|
Sir Kodiak posted:Goalpost shift emphasized. The depth of a performance is entirely composed of the range of emotions an actor brings to it.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate by showing a blank picture
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Judakel posted:The depth of a performance is entirely composed of the range of emotions an actor brings to it. What an odd claim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What an odd claim. Can you elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:It is when you try to tackle attachment to or perception of one's humanity. If superman really turned out to be as unfeeling or unemotive as his portrayal batman would be vindicated in his hunt. The revelation that he found out supes has some semblance of humanity rather than the alien, impersonal force of nature he was assumed to be is what stopped batman. Nonsense, plenty of incredibly non-naturalistic/expressionist films address humanist themes. Metropolis, 2001, Solaris, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Judakel posted:The depth of a performance is entirely composed of the range of emotions an actor brings to it. No. Anyways how are you doing man, everything good where you are? I'd like to think so, so that this internet bullshit doesn't pile on you too much, but you never know anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Would you feel the same way if you had not seen the film and superimposed the fullness of the performance per the film onto that still image? Of course you have to see the movie first in order to judge the still photo! How the hell are you supposed to know how much of the performance is captured in the photo without the context of having seen the film?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Can you elaborate? Among other things, performances include the selection of and transition between displays of emotion to convey complex internal thoughts or conflicting states. You can see this in the scenes between Clark and Lois. Henry Cavill tends to beam out one particular emotion with each line, and he's got perfectly fine range for this. Amy Adams frequently moves between different emotions, sometimes just in the buildup to a line, to convey what she's going through in thinking through her response. She gives a deeper performance, but not one built out of conveying a greater range of emotion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUrryh9kh5U
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Judakel posted:No, reread my posts. Judakel posted:If you didn't have such a vendetta, you might've realized it is a pretty simple point. Judakel posted:Why do you make me repeat myself? Ever wondered if the problem wasn't with other posters' reading comprehension, but with you being amazingly lovely at making points?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Nonsense, plenty of incredibly non-naturalistic/expressionist films address humanist themes. Metropolis, 2001, Solaris, etc. Yeah but the framework to support that does not exist in BvS. The cinematography, the design, the dialogue. It's not there. To try to find one in there is to give Snyder much more credit than he is due.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Among other things, performances include the selection of and transition between displays of emotion to convey complex internal thoughts or conflicting states. You can see this in the scenes between Clark and Lois. Henry Cavill tends to beam out one particular emotion with each line, and he's got perfectly fine range for this. Amy Adams frequently moves between different emotions, sometimes just in the buildup to a line, to convey what she's going through in thinking through her response. She gives a deeper performance, but not one built out of conveying a greater range of emotion. Transitioning between displays of emotion to convey complex internal thoughts or conflicting states is all part of conveying a range of emotions. Cavill fails to transition in a smooth and subtle way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Ever wondered if the problem wasn't with other posters' reading comprehension, but with you being amazingly lovely at making points? No, I am usually very clear when I am not joking. Sometimes there is a need to define terms because other people may not be used to them, but that is about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Transitioning between displays of emotion to convey complex internal thoughts or conflicting states is all part of conveying a range of emotions. Cavill fails to transition in a smooth and subtle way. What is used in "conveying a range" is not the range itself. It's completely unsurprising you'd decide to conflate the two, but it's not particularly convincing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Judakel posted:No, I am usually very clear when I am not joking. Sometimes there is a need to define terms because other people may not be used to them, but that is about it. If you have to say "No, that's not what I said! Read my post again!" every two posts, your posts are lovely my friend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Saying Cavill emotes with his face seems like the most faint praise one can give to an actor. Like, that's the bare minimum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Saying Cavill emotes with his face seems like the most faint praise one can give to an actor. Like, that's the bare minimum. Go and watch a few episodes of Columbo to see a guy emoting with his hands. Body language is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Saying Cavill emotes with his face seems like the most faint praise one can give to an actor. Like, that's the bare minimum. People note it because he's very expressive with his face. But you're basically right, which is why it's funny that people try to deny him that rather than any number of other comments they could make about his ability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Saying Cavill emotes with his face seems like the most faint praise one can give to an actor. Like, that's the bare minimum. The original complaint was "Cavill always has the same expression! He's a robot!" which is what the pictures were about. This is why people have been complaining about goalpost shifting, this is what it does and why it's used. Arguments are shifted back and forth at such a breakneck pace that something as simple as "uh no Cavill can emote with his face" looks like someone stating something insipidly obvious, but it was a direct response to people saying he couldn't do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Saying Cavill emotes with his face seems like the most faint praise one can give to an actor. Like, that's the bare minimum. It's how well he does that I am praising. Some actors act through their dialogue using tone of voice, others use strong body language, and some just play themselves in various roles. Facial expressions aren't necessarily a bare minimum, it's just part of the bag of tricks. e: sorry for the dogpile haha
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
When does the hype machine for Doctor Strange start up? We've gotten two trailers, which may be it now that I think on it. Marvel does tend to do the whole "145 clips before the movie is even out" thing though. Maybe they want to maintain some mystery when it comes to Doctor Strange.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
We're not going to be able to come to some final evaluation of Cavill as an actor based on his Superman because of the nature of the character and the way Goyer and Snyder write/direct. Only thing we can do is evaluate what he's done with what he has to work with, and I really don't think there's much more he could be bringing to the role than what he already has.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Judakel posted:You can't, you moron. Not Brando, not a young De Niro, not Clift, not Day-Lewis. You couldn't have picked four worse examples. All four are and were obviously very attentive to body language and facial expressions because they're actors!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What is used in "conveying a range" is not the range itself. It's completely unsurprising you'd decide to conflate the two, but it's not particularly convincing. There is no conflating. Human beings do not switch between emotions mechanically, and we are talking about a human character's range of emotions. A performance is entirely composed of this range.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:You couldn't have picked four worse examples. All four are and were obviously very attentive to body language and facial expressions because they're actors! But the full depth of their great performances cannot be captured in one or a handful of still images, as I have already argued in posts you did not read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Go and watch a few episodes of Columbo to see a guy emoting with his hands. Body language is a thing. Better yet, watch Columbo because it loving owns bones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Judakel posted:A performance is entirely composed of this range. It is composed of this range, but the nature of the composition is not built out of the extent of the range but also the choices made of expression within it. A painting is composed of a range of color, but the painting is not defined just by its range, but also how that range of color is applied to a canvas to form a picture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:If you have to say "No, that's not what I said! Read my post again!" every two posts, your posts are lovely my friend. Did you understand them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Judakel posted:But the full depth of their great performances cannot be captured in one or a handful of still images, as I have already argued in posts you did not read. I brought up an example, and you counterpoint was that I had already seen the movie therefore I was superimposing the performance onto the image. Are you saying you can tell if a performance is going to be lovely based on a single still photo even before you see the movie?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Yeah but the framework to support that does not exist in BvS. The cinematography, the design, the dialogue. It's not there. Give me an example of how "the cinematography, the design, the dialogue" don't fit the characterization. Mechafunkzilla fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Saying Cavill emotes with his face seems like the most faint praise one can give to an actor. Like, that's the bare minimum. Judakel posted:But the full depth of their great performances cannot be captured in one or a handful of still images, as I have already argued in posts you did not read. Full depth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
cool kids inc. posted:When does the hype machine for Doctor Strange start up? We've gotten two trailers, which may be it now that I think on it. Marvel does tend to do the whole "145 clips before the movie is even out" thing though. Maybe they want to maintain some mystery when it comes to Doctor Strange. It comes out November 4th, so 3 months from now? Early-Mid September maybe. It doesn't look like there's too much around it until Fantastic Beasts comes out, so they might do a last minute push starting in October.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It is composed of this range, but the nature of the composition is not built out of the extent of the range but also the choices made of expression within it. A painting is composed of a range of color, but the painting is not defined just by its range, but also how that range of color is applied to a canvas to form a picture. Now you're talking about choices, which are not part of what a performance is composed of, but instead are conscious decisions made by the actor which we are not privy to in any direct way. These meta-processes are kept private by the actor. We only witness the range itself, which is the full extent of the range and the transitions between emotions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I brought up an example, and you counterpoint was that I had already seen the movie therefore I was superimposing the performance onto the image. Are you saying you can tell if a performance is going to be lovely based on a single still photo even before you see the movie? No, I am saying the exact opposite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Now you're talking about choices, which are not part of what a performance is composed of, but instead are conscious decisions made by the actor which we are not privy to in any direct way. These meta-processes are kept private by the actor. We only witness the range itself, which is the full extent of the range and the transitions between emotions. I like how you say that the range is both "the full extent of the range" and then also another thing, like we wouldn't notice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Give me an example of how "the cinematography, the design, the dialogue" don't fit the characterization. I originally had nearly the exact same thing written but I decided not to post it. I would like to get some concrete examples of movies with design that fit the humanist theme or dialogue that fits the humanist theme or ESPECIALLY cinematography that fits the humanist theme. Like, I'm genuinely excited to see this. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Couldn't find a similar infographic for Clarks but here's a comparative study of Bruces The funniest part about this graph is that someone, somewhere thinks they have the chest measurements for 'Comic book Batman' catalogued.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Did you understand them? Yes. They are dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Give me an example of how "the cinematography, the design, the dialogue" don't fit the characterization. Not the characterization. The claim that BvS is exploring those themes in some avant garde way. Cinematography wise: It's shot super conventionally/conservatively. Thread has talked about this before better than I have. Design wise it's just a string of 'what looks coolest'. Why does superman look like he does? because that's his established design? If he popped out more as distinctly alien or different in contrast to the myriad bland backgrounds it would have been a credit to the movie. It's a shame that they didnt play around with contrasts and lighting. To draw from the comics:  In this certain series Batman is always portrayed as a shadowy silhouette, as top left. Until this set of panels. (I wanted the entire movie to be like Sir Kodiak's avatar) Dialogue was bland my first philosophy forums posts back and forth between characters. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Like, I'm genuinely excited to see this. cripes you're expecting a bit much of me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I originally had nearly the exact same thing written but I decided not to post it. I would like to get some concrete examples of movies with design that fit the humanitarian theme or dialogue that fits the humanitarian theme or ESPECIALLY cinematography that fits the humanitarian theme. Like, I'm genuinely excited to see this. You mean humanist, not humanitarian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:09
|
|