they've shown this on both screens: your next movie thread

[Thermofusion]

I think some of the earlier CGI stuff is already aging poorly.  The first example that comes to mind is the first reveal of the brontosauruses or whatever in Jurassic Park after they arrive on the island -- my 11 year old mind was blown at the time.  But I caught JP on cable a few months ago and couldn't believe how artificial it looked.  I guess it beats stop-motion, but stop motion has its own quaint charm.  Anyway, I kind of expect to have the same reaction to current CGI-heavy movies fifteen years from now.   

On the other hand, if you look at the model work in older movies like Star Wars and especially in the Star Trek movies, there's kind of a tactile, documentary-like authenticity to the way the ships look.  They spent like half a year on some of those models and they still look damn real. 

Ideally, I'd like to see effects people use models for vast landscapes, ancient or imaginary cities or fantastic vehicles, etc. and use CGI to fill in around the edges. 

[Andrew_TSKS]

So I watched 'The Mist" today, pretty much entirely because of milly's gushings.

well, and the presence of Pembleton from Homicide and Gwen from Angel, who am I kidding.

1)  CGI dragons do not scare me anymore, Hollywood.
2)  For fuck's sake, Stephen King, learn how to end things.

I was really hoping they'd drag out the "What is out there?'  "Is it just our imaginations?" stuff more, because that's the kind of thing I eat up, and the kind of thing that is actually scary, not the aforementioned CGI dragons and spiders.

edit:  this is more negative than I meant it to be; there's still some goodness, mostly the psychological suspense kind, and it's actually really awesome.  I just wish it had been the focus of the movie, instead of CGI monsters and retread "The Lottery" bullshit.

did you just ruin the new ending of the movie for me, the one that's completely different from the ending of the story? i'm gonna kill you, mr. "use spoiler tags".

[dieblucasdie]

No, what happens in the ending isn't in that post at all

[Andrew_TSKS]

ok, because i don't remember dragons in the book and i was like "wait, what? is that what comes at the end?" and got pissed.

don't tell me the ending, i still want to see it.

[guanajuato]

ok, because i don't remember dragons in the book and i was like "wait, what? is that what comes at the end?" and got pissed.

don't tell me the ending, i still want to see it.

you thought the new ending had dragons in it?

[dieblucasdie]

oh, I don't know if they're supposed to be dragons or just creepy bats or what they're supposed to be.  You see them like 20 minutes into the movie.  It's not a big reveal or anything

[guanajuato]

they're dinosaurs!

man, you've been watchin too much eragon.

[Andrew_TSKS]

ok, dinosaurs. i remember THAT.

[auto-da-fey]

is the mist worth seeing if i already DO know the ending? it's one of those movies where i was like, "eh, not something i'm even vaguely interested in," so--in that illogical internet-addiction way that guides my every move--i wound up reading a spoiler-filled thread about it somewhere, and reading about the ending actually made me decide i DID want to see it, in an unfortunate sort of catch-22.

[dieblucasdie]

it's got problems, but it's entertaining.  I wouldn't see it specifically *for* the end, though.  The best parts are the suspense building parts in the first half.  When they drag in that bloody rope it's way more scary than when they get attacked by CGI dinosaurs.

And the ending sounds cool on paper, I agree, but it's a little "mmm whatcha say" in practice.

[Andrew_TSKS]

hahahah that's imogen heap, not alanis morrissette.

[dieblucasdie]

I know.  I was referring to the infamously cheesy OC Season 2 ending (the one they parodied on SNL, and we were talking about in the "Josh Schwartz Doesn't Respect My Intelligence" thread.

I probably shouldn't make oblique TV references in the movie thread.  That's what happens when I've had too much coffee.

[guanajuato]

I think some of the earlier CGI stuff is already aging poorly.  The first example that comes to mind is the first reveal of the brontosauruses or whatever in Jurassic Park after they arrive on the island -- my 11 year old mind was blown at the time.  But I caught JP on cable a few months ago and couldn't believe how artificial it looked.  I guess it beats stop-motion, but stop motion has its own quaint charm.  Anyway, I kind of expect to have the same reaction to current CGI-heavy movies fifteen years from now.   

On the other hand, if you look at the model work in older movies like Star Wars and especially in the Star Trek movies, there's kind of a tactile, documentary-like authenticity to the way the ships look.  They spent like half a year on some of those models and they still look damn real. 

Ideally, I'd like to see effects people use models for vast landscapes, ancient or imaginary cities or fantastic vehicles, etc. and use CGI to fill in around the edges. 

i dig the way star wars space faring vessels look (the worst designed but most aesthetically pleasing ships ever) and, not a fan of star trek, i dunno... but remember the rubbery jim henson creatures we had before cgi. just big rubbery penises being puppeted by brawny men with beards in biker jackets with iron cross patches on them. but i'll give you that business about the model work being really awesome in some of these older sci fi movies. at least the star wars ones! but can you imagine lord of the rings with andy serkis in a big green-rubber golem suit.

[Andrew_TSKS]

or gollum being a puppet...

[martin_van_buren]

Oscar season! and all that. So I saw Juno and thought it was pretty meh, and then saw There Will Be Blood, and thought it was fantastic, and the more I think about it the more I like it and the more I want a milkshake.

[martin_van_buren]

Also saw Syndromes and a Century a little bit back and was befuddled by it, and I know there are some fans of it around here, so If I may ask: what is it about that film that does something for you? What makes it good and worthwhile? I ask in the least snarky way possible, out of a genuine befuddlement about the movie and its motives. I am out of my depth here.

[girl]

So, I went to see There Will Be Blood tonight. I sort of skimmed the posts relating to it, since I didn't want to go in influenced, but it seems to me that lptj liked it. Sometimes I don't understand you people.

[jebreject]

I also went to see There Will Be Blood tonight. It was sort of very slowly menacing, very uncomfortable. For those reasons, I fucking loved it.

[auto-da-fey]

Meanwhile, I--with insufficient time to mount a full defense of TWBB--was supposed to go out to see a rare screening of Otto Preminger's otherwise-unavailable 1967 racial-tensions-and-overheated-lustin' bomb Hurry Sundown, but then Gaby started projectile vomiting all over and that kind of killed our date plans. Because frequent hurling also makes her grouchy, she also rejected all of my movies and the Netflix. So I went out and rented Ratatouille. It was fun, though I had to keep telling myself "alright, don't get all worked up about the Ayn Rand affinities, it could just be coincidence." I didn't really convince myself, but fortunately my mind was too occupied with maintaining perfect bodily stillness so that no motions would reverberate down the couch and set off more heaving for any ideological qualms to impinge on my fun.

[girl]

I also went to see There Will Be Blood tonight. It was sort of very slowly menacing, very uncomfortable. For those reasons, I fucking loved it.

It did go slowly. . . (sorry, couldn't resist) Also, I hated the score. Also, I think I might have actually fallen asleep for a few seconds, but I can't be sure. I really wanted to like it, too.

[auto-da-fey]

And while I'm at it, I won't bother to recount the porn and Jess Franco movies I've been watching, but Slam Dance was kind of interesting--a ludicrous 1987 thriller in which Tom Hulce wanders through a convoluted pseudo-noir set-up quite possibly unaware that he's not still playing Mozart, and in which Adam Ant, John Doe, and Harry Dean Stanton all show up too, for reasons that are beyond me but which keep the whole mess unflaggingly watchable.

[jebreject]

I would def be interested in talking more about TWBB

I was wondering though, I didn't understand: Why did HW try to burn down the cabin?

[silentsigh89]

Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

and, oh man! I hadn't realized exactly what it was about before I went to see it. I was blown away by how intense it was. And by the sheer amount of beautiful woman.

[elpollodiablo]

I would def be interested in talking more about TWBB

I was wondering though, I didn't understand: Why did HW try to burn down the cabin?

I thought perhaps he sort of instinctually knew that the dude claiming to be Henry was bad news, or that he felt his place was threatened. Both of which, of course, turned out to be true.

I just got back from seeing it and I'd love to hold forth at length but judging by how I feel right at this moment I'll be dead in fifteen minutes anyway

[martin_van_buren]

I agree with pollo, and also I think perhaps revenge for being abandoned was a factor. Also, why I liked it? Aside from plenty of other reasons, I liked how it managed to be completely over the top and weird while at the same time being slow and somber. It was CRAZY, basically. And Daniel Day-Lewis, and that kid from Little Miss Sunshine, and the western gothic stuff that I eat up like delicious vanilla syrup, and the ENDING, oh my god the ending. Such a weird movie, so good.