrapuntal sound.
>
Yes, but just because the music is different in a film does not
guarantee that the film itself will be different. This has been my
point all along. By virtue of Serra's score being what it is, people
are declaring TFE to be something it is absoilutely not: a film that
is different from Hollywood big-budget sci-fi.
I just remembered something: a great counter-example is William Friedkin's
1977 remake of the Henri Georges Clouzot classic Wages of Fear titled
Sorcerer. I could have sworn that film was made by Europeans. The
sensibilities Friedkin brought to that project made a completely unique
film, one that was very different from those made in Hollywood. Sure, it
was based on a European film and the original is a classic; all the more
amazing that Friedkin could make a film that was great and in some ways
his own. Still, Besson is going the wrong way, and sticking in a 90's
electronic score isn't going to change the fact that the film is nothing
but Hollywood in sheep's clothing.
Gawd I hate it! The missed opportunity!!!
--Stargazer
Lars Joreteg
On 20 May 1997, Pentti J Lajunen wrote:
> crai...@DELETETHIS.magg.net (Craig Hamilton) writes:
> > star...@oakhill.sps.mot.com wrote:
> > >Ok folks. I have read so many posts about this that I can no
> > >longer let this comment bother me. Could someone please point
> > >out what was so different from Hollywood sci-fi in the Fifth
> > >Element? I was watching very hard but couldn't see it.
> >
> > I couldn't see it, but I could hear it. The use of music was very
> > different than in a purely Hollywood style film. Instead of an operatic
> > musical score in the consistent style of a Goldsmith or a Williams it used
> > very different sounding pieces of rock & roll which often went against
> > the grain of the visuals, like contrapuntal sound.
>
> The man behind the music was Eric Serra, who also delivered us
> GoldenEye (James Bond) score. I think Besson should dump him.
> He makes ok instrumental teknopop at best, but he's not versatile
> enough for a film composer.
"Not versatile enough for a film composer"? This soundtrack has to be one
of the most versatile ones I have ever heard. IMO Eric Sierra shows in this
case how he makes so much different music, all for one movie. Listening
to the tracks separately you have a hard time imagening it all coming
from the same movie. But yet it fits so well with the movie. (IMO of
course)
It is also refreshing to not hear the same John Williams type music in
every movie. I like it, but change is nice.
BTW, I like the "GoldenEye" score too.
Milo D. Cooper
> Stargazer wrote:
>> Count Zero writes:
>>
>> [... loads of effusive nonsense about how _The Fifth Element_ is
>> some kind of big departure from Hollywood fare...]
>
> I don't get it. You keep bringing up points in such a fashion that I
> am reminded of a joke:
>
> A helicopter's instrument panel goes kablooie at night and the 2 pilots
> get completely lost. All of a sudden they find themeselves in a
> city of high rise buildings. As they fly by one of the skyscrapers
> they notice many of the lights still on. They get close and flash a
> large sign that reads in plain block letters: HELP US PLEASE!
> WHERE ARE WE? After a few minutes the people inside start nodding,
> disappear, then come back with a big sign of their own:
> YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER.
> The pilots give them thumbs up, fly off and safely land at Sea-Tac
> Airport ten minutes later.
> Upon hearing their story the controller asks them:"How did you figure
> out where to fly with that kind of response?"
> "Oh," comes the reply, "we figured we must have been at the Microsoft
> headquarters building and we knew how to get to the airport
> from there."
> "How did you figure out it was the Microsoft building?"
> "Well, we received a technically accurate, yet wholly irrelevant answer
> to our question."
>
> The points you bring up (besides being applicable to many other films)
> say nothing about the film NOT being another Hollywood big-budget
> flick.
BA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Stargazer wins!!
--
/|____Milo D. Cooper____|\
\| mdco...@san.rr.com |/
Jeff DeMarco
In article <5lrb5u$lgd$2...@dopey.magg.net>, crai...@DELETETHIS.magg.net (Craig Hamilton) wrote:
>star...@oakhill.sps.mot.com wrote:
>>Ok folks. I have read so many posts about this that I can no
>>longer let this comment bother me. Could someone please point
>>out what was so different from Hollywood sci-fi in the Fifth
>>Element? I was watching very hard but couldn't see it.
>
>
> I couldn't see it, but I could hear it. The use of music was very
>different than in a purely Hollywood style film. Instead of an operatic
>musical score in the consistent style of a Goldsmith or a Williams it used
>very different sounding pieces of rock & roll which often went against
>the grain of the visuals, like contrapuntal sound.
>
Music videos are replete with instances of music going against the grain of
the visuals - though I did not pick up on that in this film. I thought the
music fit most of the time.
*************************************************
Jeff DeMarco WB6KUW
Riverside, CA
j...@pe.net http://www.pe.net/~jmd
"I am not a number, I am an alphanumeric string!"
Count Zero
The tone. The pacing. The non dystopia-drenched-in-acid-rain
music. The anticlimactic ending where a bigger weapon doesn't
save the world but a very unexpected weapon - an emotion - does.
of its sci potential or full blown Luddite criticism of it.
BTW, 12 Monkeys is a remake of a French film called La Jetee.
Unfortunately,
instead of using the plot device of La Jetee to comment on the nature of
memory
and time as reflected in the nature of love, 12 monkeys ditched it for a
standard thriller... Terry Gilliam's worst movie in my opinion, and apart
from the reality games, hardly original.
--
a...@indigo.ie
http://www.halcyon.com/theboss/luc/index.htm
A History of Luc Besson - featuring the Director's Cut of Leon
Visit Addicted to Light - featuring reviews, news, and audio archives
featuring Neil Jordan, Liam Neeson, and William Gibson.
Stargazer <star...@oakhill.sps.mot.com> wrote in article
<5lqn85$j43$1...@talos4.risc.sps.mot.com>...
> Ok folks. I have read so many posts about this that I can no
> longer let this comment bother me. Could someone please point
> out what was so different from Hollywood sci-fi in the Fifth
> Element? I was watching very hard but couldn't see it.
>
Pentti J Lajunen
crai...@DELETETHIS.magg.net (Craig Hamilton) writes:
> star...@oakhill.sps.mot.com wrote:
> >Ok folks. I have read so many posts about this that I can no
> >longer let this comment bother me. Could someone please point
> >out what was so different from Hollywood sci-fi in the Fifth
> >Element? I was watching very hard but couldn't see it.
>
> I couldn't see it, but I could hear it. The use of music was very
> different than in a purely Hollywood style film. Instead of an operatic
> musical score in the consistent style of a Goldsmith or a Williams it used
> very different sounding pieces of rock & roll which often went against
> the grain of the visuals, like contrapuntal sound.
The man behind the music was Eric Serra, who also delivered us
Count Zero
> In article 5d92...@ns.indigo.ie, "Count Zero" <a...@indigo.ie> () writes:
>
> >The tone. The pacing. The non dystopia-drenched-in-acid-rain
> >and-eternal-blackness presentation of a future.
>
> Has been done in Back to the Future II., Lost Horizon, Saturn 3
> (of all disasters), and many, many more films. Blade Runner and
> Mad Max are but a couple of films, my friend. BladeRunner
> actually started a trend, mind you. Prior to that film the
> future's been mainly bright. I only remember serenity from 2001.
> Star Trek ring a bell????
Uhh, pardon me but you're focusing on science fiction, not "Hollywood"
films.
2001 was operatic, but hardly full of serenity. Killer computers and
mankind learning how to use technology to kill better sure isn't
sendiptious. As for the other films mentioned, I consider myself a lucky
and healthy enough person to not have needed to bother seeing them. I'm
considering the TONE of the future rather than what's been done before. I
was too busy enjoying the movie to take the time to think about the fifty
gazillion other films I've seen just so I can impress my friends in the pub
and explain to them how I'm gonna be the next Quentin Tarantino.
> >The use of modern
> >music.
>
> This is so silly I am not even going to address it.
> (Starting with "modern music...")
>
>
How many "Hollywood" (whatever that means) movies can you name have scores
that veer from bad French rock to cabaret to techno to samples from lionel
ritchie songs?
> >The anticlimactic ending where a bigger weapon doesn't
> >save the world but a very unexpected weapon - an emotion - does.
>
> How many times has this been done? If I remember correctly, "The
> Force" saves the day in Star Wars. Geee... dat ees one beeg weapon...
> An anticlimactic ending for this choice of a theme and material is
> donwright amateurish, BTW from a purely cinematic perspective.
> It would be like Jaws ending with all them bozos returning from the
> big hunt having done nothing, and just forgetting about the whole
> thing. That plastic/metal shark was more threatening than "evil"
> in TFE.
>
What saves the day in Star Wars is the Force combined with an X wing
fighter and some torpedoes - leading to the mother of all explosions. How
the hell is anticlimactic amateurish, Mr. Big Shot movie maker, anyways? I
was talking about how it's not a "Hollywood" film, and anticlimactic is
hardly de rigeur for Hollywood's blockbusters. Besides, you miss the point
entirely. The climax was the diva sequence. The rest was something else
entirely.
BTW, T5E is not about hunting a fucking shark. Stop thinking about other
movies, please.
> >The sense of irony. The lack of action beats every five minutes. The
>
> Lack of action beats? hehe... Made up for it with explosions... :-)
> In any case, the action beats in TFE were in same proportion as
> any other sci-fi film in its sub-genre (future-hero-vs.-evil-save-
> the-world-from-annihilation). <g>
>
One of the most common complaints I've seen about T5E is that it isn't the
action spectacular the trailers made it out to be.
> And if you want tongue-in-cheek (which you seem to be confusing
> with irony,) Austin Powers works better. Maybe I can recommend
> "Dollman vs. Demonic Toys". <g>
>
If you've seen a movie called that, you've seen too many movies.
> >eccentricty of the characters. The unity of visuals with the thematic
>
> Eccentricity. Tsk, tsk... Shall we also count in the yellow hair of
> Bruce Willis? I mean the man's got blonde hair in the film. That
> makes it different. No other film has that. Yeah. It makes it a
> downright masterpiece.
>
Yeah, Ruby Rhod was such a standard sci fi or Hollywood character.
> >concerns (rather than just being eye candy). The open handed full
>
> What unity was there between visuals and thematics? A non-threatening
> evil = big fireball? How did the depicted future even have anything
> to do with the story? Everything was patched together without true
> cohesiveness. The future could have been just as acid-rain drenched
> as in BladeRunner and it would not have made a hill of bean of
difference.
> That's unity of thematics and visuals? At least if the evil would have
> been truly threatening and we could have gotten a glimpse into how that
> world came into being (as is always discussed in Star Trek), maybe it
> would have been just a bit more consequential. As it is, it's just
> neat. Not much more.
> The story was wondering all over the place with no real focus.
Star Trek is for a far more anal sensibility. Everything has to be
explained, if just to fit some ridiculous excuse to toy with some new high
concept idea. T5E has little regard for explanation... When there's so much
wonderful to see and to go to, why waste time to satisfy hardcore
obsessives and nitpickers?
As for the unity, you misunderstand the movie entirely because you've seen
too many and all you want to do is compare and contrast rather than allow
yourself to move with the new and the unclassifiable. T5E is not science
fiction, which is the realm all your comments are coming from. Just try and
give it a staple genre that it can fit into nicely: impossible. Not one
review I've read yet has noticed the deeper thematic resonances in the
film, because they are so resolutely buried rather than obvious. I'll give
you a clue: take the future presented with the pacing of the editing and
the insane plotting of a farce generated by a dysfunctional computer on
speed, combine with Zorg's speech about destruction, and think. What does
this future exist for? To have cool spaceships..? No... To service
something else. Which is whatever you want to get from the film. Are you a
movie obsessive? Then all you'll see is references to other films. Did you
want to go for a visual thrill ride? Then you got that. Did you just go by
what your gut told you and allowed room for irony? Then you probably got
the most out of the film.
Wong Kar Wai and Christopher Doyle discuss filming the "way a city smells".
It's a very un Hollywood thing to do... To include sequences or digressions
in the "plot" just to add atmosphere... That adds to the thematic concerns
rather than services visual enjoyment, which is what happens when Hollywood
films divert for atmosphere.T5E is soaking in this. You were too busy
thinking of the unhealthy amount of sci fi films you've seen to have
noticed this though... Everything was a reference for you where there might
not have been one.
>
> >out satire. The mockery of technology rather than the fetishistic
worship
> >of its sci potential or full blown Luddite criticism of it.
> >
>
> I don't get it. You keep bringing up points in such a fashion that I
> am reminded of a joke:
>
Here's an example... Instead of the weaponry being fetishisticly adored by
the camera in T5E it's mocked. The guns are jokes, exercises in inventive
excess. You're not supposed to love them as much as think "That gun is too
fucking ridiculous". The space ships aren't lovingly gazed upon for two
minute tracking shots, nor do we have to endure onaniastic monologues about
"what a beautiful phase inverted molecular blachblach drive she has." Or in
the case of Zorg showing off the ZF1... It's done so as a joke. Most of the
futuristic inventions of the film are annoying and useless rather than
"neato".
> The points you bring up (besides being applicable to many other films)
> say nothing about the film NOT being another Hollywood big-budget
> flick.
Bad computer geek joke excised. Please spare us next time.
>
> >BTW, 12 Monkeys is a remake of a French film called La Jetee.
>
> I am afraid your information is incomplete. La Jetee is a short film,
> created almost entirely by assembling a series of still images. It
> inspired 12 Monkeys but the latter is in no way a remake in the true
> sense. La Jetee is very different from a conventional film, and it
> would have been extremely hard to make a feature that emulated that
> structure.
>
If the filmmakers had wanted to capture perhaps some of the essence of La
Jetee then they would have made it a rather simple love story rather than
becoming obsessed with plot and storyline. 12 Monkeys: everything advances
the essential questions inherent to the plot. La Jetee: the essence of time
is played with. The story diverts from a plot about saving the future of
the human race to resemble the memories of a man who by happenstance meets
the same woman every few years in the same city. For those of us who have
lives, this is a wonderful place to go with a film, rather than being
obsessed with the "science" elements of the story.
> >Unfortunately,
> >instead of using the plot device of La Jetee to comment on the nature of
> >memory
> >and time as reflected in the nature of love, 12 monkeys ditched it for a
>
> I suggest you go back and watch La Jetee again. Then watch 12 Monkeys.
>
> Quiz:
> An essay on the purpose of the lone moving image in La Jetee and how
> it fits in with the thematic/visual unity/cohesiveness.
>
Quiz:
Ask yourself... Do I take movies too seriously? Have I seen too many? Do I
think about them too much? Am I full of myself to the degree that I ask
people to study shit rather than enjoy it to show them they aren't on my
level?
> >standard thriller... Terry Gilliam's worst movie in my opinion, and
apart
> >from the reality games, hardly original.
>
> More original in its thematic/visual unity than TFE, that is for certain.
> And hey, the film was actually about something. TFE element wants to be
> about something, but the way it goes about it completely drains what
little
> there is. Fortunately for it the visuals are spectacular enough to
warrant
> at least one viewing.
>
> Besson can do more and I hope that he will exercise his gifts to that end
> in the future.
>
Yeah, I'm sure that when he makes the sequel to T5E, "Mr. Shadow", he takes
your high and mighty "insights" into consideration along with all the other
people who read too much into it and makes a movie that will astound
everyone by:
Being Politically Correct (i.e. Milla Jovovich will be replaced by a
metabolically challenged hispanic woman in a body covering smock)
Presenting futuristic weapons as objects of worship rather than ridicule.
Spending loads of boring time explaining how the essence of pure evil is
really a collective of antimatter and neutrinos which blah blah blah after
some gizmo foodunk sensor sweep is made...
Ending the film with a massive battle between 5000 star crusiers who
obliterate each other for the audience's enjoyment.
The score will be a ripoff from John Williams' work.
And of course, being the first wholly original film of all time. Therefore,
editing and one static shot are right out, so he will invent a new visual
language to satisfy those people who see fifty movies a week and shoot it
at 500 frames per second to break with the traditional 30, therefore
insuring he's not ripping off anyone. Oh yeah, and no humans will be in it
either, or will basic thematic concerns from mythology millenia old, and
instead of making fun of the cliches of other films, he'll worship them
this time.
Can't wait for that... Hmm... Apart from inventing a new visual language,
sounds like fucking Independence Day to me.
> Cheers,
>
> --STargazer
No thanks, not from you,
Stargazer
Wow! Where to begin? I have neither the time nor the energy to
delve into this as much as I would probably want to.
First off I would like to say to Count Zero that he has taken this way
too personally. I apologize for any misunderstandings and for upsetting
him to the extent that he felt led to chastise me with statements like:
>... As for the other films mentioned, I consider myself a lucky
>and healthy enough person to not have needed to bother seeing them. I'm
>considering the TONE of the future rather than what's been done before. I
>was too busy enjoying the movie to take the time to think about the fifty
>gazillion other films I've seen just so I can impress my friends in the pub
>and explain to them how I'm gonna be the next Quentin Tarantino.
>
and
>
>If you've seen a movie called that, you've seen too many movies.
>
and
>
>As for the unity, you misunderstand the movie entirely because you've seen
>too many and all you want to do is compare and contrast rather than allow
>yourself to move with the new and the unclassifiable. T5E is not science
and
>... You were too busy
>thinking of the unhealthy amount of sci fi films you've seen to have
>noticed this though... Everything was a reference for you where there might
>not have been one.
>
and
>
>Bad computer geek joke excised. Please spare us next time.
>
and
>... For those of us who have
>lives, this is a wonderful place to go with a film, rather than being
>obsessed with the "science" elements of the story.
>
and
>
>Quiz:
>Ask yourself... Do I take movies too seriously? Have I seen too many? Do I
>think about them too much? Am I full of myself to the degree that I ask
>people to study shit rather than enjoy it to show them they aren't on my
>level?
>
and finally,
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --STargazer
>
>No thanks, not from you,
>--
I made a simple statement, asked a simple question. Why do you get so angry about
my saying that your arguments do not support your assertion that The Fifth Element is
different from Hollywood science fiction films? I guess I phrased my question completely
wrong. I should have added " IN ESSENCE" after "different".
Being that what you care about in a film is wholly different from what I care about,
I don't think these exchanges have any meaning whatsoever. I don't see anything
warranting personal jabs, though. I am sure you have a life, and a wonderful one
at that. It's fine not to take movies seriously (many films are made specifically with
that intention in mind). However, making superficial statements about what makes a film
different based on that is at best irrelevant.
I'd rather read Eric Lestrade's review, he has given it THOUGHT (boy, what a dirty word.)
His explanations actually prompted me to want to go back and see the film again.
I guess there are those who believe that if one thinks about a film, s/he has just lost
her/his ability to enjoy it. Many films require thought. There are also many good films
that work well on a visceral/emotional level. This is not the case with TFE.
I will tell you this though: I will go see TFE again, and Lord blow me down, pay attention
to details I may have missed before, to see whether or not there is something more there.
I shall enjoy, too.
Thanks to Eric for being more than a Zero.
Cheers, (even for Zero)
--Stargazer
Eric Lestrade
Stargazer wrote:
> Ok folks. I have read so many posts about this that I can no
> longer let this comment bother me. Could someone please point
> out what was so different from Hollywood sci-fi in the Fifth
> Element?
hi, I'm french and so please frogive me my difficulties to write in
english.
I'll soon write my review (that is I think very original), when I suceed
to translate it correctly.
for your question:
5 elt has got a deep meaning.
contrary to the commun point of view, the description of our future is
very PESSIMISTIC.
in this movie, there a reflexion about the technology which dominates
human being. Actualy the final conclusion IS very original but it must
be understood at the second degree, and all the special effects have got
their meaning.
(watch the other movies of luc Besson: he has never made big humour in
his movies)
5element isn't a comedy nor a parody.
5element is a drama.
ed rawady
In article <5lst30$66e$1...@talos4.risc.sps.mot.com>,
star...@oakhill.sps.mot.com wrote:
> In article 2...@dopey.magg.net, crai...@DELETETHIS.magg.net (Craig
Hamilton) writes:
> >star...@oakhill.sps.mot.com wrote:
> >>Ok folks. I have read so many posts about this that I can no
> >>longer let this comment bother me. Could someone please point
> >>out what was so different from Hollywood sci-fi in the Fifth
> >>Element? I was watching very hard but couldn't see it.
> >
> >
> > I couldn't see it, but I could hear it. The use of music was very
> >different than in a purely Hollywood style film. Instead of an operatic
> >musical score in the consistent style of a Goldsmith or a Williams it used
> >very different sounding pieces of rock & roll which often went against
> >the grain of the visuals, like contrapuntal sound.
> >
>
> Yes, but just because the music is different in a film does not
> guarantee that the film itself will be different. This has been my
> point all along. By virtue of Serra's score being what it is, people
> are declaring TFE to be something it is absoilutely not: a film that
> is different from Hollywood big-budget sci-fi.
>
Why? Because you say so? Your declaration is merely opinion.
Just because TFE contains elements (no pun intended) of Hollywood
"big-budget sci-fi" doesn't make it equal to them.
Besides, trying to pigeonhole the film doesn't define *it*, it defines you
and your tastes.
If someone else loved it and thinks it stands above other movies of the
genre, their opinions are as valid as your own.
>>>>>>>ed
_____________________________________________________________________
SPAM.THI...@frontiernet.REMOVE.TO.REPLY.net
Īelete "SPAM.THIS." & "REMOVE.TO.REPLY." to send email to this post.
_____________________________________________________________________
Any unsolicited, commercial email I receive is *deleted, unread*. I WILL NOT patronize any product or service sold via unsolicited email.
del...@erols.com
That good-lookin babe represented love you idiotic imbecile, you think
you're so clever. God, do you all actually pay attention to whats goin
on when you view a movie??
Stargazer
In article 1...@dopey.magg.net, crai...@DELETETHIS.magg.net (Craig Hamilton) writes:
>j...@pe.net (Jeff DeMarco) wrote:
>>In what way like contrapuntal sound?
>>
>>Music videos are replete with instances of music going against the grain of
>>the visuals - though I did not pick up on that in this film. I thought the
>>music fit most of the time.
>
>
>visual action. For instance, in the chase scene with the cops after the cab
>the music was kind of jazzy and laid-back rather than the urgent, pounding
>scores we've come to expect in action films.
>
What constitutes the core of my disappointment is a new trend amongst
many movie goers: if a film has AN ELEMENT (whether it is the fifth or
some other :-) ) that is different from what they ARE USED to, that
film is labeled different AS A FILM, and immediately embraced as a great
work. Why???
The new norm: different = better, innovative, refreshing, edgy, original.
I think we should pay a bit more attention before speaking in sweeping terms
is all. Especially if one thinks that watching many movies and remembering
them is tantamount to the ultimate in anal retentiveness. There's no point
in looking critically at anything anymore. The automatic response: "Can't
you just enjoy yourself, you critical jerk?"
So there it is.
Not ALL change is progress, and the volume knob DOES also turn left.
--Stargazer
Reynold Starnes
del...@erols.com wrote in article <33847E...@erols.com>...
> That good-lookin babe represented love you idiotic imbecile, you think
> you're so clever. God, do you all actually pay attention to whats goin
> on when you view a movie??
>
A good lookin' babe = love. That is deep and original, and it works for me.
Eric Lestrade
del...@erols.com wrote:
>
> I dont know what youre smokin' but 5E is most definitely NOT a drama.
> Its a parody with a message and works quite well as one.
I so sorry to not reply on your posts (you and other)
I've made my review in english, and Stargazer is translating it
in understandable english (merci Tamas :) )
it will be soon in this group.
For those who understand french, see:
"http://www.polytechnique.fr/poly/~lestrad/5elt.htm"
I hope I proved what I've said about the drama.
(I mean, we can FEEL the drama, if we have a "good" point of view.
and these feelings are much and much big than the feelings we can have
if we see the film as a comedy or a parody)
del...@erols.com
Reynold Starnes
Eric Lestrade <les...@poly.polytechnique.fr> wrote in article
[...]
> 5element isn't a comedy nor a parody.
> 5element is a drama.
>
The basic elements, which fuse to defeat evil, are
earth
wind
fire
water
a good-lookin' babe.
A deep and original thought, and it works for me.
Coffey
>That good-lookin babe represented love you idiotic imbecile, you think
>you're so clever. God, do you all actually pay attention to whats goin
>on when you view a movie??
But boy would it be tough for Bruce if that military chick was meant
to be the fifth element!
Shawn Hill
del...@erols.com wrote:
: I dont know what youre smokin' but 5E is most definitely NOT a drama.
: Its a parody with a message and works quite well as one.
Not a drama at all, but more like a witty farce. There ARE serious
components to the film:
1) Ian Holm's performance. The man's a genius, no matter what.
2) The first alien's being good guys; nice touch, unexpected.
3) The idea of such a congested future: tiny cells as apartments, the
police being able to search and seize without warrants, on no notice; the
flying cab thing; the idea of being monitored at all times; the levels of
surveillance deployed; the complete reliance on technology.
4) Ruby, the Oprah Winfrey of the future: giddy and silly and way
over-the-top, but a believable version of what media will become in 300
years, all extremes and ultra-sensationalized.
5) the unified sense of style, from the FX to the costumes; the way this
world all seemed to fit together with itself, to be a real society.
6) Lilu's strength and alien-ness; convinced me.
Bruce was playing a stock character, a cliche'd center for all this
hyperbole to swirl around, and it worked.
The ending, very very stupid, but pretty at least.
Shawn
Eric Lestrade
> > you're so clever. God, do you all actually pay attention to whats goin
> > on when you view a movie??
> >
>
LeeLoo is the fifth element: the Life.
That is original, i believe.
Stargazer
>I so sorry to not reply on your posts (you and other)
>I've made my review in english, and Stargazer is translating it
>in understandable english (merci Tamas :) )
>it will be soon in this group.
>
Very soon, now.
De rien, Eric. :-)
--Stargazer
ed rawady
In article <5lt0d8$7ak$1...@talos4.risc.sps.mot.com>,
star...@oakhill.sps.mot.com wrote:
[snipped]
>
> More original in its thematic/visual unity than TFE, that is for certain.
> And hey, the film was actually about something. TFE element wants to be
> about something, but the way it goes about it completely drains what little
> there is. Fortunately for it the visuals are spectacular enough to warrant
> at least one viewing.
I believe you represent the views of many critics of TFE, when you say
that it "wants to be about something," but in my opinion it is *you* (and
others) who want TFE to be *more* "about something," than it, in fact, is
-- or needs to be.
Your expectations have cheapened it for you.
Why does a movie have to be "about something," any more than, for example,
a poem, or a painting, or a song? Sometimes a picture is just a picture, a
joke is just a joke, or a film with gags, songs, gorgeous visuals and sets
is just that, and nothing more.
Most movies have a story, but where are the rules which say a film has to
follow a detailed plot, have well-developed characters who are transformed
by the end, realistic dialogue, etc.
If you need those elements (pun intended) to be entertained, fine, but I
don't, necessarily. It's a matter of individual taste.
I don't believe Besson was making a movie "about something" as much as he
was just having cinematic fun. If that's true then your analysis of TFE is
merely a projection and definition of your personal preferences.
>
> Besson can do more and I hope that he will exercise his gifts to that end
> in the future.
Besson gave me more than my 7 bucks worth, thank you, which is more than I
can say of the vast majority of your "Hollywood big-budget" movies.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --STargazer
PanDuh!
Coffey <cr...@arkon.co.nz> wrote in article
<33856360...@news.wave.co.nz>...
> >That good-lookin babe represented love you idiotic imbecile, you think
> >you're so clever. God, do you all actually pay attention to whats goin
> >on when you view a movie??
>
> to be the fifth element!
A plot twist like *that* would have improved the movie 100%!
Now that is comedy.
----
PanDuh!
HomePage: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jjs7011
MODPage : http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~jjs3
Jerry Squab
> > I beleive the general in 5th was a cyborg in Blade runner.
>
> Yeah, that's right. Luc Besson fans might get a chuckle out of the fact
> that he was playing a character (the replicant from the opening scene)
> name "Leon". :)
--------------
Leon's great line--one of the movie's best-- was:
"Wake up, it's time to die." As he was kicking
the crap out of Harrison Ford.
Shawn Hill
Jerry Squab (sq...@io.com) wrote:
: > > I beleive the general in 5th was a cyborg in Blade runner.
: --------------
And Ian Holm was Ash in the first Alien movie.
And several of the aliens and stewardesses were super-models.
And Zorg's henchman, who he blows up, was Tricky, the British musician.
Shawn
Marian Schutzman-Smith
In <01bc6a5a$e6a364c0$928489d0@host> "Jerry Squab" <sq...@io.com>
writes:
>> > I beleive the general in 5th was a cyborg in Blade runner.
>>
>> Yeah, that's right. Luc Besson fans might get a chuckle out of the
fact
>> that he was playing a character (the replicant from the opening
scene)
>> name "Leon". :)
>
>--------------
>
>Leon's great line--one of the movie's best-- was:
>"Wake up, it's time to die." As he was kicking
>the crap out of Harrison Ford.
I kept thinking how oddly Leloo's back flips looked like Sean
Young's back flips in Blade Runner.
Shawn Hill
Marian Schutzman-Smith (loa...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I kept thinking how oddly Leloo's back flips looked like Sean
: Young's back flips in Blade Runner.
Nice try, but it was actually Darryl Hannah who did the backflips in BR.
And Joanna Gleeson (I think?) was pretty athletic as well. Sean Young
played piano and sniffled, albeit beautifully.
Shawn
janis berzins
Shawn Hill wrote:
>
> And Joanna Gleeson (I think?) was pretty athletic as well. Sean Young
> played piano and sniffled, albeit beautifully.
Johanna Cassidy? Played the other female replicant.
--
jabe...@earthlink.net
"They say time is the fire in which we burn."
portfolio available at: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/4697/
sig o the week(TM): "Raise the speed limit! Think of it as evolution in
action."
Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle- Oath of Fealty
