|
Post by icelemt38 on Jan 13, 2011 21:51:50 GMT -5
Filmmaking can be done without high-tech stuff, if the story, script, and acting are high quality. Avatar as a story probably couldn't have been told well without the technical wizardry, but that was the nature of the story. Movies that don't deal with fantasy worlds can be done without bells and whistles. Good movies can be made with all kinds of special effects of course; my problem is when all of that flash is used to cover up the lack of quality. And I'm happy to see lo-tech movies do well so that producers can have some confidence that everything doesn't have to go boom to succeed. Yes but are masses of people going to go to the theater to watch that movie? With home entertainment now being so good with the big HD screen at home, stereo surround sound, the comfy couch, a lot of people would rather watch the good story narrative movie at home and rent it. The theaters these days are for big over the top entertainment spectacles which is why those are the movies making the money. Look at how many IMAX 3D films there are now and people are paying double the movie ticket to see those films. This is where I'm coming from when talking about the RS teaser. If they instead focused on the human relationship between father/son and not put the emphasis on the robots at all, in 10 months time, who's going to remember that trailer. At least with this there's people talking about robots, some think cool, some think otherwise but the fact is people are talking because of the FX elements.
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Jan 22, 2011 17:55:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Jan 22, 2011 18:39:58 GMT -5
Very interesting. I love behind the scene stuff.
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Jan 22, 2011 20:40:34 GMT -5
You should watch all the roundtable interviews from The Hollywood Reporter. For me that's over an hour each of goodness.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Jan 25, 2011 9:02:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Feb 2, 2011 8:32:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cath112 on Feb 3, 2011 13:12:08 GMT -5
This is an interesting video on the derivative nature of films. He could have had a field day with Australia. But, as he points out, you could do this with all movies. Call it derivation, call it homage, whatever, everything old is new again.
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Feb 13, 2011 15:42:39 GMT -5
These are always interesting to me, THR Director's roundtable. Darren, Peter Weir, Tom Hooper, David O Russel, Lisa Chiledenko, Derek Cianfrance are the directors here. I love watching these conversations.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Feb 20, 2011 7:03:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Feb 20, 2011 8:08:12 GMT -5
That's a head-scratcher. 3-D? So we can see Myrtle's car accident in its full goriness? And wasn't the stateside shooting of GATSBY the reason for Baz's move to New York? He took an apartment and enrolled his kids in school in the city. I have a feeling this story will not end well.
|
|
|
Post by CrisisOver on Feb 20, 2011 11:16:35 GMT -5
That's a head-scratcher. 3-D? So we can see Myrtle's car accident in its full goriness? And wasn't the stateside shooting of GATSBY the reason for Baz's move to New York? He took an apartment and enrolled his kids in school in the city. I have a feeling this story will not end well. Think I'll stick with the old Robert Redford version.
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Feb 20, 2011 13:12:36 GMT -5
It's Baz. He's a part of the post modern school of filmmakers where nothing in their vision is grounded in reality and they believe that everything has been said or done, it's up to him to find a new way to present familiar stories like what he did with Romeo and Juliet. The fact that they're filming in Australia as opposed to New York is the biggest head scratch for me since NY is such an integral part of the story but I wouldn't be surprised if he goes with CGI backdrops and the whole nine yards.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Apr 12, 2011 11:26:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Aug 5, 2011 13:23:28 GMT -5
Geez, they've already given Spiderman 2 a May 2, 2014 release date! The first one is July 2012.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Aug 13, 2011 6:22:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Aug 15, 2011 8:03:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Aug 15, 2011 8:14:08 GMT -5
What I don't understand is how a glossy, period drama series can be made for tv for $50-60m and yet they can spend $200m+ on a single mediocre movie.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Aug 15, 2011 8:15:29 GMT -5
A lot probably has to do with CGI and special effects. Plus higher salaries.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Aug 18, 2011 9:11:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cath112 on Aug 18, 2011 12:51:28 GMT -5
I don't get why studios can't grasp the concept that just because one movie in a given genre is successful, any crap of the same genre will also work. Does the idea of quality never cross their minds? True Grit worked ergo any western will work? Cowboys and Aliens didn't so now audiences won't go to westerns? Interesting writing, compelling story, great acting -- granted not every movie that has those things is successful, but neither is every generic copy of a successful film. It seems to me that hopping on a bandwagon isn't all that great a strategy.
|
|