|
My main issue with Requiem, is how unsubtle it is. Every "scary-action" scene is wielded like a sledgehammer, as if they're just trying to go from one set to the next. Something's lost in the transition to me. E: But SMG's right; they [do]attempt[/do] attempt a narrative with a stinging point, mostly with regards to the sheriff.. But they chose a poor road to convey it, alienating their viewers, as it were. There's no reason in chastizing those who'd wanted another movie entirely, nor those who liked the final product. It's one pretty polarizing movie! THE BAR fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Jul 27, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
To change the subject a bit, has anyone seen Netflix's Stranger Things? That finale had some pretty awesome shout outs to the Alien series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:they [do]attempt[/do] attempt a narrative with a stinging point This is either very clever or a strangely beautiful typo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:This is either very clever or a strangely beautiful typo. In either case, all credit goes to my crappy phone posting. ..Mercy, that's rancid. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
re: Cameron - From what I've noticed with Cameron, he tends to hate every sequel to his movies because they didn't make what he would have made, and complains about them until he remembers he's bashing a fellow director and remembers to be nice to them, so he then says he loves it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
James Cameron is the Zack Snyder of the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Let me know when Zack Snyder creates an original idea that spawns a multi-billion dollar franchise. Cameron has done that not once, but twice by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Let me know when Zack Snyder creates an original idea that spawns a multi-billion dollar franchise. Cameron has done that not once, but twice by the way. Harlan Ellison would disagree with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Harlan Ellison would disagree with that. Well of course there are very few true "original" ideas, so in that sense you're right. But direct adaptations(300, Watchmen), and established properties(Batman v Superman), aren't at all the same thing as Terminator and Avatar. And I don't even like Avatar. Edit: Wait a second, I just realized that we had this exact argument like a month ago. Didn't we? Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Also James Cameron is so self aggrandizing he makes Snyder look like a monk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Let me know when Zack Snyder creates an original idea that spawns a multi-billion dollar franchise. Cameron has done that not once, but twice by the way. Yeah, I'm comfortable with the idea that James Cameron is a better writer than Zack Snyder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
James Cameron has also done more for filmmaking technology than Snyder could ever hope to. His ability to realize a specific artistic vision no matter what it takes and no matter how many people he pisses off, even if it means literally having new technology invented so he can accomplish it, is second only to maybe Kubrick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Well of course there are very few true "original" ideas, so in that sense you're right. But direct adaptations(300, Watchmen), and established properties(Batman v Superman), aren't at all the same thing as Terminator and Avatar. And I don't even like Avatar. The problem here is (as you seem to acknowledge with the scare-quotes) that you're defining 'originality' purely in terms of intellectual property and franchise rights. So if Terminator 1984 were rebranded as part of the The Day The Earth Stood Still franchise, but otherwise unaltered, it would instantly cease to be original. It's either that or some narrative of technological progress. This is why I've emphasized how vital it is to escape from the franchise mindset.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The problem here is (as you seem to acknowledge with the scare-quotes) that you're defining 'originality' purely in terms of intellectual property and franchise rights. So if Terminator 1984 were rebranded as part of the The Day The Earth Stood Still franchise, but otherwise unaltered, it would instantly cease to be original. It's either that or some narrative of technological progress. I do think it takes more creativity and originality to combine one's influences and make something out of them, than it does to make a direct adaptation of a work that already exists. The Terminator is not a remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, and if it were branded as a sequel to The Day the Earth Stood Still, I'd think "hey that's odd, there's a lot in here that doesn't feel like it belongs in The Day the Earth Stood Still, maybe this should have been its own thing instead".
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Well of course there are very few true "original" ideas, so in that sense you're right. But direct adaptations(300, Watchmen), and established properties(Batman v Superman), aren't at all the same thing as Terminator and Avatar. And I don't even like Avatar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:well, Avatar isn't a franchise yet. It had a videogame tie in and a toy line, and merchandising deals out the rear end when it first came out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The Terminator is not a remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, and if it were branded as a sequel to The Day the Earth Stood Still, I'd think "hey that's odd, there's a lot in here that doesn't feel like it belongs in The Day the Earth Stood Still, maybe this should have been its own thing instead". Terminator takes the premise of Day The Earth Stood Still and simply makes Gort the bad guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Watchmen was a better film than anything Cameron has done since Terminator 2, so there's that. Zack actually made the ending better than the source material. No denying that Cameron in his prime shits all over Zack though. BillBear fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Terminator takes the premise of Day The Earth Stood Still and simply makes Gort the bad guy. And that premise is what exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:And that premise is what exactly? A human and a robot, both visitor from a distant place, come to deliver a warning: human violence, and war in particular, will inevitably lead to the annihilation of humankind. In The Day the Earth Stood Still, the solution is to renounce violence. In The Terminator, the solution to to double down on violence, to oppose Armageddon with guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Well, let's be more direct. A prophet and his companion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
And given that the companion is explicitly an agent of Armageddon, a prophet and an angel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
I just never saw the Terminator as being there to deliver a warning about human violence, but I can understand what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I just never saw the Terminator as being there to deliver a warning about human violence, but I can understand what you're saying. Also I guess it sort of depends on how you want to interpret the warning. Lung cancer can be seen as a warning to stop smoking, but by the time you've got cancer, it's already too late.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I just never saw the Terminator as being there to deliver a warning about human violence, but I can understand what you're saying. The Terminator himself is the warning, T2 makes this completely explicit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:James Cameron has also done more for filmmaking technology than Snyder could ever hope to. His ability to realize a specific artistic vision no matter what it takes and no matter how many people he pisses off, even if it means literally having new technology invented so he can accomplish it, is second only to maybe Kubrick. Zack Snyder did revolutionary greenscreen work on 300 that the industry still copies today. Sorry you didn't read the wikipedia page about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:And that premise is what exactly? There's no getting around the fact that Klatuu is a time-traveller from the future. Interplanetary travel is almost invariably deployed as a streamlined time-travel, especially in earlier sci-fi. See, for example, the Star Trek episodes where they travel to the Ancient Rome Planet or the 1930s Gangster Planet. This is why aliens in sci-fi are frequently just humans in shiny costumes. It's not a budgetary limitation, but the entire point. Even Neill Blomkamp stresses that the drones in District 9 are very deliberately not 'realistic' aliens (meaning unrestrained, full Barlowe sort of design). The 'prawns' are simply humans from the future - as are the xenomorphs. You have to understand this to understand what Cameron is doing in this films. In the opening scenes of Aliens, Ripley is beamed up into a UFO, abducted by aliens -and then the aliens pull off their masks to reveal just a bunch of boring humans. Then it's revealed that Ripley has literally time-traveled into the future. Then Ripley starts yelling out prophetic warnings, having visions, etc. It's the exact same mixture of imagery. (Despite existing in a separate franchise, Aliens is, thematically, a sequel to Terminator 1 and a prequel to Terminator 2. It fits better into the logic of those films than it does into the logic of the Alien series. The dog becomes a cat, and Newt becomes John, but it's the same difference.) When you look at the narrative of Aliens,what you have is Ripley's fear of 'settling down'. After she emerges from time-travel the first time, she's stuck into this intermediate zone, afraid to actually go to Earth. Ripley then time-travels a second time and visits a nightmare world where competing factions battle for the future of the planet. It's only when the bad faction is destroyed that Ripley is able to settle down, start a family, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Zack Snyder did revolutionary greenscreen work on 300 that the industry still copies today. Sorry you didn't read the wikipedia page about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_%28film%29#Production Having said that, the stylized "digital sets" of 300 didn't look all that different from Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or Sin City, both of which came out first. Like don't get me wrong, if Snyder created new greenscreen tech for 300 then that's awesome, I just wasn't aware of it but I'm fine with being wrong about it.  The notion that Snyder has contributed as much to filmmaking on a technical level as Cameron is demonstrably false, and I'm speaking as someone who really likes a lot of Snyder's films. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
SMG, sometimes you just absolutely blow my loving mind. Not sure if it's in a good way or a bad way, but I'm definitely sure that you do. If you are a troll, you are probably hands-down the greatest one in the history of the Internet. No joke. If you're not... you should write a book, man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:SMG, sometimes you just absolutely blow my loving mind. Not sure if it's in a good way or a bad way, but I'm definitely sure that you do. It's both
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I just checked the Wikipedia page, where does it mention his revolutionary green screen work? No one ever said Zack Snyder has contributed as much to filmmaking on a technical level as Cameron. I said that Cameron was the Snyder of the 80s. They make movies and could give a gently caress what others think. They work with big ideas and formulate the story around those ideas. They pioneer new ways of shooting, new lenses, new cameras, new techniques. Other directors ape them directly after their movies are released. Seeing as how you slowly morph your posts to shadow better ones in this thread, I'll enjoy your wiki dump in a couple months espousing all your knowledge of Snyder that you've scoured from the internet. ruddiger fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:No one ever said Zack Snyder has contributed as much to filmmaking on a technical level as Cameron. I said that Cameron was the Snyder of the 80s. They make movies and could give a gently caress what others think. They work with big ideas and formulate the story around those ideas. They pioneer new ways of shooting, new lenses, new cameras, new techniques. Other directors ape them directly after their movies are released. Seeing as how you slowly morph your posts to shadow better ones in this thread (that "yelling into the abyss" line I used could've waited a bit though), I'll enjoy your wiki dump in a couple months espousing all your knowledge of Snyder that you've scoured from the internet. I said that Cameron contributed more technology to filmmaking, you said Snyder had done revolutionary green screen work and cited Wikipedia, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read Wikipedia because hey, maybe Snyder did, and it turned out you were making poo poo up or something, who knows. If your point was about Snyder's uncompromising vision and you were agreeing that Cameron has made more technical contributions, maybe you should have said that to begin with instead of talking about greenscreens or whatever? And I agree that Snyder's particular style and vision is often unique and commendable, although looking at Snyder as a filmmaker on the whole (his style and range, his attention to detail, his techniques, his personality and interactions with his cast and crew, his technical achievements) he couldn't be more different than Cameron in my opinion. What new lenses and cameras did Snyder use? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm not aware of any. Like, you're saying Snyder didn't pioneer as much tech as Cameron, but then muddle your own point by saying that he did pioneer new tech. Which is it? I don't think you quite get why I threw your "yelling into the abyss" line back in your face, but it wasn't because I was trying to emulate you as a posting visionary. Edit---- vvvvvvvv No, but it's so obvious I can't believe no one did. 
Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Has anyone made the Prometheus 2: the Secret of the Ooze joke yet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Zeris posted:It's both The trick with Aliens is that James Cameron himself has made a clear distinction between 'nightmare' and 'prophecy' in his Terminator films. Prophecy is a 'memory from the future', based on actual experience, whereas a nightmare is merely a product of stupid personal fears. The difference is very concrete: Kyle Reese is a legitimate prophet, flashing back to his actual wartime experiences (however distorted they may be), while Sarah Connor dreams of being vaporized in a nuclear strike - which, of course, never actually happened to her. She's a false prophet. When you look at Aliens, it's very obvious that Ripley is confused in the same way. She can't distinguish her actual subjective experience (of the events of Alien 1) from the fantasy that there's something inside her that's going to singlehandedly conquer the entire Earth or whatever. And the thing is that this confusion is never untangled - Ripley 'ends her nightmares', but does nothing about the actual thing that was the basis of those nightmares. And that thing was never the aliens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I do think it takes more creativity and originality to combine one's influences and make something out of them, than it does to make a direct adaptation of a work that already exists. Transcending mediums takes at least as much creative effort as making a generic Vietnam movie in space.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I just checked the Wikipedia page, A summation of your posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Harlan Ellison would disagree with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:A summation of your posts. Physical embodiment of the Alien Wiki.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:A summation of your posts. Keep swinging for the fences, slugger.  As a reward, here are some Aliens in yoga poses: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Keep swinging for the fences, slugger. Why does Dillon die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:51
|
|