logo Sign In

Wow, maybe we're not as alone as we think?

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
All I've got to say is this guy gets it! while i have some pretty different views about E.T. & the first Spiderman, this guy NAILS Star Wars... from an article on MSN:

"Star Wars" Episodes I, II, III (1999, 2002, 2005)
This tale has been told many times, but it bears repeating. When George Lucas reopened the Pandora's box of his "Star Wars" series to make three "prequels" for a new generation of consumers, he ruined everything. Even the original trilogy now feels like some kind of weird suppressed memory. Looking back, weren't they kind of chintzy and awful, too? They certainly are now with all the digital changes Lucas has added. But, by contrast with the new trio, Episodes IV, V and VI are "The Godfather" I and II and "Citizen Kane"! Forget Jar Jar Binks -- "The Phantom Menace," "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith" were all born dead, victims of lazy and cynical writing, filmmakers more interested in technological breakthroughs than in captivating viewers and, ultimately, a lack of vision. Lucas knew people would come see anything that said "Star Wars" on it, so he killed the goose to see where the gold came from. Even the force can't save him now.


the article
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Actually, I think he was being generous with his critque of Spider-man. It really was a terrible movie, and so were the two follow-up remakes.

"Spider-Man" "Spider-Man 2," "Spider-Man 3" (2002, 2004, 2007)
Onetime cult horror director Sam Raimi seemed like a left-field choice for this big-budget enterprise, but he managed to do exactly what the studio and the comics publisher must have wanted him to do: drain away all his signature style and attitude, and turn in a product that even penniless people in Guam would make an effort to buy."

Spot on, the movies completely lacked (with the exception of the Doc Ock hospital scene, that was brillant) that sense of humor and style that Raimi had once-upon-a-time. Boring.


"It's not the cast (Tobey Maguire was a good choice)."

Tough call. I've come not to like Tobey in the role but isn't that the scripts fault? They sucked, a lot of great actors looked bad in it (like Defoe overacting big time). They made Spidey a socially inept retard, humorless, wannabe matyer filled to the brim with teenage anst but the virgin emo kind not the passion filled youth kind we all wanted.

Peter in the comics is both a smart and socially intellgent guy who needed some serious self-confidence boosting ala his Spider powers! He is witty and funny but can sometimes use corny puns to banter with villians, unlike Tobey who doesn't say much at all in the suit probably because of how high pitched his voice is. He is an everyman dealing with life's problems but above average like we like to imagine ourselves, that's why people like him. Tobey in the films is not smart enough to build webshooters nor does he use his brains to outsmart villians in battle. He is irrationally obsessed with a girl he barely seems to know, that he rejected on very flimsy grounds as she gets kidnapped anyway every single time, but now is obsessed almost to the point of being a stalker.

In the excellent new Marvel comic adaptation Iron Man, Tony Stark is portrayed perfectly by Robert Downey Jr. who really brings this larger-than-life character into the real world without sacrificing his wit or genius. It always feels like he is integral to the suited-up action scenes thanks to the funny bantering and intelligent strategy being displayed. There is no wall of separation between the hero and the man as there is in Spider-man. Spider-man the hero is so shortchanged by the Peter Parker melodrama that it honestly feels more like a chick flick then a real Marvel adaptation such as Iron Man.


"It's not the stories (well, the stories could have used some work)."

Huge understatement, the stories sucked and were repetitive. "Benevolent scientist gets turned evil by experiment gone awry, Spider-man must choose between self-interest or being responsible (why can't he enjoy being Spider-man?), he must go after Mary Jane but keep her at arms length in an unbelievable romance that functions as the plot dictates. She also gets kidnapped." Cut and paste this formula into any of them. The plots were like swiss chesse as far as plot-holes go.

"It's not the way everything is aimed at little kids (instead of, say, big kids, too)."

Agreed.

"No, it's the effects. Again. The age of digital has done the movies a lot of favors. But it has made special effects movies look cheap and two-dimensional. And Spidey deserved better than this."

Spider-man feels like a digital rubber cartoon character that punches people in the face. We deserve better!


Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Hehe, I liked what he had to say. I don't really agree with him on all of it, but he makes decent judgments all around.

I like his opening comments about the blockbuster. We do seem to be in a period where the quality of the film is less important than the mass appeal. But even with smaller budgets and modest ad campaigns, you can't really argue that this is a new phenomenon. There have been plenty of crappy movies made in the past. In fact, I get the vague feeling that quality standards move up and down in cycles of some sort.

We thought George Lucas was an infallible genius (because of his own marketing) and now, with the prequels, he's shown himself to be as flawed as most movie makers. He is just as capable of getting caught up in crap and bad ideas as the rest of Hollywood. Now that I'm trying to move beyond the general feeling that I was lied to, I can appreciate what he did as an artist in his lifetime. While I still can't enjoy the prequels enough to watch them multiple times, the originals are easily that good. Also, it's fun to use the prequels as a good case study of what not to do in art (since I'm passionate about the original trilogy's universe).


Hmm. . . otherwise, he seems to be more than a bit harsh with E.T. That film is a classic in my mind. Not that I've ever really enjoyed it all that much myself, but I understand why other people enjoy it and I can't really think of any huge flaws in it. To me it's a movie that helps remind me that the universe isn't always super serious all of the time and that sometimes it's okay for us to get lost in hokey emotions. Basically I like any story which can decently merge lighthearted realism with serious realism and E.T. is fun in that way.

To briefly touch on Spider-Man as well, I'd just like to say that I firmly believe the worst thing about the recent movies were the scenes with Spidey himself. Every scene where he jumps around (and we get more cg eye candy) bores the hell out of me. Those scenes feel disconnected and separate from the rest of the films. It is because of this that I actually think Spider-Man 2 is the best film of the bunch: if I'm going to be bored to death by cg bullshit, I might as well try to enjoy the non-super-heroic parts of the film and Spider-Man 2 is pretty darn good there. The first is almost as good (in my mind) since the Spidey parts are watchable (by comparison) and the pedestrian scenes are also okay. (Spider-Man 3 is easily the worst because it threw out any plausibility or likability for the characters in their normal lives and the hero scenes were also fairly unlikable.)

Hmm, this also makes me think about special effects. I think the neatest part about special effects in older movies were the real thought and work that went into fabricating them. Of course special effects are designed to fool our senses and heighten the drama of a story, but in and of themselves, when they were made out of something real they were much more impressive. I know cg is expensive, but it seems to totally lack that endearing quality where you wonder "how did they do that?" There aren't any physical constraints anymore. They just have a guy sit in front of a screen and tell a computer what to render for him. I can't be wowed by that and can't understand someone who would.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Tipup...

...I absolutely see where you're coming about the CGI feeling fake. We did lose that wonder at the special effects when CGI took over, but it can have its uses...especially in what you called "fooling the senses."

If overused, CGI, I believe, takes away from the movie....makes it look two-dimensional and ultimately, phony. I think people in general don't like phony. But if you use CGI in a very casual and nonchalant way, it can be amazing.

Here's an example....a few months back I say Atonement in the theaters with the future wife. It's a chick flick and was depressing as hell...but there was a scene that stood out. It takes place during World War 2 and one of the main characters is at the Battle of Dunkirk. The scene was absolutely amazing. I knew I was looking at CGI here (have a trained eye for that thanks to the prequels)...but it was so flawless and so perfect that it would have fooled anyone who didn't know any better. Looked like we were actually there!!! My fiance was fooled and I thought it was great and added an awesome element of realism to the movie.

So CGI isn't all bad...when it's used like Lucas did or like many fantasy type films today do...it falls short....big time. But used as a background tool...it can be an amazing thing.