MovieChat Forums > Ace_Spade
Ace_Spade (9546)
Posts
I enjoyed this nostalgic romp
An Uneven Shark Movie
Margot Robbie
Kinda Frustrating (SPOILERS)
Pure Faerie Tales
A way to fix it? (SPOILERS)
Really great right up until it's infuriatingly bad (SPOILERS)
Unsettling and Insightful
Zara - Season 14
Remington Steele?
View all posts >
Replies
Huston did a great job as Gandalf, but I do think Ian McKellen surpassed him. I'm not criticising Huston by any means, just praising McKellen.
John Hurt really did a great job with Aragorn.
I don't agree with most of this. I would keep an open mind if they did a remake of Star Wars; it could be interesting. But if the only thing they did was update effects, I would be skeptical before seeing the final result.
First, because I think there's a charm to the old effects. I've never minded old movies. I enjoy watching Ray Harryhausen's stop motion masterworks in films like Jason and the Argonauts. It's fun to watch King Kong grab Fay Wray. And Star Wars has weird aliens like Jawas and Chewbacca, cool stormtrooper armour, and imaginative weapons like lightsabres. Look, if somebody came along and re-jigged the lightsabre effects so Obi-wan's blade doesn't look like it's flickering on-and-off (I know they did this in the special editions) that's fine by me. But there's no need to re-do the whole film.
Second, because a lot of modern effects don't stack up as long. CGI gets dated a lot faster than physical effects. Some don't. The best is when it's blended together (Jurassic Park's CG stands up) but a lot of it winds up looking old before the movie hits the DVD shelves (burly brawl in The Matrix: Reloaded...) So, if they did re-do Star Wars and contributed nothing but new effects, those effects probably wouldn't look slick even a couple years later. Maybe they would. I don't know. Again, touching up the original would be a better move.
Third, because modern cinematography kinda sucks. The MTV-style of quick cuts and shaky cameras often look like garbage. Now, I know you were just talking about the visuals, so maybe you didn't mean camerawork, but the dogfight at the end of Star Wars is a masterclass in cinematography and editing. It's perfect. There's no beating perfection.
Finally, because shot-for-shot plus new tech has been done before. You ever watch Gus Van Sant's Psycho? It can't come close to Hitchcock's original. Plenty of people say they hate black-and-white - too old fashioned and outdated - but GVS' remake of Psycho, in my opinion, basically proves that a tech upgrade on an otherwise faithful remake isn't a panacea. In fact, it could be a poison.
Look, I don't want to dump on you and call you names or get sarcastic with you. But you've got an idea here that doesn't seem like a good idea to me, and I hope I've stated well the broadstrokes of why I think that would be the case.
Yeah, I agree absolutely that this film brings us into its world and the place feels full and complete. Films that are all atmosphere are terrible, but atmosphere is such an important part of a movie's magic. It needs to have that cohesion to really shine (not that anything in Dredd is all that shiny (unless you're on the slo-mo drug)).
He could probably disagree to anything *once*.
I'd screw up those takes a lot. "Sorry, Tim. Sorry, Michelle. Gonna have to do one more..."
It's a joke.
You commented that JFK mentioned in a debate with Nixon that they had similar objectives but took different paths to get there.
So, I joked that JFK - like Nixon - wanted to bug the Watergate Hotel. But JFK wasn't doing it for political reasons, he would be doing it to spy on women, because JFK was a known womaniser.
I used "Marilyn Monroe" because of the almost-certain affair they had, but I could have just said "spy on women."
What, like, JFK wanted to bug hotel rooms, too, just he was only doing it when Marilyn Monroe was staying at Watergate?
I'll defer; I have not yet seen No Time to Die.
The CGI isn't great and I find Halle Berry overrated. But, yeah, it's not bad. I've found that I basically like James Bond, and as long as he's doing his James Bond thing, I'm in. If I feel like a goofier Bond, I go with Roger Moore. If I want something grittier, I'll look to Dalton or Craig. But there isn't really a "wrong" way to do Bond, just so long as they commit to actual 007.
That's what makes me dislike QoS: it just isn't Bond being Bond.
Now, don't get me wrong, I still recognise that there are better and worse Bond films - there's a world of difference between From Russia with Love and The Man with the Golden Gun - but I can enjoy almost all of them.
It's not. In my opinion, the worst one is Quantum of Solace, which all but jettisons everything that makes Bond "Bond" and sets it apart from other action/thriller or spy movies (opera sequence notwithstanding).
Die Another Day isn't great, but there's some good stuff in there. The spy car battle is over the top, but fun, and I like Rosamund Pike.
Plenty of podcasts/online shows before Marc Maron and Joe Rogan. Rogan's is just huge. I have enjoyed most of the episodes I've seen; the one with Sir Roger Penrose is fascinating - what a great mind!
As to his comedy, I don't think I'll ever forget Rogan perching himself on a stool and pretending to be a Kardashian demon. It's hilarious and (for me) unforgettable.
He isn't the finest stand-up comic, he isn't the best interviewer, but he's made me laugh hard and I've enjoyed his interviews.
Even if I didn't enjoy those things, I'd still love his work on Newsradio, which has always been - and continues to be - a masterfully done and undervalued shows.
View all replies >