Summer 2007 Movie Thread (SPOILERS Warning SPOILERS)

[_Yoda]

The "last" Star Wars film? The movie you are referring to came out in 1999!!!

To be fair, Coggins did not say "Phantom Menace" was the last Star Wars films. He referred to it as "one of the last", which is a correct statement. Probably a more correct statement would be "one of the newer" films.

Again, "too frenetic a pace to process" for whom? You, with your pickled brain?

Low blow, Scratch. This comment was uncalled for.

One of the negatives of CGI has always been, in my opinion, that since you can show just about anything with it, the temptation is to do just that.

I agree.

And there are times when I really don't want to watch all of the flash. I would rather watch a light romantic comedy, or a rich dramatic show. And, the old films are great. "Cassablanca" is still one of my favorites.

CGI is an amazing tool, though. Case in point, "The Lord of the Rings" movies. The folks who did the CG in that film were masters at combining the CG with the filmed battle scenes to enhance the shot, and make it richer.

(Yes, I'm a film geek. I wanted to be a female Steven Spielberg in another life. LOL I love the new series, "On the Lot")

[_Mister Scratch]

The "last" Star Wars film? The movie you are referring to came out in 1999!!!

To be fair, Coggins did not say "Phantom Menace" was the last Star Wars films. He referred to it as "one of the last", which is a correct statement. Probably a more correct statement would be "one of the newer" films.

Again, "too frenetic a pace to process" for whom? You, with your pickled brain?

Low blow, Scratch. This comment was uncalled for.

Eh, I don't know. For someone who is so insistent upon "intellectual and philosophical seriousness," I think it's quite a relevant thing to consider.

[_Coggins7]

The film with the speeder chase was indeed Return of The Jedi, and my perceptions of the difference between the pacing of that chase scene, and that of say, The Seven Ups, The French Connection, or and number of other films, is quite clear in my mind. You want speed, and the impression of speed, but you don;t want hyperspeed the makes it difficult for the brain to follow and process the information, or make it seem as if you are missing parts of the movements (one major reason the old Hong Kong filmmakers rarely undercranked there fight scenes; that would have taken much of the impact out of the movements and sense of actual impact when someone got hit (not to mention undermining the actual skills of the actors, upon which the careers of most of these guys was based). As an example of this, see any of Jet Li's Once Upon A Time In China series (especially Once Upon A Time In China And America). These fight scenes in these films (and other films of the early nineties, like the Sam The Iron Bridge series) are heavily undercranked, and the impression this creates is that after Jet Li beats up 10 people, you realize that you didn't really see much of what he actually did. You didn't see the martial arts demonstrated.

A brief shot of extreme speed, such as the scene where the Millennium Falcon goes into hyperspace in the original Star Wars, if very effective, but extended scenes of extreme, and especially very jerky or abrupt speed (such as in the Final Fantasy films (which I liked overall, the scenes in the original Spider Man where Spider Man is shown swinging through the city between buildings with his webbing, many times in what should be a freefall situation in which he should slow down due to drag or as he rises back into the air and then starts to descend again) tend to detract from the action by depriving the action of enough time to actually make an impression on the mind as to the sense of mass and weight that is necessary to give one a sense that an actual object is engaging in the motions shown. This is all quite elementary but this is why they filmed Godzilla and those other monsters in slow motion; to give the impression of mass and weight.

My general impression is that much of this trend is generational, and is geared toward post boomers who grew up accustomed to video game action that delivers a massive quantity of visual information to the brain at extreme speed, almost to the point of sensory overload, and that CGI has allowed this kind of action to be transferred to the big screen.

There are however, any number of films that use CGI in a much more reserved, and yet very impressive way. Silent Hill is an excellent example of this, as is the commercial (I can't think of what is being sold in it at the moment), in which the family in the vehicle is trying to escape from this mass of gnarled trees that are bending and swaying and trying to crush or capture them.

The scene in Fantastic Four (which I thought was marginal at best) in which The Thing stops the eighteen wheeler is outstanding, as is the scene in the last X Men film (which I did like) in which Magneto rips up the Golden Gate bridge and attaches one end of it to Alcatraz Island.

As an indication of what I mean by realistic physics, as compared to the cartoon physics of King Kong, see the original Jurassic Park That was much more the manner in which Kong should have been approached.

As to Scratch, I have nothing whatever to say.

[_Yoda]

As an indication of what I mean by realistic physics, as compared to the cartoon physics of King Kong, see the original Jurassic Park That was much more the manner in which Kong should have been approached.

I love all 3 Jurassic Park movies. So does my 3 year old son. We have them all on DVD. JP was an interesting blend of Sam Winston's life-sized "puppets" and CG.

[_Coggins7]

You have to be out of your mind making a comment such as this. You think that the stop-frame, claymation T-rex fight from the original King Kong is realistic???? Yeah, okay. And the films of Buster Keaton are noteworthy because of their ample demonstration of the laws of probability. You really are a rube, Loran. For your next trick, are you going to tell us about how Bugs Bunny is a tool of communist Jews?


You seem not to understand basic differences about genres, Loran. Why on earth you would think King Kong is even remotely classifiable as SciFi is anybody's guess.

All of this individual's flaming insults and put downs aside, I just couldn't resist responding to a few things here. King Kong was not "claymation". He, as well as the other creatures in that and all future films of a similar kind, were created from machined ball and socket jointed stainless steel armatures, surrounded with cotton or other filler, covered with liquid latex (usually in a mold, but Harryhausen invented a technique in which the latex could be applied directly to the armature, not yet casted), and then painted or otherwise finished (Kong was covered in rabbit fur).

Now, while the early stop motion work in the original Kong T. Rex fight is not realistic in the sense of smooth, naturalistic motion, its far more realistic in the sense of the much more conservative physics and mechanics involved. As far as the original T. Rex fight, there was little in that fight that wouldn't at least be plausible to the imagination given the size and mass of each. The new Kong T. Rex scene, on the other hand, especially the continuous falling fight down the canyon through the vines, is reminiscent much more of a Bugs Bunny cartoon or a big budget Hong Kong Wu Xia fantasy film, and in that particular genre and with the particular history and mystique of that film, was ludicrous, in my estimation.

I classify Kong as a science fiction adventure fusion, combining elements of the popular pulp science fiction adventure literature of the times (such as Burroughs's novels) with high adventure and an implied science fiction background (the only real difference between Kong and The Lost World is that there are no scientists in Kong; no Professor Challenger and no mention of scientific motives)

There are no particularly definable fantasy elements in Kong. Giant Gorilla's and Dinosaurs on lost islands are far closer to our understanding of what the world could be like than dragons, wizards, and elves casting spells.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Low blow, Scratch. This comment was uncalled for.

Indeed, the entire post was uncalled for in toto. Scratch can't even leave ideology and personal rancor out of purely aesthetic and technical film criticism.

He deals with me just as he deals with DCP, rc, and everyone else over whom he apparently obsesses on a continual basis.

[_Bond...James Bond]

As an indication of what I mean by realistic physics, as compared to the cartoon physics of King Kong, see the original Jurassic Park That was much more the manner in which Kong should have been approached.

I love all 3 Jurassic Park movies......

First one--***** (out of 5)

second one--***3/4

third one--**1/2

I prefer the books because of the ethical delimmas that are explored by "playing God" and messing with nature....although the science is laughable....I'm sure The Dude's head just about explodes when they suggest you can get DinoDNA from amber mosquitoes....hey maybe they should start looking in Amber for Nephite Hebrew blood....

[_Coggins7]

I love all 3 Jurassic Park movies. So does my 3 year old son. We have them all on DVD. JP was an interesting blend of Sam Winston's life-sized "puppets" and CG.

I think you mean Stan Winston, the man who created Pumpkin Head, one of the last of the great prosthetic creatures of the pre-CGI era.

[_Coggins7]

I prefer the books because of the ethical delimmas that are explored by "playing God" and messing with nature..

A dilemma also explored in Blade Runner, based on a book called Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep, by Philip K. Dick. That kind of ethical dilemma has been a standard theme of science fiction for quite some time, I'd dare to say.

[_The Nehor]

As an indication of what I mean by realistic physics, as compared to the cartoon physics of King Kong, see the original Jurassic Park That was much more the manner in which Kong should have been approached.

I love all 3 Jurassic Park movies......

First one--***** (out of 5)

second one--***3/4

third one--**1/2

I prefer the books because of the ethical delimmas that are explored by "playing God" and messing with nature....although the science is laughable....I'm sure The Dude's head just about explodes when they suggest you can get DinoDNA from amber mosquitoes....hey maybe they should start looking in Amber for Nephite Hebrew blood....

It was a laughable means of acquiring DNA but I haven't heard a more plausible one.