Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Recent Viewing Part IV
-
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
I can only speak for myself, but it's only a mild indignation. It promotes a common myth, quite implicitly in its trailer, and films have a tendency to cement these ideas in people's minds. Most people will probably not investigate the claim any further, and accept its veracity because it said so in a film wot they watched.
That's not to say it stops me from enjoying the film, I just like to make it clear that you shouldn't walk away from this as though it were based on actual science (which may not apply to you, but unfortunately does apply to those who, ironically, only use 10% of their brains). -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
So it matters because the people for whom it is true might think it's true?
Fiction pushes all manner of popular malarkey. Enjoy it. The makers don't take it as seriously as many of their critics do.A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014 edited
franz_conrad wrote
So it matters because the people for whom it is true might think it's true?
It was a quip.
Nobody really uses only 10% of their brains, it's just that some brains are clearly better than others!
Fiction pushes all manner of popular malarkey. Enjoy it. The makers don't take it as seriously as many of their critics do.
Absolutely! Couldn't agree more. But, again, I think my point has been missed: I'm not so much worried about its use as a story device, it may work brilliantly, but rather it's the implications of using a common misconception to advertise the film that annoys me.
Any film that promotes popular malarkey I would view with equal indignation. -
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
franz, I also don't understand why this particular sci fi aspect seems to be more of an issue for some people than any other sci fi liberty being taken with any given film ('sound in space' etc.). It's not like the film pretends to be any kind of 'hard science', realistic film. In fact, the end of the film pretty much throws it into wild fantasy, with some gobsmackingly beautiful audiovisual ideas.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014 edited
Thor wrote
franz, I also don't understand why this particular sci fi aspect seems to be more of an issue for some people than any other sci fi liberty being taken with any given film ('sound in space' etc.). It's not like the film pretends to be any kind of 'hard science', realistic film. In fact, the end of the film pretty much throws it into wild fantasy, with some gobsmackingly beautiful audiovisual ideas.
Just to make it clear yet again:
This film actively promotes a common misconception about the brain through its trailer. In the case of most sci-fi films, most people are aware sound does not travel through a vacuum, and even if they don't, enough people know it's not true to be able to correct those who think it does. The 10% brain myth, on the other hand, is more commonly held and marketing like this will not help the problem. That's the crux.
It's not the biggest most pressing issue in the world, and I never said it was - but it's still a problem, mild though it is. -
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
Yeah, I understood what you meant the first time, but I still maintain that sci fi and fantasy always rely on certain misconceptions and theories as a point-of-departure for spinning a yarn.
Whether the 10% thing is a myth or not, or how specific or unspecific it is, I'm not going to discuss here -- what's important is that it's a brilliant way to trigger a story about 100% usage of the brain.
I think you're underestimating the audience if you think that the film's point-of-departure -- whether it's a myth or not -- is somehow taken as the ultimate truth, as if it were a documentary. If you see the film, you'll notice that the story is very farfetched on every level, and that it's all about mise-en-scène. That's one of the reasons it's so good.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
You clearly haven't understood what I've said
Regardless, I do want to see the film. Maybe. I'm more interested in that other Scarlett film, The Avengers Part Duex. -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014 edited
Thor wrote
franz, I also don't understand why this particular sci fi aspect seems to be more of an issue for some people than any other sci fi liberty being taken with any given film ('sound in space' etc.). It's not like the film pretends to be any kind of 'hard science', realistic film. In fact, the end of the film pretty much throws it into wild fantasy, with some gobsmackingly beautiful audiovisual ideas.
There, i was worried for a moment, i was actually reading a Thor comment without 'audiovisual' somewhere in the paragraph!Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
-
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
Btw i have the perfect audiovisual type of scenario for Scarlett in mind. It includes only physical sounds, and if any music at all, a sparse score with some light, breezy wah-wah sounds by guitar, Kinda 70s-ish, you know.Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
I think I do! You mean to watch Spaghetti Westerns with her. -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
Exactly! You're in my mind my friend. I'd adore the sound of her slurping. spaghetti.Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
You're too modest. I'm sure it's bigger than that! -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014 edited
Oh no, my intentions are always pure and humble :innocent:
Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014
-
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeAug 25th 2014 edited
ermahgehd!Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorsdtom
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
I have to say that it is science fiction so they can pretty much do what they want.
Tomlisten to more classical music! -
- CommentAuthorsdtom
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
I'm continuing the watching of the 'B' stuff. Last night it was an early Corman film called Attack of the Leeches. It actually had a decent score to it. Not sure about tonight but will let you know tomorrow.
Tomlisten to more classical music! -
- CommentAuthorErik Woods
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
Godzilla '14 = Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!
-Erik-host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS! -
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
Erik Woods wrote
Godzilla '14 = Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!
-Erik-
As in "shit, that's brilliant!", yes.
Superb film. One of my favs of the year.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
Erik Woods wrote
Godzilla '98 = Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!
-Erik-
Agreed! Godzilla 2014 on the other hand is excellent. -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
Or even that Godzilla film that came out this year? Did you see that?
That was really, really good!'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorsdtom
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
haven't seen the Godzilla yet. What is it that makes it so good?
Tomlisten to more classical music! -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
Martijn wrote
Or even that Godzilla film that came out this year? Did you see that?
That was really, really good!
That one? That was shit!
Godzilla 2014 on the other hand... -
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
I actually like the 98 version too, for different reasons.
Where I fall off is the older GODZILLA films. Not my cup of tea at all.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
No one likes the 1998 Godzilla film, not even you. Trust me on that. It's shite. -
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014 edited
He, he...
I actually saw it again recently, and the segments that I liked before, I still liked. Especially those JURASSIC PARK-like segments in Madison Square Garden.
It's a well-made, good romp of a film that nurtures Emmerich's sense of spectacle.
I rank them thusly:
1. GODZILLA (2014)
2. GODZILLA (1998)
3. All the other ones, to which I'm rather indifferentI am extremely serious. -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014
Thor wrote
I actually like the 98 version too, for different reasons.
Where I fall off is the older GODZILLA films. Not my cup of tea at all.
Oh, you're very wrong.
The older Godzilla films, especially the eighties/nineties ToHo reboots you like very much.
Trust me.
Trust me as much as you trust Steven.
The Godzilla film that came out in 2014 is very good, incidentally.
Did I mention that?
No Godzilla film came out in 1998.
I seem to remember a moderately succesfuil monster film about a tuna eating thingie that roamed New York.
But it's but a fleeting memory.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014 edited
I seem to remember that EVERY CHARACTER was the comic relief.
(And it had bad cgi.) -
- CommentAuthorErik Woods
- CommentTimeAug 26th 2014 edited
If the film is called Godzilla then why is Godzilla the guest star in his own movie? I hated every single actor in the film not named Bryan Cranstan. The CGI artists still don't trust their craft because they continue to render out the big battle scenes in the dark and with tons of rain... but in this case it's smoke cover. Terrible!
The only redeeming qualities were the previously mentioned Bryan Cranston, Desplat's score and when ever we saw Godzilla in daylight.
Fuck that movie!
-Erik-host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS!