Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • AC1

    2033

  • Jay

    1988

  • #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal

    1873

  • Quintus

    1141

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Movies are meant for the cinema, not your phone line!

Toy Story 3 was pretty weak but Pixar's latest films are far worse.  Not hopeful for 4.  

It’ll be one of the few!

On 2/8/2019 at 4:50 PM, Jay said:

TIL Matthew Vaughn is directing a Kingsman PREQUEL, it is set in the early 1900s, will feature Ralph Fiennes, Daniel Brühl, Charles Dance, Rhys Ifans, Matthew Goode, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Tom Hollander, and Djimon Hounsou, and is coming out this November.  How about that.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsman:_The_Great_Game_(film)


Absolutely loved the first film ... everything the Craig Bonds had been semi-reluctant to do up to then was in there, and gloriously so. The second suffered from sequel 'bloat' a bit, but was still fun. 

 

Interested to see this one.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll see almost anything Boyle, Slumdog is probably one of my favourite movies.

 

He seems to be pumping out movies bloody fast these days though. Feels like this, Trainspotting 2 and Steve Jobs were all in the last year or so (not to mention working on Bond, which obviously fell through).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Absolutely loved the first film ... everything the Craig Bonds had been semi-reluctant to do up to then was in there, and gloriously so. The second suffered from sequel 'bloat' a bit, but was still fun. 

 

Interested to see this one.  

 

I agree with you.  I loved the first film immediately upon first seeing it, and I was happy then when I re-watched it just before I was going to watch the sequel, it held up and I still loved it just as much.

 

The sequel was fun, sure, but bloat is a great way to describe (one of) its problems.  It felt like it was rushed into theaters or something, in the sense that it was maybe 20 minutes too long.  And I don't mean that some entire scenes or subplots needed to removed, more like every single scene was just too long for no reason, shots were held too long, the pacing was just too slow.  The entire movie needed to be tightened up.  It was surprising to me Vaughn let it be released like this because usually his films are nice and tight.


I also had problems with bringing Colin Firth's character back to life.  Those kinds of decisions always make the first film worse in retrospect when viewed as part of the franchise.  I also strongly disliked that they killed off the best supporting characters from the first film (Merlin and the female Lancelot) only to bring him back. I would have preferred he stayed dead, and those two got to live!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, Elsa will run across the ocean to Africa using her magical ice powers to reunite with her long lost brother Tarzan, confirming the conspiracy theory!

 

Seriously, I also approve. Visuals are looking up. Not sure about the storyline, but Disney can frolick around in Frozen for a bit longer. Maybe they do a trilogy. They certainly do have a head of steam after the first one.

 

Here's hoping Christophe Beck returns! If it does end up being a trilogy of sorts, it'd be nice to see him follow it through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, crumbs said:

I'll see almost anything Boyle, Slumdog is probably one of my favourite movies.

 

He seems to be pumping out movies bloody fast these days though. Feels like this, Trainspotting 2 and Steve Jobs were all in the last year or so (not to mention working on Bond, which obviously fell through).

 

Boyle has directed a movie every 2-3 years for his entire career...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 7:29 PM, Faleel J.M. said:

Only thing is, wouldn't music have developed differently as well?

It would have developed extremely differently.  If this were pure real life.  This movie can only work if it doesn't take itself overly seriously, and blissfully and somehow profoundly walks that fine line between the real and the unreal, something like John Hughes did at times.  And Ramis and Rubin in Groundhog Day for that matter.

Based on the trailer, Boyle seems to be on the right track.  Also, it seems to be implied that Paul and Ringo are having the inverse problem in the movie, knowing that they wrote the music but having nobody know who they are.  I fully expect them to cameo.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Groundhog Day was what I thought. 

 

I enjoy Richard Curtis, though, and About Time was maybe his best one yet, another magic realism premise which he got a ton of comic and emotional mileage out of. Plus Boyle’s energy as a director kicking up Beatlemania around some schmo. It looks so fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, yes, theatres are getting more and more expensive it seems. There's the price of admission ($15 Canadian), and then there's the concession stand, which normally seems to nip at the wallet the most, especially for groups or pairs of movie goers. Nonetheless, I don't think that the magic of seeing a movie in theatres can ever be erased, and I will almost always prefer the big screen to the much smaller one at home. I believe we've already discussed how some films are best watched at home and others in theatres. It was a wonderful discussion if you can track it down somewhere on the forums. 

 

Whether or not a movie receives a theatrical release does not determine whether or not it is at all a movie, or even how good of a movie it is. So if that's the case of this point, I do not agree with Spielberg in that sense.

 

I do, however, believe that the theatre is where movies are meant to be watched, and with streaming services at large it feels like people are gradually gravitating towards them more. So there are a number of offshooting discussion points to be had with this comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Illustrious Jerry said:

I do, however, believe that the theatre is where movies are meant to be watched ...

 

You could say the same about music but I never had a problem listening to music on my own, quite the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

Non sequitur! A recording can also sound bad.

 

Not as much as 'live', where you can't control everything. See, that is the beauty of studio recordings, to have control over everything and to redo things until they are perfect. Recordings are meant to be the perfect representation, sound and performance wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to watch Titanic, Ghostbusters II or the Star Trek series in a dark chamber with a bunch of strange people. I don't even like people. I want to watch them alone naked after I've shaved my legs. Get back to doing what you do best these days, Spielberg. Introducing the E.T. ride at Universal Studios.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 8:30 AM, Stefancos said:

Seeing a movie in the cinema is a completely different experience then watching it at home. 

 

I agree with Spielberg!

Here is my take: watching a movie on your laptop or tablet with earphones or headphones in a darkened room is a far more immersive experience than watching it on TV.

It's not completely equivalent to watching in a theater, you have to give up a good deal of the scope, some of the texture maybe, and whatever dubious benefits the communal aspect brings ( I don't like crowds), but it might be more ideal in the sense that the film is being communicated directly to you, almost as if you are reading a novel.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

Err... no. 

Do elaborate.

To clarify my position a little bit, I do believe that to be considered "cinema," a film must be created for the medium of the theater.

I just think that the streaming or internet medium is better suited for cinematic film than TV is.  Something made specifically for Netflix can take advantage, as well, of the unique characteristics of this medium.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteveMc said:

Here is my take: watching a movie on your laptop or tablet with earphones or headphones in a darkened room is a far more immersive experience than watching it on TV.

It's not completely equivalent to watching in a theater, you have to give up a good deal of the scope, some of the texture maybe, and whatever dubious benefits the communal aspect brings ( I don't like crowds), but it might be more ideal in the sense that the film is being communicated directly to you, almost as if you are reading a novel.  

Im sorry but I have to laugh. Watching a film with headphones on a laptop is not a complete equivalent, nothing in the definition is even remotely accurate. Ridiculous comparison. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some movies are best viewed in theatres.

Others may simply be better for television.

Overall, an individual one-on-one viewing of a movie on a mobile device can be good for a fair bit of content.

 

There is no one size fits all; not every movie is best viewed in a single format. And even if a film is best, say, in theatres, some may have a better connection to it through the other ways listed.

 

It's all relative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Watching a film with headphones on a laptop is not a complete equivalent

I said above that it is not a complete equivalent.  I just said it was more direct than television, and, in terms of imersiveness, closer to the intent of cinema.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...