MovieChat Forums > kabukiarmadillo
avatar

kabukiarmadillo (580)


Posts


One minor scene missing... Just watched on Netflix...awkward Jason Mamoa Finally saw and gotta agree with critics What makes a successful movie? What was the plot? (SPOILERS) Good for her for supporting Liam Neeson These are our words, this is our world... Shaky start but got way better... I'm a guy and I liked this for what it was... View all posts >


Replies


Are you aware of the series "Dark Skies"? Came out in the mid-90s but set in the 60s. Probably had some influence in shaping this series. It wasn't bad... it had a strong cast, but it was just TOO similar to the X-Files and suffered by comparison. Back in my high school days, I had a few of Hynek's books. A fellow UFO enthusiast and I skipped a day to attend a lecture by him in downtown Toronto. Although he never explicitly said that he believed UFOs to be extraterrestrial craft, he firmly believed in them as a paranormal phenomenon worthy of study. There is a line of thought that suggests they represent some sort of mass psychology that's part of our collective psyche. The how's and why's of it aren't understood though since the whole field is considered a fringe pseudo-science, and nobody has given it serious study. Trivia: Hynek had a brief appearance in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. In buddy cops shows in general: One of them gets a hunch or a lead to follow... one that could put them in danger. Yet, they NEVER TELL their partner. They just go off on their own, or tell their partner: "There's something I want to check out." or words to that effect. Often they wind up dead, and the remaining partner is left to carry on without critical information that wasn't shared with him/her. The X-Files was particularly bad for this. Mulder was always dismissing Scully while he went off on his own. For me, personally, Dusk Till Dawn was the more enjoyable movie. It fully embraced its campiness. George Clooney was actually interesting here before he became Hollywood 'royalty' slumming his way through later roles. Plus Salma Hayek... nothing more need be said. Interview with the Vampire was one of Tom Cruise's rare misfires. I had read a few of the books. To my mind, Lestat looked more like Stuart Townsend portrayed him in Queen of the Damned... tall, fine-featured. Short Tom Cruise, with his large nose, pancake makeup and slightly fey manners seemed laughable, not threatening. (I say this as someone who enjoys almost every Tom Cruise movie I've ever seen...) The re-make of On the Beach... (Technically a made-for-TV movie.) As the cloud of post-nuclear war radioactivity reaches Australia, Australian naval officer Lt. Peter Holmes goes home to his wife. They gather on the bed together with their young children who are blissfully unaware of what's to come. We see the parents take some pills and give some to each of their trusting kids... the pills that will kill them all before the radioactivity reaches them. The parents calm their kids and lie down with them to await the end, infinite sorrow on their faces. I was watching with my wife and I had to leave the room because THERE WAS SOMETHIN' IN MY DAMN EYES!!! The thought that we could leave this entire planet a barren rock with nothing to signify our civilization, or the 3 billion years of life before us, is too goddam depressing to think about. I agree which is why I'm glum over the idea of these characters exiting Netflix. I'm worried that the current actors and stories will be dumped in favour of a complete re-boot when we see them again. It might be that contractually Disney/Marvel won't be allowed to use elements/stories of the previous series. I'd also rather that they stay separate from the movie characters and movie plots for the reasons we both agree on. Their series are more about drama than over-the-top cosmic soap opera and I like it that way. I'd be okay with certain movie characters stepping into their world... for example, Black Widow since she's not really a super-powered being, just a highly trained field agent. "Well, one’s dead and I’m not really into that sort of thing..." [url]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/obituaries/2016/06/07/2622705_dracula_lead_image_obituaries_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq-pfgFGBz9L_4V5dRQnfCxRjq2OoU_OWxLPIobNmUt48.jpg?imwidth=1400[/url] Are you sure? Cuz he just might just still be macking on the ladies... Nice! When I first read of the basic premise and background of GotG years ago, I shook my head and thought: "That's so stupid. A talking raccoon in a world of superheroes?!" Gunn himself revealed in interviews that he even he had doubts about how to make a "Loony Tunes" character work in the world of Ironman, Captain American and co. Despite that, he did a fantastic job and I became a fan. Good to see him back. But... ... it's still weird to think that, in theory, we could have Jon Bernthal's hard-ass Punisher fighting alongside Bradley Cooper's Rocket. I hope we never see that... Isn't the concept broadly similar to James Cameron's Dark Angel? "Set in 2019, the series chronicles the life of Max Guevara (Alba), a genetically enhanced super-soldier who escapes from a covert military facility as a child. In a post-apocalyptic Seattle, she tries to lead a normal life while eluding capture by government agents and searching for her brothers and sisters scattered in the aftermath of their escape." I haven't seen it yet, will probably catch on VOD... i. The sheer volume of movies being made today. I found a reference that said in the early 90s, around 450 to 500 Hollywood movies were made every year. Now it hovers around 700. Extrapolating, there were probably about 350 to 400 movies annually in the 80s. So good movies get lost in the sheer volume of mediocre stuff being made every year. (And new production/ distribution models such as Netflix are compounding the problem.) ii. Fresh ideas are becoming rare. So you see a lot of re-makes / re-boots / re-imaginings while the original ones are still around. iii. Formulaic film making. If a film becomes mega-successful, it quickly establishes a template that gets repeated over and over again. It's expensive to make mega-blockbusters so, if a movie clicks, there isn't much financial incentive to vary the formula. This is particularly true of 'franchise' movies. iv. Related to iii. above is the reliance on CGI and special effects to gloss over mediocre scripts. The special effects drive the story rather than the other way around. v. Over-saturation of PR, internet analysis, etc. When I was growing up in the 60s, you didn't even hear about a new movie until a few months before it hit the screens when you would see a single trailer for it. Now, with the Internet, teasers/trailers, announcements happen 2-3 YEARS before the movie arrives. There is endless discussion, analysis and speculation in that time. Broad plot details are leaked or extrapolated. When the movie finally appears, the fun of discovery is gone. There are no surprises. It's good for sure. Usually it's the eyes though that strike me as unnatural. The uncanny valley effect is no longer around, but they haven't really nailed the 'wet' look of real eyes. It also seems to depend on the picture setup. I watched the original LOTR at the theatres and found the special effects seamless. But when I later watched it on BluRay on my HDTV -- which I tend to have set for bright saturated colours and sharpened picture -- the edges of the special effects were immediately noticeable. Similarly, when I watched the resurrected Peter Cushing in The Force Awakens on my big-screen HDTV, his eyes immediately identified him as a CGI effect. In this case, it was more that often they weren't focusing correctly. Talking to a person in front of him, the eyes were sometimes focused off in the distance, looking THROUGH the character. And Princess Leia looked outright bad. I didn't see this movie at the cineplex but every review I read, raved about how realistic the CGI characters seemed. View all replies >