Greetings! An URL?! Really? I just want to upload a picture directly to here without having to do it elsewhere first. Ugh. Oh well. Now in random order.
#00: Wow! Enough time has gone by that there are now enough young people that weren't around yet, when "Titanic" came out! Sigh. In "Entertainment Tonight" and "Entertainment Weekly", et al, there was a lot of speculation about how that movie did so well at the box office, despite the length. It amazed a lot of show business people.
Eventually enough time elapsed that a proper analysis could be made. So ever since then, "The Titanic Formula", has been a business model to emulate. Some have been better at it than others, of course. Mixing genres has been more difficult to accept for some, than for others, but hey, that applies to a lot of other stuff too. Especially food!
#01: "Kiss the girl!" Hey, in Real Life, it happens. You get to a moment where you realize that the opportunity may not ever happen again. So if you don't do it when you can, it might be a lost opportunity, forever lost. Like one of you is moving away forever, and you may never see each other again. Or hey, one or both of you could die at any moment, because of the battle around you!
People that are used to seeing men only, engaged in combat, in which there isn't expected to be such a scene, tend to overreact when they see romantic moments, because they either haven't adapted yet, or are not used to them yet, from lack of experience. (They don't see enough movies, et cetera, to see the pattern and how normal it has become.)
When they kissed in the field of battle, and there were explosions near them, some may have thought that was a reason to not kiss, because they were in danger! So they don't see the artistic license in play, of replacing fireworks from nowhere that sometimes happens during a kiss scene, with explosions that suddenly resemble a fireworks show, as battle conditions are taken advantage of to do so.
#02: Genre identity. Hmm. Superman, was given an official, "Vulnerability: Magic", aspect, as a part of recognizing that as an SF character, he is at odd a with Fantasy characters. They deferred to Magic rather than Science. However, what they didn't think of at the time of that writing, is that yes indeed, Science-Fiction elements can exist in a Fantasy story, but Fantasy elements can't exist in a Science-Fiction story, as it becomes by default a, Fantasy story. They wanted to keep their various characters labeled with their intended genre label, yet still allow them to mingle. Hence the compromise terms, already referred to in the forum.
#03: Okay. I've seen enough movies now, to see a pattern or trend concerning, Tax Credits! You do not have to make a part of your movie or series in a country to get such financial relief from them anymore. It seems to be the same ones too. New Zealand, Canada, and.... Australia? The movie was made there anyway, so that's "throwing me off", as they say. At least there wasn't a logo from Georgia involved!
#04: Digital sets! Okay, the random observations finally clicked into place for me. As I try to read the end credits, it is easier to notice the bits about location filming. When they leave out a place, I wonder if it means stock footage was used, in which a stock company gets thanked for providing it, or is it a location pretending to be another. (Like in that last movie about Wolverine, some places in New Mexico, stood in for "Remington Park" that is in Oklahoma City. But the movie didn't show any of the park signage.) Well, now I see that digital sets are common place now.
I saw scenes of them acting on a green screen set, before I saw the movie. Then when I saw the movie, my subconscious was filling in the blanks for me until my conscious realised what had happened. So unless they have a replica of a Sicilian village at an Australian movie studio lot, they digitally replicated that location! No need to travel to the actual village, if there is such a place. Hmm.
#05: "CGI"? The way that some of you use that term, it seems odd to me. It like being aware of old-fashion model work, matte backgrounds, stunt people, et al, and then constantly referring to such, during descriptions of a battle. Okay it lets us know that you are sophisticated enough to know how they made a movie, but you don't need to remind us in every sentence, that you, "didn't fall for it, you knew it wasn't real!", as if you fear that.
That aspect versus, simply reviewing the visuals, and letting others know if you liked them or not. The problem is when both contexts seem to be in play. Hmm.
I'm reminded though, of the very first movie made about the, Titanic Disaster. It was a silent movie. A model of the ship and the iceberg, was placed in a wash tub, to film that aspect of the story. That's what their level is sophistication was at the time. An old lady that survived the real tragedy was invited. Afterwards, she was asked what she thought of it. She was mad and sad about it. She wondered why the film crew didn't set down their cameras long enough to help the poor people! So there is something to be said about knowing what's going on.
