henchman24 posted:I don't really think its fair to give "hollywood" alot of credit for exploiting other forms of media for profit, and being successful at it.
henchman24 posted:Take Harry Potter for example....with a built in audience of millions who read the books, and the level of technology at the disposal of big budget filmakers...all it takes is a functional casting department, and the ability to not completely suck.[ Its less about this amazing evolution from poor to quality filmaking, and more about having the tools to produce realistic visuals, because if we are all honest, thats all we care about.
henchman24 posted:I am sure lots of Spidey fans are here, but its not like the acting in those movies is even good, casting is sub par at best. With the same director/script/cast/score in a movie made even 10 years ago, it would be as good as the live action Spidey tv show. Saying hollywood is finally doing things right is not accurate. Better to say they have tools to mask the poor quality of the work continually being produced.
Vortigern99 posted:henchman24 posted:I am sure lots of Spidey fans are here, but its not like the acting in those movies is even good, casting is sub par at best. With the same director/script/cast/score in a movie made even 10 years ago, it would be as good as the live action Spidey tv show. Saying hollywood is finally doing things right is not accurate. Better to say they have tools to mask the poor quality of the work continually being produced. I cannot disagree more. If any of the above negative-minded complaints were true, then we would see across the board the poor quality of such films as League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Catwoman, Blade 3 or 10,000 BC. Instead we see that these represent the troughs, while projects such as Iron Man, Batman Begins and the Potter series consistently represent the peaks of what can be accomplished with the tools now available. Such tools include liberating FX technologies and an understanding on the part of the filmmakers of what makes these kinds of films work.
Vortigern99 posted:henchman24 posted:Take Harry Potter for example....with a built in audience of millions who read the books, and the level of technology at the disposal of big budget filmakers...all it takes is a functional casting department, and the ability to not completely suck. Its less about this amazing evolution from poor to quality filmaking, and more about having the tools to produce realistic visuals, because if we are all honest, thats all we care about. I can't speak for you, but as a writer I care about characterization, dramatic stories, engaging material and a degree of verisimilitude. As an artist I care about the aesthetics of any given costume choice, background scenery, shot composition, or photographic stock. That you confess to only or mainly caring about "realistic visuals" does not make it so with anyone else.
henchman24 posted:Take Harry Potter for example....with a built in audience of millions who read the books, and the level of technology at the disposal of big budget filmakers...all it takes is a functional casting department, and the ability to not completely suck. Its less about this amazing evolution from poor to quality filmaking, and more about having the tools to produce realistic visuals, because if we are all honest, thats all we care about.
Vortigern99 posted:We'll just have to disagree. The Potter series, for example, drew me in as brilliant cinema, especially the third film. I was not part of the "built-in" audience of fans of the books, and yet I loved the movies from the get-go as classic examples of children's fantasy films. Perhaps you are distracted by the pretty lights sparking out of the characters' wands, but I for one am looking at more subtle layers of aesthetic craftsmanship, dramatic conflicts, and believable, nuanced performances.
Vortigern99 posted:As to your question, "Who wants to watch a movie about Catwoman?" -- the answer is "Everyone -- if it's a good movie!" However, as we all know, the Berrie movie was decidedly not. You seem to be confusing a premise or an idea with the execution of that idea. Either a film is well-made and entertaining, or it isn't. An excellent, riveting, true-to-the-source Catwoman movie could be made, but so far it hasn't been. I use this as a counter-example against your assertion that since filmmakers have CGI and good FX, they can just churn out good movies one after the other. Obviously this is not the case.
Koohii posted:Del Toro has a style with his critters that repeats Pan's Labyrinth, but isn't a Henson.
Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted:I just watched Zemeckis' Beowulf (my second viewing after the initial theatrical showing), and I must opine once more that this is a brilliant, unusual and imaginative fantasy film that has been woefully underrated. It's not perfect: the music is underwhelming for the most part, the faces are not as expressive as either real human faces or traditionally animated faces, and it isn't as emotionally affecting as it aspires to be. But overall it is excellent, especially the last 20 minutes in which the dragon runs amok and we learn the secret of Grendel's paternity. Fascinating stuff, beautiful to look at, punctuated with spectacular action, Beowulf deserves higher acclaim than it's gotten.
