That's lesson number 3, but is the most important one of course.
Wasn't that lesson number 2?
Recently picked up Last Starfighter on blu-ray, as it had never been released on DVD in R2, had to wait for the region free blu-ray.
Do bad visual effects ruin sic fi for you?
- Thread starter Gotham Central
- Start date
What do you enjoy? The stellar performances, the inspired dialogue, or the ground-breaking story?
Its a fun movie, and a rare space opera adventure (a mish-mash of This Island Earth, Star Wars). I think you'll find a lot of people who grew up in the 80s have a soft spot for it, though I admit, its no classic, and doesn't wind up in my top 15 SF of the decade. Its also significantly less dumb than most modern action/SF.
RAMA
Exactly. Of course, it wasn't full of self-loathing characters and packed with angst-ridden bullshit, so it clearly has nothing to offer the modern audience.
Also, the story and most of the performances were too hokey and unimpressive to entertain reasonably sophisicated kids today. Preston and the guy playing the lizard are the only memorable actors, and the effects are cool.
Generally very little produced excells, but this is true of almost all things. That doesn't man one stops looking for strong or great material.
Heck this is a Trek board, and I grew up with the original series, and I love it. But I have no problem at all understanding that a large portion of the show isn't good (and this true of almost every single show ever made). But I love, love the episodes that just work. Those are the ones I have watched 500 plus times, "And the Children shall lead" maybe ten (God I hate that episode).
B5's effects are okay, but whenever I watch an episode I immediately notice that all outer space scenes are jerky and awkward. Nothing moves smoothly. It's like somebody's sitting there hitting PAUSE on the remote every two seconds.
I think a good example of stories over effects is Titanic. A night to remember and James Camerons Titanic. A night to remember was in black and white and had comparitively poor effects but they were good for their time. It alsofoloowed events and the experiences of real people rather than foolow some drawn out love love story.
The 1997 James Cameron's Titanic is pretty awesome! So is the 1953 version of Titanic starring Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck. That movie was not as authentic to detail as Cameron's version but the special effects are pretty good for the time. This version also follows a love story in a fictional family and it is very good.
Both were great movies.
Same here. In fact the same could be said for Cameron's version. All three have enjoyable moments, but A Night to Remember is the Titanic film to remember. Hands down, the best of the three.
Of course, the book is ever better, but that's a different subject entirely.
It sinks.
Which version does your Spoiler pertain to
Which version does your Spoiler pertain to
In James Cameron's version, I wanted it to sink even sooner. And not just because the CGI was very fake looking in places.
Which version does your Spoiler pertain to
In James Cameron's version, I wanted it to sink even sooner. And not just because the CGI was very fake looking in places.
Agreed! I mean, come on! Fake sunsets? He couldn't find a real sunset to film? Cameron is aware that our planet circles a sun, right?
My fave Titanic movie is Raise the Titanic. Now there's some classic cheese.
"It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic"
"It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic"
Heh, yea, Cameron's Titanic just went on and on and on and....Which version does your Spoiler pertain to
In James Cameron's version, I wanted it to sink even sooner. And not just because the CGI was very fake looking in places.
Don't think I've seen the 1953 version.
As to the merits of James Cameron's films...well, many people simply cannot forgive another's success.
