Benjamin Franklin Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) I realize it's impossible to give Andy Serkis an Oscar for his performance as Ceasar, since they don't know how yo categorize it (acting or effects). So the Academy needs to create a special achievement award for Serkis and the effects crew, because his performance - moving like a chimp, but showing human emotion through facial expressions - is remarkable. I have loved this apes reboot but this latest was not the best. Yes the apes are amazing but that was already established in the last movie. In this one, the story didn't move me and what was happening to the girl and others was not explained or explored. With my family out of town, I got in two movies and also saw Valerian. Meh. But I want more sci fi and less superhero in movies so I keep up my support of people giving it a try. (Maybe a graphic novel is a comic...whatever.) Valerian seemed like a kids movie. More goofy than good. More comic-y than science fiction-y. Comics are simpler to make and all have a straightforward plot that won't confuse the now-trained audiences: (rise of hero, rise of villain, confrontation, love interest, secret identity, rinse lather repeat). Sci fi plots are a ton riskier. Edited July 26, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 There are some actors that Hollywood just wants to push no matter how bad they are... ie; Lena Dunham and Melissa McCarthy. We can still avoid them if we really want to and it really doesn't take too much effort. I've dodged every single McCarthy movie since Bridesmaids. I've heard Dunham's name, but I don't have the slightest clue who she is. So I can't guarantee that I haven't seen anything she's done, but I'm guessing it's a safe bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Finishing a deadline this weekend (I hope) and treating myself to showings of Dunkirk, Spidey, and Apes if I can swing all three. Gotta catch up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Comics are simpler to make and all have a straightforward plot that won't confuse the now-trained audiences: (rise of hero, rise of villain, confrontation, love interest, secret identity, rinse lather repeat). Sci fi plots are a ton riskier. I also think recently the TV seasons have been far better than the movie experience. You can't truly establish the world a good sci-fi or fantasy story requires in a 2 hr movie. There's much more depth in the longer series platform. For instance, I think the Blade Runner reboot (sequel, but whatever) would be served better in a series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 I also think recently the TV seasons have been far better than the movie experience. You can't truly establish the world a good sci-fi or fantasy story requires in a 2 hr movie. There's much more depth in the longer series platform. For instance, I think the Blade Runner reboot (sequel, but whatever) would be served better in a series. There's some truth to this, without question, but there are also some excellent sci-fi movies that have pulled that off. I think it comes down to the filmmaker's chops and usually requires a lot of innovation storytelling wise and SFX wise. Sadly, the days of "experimental" studio films are dead. The only sci-fi movies that get made are ones with $100m+ budgets, which means the filmmakers are micro-managed to such an extent they aren't given the freedom to push the boundaries of the medium (Besson is an exception to this). That in turn limits innovation within the industry... but I digress. I think you're right though and we're about to see a major sci-fi boom on TV/Streaming outlets and agree that the new platforms that exist out there are perfect for telling a more long-form story and more world-building. There are a ton of new projects in various phases of development with a more sci-fi bent than we've seen on TV in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Been a long time since wife and I have been to the movies. They should start showing movies with all you can drink wine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 26, 2017 Author Share Posted July 26, 2017 I also think recently the TV seasons have been far better than the movie experience. You can't truly establish the world a good sci-fi or fantasy story requires in a 2 hr movie. There's much more depth in the longer series platform. For instance, I think the Blade Runner reboot (sequel, but whatever) would be served better in a series. Are you referring to Network Television, or Cable Television and the other outlets like Netflix & Amazon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Been a long time since wife and I have been to the movies. They've changed a lot since you last went. They have sound now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 They've changed a lot since you last went. They have sound now. Only if the hearing aides are turned all the way up. Don't over-sell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 27, 2017 Author Share Posted July 27, 2017 Finishing a deadline this weekend (I hope) and treating myself to showings of Dunkirk, Spidey, and Apes if I can swing all three. Gotta catch up! Great triple feature. I've enjoyed all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Great triple feature. I've enjoyed all of them. I'm psyched - I've been mad it's taken me this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 I'm psyched - I've been mad it's taken me this long. I would go with Dunkirk, Apes, then Spidey. Start off with an intense movie and finish with something light and happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Apes later today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) There's some truth to this, without question, but there are also some excellent sci-fi movies that have pulled that off. I think it comes down to the filmmaker's chops and usually requires a lot of innovation storytelling wise and SFX wise. Sadly, the days of "experimental" studio films are dead. The only sci-fi movies that get made are ones with $100m+ budgets, which means the filmmakers are micro-managed to such an extent they aren't given the freedom to push the boundaries of the medium (Besson is an exception to this). That in turn limits innovation within the industry... but I digress. I think you're right though and we're about to see a major sci-fi boom on TV/Streaming outlets and agree that the new platforms that exist out there are perfect for telling a more long-form story and more world-building. There are a ton of new projects in various phases of development with a more sci-fi bent than we've seen on TV in a long time. It CAN be done, and certainly has in the past, but it's much more difficult and like you said, now-a-days that's only more true. But even compared to the good ones, series just has a big leg up. There's so much more time to build. In a 1 hour show you can build for 45 minutes as long as there's 15 minutes in there that are exciting/dramatic. It's just a much better format for that kind of thing. Are you referring to Network Television, or Cable Television and the other outlets like Netflix & Amazon? Almost entirely the latter. The freedom they have without having to worry about commercials or timeslots (or parental ratings) gives them an enormous advantage, not to mention the ability to binge entire seasons in short times. On cable, if you have a couple of not so great shows in a row, people are more likely to stop watching ("there hasn't been a good show in WEEKS). On Netflix, you can immediately try "just one more." Edited July 27, 2017 by Acantha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Saw Dunkirk. It was superb. Very sparse, but Nolan builds Suspense like no one else-- through an amazing score By Hans Zimmer and cleverly directed scenes. I don't get the criticism re being unrealistic or not a complete depiction. The movie was about three distinct storylines, which I all found to be compelling and a good slice of the pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted July 27, 2017 Author Share Posted July 27, 2017 We can still avoid them if we really want to and it really doesn't take too much effort. I've dodged every single McCarthy movie since Bridesmaids. I've heard Dunham's name, but I don't have the slightest clue who she is. So I can't guarantee that I haven't seen anything she's done, but I'm guessing it's a safe bet. So have I, but they still continue to cast her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) Saw Dunkirk. It was superb. Very sparse, but Nolan builds Suspense like no one else-- through an amazing score By Hans Zimmer and cleverly directed scenes. I don't get the criticism re being unrealistic or not a complete depiction. The movie was about three distinct storylines, which I all found to be compelling and a good slice of the pie. Yea, I think most people missed the text in the beginning of the movie being significant to the story. The mole - one month The sea - one week The air - one day How he ties them all together is amazing. Edited July 27, 2017 by Wayne Cubed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Saw Dunkirk. It was superb. Very sparse, but Nolan builds Suspense like no one else-- through an amazing score By Hans Zimmer and cleverly directed scenes. I don't get the criticism re being unrealistic or not a complete depiction. The movie was about three distinct storylines, which I all found to be compelling and a good slice of the pie. I criticize war movies as unrealistic because I have unrealistically high standards for war movies. Most of my Dunkirk criticisms are extremely nitpicky ("Why does JG3 have Schlagater Geschwader colors?")...the more general criticisms I've seen (like "Spitfires with unlimited fuel and ammo") are pretty thoroughly idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 I don't get the criticism re being unrealistic or not a complete depiction. The movie was about three distinct storylines, which I all found to be compelling and a good slice of the pie. Why does a guy who can ditch or beach an airplane anywhere he wants, choose to overfly a couple hundred thousand allies in friendly territory, and choose German controlled ground, guaranteeing immediate capture? Why do these Spitfires fly in close formation in a tactical situation? Nobody does that. Why do we have these engagements where kill shots are passed up over and over in order to see gunsight video and the inevitable late, missing shot? Those are the things that I would criticize. It looked like a movie made by a guy who knew he could orchestrate cinematic magic, but there are so many things that didn't make sense, and the three parallel stories, with different time lines, got a bit annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Why do these Spitfires fly in close formation in a tactical situation? Nobody does that. The RAF did it. They flew Vic formations in combat well in to 1941. The spacing was about 50-100 yards, largely to facilitate communication with hand signals (even though Hurricanes and Spits had radios, it's how they were still trained) and because the close formation was more effective against massed bombers. Stupid? Very. The Germans called them "idiot rows." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts