Quote:
Perhaps not the only reason in all cases, but take away the technical values and many of these films are extremely average in most other ways.
Perhaps? It is amazing. You once more make a ridiculous claim and instead of acknowledging it you keep digging deeper, trying to justify such “silly”kind of claims. Not only you said that when I was specifically talking about the technical aspects of LoTR being the only awesome part of the movie and how special effects do fade with time, as you clearly made the silly claim.
Then you made it worst. How in the name of hell will any of those movies get any worst? How someone can make this claim? Your argument is based on some ridiculous hypothetical non-sense. Good. Kaput.
Quote:
Does anyone really watch GwtW for the extraordinary acting? It's neither Leigh's or Gable's best performance, as both are overwrought--melodrama acting to match the melodrama production
I dare you to find any critical to basis Vivien Leigh acting anything but near perfection. It is considerable hard, as she one of the best actress of XX century. And who cares – what kind of argument is this – if it is her 2th, 3th best acting ever? Still a great acting. Of course I didn’t claim GwTW is only watched due her performance – the movie is filled with dialogues that are remarkable, Scarlett and Rthett are quintessenscial pair of Hollywood. The story is good enough, the cast is filled with quality. The characters are charismatic. 10 years after, the technical aspects of GwTW were already a bit irrelevant, yet, the movie popularity just keep on. There is absolutely ridiculous to claim, people keep watching this movie because the technical aspect. The interest is another.
Quote:
OK, so there's a lot of philosophical and cinematic interest in 2001, but take away its revolutionary depiction of space and future technology, the SFX showcase that is Beyond the Infinite, and you don't have much else; the best acting is done by a robot!
This is even more non-sense. The space is just a scenary for the story and Kubrick directing. It is not fundamental at all. Hence we still watch the movie and do not mind there are mistakes caused by the impact of Moon travel 1 year after it. You just do not need to remake 2001, all is told there. It is not the f/x that made the waltz in the space, it is Kubrick proper direction, music use and all else. Plus, it is ironic you try to attack HAL, considering with red lamp the script and direction of Kubrick just gave us an non-human character that is more remarkable than even the ‘so praised’ Gollum.
Trying to reduce 2001 to technical aspects is certainly a great way to show I do not know the art of filmmaking.
Quote:
Similar with Blade Runner, but it even lacks 2001's philosophical intelligence. Take away the neo-noir/cyberpunk setting and what else of worth is there?
You must be really desperate to try to prove yourself right about your silly claim to go down to this level. What is this “Philosophy intelligence?”?Philip K.Dick is a metaphysical writer, Arthur Clarke has a scientific-realistic approach. One is proposing a model for evolution (not just living evolution), which is ultimately a ID model. The other is asking what consists of being human and having a soul, which also is a ID model. I have no idea how you can measure the intelligence of either. But the most amazing part of the argument is that it is irrelevant if it is less or more intelligent than 2001. It can be, but this would not deny the fact that the movie status is also because the metaphysical theme of the story, which is portrayed greatly. It is good also to know, this story also survives without images, so claiming there is nothing beyond this is a bit silly. Mostly, anyone who know the movie story, also knows it was a failure and the video renting made it a cult, mostly because of the ambiguity of the characters and the stories and not the special effects (hardly true astonishing when compared the blockbusters of the time). The cyberpunk-noir helped, but that is hardly a technical achievement (how they did it is a technical achievement, constructing a storyline on those settings nope).
But yes, Blade Runner IS NOTHING but a cyberpunk setting. Kaput.
Quote:
Star Wars has a great narrative? It has the same narrative as all "epic journey" stories! Little nobody discovers he has a secret past and a grand, unknown destiny and sets out to fulfill it. The new Star Wars did not have "superior F/X" if we're talking about historical context. Few films were as innovative in their time as the original Star Wars.
The same narrative? Oh, don’t tell me! How this make it not have a decent structure for the narrative? (I advise you to quote me correctly. If I wanted to claim a great narrative, I would have said it.). So, what if it has the same narrative of several traditional narratives? Since when this is remotely relevant? Or a way to measure quality? Stars Wars do have a decent structure for their narrative: the movie script is very basic, but unlike the new Star wars, there is no pace breaking due poor written romantic dialogues or for videgame scenes. It works more like a old tv series, with short cuttings and giving room for the characters to get the audience identification.
And I am not talking about historial context and the new star wars has poorer special effects. They obviously survive on the account that was beyond their first impact (the fanboys often love the characters, be then LoTR, trekkies, warsies, potters, etc). And I will just pretend you didn’t said one more irrelevant line, trying to create impact… The first sound movie, the first 3-d movie, the first outside shooting movie, the first colored movie… Yes, so what.
Quote:
Says the person that think standards for acting and narrative apply universally; you'd be laughed at by any legitimate film critic. Everything is contextual.
Pffft...
So let’s see what this not legitimate film critic is doing here.
“Performances tend to get lost in productions like this. I particularly noticed how easily Cruise got buried in the role of Jack.
Here is the talented young actor from "Risky Business," where he came across as a genuine individual, and this time he's so overwhelmed by sets and special effects that his character could be played by anybody.”
What is Robert Ebert afraid of the laugh when he compares the acting in a teen comedy with a fantasy movie (Legend)? No, he does not. You know why? Because you seems to not realize that when a critic is giving a nod to a genre movie acting, be it horror, western, gangster, comedy he is already downgrounding it. It is a bit when we say: Conan Doyle is a great writer of detective stories. It is implied the standard, which he cannot achieve. He applies the standards, he does not deny it. It exists, after all, genre does not “really” exist. When Jack Nicholson and Stanley Kubrick go to play with horror genre, they do not forget home their talent just to make fair with Tobe Hopper and Peter Cushing.
Of course, if LoTR acting was the only criticism I made, I would be exaggerating. It is not.
As Narrative – I said dialogues, it is not the same (narratives do have standards universal values, as any kid know, you can tell how good was Candide, Lolita or Dom Quixote despite their different genres), and sorry, bad dialogues are bad in any genre.
Quote:
The art of film is images in time, so to say that a "set of pictures" can't make for a great film is just ignorance. Kiarostami's Five? Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi? Hell, Malick's Days of Heaven is a masterpiece solely because of the stunning "set of pictures" it has. The preeminence of "story" and "characters" is nothing but an unjustified bias. There are plenty of masterpieces where the story, characters, and acting are slight to non-existent.
While some people do claim Five is more than a set of pictures, Koyaanisqatsi is certainly more than this (the music of the movie is almost as famous and hailed as the movie alone), I should be more obvious to mention movies like LoTR, with the primary function of a narrative. But your mention of Malick seems more a copy-paste of their critics. I don’t call it a masterpiece, but saying Days of Heaven does not have a good directing, a decent script, that the photography of the movie is not just to show a pretty scenery, but to set the tone of the movie, there is good acting, is just way off. It is even funny, considering the higher status of the movie now is exactly because people found qualities beyond Malick usual stunning movies.
Quote:
No, I specifically said you'd have to go back to Lang to get a similar "epic sweep." I was specifically thinking of his 5-hour Die Nibelungen. 2001, Blade Runner, et al. are much shorter and don't cover nearly the breadth of setting or narrative.
Nope, you listed in a single sentence 3 aspects and then in a next one, you said we had to go back to Fritz Lang. Albeit, I was being ironic, because the claim seemed so silly… yet, no idea yet how you were using the word epic.
I was really giving you some credit. You are a Milton fan and all. But you are really using epic only for the movie length. I do not know how pointless it is.
“Hey, I saw a great movie, had 1:30 half.”
“I saw one better. 2 hours and half.”
I do not know what is more ridiculous. Claiming the length of a movie is a good quality somehow or the notion that those movies are the longest movies of all time. I mean, Cleopatra –a crap movie – has alone about 4 hours. It must be the greatest movie of Hollywood, 1 movie, almost the length of the two Niebielung movies of Lang…
Those are not even the longest movies of all time. Imagine claiming it was something never done, since mute movies… Oh, geez.
Really backtrack here too, say you meant epic in the way people claim LoTR is an epic, etc. Not being it is a long movie. It not even kaput.
Quote:
Who said anything about greatEST? I actually think DeMille is underrated, but that's another subject.
Forget, Epic here means epic themes, etc. Not movie length. You could not understand the irony with this kind of vocabulary.
Quote:
How do you figure they aren't epic?
You won. I would never figure they were epic because together both movies have 5 hours. How many hours together have Porkys?
Quote:
I didn't say epic scale alone was enough, but combine that with the great cinematography, and what I consider to be fine direction and writing and that most certainly is. First and foremost it's the epic experience of the films that make them memorable. The new Star Wars my strive towards a similar experience, but they certainly didn't achieve it.
Absolutely. You said the memorable aspects of the movie are stunning productions value and cinematography, the best green capture acting on Gollum and the length of the movie. You say fine direction now (which aspects of fine directing Peter Jackson show? Besides hiring a extremely competent technical team I mean), you already said he dialogue is silly (so you can not know come with fine writing, be coherent, as dialogue is a great part of writing). And you still… have little… I mean… You called me for not knowing about movies for saying LoTR main marks are technical and surprise, when I asked about them, you named cinematograph and the amazing use of new tech to produce a animated character… and length… It is a bit ridiculous no? Except for not know length is that relevant, you just agreed with me. Ironic isn’t?
Quote:
I said Lang's silent films. He scaled down considerably once he got to sound. I love M, so I don't know what your point is.
Again, the irony is lost. Does not work in a world where epic translateS to movie length.