- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Next Classic Film
Posted on 6/21/14 at 9:01 am to Fewer Kilometers
Posted on 6/21/14 at 9:01 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
Nobody gives a shite about Young Sherlock Holmes.
I do. I watched that movie dozens of times when I was a kid.
0
Posted on 6/21/14 at 9:15 am to Methuselah
quote:
So ... Shawshank then.
Great example and not very popular upon release.
I can see Magnolia (of course, it's 15 now), Tropic Thunder, No Country, Inception, Little Miss Sunshine, There Will Be Blood and a few others standing the test of time. Michael Clayton, maybe.
No Country kind of stands out as I get a little distance from that era.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 10:35 am to Methuselah
quote:
Is the criticism primarily that the plot is not engaging and entertaining or primarily based on it's political stance or alleged political stance?
The movie plot stinks. Plain simple fact. It is Dances with Wolves in space without any of the heart, soul and character development. I love Dances with Wolves by the way.
The movie has some of the worst cookie cutter, paint by the numbers villains I have ever seen. They are just evil for no real reason other than they were written to be evil.
Giant planet but for some reason they have to take this one spot NOW. Has to happen even though it isn't necessary.
The worst aspect is that for no reason, some of the army folk choose to fight and die for the Navi. I'm, not talking about the main character. I mean once you get yourself some Blue Snatch of course you are going to die to keep it.
I'm talking about side characters who had no real motivation to join the other side and die for the other side.
I won't get into bow and arrow attacks which bounced off the army ships in the middle of the movie somehow pierce the windows on the ship at the end.
The movie plot is weak. Sure it is also a tree hugger movie but I don't recall too many people hating it solely for a liberal plot.
It was hated for having a boring plot with terible characters and just laughably bad villains.
This coming from someone who still states the 3-D was good enough to offset the weak plot. I will never watch it again but I am glad I saw it once in the theater.
Same can be said for Gravity. Plot was weak. The hallucination part of the story was super weak, but the effects were good enough and the pacing was good enough to make it enjoyable although not a movie I will see again.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 10:40 am to abellsujr
quote:
He really should have. He will always be remembered as the actor who paved the way for motion caption acting.
Thanks for arguing my point. Evidently LOTR is more of a groundbreaking film than Avatar ever will be.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:03 am to TigerMyth36
quote:
Thanks for arguing my point. Evidently LOTR is more of a groundbreaking film than Avatar ever will be.
This is good analysis - where Avatar turned 3D CGI into a gimmick, LOTR (Jackson also did this successfully, IMHO, with King Kong) takes a quality, live action film, full of real, 3 dimensional characters, played by 3 dimensional actors and uses CGI to bridge the gap between what can be filmed and what cannot be filmed.
Unfortunately, he went too far in the first Hobbit film, particularly with the cave battle scene and sometimes there is a fine line between "just right" and overdoing something.
But, LOTR is what I would point to as a groundbreaking film - the whole package, the scope, the use of source material (good and bad), almost a rebirth of the epic film genre - although sequelization is also a downside of this phenomenon.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:15 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
But, LOTR is what I would point to as a groundbreaking film - the whole package, the scope, the use of source material (good and bad), almost a rebirth of the epic film genre - although sequelization is also a downside of this phenomenon.
Yeah, Lord of the Rings was a game changer. Think about where the fantasy genre has gone since then, as well as special effects. It has greatly affected both film and television and showed that the masses can keep up with a 12 hour plot so long as it is interesting.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:18 am to OMLandshark
quote:
12 hour plot so long as it is interesting.
Which is about right for a season of GoT or Vikings.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:22 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Which is about right for a season of GoT or Vikings.
Neither of these shows would be around without LotR. The faith in fantasy (yes I know Vikings isn't fantasy) was just for kids and could be slopped out in a weekend. Now Fantasy is one of the really big genres and is getting the respect it deserves.
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:30 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Neither of these shows would be around without LotR. The faith in fantasy (yes I know Vikings isn't fantasy) was just for kids and could be slopped out in a weekend. Now Fantasy is one of the really big genres and is getting the respect it deserves.
I agree with you. HBO's Rome, likewise, not strictly fantasy, but falls into this category of entertainment - I think "sexposition" was coined (or expanded) to describe some of Rome's storytelling techniques - I also do not doubt that GoT is built on the shoulders of both LOTR and Rome.
ETA: For that matter - do we need to look at Ridley Scott's Gladiator which was out about a year before The Fellowship of the Ring? Perhaps the success of the film, both critically and commercially helped grease the treads for the "modern epic" movement?
And Ridley remains (and probably will be until the end of time, now with CGI's relative dominance) the finest in-camera special effects director in history. Don't believe me? Watch Bladerunner with the sound turned down.
This post was edited on 6/21/14 at 11:34 am
Posted on 6/21/14 at 11:31 am to Freauxzen
quote:You forgot to read the rest of my post. Here I'll post it again.
Love it when people disagree and suddenly it's this board as a whole, and then we're marginalized.
quote:Where am I generalizing this board? I said people on this board,not this entire board.
The difference here is that Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time. Young Sherlock Holmes was not. People on this board don't like a lot of movies that are liked with critics and the general public. I personally had a lot of issues with Avatar, but I believe it will be remembered. Especially because of the sequels that are going to follow. Will it be a classic, not IMO. But after the sequels are finished, It will be remembered. There's a difference between "being remembered" and a "classic".
The only point I was trying to make is, IMO, Avatar will be remembered. It's the highest grossing movie of all time and many sequels are on the way. Cameron is spending millions on multiple movies for Avatar. There is no way people will not remember it. Some may hate them, yes. I might be in that category. But if these movies are really bad to the point where it flops and critics hate it, it will be remembered infamously at the very least.
I enjoyed the visual spectacle of Avatar, and could care less about anything else, but I will remember it.
This post was edited on 6/21/14 at 11:52 am
Posted on 6/21/14 at 5:20 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
But, LOTR is what I would point to as a groundbreaking film - the whole package, the scope, the use of source material (good and bad), almost a rebirth of the epic film genre - although sequelization is also a downside of this phenomenon.
And honestly, if you want to look at another super successful film that borrowed from LOTR, look no further than the MCU. Peter Jackson brought back the Lucas appeal of putting an entire, interesting universe onto film in an epic scope. See Harry Potter also.
This piece isn't technologically innovative, but certainly film production wide.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News