What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[A24 5,156]

Tintin is a plot driven movie Alex, with a treasure hunt and everything. So it's probably not your type of thing.

Not only that, it's also an animated movie, which is more something of an animator's medium than a director's medium.

Alex - wondering if he will ever watch a new Spielberg movie again

[crocodile 9,724]

Lincoln doesn't look too exciting... In fact, it looks worse than I imagined.

Karol

[BloodBoal 8,711]

[publicist 4,650]

I hope Spielberg is now done with his educational urges. Stuff like american history seems to bring out his worst instincts, i. e. patronizing americana preachings. It's just no fruitful subject for him.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

Too much exposition is what made Prometheus a disappointment. It treats the viewer as if he can't think for himself. A lot of people like it when when not every question is answered.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't seen Prometheus, right? The biggest complaint I read from people was that it was too vague, and precisely didn't explain everything that was going on. There's very little exposition.

[Brónach 1,330]

I want to write an analysis of Prometheus.

[BloodBoal 8,711]

I'm sure you'd stop halfway throught it. I wouldn't blame you, though.

[Jay 46,244]

Too much exposition is what made Prometheus a disappointment. It treats the viewer as if he can't think for himself. A lot of people like it when when not every question is answered.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't seen Prometheus, right? The biggest complaint I read from people was that it was too vague, and precisely didn't explain everything that was going on. There's very little exposition.

He did not trek out to the theater to see it and the blu ray is not out yet

[crocodile 9,724]

Too much exposition is what made Prometheus a disappointment. It treats the viewer as if he can't think for himself. A lot of people like it when when not every question is answered.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't seen Prometheus, right? The biggest complaint I read from people was that it was too vague, and precisely didn't explain everything that was going on. There's very little exposition.

No the problem is the film is just incomprehensible in anything its trying to accomplish. I don't need answers, I just want involving, well-looking, well-written, well-acted, well-edited and intelligent film. Well, I guess it looks good, but everything else is way off the track. I just stopped caring 20 minutes into the film.

Karol

[Taikomochi 1,461]

I thought Prometheus kicked ass... There's more to it than its script, which is flawed, but not really bad. There are some flickers of true inspiration here and there, particularly in David's character.

[crocodile 9,724]

You guys need to write something more detailed to convince me. I'd read that.

Also, does Chaac accept the challange?

Karol

[Brónach 1,330]

I'm sure you'd stop halfway throught it. I wouldn't blame you, though.

You know what, I think I'll do it. And I'll have no mercy.

[BloodBoal 8,711]

[Taikomochi 1,461]

Some of the best scenes(mixed with some of the most confounding, I won't lie) are in the second half of Prometheus. I wouldn't recommend stopping, but to each his own.

[Brónach 1,330]

Is it going to end up being you moaning and bitching about this film for pages and pages? I think I've already seen something similar...

Not exactly my goal. I'll be more constructive.

[A24 5,156]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't seen Prometheus, right? The biggest complaint I read from people was that it was too vague, and precisely didn't explain everything that was going on. There's very little exposition.

I haven't yet seen it but it's what I keep hearing. I guess I've only read the intelligent reviews and comments.

[crocodile 9,724]

Watch it Alex. I'm curious what you're going to say.

Karol

[A24 5,156]

If the exposition comments are true (mind you, I not saying the film explains every little thing - maybe that's the problem for some?) then I will not like it one bit. Too much explanation usually insults me. The blu-ray is not out yet. It's not available via streaming either.

[Taikomochi 1,461]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't seen Prometheus, right? The biggest complaint I read from people was that it was too vague, and precisely didn't explain everything that was going on. There's very little exposition.

I haven't yet seen it but it's what I keep hearing. I guess I've only read the intelligent reviews and comments.

Roger Ebert is generally considered an intelligent reviewer... He gave it 4 stars.

[A24 5,156]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't seen Prometheus, right? The biggest complaint I read from people was that it was too vague, and precisely didn't explain everything that was going on. There's very little exposition.

I haven't yet seen it but it's what I keep hearing. I guess I've only read the intelligent reviews and comments.

Roger Ebert is generally considered an intelligent reviewer... He gave it 4 stars.

He's an intelligent viewer who is also very forgiving for the dumb summer action blockbuster.

[crocodile 9,724]

Nah, he's boring. Haven't read a good review from him in years.

Karol

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

Of course, I haven't seen the film but I think the word "exposition" is used here when it works negatively, Marian, when a movie explains itself too much.

I frequently read bad things about "too much exposition", and that usually includes the kinds of exposition I like, regardless of whether they're too explanatory or not. I also don't think there's always such an easy definition of "explains too much". Depending on the movie, it can be distracting if everything is explained, or it can be just fitting. When the movie's aim isn't to have an ambiguous element you have to make up your own mind about (which isn't a necessity for every movie) and the explanations are well paced and woven into the plot, I don't have a problem.

Here's a perfect example: Lack of 'exposition' is what made Alien (1979) great. People have to fill in the gaps themselves and this speaks to the imagination. Too much exposition is what made Prometheus a disappointment. It treats the viewer as if he can't think for himself. A lot of people like it when when not every question is answered.

I consider everything in Alien up to (at least) the birth scene to be exposition.

I mostly liked Prometheus. It fell somewhat apart in the finale, but I specifically liked most about how the exposition is drawn out, leaving large stretches of it to mirror the first part of the original Alien, without cloning it directly.

[Taikomochi 1,461]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't seen Prometheus, right? The biggest complaint I read from people was that it was too vague, and precisely didn't explain everything that was going on. There's very little exposition.

I haven't yet seen it but it's what I keep hearing. I guess I've only read the intelligent reviews and comments.

Roger Ebert is generally considered an intelligent reviewer... He gave it 4 stars.

He's an intelligent viewer who is also very forgiving for the dumb summer action blockbuster.

I beg to disagree - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090623/REVIEWS/906239997

But if that's how you write off a trusted opinion when you haven't even seen the film, I guess, go for it.

[A24 5,156]

My definition of "too much exposition" is when the dialogue is written in such a way that characters are explaining the plot and expose the underlying themes to the viewer.

I don't understand how exposition, which kills ambiguity, can be more 'fitting', Marian. I can't think of a movie that I benefits from this practice. What, in your view, is good exposition?

[Brónach 1,330]

My definition of "too much exposition" is when the dialogue is written in such a way that characters are explaining the plot and expose the underlying themes to the viewer.

Ah, bad exposition. The creators are unable to explain the setting or some elements and the characters explain it to each other for the convenience of the audience, even if the characters already know what they're telling each other.

There's a load of tropes in tvtropes.org about this. It's hilarious.

[A24 5,156]

I beg to disagree - http://rogerebert.su...VIEWS/906239997

But if that's how you write off a trusted opinion when you haven't even seen the film, I guess, go for it.

One example does not a trend make.

[Taikomochi 1,461]

I beg to disagree - http://rogerebert.su...VIEWS/906239997

But if that's how you write off a trusted opinion when you haven't even seen the film, I guess, go for it.

One example does not a trend make.

Well, no examples, as you have supplied, probably doesn't a trend make either.

[A24 5,156]

I find it strange that you are asking for examples because it's what Ebert is known and often loved for by the big summer movie audience. I already gave you Prometheus.

I Am Legend is another one. Give me some time and I'll overwhelm you with examples.

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

I don't understand how exposition, which kills ambiguity, can be more 'fitting', Marian. I can't think of a movie that I benefits from this practice. What, in your view, is good exposition?

Anything that adds new material to the story without breaking the narrative flow.

So many movies build up great expectations during their first half only to suddenly stop any exposition. To me, the story then often more or less stalls at that point, and anything that comes after just ties up loose ends.

[Brónach 1,330]

I don't understand how exposition, which kills ambiguity, can be more 'fitting', Marian. I can't think of a movie that I benefits from this practice. What, in your view, is good exposition?

Anything that adds new material to the story without breaking the narrative flow.

So many movies build up great expectations during their first half only to suddenly stop any exposition. To me, the story then often more or less stalls at that point, and anything that comes after just ties up loose ends.

I recently saw Akira and noticed that. It doesn't really affect the film, but there's clearly some point when it abandons introducing new material (except for final McGuffin revelations) and it isn't as cool as before.

I think the beginning of stories tend to be more interesting because it seems that anything is possible, but as it continues the possibilities start narrowing down more and more...

[Maglorfin 219]

Oliver Stone's World Trade Center. A great movie and a beautiful tribute to the heroism that happened on 9/11.

[KK 3,313]

Some of the best scenes(mixed with some of the most confounding, I won't lie) are in the second half of Prometheus. I wouldn't recommend stopping, but to each his own.

Prometheus' best was in its first hour. After that, everything turns to shit.

Nah, he's boring. Haven't read a good review from him in years.

Karol

His reviews aren't even reviews anymore. He mostly just summarizes the film. At least thats essentially what the Prometheus "review" was...

And Alex is right. Ebert is usually quite lenient on summer blockbuster fare.

[BloodBoal 8,711]

Is it going to end up being you moaning and bitching about this film for pages and pages? I think I've already seen something similar...

Not exactly my goal. I'll be more constructive.

We'll be waiting!

[KK 3,313]

[Jay 46,244]

[alicebrallice 134]

lmao!

dat face

[crocodile 9,724]

Oh it's also in 3D.

Karol

[Brónach 1,330]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

Not only that, it's also an animated movie, which is more something of an animator's medium than a director's medium.

The thing about animation is that it gives directors complete freedom in what they want to show and how to show it, and complete artistic control over the enviroment and the performances of their actors.

With Tintin Spielberg creates shots that he would never have been able to pull of in a normal movie. I seriously think he used Tintin to incorporate visual ideas that he had in his mind and wanted to use for years.

Tintin is above anything else a directors movie

[publicist 4,650]

That's true, but don't forget how limitations can spur the imagination, too (examples range from the Hays code in Old Hollywood to JAWS). I found TINTIN a very kinetic movie (just a bit too shallow but what can you do), so i think he had fun with it but it feels more like a warm-up.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,387]

Tintin is mainly a creative and technical exercise by a master director. But for what it is it's very good.

It actually lacks most of the weaknesses people bash Spielberg for (pandering to the audience, poor endings, overly sentimental etc)

[A24 5,156]

It actually lacks most of the weaknesses people bash Spielberg for (pandering to the audience, poor endings, overly sentimental etc)

Of course, precisely because it's an animator's medium, the typical Spielberg trademarks are gone. The movie is etched in stone from the very beginning. That means no improv, no interaction with the environment or the actors. No last minute improvements. Someone wrote it. Another bloke made a simple animated version of it and which functioned as the storyboard. Then the animation artists dressed it up and rendered it into the finished product with Spielberg ocasionally visiting the studio to say "Well done, guys!"

Tintin 2 and 3 will look exactly the same.

[Brónach 1,330]

Actually that's not how they make animated films...

[Jay 46,244]

And even more specifically, it's not at all how THIS film was made. The entire film was shot live with all the real actors, really interacting with each other and their environments and improving as they pleased. Their motion was captured and the animators used to to make every shot, including the angle Spielberg chose to shoot it from. It's not a traditional animated movie at all.

[Brónach 1,330]

It has a lot of virtual camerawork done by Spielberg himself on stage, too.

[Wojo 2,458]

So it's almost like modern rotoscoping.

[Quintus 6,496]

The film was shot almost entirely by Spielberg on 'set' with the actors, using their imagination to evoke a sense of place and mood - a technique increasingly prevalent in the art form and in itself arguably one of the purist forms of performance under direction. Alex is talking out of his backside, pulling crap out of thin air, which is his way. He enjoys sharing his knowledge about movies he's never seen, I've had similar conversations with him in the past.

[Jay 46,244]

So it's almost like modern rotoscoping.

Sort of, but no, it's motion capture. Watch this:

[media=]

[A24 5,156]

The entire film was shot live with all the real actors, really interacting with each other and their environments and improving as they pleased.

Please! Only at JWfan do they compare that to real actors and acting. I wonder if anyone of them will be getting the oscar.

[Brónach 1,330]

Please what?