Sign In

The Unpopular Film, TV, Music, Art, Books, Comics, Games, & Technology Opinion Thread (for all you contrarians!) — Page 13

Author
Time

When we look at the model shots kept in the SE, they have far better camera work, shot composition, and motion than the shots replaced in the SE. Granted, there are a few shots that are better in the OOT (e.g., the X-Wings’ descent and Luke emerging from the smoke), but I think improving the shots within the confines of '77’s shot styling would be best.

A lot of the shots from '97 show their age and their limitation (e.g., every X-Wing is Red 2, the overly-fluid motion in the S-foils and arrival shots, and the mere graphical limits of '90s CGI models). Replacing them with CGI or models that better mimic what was done in '77 would be best.

Author
Time

Dek Rollins said:

StarkillerAG said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

The CGI replacements have aged worse than the original shots.

This. Not to mention that the compositional changes and editing changes are worse for many of the shot replacements.

Take the opening approach past the planet for example. They changed two distinct shots into a single moving shot where the order of the angles is reversed. That shot replacement is not only worse compositionally and ill-fitting to the visual style of the film, but it also changes the editing of the sequence and ignores the timed musical cue.

Another good example is the “lock s-foils” approaching shot. In the original shot, the x-wings are in a formation, and the imagery is striking. In the SE shot, the x-wings don’t appear to be in any sort of formation, and the altered composition and movement makes the shot far less visually striking.

I think you’re looking into it too much. The shots do lose a tiny bit of compositional appeal, but that was done in service of greater realism and more dynamic motion. It’s not a game-breaker to my eyes.

I’m not looking into anything too much. I’m looking at precisely what is visible on screen and determining that the CGI replacements are artistically inferior to the original shots.

Well, I’m looking at precisely what is visible on screen and determining that the SE space shots look better. Like I said, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

BedeHistory731 said:

Admittedly, the CGI models needed […] motion that fit with ROTJ-period effects,

Um… why not have motion that fit with Star Wars-period effects? ROTJ wasn’t shot like SW.

Because the effects in the original movie, to be perfectly frank, weren’t as good as the other two. Back then, they only had the technology to show spaceships moving in straight lines, and big battle scenes like the Yavin battle looked kind of iffy because of it. The new effects of the ANH-SE space scenes really help bring that movie more in line with the dynamic motion of the other two movies.

Star Wars was not shot like the other two movies.

I know it wasn’t. I’m just saying that the way they shot the space shots in the first movie doesn’t look very good nowadays, and I think it deserves an update.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

For anyone familiar with this movie I’m about to mention… I dislike The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride, which is the direct-to-video sequel to the Disney animated classic The Lion King. Some consider it to be one of the best of Disney’s direct-to-video extensions of their theatrical works, but I disagree.

Author
Time

Plum said:

Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade is my favourite film of the trilogy.

Not ‘as’ controversial as saying Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is, but I’ve honestly never seen someone say that was their favourite over Raiders or Temple.

Definitely not my favorite Indiana Jones movie, it’s the worst of the four, but I still like Crystal Skull a little bit.

I’ve heard a lot of people say Crusade is their favorite, though. Not as many as Raiders, but still.

Death of the Author

Author
Time

The problems i have with Last Crusade is turning Sallah into some sort of caricature of the character we saw in Raiders. Also Marcus Brody becoming an imbecile for comic relief, even if it is funny it doesn’t fit the character established in Raiders. Also i feel like its a bit of a rehash of Raiders. The same way Return of the Jedi was a rehash of Star Wars.

Author
Time

The solution is simple - make The Last Crusade the first film chronologically, that way it is assumed that these characters grew between films. All that would need to be ignored is Indy’s mention of the Ark, and even that isn’t an absolute giveaway.

Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? - oojason
Episode 9 Rewrite THE SHATTERED SWORD (Complete!)
The Force Awakens Restructured (V3 Released!) and The Starlight Project (WORKPRINT RELEASED!)

Author
Time

Temple of Doom is my favourite of the Indiana Jones movies, yet everywhere I look people seem to frown upon it.

Author
Time

Temple of Doom is great and I’ll be forever upset that they decided to make Last Crusade and Crystal Skull into Raiders clones instead of letting each movie be wholly unique, the way Temple was.

That decision also unfortunately makes Temple into the “odd man out” of the series, in much the same way Halloween III is the “odd man out” in that franchise.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ChainsawAsh said:

Temple of Doom is great

It would easily be my favorite if they’d bothered to write a decent female role instead of the annoying embarrassment we have… That character totally ruins the entire film.
The captured children should have changed her tone. When she gets involved in that, she should have gotten over herself, realized she was part of something bigger & started something resembling a character arc. But, nope. Just more “AAAAH!” “EEW!” “INDEEEEE!” ugh.

I’ll be forever upset that they decided to make Last Crusade and Crystal Skull into Raiders clones instead of letting each movie be wholly unique

For sure. it’s a shame. It should be a series I love.

Ray’s Lounge
Biggs in ANH edit idea
ROTJ opening edit idea

Author
Time

I for one actually like Willie Scott as a character (seems to be perfect for this thread). It would be dumb if Temple of Doom got “Marion 2.0” instead of a unique character.

Temple of Doom definitely gets an unfair and disproportionate amount of hate. I also kind of like Last Crusade’s parallels to Raiders? I guess it bookends the series nicely that way.

Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Raiders is best. Temple is weakened by ethnocentric BS and making it a prequel (yeah, totally doesn’t feel/work like one). Crusade is good, though the reuse of Nazis and another Judeo-Christian McGuffin is disappointing. Kingdom is a fever dream I dimly recall.

My thoughts exactly.

SOLO: A Subtler Remaster of ‘The Bold One’
(My homeworld is Australia so be wary of timezones!)

Author
Time

Terminator 2’s theatrical cut is better than the special edition cut of the film.

Author
Time

I don’t think that’s an unpopular opinion. I think even Cameron is on record saying he prefers the theatrical cut.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time

Before we move away from Indiana Jones I must confess that I don’t consider Raiders the masterpiece everyone makes it out to be. Sure, it’s a great homage to action adventure movie serials and the adventure pulp novels of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century featuring rugged men exploring exotic faraway locales, but for whatever reason it doesn’t thrill me as much as Temple of Doom does.

As for Willie Scott, I’ve never had any issues with her being a shallow airhead, plus I always have found her miles ahead of Marion Raven in the looks department (yes I know, it’s shallow as hell).

Frankly, apart from Temple, I am largely indifferent to the Indiana Jones movies.

Author
Time

I feel like the whole point of Willie was to take the stereotypical shrill “damsel in distress” type character and show how she would actually react to being put through all of the shit she goes through. Unfortunately, that sort of character had long been out of fashion, and either they didn’t execute the idea well enough for audiences to get what they were going for, or it was just a bad choice given how the depiction of women in film had improved quite a bit by that time.

Not necessarily trying to say “You’re wrong, Willie is great, and here’s incontrovertible evidence!” - Willie is 100% a huge flaw in the film. I’m just not sure whether that’s because they executed a misguided idea too well, or they bungled a decent idea.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Surprise surprise! I’m back. Sorry for the inconvenience, but… I jus’ want to voice my opinion on horror films. Sorry for the wall of text, but here we go…

I strongly believe films are only really effective if it’s more than blood and gore, and there is no one in the film to react to it. The best types of horror. Stuff that isn’t just “Someone gets their body/face extremely fucked up and a character screams” but jump scares are the absolute worst. It’s just a very cheap form of horror especially if it gets a reaction from a character. I also love creepy ominous horror. Just, extremely unsettling images and sounds, that get gradually worse and worse, like something is going to come…but it never really does. NOT just cheap scares. I love atmosphere, and horror films should also have a unique palette, not that boring contemporary looking colours. Make the plot not just paranormal activity in someone’s home or the street. Give it a unique ‘feel’.

Pennywise from both ‘It’ films have their both pros and cons about their looks. Tim Curry’s Pennywise from 1991 looks great apart from the costume which looks a bit naff. Whatshisname’s Pennywise from 2017 (I’m not gonna even bother looking up his name) has a superb costume, his hair and makeup is good, but the face ruins it. Why did you have to pick some young dude? And don’t even get me started on those goofy-ass buck teeth.

Now, don’t judge me as I haven’t really seen either of these movies, but…

Eraserhead is a great example of my type of horror, bizarre images with bizarre sounds, no cheap shit. Same with the Exorcist. While both of these movies have people in them to react to them they are still PROPER HORROR.

Slasher movies are the absolute worst type of horror. They don’t scare me or make me feel creeped out. Sure, they have you on edge, but it isn’t really unique or effective, unless you’re squeamish or something.

TL;DR True horror films should have a sense of extreme creepiness or unease, have non-gory unsettling images and sounds, and have no one to react to them, therefore the viewer feels much more creeped out and it stays on them much longer. And to hell with slasher films. No pun intended.

The LBIC ad, while not meant to be creepy, is a great example of what I’m talking about.

P.S. it would be superb if anyone could direct me to something like it, think Little Baby’s Ice Cream crossed with Dining Room or there is Nothing, with the latter’s grainy and warm-coloured palette and horrific sound effects.

That is all.

Goddamnit.

Author
Time

Spuffure said:

Surprise surprise! I’m back. Sorry for the inconvenience, but… I jus’ want to voice my opinion on horror films. Sorry for the wall of text, but here we go…

I strongly believe films are only really effective if it’s more than blood and gore, and there is no one in the film to react to it. The best types of horror. Stuff that isn’t just “Someone gets their body/face extremely fucked up and a character screams” but jump scares are the absolute worst. It’s just a very cheap form of horror especially if it gets a reaction from a character. I also love creepy ominous horror. Just, extremely unsettling images and sounds, that get gradually worse and worse, like something is going to come…but it never really does. NOT just cheap scares. I love atmosphere, and horror films should also have a unique palette, not that boring contemporary looking colours. Make the plot not just paranormal activity in someone’s home or the street. Give it a unique ‘feel’.

Pennywise from both ‘It’ films have their both pros and cons about their looks. Tim Curry’s Pennywise from 1991 looks great apart from the costume which looks a bit naff. Whatshisname’s Pennywise from 2017 (I’m not gonna even bother looking up his name) has a superb costume, his hair and makeup is good, but the face ruins it. Why did you have to pick some young dude? And don’t even get me started on those goofy-ass buck teeth.

Now, don’t judge me as I haven’t really seen either of these movies, but…

Eraserhead is a great example of my type of horror, bizarre images with bizarre sounds, no cheap shit. Same with the Exorcist. While both of these movies have people in them to react to them they are still PROPER HORROR.

Slasher movies are the absolute worst type of horror. They don’t scare me or make me feel creeped out. Sure, they have you on edge, but it isn’t really unique or effective, unless you’re squeamish or something.

TL;DR True horror films should have a sense of extreme creepiness or unease, have non-gory unsettling images and sounds, and have no one to react to them, therefore the viewer feels much more creeped out and it stays on them much longer. And to hell with slasher films. No pun intended.

The LBIC ad, while not meant to be creepy, is a great example of what I’m talking about.

P.S. it would be superb if anyone could direct me to something like it, think Little Baby’s Ice Cream crossed with Dining Room or there is Nothing, with the latter’s grainy and warm-coloured palette and horrific sound effects.

That is all.

The movie Us is a type of horror movie the likes of which I had never seen before. Watching the movie from start to finish there’s no jump scares, no unsettling images or anything like that, but once the credits started rolling and I started thinking about the movie I was left feeling deeply disturbed.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

fmalover said:

Spuffure said:

Surprise surprise! I’m back. Sorry for the inconvenience, but… I jus’ want to voice my opinion on horror films. Sorry for the wall of text, but here we go…

I strongly believe films are only really effective if it’s more than blood and gore, and there is no one in the film to react to it. The best types of horror. Stuff that isn’t just “Someone gets their body/face extremely fucked up and a character screams” but jump scares are the absolute worst. It’s just a very cheap form of horror especially if it gets a reaction from a character. I also love creepy ominous horror. Just, extremely unsettling images and sounds, that get gradually worse and worse, like something is going to come…but it never really does. NOT just cheap scares. I love atmosphere, and horror films should also have a unique palette, not that boring contemporary looking colours. Make the plot not just paranormal activity in someone’s home or the street. Give it a unique ‘feel’.

Pennywise from both ‘It’ films have their both pros and cons about their looks. Tim Curry’s Pennywise from 1991 looks great apart from the costume which looks a bit naff. Whatshisname’s Pennywise from 2017 (I’m not gonna even bother looking up his name) has a superb costume, his hair and makeup is good, but the face ruins it. Why did you have to pick some young dude? And don’t even get me started on those goofy-ass buck teeth.

Now, don’t judge me as I haven’t really seen either of these movies, but…

Eraserhead is a great example of my type of horror, bizarre images with bizarre sounds, no cheap shit. Same with the Exorcist. While both of these movies have people in them to react to them they are still PROPER HORROR.

Slasher movies are the absolute worst type of horror. They don’t scare me or make me feel creeped out. Sure, they have you on edge, but it isn’t really unique or effective, unless you’re squeamish or something.

TL;DR True horror films should have a sense of extreme creepiness or unease, have non-gory unsettling images and sounds, and have no one to react to them, therefore the viewer feels much more creeped out and it stays on them much longer. And to hell with slasher films. No pun intended.

The LBIC ad, while not meant to be creepy, is a great example of what I’m talking about.

P.S. it would be superb if anyone could direct me to something like it, think Little Baby’s Ice Cream crossed with Dining Room or there is Nothing, with the latter’s grainy and warm-coloured palette and horrific sound effects.

That is all.

The movie Us is a type of horror movie the likes of which I had never seen before. Watching the movie from start to finish there’s no jump scares, no unsettling images or anything like that, but once the credits started rolling and I started thinking about the movie I was left feeling deeply disturbed.

But there’s still people to react to it. And by the way, this 6 minute short animated film from the 1950s is a PERFECT example of what I’m talking about. Not only is there no sound effects, just creepy orchestral music and a narrator, but it has an amazing style, is hauntingly down to earth and and the visual Indiana Jones type horror, while I know it has (very effective) gore, is extremely haunting and overall this film is TRUE feckin’ horror.

Edit: Basically a lot of shit from the NFB, especially other works from Peter Foldes. One of them, Hunger (1974) made me want to puke because of how unsettling it was.

Goddamnit.

Author
Time

Spuffure said:

Surprise surprise! I’m back. Sorry for the inconvenience, but… I jus’ want to voice my opinion on horror films. Sorry for the wall of text, but here we go…

That’s two sorry’s too many dude, that’s why opinion is in the thread title!

Eraserhead is a great example of my type of horror, bizarre images with bizarre sounds, no cheap shit. Same with the Exorcist. While both of these movies have people in them to react to them they are still PROPER HORROR.

Slasher movies are the absolute worst type of horror. They don’t scare me or make me feel creeped out. Sure, they have you on edge, but it isn’t really unique or effective, unless you’re squeamish or something.

Always a good time when Eraserhead is mentioned, even though you’re talking about horror you’re using a similar logic I would when it comes to blockbusters, sometimes the thrill isn’t enough, something should stick with you after you’ve seen it.

P.S. it would be superb if anyone could direct me to something like it, think Little Baby’s Ice Cream crossed with Dining Room or there is Nothing, with the latter’s grainy and warm-coloured palette and horrific sound effects.

That is all.

Great stuff, I think you’d enjoy some of Lynch’s other shorts like The Grandmother, Rabbits, or Premonitions Following an Evil Deed as part of the anthology film Lumiere and Company (1995).

“The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.” - DV

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Order 66 is one of the weakest scenes in an already weak film. The Jedi are way too easily dispatched, and don’t fade when they die. Vader can’t “hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights” if all of them are dispatched this easily.

Author
Time

On a related note. As cool as the scene of Vader taking down the rebel soldiers at the end of Rogue One looks, I must remind everyone that he’s slaughtering a bunch of frightened unprepared men who are clearly no match for him.

Most unimpressive, I would say.