|
Fat Turkey posted:Those upset they got a guy the director feels is best for the role sound like those people who were upset that a black man would play a Norse god in Thor. Well, no, it's pretty much the opposite actually. Whitewashing is a pretty henious thing because minorities struggle to get prominent roles as a result of white being considered the default go to or because white people are often given roles that have a specific ethnicity attached to them. Black people generally don't get 'white' roles. So, y'know, pretty much the exact opposite. 'the director got the guy they felt was best for the role' is a nice sentiment, but the reality of hollywood whitewashing isn't nearly as clean cut or as pretty.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Star Trek In2 Darkness 2 Trek 2 Darkness Original model. New parts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
That synopsis reads like my dick got drunk and typed it by itself. Star Trek: Detonate the Fleet
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Darksaber posted:I honestly think that still is just an homage/fakeout. I really doubt they'd go down that route. I bet it's a fake-out, because there's also a shot in the teaser of Scotty and Uhura down in Engineering and Uhura is crying into Scotty's shoulder as he looks on stoically. I bet they set it up, but Spock lives, and maybe someone else dies. Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:This whole idea of odd numbered Star Trek films being bad, cited as a hard and fast rule is ridiculous. It's produced as some inarguable scientific fact as a substitute for having an opinion. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for why Star Trek V is supposedly so bad. Everyone always lists stuff like "Rocket boots". So, let's start there. I only really got into Star Trek as a concept after Mass Effect and Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams joint, but I think Star Trek 5 is a close favourite after actual Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams joint. It wierds me out, because there's a significant component of the fanbase, as far as I can tell, and I may be way off base, who think that Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams joint, is 'not Star Trek' because it's action packed and deals with big ideas very succinctly, whereas Star Trek Five, the same people seem to say, is 'bad Star Trek' because it eschews action and thrills for dealing with big ideas in an expansive and slow manner and approaching such, often absurd, ideas with a very endearing sense of sincerity. Which, to me, a new Star Trek watcher, was always at the core of the experience and one of the most impressive facets of the franchise. Again, maybe I'm way off base and it's just a bad film on it's own merits, but Star Trek is really confusing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
You could draw a dick all over every frame of The Godfather and say that an entirely vague group of people 'might' do it at some point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Congrats on missing the point completely. I'm not concerned that someone is actually going to do that to The Godfather. It's an example illustrating that sometimes films look better without orange skin and teal shadows. I didn't miss the point, you just didn't make one. An 'example' that relies on a completely farcical, vague, fictional situation that likely will never happen is pointless. "Sometimes films look better when they don't look like this incredibly specific example I made up" isn't something anyone was arguing against. Yes, some films don't look good when shifted to the 'orange/teal' color balance. No one is under the impression that it is a color balance and shift that always improves a film, just that it is common for reasons beyong just being a trend that rose out of the creative aether and settled into people's mind beyond complete coincidence. A better example would have been the Indiana Jones: The Complete Adventures Blu-Ray rerelease.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Except apparently everyone who works in color grading on Hollywood action and franchise films. Everyone Lord Krangdar posted:Is that meant as an example of good or bad color grading? Bad. The alterations to Raiders of the Lost Ark are garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
What do you want to me to say? You keep confusing your argument. "Lord Krangdar posted:Obviously nobody is complaining about any use of those two colors ever And then go onto make ridiculous blanket statements, like this: Lord Krangdar posted:Except apparently everyone who works in color grading on Hollywood action and franchise films. I'm sorry, I don't think that every action movie or 'franchise film' whatever that is beside another vague appeal to blockbuster consumerism filmmaking, exhibits this trend, or failing that, is by default hurt by the implementation of a similar colour scheme. Even the trailers for Into Darkness show off shots of varying colour temperature and balance, so saying that the film's going to be hurt by a lack of variation throughout it because of some slavish boogeyman color scheme just makes me thing you'r exaggerating or fear-mongering. I mean, altering a still of The Godfather, to show what it might look like if those corporate hollywood devils got their hands on it? Really? If it's that much of an identifiable trend, you should be able to source a decent example that isn't made-up. I don't know, picking at details or not, I'm not very swayed by the way you're phrasing your argument. Sorry. I don't think it's inherently a bad colour scheme, for reasons that have already been explained or that every action film is going to be harmed by it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:What kind of example would you accept? I don't have access to the footage of any Hollywood film prior to the color grading process. If example stills of the trend can suffice here are a few: No, I'd say those examples are fair enough at proving that the trend exists, which I didn't deny. It's certainly not a secret that a similar colour balance is shared between films. However, the point of contention here is that Lord Krangdar posted:What is less subjective is that using the same generic two-toned color scheme for an entire film is giving up the potential for visual contrast and storytelling that more variety could bring to the table. this trend is harming the potential for storytelling in these films and that it's alarming or distressing because of that. Those stills are examples of the trend, but I'm still not seeing what you're getting at. Is there a particular example in the context of those films you cited (that have been releaed and can be put into context) where you think the storytelling or 'lack' of visual contrast was harmed? Because all I'm seeing here is that the trend exists, which isn't something any would deny.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Now, having said that, the actual film may not look quite so saturated. I've usually noticed that trailers feature different grading than the movies proper- the first trailers for Fellowship of the Ring, I recall, had a kind of desaturated look that I didn't think made sense, but the movie proper featured a wider range of tones and looks according to the mood of the scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq-Llrt9A3M This one? I can't find a better quality link, but I'm not sure that it looks that different from the finished product, at least in the scenes glimpsed in it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I didn't say it was alarming or distressing, just a shame. I've seen the film. I don't recall having that much trouble with it, honestly. As for the still, I don't think it's that confusing, no. Cruise is framed by the two others and the stand of lit-up weaponry and gadgets that are in turn framing them. It's a dark and pretty pessimistic scene and it's lit coldly, which given that the movie is largely about them relying on their skill as human operatives rather than a surplus of goofy gadgets is a fair colour choice in their high-tech hideout. Each of the people, who's reactions are the focal point of the scene, are clearly seperated from the background by different framing and the lighting of the high-tech devices they're being framed by. It's dark and unwelcoming, but I would never call it confusing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree and I'm sure there are plenty of objectionable colour choice schemes in modern films, possibly as a result of this trend. My problem is that anytime this comes up, people trip over themselves to demonize any film that looks vaguely like it has an orange or teal bent and then fail to substantiate anything about it beside vague notions of it being lazy, corporate hollywood loving up films again.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
Absolutely. Is that first shot definitely from the ship's engine room? I remember it having a pretty distinct look in the original, which for some stupid reason a lot of people criticized or something. I forget what it was, but the set was a problem for some people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:The engine room in 2009 movie was the Budweiser factory I believe That's it! It was a brewery it was built on. That's awesome. It looked great. People are stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Borg magic is stronger than Federation magic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:So umm if Khan's blood is magic and can raise the dead, why didn't he use it on his wife when she died on Ceti Alpha V? That's a different dude.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Evidently not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I would be a lot more okay with this. You don't know what internally consistent means.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
He co-wrote alongside Kurtzman and Orci, which is like the trifecta of nerd rage.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Hey, wait a sec. You're Australian, why haven't you seen this yet and reported back? It was a choice between seeing this or Iron Man 3 this week and I chose Iron Man.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:You're a monster, Dan Didio. I was really impressed with Iron Man 3, but now after hearing about all this stuff I'm kind of bummed I didn't wait for this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:I really don't know how I can put it any clearer? The action set-pieces, the editing, the lighting, all feel like they're trying to distract me from considering the story, rather than contributing to the telling. An example, perhaps?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:It's not ideal, but far less of an offense than casting a white guy as an Indian character. Like I said, asked and answered long ago in this very thread. I don't see how or why, the end result is the same; the same ethnic minority being shafted.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
That's a very effective way of not addressing what I said at all. I'm not making an 'argument', I'm certainly not defending Cumberbatch's casting. I'm asking you something. I respect that you, and others, think that a minority recieiving the role over a caucasian actor is preferable, but I don't accept that in a matter of this sort there are varying degrees of 'offensiveness'. Functionally, there's no difference for the people who 'should' have been cast for the role, so it seems pretty self-defeating to argue in favour of correct representation and then inarguably settle for 'less'. Don't you agree? If not, why? Simply because it's 'less offensive', if we accept that there are varying standards? I don't agree with that outlook, I think if you're going to argue for minorities to be considered first and foremost for roles that the character shares ethnicity with them, then you should do it in every event, surely?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Well, what is being settled for? An actor that doesn't fit the character's race or ethnicity or any other similar criteria.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Isn't casting the most engaging, compelling actor for an antagonist isn't the primary criteria? Cumberbatch out-Khaned Ricardo Montalban. I think that's a pretty different argument. Casting the best actor for the role is compelling reasoning, but the point that most detractors of that way of thinking would, I think quite fairly, make is that the best actor might not be getting the opportunity for resons that have nothing to do with acting ability. For the record, I really enjoyed the movie. I thought Alice Eve was kind of wasted. She felt like kind of a tag-along character who didn't really fit with the crew's dynamic. Maybe that was what they were going for, but I just didn't get the feeling that she was worth the screen-time, despite how well she did or didn't do with the role. Really excited for Abrams Star Wars.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
I don't know about that, so I can't really comment on it. I don't know, I wasn't ever arguing that Cumberbatch shouldn't have got the role.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 09:03
|
|