 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
84.169.229.216
Well, this is shit film done...right!
Does it take a Mike Newell to do a big all digital film right?
It look like it is!
After the disaster of King Kong this one is worth a look.
Follow Ups:
...my fave being the one where the twins pick up their dates for the ball...but on the whole I'd have to say I much preferred Cuaron's work with PoA.I didn't think Newell handled the big FX scenes particularly well, nor did he have the remarkable visual flow (and metaphor) of Cuaron.
OTOH, he did handle the kid's interaction well. However, I thought he let Gambon get too over-the-top - and I kept wanting to cut Ron & Harry's hair throuought the entire film.
No, for me I had much more fun on Newell job, Cuaron was a little dark on the scale, even if Newell as you said did not do the best job on FX ( As in King -Kong, BTW ) it had more flow & juice in the story telling...
In a way it was more classical...
For the second best for the whole series it was Cuaron, anyway. ( in my view )
I like Gabon work but not the hair and adolescent look of the kids...But should we stop to watered them?
I thought this one was the best yet, although Richard Harris is still missed as Dumbledore. Fiennes as Voldemort wasn't quite as malevolent as I would have liked. It's fun to see how much the young actors have developed and made the roles their own.Peter Jackson needs to go back to his Heavenly Creatures roots and make a small film sans CGI. Kong was a mess, overlong and filled with excess (hey, if Kong fighting one T-Rex would look great, imagine a World Wrestling Federation tag team!) I felt more beat up than entertained after leaving the theater.
It is almost 100% what I think on all accounts.
"Well, this is shit film done...right!"What does that mean?
"Does it take a Mike Newell to do a big all digital film right?
It look like it is!"
Was it shot on digital? It does have that look. Not sure what is right about that though. ugly is ugly even if you have a good director.
"After the disaster of King Kong this one is worth a look."
Interesting allusion. King Kong was shot on film by the way.
My understanding is that the actors were shot on film, but all the footage was transfered to digital video anyway for post-production work. So the finished movie was completely digital, which was then transfered to 35mm film for release to the theaters.
"My understanding is that the actors were shot on film, but all the footage was transfered to digital video anyway for post-production work."
All the actors and practical sets were shot on film. Any shot that had any form of CGI is then digitally scanned, not transfered to digitl video and then transfered back to film after the CGI was added. If there was no CGI in a shot there was no need to digitally scan the image.
" So the finished movie was completely digital, which was then transfered to 35mm film for release to the theaters.'Certainly much of it was scanned but all of it? Could be. It is done with many films these days. Not the same as shooting it on digital and certainly not the same as digital video.
SHIT is a vernacular word in Modern English denoting the feces, the solid byproduct of digestion. (see link below)Apparently in Europe, especially among expatriot Frenchmen, scatological references are thought of as clever when tossed out euphemistically to convey a "hipper" understanding of conversational English. Notice how the word "shit" virtually rolls off of patrick's tongue. ;^)
Does that help? :o)
AuPh
.
Ex nihilo, nihil fit . . .
Tell us what did your mother to you?
(nt)
...how come everybody else here finds something to say about movies, while you - for who knows how long - have produced nothing but kindergarten level personal insults.If all you can do is sit in the corner, bitter at the whole world that someone did not like the toy you brought to the playground, sulking and spitting out stupid pre-adolescent insults, then be it, fine with us. That however does not present you as an opponent worth acknowledging or responding to.
A fool is as fool does.
... "The question you should be asking yourself... is... how come everybody else here finds something to say about movies, while you - for who knows how long - have produced nothing but kindergarten level personal insults." < < <Calling a film or series of films $#!+ isn't exactlly an intelligent examination of cinematic merit, especially when the scatological comments are curtly expressed and aren't even followed up with a cursory critique. If that's what you use this forum for, then fine, but at least be honest about it. You're not fooling anyone about who's dishing out "kindergaten level" insults when you allign yourself with folks who treat certain films in such a dismissive manner that it impunes the tastes of those who like them.
> > > "If all you can do is sit in the corner, bitter at the whole world that someone did not like the toy you brought to the playground, sulking and spitting out stupid pre-adolescent insults, then be it, fine with us. That however does not present you as an opponent worth acknowledging or responding to." < < <
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinions, no matter how off target your invective obviously is, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over the inaccuracy of your personal criticism unless Donald Rumsfeld decides to use your mind as a blueprint for missile guidence. Dude, now THAT is a scary thought! ;^)
BTW, I've been down the route of acknowledging and responding to you in a sincere and open discussion, and while you & patrick possess impressive egos, I've seen little in the way of constructive film critique. The reasons the discussions usually devolve into something disrespectful is the confrontational attitude you "Romper Room" Ropers & Eberts espouse (...sorry, I forgot, you're more in tune with Larry the Cable Guy, aren't you?).
> > > "A fool is as fool does." < < <
Thanks for the words of wisdom, Forrest! Maybe you should share them with your "sole" mate since you popped over at his request from the great Outside just to stick your own clod-hoppers into the fray. I'll give you credit for the brazen defense of his sophomoric scatological comments (as a substitute for film criticism) by trying to divert attention to my responses, but it's still a lame effort on your part.
On a more positive socks-half-full-as-opposed-to-half-empty note, you should have no difficulty with the delicate surgical removal of his foot from his mouth regardless of his shoe size (you've had plenty of experience refining this surgical proceedure through extricating your own foot on numerous occasions, have you not?). :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
It is perfectly normal to use words like shit, crap, trash, etc in a conversational discussion of films, just like words like marvel, gem, hight of artistic achievement - there is really no difference. What is NOT normal is your immature inability to handle the rejection, and no matter how you try to cover it, it all has to do with people's strong dislike of a film you considered... well, a marvel (well, and that would not be "exactlly an intelligent examination of cinematic merit" either). Ever since then you have been on the vendetta path, stalking people here. Most people learn to handle such rejections and move onto things that matter to them.Also, writing things like "$#!+" in place of words you find offensive is a sign of a philistine, and something we expect the giggly thirteen year old girls do, but we expect them to stop by the age of sixteen. If you see a word as fit, use it. If, OTOH, you consider it inapropriate, then do not use it, and do not resort to all those S**t's, f@@k's and shoots.
All in all, Patrick has written more about more films than you will probably ever see in your life, and a good advice for you would be to move onto movies and their discussions, rather than keep ratheching up the already astronomical level of stupididy in your film-unrelated posts. Your endless personall attacks do not contribute to anything productive here.
> > > "It is perfectly normal to use words like shit, crap, trash, etc in a conversational discussion of films, just like words like marvel, gem, hight of artistic achievement - there is really no difference." < < <MOST folks are respectful of other's film tastes (notice my emphasis on the word 'most'); use of profane language to describe a film without provision of a well reasoned rationale for it is the epitome of vulgarity, insensitivity and arrogant behavior.
> > > "What is NOT normal is your immature inability to handle the rejection..." < < <
Rejection? Hmmm, ...are you sure that your aren't transposing your own fears, negativism and unpleasant experiences onto others? Food for thought. As for maturity, your's appears limited to age rather than emotional development.
> > > "...you have been on the vendetta path, stalking people here." < < <
Excuse me for a moment while I clean up the spewed coffee! ... What can one say about an over-the-top assertion like the one you've just proffered? This is pure baloney and you know it. The only "stalking" going on around here can be found along the twisted "vendetta path" trailing from your own snobbery! When you and patrick are bored you two Ebert/Roper wannabes stealthily attack certain films over and over again just to get a reaction.
Apparently you guys only see it as a "win" if everyone agrees with your warped grey poupon perspective. So you keep carpet-bombing insults at the films you both "love to hate" with a smirk and a strut in the hope that film mavens will either come over to the "dork side of your farce" or give up and move on having been low-brow beaten into submission.
> > > "Most people learn to handle such rejections and move onto things that matter to them." < < <
That's an oddly ironic statement, because you sure don't practice what you preach.
> > > "Also, writing things like "$#!+" in place of words you find offensive is a sign of a philistine, and something we expect the giggly thirteen year old girls do..." < < <
Interesting use of the word "we" in your diagnosis, Hippocrates. Your comment makes about as much sense as my saying that you're apparently infatuated with thirteen year old girls, but let's not go there, patrick might get jealous. ;^)
> > > "All in all, Patrick has written more about more films than you will probably ever see in your life..." < < <
A mime is a terrible thing to waste; too bad he chose not to be one! ;^)
> > > "...good advice for you would be to move onto movies and their discussions..." < < <
I'll take that under advisement, but as I provide at least as much insight on AMERICAN film as either of our two grey poupon specialists without any insulting Euro-trash snobbery I think it would behoove you to follow your own advice.
> > > "...endless personall attacks do not contribute to anything productive here." < < <
I would agree; perhaps you'll be the archetect of your own positive reconstruction and next time you won't build your house out of glass.
AuPh
If you pay attention to quotation marks you won't make this mistake
My sarcasm was (I thought) obviously intended for patrick's benefit, even though responding to your query. The somewhat sardonic remark wasn't directed at you, Scott; sorry if you misinterpreted it that way. You're merely an innocent bystander! :o)AuPh
I probably should have seen it for what it was.
Ha-ha!Well I meant with " shit " a big commercial product, that was more on the lovely side...From me.
I do not know if it was shot on digital, but many film are done that way now and even when shot on real film, many are digitally proceed in the final stage.
I meant the digital effect, I did not go in details for this film because I though nobody here would care!
The same was meant fo K-K, not the film but the effect, the trickery if you want.As for digital versus celluloid, it is a very long subject, each of the proceding has his advantage.
For me, it is of course, the old fashion way I pretend to like much more.
"Ha-ha!
Well I meant with " shit " a big commercial product, that was more on the lovely side...From me."Check the quotation marks and you will see that "shit" isn't isolated in my post. I was asking what your statement meant not what that word meant.
"I do not know if it was shot on digital, but many film are done that way now and even when shot on real film, many are digitally proceed in the final stage."
Digitizing film is a very differnt thing than shooting straight on digital. When done well you can't tell the difference between diitally scanned film image and the original. OTOH the digital cameras are still far from film quality.
"I meant the digital effect,"
Digital in film has any number of effects depending on what is being done digitally.
" I did not go in details for this film because I though nobody here would care!"Then why post at all?
"The same was meant fo K-K, not the film but the effect, the trickery if you want."
But much of what you see in King Kong is done without any digital processing. It does not look like it was shot on digital where as the last two Harry Potter movies do. You can tell the difference can't you?
"As for digital versus celluloid, it is a very long subject, each of the proceding has his advantage.
For me, it is of course, the old fashion way I pretend to like much more."
The only advantage I have ever seen in digital was only an advantage if one is doing forensic documantation in very low light. Ugly is ugly. Digital motion photography is ugly. I am sure it will get better but for now no thank you.
No I did not. I understood it and gave you an answer.
Well I read you can ( see the difference ) It was on " Cahiers du Cinema ) certainly the world best or near mag on films.
Because of you, obviously...
As for digital, no one of us needs to argue.
"No I did not."I suppose not now that Audiophilander made it clear that his "mistake" was actually deliberate.
" I understood it and gave you an answer."
You may have understood the question, you did not give me an anaswer to the qustion asked.
"Well I read you can ( see the difference ) It was on " Cahiers du Cinema ) certainly the world best or near mag on films."
Sorry patrick, I just don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
"Because of you, obviously...
As for digital, no one of us needs to argue."
Not really sure what you mean here either. It does seem you have a lot of misunderstandings about digital in film. There cetainly is plenty to discuss and even debate on the subject but it is futile if you have such basic misundrstandings about the technology.
Hello,
Getting too complicated!
Letīs meet another day on another theme.
Happy Eastern!
"Hello,
Getting too complicated!"The meaning of one senence that you posted has become too complicated? Um er ok.....
"Letīs meet another day on another theme."
To bad, this could have been a good one.
"Happy Eastern!"
I'm more Western.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
