OT: Hellboy-Quick Comment
KenM47
Anyone else getting tired of CGI? For me there was more magic in the
more primitve days of FX. Too easy to fake anything, and the images
are always so dark.
Ken
EGK
CGI is good in small doses. I recently watched the original Superman movie
on Turner Classic Movies. I hadn't watched it in years. The only CGI in
that movie that was laughable even at the time was the scene of young Clark
Kent racing the train. I still think it's one of the best superhero movies
ever despite casting Gene Hackman as a way over the top Lex Luthor. That's
because real actors were playing the parts.
Hellboy was a better combination of actor and CGI then the Hulk though. At
least with a real actor made up in Hellboy I could suspend belief a bit
better when the CGI took over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
A.E. Jabbour
I haven't seen HELLBOY, so can't comment on it.
As to CGI, I'm pretty much fed up with it. There are exceptions.
But in general, if I see that a film is going to be primarily
CGI, I am already disinterested.
Lars von Trier weighed in on the issue in a way which I think
makes complete sense, from a cineaste's point-of-view:
<quote>
At the beginning of my career, I made very 'filmic' films. The
problem is that now, it has become too easy - all you have to do
is buy a computer and you have filmic. You have armies rampaging
over mountains, you have dragons. You just push a button. I think
it was ok to be filmic when, for instance, Kubrick had to wait
two months for the light on the mountain behind Barry Lyndon when
he was riding towards us. I think that was great. But if you
only have to wait two seconds and then some kid with a computer
fills it in ... it's some other art form, I'm sure, but I'm not
interested. I don't see armies going over mountains, I only
see some youngster with a computer saying, "Let's do this a
little more tastefully, let's put some shadows in, let's bleach
the colours out a little." It's extremely well done and it
doesn't move me at all. It feels like manipulation to a
degree that I don't want to be manipulated.
Maybe it's because I'm older now. When I was younger, I
probably would have thought all this computer-generated stuff
was fantastic. Now that I'm older, I have to be stubborn. That's
why I started going back to the old virtues and the old values.
If you're stubborn enough, then anything can have its own
aesthetic. There's a limit to how nice a film should look.
If it looks too nice, I throw up. I usually see it a little
bit like watching a magician. When a magician does little
things, with coins for instance, you're completely fascinated.
But when he moves the Eiffel Tower, then you say "So what?"
</quote>
I think that sums it up quite well.
--
AE Jabbour
"OK, at this point, you're *abusing* sarcasm."
-Buffy Anne Summers, NKaBotFD
Aethelrede
KenM47 wrote in message ...
I think they're here to stay. They're cheap and as long as the studio
has the computers and the CGI people, they have to earn their keep.
CGI in real life is much scarier: imagine a picture of Bush Lite out in
Iraq shooting at terrorists while he was actually back in the USA. That
could buy a few votes from the dumber than dirt crowd. These days you can't
believe what you see unless you're there.
First Fallen
> more primitve days of FX. Too easy to fake anything, and the images
> are always so dark.
I get tired of bad/obvious CGI that distracts me from the story, but when
it's done well, I have no problem with it, and think it's an effective tool
that film makers can use to help further the story.
I don't think Sammael would have been as cool a creature had he been done as
a practical effect.
KenM47
Don't get me wrong, I see the need for CGI at times, as in Hellboy.
Like EGK said, it helped that a lot of Hellboy was actually actors in
make-up. I don't see how LOTR or the Potter movies could exist without
it.
I think it's like anything else, too much of a good thing. The "Wow"
is wearing off and the blase is setting in. Maybe like A.E. I'm just
getting old, but somehow there was magic in the old Harryhausen films
that is just missing these days. IMHO. Maybe its the direction;
otherwise, I just don't know. Need to think more on this.
For example, Buffy's writing and acting overcame the less than perfect
FX. FX aided the stories rather than becoming the stories itself.
Ken
Rob
"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:8no2801b4uf54d6ko...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:48:04 GMT, KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Cute. Not as good as Buffy S1 to S5, but OK.
> >
> >Anyone else getting tired of CGI? For me there was more magic in the
> >more primitve days of FX. Too easy to fake anything, and the images
> >are always so dark.
>
> CGI is good in small doses. I recently watched the original Superman
movie
> on Turner Classic Movies. I hadn't watched it in years. The only CGI in
> that movie that was laughable even at the time was the scene of young
Clark
> Kent racing the train. I still think it's one of the best superhero
movies
> ever despite casting Gene Hackman as a way over the top Lex Luthor.
That's
> because real actors were playing the parts.
See, I think the exact opposite. Gene Hackman and his portrayal of Lex
Luthor was the only good thing about that movie. I like that movie only for
the Lex scenes, and could do without the rest. I think the major flaw in the
film is the casting of Christopher Reeve as Superman. We take a hero that
was two-dimensional and never really worked well, even in his prime, and so
we cast him with a guy who can't act at all and has no screen presence. The
end result, double bad.
"You have a strong streak of good in you Superman, but no one's perfect.
Well, almost no one." - Gene Hackman.
EGK
>Don't get me wrong, I see the need for CGI at times, as in Hellboy.
>Like EGK said, it helped that a lot of Hellboy was actually actors in
>make-up. I don't see how LOTR or the Potter movies could exist without
>it.
>
>I think it's like anything else, too much of a good thing. The "Wow"
>is wearing off and the blase is setting in. Maybe like A.E. I'm just
>getting old, but somehow there was magic in the old Harryhausen films
>that is just missing these days. IMHO. Maybe its the direction;
>otherwise, I just don't know. Need to think more on this.
Not to pick on you because I'm getting old myself but I think there's
something to that theory. We tend to have a "been there, done that"
attitude towards things we see. Frankly, I don't think I'm going to be that
impressed again by technology in the movies until holograms or true 3D comes
in to play.
I mean, sure, a lot of the stuff today is just amazing compared to something
20-30 years ago but we've grown up with it. We've also seen movies that
combined both great storytelling and special FX. That's a perquisite for me
if I'm going to jump on a bandwagon and proclaim a movie's greatness. FX
alone aren't enough. It's why I was less then impressed with The Matrix
trilogy though I know many people find that to be the be all and end all for
movie making.
Give me the opening sequence to Raiders of the Lost Arc (and that movie in
general) any time compared to anything in recent memory.
Rob
"KenM47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:14t280pkm3mekaiie...@4ax.com...
> "First Fallen" <no...@nope.com> wrote:
>
> I think it's like anything else, too much of a good thing. The "Wow"
> is wearing off and the blase is setting in. Maybe like A.E. I'm just
> getting old, but somehow there was magic in the old Harryhausen films
> that is just missing these days. IMHO. Maybe its the direction;
> otherwise, I just don't know. Need to think more on this.
I think you may have hit it just right here. Way back when, doing those
big effects cost big money. Not the 20 or 30 mil average of studio flicks
either. Doing that today would cost 100 mil+. That's a huge investment for a
studio. And the only way any film is going to get that kind of money is if
it's loaded with talent that has a great track record on being able to make
that kind of money. One part of it is a great director of the likes of
Kubrick. But you'd also need great actors and a great screenwriter(s) and a
great editor. But not just that. All the little people working behind the
scenes, from the cinematographer all the way down to the production
assistant is going to be at the top of their field. Everyone working on a
film with that kind of budget is going to be damn good, proven, and able to
make the film marketable.
But nowadays with CGI, a film can be made with those kind of effects for
an average studio budget. And when you have an average budget, average
investment, you only need average people to make it doable. If you're doing
a movie like Spiderman or Hellboy, what's the purpose of paying a top
director 10 mil to do the film when you can pay an average director 2 mil,
and it won't make all that much difference in sales. With the top director
you're guranteed a sure thing, but with the average one you make an extra 8
mil, and with something high-profile like most of the heavy effect movies
are, it's already a pretty sure thing anyways. And the same idea goes across
the board with every other person working on the film.
EGK
I'm sure lots of people loved Hackman in that role. I tend to be more of a
traditionalist and didn't care for the campy quality that brought to it.
Similar to Jack Nicholson's Joker in the original Batman movie. I'm not
fond of the over-the-top acting.
I much prefer fantasy oriented movies and TV shows to play it straight and
the fun come from the dialog or character's actions. That's the difference
to me between Buffy the TV show and Buffy the movie. Buffy the movie became
total camp. Once in a while the TV show went too far in that direction
also. Season 6 with the 3 stooges for instance or Buffy meets Dracula.
The best part of the original Superman to me was the extended sequence where
Clark first appears in Metropolis and ends with Superman rescuing Lois from
the helicopter crash, saving Air Force One and for good measure rescuing a
kitten stuck in a tree. :) Sure it was nostalgic and a bit corny but it
was played straight from the comics and they weren't making fun of the
subject matter.
Diane Wilson
aej17D...@comcast.net says...
(quoting Lars von Trier)
> If you're stubborn enough, then anything can have its own
> aesthetic. There's a limit to how nice a film should look.
> If it looks too nice, I throw up.
Exactly. There's a quote about playing Shostakovich that
says roughly, "In order to play Shostakovich well, you must
not be afraid to make the music ugly."
Art is not meant to be beautiful. Art is meant to say things
that can't be said any other way.
Otherwise you might as well stick to paintings of Elvis on
black velvet.
The other thing that has reduced the effectiveness of CGI is
that so many people know how to do it. Commercial-quality
video editing software costs only a few hundred dollars and
will run on almost any modern PC or Mac. If I know how to
do a particular effect, then I'm a lot less impressed when
I see it on the big screen.
So once again it's back to story-telling. Good. CGI can
help; I like the fact that Joss edited out eye-blinks when
Buffy's mother was lying dead in her living room. But when
it was time to blow up the school, he really did blow up
the school. The mind-boggling part of that stunt is that
he got permission to do it, and it just happened that the
school where they'd been filming was available to be blown
up at just the right time. By contrast, the mayor-demon
looked like crappola CGI.
Diane
Peter Meilinger
>Art is not meant to be beautiful. Art is meant to say things
>that can't be said any other way.
>Otherwise you might as well stick to paintings of Elvis on
>black velvet.
You say that as if "art" is somehow better than a velvet
painting of Elvis. If I had the choice, I know which one
I'd pick.
Honestly, in my experience, when filmmakers, writers,
editors, or any other creators start throwing the word
art around, I get extremely bored. If they've got a message
to get across, great. They should give it their best shot.
But it's not going to happen by saying "This is art, and this
isn't."
Pete
BTR1701
<Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
When it's done well (Jurassic Park, Terminator) it's great. The thing is
a lot of movies aren't willing to put the time and $$$ into the CGI that
Spielberg and Lucas are so you get a kind of half-assed, blurred result.
BTR1701
"Aethelrede" <aethe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Well, now it's official. There's apparently no conceivable subject that
doesn't have anti-Bush overtones with you, is there?
We could be talking about the expiration dates of mayonnaise or the
discovery of a new quasar on the far side of the universe and you'd find
some way to bring it around to a negative for Bush, wouldn't ya?
Shorty
wrote:
I think the Star Ware prequels look terrible. They are too clean and
bright. Its like he took a pristine pallent and painted it just the
way he wanted....fake.
Shorty
BTR1701
<mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
I first knew the "this is art" people were full of crap when I took a
junior-high class trip to the Met in NYC. There was a 20-foot by 30-foot
blank canvas with one black dot in the corner the size of a golf ball.
The tour guide said it sold for $1.2 million.
Or the guy who was making millions by throwing buckets of paint through
jet engines which splattered the paint on a canvas-- hell, anyone can do
that.
If the only difference between "art" and "not art" is whose hands are
holding the paint bucket, then the whole concept is nothing but a load
of hooey.
BTR1701
wrote:
> See, I think the exact opposite. Gene Hackman and his portrayal of
> Lex Luthor was the only good thing about that movie. I like that movie only
> for the Lex scenes, and could do without the rest. I think the major flaw in
> the film is the casting of Christopher Reeve as Superman.
Myself, I was okay with Reeve and Hackman. I always thought Margot
Kidder was woefully miscast as Lois Lane.
The Babaloughesian
"BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-B152E8...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Bush or America(ns). Aethelrede's creative genius is vastly
underappreciated, damn it. Someday all shall kneel before him.
William George Ferguson
[discussion of CGI snipped]
>So once again it's back to story-telling. Good. CGI can
>help; I like the fact that Joss edited out eye-blinks when
>Buffy's mother was lying dead in her living room. But when
>it was time to blow up the school, he really did blow up
>the school. The mind-boggling part of that stunt is that
>he got permission to do it, and it just happened that the
>school where they'd been filming was available to be blown
>up at just the right time. By contrast, the mayor-demon
>looked like crappola CGI.
Since there isn't an actual mayor-demon, any representation was going to
either be crappola CGI or crappola prosthetics (or crappola stop-action).
As for the school, Mutant Enemy very definitely did not blow it up.
Torrance High is still there, still holding classes, and still being used
in various movies and tv shows.
They did do various pyrotechnic effects on location at the school at about
7 on Saturday morning. The Torrance City Council wasn't clear on the
level of pyrotechnics being used, and Whedon has joked that Torrance has
never completely forgiven them for waking the entire town up with the
explosions.
What it comes down to, and you touched on it with 'it's back to
storytelling' is that the CGI (or any other special effects) needs to be
transparent, simply supporting the story not dominating. This is also
true of all the other cinematic aspects, sound, score, cinemetography, and
so forth. If you're focusing on the score, or the cinematography, or the
framing tricks or any of the other pieces, they aren't doing their proper
job.
Joss Whedon's 'in-one' shot at the beginning of Anne is probably his most
famous use of his favorite filming technique, but, as much as I like Anne,
I have to admit that it wasn't really as effective as the equally long
'in-one' shot in The Body or the one in Innocence. In both those cases,
the shot merged so perfectly into the storytelling that they were
unobtrusive. You weren't paying attention to the shot, but what it
showed.
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me! Hints are fine."
-Joan Girardi
(after God showed her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
BTR1701
<notrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:48:33 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <gsm28057msb1nf4k3...@4ax.com>, KenM47
> ><Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Cute. Not as good as Buffy S1 to S5, but OK.
> >>
> >> Anyone else getting tired of CGI? For me there was more magic in the
> >> more primitve days of FX. Too easy to fake anything, and the images
> >> are always so dark.
> >
> >When it's done well (Jurassic Park, Terminator) it's great. The thing is
> >a lot of movies aren't willing to put the time and $$$ into the CGI that
> >Spielberg and Lucas are so you get a kind of half-assed, blurred result.
> I think the Star Wars prequels look terrible. They are too clean and
> bright.
LOL! Well, someone else in this thread was complaining that CGI effects
are always too dark. Each to his own, I guess.
> Its like he took a pristine pallent and painted it just the
> way he wanted....fake.
Well, it's just a different kind of fake to me. I mean, when I go back
and watch the original Star Wars, the creatures in that cantina don't
look remotely realistic to me, either. They look like people with rubber
masks on, nothing more.
And the space battle scenes-- look like a bunch of plastic models to me.
Were those FX revolutionary for the time? Sure.
Do I for a minute believe I'm watching a realistic portrayal of
spacecraft in battle? Not hardly.
I do think CGI is much more effective when dealing with non-living
objects than it is with animals, monsters or people.
I was amazed, watching the bonus features on the Bad Boys II DVD, seeing
how they did that phenomenal car chase on the Miami causeway. Half the
cars in that chase sequence didn't even exist. For safety reasons they
were digitally inserted by computer in post-production.
But watching the movie for the first time, I never had any idea that
those cars weren't real. In my opinion, that's a perfect example of CGI
done well-- when it's so seamless you have no idea it was there in the
first place.
A.E. Jabbour
>
> Well, it's just a different kind of fake to me. I mean, when I go back
> and watch the original Star Wars, the creatures in that cantina don't
> look remotely realistic to me, either. They look like people with rubber
> masks on, nothing more.
Those scenes represented the sort of old serial and old b-movie
look of the films which influenced Lucas. In that sense, they played
right along with the overall mood of the film as a b-movie space
opera.
> And the space battle scenes-- look like a bunch of plastic models to me.
>
> Were those FX revolutionary for the time? Sure.
No way. Those FX in STAR WARS were lame, even at the time. Did they
look cool when I saw the film eleven times in the theatre upon
original release? Sure they did.
Did they look cool when I, later, saw 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and
realized that it had been made almost a decade previous to STAR
WARS? Nope.
They looked cool to a nine year-old who was totally wrapped up in
the story and the characters. I loved that film. But I loved it
because of how great a story it was. Also, as I later realized,
it reminded me of all the crazy old 50's horror/fantasy movies I
would watch on Saturday afternoons like SHE. It had the same
exoticism and archetypal characters.
And it was just great fun. But, no I don't think those effects
were cutting edge, even for the mid-70's.
KenM47
I agree with your two examples. Jurassic Park really was amazing.
Brought back my childhood fascination with dinosaurs.
BUT, for me, a lot of the fun was "How did they do that?" It was a
kick to learn SOME things were CGI, SOME were full sized robotic
props, SOME were miniatures. I did accept that the dinos were "real."
and it did astound. Even through the two sequels even though it seems
2 and 3 were just about solely CGI.
I don't know, but there was something "romantic" if that's the word,
when the FX guys had to THINK about how were they going to pull it
off, rather than just turn to a bank of gigahertz CPUs and some
incredibly clever program on a hard drive. Even Hellboy; master makeup
man Rick Baker got a credit for an assist - I'm guessing he stood over
the shoulder of the guy sitting at a work station.
Not unlike the fading glory of the Disney animators who seem to have
lost their jobs to CPUs too. We're losing our artisans, people capable
of creating things not merely "applying" 1s and 2s no matter how
sophisticated. Maybe I'm just a Luddite at heart. I don't know. Maybe
just, as previously suggested, old man curmudgeony.
Ken
KenM47
I'm guessing your talking about the remakes? I agree (in addition to
the Guido/Solo controversy). The original was fun with its little FX
throwaways, and then pushing the boundaries of blue screen.
Fun to see guys scampering and using their brains on a tight little
budget.
Ken
KenM47
Rob
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:38:25 GMT, KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Don't get me wrong, I see the need for CGI at times, as in Hellboy.
> >Like EGK said, it helped that a lot of Hellboy was actually actors in
> >make-up. I don't see how LOTR or the Potter movies could exist without
> >it.
> >
> >I think it's like anything else, too much of a good thing. The "Wow"
> >is wearing off and the blase is setting in. Maybe like A.E. I'm just
> >getting old, but somehow there was magic in the old Harryhausen films
> >that is just missing these days. IMHO. Maybe its the direction;
> >otherwise, I just don't know. Need to think more on this.
>
> Not to pick on you because I'm getting old myself but I think there's
> something to that theory. We tend to have a "been there, done that"
> attitude towards things we see. Frankly, I don't think I'm going to be
that
> impressed again by technology in the movies until holograms or true 3D
comes
> in to play.
I don't think technology alone has ever been enough to awe me. Well,
when I saw some of those turn of the century silent films and realized they
were in color, that impressed me quite a bit. Then again, the first big
screen film I saw was Return of the Jedi, so where was there left to go from
there? And now with CGI, there just isn't anything that would be impressive,
because it's just 'Oh, they put that together with computers'.
And a lot of the older over the top stuff wasn't always special effects.
There were huge and eleborate musical numbers and there were actual
performers performing and such. I'm thinking the likes of the parade scene
in Cleopatra and such (a lot of which was cut). Hell, even the snake scene
in Billy Jack was real, an actual native american ritual with an actual
posinious snake and the actual actor.
> I mean, sure, a lot of the stuff today is just amazing compared to
something
> 20-30 years ago but we've grown up with it. We've also seen movies that
> combined both great storytelling and special FX. That's a perquisite for
me
> if I'm going to jump on a bandwagon and proclaim a movie's greatness. FX
> alone aren't enough.
Well, I could do with out the FX if the film itself is good.
It's why I was less then impressed with The Matrix
> trilogy though I know many people find that to be the be all and end all
for
> movie making.
I think there's this need within the (I don't want to say sci-fi/fantasy
geeks but I can't think of a better description for people who dress up in
Star Trek garb and go to conventions) to have a Star Wars trilogy for their
generation. So any prelaid trilogy that is in the right genre they instantly
latch on to as the greatest films ever until they get over it. There was the
Matrix, the second trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, any of this sound like
films that fell short of greatness but seem to have rabid fans hanging on
for the hell of it? Firefly may have succeeded had the need for a Star Trek
for this generation not already been fulfilled by a series of spin-offs.
> Give me the opening sequence to Raiders of the Lost Arc (and that movie in
> general) any time compared to anything in recent memory.
I think I watched that film way too many times. I know it too well. Now
when it gets to the part where Indy's moving from fight scene to fight scene
I tend to lose interest every time.
KenM47
>BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, it's just a different kind of fake to me. I mean, when I go back
>> and watch the original Star Wars, the creatures in that cantina don't
>> look remotely realistic to me, either. They look like people with rubber
>> masks on, nothing more.
>
>Those scenes represented the sort of old serial and old b-movie
>look of the films which influenced Lucas. In that sense, they played
>right along with the overall mood of the film as a b-movie space
>opera.
Yes, it was all part of the fun. Fun that Lucas seems to have
forgotten how to have with eps 1, 2 and 3.
>
>> And the space battle scenes-- look like a bunch of plastic models to me.
>>
>> Were those FX revolutionary for the time? Sure.
>
>No way. Those FX in STAR WARS were lame, even at the time. Did they
>look cool when I saw the film eleven times in the theatre upon
>original release? Sure they did.
I think they were state of the art then. I enjoyed them. It was a big
deal how ILM (or whatever they called it then) figured out how to
track 3D miniatures.
>
>Did they look cool when I, later, saw 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and
>realized that it had been made almost a decade previous to STAR
>WARS? Nope.
2001 had 2D objects because of the limits on tracking objects on the
blue screen. As noted above, I think SW was the first to go to 3D with
better controlled camers for the composite shots.
>
>They looked cool to a nine year-old who was totally wrapped up in
>the story and the characters. I loved that film. But I loved it
>because of how great a story it was. Also, as I later realized,
>it reminded me of all the crazy old 50's horror/fantasy movies I
>would watch on Saturday afternoons like SHE. It had the same
>exoticism and archetypal characters.
>
>And it was just great fun. But, no I don't think those effects
>were cutting edge, even for the mid-70's.
>
"Fun" is the operative word. I found little sense of "fun" in the
Hellboy effects. If anything, the "fun" there seemed to be in the
physical sets and the physical make-up. IMO, of course.
Ken
EGK
>aej17D...@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) wrote:
>
>>BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, it's just a different kind of fake to me. I mean, when I go back
>>> and watch the original Star Wars, the creatures in that cantina don't
>>> look remotely realistic to me, either. They look like people with rubber
>>> masks on, nothing more.
>>
>>Those scenes represented the sort of old serial and old b-movie
>>look of the films which influenced Lucas. In that sense, they played
>>right along with the overall mood of the film as a b-movie space
>>opera.
>
>Yes, it was all part of the fun. Fun that Lucas seems to have
>forgotten how to have with eps 1, 2 and 3.
It's funny we seem to be on the same wavelength regarding this kind of
thing. I couldn't agree more. It's quite like a parallel to BTVS's early
and later years. In an attempt to make it darker and supposedly more
meaningful, they often lose the sense of fun.
A.E. Jabbour
> aej17D...@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) wrote:
>
>>BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, it's just a different kind of fake to me. I mean, when I go back
>>> and watch the original Star Wars, the creatures in that cantina don't
>>> look remotely realistic to me, either. They look like people with rubber
>>> masks on, nothing more.
>>
>>Those scenes represented the sort of old serial and old b-movie
>>look of the films which influenced Lucas. In that sense, they played
>>right along with the overall mood of the film as a b-movie space
>>opera.
>
> Yes, it was all part of the fun. Fun that Lucas seems to have
> forgotten how to have with eps 1, 2 and 3.
No kidding. In recent years, I have felt incredibly let down three
times while leaving the movie theatre: STAR WARS, EP. 1, MATRIX
RELOADED, and INTOLERABLE CRUELTY. I don't see films in the
theatre much anymore, but I usually have good luck when I do.
PHANTOM MENACE was so disappointing that I can hardly imagine that
I sat through the whole thing. It completely lacked the happy-go-
lucky spirit which the originals (for the most part) had in
abundance.
>>> And the space battle scenes-- look like a bunch of plastic models to me.
>>>
>>> Were those FX revolutionary for the time? Sure.
>>
>>No way. Those FX in STAR WARS were lame, even at the time. Did they
>>look cool when I saw the film eleven times in the theatre upon
>>original release? Sure they did.
>
> I think they were state of the art then. I enjoyed them. It was a big
> deal how ILM (or whatever they called it then) figured out how to
> track 3D miniatures.
OK, if I am wrong, then so be it. It certainly won't be the first
time, and it won't be the last either.
>>Did they look cool when I, later, saw 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and
>>realized that it had been made almost a decade previous to STAR
>>WARS? Nope.
>
> 2001 had 2D objects because of the limits on tracking objects on the
> blue screen. As noted above, I think SW was the first to go to 3D with
> better controlled camers for the composite shots.
I don't know enough to dispute that. I assume you are correct.
I know that 2001 *looked* amazing, however they did it.
>>They looked cool to a nine year-old who was totally wrapped up in
>>the story and the characters. I loved that film. But I loved it
>>because of how great a story it was. Also, as I later realized,
>>it reminded me of all the crazy old 50's horror/fantasy movies I
>>would watch on Saturday afternoons like SHE. It had the same
>>exoticism and archetypal characters.
>>
>>And it was just great fun. But, no I don't think those effects
>>were cutting edge, even for the mid-70's.
>
> "Fun" is the operative word. I found little sense of "fun" in the
> Hellboy effects. If anything, the "fun" there seemed to be in the
> physical sets and the physical make-up. IMO, of course.
>
> Ken
There is an interesting passage in a book I am now reading, "The
Major Film Theories: An Introduction" by J. Dudley Andrew. In the
section concerning Andre Bazin, he talks about Bazin's thoughts on
the nature of realism in cinema versus those of the formalists.
Basically, the early film theorists (Munsterberg, Arnheim) believed
that cinema, as an art form, derived its power from its *unreality.*
Therefore, they thought that so-called advances in cinema technology
such as sound and color (among others) were superflous.
Bazin, as a Realist, believed that the importance of cinema was (partly)
based around the psychological impetus perpetuated by our fundamental
belief in the truth of the image. The image on the celluoid was
the result of a chemical process and a physical, technological
gadget, the camera. A painter is an interloper, between the audience
and the object in reality. A photograph is, conversely, believed
by the audience.
I am very much oversimplifying.* But Bazin believed that sound, color,
3-D, Cinerama, etc. were all natural developments in our "underlying
spirit of what cinema is, by the desire for the perfect representation
of reality." (J. Dudley Andrew, pg. 139)
(Actually, this touches on one of my pet projects: an analysis of
the difference in reactions to false speech versus false image in
cinema. Most audiences are not bothered by a character misrepresenting
the reality of a situation through lies in words; however, those films
which have show a misrepresented visual reality, only to be undercut
at the end of the film, have in some cases infuriated those same
audiences. In other words, we can believe that a character would
lie to us. We can't believe that the camera would, though.)
I think BTR1701 mentioned JURASSIC PARK elsewhere in this thread
as an example of a good use of CGI. I would agree. (The film
generally sucked, but that's a different question ...) It helped
to create a world where the dinosaurs being brought back seemed
very real. It is not, obviously, a representation of reality. But
it is a creation of an alternate reality which seemed believable.
Whereas, in my opinion, SPIDER MAN did not make good use of
technology to creat an alternate reality.
I believe the question now becomes whether or not there is a need
for some alternate reality to be created, and also wehther it is
done in a way that allows for a suspension of disbelief.
Honestly, I see very few new films anymore. I plan on seeing
DOGVILLE and KILL BILL, V2 within the next few days. One is about
as minimalist as possible, and the other is a genre-fest gone completely
awry within the mind of Quentin Tarantino.
Anyhow, for the one or two people still reading (I am being VERY
optimistic, I know) the book "The Major Film Theories" by J. Dudley
Andrew is an excellent read for anyone interested in the field.
He basically breaks the history of film theory down into three major
areas: The Formalists, The Realists, and Modern French Theory (Metz
and Mitry, etc.). It's a good introduction I think, and I have
learned at least something while I wait for the original Eisenstein,
Kracauer, and Bazin texts to arrive through inter-library loan.
Ok, I'll shut up now.
Chris Zabel
news:SGfgc.22735$ab3.4968@fed1read02...
> See, I think the exact opposite. Gene Hackman and his portrayal of Lex
> Luthor was the only good thing about that movie. I like that movie only
for
> the Lex scenes, and could do without the rest. I think the major flaw in
the
> film is the casting of Christopher Reeve as Superman. We take a hero that
> was two-dimensional and never really worked well, even in his prime, and
so
> we cast him with a guy who can't act at all and has no screen presence.
The
> end result, double bad.
You're insane. Reeve was perfect casting for Superman and did a decent job
as Clark Kent. Without Reeve as Superman that whole movie falls apart.
That is one of the charms of Superman, that he is a 2-d personality in a 3-d
world. Anything else would not be faithful to one of the most iconic
characters ever created in Western culture.
--
"They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter
whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the
truth?" - Dostoevsky
Aethelrede
KenM47 wrote in message ...
CGI is cheap, so it gets used. Disney stopped using American animators
decades ago: the jobs went to Asia. The same applies to most US cartoons.
It's done where people are grateful to get a US hourly wage every day, or
even every week.
I'd like to see more cartoons that are up to the standard of the Disney
products of the 40s and 50s, or the Hannah-Barbera shorts, but nobody does
that stuff any more: it costs too much.
Why should some CEO keep jobs in the USA when there are millions of
people overseas who can do the job for a fraction of the cost, without all
the affirmative action laws and pollution regulations and that damn health
insurance and the retirement benefits? American workers have priced
themselves out of the market, and CEOs who care about their stock options
and the other stock holders are going to employ cheaper people.
Botch
wrote:
>> isn't."
>
>I first knew the "this is art" people were full of crap when I took a
>junior-high class trip to the Met in NYC. There was a 20-foot by 30-foot
>blank canvas with one black dot in the corner the size of a golf ball.
>The tour guide said it sold for $1.2 million.
>
>Or the guy who was making millions by throwing buckets of paint through
>jet engines which splattered the paint on a canvas-- hell, anyone can do
>that.
>
>If the only difference between "art" and "not art" is whose hands are
>holding the paint bucket, then the whole concept is nothing but a load
>of hooey.
You missed a better one, a guy paid people to come up with idea's for
paintings, paid yet another group to paint them, all he did was sign
them. It was considered art and he made quite a bit of money.
Yet another one was a guy who put up a blank canvas, the 'art' was
what people's imagination could come up with to put on the canvas.
Botch
Botch
wrote:
>I do think CGI is much more effective when dealing with non-living
>objects than it is with animals, monsters or people.
>
>I was amazed, watching the bonus features on the Bad Boys II DVD, seeing
>how they did that phenomenal car chase on the Miami causeway. Half the
>cars in that chase sequence didn't even exist. For safety reasons they
>were digitally inserted by computer in post-production.
>
>But watching the movie for the first time, I never had any idea that
>those cars weren't real. In my opinion, that's a perfect example of CGI
>done well-- when it's so seamless you have no idea it was there in the
>first place.
The true break thru of CGI is all the little things in non genre
movies that it's used for but you never hear about. They add walls,
cars and an assortment of other normal everyday things.
Botch
T
> "EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:8no2801b4uf54d6ko...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:48:04 GMT, KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cute. Not as good as Buffy S1 to S5, but OK.
>>>
>>>Anyone else getting tired of CGI? For me there was more magic in the
>>>more primitve days of FX. Too easy to fake anything, and the images
>>>are always so dark.
>>
>>CGI is good in small doses. I recently watched the original Superman
>
> movie
>
>>on Turner Classic Movies. I hadn't watched it in years. The only CGI in
>>that movie that was laughable even at the time was the scene of young
>
> Clark
>
>>Kent racing the train. I still think it's one of the best superhero
>
> movies
>
>>ever despite casting Gene Hackman as a way over the top Lex Luthor.
>
> That's
>
>>because real actors were playing the parts.
>
>
> See, I think the exact opposite. Gene Hackman and his portrayal of Lex
> Luthor was the only good thing about that movie. I like that movie only for
> the Lex scenes, and could do without the rest. I think the major flaw in the
> film is the casting of Christopher Reeve as Superman. We take a hero that
> was two-dimensional and never really worked well, even in his prime, and so
> we cast him with a guy who can't act at all and has no screen presence. The
> end result, double bad.
>
> "You have a strong streak of good in you Superman, but no one's perfect.
> Well, almost no one." - Gene Hackman.
>
>
Well, see I liked all the casting, even the stunt casting like the whole
'gang who couldn't shoot straight', but the one glaring mistroke (please
don't be offended) is Lois Lane. <sigh>
Chris Reeve was a excellent actor in the role. It was played very
boyscouty though and he fits this well.
A later Superman movie might delve into a darker sense of things; a good
representation is in the Batman Graphic Novel: Dark Night Returns shows
Superman as a adopted son of the Terran Life Force, Gia if you will. And
when he needs recharging after surviving an atomic blast he depletes
said life force from the surrounding area, but it's a bargain worth
selling your children for, if it keeps the Man of Steel in play.
I haven't seen Hellboy yet but I'm concerned that the easy of eye candy
available in modern movies will slacken the quality of the story, not
that we have been able to *find* much story in recent decades.
(I really mean the 'yet' part above, it's on my "see it in the theater"
lists.)
<shudder> Margo Kidder. <sigh> Oh, well. As in many mistakes in
history, they didn't ask me.
TBerk
Oh, and On Topic?: I like Willow better.
Botch
wrote:
>BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, it's just a different kind of fake to me. I mean, when I go back
>> and watch the original Star Wars, the creatures in that cantina don't
>> look remotely realistic to me, either. They look like people with rubber
>> masks on, nothing more.
>
>Those scenes represented the sort of old serial and old b-movie
>look of the films which influenced Lucas. In that sense, they played
>right along with the overall mood of the film as a b-movie space
>opera.
>
>> And the space battle scenes-- look like a bunch of plastic models to me.
>>
>> Were those FX revolutionary for the time? Sure.
>
>No way. Those FX in STAR WARS were lame, even at the time. Did they
>look cool when I saw the film eleven times in the theatre upon
>original release? Sure they did.
Sure they were cutting edge, because of the way they were filmed, the
introduction of computer controlled cameras being the main innovation.
>Did they look cool when I, later, saw 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and
>realized that it had been made almost a decade previous to STAR
>WARS? Nope.
For me it's like comparing apples and oranges, two different styles.
>
>They looked cool to a nine year-old who was totally wrapped up in
>the story and the characters. I loved that film. But I loved it
>because of how great a story it was. Also, as I later realized,
>it reminded me of all the crazy old 50's horror/fantasy movies I
>would watch on Saturday afternoons like SHE. It had the same
>exoticism and archetypal characters.
You're right, it was the story that made the film, not the effects,
which points out the major problem with the prequels.
>
>And it was just great fun. But, no I don't think those effects
>were cutting edge, even for the mid-70's.
Blue and green screen work had been done for years, the computers
allowed repeatable moves with accuracy that couldn't have been done
before.
But story and style had as much to do with the success of Star Wars
as the effects.
Botch
David Brewer
> >They looked cool to a nine year-old who was totally wrapped up in
> >the story and the characters. I loved that film. But I loved it
> >because of how great a story it was. Also, as I later realized,
> >it reminded me of all the crazy old 50's horror/fantasy movies I
> >would watch on Saturday afternoons like SHE. It had the same
> >exoticism and archetypal characters.
>
> You're right, it was the story that made the film, not the effects,
> which points out the major problem with the prequels.
I don't hear the nine year-olds complaining.
--
David Brewer
"The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific
Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of
facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)
David Brewer
>
[...]
> A later Superman movie might delve into a darker sense of things; a good
> representation is in the Batman Graphic Novel: Dark Night Returns shows
> Superman as a adopted son of the Terran Life Force, Gia if you will. And
> when he needs recharging after surviving an atomic blast he depletes
> said life force from the surrounding area, but it's a bargain worth
> selling your children for, if it keeps the Man of Steel in play.
I think you misread The Dark Knight Returns a little, and DC
mythology in general.
Superman is a Thanagarian, Kal-El, who finds himself in possesion
of superpowers on Earth because of the different light cast by our
sun. It is the sun he addresses as mother, and the sun's light
that replenishes him after the nuclear blast. Superman is a
champion of the bright light of the daytime, Batman a detective of
the dark night and there is much pseudo-intellectual bollocks to
be written about that little gem of nerd-wisdom.
[...]
> <shudder> Margo Kidder. <sigh> Oh, well. As in many mistakes in
> history, they didn't ask me.
The first Reeve Superman film was my child's introduction to
Superman. To my mind Kidder is Lois Lane and all the rest are just
little girls playing at dressing up.
Rowan Hawthorn
"David Brewer" <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40827B41...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> T wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > A later Superman movie might delve into a darker sense of things; a good
> > representation is in the Batman Graphic Novel: Dark Night Returns shows
> > Superman as a adopted son of the Terran Life Force, Gia if you will. And
> > when he needs recharging after surviving an atomic blast he depletes
> > said life force from the surrounding area, but it's a bargain worth
> > selling your children for, if it keeps the Man of Steel in play.
>
> I think you misread The Dark Knight Returns a little, and DC
> mythology in general.
>
> Superman is a Thanagarian, Kal-El,
Actually, no. Superman is a Kryptonian. *Hawkman* was Thangarian.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." - Linus Van Pelt
David Brewer
What a howler. I must have been thinking of Kevin Smith's
inclusion of a Thanagarian thingy in his Superman script.
T
> T wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>A later Superman movie might delve into a darker sense of things; a good
>>representation is in the Batman Graphic Novel: Dark Night Returns shows
>>Superman as a adopted son of the Terran Life Force, Gia if you will. And
>>when he needs recharging after surviving an atomic blast he depletes
>>said life force from the surrounding area, but it's a bargain worth
>>selling your children for, if it keeps the Man of Steel in play.
>
>
> I think you misread The Dark Knight Returns a little, and DC
> mythology in general.
Nope, the reference is to a story that itself diverged from the standard
mythos.
Read on.
>
> Superman is a Thanagarian, Kal-El,
(edit- we already caught that he is a Kryptonian)
> who finds himself in possesion
> of superpowers on Earth because of the different light cast by our
> sun.
This is without dispute. Our YELLOW sun, as apposed to his original RED
star. Check.
> It is the sun he addresses as mother, and the sun's light
> that replenishes him after the nuclear blast.
I have the book in front of me, (the compiled version I keep handy for
rereading, the original four volumes are put away.)
On the 1st part of your sentence you are incorrect, the second is true.
It is the energy he drains from the life around him, which ORIGINALLY
came from the yellow sun, Sol, that he consumes to replenish himself.
He has not been adopted by a star, but by a Planet.
It's like the sun itself won't provide enough over the time span needed
so he draws on his 'credit' so to speak. It might be true that there is
no Gia to speak of, just his state of mind based on circumstances. Kind
of like his form of religion as a way to relate to the world around him.
Go back and see how the jungle around him that he fell into is withered
and depleted by his recovery.
> Superman is a
> champion of the bright light of the daytime, Batman a detective of
> the dark night and there is much pseudo-intellectual bollocks to
> be written about that little gem of nerd-wisdom.
>
> [...]
Check & check. We really aren't at odds.
>
>> <shudder> Margo Kidder. <sigh> Oh, well. As in many mistakes in
>>history, they didn't ask me.
>
>
> The first Reeve Superman film was my child's introduction to
> Superman. To my mind Kidder is Lois Lane and all the rest are just
> little girls playing at dressing up.
>
Sorry again, but this is part of the dilemma. (Actually I'm not _sorry_
as such.) I respect your outlook, but my introduction to Superman & LL
for that matter was in the funny pictures.
Margot was more library and Auntie -ish for my tastes (again, no
disrespect to MK), I would have like a raven haired beauty who was a bit
more athletic and less , well, Margot Kidder-ish.
It's funny. Note the NG. Note too the Subject Line. heh heh.
TBerk
T
> In article <1hegc.42202$K_.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Aethelrede" <aethe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>KenM47 wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Cute. Not as good as Buffy S1 to S5, but OK.
>>>
>>>Anyone else getting tired of CGI? For me there was more magic in the
>>>more primitve days of FX. Too easy to fake anything, and the images
>>>are always so dark.
>>
>>I think they're here to stay. They're cheap and as long as the
>>studio has the computers and the CGI people, they have to earn their keep.
>>CGI in real life is much scarier: imagine a picture of Bush Lite out
>>in Iraq shooting at terrorists while he was actually back in the USA. That
>>could buy a few votes from the dumber than dirt crowd.
>
>
> Well, now it's official. There's apparently no conceivable subject that
> doesn't have anti-Bush overtones with you, is there?
>
> We could be talking about the expiration dates of mayonnaise or the
> discovery of a new quasar on the far side of the universe and you'd find
> some way to bring it around to a negative for Bush, wouldn't ya?
Well, politics aside I like the <http://www.bringbackkirk.com> version
two promo that was made.
Obviously the production wasn't Hellboy quality but damn, it works
nonetheless.
I don't hate CGI, I do think it has a way to go but suspension of
disbelief might be both an acquired skill AND a innate ability.
TBerk
bush Who?
Mi...@webtv.net
enjoyed it .I here theirs already talk of a sequel and cartoon . Good
for them . I'll watch . The movie had a Buffy like quality. I could see
any of the characters in Buffy or Angel in Hellboy. It was a heck of a
lot better then last years Hulk.Terrible! This is coming from an ol
Marvel Comic fan. Hellboy himself reminded me of The Thing from the
Fantastic Four. A descendent obviously.
arnold kim
"Chris Zabel" <alep...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_zogc.13600$zj3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Rob" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:SGfgc.22735$ab3.4968@fed1read02...
> > See, I think the exact opposite. Gene Hackman and his portrayal of
Lex
> > Luthor was the only good thing about that movie. I like that movie only
> for
> > the Lex scenes, and could do without the rest. I think the major flaw in
> the
> > film is the casting of Christopher Reeve as Superman. We take a hero
that
> > was two-dimensional and never really worked well, even in his prime, and
> so
> > we cast him with a guy who can't act at all and has no screen presence.
> The
> > end result, double bad.
>
> You're insane. Reeve was perfect casting for Superman and did a decent
job
> as Clark Kent. Without Reeve as Superman that whole movie falls apart.
> That is one of the charms of Superman, that he is a 2-d personality in a
3-d
> world. Anything else would not be faithful to one of the most iconic
> characters ever created in Western culture.
One of the best things about Reeve was his ability to say comic-book dialog
and sound completely sincere. Which is the way Superman _should_ be played.
Plus there's how he was essentially playing a dual role, and did it well- he
actually made it believeable to think that Superman and Clark Kent might not
be the same person.
Arnold Kim
arnold kim
"KenM47" <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:gsm28057msb1nf4k3...@4ax.com...
> Cute. Not as good as Buffy S1 to S5, but OK.
>
> Anyone else getting tired of CGI? For me there was more magic in the
> more primitve days of FX. Too easy to fake anything, and the images
> are always so dark.
I'm only tired of CGI used at the expense of great storytelling, but not CGI
in general. CGI lets a director get away with doing things that would
otherwise be impossible. Sometimes the CGI is used well, but other times
it's wasted. The 1998 CGI Godzilla was impressive, but I don't like the
movie because I can't give a rat's ass about everything else. On the other
hand, the effects in, say, the Spider-Man movie not only because you can see
things that you couldn't even really imagine before, but also because it was
such an effective adaptation of the comic book series. Sam Raimi actually
cared about the film and not just the effects.
Arnold Kim
Rowan Hawthorn
> Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
> >
> > "David Brewer" <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:40827B41...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > T wrote:
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > > A later Superman movie might delve into a darker sense of things; a
good
> > > > representation is in the Batman Graphic Novel: Dark Night Returns
shows
> > > > Superman as a adopted son of the Terran Life Force, Gia if you will.
And
> > > > when he needs recharging after surviving an atomic blast he depletes
> > > > said life force from the surrounding area, but it's a bargain worth
> > > > selling your children for, if it keeps the Man of Steel in play.
> > >
> > > I think you misread The Dark Knight Returns a little, and DC
> > > mythology in general.
> > >
> > > Superman is a Thanagarian, Kal-El,
> >
> > Actually, no. Superman is a Kryptonian. *Hawkman* was Thangarian.
>
> What a howler. I must have been thinking of Kevin Smith's
> inclusion of a Thanagarian thingy in his Superman script.
After reading the descriptions I've found on-line, I'm doing my level best
*not* to think of anything to do with *any* of the script treatments so
far...
Anton Sherwood
>> Superman [as portrayed in The Dark Knight Returns] finds himself in
>> posse[s]sion of superpowers on Earth because of the different light
>> cast by our sun. It is the sun he addresses as mother, and the
>> sun's light that replenishes him after the nuclear blast.
T wrote:
> It is the energy he drains from the life around him, which ORIGINALLY
> came from the yellow sun, Sol, that he consumes to replenish himself.
[...]
> Go back and see how the jungle around him that he fell into
> is withered and depleted by his recovery.
Not by, y'know, the nuclear blast?
--
Anton Sherwood (prepend "1" to address)
http://www.ogre.nu/
T
<snip>
>
> One of the best things about Reeve was his ability to say comic-book dialog
> and sound completely sincere. Which is the way Superman _should_ be played.
>
> Plus there's how he was essentially playing a dual role, and did it well- he
> actually made it believeable to think that Superman and Clark Kent might not
> be the same person.
>
> Arnold Kim
>
>
All it takes is a reviewing of the 1st time Supes stops by to pick up
Lois prior to the 'Flying Date' scene, and after, as they return to her
apartment.
His transformations between sunken chested Clark & full throated Kal-El
is what it's (movies, acting, etc are) supposed to be about.
"Lois, I have something to tell you..."
CR being cast was also a good example for future roles; cast the part,
not the actor. Don't stunt cast the lead who will need to be a tent
pole- cast according to what the *character* needs to make a it
effective effort.
Counter example; Keaton as Batman. I mean, really, wtf?
The casting in Hellboy, at least for the lead, is decent if not
inspired. I know there is the danger sometimes of being type cast but I
think he's beyond that now.
'the Beast' is no Richard Kiel after all.
TBerk
Oh, and I think early buffy season's opening montage best pic award goes
to Willow's wry look sideways. Followed closely by the sharing of an
award by between two different characters in dance scenes , hands over
head. You know.
T
Nope, post blast he fell amongst living jungle, only to deplete the life
force there in his need to regenerate. And after he promised to avenge
the sacrifice.
Shall we open our primers?
8])
TBerk
T
<snip>
> Not unlike the fading glory of the Disney animators who seem to have
> lost their jobs to CPUs too. We're losing our artisans, people capable
> of creating things not merely "applying" 1s and 2s no matter how
> sophisticated. Maybe I'm just a Luddite at heart. I don't know. Maybe
> just, as previously suggested, old man curmudgeony.
>
>
>
heh heh, You must be: It's ZEROs and ONEs; 0 or 1.
8])
TBerk
I'm a curmudgeon too.
T
>> > David Brewer wrote:
>> >> Superman [as portrayed in The Dark Knight Returns] finds himself in
>> >> posse[s]sion of superpowers on Earth because of the different light
>> >> cast by our sun. It is the sun he addresses as mother, and the
>> >> sun's light that replenishes him after the nuclear blast.
>>
>> T wrote:
>> > It is the energy he drains from the life around him, which ORIGINALLY
>> > came from the yellow sun, Sol, that he consumes to replenish himself.
>> [...]
>> > Go back and see how the jungle around him that he fell into
>> > is withered and depleted by his recovery.
>>
> Anton Sherwood wrote:
>> Not by, y'know, the nuclear blast?
>
> Nope, post blast he fell amongst living jungle, only to deplete the life
> force there in his need to regenerate. And after he promised to avenge
> the sacrifice.
> TBerk
What follows is an excerpt from 'the Dark Night Returns' re: post
Nuclear Blast and it's effects on Superman, his resultant decrepitude,
and his subsequent restoration due at least in part to the sacrifice of
the lifeforce of the jungle around him.
=======================
OK, post blast we pick up the story;
"Harmlessly..." The woman on television She said the bomb would detonate
harmlessly.
<picture of relentless inferno.>
You cannot touch my planet without destroying something precious.
Even her deserts are abundant. There are birds blessed with chest
feathers absorbent enough to carry water for miles to their children.
Bullfrogs who slept for years in dried out river beds, then dug their
way to the surface when the rains came.
Now, there is only blackened glass, Endless flame.
<Superman rises from under the obsidian.>
Our people Bruce, You laugh at them. Then they do this and you laugh.
They can split the very fabric of reality, blast a hundred thousand tons
of sand into the sky, blotting out the source of all my power, the hope
for screaming millions.
<Superman rises slowly into the sky, a firestorm raging around him,
attempting to reach the blocked out Sun.>
Magnetic storm, You have every reason to be outraged, Mother Earth, you
have given them Everything. They are tiny, and stupid, and vicious. But
please, listen to them.
Please. I am slow and dying. I need only reach the sun.
<insert picture of dessicated Superman getting hit by bolt of
lightening, striking him from his attempted rise to a clear sky,
hurtling him to the ground below.>
<He falls out of the immediate blast zone into a jungled area.>
I have always loved you. Though I was born a galaxy away I have always
served you.
The same power, the Sun's power fuels us both. You hold it here, you
store it.
<picture of Superman with his hand on a sunflower.>
I beg you, for a suffering world, release it.
Mother.
Mother.
You are so... generous. You give me your beautiful jungle.
I swear your adopted son will Honor your.
<end of excerpt>
(I could have added a lot of three dot pauses to better recreate the
rhythm of the pattern of speech but chose not to.)
So, in this representation of Superman we find he is Solar powered but
in his desperation finds a way to 'draw on his credit' so to speak.
Whether he actually has a belief in a Mother Earth of uses it as a
symbolic representation of a lifeforce, it's moot- he finds a way to
keep on going when sunlight isn't readily available.
I posted this out of a lesser feeling of being right and a greater
feeling of the original thread idea; wait, we drifted. CGI beget Casting
beget where Superman got his power from and whether Margo Kidder made an
acceptable Lois Lane. 8])
Well, Like other modern icons in fiction, this story represents
something akin to Hercules and other ancient myths, we have the benefit
of being alive during it's inception and evolution.
Anywho, I'll retroactively thank the indulgence of the NG for being so
non-Buffy and everything. (Is *that* were we are?)
TBerk
PS- if this movie were filmed I'd rather it be top shelf animation vs
real life actors.
kenm47
THAT, I should have gotten right. I'll chalk it up to curmudgeon brain freeze.
Thanks, Ken
kenm47
> arnold kim wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > One of the best things about Reeve was his ability to say comic-book dialog
> > and sound completely sincere. Which is the way Superman _should_ be played.
> >
> > Plus there's how he was essentially playing a dual role, and did it well- he
> > actually made it believeable to think that Superman and Clark Kent might not
> > be the same person.
> >
> > Arnold Kim
> >
> >
>
>
> All it takes is a reviewing of the 1st time Supes stops by to pick up
> Lois prior to the 'Flying Date' scene, and after, as they return to her
> apartment.
>
> His transformations between sunken chested Clark & full throated Kal-El
> is what it's (movies, acting, etc are) supposed to be about.
>
> "Lois, I have something to tell you..."
>
> CR being cast was also a good example for future roles; cast the part,
> not the actor. Don't stunt cast the lead who will need to be a tent
> pole- cast according to what the *character* needs to make a it
> effective effort.
Agreed
>
> Counter example; Keaton as Batman. I mean, really, wtf?
Disagree. I expected MK would be horrible, but instead I thought he
carried it off very well. I also think in the cowl and cape his odd
mouth worked great. If there was any problem with MK, I attribute it
too the occasional odd look of the costume, sometimes stiff and other
times too rubbery.
Further, the whole look of Batman 1 and 2 was a lot better than what
followed as they descended more and more into the campiness of the TV
show.
Since the MK films, the little I've seen of the Batman in the comic
stores and on TV (like JLA), he's bigger and boxier than he used to
be. MK was not that imposing a physical presence in real life,
although the costume scenes worked pretty well, IMO. If anything, it
made it a tad more believeable that folks who knew both BW and B-man
would not connect the dots, unlike Supes and the CK eyeglasses.
>
> The casting in Hellboy, at least for the lead, is decent if not
> inspired. I know there is the danger sometimes of being type cast but I
> think he's beyond that now.
If anything, I thought they didn't give Perlman enough to do in
close-up. But more back story would probably have required a TV series
a la Buffy.
>
> 'the Beast' is no Richard Kiel after all.
Not getting this reference. Are we talking X Men? Where is the Beast?
>
>
> TBerk
> Oh, and I think early buffy season's opening montage best pic award goes
> to Willow's wry look sideways. Followed closely by the sharing of an
> award by between two different characters in dance scenes , hands over
> head. You know.
I'll go with Willow's finger wave to Oz taken from Dopplegangland. And
Buffy in "Anne" triumphant.
Ken
Rowan Hawthorn
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4c527512.04042...@posting.google.com...
> T <tb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<hMKgc.24159$Ez....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> >
>
> Not getting this reference. Are we talking X Men? Where is the Beast?
>
Perlman was the title Beast in "Beauty and the Beast" with Linda Hamilton.
kenm47
> "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:4c527512.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > T <tb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<hMKgc.24159$Ez....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> > >
> > >
> > > 'the Beast' is no Richard Kiel after all.
> >
> > Not getting this reference. Are we talking X Men? Where is the Beast?
> >
>
> Perlman was the title Beast in "Beauty and the Beast" with Linda Hamilton.
Oh! THAT Beast. <g>
Ken
forge
>The casting in Hellboy, at least for the lead, is decent if not
>inspired. I know there is the danger sometimes of being type cast but I
>think he's beyond that now.
One of my LiveJournal friends said it was originally going to be Nick
Cage in that role. I hope to God he was joking but after hearing Kevin
Smith's Superman-movie story, I wouldn't be surprised.