See, once upon a time, there was a great cartoon show on FOX. Actually, there were a couple cartoon shows on FOX: The Simpsons, King of the Hill, Family Guy, and Futurama (�IT JUST WON�T STAY DEAD!�) With the exception of Futurama, all of the other cartoon shows on FOX blew monkey goats (by which I mean they suck*).
In the case of Futurama and Family Guy, both were canceled by the fucking moronic assholes at FOX (which, by the way, stands for �Network Idiots�). However, thanks to the Miracle of The Modern Age, TV Shows on DVD, both shows were granted reprieves: Family Guy was brought back to television as a weekly series (I have no idea why, with the exception of the occasional brilliant parody of the best sci-fi movie series ever, that show blows monkey goats), while Futurama has been brought back as four straight-to-DVD movies, the first of which, Bender�s Big Score, was released today on DVD.
Long story short: Bender travels back in time on behalf of evil nudist aliens to rob Earth�s riches and kill Fry. There�s also a lot of small side plots � Hermes chops off his head, Leela has a romantic interest. Oh, yeah, there�s a lot of time-traveling parodoxical stuff (that really makes my head hurt, even though the Globetrotters work out the mathematical stuff.)
There�s an epic scope to this movie, particularly in the sense that a lot of major and minor characters from the show�s run return. All of the original cast returns (by which I mean the voice actors, of course!), and the opening sequence is slightly changed: every character is highlighted, and the monitor that the Planet Express crashes into is playing a scene from the series� first episode. The FOX executives are � deservedly!!! � well bashed for being, y�know, stupid. Kitten-class ships fly into combat, The Robot Devil plays a wedding, Fry has a tattoo of Bender on his ass, Amy and Leela have a naked scene (well, and so do Zoidberg, Farnsworth** and Fry), and the good guys team up with Evil Santa to defeat a fleet of gold-plated Death Stars.
Everything turns out okay, of course. Well, I mean � �okay� might not be the word. �We�re boned!� Bender says. Meanwhile, I did indeed start to tear up � just a tad � at the end. �Cuz I�m a sap.
I�m looking forward to getting to watch the commentary track. The commentaries on the episodes are one of the best features of the season sets � they really are, you should check �em out if you haven�t already.
Coming Next (probably in May): Futurama - The Beast With A Billion Backs
*Yes, even The Simpsons, which hasn�t been funny since, like, before I had double-digits in my age.
**And I�d been eating, too �
(Just as a side note, you would not imagine how disturbing it is to do a Google image search for FUTURAMA with the safe-mode turned off�)
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I was recently placed in the uncomfortable position of admitting that American Dad is now the best animated program on Fox. Family Guy is still funny, but has gotten so inbred and self-referential (AND has a lot of overly-long jokes that just aren't funny) that I don't mind when I see American Dad first. And yes, it's been years since I've really enjoyed The Simpsons, and King of the Hill doesn't really warrant existing IMO.
All that is about to change, as soon as I can stop in at the shop and pick up this DVD. I've read in some reviews that the new Futurama is also mostly fan-oriented and that not many new fans would be won if they started here... But I've also read that for the Futurama fan, this is a must-have of the highest order. Better still, I understand that this movie is very much a movie in pacing and length, unlike the Family Guy "movie" which was really just three separate episodes sticthed together with additional material (which, to their credit, they admitted to doing in a cut scene from a later episode).
So hail to thee, Futurama! Welcome back!
Mark
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
That's nice, dear...
Now if you have any Bender skins for CS:source for me to forever replace the T L33t, then we'll take you back to your mother in Uguanda, Kentucky...
Maybe.
(I was hoping for a new season of F, not more DVD's, silly) Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I would indeed know how disturbing it is to search for Futurama with the safe mode off. I would indeed. That's why I had to get artificial corneas. (I don't really have artificial corneas, btw.)
I disagree about Family Guy, although I have to say that each individual episode was a flip of the coin as to whether it was funny or not. I do agree that the Simpsons lost Teh Funny a long time ago and now just seems to be boring.
Now to the *point* - FUTURAMAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! God I love that show, and I didn't know the DVD was out already, I hope to God Blockbuster still has a copy, cuz I don't want to spend money to actually buy it but I will if I'm forced to.
And don't worry about being a sap - I teared up during a scene in Lord of the fraggin' Rings. Can anyone scream NERD? (V for Vendetta also makes me cry at the end...but I maintain with fierce determination that anyone who doesn't is a fascist.)
Edit: Oooh, dangling modifier. Sorry, I meant, "I maintain that anyone who doesn't cry at the end is a fascist." Sorry, everybody! < / Family Guy reference >
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well this is good to know, though I don't think I'll buy. Maybe I'll rent it. Also didn't I hear at some point they would air these movies on teh TV.
Yeah about that safe search:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I found Family guy to be not bad, but the real long run on jokes really kill it, they're not bad in some episodes, but others, it makes me change the channel. The Simpsons doesn't even interest me anymore, and American Dad felt too much like Family Guy for me to ever enjoy it. So basically my points already been made for me. (thanks guys) I was just putting my own spin on it.
Futurama is just plain great. And I'm pleased that there will be some new stuff.
There's this other show that I really like, I'm embarrassed to admit to it because it's a "kids" show, but I like it anyways. (Hey, flying motorcycles are always #1 in my book) It's called Stormhawks, and I know I'm probably going to get laughed at for liking it. The show does have kind of a corny aspect to it that I will admit to, but I like the animation, kind of a 3d cell shaded thing. If you ever played Wind Waker you'll see what I mean. It's a welcome change from all the anime crap we get bombarded with, and it's got kind of a Star Wars-esque kind of feel to it.
So there, I've bared my soul, I await your jabs.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: [QB] (V for Vendetta also makes me cry at the end...but I maintain with fierce determination that anyone who doesn't is a fascist.)
Well, I guess I'm a fascist. A stoned fascist... Wow, you guys are in trouble... Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Haha,Da_bang80 your a retard!
In anycase, Gattaca almost made me cry. Once.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
mmm...saw that...I must've been pretty young...*struggles to remember it* Designer babies? Somebody pretends to be genetically superior but he really isn't? Some guy in a wheelchair that helps him? That the one?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It is. Good flick.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
WOOHOO!!! Kiss my shiny metal ass, FOX! Why do they always cancel the good stuff?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Oh, now don't be silly, how bad can it be. . ? *Google Image Searches with SafeSearch off* Holy shit!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
1. Family Guy is like 1000 times better than Futurama.
2. Lord Of The Rings blows.
3. V For Vendetta was pretty good.
4. Gattaca is a great film.
THAT IS ALL.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
You're almost half right.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:1. Family Guy is like 1000 times better than Futurama.
Sure. In Bizzaro Land.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: 1. Family Guy is like 1000 times better than Futurama.
2. Lord Of The Rings blows.
3. V For Vendetta was pretty good.
4. Gattaca is a great film.
THAT IS ALL.
1.Not anymore
2.Amen
3.Hell Yeah
4.Fuck Yeah
THAT IS ALL
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I don't want this to degenerate into a "Yes-huh, nu-uh" kind of deal but - the Lord of the Rings does *not* blow. It does, in fact, rock. Being a conlanger, amateur linguist, fantasy fan, and interested in mythology, it all is, as the LOLCat would say, "relevunt to my intrests."
Edit: DAMN it all, another dangling modifier! *shhht* What is with me?
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Yes it rocked so hard I fell asleep after the 1st five minutes.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: 1. Family Guy is like 1000 times better than Futurama.
2. Lord Of The Rings blows.
3. V For Vendetta was pretty good.
4. Gattaca is a great film.
THAT IS ALL.
1.Not anymore
2.Amen
3.Hell Yeah
4.Fuck Yeah
THAT IS ALL
1. Equally OK
2. Go hump (pleasantly, plz ) a moose, you silly yutz.
3. Agreed.
4. That's the one with genetics and skin flakes, right? Meh, rather read Fisting for Dummies...
THAT IS ALL, The End, Go away, the credits are rolling and your car got towed...
/me goes to check his car
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Fisting Eh? Maybe I'm not the one who should be humping moose. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Never on a first date.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I'm reminded of a silly joke I heard when I was 12 or so ... it ends with "No, no fuck deer, ass too high."
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I would like to clarify:
I have not read the original LOTR books and so I cannot comment whatsoever on how good or not good they are. I was referring to the recent films, which are bloated, overdramatized, overacted, over-CGI'd and represent to me the epitome of what monstrosities our overstimulated age has spawned in cinema. That they have received so much praise and recognition as films is tragic.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I have to politely disagree, my diligent colleague. IMO an epic saga should be overdramatized and overacted. As for the CGI, well, if there really WERE gigantic underground cities, monsters of flame and shadow, armies of tens of thousands of orcs, and tens of thousands of undead shades - well, it would look more real than models or drawings would look. So, I don't really understand why you dislike the amount of CGI in the films.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Things were bad, but now they're good again, forever!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: I have to politely disagree, my diligent colleague. IMO an epic saga should be overdramatized and overacted. As for the CGI, well, if there really WERE gigantic underground cities, monsters of flame and shadow, armies of tens of thousands of orcs, and tens of thousands of undead shades - well, it would look more real than models or drawings would look. So, I don't really understand why you dislike the amount of CGI in the films.
I realize there was no other way to do it and that's part of the problem. CGI now lets filmmakers basically do whatever they want with no account for believability and practicality. There's no way I can take that stuff seriously on film because there's so way I can suspend my disbelief when it looks so unreal. This is not the kind of material that live-action cinema should be used for. Same goes for everything that has followed in LOTR's wake, like Narnia, Harry Potter, Beowulf, Golden Compass, and whatever other bumfuck fantasy elf/troll/wizard/dragon/unicorn-jizzed thing the kiddies are going for these days.
With print you have the ability to make things beleivable that would never in any way pass in a film. That's the power of human imagination. Animation would work too. I can't believe anyone would give an Academy FUCKING Award to something that tries to be a serious live action film with that sort of material, though.
Posted by Ventriloquists Got Shot (Member # 239) on :
There is not a person here who seems to understand the cinema in any capacity whatsoever.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Actually, it wasn't nearly as CGI'd as you might think. Allot of it was "Bigatures". The CGI mostly came into play with the mass battle scenes and creature effects (Balrogs, Trolls etc.)
As for the acting, if it was done as written in the books then it would have been WAY more hammy than it ended up being. Compared to the books the films were subtle and nuanced. Looking at it in context, as a fantasy film it has to compete with the likes a Dungeons & Dragons, Eragon and Dragonheart . Actually, LotR may well have been some of the only fantasy films NOT to feature a dragon. Anyway, by that measure the Rings films are far and apart the best in their field.
As for not liking Futurama Mim, well we can but feel sorry for you. I mean come one, what other show would use quantum mechanics in a punchline?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
If he hasn't read the books he has no frame of reference regarding how much the films actually got right, he seems to have just jumped on the hater-bandwagon, so you are both preaching to the choir and talking to a wall, Rev.
Now, a sci-fi buff that doesn't like Futurama, that was a tough one to get. I don't know what to compare to, except perhaps that Chappelle-skit where he plays a blind man who through funny circumstances has become a KKK grand master.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
No guys, I like Futurama. Quite a bit, actually. I never said I didn't. What I meant to get across was that I like Family Guy a lot more.
As for LOTR, I admit that perhaps my disliking of it is due to deeper-seated prejudices than I'd like admit. Even though I just did.
MAKE LOVE NOT WARTS.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: No guys, I like Futurama. Quite a bit, actually. I never said I didn't. What I meant to get across was that I like Family Guy a lot more.
As for LOTR, I admit that perhaps my disliking of it is due to deeper-seated prejudices than I'd like admit. Even though I just did.
MAKE LOVE NOT WARTS.
/me drives the topic bus back onto I-4Futurama
It rules, me likes. nuff said.
/me drives the topic bus back into oncomng traffic
I would masterbate to the theme song of Macross if they did a GOODLive action remake of SDF:M or even better, DYRL. CGI does amazing things ON THE CHEAP. how much money would you spend on a RL 10,000 raging republican Orcs, on somebody's farm? Let's see:
There's the safety aspect you gotta sweat. figure OSHA's gonna stick thier neck into it. Maybe the govenor of the state you're filming in (cause he's a Democrat)? PETA? ACLU? NAACP? MAMBLA?
besides, if you didn't do CGI, no really cool ST:FC, no really good Mechcommander, or Mechwarrior 2, 2:M, 3 or 4 intros...
and Pokemon Pr0n wouldn't be quite as pedolific...
what were we discussing again?
/me blinks and goes wandering to play DDO.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Maybe it's best we don't get into ST:FC...
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Or Pokemon Pr0n for that matter.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
You know, I dunno if Mim has a really good eye or if he saw it in HD or something, but I was actually quite floored by how real the CGI and bigature shots in LotR looked. For me the Balrog was utterly believable - it looked just like it would look if it were actually real. The only thing that looked obviously CGI to me were the oliphaunts and the dead people, but you really couldn't get away from the dead people looking fake; I imagine in real life they'd still look fake Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
That's funny, I have actually started to feel some of the CGI-age feedback that has started to come; clips that are real but almost too beautiful to be true are suspected as CGI by me sometimes, like the end shot of "Hidalgo", with the beautiful herd of horses flowing over the big field in an aerial shot. My first thought was "wow, nice", my second was "CGI or real, can't tell", which actually lessened the experience.
It's so easy to touch up stuff in film nowadays that anything might be cheesy fake, that's why I liked hearing Spielberg say they would go to lengths not to incorporate large-scale CGI in Indy IV, as it needs to look and feel like the first three, as much as possible.
I tell you now that any large action/adventure production should have at least one good femur- or tibia-fracture among the cast and crew.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I guess it's about attitude, too. I love seeing things that couldn't happen be brought to the screen. I have problems imagining things in scale, so scenes like ten thousand orcs or a giant monster X meters tall or a starship Y meters long...I can't picture it, it's almost meaningless. Seeing it as 'real' as can be really helps me get into the story. I dunno, maybe I just have a weak imagination...
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: I guess it's about attitude, too. I love seeing things that couldn't happen be brought to the screen. I have problems imagining things in scale, so scenes like ten thousand orcs or a giant monster X meters tall or a starship Y meters long...I can't picture it, it's almost meaningless. Seeing it as 'real' as can be really helps me get into the story. I dunno, maybe I just have a weak imagination...
perhaps just a weak stomach? or weakness for cuddly ninja cuddle kittens? (since the only known counter for said cuddle ninja kittens is to smuggle them, which does nothing harmful to them or you but wastes time as you smuggle them...
we're still talking about Bender... right?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
No, you are talking like those randomly generated spam poems that roamed the earth years ago.
quote:No one can allay flax when it's a hundredfold despoiling The corbel curry bellhop. In nature's dandy amatory They revealed a crucial dictionary pizzeria With which he combatted clairvoyant counsels. Finally, the hierarchal catenate called Kelsey Mossy Arachnid Managed to emulsify Afghanistan.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: It's so easy to touch up stuff in film nowadays that anything might be cheesy fake, that's why I liked hearing Spielberg say they would go to lengths not to incorporate large-scale CGI in Indy IV, as it needs to look and feel like the first three, as much as possible.
That *is* good to hear! The Indy movies have a certain look & feel to them, and a lot of CGI in the new one just wouldn't look right.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
To me, the whole development of SFX thing is analogous to that of architecture. Many of the most impressive, long-lasting structures built by humans were designed and constructed without any use of modern technology.
The Pyramids and Mayan cities of millennia ago are so massive and intricate and complex in their engineering as to represent a complete mystery to modern architects. To this day nobody can figure out just how they built this stuff. The art, skills, and science behind them have been lost.
Why? Because we think smaller now. Everything is done in a cost efficient corner-cutting way. We don't think in terms of man power, but of machine power. We will settle for something of lesser quality if it is more practical, if it's easier.
Go stand in front of the Pyramids and then tell me that the prefabricated-and-assembled-on-site Empire State Building is as impressive. Go watch Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus and tell me you'll ever look at any mass battle sequence done with CGI in the same way again.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'd say that's a huge over simplification. I used to work on building sites and trust me, the three most common "technologies" we used are the exact same ones the Egyptians relied on. Scaff, handtools and manpower. DeWalt and CAT just speed things up a little.
As for special effects, as I said I think you'll find there's not as much "CG" (a phrase ignorant people use to describe everything effects related)as you might think. In reality the computer's greatest advantage over the old school stuff is in compositing, image manipulation and editing rather than image generation. It's just another tool and it has it's uses. The problem is that allot of film makers in the last 15 years or so have used it as a crutch and so have given people the odd impression that everything is CG.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: As for special effects, as I said I think you'll find there's not as much "CG" (a phrase ignorant people use to describe everything effects related)as you might think. In reality the computer's greatest advantage over the old school stuff is in compositing, image manipulation and editing rather than image generation. It's just another tool and it has it's uses. The problem is that allot of film makers in the last 15 years or so have used it as a crutch and so have given people the odd impression that everything is CG.
Quoted for truth.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I'm reminded of something from the DVD extras of the extended edition DVD of the Fellowship of the Ring. They show the visual effects guys doing just that - touching up minor artifacts and putting the polish on. For example, Legolas leans forward slightly past Aragorn in one scene to deliver a line; they lightened his face ever so slightly as he did so, something you won't consciously notice but which draws more attention to him as he speaks. That's not at all CG, but they used the same software to do it that they used to generate, for example, the Balrog (Maya).
As for the buildings, remember that yes, the Great Pyramids survived the thousands of years...but how many ancient Egyptian equivalents of office buildings, malls, and apartment complexes survived? I mean, I'm sure Mount Rushmore will outlast the Empire State Building - it's carved from solid rock, like the pyramids were.
But you do have a point about craftmanship - the tolerances to which they built the pyramids, I've heard, are comparable to those of the space shuttle program. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that each side of the great pyramid is less than an inch longer than any other, that it's perfectly aligned with each face (or vertex? I can't remember which) facing a cardinal direction, and that the base which they had to carve out flat is so smooth and flat that there's less than an inch of difference in any one spot from any other. This with chisels and things which (if I'm not mistaken) were made from stone themselves.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I'm certainly not advocating the total eschewal of digital techniques. What I'm saying is that the inherent restraints imposed by traditional practical filmmaking techniques force the filmmaker to think creatively and come up with inventive ways to represent unreality within the confines of reality. It also forces films to focus more on story and character rather than scenery.
There won't be a movie like Lawrence Of Arabia made again, any more than there will be structures like Pyramids built. Cinema is dying. That's not solely due to CGI by a long shot, but it's a prominent factor IMO.
Posted by Ventriloquists Got Shot (Member # 239) on :
"Cinema is dying."
We're playing this game now? Fish live in the sky! Beer is a type of baseball bat! Hamburgers are made from old man's glasses!
Like, if for some reason you attribute the dearth of whatever films you seem to enjoy (as far as I can tell it's either none at all, or bad ones ((Sass)) ) to some kind of death of the art of cinema, or some kind of overarching collapse of the movie industry, then I guess that is cool? But blanket, controvertible and sort-of-nearly-the-opposite-of-true statements like "Cinema is dying" are bizarre at best, and knee-jerk reactions to the scuffles of pretense at worst. Film Theory and Aesthetics was bad enough the first go round.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I suppose you think we're in some kind of Second Renaissance?
There are of course still good, original films being made by some--mostly independents. Mainstream Hollywood films (which the LOTR movies certainly are) are more derivative and devoid of substance and style than ever before.
It's important to note that I'm not saying this as an older person who can't accept the changes that are occuring from what's familiar to him, ("Back in my day...") but rather a young person who's experienced a lot of new and old films and decided that there is clearly more artistic merit in the latter than in the former. (Not that there aren't bad old films and good recent ones as well, but what is considered by most to be the best of today comes nowhere close to the best of 1930-1980.)
It's still just my opinion, of course. I'm entitled as much as you.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Yes, its your opinion - I think that was Ventriloquist's point, if I read him correctly. I think he was saying that you can't say cinema is dying simply because the movies being presently made aren't to your personal tastes.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Well if I can't say that it is, then you can't say it isn't. Isn't it better if we both *can* say what we think?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
It's na�ve and unfair to compare productions in any medium's "early" and "golden" years, when freshness and anticipation was at a premium, to the recent stuff.
We are at a kind of plateau in all areas of art and recreation, no one has invented a new literature genre since the 30's, no really new ways of painting that isn't a pastiche of an earlier period or just "draw an object but with recycled cans or condoms or snot instead". There was post-mod, post-post-mod and then that's it since, what, early 90's?
Many people I've talked to in the university regarding the regurgigation and pastiche-tendency of the 21st century are not sure we will ever leave this phase, but they are of course also agreed that you can't see or fix the problems experienced at one level of development until you are at the next level, looking back.
I'm hoping proper 3d-development will come soon, which will really make you feel depth in a picture, without giving you brain cancer or migraines. Maybe boners. Yes, doughy as the side effect.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Well if I can't say that it is, then you can't say it isn't. Isn't it better if we both *can* say what we think?
You can think it, you can say it, you just can't be right about it. Film, like all art forms from cave painting to computer games are constantly in flux. They change with the times, as do fashions, tastes and culture in general. Look at Charlie Chaplin films, then look at Gone With The Wind, Seven Samurai, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The French Connection, Children of Men. All very different films, very much the product of their time and the personalities behind them, none of which would have been the same had they been made at any other time by any other people, especially when one generation of films inspires and informs the next. I'm not talking about special effects here, I'm talking about tone, pacing, subtext and above all storytelling. All very different and all very good. Also, at the same time these gems were being made, there was also heaps and heaps of utter shite being produced, it's just over time the vast oceans of crap tend to fade into the background until all you can recall are the classics and are left with the impression that they were typical of their age and that these days it's mostly bollocks. Truth is, it's always been mostly bollocks, it's just easier to recall the more recent bollocks than the older bollocks. Which is pretty much how nostalgia works and can be applied to just about everything from cars to music to architecture and so on and so on.
Oh and calling the LoTR "Mainstream Hollywood films" is about the oddest comment I've heard recently. These films were made by a small, mostly independent New Zealand company that until very recently was know for small independent films and b-movie horror flicks. Gaining studio funding and world wide distribution doesn't make something "mainstream", which is a meaningless label anyway. Was Trainspotting mainstream? What about Fight Club, or Donnie Darko? They all had big studio backing and have been seen all over the world, so I suppose they must be.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'll say that, despite never having read the books they're based on, I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
As for "mainstream": yes, I would say the LOTR trilogy is "mainstream" precisely because they aren't cult movies like Trainspotting or Donnie Darko. It has less to do with the film company making them, and more to do with their reception worldwide.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Indeed. When the queen of the prom and captain of the football team are looking forward to the next movie, that's mainstream. (I bout shit my pants when those kind of things happened at my school.)
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I don't dislike the LoTR for their efx, it's just that I'm not into the fantasy genre.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: I'll say that, despite never having read the books they're based on, I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
As for "mainstream": yes, I would say the LOTR trilogy is "mainstream" precisely because they aren't cult movies like Trainspotting or Donnie Darko. It has less to do with the film company making them, and more to do with their reception worldwide.
Granted. I suppose I take issue with the term more than anything, as if it implies the film is somehow less artistically valid.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: It's still just my opinion, of course. I'm entitled as much as you.
Just because it's an opinion does not exempt it from requiring logic, facts, reasoning, or common sense to validate it. Just because it's your opinion does not exempt you from the possibility of being wrong.
And also, every movie's creation is unique and just because something is distributed by a studio does not automatically deem it the pejorative "studio film" label. People spend years trying to get the funding and resources to make a movie, whether they end up coming from a studio or not.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Okay, on the subject of what this thread is actually about... WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT!?
I didn't enjoy that at all! It started with a reasonable promise of goodness, and the overall time travel plot was reasonably intriguing. But somewhere around where Bender started stealing stuff in history the whole thing went straight to hell and just became depressing. There were occasionally good moments (Nibbler eating the guinea pig comes to mind), but I think where the whole thing failed was that the villains were completely unconvincing. Nudar and his friends pretty well ruined it. I wanted to enjoy that so much...
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well I enjoyed it. More so given that it had Mark Hamill riding around in a tie fighter. Overall it felt like they took elements from several of their most popular episodes and mixed them all together. I could see shades of "Luck of the Fryish" "The Farnsworth Parabox" "Time Keeps on Slippin'" "Jurassic Bark" and even a little of "The Sting". Of course that's all mitigated with the fact that most of those episodes were directly or indirectly referenced. Actually, looking at it again I'm surprised at just how much they managed to fit in without destroying the pace or structure. Very good.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I'll offer my opinion after Christmas. Until then, LALALALALALALALALALALALA!
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Well I won't ruin it for you cuz that would be SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE!!! HAHAAHAH!
*zoidberg voice* Gotcha!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by OnToMars:
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: It's still just my opinion, of course. I'm entitled as much as you.
Just because it's an opinion does not exempt it from requiring logic, facts, reasoning, or common sense to validate it. Just because it's your opinion does not exempt you from the possibility of being wrong.
I disagree with this almost entirely. Those things you list are often beneficial and invaluable to the gaining of a complete appreciation for a work of art, but they are by no means necessary. Humans are often illogical, ignorant, fickle, and reactionary, but that doesn't stop them from having an opinion.
I do not believe that there are any truly objective right or wrong answers concerning the interpretation and evaluation of art. What we all have are our experiences and the tastes and critical sense we develop according to them, all of which are subject to change given the influence of a number of factors.
By my standards, the LOTR trilogy are not good movies. You must judge them by your own. If you do so and come to a different conclusion, that does not mean that one of us is right and the other is wrong. It means we have different standards. This is as it should be. It would be a terribly boring and dreary world if we all agreed about everything.
-MMoM Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I agree with MMoM. It would be an awful thing if we all agreed we had to call the Star Wars movies by their full titles ... like, "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope Special Edition." =)
In all seriousness, though, he's right.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: I don't dislike the LoTR for their efx, it's just that I'm not into the fantasy genre.
That's not how the fetish sites tell it, pallie.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I disagree with this almost entirely. Those things you list are often beneficial and invaluable to the gaining of a complete appreciation for a work of art, but they are by no means necessary. Humans are often illogical, ignorant, fickle, and reactionary, but that doesn't stop them from having an opinion.
I do not believe that there are any truly objective right or wrong answers concerning the interpretation and evaluation of art. What we all have are our experiences and the tastes and critical sense we develop according to them, all of which are subject to change given the influence of a number of factors.
My statement pertained more towards that old defense of "Well, it's just my opinion." as if those magical five words exempt one from the necessity of facts and logic. It's just a personal pet peeve.
That's not to say that's exactly what you were doing in this instance or that value judgements of art aren't heavily subjective. But even so, they're subject to a certain amount of reason and reliance on facts.
If, for example, you were to say, "I think CGI is fake looking and that's why I don't like Lord of the Rings but that's just my opinion" then it would still be wrong, based on incorrect information and faulty reasoning, no matter the effect of those magical words, "It's just my opinion."
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: I don't dislike the LoTR for their efx, it's just that I'm not into the fantasy genre.
That's not how the fetish sites tell it, pallie.
Explain.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Oh yeah, that WAS you in the Hobbit get-up getting rammed by Haldir the Elf!
I mean, you know, not that I would ever look at that.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by OnToMars: If, for example, you were to say, "I think CGI is fake looking and that's why I don't like Lord of the Rings but that's just my opinion" then it would still be wrong, based on incorrect information and faulty reasoning, no matter the effect of those magical words, "It's just my opinion."
Ok, this is exactly my point. If CGI indeed looks fake to me and that does in fact cause me not to like LOTR, how is it wrong? You mean because the CGI doesn't look fake to you and you like it? Your premise doesn't make any sense. You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't act as if there's some great existential answer key by which to call it correct or incorrect.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I would surmise that one could in principle objectively test whether CGI did indeed look fake, at least relative to other special effects methods. Thus one could argue that "in my opinion" is potentially not a valid modifier for statements of its fakeness. But then, in the absence of any such study, we'd be arguing about something without any evidence one way or the other. Instead of arguing over something could actually be objectively known, we'd be arguing over whether we in fact objectively know it, with no information to argue over. Which would just be so silly that I can't imagine it ever happening here.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Movies are intrinsically fake.
"Here, spray this in the meatball hamper."
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Guys: it's Mim's opinion. Unless you were planning on hosting a showing of the trilogy in your home's indoor movie theater, and now you've gotta throw away the special expensive invitation with his name on it, what does it matter if he likes or doesn't like the movies?
I mean, I know I want to bash in the heads of people I meet who don't share my affection for "Hot Fuzz", but that hardly means I have the right to force my enjoyment of the film on them.
I mean, christ, didja see Omega's comment on "Bender's Big Score?" I can't remember the last time I wanted to crush his skull!
Okay, let's all crush everyone's skulls.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I agree. I'd point out to everyone that wording goes a long way in avoiding making people upset... I can't remember what Mim said at first about LotR and I'm not going to go check, but just as a purely hypothetical example, "LotR is terrible" vs. "I think LotR is terrible" would rumple my feathers a little bit. Of course, I try to just mentally insert "I think" before everything someone says, to avoid getting upset with no due reason, but sometimes people actually *mean* to say "LotR is [objectively] terrible" or something like that. So, sometimes you jump to the conclusion that they were bashing something you like instead of stating an opinion.
Anyway, maybe that's what's happened here...miscommunication? So let's all learn a Very Valuable Lesson and put down the machetes.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Ok, this is exactly my point. If CGI indeed looks fake to me and that does in fact cause me not to like LOTR, how is it wrong? You mean because the CGI doesn't look fake to you and you like it? Your premise doesn't make any sense. You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't act as if there's some great existential answer key by which to call it correct or incorrect.
Because the effects of LOTR are only partially achieved through CGI and in large part through other means, like miniatures, bigatures, etc.
And that's my only point. If your conclusion is based off incorrect facts and faulty reasoning, then you're conclusion is suspect, "opinion" or not. That's my only point.
And my original point was more a general expression of a pet peeve and not a personal attack on Mim. No fire extinguishers necessary, gentlemen. Carry on.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Well, finally Blockbuster had 1 of their 12 copies in when I went there.
$$$$$$$ Spoiler Warning $$$$$$$
There was something I can't quite put my finger on that I didn't like about it, and the opening with the characters was kind of cheesy. All in all though I liked it quite a bit - and most importantly it did seem like a movie and not several episodes stitched together. I'm glad Leela and Fry got together (after a fashion) even if it was just a cartoon and even if that's fanboyish. But finally...paradox-solving doom field? I think not - where did the code come from in the first place? Bender took it from Future-dead-Lars-Fry's ass, went back in time, and put it on past-frozen-Fry's ass. So where did it *come* from? It's a paradox.
$$$$$$$$$ /Spoiler Warning $$$$$$$$$$
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
But it's paradox-solving time travel! So it's okay. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
lol yeah but that's my point...they had the other paradoxes solved by the duplicates created dying, didn't they? But they didn't solve this one. (Can't believe I'm nitpicking Futurama.)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And I met all these cool people who I convinced to stay down there rather than coming up when they logically should have.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Everyone out of the universe!! QUICK!!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. Actually, LotR may well have been some of the only fantasy films NOT to feature a dragon. Anyway, by that measure the Rings films are far and apart the best in their field.![[Smile]](smile.gif)