SUPPORT FILMTRACKS! CLICK HERE FIRST:
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
iTunes (U.S.)
Amazon.ca
Amazon.fr
eBay (U.S.)
Amazon.de
Amazon.es
Half.com
Glisten Effect
Editorial Reviews
Scoreboard Forum
Viewer Ratings
Composers
Awards
   NEWEST MAJOR REVIEWS:
     1. Incredibles 2
    2. Solo: A Star Wars Story
   3. Deadpool 2
  4. Avengers: Infinity War
 5. A Quiet Place
6. Ready Player One
   CURRENT MOST POPULAR REVIEWS:
         1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
        2. Gladiator
       3. Blade Runner 2049
      4. Batman
     5. Thor: Ragnarok
    6. The Avengers
   7. Spider-Man: Homecoming
  8. Avatar
 9. Dunkirk
10. Phantom Thread
Home Page
Menu Options ▼
Erm... Episode II anyone?

Josh
<Send E-Mail>
(ip142177193075.mpoweredpc.net)
Profile Picture

  Responses to this Comment:
Jockolantern
Pogel Alder
Erm... Episode II anyone?   Tuesday, September 7, 2004 (11:10 a.m.) 

This sentence illustrates why I'll skip this movie:

"From a filmmaking standpoint, this project stands out because it is the first film to be shot entirely in a studio against a blue screen, with all backgrounds and other larger cinematic shots rendered by computers."

And what's with the "digitized" version of Laurence Olivier???

If I wanted to watch an animated film, I'd watch an animated film. I'm interested in real settings, not blue screens.

As for score, it sounds okay... nothing special though, and with a certain tiredness that comes with any emulation of Williams.

Josh

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Jockolantern
<Send E-Mail>
(65.121.98.30)

  In Response to:
Josh

  Responses to this Comment:
Josh
Hardly in the same category.   Tuesday, September 7, 2004 (6:44 p.m.) 

> This sentence illustrates why I'll skip this movie:

> "From a filmmaking standpoint, this project stands out because it is
> the first film to be shot entirely in a studio against a blue screen, with
> all backgrounds and other larger cinematic shots rendered by
> computers."

Well, we knew it was coming sooner or later. . . can't think of a much better way to test it out than with a great looking movie that throws back to old-fashioned acting, filmmaking, and scoring ideas.

> And what's with the "digitized" version of Laurence Olivier???

Time will tell, I suppose. Sounds like another throwback element to me and considering the critics who have seen it are falling in love with it, I'd say that Laurence looks as good as ever.

> As for score, it sounds okay... nothing special though, and with a certain
> tiredness that comes with any emulation of Williams.

Have you heard the complete score?? It's hardly a direct emulation of Williams. . . its got all the elements that a combination score between Goldenthal, Williams, and Korngold would have and is an incredibly fun score to listen to, not to mention quite possibly the coolest main theme fanfare I've heard since the days of Williams' Star Wars and Indiana Jones scores.

It's about time someone not only had the guts to make a movie like this one, but that the director had the guts to let Shearmur score it like he did. There's nothing generic here like MV is constantly throwing at us, and the orchestrations are as rich as the film promises to be.

Sayonara!
Jockolantern

P.S. Sorry, but this is just one of those few scores in a lifetime that I simply have to defend to the death. In the words of Monk, "You'll thank me later."

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Josh
<Send E-Mail>
(ip142177193075.mpoweredpc.net)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Jockolantern

  Responses to this Comment:
Jockolantern
Pogel Adler
Tom
Re: Hardly in the same category.   Tuesday, September 7, 2004 (7:19 p.m.) 

> Well, we knew it was coming sooner or later. . . can't think of a much
> better way to test it out than with a great looking movie that throws back
> to old-fashioned acting, filmmaking, and scoring ideas.

But the CGI completely strips the *photographic* element from the film! What about lighting and shadow? It's all fake, painted. This is an animated film!

> Time will tell, I suppose. Sounds like another throwback element to me and
> considering the critics who have seen it are falling in love with it, I'd
> say that Laurence looks as good as ever.

> Have you heard the complete score?? It's hardly a direct emulation of
> Williams. . . its got all the elements that a combination score between
> Goldenthal, Williams, and Korngold would have and is an incredibly fun
> score to listen to, not to mention quite possibly the coolest main theme
> fanfare I've heard since the days of Williams' Star Wars and Indiana Jones
> scores.

I don't find the fanfare all that memorable or "cool."

> It's about time someone not only had the guts to make a movie like this
> one, but that the director had the guts to let Shearmur score it like he
> did. There's nothing generic here like MV is constantly throwing at us,
> and the orchestrations are as rich as the film promises to be.

Now *that* I won't argue with. Zimmer hasn't done anything of note since Gladiator... although I do like The Ring...

> P.S. Sorry, but this is just one of those few scores in a lifetime that I
> simply have to defend to the death. In the words of Monk, "You'll
> thank me later."

Adrian Monk?

Great show.

Josh

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Jockolantern
<Send E-Mail>
(65.121.98.30)

  In Response to:
Josh

  Responses to this Comment:
Greg
Josh
Re: Hardly in the same category.   Tuesday, September 7, 2004 (10:26 p.m.) 

> But the CGI completely strips the *photographic* element from the film!
> What about lighting and shadow? It's all fake, painted. This is an
> animated film!

Yes, it does strip the film from the photographic element, but it's also a unique new way to look at how cinematography can work. I'm not saying this should replace traditional filmmaking, but the CGI lighting of the film adds to the beautiful noir look of the film and I, for one, look forward to seeing how it pans out.

>

> I don't find the fanfare all that memorable or "cool."

Give it 15-20 years when it's labeled as a film score classic. But, in any event, no one says you have to. . . but you should. What specifically don't you like about it??

> Now *that* I won't argue with. Zimmer hasn't done anything of note since
> Gladiator... although I do like The Ring...

I love Gladiator, but he really hasn't done anything interesting since then. Even The Ring bored me.

> Adrian Monk?

> Great show.

Indeed. Certainly the best television show I've witnessed since Star Trek: TNG. Wonderfully unique, genuinely funny, and heart-warmingly charming in many ways. I'll be sad to see it end, whenever it does.

Sayonara!
Jockolantern

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Greg
<Send E-Mail>
(65-100-83-18.chyn.qwest.net)

  In Response to:
Jockolantern
You can still tell when it's CGI...   Wednesday, September 8, 2004 (2:35 p.m.) 

ALL blue screen backgrounds? Not excited.
CGI is good and I'm glad it's getting better, to the point where it isn't so blatantly obvious.

But I do think it takes away from the experience an actual set can provide. The sense of space definatly has an impact on even the most solid actors.

But anyway, this movie has Angelina Jolie in it, so who's going to be looking at the backgrounds????

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Josh
<Send E-Mail>
(ip142177193075.mpoweredpc.net)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Jockolantern

  Responses to this Comment:
Jockolantern
Re: Hardly in the same category.   Wednesday, September 8, 2004 (3:52 p.m.) 

> Yes, it does strip the film from the photographic element, but it's also a
> unique new way to look at how cinematography can work. I'm not saying this
> should replace traditional filmmaking, but the CGI lighting of the film
> adds to the beautiful noir look of the film and I, for one, look forward
> to seeing how it pans out.

Film noir works best when it's actually *filmed*, don't ya think?

>

> Give it 15-20 years when it's labeled as a film score classic. But, in
> any event, no one says you have to. . . but you should. What
> specifically don't you like about it??

It's alright, just not that memorable. I can't put my finger on it, but it made little impression on me. Maybe at this point only Schnittke does that, hahahaha.

(kidding btw)

> I love Gladiator, but he really hasn't done anything interesting since
> then. Even The Ring bored me.

It's pretty good in the movie!

> Indeed. Certainly the best television show I've witnessed since Star Trek:
> TNG. Wonderfully unique, genuinely funny, and heart-warmingly charming in
> many ways. I'll be sad to see it end, whenever it does.

Au contraire, since DS9 or B5.

Josh

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Jockolantern
<Send E-Mail>
(65.121.98.30)

  In Response to:
Josh

  Responses to this Comment:
Matthew
Re: Hardly in the same category.   Thursday, September 9, 2004 (8:06 a.m.) 

> Film noir works best when it's actually *filmed*, don't ya think?

Sky Captain appears to be a unique new twist on the genre and whether it sticks or not remains to be seen. . . although I severely doubt it will. But, at least it's a breath of fresh air in filmmaking as opposed to all the recycled garbage we're being force fed any more and the all CGI approach seems a valid approach to making a film, whether it ends up working or not. I'll know September 17th.

> It's alright, just not that memorable. I can't put my finger on it, but it
> made little impression on me. Maybe at this point only Schnittke does
> that, hahahaha.

Ah.

> It's pretty good in the movie!

Meh. . . I never thought so. That's the only context I've heard it in and I still wasn't too big on it.

> Au contraire, since DS9 or B5.

I've not seen all of B5 yet, so I can't say, but you should be proud to know that after watching some more DS9, I am know a fan of the show. Once you dig past the slowness of the first few seasons, things really start to get interesting and its actually an incredibly engaging show.

Sayonara!
Jockolantern

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Matthew
<Send E-Mail>
(ip-185-14.student.appstate.edu)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Jockolantern
Re: Hardly in the same category.   Monday, September 20, 2004 (10:45 p.m.) 

Hans Zimmer hasn't done anything interesting since "Gladiator" you say?

Have you not heard of "Hannibal" or "The Last Samurai?"

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Pogel Adler
(isa.imsd.uni-mainz.de)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Josh

  Responses to this Comment:
Josh
Re: Hardly in the same category.   Tuesday, September 7, 2004 (11:56 p.m.) 

> But the CGI completely strips the *photographic* element from the film!
> What about lighting and shadow? It's all fake, painted. This is an
> animated film!

LOL!

"But mooooommmy, I don't like CGI, I don't like CGI, buaaaahhh, cry, cry, cry..."

Just for the info: Of course blue screen stages are lit. Of course you can get real shadows out of BS shots. And it's not 1970, bluescreen-shots do not have Mattelines any more....

Simply avoid the movie, man.
You are not fighting a holy quest for the saving of man-k... ahh.... film-kind.
You are just acting ridiculous.
I bet you hate "Who framed Roger Rabit". You know, the main character is all FAKE, it's not acting with the actors! MY GOODNESS!!!!



Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Josh
<Send E-Mail>
(ip142177193075.mpoweredpc.net)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Pogel Adler

  Responses to this Comment:
Pogel Adler
Re: Hardly in the same category.   Wednesday, September 8, 2004 (3:49 p.m.) 

> LOL!

> "But mooooommmy, I don't like CGI, I don't like CGI, buaaaahhh, cry,
> cry, cry..."

I like CGI when it's used appropriately, as in LOTR. But for creating the entire external environment of a "live action" film? Simply ridiculous.

> Just for the info: Of course blue screen stages are lit. Of course you can
> get real shadows out of BS shots. And it's not 1970, bluescreen-shots do
> not have Mattelines any more....

How do you do lighting effects in a virtual set that are fully consistent and photographic in a film employing CGI sets exclusively?

> Simply avoid the movie, man.
You are not fighting a holy quest for the
> saving of man-k... ahh.... film-kind.
You are just acting ridiculous.
>
I bet you hate "Who framed Roger Rabit". You know, the main
> character is all FAKE, it's not acting with the actors! MY GOODNESS!!!!

I love "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." I don't recall any CGI sets in it, and, as for Toon Town, the *point* was that it was animated... but even Toon Town wasn't completely animated!

Josh

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Pogel Adler
(isa.imsd.uni-mainz.de)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Josh
Re: Hardly in the same category.   Wednesday, September 8, 2004 (11:55 p.m.) 

> I like CGI when it's used appropriately, as in LOTR. But for creating the
> entire external environment of a "live action" film? Simply
> ridiculous.

I strongly doubt that LotR didn't want to show off with it's VFX. You could have used much more "appropriately".

> How do you do lighting effects in a virtual set that are fully consistent
> and photographic in a film employing CGI sets exclusively?

I do not know what you're saying, but there are numerous techniques. (maybe HDRI?)
And who says that it has to be 100% real? As long as it looks good or realistic or appropriate or whatever, I don't have a problem with workaraounds.
You know, films with real sets are not even lit realisticly! There are simply not 50 suns of various sizes in real life....

I love "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." I don't recall any CGI sets in
> it, and, as for Toon Town, the *point* was that it was animated... but
> even Toon Town wasn't completely animated!

I think there is the problem. Nobody said something about CGI sets. I simply said animated.
Do you think CGI is worth less then traditional animation? I'm not assuming anything, I'm asking you.
And BTW, I was referring to the Rabbit himself.

You know, I think this is leading nowhere, you won't let go of your point, I won't of mine. And I don't want a 'real' fight here.
So I'll just try leaving it at that and enjoying the great score!

PA

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Tom
<Send E-Mail>
(user-11fa17d.dsl.mindspring.com)

  In Response to:
Josh
Re: Hardly in the same category.   Saturday, September 18, 2004 (5:51 a.m.) 

> But the CGI completely strips the *photographic* element from the film!
> What about lighting and shadow? It's all fake, painted. This is an
> animated film!

While you may be distressed over the lack of "photographic" elements, i.e., cinematogpraphy, and it is comp animated, there is truly a sense of artwork here, be it real or imagined shadows. A lot of imagination, hard work and even more determination went into this guys first feature film and it paid off. True heart is behind this film and talent as well. RERELY does a studio get behind a newbie and make something as different as this with millions of their money. And Shearmur is on his way to being Sky Captain of young composers.

Tom

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Pogel Alder
(irla.imsd.uni-mainz.de)

  In Response to:
Josh

  Responses to this Comment:
Josh
Re: Erm... Episode II anyone?   Tuesday, September 7, 2004 (11:47 p.m.) 

What are you gonna do about it?
You should not care about HOW it was accomplished but how the end result looks, and how the story works an the actors act. (And of course how great the music is !!)
Episode 2's problem is not the CGI and if the actors blame the blue screen for them not being able to act properly, then they are simply not good actors.


Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Josh
<Send E-Mail>
(ip142177193075.mpoweredpc.net)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Pogel Alder
Re: Erm... Episode II anyone?   Wednesday, September 8, 2004 (3:45 p.m.) 

> What are you gonna do about it?
You should not care about HOW it was
> accomplished but how the end result looks, and how the story works an the
> actors act. (And of course how great the music is !!)
Episode 2's
> problem is not the CGI and if the actors blame the blue screen for them
> not being able to act properly, then they are simply not good actors.

Hardly. A film is not a play, and the actors are not performing on stage in a single performance. Actors have to interact with their environment - blue screens are not the same as doing theatre with minimal props. I disagree that it's an appropriate way of filming.

Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display



Copyright © 1998-2018, Filmtracks Publications. All rights reserved.
The reviews and other textual content contained on the filmtracks.com site may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Christian Clemmensen at Filmtracks Publications. Scoreboard created 7/24/98 and last updated 4/25/15.