Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Avatar

Avatar (Page 8)
Thread Tools
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Ah - you just never bothered actually trying to understand the storyline.

If the humans hadn't uncovered the sentinel on the moon, and it hadn't sent its signal to the gateway in orbit around Jupiter, how would the aliens have known their experiment had succeeded? And more importantly, what would have replaced the search for the recipient of the signal as a top-secret secondary mission goal that would drive HAL to psychosis and the elimination of the conflict by killing the crew?

The whole movie would have been pointless WITHOUT the moon monolith.
I don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about. The movie never covers any of that. Must be from the book or 2010, neither of which I've experienced. Clearly, the movie is extremely poor at explaining itself.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Still a holdout!
High five!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about. The movie never covers any of that. Must be from the book or 2010, neither of which I've experienced. Clearly, the movie is extremely poor at explaining itself.
Well, contrary to much of current Hollywood fluff, the key to figuring out cinema used to be the assumption that NOTHING is pointless, and not even the tiniest detail is left to chance. If it's there, it has meaning or reason. There's some crucial content in those meetings on the orbital space station.

Kubrick and Clarke have several layers of story in there, not the least of which is the Nietzschean superman interpretation I recently bought a book about. That ties into, among other things, the names of the characters, which turn out to be anagrams for Nietzschean figures…
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur View Post
... or yell 'Shut the F up, often' to random people.
When I saw the first Lord of the Rings movie with dashed hopes of the sequels getting any better, there was some lady fell asleep during the movie and was snoring horribly loud. After about 30 minutes of constant snoring and people getting aggravated, my brother just yelled as loud as possible, "Someone wake that bitch up!" to loud applause.

Unfortunately her boyfriend wasn't amused, and tried to start a fight with my brother during the middle of the movie. Fortunately for us, my good friend is 6'6". After he stood up, the guy and his lady friend left to second round of applause.

We found out after the movie from people sitting next to the guy and the lady that they were drunk off their asses, and the guy was trying to start a fight in the theater anyway.
( Last edited by olePigeon; Mar 1, 2010 at 02:46 PM. )
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Well, contrary to much of current Hollywood fluff...
Hollywood has always produced fluff, and the occasional masterpiece. 2001 is just a movie that attempts the latter and fails.
the key to figuring out cinema used to be the assumption that NOTHING is pointless, and not even the tiniest detail is left to chance. If it's there, it has meaning or reason.
Thank you brilliant Buddha of the cinema. I guess those enormous plot-holes Hollywood constantly delivers are there on purpose too?
There's some crucial content in those meetings on the orbital space station.
That's great, but it doesn't deliver.
Kubrick and Clarke have several layers of story in there, not the least of which is the Nietzschean superman interpretation I recently bought a book about. That ties into, among other things, the names of the characters, which turn out to be anagrams for Nietzschean figures…
Who cares. Nietzsche was a hack.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Hollywood has always produced fluff, and the occasional masterpiece. 2001 is just a movie that attempts the latter and fails.
It's you against the rest of the world, here, and frankly, you're looking a little silly for not even *considering* that there may be more to the movie that you haven't figured out yet.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Thank you brilliant Buddha of the cinema. I guess those enormous plot-holes Hollywood constantly delivers are there on purpose too?
No, those are bad cinema. That was sort of the point of what I wrote.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
That's great, but it's over my head.
Apparently.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Who cares. Nietzsche was a hack.
Kubrick cared.

Okay, we get it: You want mindless fluff. Go ahead - that's perfectly fine. I love me some mindless fluff occasionally.

"2001: a space odyssey" fails utterly at mindless fluff.

But if you really think it's a failure beyond that, you either fail at cinema, or you at least need to acknowledge that the content is there, and try a different level of discourse.

Else, this thread is heading down the Zimphire's Legendary Sixteenth-Chapel-Fiasco track.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 03:12 PM
 
Avatar has now officially crossed the $2.5 billion mark.

I'm floored. Even after adjusting for inflation, it's still doing quite well at #15 of all time, well ahead of movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Fantasia, and within spitting distance of movies like Ben-Hur and The Empire Strikes Back.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
It's you against the rest of the world, here, and frankly, you're looking a little silly for not even *considering* that there may be more to the movie that you haven't figured out yet.
I'm certain there's more to the story, since there's a whole novel, but that story was poorly translated to the screen. I shouldn't have to read the book to understand the movie.

And you think I'm the only person in the world who found 2001 long and boring? Get real.
Okay, we get it: You want mindless fluff. Go ahead - that's perfectly fine. I love me some mindless fluff occasionally.
Now that you're done stuffing words in my mouth: I like deep movies, and don't like fluff. Like I said, 2001 was a deep movie that failed.
But if you really think it's a failure beyond that, you either fail at cinema, or you at least need to acknowledge that the content is there, and try a different level of discourse.
The content you mentioned isn't in the movie. Stop pretending it is.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I'm certain there's more to the story, since there's a whole novel, but that story was poorly translated to the screen. I shouldn't have to read the book to understand the movie.
The movie and the book were developed and written side-by-side. The book wasn't actually finished until quite a bit after the screenplay, IIRC.

You should not necessarily, however, expect to walk out of a cinema and have the movie resolved, and its deeper meaning exposed to you by the closing credits.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
And you think I'm the only person in the world who found 2001 long and boring? Get real.
No, you're not.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Now that you're done stuffing words in my mouth: I like deep movies, and don't like fluff. Like I said, 2001 was a deep movie that failed.
It only fails if you do.

2001: A Space Odyssey Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes

This review off that site pretty much sums up the discussion with you:

2001 certainly is a colossal bore, unless you're on its wavelength, in which case it's one of the greatest films of all time.
Oddly, there is real controversy about the movie - and thoughtful and marvellous discussion, and some absolutely spectacular and well-founded critical shreddings - over the past 42 years, but none of the critique that's actually taken seriously has centered around "long and boring".

That's just puerile shit. Sorry.

It's not like there hasn't been a forty-year context of real discussion about this movie.
     
harbinger75
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a constant state of panic...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 07:19 PM
 
It's honestly funny, but you guys could argue the shape of a square.
the geek source
Twitter: @thegeeksource
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 08:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by harbinger75 View Post
It's honestly funny, but you guys could argue the shape of a square.
Metric or Imperial?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 05:26 PM
 
James Cameron: Don't call it Avatar 2, here's the new title | SCI FI Wire

a second Avatar film would emphasize the spiritual aspect of the Na'vi even further than the original, he said. Avatar was primarily an action/adventure with the spiritual nature of the Na'vi at its heart. Now that audiences have embraced the Na'vi culture, Cameron can give it more weight in the sequels.

"I think we can see that there's a greater receptivity to it on the part of the audience than certainly the studio originally imagined," Cameron said. "We pared back on it a fair bit in the first film, and I think we can go farther in that direction and not alienate people."

Earlier, Cameron had said he hadn't completed a deal yet to direct the sequel. But he made clear on Sunday that he wouldn't let anyone else direct the follow-up.

"I wouldn't do that for the second film," Cameron said. "It'd be premature to turn it over to somebody else right now. I think I'd have to use a film to train somebody to be able to take the reins, honestly. That's how I see it."
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 05:38 PM
 
I'm alienated already
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 07:40 PM
 
Someone needs to remake 2001.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Someone needs to remake 2001.
If you decide to do that and give me a lot of sex scenes (and the lead role, of course), I might take you up on this.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
But he made clear on Sunday that he wouldn't let anyone else direct the follow-up.

"I wouldn't do that for the second film," Cameron said. "It'd be premature to turn it over to somebody else right now. I think I'd have to use a film to train somebody to be able to take the reins, honestly. That's how I see it."
He tried this cautious approach on the Terminator franchise. Doing both T1 and T2. Unfortunately, the training didn't take.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Someone needs to remake 2001.
Yeah, with Ben Stiller, featuring Hugh Grant as the aging Bowman, and a cameo by Julia Roberts.

Is Charlton Heston still alive? He'd make a great ape (Ooo triple entendre and a bad pun).
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 12:21 AM
 
i'd pay good money for a moon-based astronaut Charlton Heston's first words of the film to be screaming obscenities at the obelisk.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 08:52 AM
 
Too bad Chuck has passed away. Even screaming vulgarities at the obelisk would be worth his salary.

In reality, with today's technology a remake of 2001 would be much less expensive and probably less time consuming. Instead of having an army of animators painstakingly hand-draw each matte frame, computer imaging could render frames complete-no three step process. And Kubrick went to extremes to make every frame crystal clear-using some very old but very effective techniques to make in-camera composites, all of which took an immense amount of pre-shot time to arrange.

But who would go to see it? Today, it's all about the payoff to the studio, so if there isn't a guaranteed opening-day box office landslide, they're not going to pay for it to start with.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Oddly, there is real controversy about the movie - and thoughtful and marvellous discussion, and some absolutely spectacular and well-founded critical shreddings - over the past 42 years, but none of the critique that's actually taken seriously has centered around "long and boring".
Really?

2001 is the gold standard for making a 10-second shot into a 30-second shot. Need a shot of a spacecraft flying across a lunar surface? Why not three? Need a pan of some planets? Why not multiple pans, from different angles? Need a shot of a spacecraft turning around? Why not in excruciatingly slow-motion detail?

The thing about 2001 is that it could be just as good, but 50 minutes shorter. All that stuff is fluff.

Pity.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
dedalus
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 07:24 PM
 


There are two kinds of reactions to 2001.

The people who like it tend to be sympathetic to Kubrick’s way of thinking, which is fundamentally all about Nietzschean, Promethean transcendence notions bonded to a compulsive perfectionism.

The people who reject it as boring tend to be the same sort of people who reject mysticism and esotericism in general.

1969’s Sphere Books ‘The Years Best Science Fiction No 2’ contains a number of reviews by several SF celebs of the era (Lester del Rey, Samuel R. Delaney, Ed Emshwiller and Leon E. Stover). The only one who trashed the film, del Rey, did it on the grounds that he found it stupid hippie‑fodder full of empty symbolism.

What Group B considers fluff, Group A views as stately pace. 2001 resembles the Wagnerian idea of a Gesamtkunstwerk, an uncompromising effort on the Artist’s part to communicate his vision by whatever means necessary.

I can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I absolutely despise everything that Group B likes. In my experience, it goes both ways. I walk out of their favourite films, they walk out of mine.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 08:18 PM
 
Heh heh we need a "Best of" list of movies from you then, just to compare!

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 01:31 AM
 
Also, a "most despised list" would be interesting to see.

BTW, I liked 2001, but didn't necessarily love it. I guess I don't fit into that polarized world of love-it-or-hate-it that some think must be for 2001.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
2001 is the gold standard for making a 10-second shot into a 30-second shot
Nah, That gold would go to some scenes in Star Trek: The (slow) Motion Picture.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 08:27 AM
 
Kubrick introduced the "long, slow shot to emphasize how awesome or breathtaking something is." In ST:TMP, Robert Wise built a ton of "long slow shots" into the filming because he had no idea what the effects shots were going to look like-they were "in work" for far longer than the live action filming. That sort of put a nail in the coffin lid for "slow" equating to "awesome."

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Kubrick introduced the "long, slow shot to emphasize how awesome or breathtaking something is." In ST:TMP, Robert Wise built a ton of "long slow shots" into the filming because he had no idea what the effects shots were going to look like-they were "in work" for far longer than the live action filming. That sort of put a nail in the coffin lid for "slow" equating to "awesome."
He also did it because it was based on a pilot script for Star Trek II (TV) and a tv script doesn't exactly have the pages to fill a feature film.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:21 AM
 
I don't buy either excuse. You can cut down specific scenes in ST: TMP with:

1) No detriment to the storyline.
2) An improvement in the pacing.

The one scene that bugged me the most was the one with Scotty and Kirk riding the shuttle to the ship. Basically it was just a look-at-all-the-ship-angles-geek-fest shot that went on forever.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:26 AM
 
2001 is the exact same thing. I think it's around the same length feature film as Star Trek, or perhaps a little longer depending on which "version cut" of each you're watching.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
dedalus
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Heh heh we need a "Best of" list of movies from you then, just to compare!

greg
‘Best Of’ (SF&F)

2001
Solaris (Soderbergh)
Event Horizon
Metropolis (Rintaro)
A Clockwork Orange
A.I.
eXistenZ
Starship Troopers
They Live
Gattaca
     
dedalus
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Also, a "most despised list" would be interesting to see.
‘Most Despised’ (SF&F)

Star Wars (all of them, apart from ‘Attack of the Clones’, parts of which I liked)
Independence Day
Twelve Monkeys
Dark City
The Fountain
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The Abyss
Jurassic Park
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
ET
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
‘Best Of’ (SF&F)

2001
Solaris (Soderbergh)
Event Horizon
Metropolis (Rintaro)
A Clockwork Orange
A.I.
eXistenZ
Starship Troopers
They Live
Gattaca
I loved A Clockwork Orange, and liked eXistenZ. I thought Starship Troopers was so bad it was funny, and I found AI boring.

Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
‘Most Despised’ (SF&F)

Star Wars (all of them, apart from ‘Attack of the Clones’, parts of which I liked)
Independence Day
Twelve Monkeys
Dark City
The Fountain
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The Abyss
Jurassic Park
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
ET
Out of those movies I liked Star Wars and ET (but now think they're cheesy), and loved Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I also liked The Abyss albeit more as a good popcorn flick. I was more meh about Close Encounters, but I didn't see it until later. Most of the other movies I didn't like much, although I don't really remember Dark City.

So again, I think your polarized world as you define it doesn't really exist, except for maybe a very specific small subgroup of the population.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:41 AM
 
If you change the pacing of a movie, you change it in a fundamental way.

Whether it's done for lack of film-making competence or technical reasons or for deliberate effect, it's crucial to the movie.

"Das Boot" for example is a great movie in its cinema edit, but the endless director's cut brings across the gruelling tedium of the job. I think it's far better *because* the slower pacing gives you a sense of time and space (or lack of it, as it were).
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
If you change the pacing of a movie, you change it in a fundamental way.

Whether it's done for lack of film-making competence or technical reasons or for deliberate effect, it's crucial to the movie.

"Das Boot" for example is a great movie in its cinema edit, but the endless director's cut brings across the gruelling tedium of the job. I think it's far better *because* the slower pacing gives you a sense of time and space (or lack of it, as it were).
I would agree with you, except that the cuts in Das Boot and ST: TMP would be very different.

Basically, for ST: TMP a lot of the cuts would be purely of special effects shots. Thus, the impact to the overall movie is quite different. Think of a bunch of scenes for Das Boot that were minutes long that only showed the outside of the ship for no particular reason. I'm thinking you're be more willing to agree that adding that to the Director's Cut might be detrimental to the overall movie.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:44 AM
 
That doesn't disagree with what I wrote.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I don't buy either excuse. You can cut down specific scenes in ST: TMP with:

1) No detriment to the storyline.
2) An improvement in the pacing.

The one scene that bugged me the most was the one with Scotty and Kirk riding the shuttle to the ship. Basically it was just a look-at-all-the-ship-angles-geek-fest shot that went on forever.
How is it an excuse? The point of it being a TV pilot is that you should be able to do the two things you mentioned. It's a freakin' indictment of how transparent what they were doing was.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
How is it an excuse? The point of it being a TV pilot is that you should be able to do the two things you mentioned. It's a freakin' indictment of how transparent what they were doing was.
It's an excuse because they didn't do it, but could have.

My guess is they spent so much frickin' money on the special effects shots that they just didn't want to cut them out, even though they knew they probably should.

BTW, I didn't hate the movie. I didn't really like parts of the plotline (like the ending), but that wasn't enough to make me hate it. I did however think the editing was poor, as I've already said. Remember, the movie was well over two hours long. It's not as if cutting out some of these shots would have made the movie too short.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 10:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
It's an excuse because they didn't do it, but could have.
Alright, now I'm lost. They didn't do what and could have?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Alright, now I'm lost. They didn't do what and could have?
People are giving excuses as to why they didn't cut out parts of scenes. You're saying it didn't have enough content so they couldn't cut stuff out, and others are saying it was because the director didn't know what the content of the special effects shots would be.

I'm saying that while the content was a bit sparse in the movie, they could have easily cut out lots of minutes of it without really affecting the content much, precisely because the content was sparse. Furthermore, that wouldn't have really effected the 'movieness' of it, since it was so damn long in the first place. The could leave the important parts in, and cut out much of the fluff, and still have a feature length movie, just one that's now less slow.

Second the statement that they just left overly long placeholders for the special effects doesn't make sense because after they were done (or even before), the editors could have simply then cut parts of some scenes out to improve the pacing.

My argument here is that they probably felt terrible they spent so much money on all of this geek stuff, only to realize it didn't really work in the context of the movie pacing, yet kept it in anyway just to justify the expense.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 11:04 AM
 
How was the movie recieved when it was released (before MTV reduced people's attention spans to less than thirty seconds)?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
You're saying it didn't have enough content so they couldn't cut stuff out,.

I'm saying they could have easily cut out lots of minutes of it without really affecting the content much, precisely because the content was sparse. Furthermore, that wouldn't have really effected the 'movieness' of it, since it was so damn long in the first place. The could leave the important parts in, and cut out much of the fluff, and still have a feature length movie, just one that's now less slow.

Second the statement that they just left overly long placeholders for the special effects doesn't make sense because after they were done (or even before), the editors could have simply then cut parts of some scenes out to improve the pacing.

My argument here is that they probably felt terrible they spent so much money on all of this geek stuff, only to realize it didn't really work in the context of the movie pacing, yet kept it in anyway just to justify the expense.
I'm saying they wanted to add minutes to the film. Who's decision that was and why I don't know.

Ease up there champ. The word reason works perfectly well here that you don't have to douche on my information by calling it an excuse.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
How was the movie recieved when it was released (before MTV reduced people's attention spans to less than thirty seconds)?
Not well, from the critics. It got pretty mediocre reviews, and some panned it. Nonetheless, it made a fair amount of money, although it wasn't a runaway success either.

The backers were quite p!ssed though because it cost so damn much. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan cost way, way less, and that was intentional.


Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm saying they wanted to add minutes to the film. Who's decision that was and why I don't know.

Ease up there champ. The word reason works perfectly well here that you don't have to douche on my information by calling it an excuse.
Calm down. This is a movie thread, not a political debate.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Calm down. This is a movie thread, not a political debate.
You'll have to pardon me, but assigning me the role of defender when I'm just trying to add some info I've heard draws my ire.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Someone needs to remake 2001.
I wrote a treatment for a remake in school. HAL was a giant walking killer robot who was murdering the crew one by one. It was supposed to be a parody of modern by-the-numbers cinema. The crew was a bunch of one-liner spouting attractive multi-racial people in their early 20s... and in the end the aliens explain everything with 2 minutes of exposition and then bring the lead's hot girlfriend back to life.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I wrote a treatment for a remake in school. HAL was a giant walking killer robot who was murdering the crew one by one. It was supposed to be a parody of modern by-the-numbers cinema. The crew was a bunch of one-liner spouting attractive multi-racial people in their early 20s... and in the end the aliens explain everything with 2 minutes of exposition and then bring the lead's hot girlfriend back to life.
Transformers II?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2010, 01:08 AM
 
So, The Hurt Locker took Best Picture and Best Director, as well as a bunch of others for a total of six.

Avatar got Visual Effects, Art Direction, and Cinematography.

BTW, some people were having some fun with Wikipedia just prior to the Best Picture announcement.

     
carterx
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2010, 01:20 AM
 
Hurt Locker was a good movie but I don't think it deserved all those awards..... especially "Best Picture". I'n my opinion Avatar got snubbed on the Best Picture award due to being animated.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2010, 01:30 AM
 
I think Hurt Locker was the superior movie and deserved its win, at least out of the ones I saw, which were Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker, Up, and A Serious Man. The ones that are still on my list to see are Precious and Inglourious Basterds, and maybe An Education and Up In The Air. For some reason I have zero desire to see The Blind Side.

Avatar was a nice ride, and deserved its Visual Effects, Art Direction, and Cinematography awards, but I found the characters far too one-dimensional and the dialogue too cliche to warrant a Best Picture win.

Actually, I thought Avatar would actually win more awards than The Hurt Locker, but I was a little surprised that The Hurt Locker won for Sound Editing and Sound Mixing.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2010, 01:31 AM
 
carterx: it depends on how you define best picture, no? Most culturally important? Most provocative and innovative story? Most well-liked movie overall?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2010, 02:08 AM
 
So glad Avatar got the shaft
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Lint Police
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2010, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
So glad Avatar got the shaft
amen to that.

cause we're not quite "the fuzz"
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2010, 09:52 AM
 
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:29 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,