I thought I had an idea of what was cgi in Indy 4, but then I come along to this page (it's shooting locations for Indy 4):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/locations
Take a look, you'll see a lot of location shooting listed.
So what was cgi and what was real in the film?
Sure, a lot of stuff didn't look real, but I'm not going to trust my judgement on this.
Akwat Kbrana said:Agreed. Some of the horde shots were CG, but usually real stuntmen were used.
Moreover, Jackson's "CG only when necessary" philosophy extended even to locations-shots, buildings, etc. As much as possible, he used models and location shooting rather than just using a quick-fix CGI "band-aid." He also used animatronics for as many creatures as he could (Treebeard, "giants" from the Hobbits' perspective in the Prancing Pony, etc.) In addition to adding a sense of weight and realism to the final film, this approach also gave the actors something to interact with, rather than just putting them in front of a greenscreen with a suspended golf-ball, and shouting, "Faster, more intense!"
::nods:: Makes a difference.
ChainsawAsh said:If it's not possible to do it 100% practically, you should aim for part practical and part CGI. All-CGI is a last resort.
For example, the space battle in ROTJ would look fantastic if it had been shot the exact same way, but the compositing had been done with modern computers. The space battle in ROTS looks like a video game.
For a non-Star Wars example: Instead of Jar Jar-ing it, Guillermo del Toro used a man in a suit with CG alterations for Pan's Labyrinth, and that looks 100% seamless.
Look, physical models will always look more real than CG, because they *are* real. They're physically tangible. CG is, by its very nature, not. CG should be used to enhance things, not to create them from sratch. The exception is if what you want to do is completely and utterly impossible any other way.
I know someone brought up I Am Legend as a negative example, but look at the opening scenes of a devastated New York City. Except for the CG animals roaming around, which look awful, showing New York City like that would have been impossible without the use of CGI - and it looks pretty damn good to me. That's something that was necessary for the story that couldn't have been done any other way. The "vampires," on the other hand, look like shit and should never have been done using CGI - they just dont look real.
For example, the space battle in ROTJ would look fantastic if it had been shot the exact same way, but the compositing had been done with modern computers. The space battle in ROTS looks like a video game.
Yeah. A lot of stuff in the PT comes off video-gamish, one way or another.
For a non-Star Wars example: Instead of Jar Jar-ing it, Guillermo del Toro used a man in a suit with CG alterations for Pan's Labyrinth, and that looks 100% seamless.
Love that film. Del Toro does his supernatural stuff really well. I loved the troll mart in Hellboy 2. Lucas should learn from that guy. His films show depth and vividness of imagination, while Lucas's recent films have shown an imagination that doesn't believe in itself -so different from his old films.
Look, physical models will always look more real than CG, because they *are* real. They're physically tangible. CG is, by its very nature, not. CG should be used to enhance things, not to create them from sratch. The exception is if what you want to do is completely and utterly impossible any other way.
I think all-cgi can sometimes be done very well, but generally yeah, cgi shouldn't be used when it can be avoided. Solid objects are so much more convincing.
Akwat Kbrana said:SW creatures, on the other hand, just look like cartoon characters. Jar-Jar's bug-out eyes swivel around like a cartoon frog. Everything about him - his appearance, his movements, his voice, his dialogue - would be more at home in a road runner cartoon than in an epic Space saga. Dex's four arms and airbag chin, the willowy and lighter-than-air kaminoans, that stupidly over-the-top lizard thing on Utapau, that Jedi council member with the giraffe neck (that couldn't possibly support the weight of his head), the Fraggle-Rock reminiscent podracers...everything about these characters seems designed to terminate suspension of disbelief and pull you out of the illusion. "Look! Look! We're CG!! How silly and crazy our anatomical dimensions are! Ha, ha! Look, now I'm defying gravity and doing a quadruple-backflip in midair, just like Bugs Bunny might do! Isn't this great?!"
Exactly! To me it was like Lucas no longer believed in his universe, because that stuff is like an attempt to make it come off not real. In the OT, the aim is clearly to make everything come off as real as possible, as if they believed in the universe and wanted to make you believe too. Whereas in the PT and SE it's like they don't believe in the universe and want to make it impossible for you to believe too. Jar Jar is just the tip off the iceberg. A whole host of fake-looking characters and creatures and a lot of fake-looking places too. And even when they weren't doing cgi -look at how cartoonish the Trade Federation guys look.
skyjedi said:
There are more examples too. Look at the way the character of yoda is handled in the original empire strikes back and return of the jedi. He is dignified and wise. His lines of dialogue are short and to the point and not wasted. The character is invested with a believable amount of humanity. Then in Episodes II and III he is a green jumping bean. With a lightsaber. Becomes a comicly farciful and unbelievable character. Not only that his character is ruined he is extremely unlikable in the prequels the exact opposite of the original films.
Arrogant pompous green jumping bean. Looking like a cartoon. They fucking ruined that character so much.
On that topic, I'm not entirely clear how much of Indy 4 was cgi terrain. Sure, a lot of stuff didn't look too real, but look at this imdb page:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/locations
They list a lot of location shooting there.
So what was real and what was blue screen?
Asteroid-Man said:skyjedi2005 said:I would rather have the 1983 return of the jedi and its minor flaws instead of connecting it to the awful 1997, 2004 special editions changes or the prequels.
The most dumb thing of all was adding Hayden who was 2 years old when Return was released in '83. Oh and of course Gun gans and jar jar. Naboo a later invention and coruscant straight out of the EU. The prequels and special editions are more connected to the current EU than the real trilogy circa 1977-1983.
The prequels should have fit those versions of the films and not gone the video game graphics cartoon route the special editions are directly repsonsible for. Adding EU things like the outrider and the motorcyle from shadows of the empire was stupidity. A Jabba the Hutt in 1997 who looks more like the cutesy cartoon version of slimer on the real ghostbusters instead of the big overgrown sluglike gangster we saw in return of the jedi.
I too would have preferred a wookiee battle but the one we got in revenge of the sith was pathetic over the top cgi and bad computer matted in trees and huts instead of the beautiful matte paintings done on return of the jedi.
Most of Mayhews performance appears to be via a cgi double except maybe for one or 2 shots. That was just another over the top and unecessary use of cgi. Necessary only to cuts corners and spend less money by not having all the actors costumed or build sets. When it can all be greenscreened and done fake in a computer.
It is a foregone conclusion that i hate what the prequels did to star wars a once great and mythic saga for our times.
Though you can never really go home again when it comes to revisiting these franchises even Indiana Jones was destroyed in 2008 by overly comic goofyness and over the top cgi and a bad script. It was like old home weak prequels style,lol.
The Clone Wars movie was just a mediocre nothing and did not elicit any emotional outrage. It was "meh" more than anything. The same with the series on tv. The spark of life star wars once had has been snuffed out a long time ago Return of the Jedi should have been the last film. Sometimes less is more. Intead of beating a dead horse for money only. That is what star wars has become a merchandising empire only. The idea of making a good story ended some time i don't know during or after the original trilogy.
The downward spiral was already in evidence on return of the Jedi with Lucas basically writing the story himself. And all but directing the film. The absence of a real Lawrence Kasden script like empire strikes back, a good director like Kershner or a producer like Gary Kurtz.
The real problem most people had with Jedi was it was a rehash of 1977 star wars, much like the same critcisms were made over the last crusade being a rehash of raiders of the lost ark. Once you got to Crystal Skull you got a rehash of a rehash, lol. The only film that tried to do something different temple of doom met with harsh crticism, unlike empire strikes back the dark second act of star wars which was received with high levels of praise.
Return of the Jedi was a more kid friendly film and more fun than empire. It was a more popcorn action flick and did not take itself too seriously. In the end it made more than empire strikes back. So Lucas added even more kiddie content to the phantom menace and that made even more money than before.
The point was to do your OWN version of ROTJ, not for you to make yet another rant of the SEs and PT.
I don't see why he shouldn't "rant" about the SE's and PT. And you can't say he's bringing "negativity" into a "positive" thread, because this whole thread is one big implied bash of ROTJ, which never deserved the bashing. Much better to bash the PT and SE, which DO deserve the bashing. I applaud skyjedi's post.
I would have done ROTJ exactly as it was done. It was a great film. Except maybe I'd try to make the ewok costumes a bit more convincing. But otherwise I wouldn't change anything. I wish people would quit poking at ROTJ. It was a spectacular conclusion to the trilogy and as good as the previous films. And no I wouldn't have preferred a planet full of wookiees.
TheBoost said:Make the Ewoks a little less cute.
Hm, there IS one place I'd definitely do that -Leia's interaction with Wicket. It's too much like he's a kid, particularly how she goes off holding hands with him.
Johnny Ringo said:Bryan Fuller will be returning to heroes next season. That should be interesting...Show needs a kick in the ass.
That's good. I hope he or someone else kills off Sylar. That character is like a weight around the show's neck.
C3PX said:For the last time. I am not and was not mocking you.
I also did not intentionally throw any insults your way (I guess you took the 12 year old comment to be an insult, I should have realized it would be taken that way before I posted it, I was just speaking my mind and obviously shouldn't have). That one is my fault. I don't blame you for taking it as an insult. Sorry about that one.
Your going on about how everyone is in the habit of misunderstanding you. I feel for you, I really do. That sucks to have people misunderstand you.
You've plainly misunderstood my intention with that post and strongly believe I was mocking you. Wanting to clear things up, I explained to you I was not mocking you, and you stubbornly continue to wail about being mocked. What is far more annoying than simply being misunderstood, is having someone stubbornly choose to misunderstand you. I wasn't mocking you. You can believe me or not, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
I'm sorry, but I think you're just not being clear with yourself about that post I felt was mocking. You may not have sat down and said "I am going to mock Vaderisnothayden", but the tone of the post was extremely mocking. And, having been mocked by you a number of times previously, I am sensitive to that.
For the record, I'd like to get into less rows with you, because I respect a lot you say. But you have to understand that you do sometimes make it difficult for me.
C3PX said:Vaderisnothayden said:And you're trying to demonstrate my supposed immaturity by descending to puerile insults?
Not trying to insult you, just saying, you really come off as someone very young. I doubt I am the only one who feels this way.
And I wasn't having a broken record moment, I just didn't feel the need to retype what I already said. You clearly missed my point, and I was in no way making an attempt to mock you. Sorry you feel this way, but it simply was not the case. I was simply stating that money and resources are constantly spent by other people on things that make absolutely no benefit to you, why should this bother you?
You seem to hate Lost with a passion and think it is somehow unjust that it hasn't recieved the axe. I on the other hand absolutely love Lost. I enjoy it more than any other show currently on TV. To me it would be a huge disappointment if it got canceled. Same thing to many other fans of the show. I am happy they spend money on it because I like it. This money is not being thrown away or wasted, because millions of viewers enjoy it and the studio makes even more money through advertising and DVD sells, in turn, this money is reinvested into other shows.
I am sure there are things you like that I think are silly and don't deserve to exist, but I wouldn't begin to wish their destruction to the determent of the enjoyment of others. What would be the point?
That is what I meant by McDonald's burgers and skiing. I don't care one bit for either of those things. But plenty of other people do. Yet, I am perfectly fine with the fact that millions upon millions of dollars are handed over to McDonald's resturants and skii resorts everyday, regardless of the fact that this does absolutely nothing for me personally.
And I wasn't having a broken record moment, I just didn't feel the need to retype what I already said.
Repeating your post like that is a broken record moment whatever your intent. I think you should have reacted to what I said with new material rather than acting as if what I said didn't change the situation. I think you should have taken my word for it that I got your point and taken into consideration that I might actually know what I was talking about when I said you making that point was evidence that you didn't understand my point.
You clearly missed my point, and I was in no way making an attempt to mock you. Sorry you feel this way, but it simply was not the case. I was simply stating that money and resources are constantly spent by other people on things that make absolutely no benefit to you, why should this bother you?
You seem to hate Lost with a passion and think it is somehow unjust that it hasn't recieved the axe. I on the other hand absolutely love Lost. I enjoy it more than any other show currently on TV. To me it would be a huge disappointment if it got canceled. Same thing to many other fans of the show. I am happy they spend money on it because I like it. This money is not being thrown away or wasted, because millions of viewers enjoy it and the studio makes even more money through advertising and DVD sells, in turn, this money is reinvested into other shows.
I am sure there are things you like that I think are silly and don't deserve to exist, but I wouldn't begin to wish their destruction to the determent of the enjoyment of others. What would be the point?
That is what I meant by McDonald's burgers and skiing. I don't care one bit for either of those things. But plenty of other people do. Yet, I am perfectly fine with the fact that millions upon millions of dollars are handed over to McDonald's resturants and skii resorts everyday, regardless of the fact that this does absolutely nothing for me personally.
I got your point perfectly well. And as I said before, you putting it forward as an argument demonstrates that you're not getting what I'm trying to say. Maybe that's my fault or maybe that's your fault, but either way you're not getting it.
I've also given good reasons why somebody would wish the end of bad shows. I'm not going to bother explaining myself further because after a page or so of explaining myself you're still repeating the same stuff at me and clearly not getting it.
But one little thing I'd like to point out is that my concern is not about what's of benefit to me, but rather about the creation and recognition of quality art. If some good show came out and I never saw it (and would never get the opportunity to see it) but had reason to believe it was good, I would be happy that good art was being put out, despite the fact that it was of no benefit to me. Reducing it to an issue of what's of benefit to me is insulting and misconstrues my thinking rather drastically.
In artistic terms yes the money spent on Lost is wasted, no matter what other criteria you might dig up to find ways to judge it as not wasted.
I will continue to judge art by artistic criteria and wish the bad stuff would vanish as much as possible. Don't expect me to change my position on that just because it doesn't fit your thinking or ChainsawAsh's. I suspect if the show I was wishing an end to was one you didn't care for I wouldn't be getting all this opposition from you.
As for the issue of whether or not you were mocking me, I think you need to read over your original burgers and skiing post carefully and note the very mocking tone.
C3PX said:Vaderisnothayden said:And you're trying to demonstrate my supposed immaturity by descending to puerile insults?
Not trying to insult you, just saying, you really come off as someone very young. I doubt I am the only one who feels this way.
So when you mock you're not really trying to mock and when you insult you're of course not really trying to insult? I have a hard time buying that. People can think of me whatever they want. I don't agree with your assessment of my posting, but you can think what you want. If you really feel that I come off very young then I suggest that would be a very good example of you not understanding me. Some people here have a habit of not understanding me, and of nonetheless assuming they understand me well enough to pass judgement on me. I grow tired of it, but I don't expect it to stop. No, my posts do not come across like I'm very young and if somebody reading them thinks they do, then perhaps they're not reading them carefully enough. An all too common problem on internet forums. I am so tired of people making snap judgements of others on internet forums. And people getting all worked up based on their misunderstanding of someone else and their posts. As if misunderstanding was a moral justification in and of itself. I could say something about how I feel you come off, and I even suspect some people would agree with me, but I'm not going to stoop to the level you've descended to with your insults and unprovoked mocking.
C3PX said:C3PX said:I wasn't mocking you. I was making a point. Obviously it was completely missed on you.
Broken record moment.
C3PX said:Sometimes you have me completely convinced you are a twelve year old, then you talk about being around back in 1977. You're a very confusing individual.
And you're trying to demonstrate my supposed immaturity by descending to puerile insults?
C3PX said:Vaderisnothayden said:And that post is supposed to mean something because... ? Maybe you should spend less time mocking people for having different views from you.
I wasn't mocking you. I was making a point. Obviously it was completely missed on you.
You were mocking. As you often are. It gets on my nerves. And I got your point. I just think it's a pretty pointless point that's totally irrelevant and is evidence of you missing MY point.
Thanks everybody for the info. :)
ChainsawAsh said:Vaderisnothayden said:Why should a load of shit like Lost continue when they didn't?
Because a lot of people don't think Lost is a load of shit, myself included. Using two Bryan Fuller-related examples (I know he has nothing to do with Lost): Pushing Daisies was fantastic and I'm furious that it was cancelled, but I don't go wishing for the once-great, now-shit Heroes to be cancelled. Why not? Because a lot of people still like it, and they deserve to get to see where it goes, even if goes nowhere.
I really don't understand the mentality behind wishing for a show to fail just because it's not up to your quality standards, especially when you treat its fans like idiots just because they enjoy the show.
Pushing Daisies wasn't good. It was painful shite. Such a disappointment after the high quality of Fuller's two previous shows.
If all the money and time that's being put into Lost wasn't being spent on Lost then maybe something of quality might be made in its place and then maybe the Lost fans might get more out of that.
If you care about art, it's perfectly reasonable to wish the money and time and resources were going into making quality stuff rather than crap. And if you feel that way you're going to wish the bad shows would get cancelled and replaced with good shows. Not that I expect the bad shows to all get cancelled and replaced with good stuff, but every one that is is a door open for a chance at making a quality show.
Nor is it unreasonable to wish a show would get cancelled after it's pissed you right off and driven you up the wall. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm not one of these people who believe in not feeling.
You're basically trying to tell me I can't say something is bad because it would be treating its fans as idiots. I reject that argument as bullshit. You're also trying to cast me as terribly inconsiderate because I want something cancelled that other people like. I reject your view there too. You're trying to pull moral bullshit on me because you can't find a better argument. Forget it. I'm not going to suddenly go saying "Oh, ChainsawAsh, I'm a terrible inconsiderate person. You were right. I'm going to change my ways." I'm pretty damn confident in the rightness of my way of way of thinking. I wish Lost would get cancelled. I'm glad Pushing Daisies got cancelled (now maybe Bryan Fuller will do something good instead). If you want to wish Heroes were cancelled that's your business. Feel free to. I certainly won't tell you you can't do that and that it would be EVIL to, or whatever you're trying to imply about me wishing Lost were cancelled.
Look, you don't like my view. And there's no way you're going to like it. You like Lost, whereas I want it cancelled. How about you just accept that I have my view? Because you're not going to change it and I'm tired of fighting with people. You were helpful on my thread about the Temple of Doom and I'm grateful for that. So let's not fight.
lordjedi said:Joss Whedon may not be the best writer in the world, but he can write some pretty funny stuff. Most of what made Buffy and FireFly so good were the one liners and the action. Hell, the single greatest episode of Buffy had almost no dialogue (Hush) with the second best episode being the musical (Once More, With Feeling).
Buffy had more to it than one-liners and action. Firefly not so much. A whole lot of bland characterization, with the show expecting you to love these characters while pushing how cool the show supposedly is. But all that was way better than Serenity. At least in the case of Serenity shit WAS unpopular -Serenity flopped at the box office, to my great delight.
But the problem is that Joss fans push the view that Joss IS in fact The Best Writer In The World. And they think his writing was the best on tv. I guess they never saw Oz or The Wire. Or the whole load of other shows that had better writing. Factors other than writing made Buffy the quality show it was. But Firefly didn't have anything to save it from the shallowness that Joss's work often falls into. Almost a cynical shallowness. That show DID get cancelled, something which I'm happy about. And Angel got cancelled too, which thrilled me even more. There was one good season of Angel, the first season, and then the quality dropped out and it got worse every season after that. The final season made the Star Wars prequels look good by comparison. It was like nobody was making an effort and by the end it looked to me amost like Joss was deliberately fucking it all up, kind of reminiscent of the prequels actually. I have Whedon issues as much as I have Lucas issues.
C3PX said:Vaderisnothayden said:ChainsawAsh said:Solution to disliking the direction a show takes: stop watching it. That doesn't mean it deserves to be cancelled, especially when it's a fact that it won't be lasting longer than the next season. Why cancel something that has a built-in end date? House - there's a show that's run its course, and I would not care one way or the other if it gets cancelled or not since, well, I stopped watching it. The difference is that House doesn't have a definitive end date - it can go on forever. Lost does - the next season will be its last.
When a show has turned to crap it's a waste of money and resources and acting and should be cut short, not allowed to continue on until its planned ending.
Opinionated little cuss ain't ya? Sorry to tell you this pal, but countless resources are wasted on things that don't make a difference in your life everyday. For example, I am sure somewhere in the US there is an obese man buying a super sized extra value meal at McDonald's. I haven't been to McDonald's in years, but I am guessing this fat man is paying somewhere around $7 bucks for this meal. Doesn't that just burn you up Vaderisnohayden? Talk about a waste of money and resources. This fat SOB enjoys his hamburger, fries, and drink and you and I get absolutely nothing out of it! Alternatively, there are a bunch of people in Colorado skiing right now. All that money wasted on ski rentals, lift tickets, gas money to drive to the ski lodge. None of this does anything for me, yet money and resources are being wasted. Pisses me the hell off I tell ya! How dare other people put money and resources into something I do like, or receive no enjoyment from! It is an outrage!!!! Dammit!! koerioeqrgioenqjrgiov'nqocnqeroiweqfoince Man, I am so pissed!!!!
And that post is supposed to mean something because... ? Maybe you should spend less time mocking people for having different views from you.
I get pissed off about fuckups in art. When a show has spat on its previous quality like Lost has, then it deserves to be cut off and not allowed continuation. Simple as that. Lost deserves the axe. So many far better shows have been cut off in the past. Why should a load of shit like Lost continue when they didn't? I couldn't care less about burgers or skiing, but I do give a damn about shows. If you don't like that, well that's your problem. We are not all obligated to think by the C3PX Rules Of Acceptable Thought.
I don't like it when a shit excuse for art gets success while the good stuff gets cut off. I'm well aware that shit is popular and that you can expect it to succeed, but that doesn't mean I should be happy about the situation. I don't follow the "don't feel" school of thought in living my life. I care about art and I give a damn about quality levels. There's too much shit being passed off as art, or bad art being passed off as good art. Lost is a show that's ceased to make an effort and has turned to working on autopilot. I'm sick of its arrogance, its manipulativeness and its stupidity.
As for calling me opinionated, that's rich coming from you.
C3PX said:Wow, am I the only one who finds Shia LeBouf annoying and obnoxious in everything he is in?
Shia is a talented actor who's very good at making his characters relatable human beings. He connects the audience to the characters' feelings. He's one of the best young actors out there. I'm very glad they picked him as Indy's son. He's thoroughly appropriate for the role and more than a little reminiscent of Ford.
skyjedi2005 said:Some of the more jokey slapstick type things in doom and crusade i enjoyed as a kid but they annoy me to no end as an adult. I appreciate Raiders far more because it treats the material seriously. While the next films tried to make a fun rollercoaster ride. Once the material is treated in camp and self mockery it no longer works.
I don't see why Indiana jones films should take themselves seriously. I think Indy films trying to take themselves seriously is rather misguided and futile. Indiana Jones is RIDICULOUS and taking it seriously is pointless. That doesn't mean they should go off the deep end and take out all sense of threat. And while there's no point in taking it seriously as in keeping the straight face avoiding the silly stuff, there should some taking it seriously in the sense of doing it like they mean it. That's where Crystal Skull failed. Crusade had all sorts of silly stuff, but they still meant it for real a lot. The combination of them meaning it along with the humor worked well. Whereas in Crystal Skull nothing was for real and thus it doesn't really touch you much emotionally. There's a difference between Crusade (or Doom) and Crystal Skull and that's the difference between a good Indy movie and a plastic one.
Crusade and Doom weren't just more fun than Raiders, they were better at the serious stuff too. There was more sense of threat in their villains and situations and settings and more feeling in their character interactions. There was just so much more to those two films. They don't belong lumped with the bland artificiality of Crystal Skull.
C3PX said:Well, it might be a one sided thing, I can't really tell. Some where along the line you seemed to tick Vaderisnohayden off, and now just about every time you make a post, he says something along the lines of, "Oh god, DarkFather's at it again."
Perhaps "quarrel" is the wrong word to use, but I can't think of a better one.
Hardly every time he makes a post. Only twice so far, both in reaction to him giving other people trouble in a way that reminds me of the trouble he gave me.
Enterprise was ok. It started out boring as hell, but it got better in its last two seasons. Star Trek Nemesis wasn't that bad, except I couldn't buy that young guy as being Picard's clone any more than I could buy Daniel Logan as Temuera Morrison's clone. They should have dumped the clone idea and made him Picard's son. I liked seeing Ron Perlman in it. But the Romulan makeup is fucking painful and shouldn't be paraded onscreen.
I'd see another Indy film with Ford. I'd even see Mutt films, because I like Shia. Though I wish they'd dump the name "Mutt" because, like the fridge and nuke, that was going too far. But the Young Indy series with Sean Patrick Flannely is on my list of things I want Lucas to acknowledge are non-canonical and crap (that list obviously includes the Star Wars prequels and Specially Fucked Editions).
Ziz said:Sluggo said:Also, Speilberg needs to grow a pair. If George ever comes up with another alien idea, Steven needs to stop it dead in it's tracks.
Ironic, since there's stories about Lucas having to reign Spielberg in on "Raiders"
GL: "OK, Steven, you said you were just going to kill 'a couple of Germans in this scene."
SS: "Nazis. I'm killing Nazis. I like Germans."
GL: "Fine. How many is 'a couple'?"
SS: "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6....10 guys. That's 'a couple'."
GL: "That's a dozen!"
SS: "George, I'm making a really big movie here."
GL: "Yes, I realize that, Steven, but there's a difference between a simple murder and a cult massacre!"
Are those actual real quotes? Did Spielberg actually get overenthusiastic about killing off Nazis?
Darth Chaltab said:Vaderisnothayden said:"Blah blah, fanboy entitlement blah!"
-_-
Bullshit. Your response is an unintelligent low dig that shows zero perception and totally misses the fact that there are serious issues about art being addressed in my post. If you can't think of anything constructive to say, don't say anything.
ChainsawAsh said:Solution to disliking the direction a show takes: stop watching it. That doesn't mean it deserves to be cancelled, especially when it's a fact that it won't be lasting longer than the next season. Why cancel something that has a built-in end date? House - there's a show that's run its course, and I would not care one way or the other if it gets cancelled or not since, well, I stopped watching it. The difference is that House doesn't have a definitive end date - it can go on forever. Lost does - the next season will be its last.
When a show has turned to crap it's a waste of money and resources and acting and should be cut short, not allowed to continue on until its planned ending.
skyjedi2005 said:Right. Lost is ending when it should. When the story is finished.
Just like recently this year Battlestar Galactica ended. But was not canceled it reached its conclusion. That does not mean there cannot be direct to dvd features or a spinoff prequel. Caprica is not called battlestar galactica but it is in the same universe.
Sort of reminds me of when enterprise was just called that enterprise. Then changed to star trek: Enterprise.
Then you have shows that are canceled with incomplete stories. Journeyman, Bionic Woman, Flash Gordon etc.
I can name tons of sci fi shows but most of them deserved to be cancelled for being crap.
Except for Firefly, which is usually the exception to the rule. I used to like Space Above and Beyond. And hated when it was cancelled. Nostalgia is dangerous,lol. I recently went back and watched it on dvd and it was terrible. Poorly acted in some places. Badly written except for some standout episodes. And the concept was interesting but the execution was flawed and the low budget fox imposed did not help things for Glenn Morgan and James Wong. They did excellent work on the X-files. But then went on to make that bad trilogy of final destination films.
Then you have shows that just stayed on the Air no matter what like E.R. that recently came to an end but should have been canceled once all the stars left the show. The show only concluded after the author passed away. Michael Crichton. Which is also a main reason they won't do Jurassic Park IV.
Space Above and Beyond wasn't really well made, but it was sincere and heartfelt. Whereas Firefly is too concerned with being clever clever and hip and cool and is all flip, with insufficient real feeling and with uninvolving characters. And don't get me started on Mal Reynolds -I hate the bastard. Serenity was worse, totally crapped on everything that was good in Firefly. I've got as much issues with Joss Whedon as I have with Georgie Lucas.