ALIEN: 40th Anniversary Shorts

[A24 4,331]

6 minutes ago, dougie said:

 

You just have to change your mindset.

 

Fincher: "I was very naive. For a number of years, I'd been around the kind of people who financed movies and the kind of people who are there to make the deals for movies. But I'd always had this naive idea that everybody wants to make movies as good as they can be, which is stupid. I thought, "Well, surely you don't want to have the Twentieth Century-Fox logo over a shitty movie." And they were like, "Well, as long as it opens." They didn't care."

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

1 minute ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Fincher: "I was very naive. For a number of years, I'd been around the kind of people who financed movies and the kind of people who are there to make the deals for movies. But I'd always had this naive idea that everybody wants to make movies as good as they can be, which is stupid. I thought, "Well, surely you don't want to have the Twentieth Century-Fox logo over a shitty movie." And they were like, "Well, as long as it opens." They didn't care."

 

Didn't he see The Final Conflict, The Fly II, Cocoon the Return or Cleopatra?

[Kasey Kockroach 2,344]

The Fly II’s great, you poopoohead!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

7 minutes ago, Kasey Kockroach said:

The Fly II’s great, you poopoohead!

 

I enjoy it but it's still a bad movie with the Fox logo!

[A24 4,331]

40 minutes ago, dougie said:

 

Didn't he see The Final Conflict, The Fly II, Cocoon the Return or Cleopatra?

 

More disowned movies? 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

He should've just opted for an Alan Smithee credit if he hated the experience so much.

[A24 4,331]

That would have been bad for his career. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

More important things in life than career.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Like painfree hearing?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Something like that.

[Jurassic Shark 12,067]

Just embrace the pain.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It runs deep. I'll share it with you.

[Jurassic Shark 12,067]

You've already shared it with everybody on the forum!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Now my pain is yours.

[Kasey Kockroach 2,344]

10 hours ago, dougie said:

 

I enjoy it but it's still a bad movie with the Fox logo!

Incorrect! 

9 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Just embrace the pain.

I tried to, but you pushed me away!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

 

15 hours ago, dougie said:

 

Didn't he see The Final Conflict, The Fly II, Cocoon the Return or Cleopatra?

Now, just a damn minute!

Ok, so THE FLY II was pretty awful, and COCOON THE RETURN should never have been made, but THE FINAL CONFLICT isn't bad, and CLEOPATRA is truly great.

[A24 4,331]

8 hours ago, Richard said:

CLEOPATRA is truly great.

 

The second most expensive movie ever made!

[Chen G. 3,949]

8 hours ago, Richard said:

CLEOPATRA is truly great.

 

No.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The Final Conflict is numbingly mediocre. And Cleopatra is so godawful, only the score, Rex Harrison, and the impressive production design and sets have any merit.

[Chen G. 3,949]

The more films I watch of that period, the more of a dislike I grow for 1950/60s epics, in general, which is odd because I love the epics of the 90s and 2000s.

 

Outside of a select few of notable exceptions (Lawrence of Arabia) that at least try to be more sophisticated, these films contain everything that's dumb about contemporary blockbusters, while also being that much more tedious, sanitized and pompous.

[Jurassic Shark 12,067]

8 hours ago, Richard said:

THE FINAL CONFLICT isn't bad

 

If it only had a great track with Hunt in the title... 

[A24 4,331]

I think that the restored Cleopatra is my favorite '60s epic. Then again, I usually love what Drax hates, or vice versa. 

 

Of course, it's very dialog driven (it's almost a stage play) but I find it fascinating how a woman is trying to survive in a changing world and how she tragically will lose that battle. Unlike the others of that era, Cleopatra is not a boyish adventure epic.

 

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,067]

The precursor to metoo? 

[Chen G. 3,949]

15 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

it's almost a stage play

 

Exactly. So many of those films are to stage-y that I can't really refer to them as cinema.

[A24 4,331]

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Exactly. So many of those films are to stage-y that I can't really refer to them as cinema.

 

Define cinema!

 

10 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

The precursor to metoo? 

 

Not at all. It's very feminist. 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

5 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Define cinema!

 

 

The telling of stories through light, colour, framing, composition and movement.

[A24 4,331]

All those elements can be found on the stage as well, whether it's in the form of dance or theatre. 'Editing', however, is another matter. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

By movement I was meaning the movement of the camera.

 

And unless one changes one's seat, there's no substantial change in framing or angle during the course of a stageplay. As for films, Cleopatra's kind of passable in that regard. I was thinking more The Ten Commandments where every single scene is delivered in a wideshot. By the one hour mark, I was on my knees begging for a close-up.

[A24 4,331]

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

By movement I was meaning the movement of the camera.

 

 

Then think of the stage as a movie that is one long static shot. 

 

Kubrick's Barry Lyndon is famous for its long and static shots.

 

 

Look at the light and color in this shot! So beautiful!

 

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

I think that the restored Cleopatra is my favorite '60s epic. Then again, I usually love what Drax hates, or vice versa. 

 

Of course, it's very dialog driven (it's almost a stage play) but I find it fascinating how a woman is trying to survive in a changing world and how she tragically will lose that battle. Unlike the others of that era, Cleopatra is not a boyish adventure epic.

 

 

 

 

I don't hate Cleopatra. I just think it's a really bad movie.

[crumbs 14,306]

Wtf happened to this thread? 

[Jurassic Shark 12,067]

So if a director makes a movie that both Alex and Drax like, he's really done it?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Dralex

[1977 1,743]

1 hour ago, dougie said:

 

I don't hate Cleopatra. I just think it's a really bad movie.

 

I love quite a few bad movies.

[A24 4,331]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

So if a director makes a movie that both Alex and Drax like, he's really done it?

 

'Like' won't be a problem, there's probably plenty of movies that we both 'like', but it would be hard to find a movie that we are both passionate about. 

 

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

Wtf happened to this thread? 

 

Why don't you put us back on course?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

12 hours ago, dougie said:

Dralex

 

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Anyone for dodgems?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

On 4/9/2019 at 8:01 AM, Jurassic Shark said:

 

If it only had a great track with Hunt in the title... 

I'm sorry, did you misplace a consonant, there?

 

 

 

On 4/9/2019 at 7:38 AM, Chen G. said:

 

No.

Yes.

 

 

 

On 4/9/2019 at 9:17 AM, Alexcremers said:

Look at the light and color in this shot! So beautiful!

 

Thank you, Alex. Its effing gorgeous!

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Stefancos said:

 

Exterminez-vous! 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Shots in a film need to tell a story, first, and be gorgeous, second.

 

I'm not saying Cleopatra's horrible or anything, but its not a film I particularly care for. Really, most 50/60s epics don't sit too well with me.

[Thor 7,495]

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Shots in a film need to tell a story, first, and be gorgeous, second.

 

That's the Hollywood mindset talking.

 

Shots are perfectly able to create meaning on their own, less connected to a story.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Depends on what you're going for. If you're going for pure cinema, yes, you can latch unto the meaning and beauty of the shot unto itself.

 

Even in a narrative film, you can certainly take your time with a shot to appreciate how beautiful it is: see the desert montages in Lawrence of Arabia, one of the few decent epics to have come out of the 60s.

 

But if you are going the straightforward narrative route - which Cleopatra is doing - you first need to make sure that your shots help tell the story.

[Thor 7,495]

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

But if you are going the straightforward narrative route - which Cleopatra is doing - you first need to make sure that your shots help tell the story.

 

Yes and no. Usually, yes. But there are certain Hollywood films by visually oriented auteurs (Spielberg, Scott, Burton etc.) wherein the story can often 'take a pause' in order for sound and visuals to communicate not just 'beauty', but an idea all on its own (that is at best tangentially related to the story). So it doesn't just happen in art/pure cinema. Funny we wound up here....I wrote my master thesis on this subject, as angled through film music.

 

I'm talking generally here. I haven't seen CLEOPATRA yet.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with taking a few minutes to appreciate the splendour of Wadi Rum, of the Minas Tirith bigature, of the Scottish landscape, the space vistas of 2001 or whatever.

 

That's not what this is about.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Yeah but when you have to endure 15 minutes of Cleopatra and her entourage entering Rome with big fanfare, or even 20 minutes of some drawn out party scene on her boat, you know the filmmakers are taking the piss with unfiltered indulgence.

[Thor 7,495]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with taking a few minutes to appreciate the splendour of Wadi Rum, of the Minas Tirith bigature, of the Scottish landscape, the space vistas of 2001 or whatever.

 

I edited my post above. It doesn't only have to be 'splendour' and 'beauty'. Sound and visuals can communicate deep ideas all on their own that are less related to the story. As I often say -- if storytelling was all film as an artform could do, we would be reading books instead.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Oh, surely.

 

My issue is more with the indoors talky scenes, which feel stage-y. A beautiful, luxurious stage, but a stage nonetheless.

 

And then there's the issue of...

 

5 minutes ago, dougie said:

when you have to endure 15 minutes of Cleopatra and her entourage entering Rome with big fanfare, or even 20 minutes of some drawn out party scene on her boat, you know the filmmakers are taking the piss with unfiltered indulgence.

 

Exactly. Its the sort of thing where there's a point that one shouldn't cross. You can't put your finger on where that point is, but you know it once you cross it.

 

Not a bad film, though.

[Thor 7,495]

I haven't seen CLEOPATRA, but I love the languid and drawnout tempo of something like, say, the docking scene in STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, wherein music and visuals are allowed to communicate alone for several minutes; to put you in a frame of mind that has nothing to do with narrative momentum. The priority is moved towards a direct, visceral, experience-oriented form of cinema, not the storyline -- it's about the process, not the goal (hence it can only considered 'boring' by those who are occupied with the goal/momentum). It's like a music video or art installation. I love it when that kind of visual/aural cognition is applied to film, and especially sprinkled throughout narrative-driven Hollywood films.

 

ALIEN, of course (to bring us back to that), has plenty of this. In fact, it might very well be the arch example with TONS of themes and meaning communicated through visuals and sound alone, deep beneath the superficial storyline.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Yes, I love it when a film is patient. But there's a fine line between patient and languid.

 

I've said as much of Alien, in this regard, elswhere: the reason Alien works, in spite of how long it takes until something scary actually happens, is that its really visually exciting as a space exploration film, and only then does it turn into a horror film.

 

The Star Trek example is too drawn out for me. I'm thinking more the desert montage early in Lawrence of Arabia. What is it, a grand total of eight minutes? Split by brief dialogue scenes so its delivered to the audience in two four-five minute sections.  A lot by contemporary standards, but nowhere near as languid as the showing-off of, say, a Space Odyssey.

 

Its also the sort of thing that works better at the top of a film (Lawrence, Alien) than it does in the middle or throughout (A Space Odyssey). It follows William Wyler's adage: "If you want to shock an audience, get them almost to the point of boredom before doing so."

[Thor 7,495]

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Yes. I've said as much of Alien elswhere: the reason Alien works, in spite of how long it takes until something scary actually happens, is that its really exciting as a space exploration film, and then it turns into a horror film.

 

And the reason it works so well on a visceral level goes deeper than genre mixing or storytelling devices. It's Giger's Freudian production design and Goldsmith's organic music, for example, that constantly play upon images and themes of birth cycles, castration, maternity etc. It's not like the average audience member deciphers this rationally ("Oh, what a great Freudian metaphor I saw just there!"), but rather it sneaks in subconsciously to create an even greater sense of terrror than if it was just a superficial space horror story about people being chased by monster in dark corridors. In short, it's the use of images and sound in a way that isn't just about storytelling; but about creating an envelopping state of mind relating to fundamental human trauma.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Its more a matter of evoking a certain mood than it is about anything specific, I would say, and yes, it does a great job of it.