|
Bongo Bill posted:
A frog human and a pig human, respectively.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
For reals though I didn't expect to ever hear someone call James Cameron the Taylor Swift of film directors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Perhaps I worded it wrong but JJ would be the T-Swift or Cyrus in the analogy. Cameron would be the Madonna or whatever. I wasn't saying Cameron was bad in any way, I really like his films but they are definitely films that are good at being entertaining, not necessarily films good in any deep 'artistic' form. Case in point: Alien is the artistic one by a more artful director (well, when he chooses good films). Aliens was the Femme Fatale action flick. And he hasn't exactly been an innovator either. Sure, Avatar was a huge 3d success but he was FAR from the first to do it. He was just the first one to be massively successful. What I am saying is: JJ and Cameron are very similar. JJ did TFA and Cameron commented on it so there is the Star Wars thread relationship 
dialhforhero fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
dialhforhero posted:Perhaps I worded it wrong but JJ would be the T-Swift or Cyrus in the analogy. Cameron would be the Madonna or whatever. James Cameron isn't an innovator? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Like, have you even seen Terminator 2? Or noticed how CGI special effects were used before and after that film was made?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:James Cameron isn't an innovator? On Avatar, yes. Everything else, is HE the innovator?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
dialhforhero posted:Perhaps I worded it wrong but JJ would be the T-Swift or Cyrus in the analogy. Cameron would be the Madonna or whatever. Teach the controversy, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Yoda is an alien. So are all the "humans". They may look like us, doesn't mean they have the same biology as us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Linked because it is NSFW for man butt crack (or lack thereof). http://imgur.com/Oud8EoZ
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Let's all ignore the fact that Rogue One has a literal prequel-era Clone Wars cartoon character in it I think Clone Wars might be safe, Disney references it all the time and many of the characters and themes are important in Rebels. You're just not going to get Jar Jar again. e: Even if he was in CW. e2: Taking this space to point out CW has a multi-episode arc where Jar Jar and Mace Windu team up to investigate disappearing people and Jar Jar fucks a duck queen. turtlecrunch fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
dialhforhero posted:On Avatar, yes. Everything else, is HE the innovator? I'm not even that big a James Cameron fan but this is just silly. Even not counting Terminator 2, The Terminator and Aliens are two of the most influential things in all of pop culture, changing not just how special effects were used but how movies are made, how action films are structured, how "monsters" as we know them now look were totally redefined by those two movies, it's not really a thing that can be argued the other way. When Terminator 2 came out, I mean it's safe to say that it's one of the early 90s films that basically defined how 90s films would come to look. I'm not totally sure what the definition of innovative is here but to me it means doing a few things people are used to together in a way people have never seen before, he has done that multiple times. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
People hate George so much they'll try to discredit James Fuckin Cameron's filmography just to avoid acknowledging any praise for George.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
dialhforhero posted:On Avatar, yes. Everything else, is HE the innovator? He did the Abyss so loving yes. Yes he loving was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
James Cameron has patents on a few things, apparently: http://patents.justia.com/inventor/james-cameron Between T2 & The Abyss he's definitely been a huge influence on CG getting into more movies. Say what you will about the guy's films and personal life, but to attack his innovations or ethic is crazy. Other directors wish they had a brain like that guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
General Dog posted:People hate George so much they'll try to discredit James Fuckin Cameron's filmography just to avoid acknowledging any praise for George. You beat me to this, but yeah it's genuinely incredible
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
I don't know how you can think I'm discrediting George when I feel that George is more innovative and has a better artistic vision than James Cameron.  And yes, that includes the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:He did the Abyss so loving yes. Yes he loving was. Exactly. Above all else The Abyss was revolutionary. Lol at this argument - James Cameron is god tier. And untouchable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
The funny thing is most people in this thread would probably agree that Cameron is a dick and has a history of treating people around him like dog poo poo. Even understanding all that, there's just no way to deny the guy's influence and impact on filmmaking. Looking at the original post, I think the term "proto-Abrams" is what stuck out to me. If you said that Abrams is a poor man's Cameron, maybe I could see where you're coming from. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Whether you think it's better or not, Aliens is a total reinvention of Alien, not a slavish recreation. Cameron is almost the opposite if Abrams. Abrams is a chameleon who can imitate a number of styles. Cameron imposes his identity on the source material.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
How is a person who literally helps create and push new technology not an innovator? That's pretty much the literal definition of the word. When I think of "innovative" filmmaking Cameron is definitely one of the first directors that comes to mind. The Abyss is cool but holy poo poo it has a long runtime and feels like it at times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
J.J. Abrams could also be considered an innovator, but only in the sphere of multimedia marketing and branding. It's hard to deny Abrams has had an influence on those things. But when it comes to the actual act of making films, he's nothing but a rote imitator. George Lucas was obviously a marketing and branding innovator as well, but he was also an actual, honest-to-God innovator when it came to the actual act of filmmaking, very probably the most consequential one in at least the past half century. And James Cameron is right up there with him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Looking at the original post, I think the term "proto-Abrams" is what stuck out to me. If you said that Abrams is a poor man's Cameron, maybe I could see where you're coming from. Perhaps this is a better way to phrase it. Abrams is the poor man's Cameron in that Abrams does a lot of the things with films that make them very entertaining and/or popular and is an easy choice for making a financially successful film. However, Abrams is not as influential a director (at least yet, possibly if ever) as Cameron, and certainly isn't an innovator in any sense (yet). However, I will say for personal preference that I feel Abrams can be more artistic in that I can identify an Abrams film based on his motifs and aesthetic easily--especially in combination with the music in his films (also: lens flare ). Maybe I need to rewatch Abyss and Avatar, but I can't really find that sort of 'fingerprint' on Cameron films. He uses a lot of close ups of faces, but other than that I don't feel like his use of things like wide shots, long shots, or other techniques in cinematography/editing that really 'pop' for him. Same goes with his music. Are there really any leitmotifs in Cameron movies? I suppose I need to rewatch but the only one I can associate at all with Cameron is the Terminator 2 theme and its not really a leitmotif as you only hear that at the beginning and end. If you watch Super8 it's littered with the music associated with its characters and/or mood of the characters, same goes with TFA and I love that kind of poo poo.
dialhforhero fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
I think it's loving dumb to call Abrams just an imitator. He has done films using other director's styles, but his style I think, stands out. He has this very floaty, erratic style that I really love. He's not afraid to spin the camera and dutch the gently caress out of it to hype up the energy. The Star Trek films are very much his style. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldxE2DLZ-tA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9vHopyEtzs Like, you can argue maybe it's not appropriate to be throwing in floaty dutch angles and push ins all the time, with a billion lights exploding everywhere, but you can't really deny it gives energy. Even going back to Mission Impossible 3, he uses similar techniques. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00rpUGdvcY0 He does mimic Spielberg for Super 8, but that's intentional. He wanted to make a Spielberg movie. You can think that's lame though, and that's totally fine. But with Star Wars I think he wanted to find a nice mix between his floaty moving style, and the classic locked down George Lucas style the original films had. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWmgMWxRptw&t=121s I mean shiet, dude dropped a dutch angle in a Star Wars movie. That ain't no mimicry. Not saying that TFA is purely his though, but it's not just some hack mimic. But I wouldn't even compare Abrams to Cameron, or Lucas. I'm not exactly sure who to compare him too. He would love to be Spielberg, but the dude doesn't have the heart for it. Maybe like, a less cynical Michael Bay?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Also, Cameron's motifs are real easy to spot. Everything is blue as gently caress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU-ulzbY4us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4350xiaKHI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSrcMaid0mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkhBPF4yfkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoE7B0Jf_eQ (sorry every True Lies clip is recorded on a TV for some reason) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3pg27yqk3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVlbomIVZg Also to add to that, lots of solid, bright colors that take over the scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUyNdisu2M (the other videos above apply as well.) And not to mention harsh industrial landscapes. Which he owns at. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71d7BF1fZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kB_CnsxYY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNLtPLFECNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPq81DcWQU ( If there's one film you can use to sum up Cameron, it's T2. I mean, the water stuff is important, but man. T2 just has all the Cameron motifs.) Some non visual stuff that keeps popping up is usually some sort of love connection. It's either a mother's love for her child, or good old fashioned romance between two people. A female heroine who is usually strong and can take care of herself and is mostly independent and not reliant on men. A villain who is either a hopeless dopey bureaucrat or an insane military obsessed rear end in a top hat. I'm sure there's more but I took way too much time on this dumb post finding videos so hey.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:George Lucas was obviously a marketing and branding innovator as well, but he was also an actual, honest-to-God innovator when it came to the actual act of filmmaking, very probably the most consequential one in at least the past half century. And James Cameron is right up there with him. I mentioned this before but a lot of Cinephiles/film snobs directly blame him and Star Wars for dumbing down of mainstream filmmaking and they're not entirely wrong. quote:Even if you liked the movies, you might not have liked what they were doing to moviemaking around the world. Alex Leadbeater, editor of the film site What Culture, wrote an article earlier this year on how Star Wars negatively affected cinema. He says it was one of the films, along with Jaws, that “led to the introduction of the blockbuster model and the weakening of the auteur model,” making studios less willing to take chances on Lucas’s edgier director friends such as De Palma and Martin Scorsese. That’s become such an unpopular sentiment to express, one forgets that mainstream film books used to say the same thing, but more meanly; film critic Glenn Kenny points to Peter Biskind’s book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls as a proponent of what he calls “the ‘Star Wars ruined everything’ line”; the book never misses a chance to portray Lucas as a sellout and Star Wars as a silly children’s film
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
My point was I doubt a friend and contemporary of George is NOT going to take his side. Claiming that he was doing so only because they are both problematic with race was over the top am I'm sorry about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:My point was I doubt a friend and contemporary of George is NOT going to take his side. He's not taking "a side". Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Stacks posted:Lucas pushed Special Effects forward with both the OT and the PT but that's about it. His directing, storytelling and dialogue are steeped in Golden Age of Cinema. It's a retread. A throwback to a bygone age. I don't think film would be worse off if he stuck with racing cars. That's an incredibly bizarre thing to say. Lucas made monumental contributions to the way films are made, far beyond just pushing forward special effects technology. Here's an article that does a pretty good job of summarizing all the ways he affected the industry. There's far more to film than just cinematographic style. It's been a long time since that's been the primary area where major innovation happens. The basic principles of cinematography and visual style have pretty much been locked down since Citizen Kane, and even though movies may feel like they've progressed a lot, there really haven't been very many fundamental innovations in that area. Moving and shaking the camera a lot isn't really a groundbreaking innovation. It's more of a fad. quote:I mentioned this before but a lot of Cinephiles/film snobs directly blame him and Star Wars for dumbing down of mainstream filmmaking and they're not entirely wrong. Well, I think that's an ignorant viewpoint that takes an overly reductive view of both Lucas's work and the film industry as a whole. George Lucas didn't dumb down cinema. The Star Wars films are smart, thematically rich, well-put-together movies. It's not Lucas's fault that Hollywood--an establishment which he did as much as he could throughout his career to defy and remain independent from--decided to mimic some of the more superficial aspects of both his and Spielberg's films while remaining blind to the deeper qualities which made them such lasting successes. There's always been an impulse among the Hollywood bean-counters to dumb things down and sell more tickets at the expense of quality and originality. It's nothing new and it's certainly not the fault of an independent auteur like Lucas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Well, I think that's an ignorant viewpoint that takes an overly reductive view of both Lucas's work and the film industry as a whole. George Lucas didn't dumb down cinema. The Star Wars films are smart, thematically rich, well-put-together movies. It's not Lucas's fault that Hollywood--an establishment which he did as much as he could throughout his career to defy and remain independent from--decided to mimic some of the more superficial aspects of both his and Spielberg's films while remaining blind to the deeper qualities which made them such lasting successes. There's always been an impulse among the Hollywood bean-counters to dumb things down and sell more tickets at the expense of quality and originality. It's nothing new and it's certainly not the fault of an independent auteur like Lucas. Unintended consequences of one's actions are still consequences of one's actions. The truth is pretty clearly both: George Lucas shook the industry tree, and not everything that fell out was delicious fruit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Stacks posted:Lucas pushed Special Effects forward with both the OT and the PT but that's about it. His directing, storytelling and dialogue are steeped in Golden Age of Cinema. It's a retread. A throwback to a bygone age. I don't think film would be worse off if he stuck with racing cars. That's a dumb argument; Lucas is immensely influential in both the art and management/marketing of film making. No matter how much money the guy has made, he obviously is passionate and dedicated to his work and influence. For a specific example, several later Kurosawa films (who those film snobs probably revere, I imagine) would not exist without Lucas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Well, I think that's an ignorant viewpoint that takes an overly reductive view of both Lucas's work and the film industry as a whole. George Lucas didn't dumb down cinema. The Star Wars films are smart, thematically rich, well-put-together movies. Obviously we don't know with any degree of certainty if the movie industry would be better off without Star Wars but I tend to agree with the Pauline Kaels of the world. Less Star Wars and more auteur film making intended for adults. My personal favorite reaction to Star Wars is the ripoffs it inspired. Star Crash, Battle Beyond the Stars, Message From Space. These movies dispense with the thin veneer of intellectualism in Star Wars and embrace b-movie camp. They're great. *I think this is almost a word for word repeat of what I said before but it needs repeating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
The relative freedom of the New Hollywood was bound to end anyway. It was born of the studio heads not knowing what to do about declining attendance, and as soon as they found anything that worked, the party was over. Concerns about out-of-control budgets were also coming to a head near the end of the decade, which also inevitably meant that auteurs were going to get their hands tied. A big influence, I would argue, was on science fiction in film. This was the first time ever that a science fiction movie was the "biggest movie of all time", or even in that vicinity. Up until then the thinking was that sf movies were a genre with a reliable fanbase, but a limited one. Star Wars had crossover appeal, and Close Encounters doing really well later that year confirmed it was no fluke. (Alien didn't hurt either, since it meant you could make R rated sci-fi movies that made a lot of money.) There was a big boom in sci-fi pictures after that, both those that were directly trying to capture Star Wars' mojo (Flash Gordon, The Last Starfighter, etc.) and ones that simply were more feasible because now SF was bankable. I'm pretty sure even Blade Runner- an R rated dystopian noir story- at some point got the greenlight because someone at Warner Bros. was told "You know, robots, future stuff, that's all really big nowadays." Of course the general adventure/action model took a lot from Star Wars' success- the way it goes direct to the icons, so you've got The Innocent Farmboy, The Mentor, The Beautiful Princess, The Scoundrel With A Heart of Gold, etc. is something that definitely rubbed off on future movies. Look at how the Mad Max series goes from a revenge story to postapocalypse epic, or even how action films like Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Top Gun, etc. started taking on a slick comic book sheen. And if you want to get into Lucas' personal style, the emphasis on speed and pure movement is interesting. A lot of action spectacles of the Seventies, like the Irwin Allen movies, were kinda leisurely, not just in terms of overall pacing but specifically how the action unfolds. You have the big disaster setpieces, where the filmmakers are sure to let you see how wonderfully elaborate the sets are and how this is all exploding and collapsing for real in glorious Sensurround. Here the spaceships are always roaring across the screen, faster than they should- even that first Star Destroyer is freaking racing into shot. It's all about people running back and forth and getting into fast vehicles and so on. There were some action movies like this already, car-focused ones especially, but Star Wars kinda made it the standard. Even the prequels, where the actual story can drag a bit, have as their major setpieces chase scenes and races and fights where people move all over the place, often for no apparent reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Stacks posted:Obviously we don't know with any degree of certainty if the movie industry would be better off without Star Wars but I tend to agree with the Pauline Kaels of the world. Less Star Wars and more auteur film making intended for adults. Is "adult" better? Sure, we here are adults, but kids deserve good movies too. Maybe the modern movie industry overcaters to them, but I think that's less Star Wars' fault and more about economics and demographics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Stacks posted:The Star Wars movies aren't any smarter or more thematically rich than the sci-fi movies/TV shows that preceded it. Cnut didn't say Star Wars was intellectually and thematically superior to those movies and TV shows, though? Also, some of the most critically acclaimed movies are children's movies (The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast to name a couple).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
George Lucas made extremely good childrens' movies. It's not his fault that Hollywood stopped making movies for adults.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I'm pretty sure even Blade Runner- an R rated dystopian noir story- at some point got the greenlight because someone at Warner Bros. was told "You know, robots, future stuff, that's all really big nowadays." The only reason WB was involved with Blade Runner was because the initial financier - FIlmways - dropped out at the last second, and they were willing to trust the guy who had run 20th Century Fox and stuck with both Star Wars and Alien when nobody else on that board believed in these two sci-fi movies (Ladd and two other Fox execs essentially quit in 1979 and formed The Ladd Company), whom they had a deal with at the time. Fascinatingly, Blade Runner is also technically in part a Hong Kong production, since a third of the money to replace Filmways' investment came from Run Run Shaw - yes, the founder of Shaw Brothers. Which is an interesting legacy to be a part of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
I don't think anyone has ever called the OT particularly thought provoking in its story telling. Even in ESB the most you get is "that guy you thought was good? Turns out he's bad". (Could be referring to Vader, Yoda, Obi-Wan, etc)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Stacks posted:The Star Wars movies aren't any smarter or more thematically rich than the sci-fi movies/TV shows that preceded it. 2001, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Star Trek etc. That's rather faint damnation. Stacks posted:Obviously we don't know with any degree of certainty if the movie industry would be better off without Star Wars but I tend to agree with the Pauline Kaels of the world. Less Star Wars and more auteur film making intended for adults. Here's the thing, though, Star Wars was an auteur film by most any measure (regardless of it's intended audience). It was just an remarkably popular and financially successful auteur film. Any auteur film that was as successful as Star Wars would have lead to the same response from Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Something people are losing sight of is that the Star Wars movies are family films. That means they're for children and adults. When Lucas emphasizes in interviews that the movies are for children, he's primarily responding to the ingrained notion within the minds of some fans that the Star Wars movies are supposed to be like The Terminator or something. There's nothing wrong with family movies. They aren't inherently "dumber" than movies targeted solely at adults. They're just executed differently, because they're engaged in a different style and tone of communication. The Star Wars films and 2001: A Space Odyssey deal with a lot of the exact same concepts, in different yet I think equally effective ways. Really, what's so objectively "smarter" about the way 2001 deals with the fraught relationship between man and machine, compared to the way Star Wars does it? There's nothing smarter about it, there's just a lot less Laurel and Hardy comedy mixed in, because 2001 is going for a different tone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
edit: eh, this isn't going anywhere and I'm repeating myself again.
Stacks fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jul 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 16:42
|
|