RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,224
Posts: 5,405,574
Members: 24,764
Currently online: 411
Newest member: beakel001

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > TV & Media

TV & Media Non-Trek television, movies, books, music, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 21 2012, 07:42 PM   #31
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

foxhot wrote: View Post
Me: Take away the FX work, and what's left? What's the other reason it's revered? It's a massive moneymaker, but so are Adam Sandler and Preparation H. The difference between it, JAWS and RAIDERS is painfully clear. And one kid does die: the baby. Babies are kids. That's a straight fact.
The original novel has no FX. It seems I really don't get your argument.


Speaking of Kubrik... I never really saw the appeal in his films. 2001, for example. It's bloated. It could be cut down to half an hour without losing anything (well, except for the overlong shots). I don't really see the magic in it. Or for Full Metal Jacket. The beginning is interesting, but only because of Ermey. And then his character dies because he's an idiot, and then it turns into a somewhat crazed, but still rather typical anti-war movie.

Hitchcock on the other hand, that man's films are truly worthwhile, and he had a much greater influence on the following generations, in my opinion.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2012, 07:48 PM   #32
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

foxhot wrote: View Post
There's good popcorn movie like RAIDERS and JAWS, because of their stories. Then there's JURASSIC.
Given a choice between a story about a fish that not only goes out of its way to hunt a specific boat, but also willingly and repeatedly uses its most sensitive body part as a battering tool against wood, and a story about dinosaurs escaping from their theme park... I'll go with the latter, thanks.
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2012, 10:55 PM   #33
foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
foxhot's Avatar
 
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

Real sharks aren't as tenacious as in JAWS as far as we know. Of course, if we believe the final sequel JAWS: THE REVENGE, the latest shark actually carries a blood vendetta against the wife and children of the man who killed two of his fishy relatives. I'll take JURASSIC over JAWS IV. I'm not THAT crazy.

''The original novel has no FX. It seems I really don't get your argument.''

I'm not slamming the book. I'm slamming the film in comparison to what Spielberg is capable of with his other, better films. Perhaps if JURASSIC is preferable to JAWS, to some it may be a generational thing. I was 10 when I saw JAWS but 27 when I saw JURASSIC so I had different reference points. Anyhow, if LINCOLN is at least as good as MUNICH or better I'll be very satisfied.

I also love 2001 and the majority of Hitchcock.
foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 12:33 AM   #34
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

Gaith wrote: View Post
foxhot wrote: View Post
There's good popcorn movie like RAIDERS and JAWS, because of their stories. Then there's JURASSIC.
Given a choice between a story about a fish that not only goes out of its way to hunt a specific boat, but also willingly and repeatedly uses its most sensitive body part as a battering tool against wood, and a story about dinosaurs escaping from their theme park... I'll go with the latter, thanks.
If we're going to get reductive about plausibility, I think a movie about a shark that eats people and attacks a boat is more plausible than anything you'll find in Jurassic Park. Think about it; a corporation is able to keep secret a group of scientists cloning hundreds of dinosaurs from partial DNA samples and the construction of a massive, hugely expensive theme park -- both of which appear to have been accomplished in a relatively short period of time.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 03:36 AM   #35
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Speaking of Kubrik... I never really saw the appeal in his films. 2001, for example. It's bloated. It could be cut down to half an hour without losing anything (well, except for the overlong shots).
Perhaps you expect the film to be about the plot. It's not. It's an entirely visual exercise, and, as I believe Kubrick said, "Nothing important [in it] is conveyed in dialogue."
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 03:58 AM   #36
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

Harvey wrote: View Post
If we're going to get reductive about plausibility, I think a movie about a shark that eats people and attacks a boat is more plausible than anything you'll find in Jurassic Park. Think about it; a corporation is able to keep secret a group of scientists cloning hundreds of dinosaurs from partial DNA samples and the construction of a massive, hugely expensive theme park -- both of which appear to have been accomplished in a relatively short period of time.
I'm far more interested in in-movie consistency than with plausibility per se. Pretty much everything about Jurassic Park is big and outlandish all the way through, so I can roll with it. Jaws, on the other hand, is fairly low-key, believable and realistic in the first half, with a few swimmers getting munched on here and there, then turns into Terminator On Water! in its second. An hourlong movie wouldn't have been marketable, granted, but from an artistic standpoint, I'm inclined to think the whole expedition/hunt sequence ought to have been scrapped, or at the very least drastically reduced. In Man vs. Monsters terms, I much prefer Alien, a rather more internally consistent film.
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 12:41 PM   #37
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

Maurice wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Speaking of Kubrik... I never really saw the appeal in his films. 2001, for example. It's bloated. It could be cut down to half an hour without losing anything (well, except for the overlong shots).
Perhaps you expect the film to be about the plot. It's not. It's an entirely visual exercise, and, as I believe Kubrick said, "Nothing important [in it] is conveyed in dialogue."
So Kubrik is the godfather of everything I hate in Hollywood films? And then, there's nothing important in the visuals of, for example, the docking sequence that couldn't have been conveyed in a tenth of the time.



For 2001, the criticism guys brought up against Jurassic Park applies even more: take the FX out, what's left? The entire film disappears.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 02:24 PM   #38
foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
foxhot's Avatar
 
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

That's also true, though 2001 is unique in its intentions and to me is one of our rare cinematic poems. It's in three acts, but these acts are not dependent on what traditional films rely on. I think it succeeds on its own unique terms. Being an earlier film, it has less effects than STAR WARS or JURASSIC, but its intentions are for the viewer to partially decide.

Having read the Marvel comics Jack Kirby treasury edition long before actually watching the film, the hidden ideas Kubrick was aiming for seemed pretty evident even though I was 11 at best.

''Jaws, on the other hand, is fairly low-key, believable and realistic in the first half, with a few swimmers getting munched on here and there, then turns into Terminator On Water! in its second. An hourlong movie wouldn't have been marketable, granted, but from an artistic standpoint, I'm inclined to think the whole expedition/hunt sequence ought to have been scrapped, or at the very least drastically reduced.''---Gaith.

JAWS, unlike most movies, is a two-act tale, first on land, then at sea. It takes one hour for the isolated trio to prevail, except of course for Quint. So the pacing of part two, even for a pre-George Lucas film, may have seemed unnatural. Luckily you had Richard Dreyfuss to keep it hilarious and Robert Shaw to keep it dramatic. Spielberg tried not to have his audience guess that Scheider would be the winner, even though he IS top-billed and all and arrives right at the beginning, unlike his two shipmates. The shark kills five people, which is also impressive by 70s standards. When the TERMINATOR came on the scene that body-count skyrocketed....
Bottom line: the pacing was unusual. Seeing it as a kid, I was surprised how long they were at sea.....and nervous for the safety of the trio. This was intentional, which is why Spielberg actually filmed at sea. CGI didn't exist. But if it had, I can't see how it could've made JAWS more memorable. Does anyone out there prefer DEEP BLUE SEA?
foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 05:12 PM   #39
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

There is indeed the thing that CGI enabled filmmakers to do everything they want, and, most of the time, that turns out to be bad. Sometimes, not always, heavy restrictions make a film great.

I got the Complete Making of Indiana Jones, and the first draft for The Last Crusade was horrible. It was called The Monkey King, and had Indy riding on a rhino, a three story tall German tank, an army of speaking gorillas, and more totally ludicrous stuff. But they couldn't do it technically, and that's how we got a much much better film with a much much better script.

And then they could do stuff, and we ended up with the Star Wars prequels and the Transformers films.


Had Spielberg had today's technology back then, Jaws wouldn't have been as good. Or Jurassic Park. The best moments of these films are the result of working around the limitations they had. Don't show everything because you can't show everything. And if there's a moment where they truly show everything, it is a very special thing and the entire narrative leads up to that moment. Today, they can show what they want, and nothing has to lead up to anything anymore.

That's why, for example, the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park sequels become less and less impressive and less and less scary.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 09:33 PM   #40
foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
foxhot's Avatar
 
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

''Had Spielberg had today's technology back then, Jaws wouldn't have been as good.''

I agree 1000 percent there. Plus, the test audiences would no doubt have mucked it up by adding one teenager and a woman on the boat, and they'd be played by----no, scratch that. I don't want to give them ideas for the 2037 remake.

JAWS is considered the first true blockbuster since it was the first to make 100 million in its first run, but STAR WARS and RAIDERS had a greater effect. Both started with a bang, then had roughly 30 minutes of peace and quiet. After that, they deliver a climax just about every ten minutes. Those films both did them well, but it influenced other films to do it badly.

Pauline Kael called STAR WARS ''a box of Cracker Jacks that's all prizes.'' For summer films at least, it's definitely the norm now. Unfortunately, Kael had different beefs with Kubrick.
foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 11:49 PM   #41
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

Maurice wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Speaking of Kubrik... I never really saw the appeal in his films. 2001, for example. It's bloated. It could be cut down to half an hour without losing anything (well, except for the overlong shots).
Perhaps you expect the film to be about the plot. It's not. It's an entirely visual exercise, and, as I believe Kubrick said, "Nothing important [in it] is conveyed in dialogue."
That's why it is such a bad film.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2012, 01:57 AM   #42
foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
foxhot's Avatar
 
Re: There's no one like Kubrick







What????
I thought one of the assets of film was SHOWING rather than telling......
foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2012, 02:09 AM   #43
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

2001 is my favorite film of all time. I've never even seen any of Kubrick's other films, but that one validates everything.

I mean, he built the centrifuge set complete - all the way around. It really existed exactly as we saw it in the film. How cool is that?

(Then again, I also liked 2010, so what the hell do I know.)
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2012, 09:03 AM   #44
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

foxhot wrote: View Post






What????
I thought one of the assets of film was SHOWING rather than telling......
Think again.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 23 2012, 09:43 AM   #45
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: There's no one like Kubrick

beamMe wrote: View Post
Maurice wrote: View Post
Perhaps you expect the film to be about the plot. It's not. It's an entirely visual exercise, and, as I believe Kubrick said, "Nothing important [in it] is conveyed in dialogue."
That's why it is such a bad film.
So every film from the silent era is a bad film, then.

Come on, you're just trolling, right?
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.