User Profile: Arnold Schwartzpekkar

Post: #273581
Topic: Windows Vista
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/273581/action/topic#273581
Time: 23-Feb-2007 10:51 PM

I don't understand why people hate microsoft and their OS "Windows" so much. I know one reason why people hate it is because microsoft tries to monoplize the OS market. People say that windows is junk and all that but I think it is pretty easy to navigate and user friendly and stuff. I don't know much about computers but I wish windows had diffent modes it can run in to optimize the computer's performance. Like when gaming I wish it would stop doing its internet security backround checking so you could get those extra framerates in playing your games and such. Frankly I don't know enough about how computers work to understand what an operating system should be capable of and all that stuff. My "Windows XP Media Center 2005 edition runs stable and I have reinstalled it several time and it is very easy and it does all the work for me pretty much. I would say that the installing process could be more intuitive . When it asks for a driver and I install the wrong one or skip that it will just continue and not tell me what the hell it is doing with the wrong one or what will happen without that installed even though the name of the driver is usually the give away.

Post: #273578
Topic: The best films seem to be the first of their genre.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/273578/action/topic#273578
Time: 23-Feb-2007 10:31 PM

I noticed after watching and reading a lot of AFI top movies lists and other lists on the internet etc. that a lot of the films famous for being “the best” tend to be the films that were the first of their genre. I am certainly not very knowledgeable in movie making but I know a lot of the basic techniques involved in making a film “work”, like editing, pacing, sound, lighting, acting, etc.

A lot of my favorite movies were made in the '80s. In fact, there are only a few films made prior to 1977 that I really like. But I think the ‘80s was really the pinnacle of cinema history because since the ‘90s it seems like movies just haven’t been as good. One of the problems is lack of original ideas. In the eighties it seemed like a lot of the first of their genre movies came out and since then it has just been rehashes of inferior quality. Like “Die Hard” for example, regarded by many to be the first of its genre and also, still the best.

I think movies that are the first of their genre usually get more credit than following movies that take inspiration from the predecessors, even though they might be just as good, just not original. Like “Citizen Kane”. I was always hearing that it was the greatest movie of all time, so one day I took the time to watch it and I was bored stiff through the whole thing all the way to the plot twist at the end. When I learned of the plot twist I thought, “that’s it?” I couldn’t believe it was hailed as the greatest movie of all time until I learned that a lot of people appreciate that movie because it had a lot of revolutionary filming techniques that were original for its time.

Star Wars was original in its time and has actually probably had a big influence on the way movies have been filmed, created, and edited since. When an amateur audience watches the films today they probably don’t realize that movies before that one didn’t have the exquisite film techniques that were ground breaking for its time. I don’t know a lot of what made Star Wars so ground breaking. I know a lot of the special effects techniques used in those films were original for its time. Also more subtle things like the editing and pacing a realistic feeling of a fantasy world were never presented as believable and elaborately before its time. Today, I just see the filming techniques as the norm but still a great film.

But I find that a lot of the first of their genre films to be the best anyways. One reason is because I like when they used to use models, real sets etc. instead of CGI. I don’t have any personal disliking for the use of CGI. I don’t mind filmmakers using that, as long as it looks good! But it really doesn’t unless used in subtle ways. I don’t understand why film makers seem to be turning to Computer Generated Images for everything in their movies these days. It sounds like it is much more expensive and doesn’t look as good. It always looks artificial and doesn’t blend in with the film. I think it is just enabling people to be lazy. It is less work to have people work on a computer than to get artist to design real things. Now they’re turning to digital cameras and they are yet to capture as many colors and detail as film. Digital cameras might be much easier to use but film still captures a superior picture. It sounds like computer technology will eventually be able to capture video just as well as film but for now I prefer film.

Another reason why I think films aren’t as good as they used to be is their prime purpose is to make money instead of a work of art. There is so much bloated advertising involved in trying to get you to see it. Back in the '80s it seemed like there wasn’t much money put into advertising and the movies were actually good. People actually had pride in their work and were doing it for a passion and not so much ego and money and all that crap.

Post History