Kong Narnia

[Michael Moorcock]

Kong's better than Narnia but the original remains the best. Self-indulgent on Jackson's part, I think. Disappointed in both.

[nalpak retrac]

I saw Narnia last night. Best part for me was the train ride through rural England at the beginning--I'd rather see a film about that, actually. My sense is C.S. Lewis borrowed a lot frm George McDonald's Lilith.

Now I think I'll skip Kong. Too much retro commodity, and so on.

[Maxim]

I'll skip both, for imho those dino things in Kong are just unstandable to see - and so is that polar-bear chariot in Narnia (I saw it in a poster). Some things should better remain in your head than to be eye-watched.

[Azariel]

There was a report about how ticket sales have decline in the past three years and Hollywood wondered why - well, D'UH! your giving us crappy movies overloaded with CGI - its so fake its no longer special. I was watching Robert Redford's "Jeremiah Johnson" (1972) and found the rustic, "real" shots in the snowy mountains in Utah much more alluring and magical than a CGI world (I watched the movie twice in one day) - which is sad when a lonely bearden man riding a horse moves you more than two pillars shaped like ancient kings (LOTRs) does, sure says something about simplicity is best. :D

[DeeCrowSeer]

Nice point Azariel... given how undeniably gorgeous New Zealand looks on film (and how cute/sexy the accents are), it does make you wonder how many other "smaller" films they could be making there for the money. Jackson's own Heavenly Creatures being a prime example. Although CGI has enhanced some of my favourite movies, as it did that film, it should only ever be the icing on the cake, not the sponge and jam.

"Power to the people who punish bad cinema!" - Cecil B. DeMented

[Azariel]

That was a another point that the report made is how indie films are catching more public interest than mainstream - with enphasis on "indie," movie makers get to make a movie they want, not what the cigwigs thinks will sell.

They mentioned also how their biggest audience, young boys, seem to lack interest in movies as well - well, c'mon, if your gonna give kids watered down movies full of CGI, all the imagination is done for them. But I suppose the FCC has something to do with it. When I grew up, I watched fantasy movies with buckets of blood or cheesy Van Damme films (guy movies), but they don't make those anymore. And they wonder why boys rather play video games rather than sit through most movies nowadays.

[David Mosley]

They mentioned also how their biggest audience, young boys, seem to lack interest in movies as well - well, c'mon, if your gonna give kids watered down movies full of CGI, all the imagination is done for them.

CGI is a tool - nothing more or less. It can be used well - viz. LOTR (imo) - or it can be used badly - as in, to pick an example at random, Die Another Day. It can help film-makers achieve things that otherwise would be impossible to visualise (or visualise well), but it can also make film-makers lazy or the end results themselves are sloppily executed.

As I've mentioned elsewhere (see the 'Movies' forum), I remain hugely impressed by film-makers who do it for real rather than resorting to 'trickery' as such. As much as I was impressed by LOTR in the cinema, it was nothing to the impact that David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia made watching it on DVD. In the entirety of Lean's epic there is only one FX shot - that of the noon sun over the desert - and that's only because Lean's attempts to film the real thing resulted in the celluloid film melting in the camera. Everything else was done 'for real'; when you see Omar Sharif coming out of the mirage, that 'mirage' effect was actually there.

The Bond films have a reputation for 'doing it for real' but the surf boarding scene at the start of DAD, which was (one of?) their first attempts at a CGI stunt, was appallingly awful. :x

Mind you, I'm sure similar things were said when Sound was introduced to Silent films. In 1927, something like Abel Gance's Napoleon was opening up a whole new vocabulary of silent film-making, which was very sophisticated. But 1927 was the same year that The Jazz Singer was released, which heralded the advent of Sound. It's almost impossible to know what we lost in film-making terms because cinema evolved down a new aural path, which allowed studios to make films that were less demanding of an audience.

[Azariel]

As I've mentioned elsewhere (see the 'Movies' forum), I remain hugely impressed by film-makers who do it for real rather than resorting to 'trickery' as such. As much as I was impressed by LOTR in the cinema, it was nothing to the impact that David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia made watching it on DVD.

One of my favorite movies of all time, Demos. Everytime I watch it, I'm always saddened that this was what Frank Herbert's Dune should have looked like. Hell, it came out around the same time the guy was writting the book, and been noted as one of its many inspirations. Its desert scenes are remarkable and unparallel to even SciFi channel poor attempt at CGI Dune.

Glad you mentioned Die Another Day, the "surfboard" scene was so so bad, I almost left the theater. Bond when i was younger was far more realistic and more brutal - now its cheesy effects, and the gadgets and girls steal the show. I still recall Roger Moore extracting information from a guy, while he's holding to his lapels, afterwards lets him fall. Man, talk about brutal. Now, if someone gets shot, maimed or killed, Bond has to have a reason behind it. If the plot lines have to force the audience to sympathize with an obvious "anti-hero," whats the point. :(

[Harvester]

All interesting thoughts. I'll keep mine simple though.

I'm seeing King Kong tonight, and am mucho excited about it!

[HawkLord]

For a while I went through a phase of thinking films and TV were far inferior to books because they handed you everything on a plate, whereas with a book your brain has to work to interpret the world. However, recently I have come to find that a good film or TV show can inspire as much thought, and things like lighting and tones can be used in the same way as literary techniques to create the mood. That is why I found the film Serenity and preceding TV show Firefly so wonderful. They carefully chose the colours for different parts of the ship to reflect its mood. Plus they are just so darn cool!

However, neither Narnia nor King Kong seem to hold much allure for me. I enjoyed the Narnia series somewhat in my childhood but the film hasn't really caught my fancy.

[David Mosley]

Glad you mentioned Die Another Day, the "surfboard" scene was so so bad, I almost left the theater. Bond when i was younger was far more realistic and more brutal - now its cheesy effects, and the gadgets and girls steal the show. I still recall Roger Moore extracting information from a guy, while he's holding to his lapels, afterwards lets him fall. Man, talk about brutal. Now, if someone gets shot, maimed or killed, Bond has to have a reason behind it. If the plot lines have to force the audience to sympathize with an obvious "anti-hero," whats the point. :(

Over the years, Bond has become more suave and sophisticated - perhaps as the role as been tailored to the expectations of the actors playing him (esp. Moore & Brosnan). Compare that to Connery's portrayal in Dr No. The sequence where Bond cold-bloodly shoots an unarmed* Prof. Dent was particularly singled out at the time as an exemplar of the sadism which Bond was often accused of.

Possibly Daniel Craig will bring a 'harder' edge to the role in Casino Royale.

*Unarmed, only in the sense, as Bond so succinctly puts it: "That's a Smith & Wesson - and you've had your six".

[DeeCrowSeer]

However, recently I have come to find that a good film or TV show can inspire as much thought, and things like lighting and tones can be used in the same way as literary techniques to create the mood.

It's always possible that the decline in ticket sales is linked to the arrival of DVDs. Back in Derby I had some friends who would rather watch a pirate copy of a film in their own sitting room, than go to the cinema. Personally I find that sad, but then I have a tendency towards the romantic. I still see going to the cinema as an event. No doubt there are many reasons to dislike the multiplexes (certainly the cost of snacks would be pretty high up the list)(but my local is a stone's throw away from a convenience store, so that's sorted :)) but I can't say I resent the central heating and comfy seats. Which is all fine, but what really helps is having a film to watch (and yes, I probably mean a "film" rather than a "movie") which will draw you in, and hold you spellbound in the same way that we all know a good book can. Dodgy FX and bad casting can be distractions, and so can your fellow patrons... but then leg cramp and wrist ache can often bring an end to a reading session. I can't say what the vital ingredient is, although it's fair to assume it has much to do with the writing and the direction. That a film I can't understand without subtitles can still move me to tears is (I think) quite remarkable, and a force for good in terms of fostering that sense that (sorry about this) we all laugh and cry in the same language. Ew! Sorry.

Er... that was a bit of a ramble. My point? Um... films = good.

PS. Anyone who walks out before the credits are finished is a lightweight and a quitter. :)

[zakt]

Quite enjoyed Narnian really. I thought they were reasonably restrained on the Christian message, and the WWII bit at the start was probably good to refresh memories of what evaccuation was all about.

Can't see kids sticking with it for seven years, though - why didn't they start with The Magician's Nephew? Always my favourite, probably because it's a bit more Edwardian, distant therefore.

Kong? Hmmmm .... Will Hay was more fun. :D

[David Mosley]

[It's always possible that the decline in ticket sales is linked to the arrival of DVDs.

DVDs have certainly destroyed the audience for films on TV imo. Time used to be that if you didn't see a film at the cinema you'd have to wait 3 years to see it on the telly, so there was a sense of something special when it was on (obviously this is pre-'pay-per-view' we're talking about). Even in the days of VHS TV still had an edge since most videos where released 'panned & scanned' but there was always a chance of getting a film shown in 16:9 format.

Nowadays, you can normally expect a DVD release within 6 months or so - and it'll be Widescreen - with a commentary - and extras (if you're lucky) - and probably discounted to آ£6.99 in one of the perennial sales a year later, so by the time it eventually makes its way on to telly you've probably had it sitting on a shelf in an Amray case for a couple of years.

That said, I did make a point of catching 24 Hour Party People on C4 the other night, which was pretty good - although I'm not sure I'm going to rush out and buy the DVD.

Perhaps if I see it for آ£2.99 in a sale somewhere...

[Azariel]

PS. Anyone who walks out before the credits are finished is a lightweight and a quitter. :)

I don't consider it quitting if you leave the theater after enduring 1/2 way through Van Helsing - its called getting bang for your buck. I was dissatified by the film I didn't bother watching the restand asked for my money back. :D