|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
93.194.212.136
Why has every fantasy film a similarity with Lord of the boring?
It influence ruine almost very picture.
Like with Star Wars, it seems we will have to stuggle for a long time wih the kind of copycat.This film is disgustingly brutal, who need that? Go for an Irak newsreal if you like that. I mean an European one...
BUT a lot of fine actors and also in my view, many good ideas.
A modern " For who The bells Toll "-
But oh so bloody!
Almost forgot! This my first Blue Ray film. Not my last.
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
Edits: 06/29/08Follow Ups:
Mr. Patrick,
There has certainly been a trend from the very beginning of movies towards special effects fantasies. One of the earliest movies with a complete story, "Le Voyage dans la lune" of 1902 has a delightfully artificial and humourous quality to the special effects. And the trend for more and more relaistic effects never abated. Compare the effects of the 1902 "Voyage" to "First Men on the Moon of 1964- amazing to think that's 62 years later and still 44 years ago!- and Harryhausens' work in "Jason and the Argonauts" (1963).
The trend towards movies increasing the proportion of special effects is simply a matter of the demands of the fantasy genre to more sensational sequences, and computer technology has made everything possible. I personally find LotR to be beautifully made, with craftsmanship of the highest order, but can not connect emotionally to that kind of fantasy characters in a fantasy world. Somone commented on the LotR trilogy as "suburban" fantasy. I find other movies like earlier "Batman" and especially "Van Helsing" objectionable as the effects seem tossed in, and the editing just seems like panic to alter point of view the maximum number of times the eye can follow. There are many movies that make the effects lamost invisible and/or that use effects in a perfect proprortion as a natural part of the action- one of the best being "La Belle et la bête", Cocteau (1946), which really does seem quietly magical. There was, by the way, a version of this story from 1899 for comparison- I've never seen it. I was disappointed in "The Illusionist" as the magic depicted was all easy effects that could not have been achieved on a stage at the time of the movie's setting- something like 1900-1910. The movie suggests that the illusions presented were be devices contrived by the illusionist, but the efect was spoiled as the "ghosts" were perfect 3-D colour holograms that couldn't be achieved even now. Compare the "Illusionist" projections of characters to the "Star Wars" projected message by R2D2 of Princess Leia "Help us Obi Wan", which was a 3D projection , but with a clear projection beam, image noise with dropouts and desaturated colour- much more believable and less distracting than the perfection of the Illusionist "ghosts".
In my view, one has to accept the fantasy genre as a lineage of more plus more intense effects. In terms of "damage" to movie-making, one should keep in mind this 100 year plus trend- at least since 1902 - and ask whether Harryhausen's work on the Argonaut's "damaged" movie-making with it's innovations- or advanced the genre. I believe that, like every technology, CG can be a wonderful enhancement, but it's a question of degree that depends on the taste of the director and editor, and I must be falling ourt of the demographics for action/fantasy to a degree as it can be distracting and annoying. If CG fantasy offends in general, it will be better to avoid any fantasy in the future!
And if you don't care for CG-laden movies, you may want to plan your avoidance now of James Cameron's "Avatar"- due Decemeber, 2009 as all but fabout five characters are CG as are virtually all the backgrounds- it will the most intensely CG movie ever made- and at least 6 years in the making.
Cheers,
Bambi B
Cher Monsieur Bamby B.-
This is it, I am allergic to CG.
The connection between my emotions and my brain/eyes just don´t let it pass.
It start with the smallest dose when ET and consort start to show up on the silver line of the silver screen, then I was still curious, but soon I got an overdose and since then...
I tried a lot r of remedies but to no use.
CG has killed any sense of fantasy and like common drugs it ask for more and more.
Diesney has just join Robin Hood at the Sherwood forest, living us in the dirt of dirty tricks.
Ah, where is this eye cutting of the chien Andalou?
Bonne journée,
Patrick
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
Oh my. Along with Jazz, I must vehemently and respectfully disagree.
GDT is a serious student of history, myth, fable and fairy tale. Pan's contains the fruit of much of his labors in this particualr vineyard.
But PL has only the vaguest and most superficial connection to LOTR, the book of which, BTW at the time GDT made Pan's, he cordially disliked. There is no cause and effect between these two films. GDT and Jackson do have several things in common as filmmakers. But a link between these two movies in not one of them.
PL had been in the director's mind for years, long before the release of LOTR, and GDT has the notebooks to prove it. It took years to get it financed. It follows from his previous SPanish language art film, The Devil's Backbone, with which it shares some slightly political and supernatural overtones, as well as its setting during the waning days of the Spanish Civil war.
PL really is a fine film in my estimation, as well as many others far more eloquent than I. Don't be too quick to dismiss it, the man has serious things on his mind with this film. It was one of my top two of 2006, the other being Children of Men.
See below.
"God help us if Del Toro turns the Hobbit into another Pans labyrinth"
I READ AROUND and found this critic.
Well my point.
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
He understands the source material. It won't be PL Lite.
But it will be interesting.
...but I take the juxtaposition of the brutally "real" against the robust fantasy of the "imaginary parts" to be a major part of the film's substance. There are times, though, when the real starts to verge into fantasy and vice-versa, as when the villain Vidal sews his own face back together, making a Batman Joker face in the process. I find amazing the way it plays the fantastic against the real while really not staking a claim in the end at all for what's real and what's fantasy. But it's true, you have to have a stomach for the grotesque to be able to take it. My near-17-year-old daughter thought it was amazing but my wife won't go near it.
Anyway a film one can diverge in view, but none an deny that this film has something to say.
I don´t find the one to one reality versus fantasy to be really convincing.
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
... but I found it enormously thought-provoking.
PL was a magical film. Part of its power is that it doesn't shy away from showing brutality.
Peter Jackson is a hack. Even in LOTR's immense battle scenes I never felt any sense of danger or urgency. Contrast that with the PL, when you are totally immersed in the emotions of the young girl. Del Toro is a much more human director, even in showing violence or indulging in effects.
-------------Call it, friendo.
fds
But not in the sense you may think of.
The craft and digital work since loTR has left a new tradition in cinema making.
I find the heritage in this PL.
The brutality here lean to much to sadism for my taste.
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
Again, you haven't shown any link whatsoever between LOTR and PL. Guillermo del Toro's vision and direction is a completely separate issue. Nothing in LOTR remotely resembled the characters, story, effects or even the violence in PL. Maybe you need to watch it again. It's one of the most amazing films of the decade.
-------------Call it, friendo.
I think we speak not about the same issue.
I meant that like Star Wars who raised a fully new generation of films with that kind of effects, from DD to digital, blue screen tricks, LoTR gave birth to also a follower generation.
I did NOT meant the story or anything else, but just the way this film was made.
In my eyes the analogy is frappant.
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
But Patrick, CGI was common before LOTR. Blue screen tricks were being used even in the early '90s for films such as Jurassic Park and to put Clint Eastwood in JFK footage for "In the Line of Fire". Then a never-ending stream of crap was produced that had no story but just an excuse for CGI effects--dragons and such. What LOTR added was an epic storyline and humongous battle sequences. This did have an effect on the movies that followed, but LOTR was not the progenitor for all CGI, as you seem to think.
-------------Call it, friendo.
Not the progenitor no, but cher Jazz, the dam that break free.
I think Bambi B has put into words ( that courageous guy ) the essential...
AND it is also a question of dosage...
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
The influence of LOTR is in those epic scene's Jazz mentions.
SO many movies after LOTR have tried to copy and one up the scale of these epic scenes... especially battles and especially things like seeing a whole army of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and things like a sky full of arrows being shot.
But as for simply using CGI and creating fantasy worlds and the like... that horse was out of the barn long ago and I dont see LOTR as some kind of watershed in that regard.
As to Pans Labrynth... I appreciated the film and was taken by much of it but overall it was very stressful and I certainly didn't enjoy watching it (I'm pretty sure I was gnashing my teeth much of the time - at least clenching my jaw - and I often turned away).
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
I don´t think so. I think that a kind of special atmosphere has see the light with the filming of loTR.
It is the same story in images over & over again.
It may be the result of the same digital imprint.
I may even think it is.
I don´t turn away at situations I like.
This film has a message but the cover ( envellope ) ain´t mine....
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
Del Toro wasn't following LOTR or Jackson or anything other than his own muse when he wrote and directed Pan's.
You obviously aren't fmailiar with PL's predecessor, The Devil's backbone. See post above.
I may refresh your memory, sweet Harmonia...
BUT again WHAT I did not like was the spirit of the digital effects.
And the film was too sadistic and voyeuristic in his own moral for MY taste.
But I also recognised its qualities.
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=films&n=37919&highlight=the+devil+backbone&r=&session= (Open in New Window)
nt
The spirit of it. The whole scenery empeach me to dream, I could with " The Wizard of Oz "..
In small dose I have no problem but with half of the film...And then you see like in this particular film the actress, in this case that young girl, looking somewhere pretending to see the Pan or something else.
You know what?
It cries out loud : FAKE!
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
> > The spirit of it.> >
That's not a specific digital effect.
> > The whole scenery empeach me to dream, I could with " The Wizard of Oz "..
In small dose I have no problem but with half of the film...And then you see like in this particular film the actress, in this case that young girl, looking somewhere pretending to see the Pan or something else.
You know what?
It cries out loud : FAKE!> >
Um.... Pan was there. It was a guy in a suit. You didn't like it because you imagined it was a digital effect?
Look I don´t like digital effect in massive dose.
The guy in the suit, was it?
Or was it crafted?
It does not change anything anyway, the whole scenery was digital and untrue to my senses.
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
> > The guy in the suit, was it?> >
Yes.
> > Or was it crafted?> >
Creature suits are all crafted.
> > It does not change anything anyway,> >
It doesn't? You want to stand by this assertion of yours? "And then you see like in this particular film the actress, in this case that young girl, looking somewhere pretending to see the Pan or something else.
You know what?
It cries out loud : FAKE!"
She was looking at something that was actually there. Ironically this may not actually be the case in any number of your favorite films. It is often physically imposible to put the off camera person in position for an on camera actor to actually look at them in close ups. They are often just looking at a dot placed on the camera for an eyeline.
> > the whole scenery was digital and untrue to my senses.> >
Actually there was very little in the way of digital back grounds. It was almost all practical sets.
My favourit films are von bergaman and consort...
This is and remain digital effect shit.
When I look at King Kong III I get the feeling to vomit, when at one I feel the joy, so much of SE.
And I am certain that many people will get tired and are, of it, at some point.
How do you know that the little girl was looking at?
Do you were there?
Anyway the inconsistency was eclatant in those scenes.
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
> > My favourit films are von bergaman and consort...> >
Were there any close ups?
> > This is and remain digital effect shit.> >
Now you are just being willfully ignorant. what you thought was digital was not digital and you continue to call it digital and dislike it based on your willfull mischaracterization.
> > When I look at King Kong III I get the feeling to vomit, when at one I feel the joy, so much of SE.> >
We weren't talking about King Kong.
> > And I am certain that many people will get tired and are, of it, at some point.> >
You might want to consider just learning from your mistakes and moving on rather than hanging on to them.
> > How do you know that the little girl was looking at?> >
I did my home work. You might want to consider doing the same before criticizing movies based on your prejudice against CG.
> > Do you were there?> >
No.
http://www.panslabyrinth.com/gallery.html
> > Anyway the inconsistency was eclatant in those scenes.> >
I did not see them. But then I was not watching under the same presumptions as you did with the same prejudices against CG as you have. If anything you should learn something about those prejudices and how they can mislead your perceptions. i tried earlier to lead you to this awarness without rubbing your nose it your gross errors. But you had to hang on to your mistakes like a pitbull.
Look, it is so easy...You can submerge yourself in the fantasy world of SE of today, I can not.
You are not the only one, and so I am also not the only one who can´t.
PS: Bergman love digital filming and his last one was in fact done so, now it has nothing to do with Digital effects...
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
I can only hope that you might rethink your prejudices about CG. Given that those prejudices and not any actual CG seems to have interfered with your ability to enjoy Pan's Laberynth.
Did I enjoy it? Well...
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
It is clear you did not enjoy the movie. But I think you may be missing my point. You will not find a more vocal critic of bad CG than myself and as an insider I can tell you that there is a movement in genre films, in the business of making genre films that is leading to this massive onslaught of bad effects that are ruining genre films. BUT my criticism is not based on a prejudice against CG in general but on the actual quality of the content of genre films and a knowledge of how these films evolve. When one bases their criticism of films, CG and CG in films on prejudice rather than actual content one will tend to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water. Pan's Laberynth was the exception not the rule. Many of the bad genre movies with bad CG are being dictated by the guys who do the bad CG. Many of these films are asigned a visual effects supervisor the same time they are asigned a director.On many of these films the visual supervisor has as much creative power as the director. The result is self-serving gross misguidence from the visual effects department. That was not the case with Pan's Laberynth. This was an independent film and a director's vision. The CG was used with taste and for the purpose of telling the story. It was the proverbial baby not the bath water for genre films.
I understand that CG are like drugs. The one that use to be working yesterday has ruined the last year picture for ever, as we get use to it CG) and can see through it now without pity.
This picture will obtain the " classic " rank.
And that is bad.
Anyway I can not connect to this over dose, and I may have develop an allergy.
Pans Labyrinth, also has its good moment, and the director is certainly a fine one.
After his Devil Backbone I was eager to see his newest creation, and yes I was deceived.
But the CG is only a apart of it.
But as you wrote " ruining genre films " one can I say more than this...
I will wait for a more convincing show, beside the fact that genre film as you put it is not the one I seek to see.
Not as long as it eat out every real creativity.
One film I could see back then was Star wars I and II, there was a chilish story but you could emerge in the line.
Now I will enjoy Le Diner des cons for the fourth time and there, guaranty not CG...
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
...they may draw on related software resources but the ideas that animate the films from inside are utterly different.
Because I agree too...
Ok you call it software I, the spirit of the generation descending from LoTR.
VISUALLY SPEAKING.
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
I think I see what you mean about effects and maybe even set design, but Del Toro has a unique vision.
-------------Call it, friendo.
You come nearer.
Also DT seems to oxcillate between Horror, and Reality, a genre I do not feel well.
But it is very well crafted.
Like the scene when he drink the schnaps and it come out from his wound or when he got that bullet and his eyes Like Dracula are full blood...
Then another thing I do not like...He put the plain horror on one side, the Nationnalist ( Franco ) but the truth is that the Republican made as much massacres.
Even if of course Faschism, is the beast!
But don´t trust the Pan as nothing is like it seems to be, but that don´t mean it is against you....
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
.
But it's pretty darned good.
Will be interested to see what else Bayona comes up with in future.
LoTR was a great series of truly epic films; you know this already, even if you don't appreciate Tolkien and prefer to remain in denial of Peter Jackson's achievement. Why don't you whine a little louder, ...maybe New Line or Mr. Jackson will hear your sorrowful pleas and cease making movies altogether (not)! ;O)
Cheers,
AuPh
"Allowing the very wealthy to keep their excessive wealth and have it trickle down to others will not work."
So, take their money, go DEMS!!!!!
*
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
...(like a French drama queen), we'll cut you some slack.
AuPh
*
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
Have you ever been introduced to Geeber?-Tom §.
The one on the Outsider and here, are more I.....
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
The worst film of the two last decades?
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
What was a worse film in the decades prior to the last two. It wasn't really a film so much as relentless and boring CGI images from different fake "camera angles."
Here to get an idea...
" Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu'une tête bien pleine."
You should give your unreasonable personal issues with LoTR a rest too! ;O)
AuPh
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: