Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
It might be that, Tracey. I got most of my wit from my paternal grandfather, and it didn't really trickle down into the rest of the bloodline. Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then you should come to movie night with us. The analysis happens after. Mostly snarky remarks during bad films or cheers happen during. The after movie analysis goes on for at least 30 minutes. I think you need to do it with some serious fans. I would not do it over my moms or if I was hanging out with some neighbors. They would shut me up too.So far everyone in the group is into scifi - like you guys and also seem to be movie buffs in general. That might have something to do with it Martin wrote: Tracey, what you describe is precisely why I *can't* watch movies with people. I do all of the things you described, and invariably am asked to either be quiet or leave. Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) wrote: I understand why that appeals to you. I guess that is why I like our family movie nights. It makes even bad movies fun. I love the after movie discussion, the movie background look up, the jokes, the teasing, the imitating, the pillows on the floor, the fireplace, the fun meals. We probably got into them, because i was too ill to walk or go out much in public. But now that I'm close to being cured and go out regularly, we still do this family thing a lot. We have two friends into sci that have joined in and will be starting to rotate houses. Bosco Bosco wrote: I also love the theater experience. For me the experience of home theater versus movie house is the same as the difference between record shopping and song downloading. They both have great qualities but the shared communal experience of buying records from a store is really uniquely satisfying. Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: my living room is rather narrow and long, and we watch TV across the narrow width, so I don't quite get the theatre experience. Even if i did, and even when i get that much-desired 50 plasma TV, i still don't see the theatre being replaced for me. I love the movie going experience: the crowds, talking to people in line, being part of an opening-day phenomenon, sharing the action, sadness, and humour with a large crowd. that's what makes movies fun to me, so that even if the movie itself sucks, the overall experience can be enjoyable. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) That is how we do our movie nights. My daughter is always asking for us to turn the living room back into the Movie theatre. Because of how we watch our movies, I do not enjoy the theatre as much as in the past [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: definitely a generational thing. I won't watch a movie on DVD at home unless i can be assured of watching it in one sitting with minimal interruptions. Don't take phone calls, prepare my food ahead of time. I get that stopping and examining the film is cool (do it myself). But they're meant to be digested at one sitting, with all those things you mentioned fllowing together to make a good whole. -- Original message -- From: Daryle The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I think so. I can not do it with every one. Just the movie and/ or avid genre readers. For instance. The Golden Compass might be fun to watch on movie night because two out of the four or five of us has read it. Most of us have followed the controversy, all of us have read books on religion and spirituality, so the discussion could go on all night. Martin wrote: It might be that, Tracey. I got most of my wit from my paternal grandfather, and it didn't really trickle down into the rest of the bloodline. Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then you should come to movie night with us. The analysis happens after. Mostly snarky remarks during bad films or cheers happen during. The after movie analysis goes on for at least 30 minutes. I think you need to do it with some serious fans. I would not do it over my moms or if I was hanging out with some neighbors. They would shut me up too.So far everyone in the group is into scifi - like you guys and also seem to be movie buffs in general. That might have something to do with it Martin wrote: Tracey, what you describe is precisely why I *can't* watch movies with people. I do all of the things you described, and invariably am asked to either be quiet or leave. Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) wrote: I understand why that appeals to you. I guess that is why I like our family movie nights. It makes even bad movies fun. I love the after movie discussion, the movie background look up, the jokes, the teasing, the imitating, the pillows on the floor, the fireplace, the fun meals. We probably got into them, because i was too ill to walk or go out much in public. But now that I'm close to being cured and go out regularly, we still do this family thing a lot. We have two friends into sci that have joined in and will be starting to rotate houses. Bosco Bosco wrote: I also love the theater experience. For me the experience of home theater versus movie house is the same as the difference between record shopping and song downloading. They both have great qualities but the shared communal experience of buying records from a store is really uniquely satisfying. Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: my living room is rather narrow and long, and we watch TV across the narrow width, so I don't quite get the theatre experience. Even if i did, and even when i get that much-desired 50 plasma TV, i still don't see the theatre being replaced for me. I love the movie going experience: the crowds, talking to people in line, being part of an opening-day phenomenon, sharing the action, sadness, and humour with a large crowd. that's what makes movies fun to me, so that even if the movie itself sucks, the overall experience can be enjoyable. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) That is how we do our movie nights. My daughter is always asking for us to turn the living room back into the Movie theatre. Because of how we watch our movies, I do not enjoy the theatre as much as in the past [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: definitely a generational thing. I won't watch a movie on DVD at home unless i can be assured of watching it in one sitting with minimal interruptions. Don't take phone calls, prepare my food ahead of time. I get that stopping and examining the film is cool (do it myself). But they're meant to be digested at one sitting, with all those things you mentioned fllowing together to make a good whole. -- Original message -- From: Daryle The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/24/2007 4:26:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Badda Bing Badda Boom he nails it. LOTR was as big and as a commercial as Hollywood gets. The marketing and advertising budgets alone were enough to feed most thirdworld countries for a decade. The marketing of the film had nothing to do with the quality of the film . Blame that on New Line who wanted to control everything and make as much money as possible. It is not a typical Hollywood film. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/24/2007 4:34:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simple Plan which features a really fabulous performance from Billy Bob Thorton. He also directed the Gift and For the Love of The Game. these films are still not suble films. They are Hollywood films. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Keith, that's when I changed the channel. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the series was sombre at times, but the movie felt more so to me. It was actually downright depressing. Good series that, even though the Hulk was drastically depowered. Good series, that is, until the horrible TV movie when they brought that idiotic version of Thor onto the scene. Ever see that one? Really, really awful! -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Angst that you described is the Angst I always felt when watching the Bill Bixby Series, so while I too needed a stiff drink, it felt more of the same for me. However, the CGI was absolutely horrible-- especially when the Hulk turned into a bouncing green ball. Martin wrote: LMNAO!!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i agree, i'd probably need therapy after seeing an Ang Lee rendition of The Hobbit. I was actually depressed after Hulk. it was such a brooding, downbeat movie. I'm all for well done angst in comic films. Indeed, it's those movies with realistic human drama that are the best, even in the cape-and-cowl genre. But Hulk--i came out of it feeling like i needed a shower and a stiff drink. And I don't drink! -- Original message -- From: Martin After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: they're good examples of story, acting, plotting, action, FX, CGI, and that all-important, all-evasise look of a film. They may be okay directors but they don't have the it factor. I don't expect Scorsese to do the Hobbit. It is not his style. I don't expect Eastwood to do it either. I can see Ang Lee doing it. He has don different genres of film. These directors have not. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Tracey, that was *me* bashing Ang. Gymfig was bashing me *for* abshing him. Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not define any writer/director by one or two things they have done, but their body of work. That is why I was running the resumes of the artists that you said did not have IT or have range to cross over genres It seems to me that you see one or two thing done by a director and define him by it. Funny you were just stressing to me that Ang Lee had done other films. Come to find out you do not even know what they are. In addition to Crouching Tiger, he won critical acclaim and awards for The Ice Storm, Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and Brokeback Mountain. There are a few other films that he is known for, but I have not seen them or heard as much about them [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. I don't think that Ang Lee should be define by The Hulk and CTHD. I am sure that he has done other films. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I also love the theater experience. For me the experience of home theater versus movie house is the same as the difference between record shopping and song downloading. They both have great qualities but the shared communal experience of buying records from a store is really uniquely satisfying. Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: my living room is rather narrow and long, and we watch TV across the narrow width, so I don't quite get the theatre experience. Even if i did, and even when i get that much-desired 50 plasma TV, i still don't see the theatre being replaced for me. I love the movie going experience: the crowds, talking to people in line, being part of an opening-day phenomenon, sharing the action, sadness, and humour with a large crowd. that's what makes movies fun to me, so that even if the movie itself sucks, the overall experience can be enjoyable. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] That is how we do our movie nights. My daughter is always asking for us to turn the living room back into the Movie theatre. Because of how we watch our movies, I do not enjoy the theatre as much as in the past [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: definitely a generational thing. I won't watch a movie on DVD at home unless i can be assured of watching it in one sitting with minimal interruptions. Don't take phone calls, prepare my food ahead of time. I get that stopping and examining the film is cool (do it myself). But they're meant to be digested at one sitting, with all those things you mentioned fllowing together to make a good whole. -- Original message -- From: Daryle The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many of his contemporaries. Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
It may not be a typical hollywood film in terms of production or content or style but it was in every other sense it was absolutely typical. It was not an indie film. It did not have an indie film feel. It did not have indie film budget and the underlying point for everyone involved was to make something gigantically larger than life that made more money than the US mint. In that sense you can't get anymore typically hollywood. Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/24/2007 4:26:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Badda Bing Badda Boom he nails it. LOTR was as big and as a commercial as Hollywood gets. The marketing and advertising budgets alone were enough to feed most thirdworld countries for a decade. The marketing of the film had nothing to do with the quality of the film . Blame that on New Line who wanted to control everything and make as much money as possible. It is not a typical Hollywood film. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] I got friends who are in prison and Friends who are dead. I'm gonna tell ya something that I've often said. You know these things that happen, That's just the way it's supposed to be. And I can't help but wonder, Don't ya know it coulda been me. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I don't know...Thor the Bike Dude kinda appealed to me...(ducking behind chair) Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith, that's when I changed the channel. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the series was sombre at times, but the movie felt more so to me. It was actually downright depressing. Good series that, even though the Hulk was drastically depowered. Good series, that is, until the horrible TV movie when they brought that idiotic version of Thor onto the scene. Ever see that one? Really, really awful! -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Angst that you described is the Angst I always felt when watching the Bill Bixby Series, so while I too needed a stiff drink, it felt more of the same for me. However, the CGI was absolutely horrible-- especially when the Hulk turned into a bouncing green ball. Martin wrote: LMNAO!!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i agree, i'd probably need therapy after seeing an Ang Lee rendition of The Hobbit. I was actually depressed after Hulk. it was such a brooding, downbeat movie. I'm all for well done angst in comic films. Indeed, it's those movies with realistic human drama that are the best, even in the cape-and-cowl genre. But Hulk--i came out of it feeling like i needed a shower and a stiff drink. And I don't drink! -- Original message -- From: Martin After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: they're good examples of story, acting, plotting, action, FX, CGI, and that all-important, all-evasise look of a film. They may be okay directors but they don't have the it factor. I don't expect Scorsese to do the Hobbit. It is not his style. I don't expect Eastwood to do it either. I can see Ang Lee doing it. He has don different genres of film. These directors have not. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Akin, but no matter what you think, I am concerned for your life, so Ill only say this once; if you talk too much or ask too many questions, you might say something that interests the Community, and you really, really dont want to get them interested. - The Side Street Chonicles by C.W. Badie - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I don't know...Thor the Biker Dude kinda appealed to me...(ducking behind chair) Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith, that's when I changed the channel. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the series was sombre at times, but the movie felt more so to me. It was actually downright depressing. Good series that, even though the Hulk was drastically depowered. Good series, that is, until the horrible TV movie when they brought that idiotic version of Thor onto the scene. Ever see that one? Really, really awful! -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Angst that you described is the Angst I always felt when watching the Bill Bixby Series, so while I too needed a stiff drink, it felt more of the same for me. However, the CGI was absolutely horrible-- especially when the Hulk turned into a bouncing green ball. Martin wrote: LMNAO!!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i agree, i'd probably need therapy after seeing an Ang Lee rendition of The Hobbit. I was actually depressed after Hulk. it was such a brooding, downbeat movie. I'm all for well done angst in comic films. Indeed, it's those movies with realistic human drama that are the best, even in the cape-and-cowl genre. But Hulk--i came out of it feeling like i needed a shower and a stiff drink. And I don't drink! -- Original message -- From: Martin After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: they're good examples of story, acting, plotting, action, FX, CGI, and that all-important, all-evasise look of a film. They may be okay directors but they don't have the it factor. I don't expect Scorsese to do the Hobbit. It is not his style. I don't expect Eastwood to do it either. I can see Ang Lee doing it. He has don different genres of film. These directors have not. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Akin, but no matter what you think, I am concerned for your life, so Ill only say this once; if you talk too much or ask too many questions, you might say something that interests the Community, and you really, really dont want to get them interested. - The Side Street Chonicles by C.W. Badie - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
You said it was a flop. I assumed, it seems correctly that you did not like it and that is why you were calling it a flop. I was saying just because you do not like a movie does not mean it necessarily is a flop. Good circular typing though [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/24/2007 6:28:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether you like it or not is irrelevant in determining a success of a movie. Try as you might and you do, you can not change facts. Good try thought/ Stuart Little was such a flop it had a sequel. I know that. I never said that I liked it. Im not even going to go there with The Sixth Sense. I did not mentioned tha film. Which Harry Potter. How do you criticize things without seeing them. Do you know which one I'm talking to. Chris Columbus Potter films are dramatically different than Cuaron's. How do you know what Cuaron and del Toro have the ability to build on when you have only seen one or two of their films and a few clips? Harry Potter, now that is Hollywood at its worse. Before Lord of the Rings, Jackson did Heavenly Creatures, the Frighteners, some in the outback and three other movies. The Frighteners was the closest to the fantasy of LOTR - and not remotely close at that. Jacison has the respect for the books He worked outsdie of Hollywood and did not do alot of work on a soundstage. It was in New Zealand. I respect that in an artist. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I understand that she was supporting Ang. I was telling her in previous posts that I like him too Martin wrote: Tracey, that was *me* bashing Ang. Gymfig was bashing me *for* abshing him. Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not define any writer/director by one or two things they have done, but their body of work. That is why I was running the resumes of the artists that you said did not have IT or have range to cross over genres It seems to me that you see one or two thing done by a director and define him by it. Funny you were just stressing to me that Ang Lee had done other films. Come to find out you do not even know what they are. In addition to Crouching Tiger, he won critical acclaim and awards for The Ice Storm, Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and Brokeback Mountain. There are a few other films that he is known for, but I have not seen them or heard as much about them [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. I don't think that Ang Lee should be define by The Hulk and CTHD. I am sure that he has done other films. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I understand why that appeals to you. I guess that is why I like our family movie nights. It makes even bad movies fun. I love the after movie discussion, the movie background look up, the jokes, the teasing, the imitating, the pillows on the floor, the fireplace, the fun meals. We probably got into them, because i was too ill to walk or go out much in public. But now that I'm close to being cured and go out regularly, we still do this family thing a lot. We have two friends into sci that have joined in and will be starting to rotate houses. Bosco Bosco wrote: I also love the theater experience. For me the experience of home theater versus movie house is the same as the difference between record shopping and song downloading. They both have great qualities but the shared communal experience of buying records from a store is really uniquely satisfying. Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: my living room is rather narrow and long, and we watch TV across the narrow width, so I don't quite get the theatre experience. Even if i did, and even when i get that much-desired 50 plasma TV, i still don't see the theatre being replaced for me. I love the movie going experience: the crowds, talking to people in line, being part of an opening-day phenomenon, sharing the action, sadness, and humour with a large crowd. that's what makes movies fun to me, so that even if the movie itself sucks, the overall experience can be enjoyable. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] That is how we do our movie nights. My daughter is always asking for us to turn the living room back into the Movie theatre. Because of how we watch our movies, I do not enjoy the theatre as much as in the past [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: definitely a generational thing. I won't watch a movie on DVD at home unless i can be assured of watching it in one sitting with minimal interruptions. Don't take phone calls, prepare my food ahead of time. I get that stopping and examining the film is cool (do it myself). But they're meant to be digested at one sitting, with all those things you mentioned fllowing together to make a good whole. -- Original message -- From: Daryle The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Tracey, what you describe is precisely why I *can't* watch movies with people. I do all of the things you described, and invariably am asked to either be quiet or leave. Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand why that appeals to you. I guess that is why I like our family movie nights. It makes even bad movies fun. I love the after movie discussion, the movie background look up, the jokes, the teasing, the imitating, the pillows on the floor, the fireplace, the fun meals. We probably got into them, because i was too ill to walk or go out much in public. But now that I'm close to being cured and go out regularly, we still do this family thing a lot. We have two friends into sci that have joined in and will be starting to rotate houses. Bosco Bosco wrote: I also love the theater experience. For me the experience of home theater versus movie house is the same as the difference between record shopping and song downloading. They both have great qualities but the shared communal experience of buying records from a store is really uniquely satisfying. Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: my living room is rather narrow and long, and we watch TV across the narrow width, so I don't quite get the theatre experience. Even if i did, and even when i get that much-desired 50 plasma TV, i still don't see the theatre being replaced for me. I love the movie going experience: the crowds, talking to people in line, being part of an opening-day phenomenon, sharing the action, sadness, and humour with a large crowd. that's what makes movies fun to me, so that even if the movie itself sucks, the overall experience can be enjoyable. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) That is how we do our movie nights. My daughter is always asking for us to turn the living room back into the Movie theatre. Because of how we watch our movies, I do not enjoy the theatre as much as in the past [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: definitely a generational thing. I won't watch a movie on DVD at home unless i can be assured of watching it in one sitting with minimal interruptions. Don't take phone calls, prepare my food ahead of time. I get that stopping and examining the film is cool (do it myself). But they're meant to be digested at one sitting, with all those things you mentioned fllowing together to make a good whole. -- Original message -- From: Daryle The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Stepping far outside myself to quote from the rap epic Ride the White Horse, Nononononono... Astromancer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know...Thor the Biker Dude kinda appealed to me...(ducking behind chair) Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith, that's when I changed the channel. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the series was sombre at times, but the movie felt more so to me. It was actually downright depressing. Good series that, even though the Hulk was drastically depowered. Good series, that is, until the horrible TV movie when they brought that idiotic version of Thor onto the scene. Ever see that one? Really, really awful! -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Angst that you described is the Angst I always felt when watching the Bill Bixby Series, so while I too needed a stiff drink, it felt more of the same for me. However, the CGI was absolutely horrible-- especially when the Hulk turned into a bouncing green ball. Martin wrote: LMNAO!!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i agree, i'd probably need therapy after seeing an Ang Lee rendition of The Hobbit. I was actually depressed after Hulk. it was such a brooding, downbeat movie. I'm all for well done angst in comic films. Indeed, it's those movies with realistic human drama that are the best, even in the cape-and-cowl genre. But Hulk--i came out of it feeling like i needed a shower and a stiff drink. And I don't drink! -- Original message -- From: Martin After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: they're good examples of story, acting, plotting, action, FX, CGI, and that all-important, all-evasise look of a film. They may be okay directors but they don't have the it factor. I don't expect Scorsese to do the Hobbit. It is not his style. I don't expect Eastwood to do it either. I can see Ang Lee doing it. He has don different genres of film. These directors have not. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Akin, but no matter what you think, I am concerned for your life, so Ill only say this once; if you talk too much or ask too many questions, you might say something that interests the Community, and you really, really dont want to get them interested. - The Side Street Chonicles by C.W. Badie - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Then you should come to movie night with us. The analysis happens after. Mostly snarky remarks during bad films or cheers happen during. The after movie analysis goes on for at least 30 minutes. I think you need to do it with some serious fans. I would not do it over my moms or if I was hanging out with some neighbors. They would shut me up too.So far everyone in the group is into scifi - like you guys and also seem to be movie buffs in general. That might have something to do with it Martin wrote: Tracey, what you describe is precisely why I *can't* watch movies with people. I do all of the things you described, and invariably am asked to either be quiet or leave. Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand why that appeals to you. I guess that is why I like our family movie nights. It makes even bad movies fun. I love the after movie discussion, the movie background look up, the jokes, the teasing, the imitating, the pillows on the floor, the fireplace, the fun meals. We probably got into them, because i was too ill to walk or go out much in public. But now that I'm close to being cured and go out regularly, we still do this family thing a lot. We have two friends into sci that have joined in and will be starting to rotate houses. Bosco Bosco wrote: I also love the theater experience. For me the experience of home theater versus movie house is the same as the difference between record shopping and song downloading. They both have great qualities but the shared communal experience of buying records from a store is really uniquely satisfying. Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: my living room is rather narrow and long, and we watch TV across the narrow width, so I don't quite get the theatre experience. Even if i did, and even when i get that much-desired 50 plasma TV, i still don't see the theatre being replaced for me. I love the movie going experience: the crowds, talking to people in line, being part of an opening-day phenomenon, sharing the action, sadness, and humour with a large crowd. that's what makes movies fun to me, so that even if the movie itself sucks, the overall experience can be enjoyable. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) That is how we do our movie nights. My daughter is always asking for us to turn the living room back into the Movie theatre. Because of how we watch our movies, I do not enjoy the theatre as much as in the past [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: definitely a generational thing. I won't watch a movie on DVD at home unless i can be assured of watching it in one sitting with minimal interruptions. Don't take phone calls, prepare my food ahead of time. I get that stopping and examining the film is cool (do it myself). But they're meant to be digested at one sitting, with all those things you mentioned fllowing together to make a good whole. -- Original message -- From: Daryle The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. I don't think that Ang Lee should be define by The Hulk and CTHD. I am sure that he has done other films. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/23/2007 7:17:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: M. Night Shyamalan wrote Stuart Little the same year he did the Six Sense Flop Too commmerical. Harry Potter was too commercial. I like LOTR films because it did not have that Hollywood commercial film. It was as if it was an independent film. Potter is too generic to co,pare. The director will not have that magic that will not make it a commerical film. I am not talking about a independent film. I am talking about IT. Jackson did something to those books that transforme them. Yes he changed some things. However he made them beautiful. I loved the location and sets. it was as if you were really there. It was not a ypical fantasy film. Curon and del Toro will not build upon that. Since there are some characters from the first books in the Hobbit, the film will be different. It won't have that same feeling. I am not looking for Gothic or Sullen Harry Potter. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Wha? Have you SEEN the LOTR films? Is it possible to BE more Hollywood than a multimillion dollar film starring Orlando Bloom, Liv Tyler, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving (POST Matrix), Elijah Wood, Sir Ian McKellen (who HAD done X Men at this point) this was as Hollywood as you could GET in 2001. ³It² is subjective. If you don¹t like Peter Jackson, you don¹t like Peter Jackson. But to say that ANY of the LOTR films seemed Independent is not to understand independent film. Star Wars Episode 4, as it was released in 1977, is an example of a big budget independent film. LOTR is an example of Hollywood pulling out all the stops to make a picture. On 12/24/07 6:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/23/2007 7:17:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:tdlists%40multiculturaladvantage.com writes: M. Night Shyamalan wrote Stuart Little the same year he did the Six Sense Flop Too commmerical. Harry Potter was too commercial. I like LOTR films because it did not have that Hollywood commercial film. It was as if it was an independent film. Potter is too generic to co,pare. The director will not have that magic that will not make it a commerical film. I am not talking about a independent film. I am talking about IT. Jackson did something to those books that transforme them. Yes he changed some things. However he made them beautiful. I loved the location and sets. it was as if you were really there. It was not a ypical fantasy film. Curon and del Toro will not build upon that. Since there are some characters from the first books in the Hobbit, the film will be different. It won't have that same feeling. I am not looking for Gothic or Sullen Harry Potter. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many of his contemporaries. Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:KeithBJohnson%40comcast.net writes: for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyrinth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of wonder Pan had other theme intertwined in the movie. The Hobbit is not a mature prequel. Maybe he could do Tne Simarillion. Hellboy was a cheap comic book adaptation. It is good for the Sci Fi channel or FX. I don't see The Hobbit being a sci fi or FX kind of movie. The tone is too different. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
You're right, Gymfig. It was unfair of me to toss that out. But I was really expecting something out of the movie, because the Hulk is my third-favorite Marvel property, after the FF and Cap. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. I don't think that Ang Lee should be define by The Hulk and CTHD. I am sure that he has done other films. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
LMNAO!!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i agree, i'd probably need therapy after seeing an Ang Lee rendition of The Hobbit. I was actually depressed after Hulk. it was such a brooding, downbeat movie. I'm all for well done angst in comic films. Indeed, it's those movies with realistic human drama that are the best, even in the cape-and-cowl genre. But Hulk--i came out of it feeling like i needed a shower and a stiff drink. And I don't drink! -- Original message -- From: Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: they're good examples of story, acting, plotting, action, FX, CGI, and that all-important, all-evasise look of a film. They may be okay directors but they don't have the it factor. I don't expect Scorsese to do the Hobbit. It is not his style. I don't expect Eastwood to do it either. I can see Ang Lee doing it. He has don different genres of film. These directors have not. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I do not define any writer/director by one or two things they have done, but their body of work. That is why I was running the resumes of the artists that you said did not have IT or have range to cross over genres It seems to me that you see one or two thing done by a director and define him by it. Funny you were just stressing to me that Ang Lee had done other films. Come to find out you do not even know what they are. In addition to Crouching Tiger, he won critical acclaim and awards for The Ice Storm, Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and Brokeback Mountain. There are a few other films that he is known for, but I have not seen them or heard as much about them [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. I don't think that Ang Lee should be define by The Hulk and CTHD. I am sure that he has done other films. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
yeah, see, that's one of my problems with younger filmmakers: no establishing shots. Just like a good story (which it is) a good movie should slowly build to action and adventure. If you just get on with it, you end up focusing more on action and less on things like plot, acting, and the all-important, oft-neglected thing called suspense or build up. And when that happens, you go down this road of having to top each subsequent film with more outrageous action, more expensive FX, louder music, more frenetic camera shots, as audiences get inured to the effects of what came before. LOTR succeeds because it's an engaging *story* with good writing and a good *adventure*, that is supported and bolstered by the action and FX. The Two Towers arguably is the most overall action intense of the three films, and it's my least favorite. I much more remember the little things of suspense: Gandalf's battle with the Balrog, but more importantly, the reaction of the Fellowship when he fel l...the moment in the first film when the Dark Riders entered Barliman's tavern, preceed by mist, the owner cowering in terror behind the bar...the scene of overwhelming sadness and resignation at the meeting in Rivendale when Frodo says I will take the Ring. But...I do not know the way. Maybe it is generational, but this tendency to ignore slow build ups, long camera pans, and suspense in favor of immediate action and gratification just doesn't always work for me. The best films--scifi or fantasy--from Blade Runner to The Matrix, succeed because they have something behind the action and FX. If you just jump into things, you have all gloss but no substance. Off the soapbox now! :) -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many of his contemporaries. Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
definitely a generational thing. I won't watch a movie on DVD at home unless i can be assured of watching it in one sitting with minimal interruptions. Don't take phone calls, prepare my food ahead of time. I get that stopping and examining the film is cool (do it myself). But they're meant to be digested at one sitting, with all those things you mentioned fllowing together to make a good whole. -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many of his contemporaries. Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:KeithBJohnson%40comcast.net writes: for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyrinth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of wonder Pan had other theme intertwined in the movie. The Hobbit is not a mature prequel. Maybe he could do Tne Simarillion. Hellboy was a cheap comic book adaptation. It is good for the Sci Fi channel or FX. I don't see The Hobbit being a sci fi or FX kind of movie. The tone is too different. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
although we're diammetrically opposed (see my two responses), and I really lament the decline in filmmaking quality among some--those damn fast cameras!--i was impressed with how you stated your feelings. You always have insightful things to say about movies and pop culture. Obviously you think about these things a great deal. I may not always agree with you, but i always get food for thought from what you say. -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many of his contemporaries. Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:KeithBJohnson%40comcast.net writes: for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyrinth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of wonder Pan had other theme intertwined in the movie. The Hobbit is not a mature prequel. Maybe he could do Tne Simarillion. Hellboy was a cheap comic book adaptation. It is good for the Sci Fi channel or FX. I don't see The Hobbit being a sci fi or FX kind of movie. The tone is too different. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/24/2007 2:46:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In addition to Crouching Tiger, he won critical acclaim and awards for The Ice Storm, Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and Brokeback Mountain. There are a few other films that he is known for, but I have not seen them or heard as much about them I have seen those movies. He is not just a martial arts director. I like that. Raimi seem to be an action director. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/24/2007 9:27:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wha? Have you SEEN the LOTR films? Is it possible to BE more Hollywood than a multimillion dollar film starring Orlando Bloom, Never really heard of him before this. Liv Tyler, Never really heard of her either Sean Bean, Is not really knoew to American audiences. He has done alot of British television and film. He does alot of supporting roles. He is not a big name celebrity/ Cate Blanchett, Did Elizabeth. Not a celebrity Hugo Weaving (POST Matrix), Never saw nor heard of him before Elijah Wood, Nope Sir Ian McKellen Nope (who HAD done X Men at this point) this was as Hollywood as you could GET in 2001. Besides that, he was not a Clinnt eastwood LOTR is an example of Hollywood pulling out all the stops to make a picture. They did a damn good job. It was NOT a typical fantasy film **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Badda Bing Badda Boom he nails it. LOTR was as big and as a commercial as Hollywood gets. The marketing and advertising budgets alone were enough to feed most thirdworld countries for a decade. Bosco --- Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wha? Have you SEEN the LOTR films? Is it possible to BE more Hollywood than a multimillion dollar film starring Orlando Bloom, Liv Tyler, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving (POST Matrix), Elijah Wood, Sir Ian McKellen (who HAD done X Men at this point) this was as Hollywood as you could GET in 2001. ³It² is subjective. If you don¹t like Peter Jackson, you don¹t like Peter Jackson. But to say that ANY of the LOTR films seemed Independent is not to understand independent film. Star Wars Episode 4, as it was released in 1977, is an example of a big budget independent film. LOTR is an example of Hollywood pulling out all the stops to make a picture. On 12/24/07 6:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/23/2007 7:17:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:tdlists%40multiculturaladvantage.com writes: M. Night Shyamalan wrote Stuart Little the same year he did the Six Sense Flop Too commmerical. Harry Potter was too commercial. I like LOTR films because it did not have that Hollywood commercial film. It was as if it was an independent film. Potter is too generic to co,pare. The director will not have that magic that will not make it a commerical film. I am not talking about a independent film. I am talking about IT. Jackson did something to those books that transforme them. Yes he changed some things. However he made them beautiful. I loved the location and sets. it was as if you were really there. It was not a ypical fantasy film. Curon and del Toro will not build upon that. Since there are some characters from the first books in the Hobbit, the film will be different. It won't have that same feeling. I am not looking for Gothic or Sullen Harry Potter. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] I got friends who are in prison and Friends who are dead. I'm gonna tell ya something that I've often said. You know these things that happen, That's just the way it's supposed to be. And I can't help but wonder, Don't ya know it coulda been me. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Raimi has done several projects that were not Action films including a Simple Plan which features a really fabulous performance from Billy Bob Thorton. He also directed the Gift and For the Love of The Game. Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/24/2007 2:46:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In addition to Crouching Tiger, he won critical acclaim and awards for The Ice Storm, Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and Brokeback Mountain. There are a few other films that he is known for, but I have not seen them or heard as much about them I have seen those movies. He is not just a martial arts director. I like that. Raimi seem to be an action director. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] I got friends who are in prison and Friends who are dead. I'm gonna tell ya something that I've often said. You know these things that happen, That's just the way it's supposed to be. And I can't help but wonder, Don't ya know it coulda been me. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Wow, what a wonderful compliment! Thank you! I talk a lot about popcorn movies, but I really love the art of filmmaking. When done right, it's a beautiful art form. Many cinematographers and sound mixers I admire got started on some really crappy films. And a lot of times in those movies they do some really creative work that slips by the studios and makes it to the screen. When a director has a good eye (or trusts their DP) -- I think it shows. You have an eye for the written word and how it is brought to life, which is really, really important. Too many stories are lost in the process of comic penciling and filmmaking. So to me, we aren't really opposing as much as we are coming to the same point from different angles. It's like if the two of us collaborated on the same picture, it would have a serious -- but funny -- script with solid effects, really balanced camera work -- and the best looking female cast in the history of cinema! On 12/24/07 3:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: although we're diammetrically opposed (see my two responses), and I really lament the decline in filmmaking quality among some--those damn fast cameras!--i was impressed with how you stated your feelings. You always have insightful things to say about movies and pop culture. Obviously you think about these things a great deal. I may not always agree with you, but i always get food for thought from what you say. -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many of his contemporaries. Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:KeithBJohnson%40comcast.net writes: for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyrinth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Whether you like it or not is irrelevant in determining a success of a movie. Try as you might and you do, you can not change facts. Good try thought/ Stuart Little was such a flop it had a sequel. Im not even going to go there with The Sixth Sense.Which Harry Potter. How do you criticize things without seeing them. Do you know which one I'm talking to. Chris Columbus Potter films are dramatically different than Cuaron's. How do you know what Cuaron and del Toro have the ability to build on when you have only seen one or two of their films and a few clips? Before Lord of the Rings, Jackson did Heavenly Creatures, the Frighteners, some in the outback and three other movies. The Frighteners was the closest to the fantasy of LOTR - and not remotely close at that. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/23/2007 7:17:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: M. Night Shyamalan wrote Stuart Little the same year he did the Six Sense Flop Too commmerical. Harry Potter was too commercial. I like LOTR films because it did not have that Hollywood commercial film. It was as if it was an independent film. Potter is too generic to co,pare. The director will not have that magic that will not make it a commerical film. I am not talking about a independent film. I am talking about IT. Jackson did something to those books that transforme them. Yes he changed some things. However he made them beautiful. I loved the location and sets. it was as if you were really there. It was not a ypical fantasy film. Curon and del Toro will not build upon that. Since there are some characters from the first books in the Hobbit, the film will be different. It won't have that same feeling. I am not looking for Gothic or Sullen Harry Potter. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I was gonna leave this alone with the Raimi discussion, but hey, it's Christmas. I think these kinds of conversations are like sports conversations, and so it's fitting that we're having it around the holiday. It isn't crucial that you've seen every game ever played, but it helps for one to have seen beyond the last two playoff games before one starts talking about which coach should be fired or hired. On 12/24/07 2:46 PM, Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not define any writer/director by one or two things they have done, but their body of work. That is why I was running the resumes of the artists that you said did not have IT or have range to cross over genres It seems to me that you see one or two thing done by a director and define him by it. Funny you were just stressing to me that Ang Lee had done other films. Come to find out you do not even know what they are. In addition to Crouching Tiger, he won critical acclaim and awards for The Ice Storm, Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and Brokeback Mountain. There are a few other films that he is known for, but I have not seen them or heard as much about them [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. I don't think that Ang Lee should be define by The Hulk and CTHD. I am sure that he has done other films. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
The Angst that you described is the Angst I always felt when watching the Bill Bixby Series, so while I too needed a stiff drink, it felt more of the same for me. However, the CGI was absolutely horrible-- especially when the Hulk turned into a bouncing green ball. Martin wrote: LMNAO!!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i agree, i'd probably need therapy after seeing an Ang Lee rendition of The Hobbit. I was actually depressed after Hulk. it was such a brooding, downbeat movie. I'm all for well done angst in comic films. Indeed, it's those movies with realistic human drama that are the best, even in the cape-and-cowl genre. But Hulk--i came out of it feeling like i needed a shower and a stiff drink. And I don't drink! -- Original message -- From: Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: they're good examples of story, acting, plotting, action, FX, CGI, and that all-important, all-evasise look of a film. They may be okay directors but they don't have the it factor. I don't expect Scorsese to do the Hobbit. It is not his style. I don't expect Eastwood to do it either. I can see Ang Lee doing it. He has don different genres of film. These directors have not. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I forgot he do those. I love him too. Hopefully, Spidey 3 is an aberration Bosco Bosco wrote: Raimi has done several projects that were not Action films including a Simple Plan which features a really fabulous performance from Billy Bob Thorton. He also directed the Gift and For the Love of The Game. Bosco --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/24/2007 2:46:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In addition to Crouching Tiger, he won critical acclaim and awards for The Ice Storm, Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and Brokeback Mountain. There are a few other films that he is known for, but I have not seen them or heard as much about them I have seen those movies. He is not just a martial arts director. I like that. Raimi seem to be an action director. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] I got friends who are in prison and Friends who are dead. I'm gonna tell ya something that I've often said. You know these things that happen, That's just the way it's supposed to be. And I can't help but wonder, Don't ya know it coulda been me. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I agree. I do not think you have to have seen every move done by an artist to assess there abilities, I do think one or two out of 20 or 30 movies is not enough to judge their range. Daryle wrote: I was gonna leave this alone with the Raimi discussion, but hey, it's Christmas. I think these kinds of conversations are like sports conversations, and so it's fitting that we're having it around the holiday. It isn't crucial that you've seen every game ever played, but it helps for one to have seen beyond the last two playoff games before one starts talking about which coach should be fired or hired. On 12/24/07 2:46 PM, Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not define any writer/director by one or two things they have done, but their body of work. That is why I was running the resumes of the artists that you said did not have IT or have range to cross over genres It seems to me that you see one or two thing done by a director and define him by it. Funny you were just stressing to me that Ang Lee had done other films. Come to find out you do not even know what they are. In addition to Crouching Tiger, he won critical acclaim and awards for The Ice Storm, Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and Brokeback Mountain. There are a few other films that he is known for, but I have not seen them or heard as much about them [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. I don't think that Ang Lee should be define by The Hulk and CTHD. I am sure that he has done other films. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
so true, and thanks to you too! -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wow, what a wonderful compliment! Thank you! I talk a lot about popcorn movies, but I really love the art of filmmaking. When done right, it's a beautiful art form. Many cinematographers and sound mixers I admire got started on some really crappy films. And a lot of times in those movies they do some really creative work that slips by the studios and makes it to the screen. When a director has a good eye (or trusts their DP) -- I think it shows. You have an eye for the written word and how it is brought to life, which is really, really important. Too many stories are lost in the process of comic penciling and filmmaking. So to me, we aren't really opposing as much as we are coming to the same point from different angles. It's like if the two of us collaborated on the same picture, it would have a serious -- but funny -- script with solid effects, really balanced camera work -- and the best looking female cast in the history of cinema! On 12/24/07 3:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: although we're diammetrically opposed (see my two responses), and I really lament the decline in filmmaking quality among some--those damn fast cameras!--i was impressed with how you stated your feelings. You always have insightful things to say about movies and pop culture. Obviously you think about these things a great deal. I may not always agree with you, but i always get food for thought from what you say. -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many of his contemporaries. Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:KeithBJohnson%40comcast.net writes: for some reason I feel del
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
the series was sombre at times, but the movie felt more so to me. It was actually downright depressing. Good series that, even though the Hulk was drastically depowered. Good series, that is, until the horrible TV movie when they brought that idiotic version of Thor onto the scene. Ever see that one? Really, really awful! -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Angst that you described is the Angst I always felt when watching the Bill Bixby Series, so while I too needed a stiff drink, it felt more of the same for me. However, the CGI was absolutely horrible-- especially when the Hulk turned into a bouncing green ball. Martin wrote: LMNAO!!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i agree, i'd probably need therapy after seeing an Ang Lee rendition of The Hobbit. I was actually depressed after Hulk. it was such a brooding, downbeat movie. I'm all for well done angst in comic films. Indeed, it's those movies with realistic human drama that are the best, even in the cape-and-cowl genre. But Hulk--i came out of it feeling like i needed a shower and a stiff drink. And I don't drink! -- Original message -- From: Martin After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: they're good examples of story, acting, plotting, action, FX, CGI, and that all-important, all-evasise look of a film. They may be okay directors but they don't have the it factor. I don't expect Scorsese to do the Hobbit. It is not his style. I don't expect Eastwood to do it either. I can see Ang Lee doing it. He has don different genres of film. These directors have not. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
my living room is rather narrow and long, and we watch TV across the narrow width, so I don't quite get the theatre experience. Even if i did, and even when i get that much-desired 50 plasma TV, i still don't see the theatre being replaced for me. I love the movie going experience: the crowds, talking to people in line, being part of an opening-day phenomenon, sharing the action, sadness, and humour with a large crowd. that's what makes movies fun to me, so that even if the movie itself sucks, the overall experience can be enjoyable. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] That is how we do our movie nights. My daughter is always asking for us to turn the living room back into the Movie theatre. Because of how we watch our movies, I do not enjoy the theatre as much as in the past [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: definitely a generational thing. I won't watch a movie on DVD at home unless i can be assured of watching it in one sitting with minimal interruptions. Don't take phone calls, prepare my food ahead of time. I get that stopping and examining the film is cool (do it myself). But they're meant to be digested at one sitting, with all those things you mentioned fllowing together to make a good whole. -- Original message -- From: Daryle The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played DD, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get Beowulf. It's why I've never played Zelda. So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many of his contemporaries. Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyrinth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of wonder Pan had other theme intertwined in the
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/22/2007 10:58:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I seem to like Del Toro, Cuaron, and their work more than you do. I guess so. They may have talent, but do they have that internal factor of imagination. I don't see it at all. Hellboy has CGI like Spiderman. Some parts are okay, some are horrid. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: they're good examples of story, acting, plotting, action, FX, CGI, and that all-important, all-evasise look of a film. They may be okay directors but they don't have the it factor. I don't expect Scorsese to do the Hobbit. It is not his style. I don't expect Eastwood to do it either. I can see Ang Lee doing it. He has don different genres of film. These directors have not. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
For The Hobbit? Over my cold, dead body. Yes, it does have dark elements that might suit Burton's vision, but not overall. tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about Tim Burton? --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The hobbit is a children's book. It is not a serious film about love and lost. I don't think that there is a director out there that could capture that. If Henson were alive I think that he could have done it. I think the person that directed the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe could do a great job. I heard the movie was great. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
(starting daily aspirin shipments to Tracey, in anticipation of the holiday rush of goofballery) tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ugghh, you guys are giving me a headache --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Justin Mohareb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With Bruce Campbell as Gandalf. On Dec 20, 2007 8:33 PM, Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit Spider-Man director Sam Raimi will return to his genre roots to helm Drag Me to Hell, a supernatural thriller he wrote with his brother, Ivan Raimi, Variety reported. -- Read the Bitter Guide to the Bitter Guy. http://thebitterguy.livejournal.com There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
i agree, i'd probably need therapy after seeing an Ang Lee rendition of The Hobbit. I was actually depressed after Hulk. it was such a brooding, downbeat movie. I'm all for well done angst in comic films. Indeed, it's those movies with realistic human drama that are the best, even in the cape-and-cowl genre. But Hulk--i came out of it feeling like i needed a shower and a stiff drink. And I don't drink! -- Original message -- From: Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: they're good examples of story, acting, plotting, action, FX, CGI, and that all-important, all-evasise look of a film. They may be okay directors but they don't have the it factor. I don't expect Scorsese to do the Hobbit. It is not his style. I don't expect Eastwood to do it either. I can see Ang Lee doing it. He has don different genres of film. These directors have not. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia. -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/23/2007 7:42:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. The CGI was horrible on that. However I like the fact that he has done sci fi, drama and movies from his homeland. I don't think that he is the best director. However he does have the ability to do differently genes. Jackson has done the same thing. He does not just work in one genre. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Gymfig: I'm about to attack your notion that Cuarón, del Toro and Tim Burton do not have IT and that they do not cross over genres. This in not a personal attack, nor is it born out of anger. I'm having a ball with this You pick the director game we are playing. This discussion made me want to take a look at all the directors suggested because I think that are among the most creative in the industry. So, please do not be offended by my defense of these directors. This is a movie game and nothing else. I respect your opinion and hope you respond in kind. None of the people on the list who you indicated lacked talent, only work in one genre. By the way I am a huge Ang Lee fan and respect what he was trying to do with the Hulk. The man is a great storyteller. For this exercise, I'd be curious to see his vision of The Hobbit. While we all want Jackson, Ang can hang with the best of them. But the others on the list, are not just comic book or genre directors without It as you have indicated, as far as I can tell. Of the people you included in that category are: Alfonso Cuarón -According to IMDB he has been nominated for 3 Oscars, won a BAFTA Film Award, numerous International, national, state, and city film critics awards, numerous film festival awards, the list goes on. Up to 43 awards in all. So somebody other then me thinks he has IT Regarding him only working in one genre, he has done drama, comedy, thrillers, children's movies, TV series, fantasy, documentaries, scifi, historical movies, animation, romance, he has modernized a dickens classic (great expectations), and a few adaptations of novels in addition to the potter series.I'm so glad Keith pointed him out. I keep forgetting that he is one of the Harry Potter directors and I never would have raised him, but of all the people suggested, he is likely the one with the most evidence of crossing genres. He has four projects concurrently going. Guillermo del Toro - now del Toro, while it is simplistic to say he only does one genre, I can see were you are coming from here.If you look at Hellboy, animated Hellboy, Mimic, Pan's Labyrinth, Blade II, Geometria, At the Mountains of Madness, The Devil's Backbone , and Cronos we are dealing with speculative fiction. To me, done with great vision, but none the less, Genre However, the man crosses over into almost every area of speculative fiction, including fantasy, horror, comic book adaptation, mystery, thrillers, vampires, ghost stories, and SF drama, and historical pieces. What most people do not know is that he has done highly rated romance, drama, comedy, thrillers, and a sports-themed movie. He has been nominated for an Oscar and won 34 International, national, state and local awards. FYI for the trivia buffs in the group. He and Cuarón are teaming up for a project. Should be interesting. While I was sick, I stopped watching subtitled movies. However, reading these guys' bios, has reminded me that I have to get back into it. Some of their movies in Spanish look really good. I see how they were able to get the suits in Hollywood to take notice.He has 11 projects concurrently going. Bottomline: I'm seeing IT and ability to do various genres. Tim Burton - I suggested him, but I think he is probably the most inappropriate for this list of who should direct The Hobbit. You should slap me :). I just like this You Pick The Director Game and was brainstorming. While I am big fan, one can not ignore his... dark vision... which would not be a great fit for The Hobbit. However that he does not have IT to me is outrageous. The man practically jumpstarted the comics to film genre with his dark, Gothic vision of Batman. Too bad only about four directors figured out how to follow in his footsteps. So lets look at him. He has a great background in animation. He has worked as an animator on five productions including Tron, Fox and the hound and amazing Stories. Directed and written some children's shows including Pee's Big adventure. He's also directed Alfred Hitchcock Presents and Shelley Duvall's Faerie Tale Theatre. Don't forget the offbeat Ed He has done fantasy, horror, comedy, comic book adaptation, play adaptation, drama, and novel adaption. As will the other two, he has won numerous awards. While I really can not argue for his ability to cross over into other genre, I would say that if he does not have IT, he must have THIS THAT of THE OTHER OKay. We all know I'm corny. Your turn :) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/23/2007 7:42:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After The Hulk, Ang Lee needs to stay at home. mind you, I loved Crouching Tiger, but I really want to know what he was thinking when he formed his vision for that one. The CGI was horrible on that. However I like the fact that he has done sci fi, drama and movies
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/23/2007 3:56:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: he has been nominated for 3 Oscars, won a BAFTA Film Award, numerous International, national, state, and city film critics awards, numerous film festival awards, the list goes on. Up to 43 awards in all. So somebody other then me thinks he has IT Regarding him only working in one genre, he has done drama, comedy, thrillers, children's movies, TV series, fantasy, documentaries, scifi, historical movies, animation, romance, he has modernized a dickens classic (great expectations), and a few adaptations of novels in addition to the potter series.I'm so glad Keith pointed him out. I keep forgetting that he is one of the Harry Potter directors and I never would have raised him, but of all the people suggested, he is likely the one with the most evidence of crossing genres. He has four projects concurrently going. I really don't care about his resume. He does not have IT to carry on the vision of the first three movies. He is still too adult and the movie will not have the same film. Ang Lee has done more than just the Hulk. he has also won two Oscars. Guillermo del Toro - now del Toro, while it is simplistic to say he only does one genre, I can see were you are coming from here.If you look at Hellboy, animated Hellboy, Mimic, Pan's Labyrinth, Blade II, Geometria, At the Mountains of Madness, The Devil's Backbone , and Cronos we are dealing with speculative fiction. To me, done with great vision, but none the less, Genre However, the man crosses over into almost every area of speculative fiction, including fantasy, horror, comic book adaptation, mystery, thrillers, vampires, ghost stories, and SF drama, and historical pieces. Something the Hobbit is NOT. This two directors will make the Hobbit itno Legend( Tom Cruise). I don't know what Ridley Scott was trying to do. What most people do not know is that he has done highly rated romance, drama, comedy, thrillers, and a sports-themed movie. He has been nominated for an Oscar and won 34 International, national, state and local awards. FYI for the trivia buffs in the group. He and Cuarón are teaming up for a project. He is also too dark and will ruin thre film and the book. His fantasy is too generic fantsy. A good resume does not mean that you have the magic factory. Jackson is light. These tow are dark. Tim Burton - I suggested him, but I think he is probably the most inappropriate for this list of who should direct The Hobbit. You should slap me :). I just like this You Pick The Director Game and was brainstorming. \ He is too dark and quirky. Charile and the Chocolate factory was a horible film. The hobbit will be a mess. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
While I would not describe him as talentless as you did, I gotta agree with you about Burton. he would turn it into a twisted mess. I had too much egg nog I told you I'm a big Ang Lee fan. I mentioned Hulk, because people point to that as his failing and why he should not direct. I was actually siding with you - agreeing with you that he would be a good choice. I was pointing out how his vision in what is considered to be his major failing, actually is a demonstration why he could be a good choice for the Hobbit. While I do not think The Hobbit is a children's novel, I have not seen anything in Lee's resume that demonstrates that he has done children's productions. Not that I think that should be a criteria for selecting someone to do a children's piece. However, you have pointed out that their lack of children';s work is why you would not consider any of the other's listed. Regarding Cuaron. While I do not think the Hobbit is a children's book, you said Cuaron could not do children's movies. The man has produced children's films that are considered classics and what man argue is the best of the harry potter, in addition to award winning top ranked firms and you label him talentless without the ability to cross genre's or have experience doing children's films. I believe he got an Oscar for one of his children's films. If you have seen his children's films, you might not have liked them, but is it fair to say he has never doing any just because you have not seen them or you do not like them?Some of the statements you make give me the impression that you are seeing one or two movies by the people discussed, not knowing anything about their other work and then making sweeping generalizations about this work without actually knowing if what you say is true. Listing critically acclaimed, innovative works loved by the public awarded by many is the resume I gave to support that these writer/director/producers where not talentless. I used the resume, to provide examples of the incorrectness of your statement that they could not do more than one genre. I get the impression you saw one or two movies by these guys and closed your mind to the scores of other movies they have produced. Just because you have not seen them does not mean they do not exist or have value as creative pieces. I seems you look at two or three things that they have done and label them based on those movies. Perhaps if you look at there whole body of work, you would not see just dark, nothing special, and not ble to cross genres. The comedies, romances and children's work were not dark. Their resumes as you call them are not just titles, but creations that can give you insight as to whether someone has IT or can cross over into genre's rankings by fans and critics and SOMETIMES help you determine whether their work is any good. Regarding your notion that producers who do dark can not do lighter work or children's work.M. Night Shyamalan wrote Stuart Little the same year he did the Six Sense. While I do not necessarily agree with the selection the makes of The Last Avatar are using him to bring the show to the Big Screen Ironically it is interesting Jackson and others making the decision think otherwise as Cuaron and del Toro are both on the shortlist of only three to direct. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/23/2007 3:56:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: he has been nominated for 3 Oscars, won a BAFTA Film Award, numerous International, national, state, and city film critics awards, numerous film festival awards, the list goes on. Up to 43 awards in all. So somebody other then me thinks he has IT Regarding him only working in one genre, he has done drama, comedy, thrillers, children's movies, TV series, fantasy, documentaries, scifi, historical movies, animation, romance, he has modernized a dickens classic (great expectations), and a few adaptations of novels in addition to the potter series.I'm so glad Keith pointed him out. I keep forgetting that he is one of the Harry Potter directors and I never would have raised him, but of all the people suggested, he is likely the one with the most evidence of crossing genres. He has four projects concurrently going. I really don't care about his resume. He does not have IT to carry on the vision of the first three movies. He is still too adult and the movie will not have the same film. Ang Lee has done more than just the Hulk. he has also won two Oscars. Guillermo del Toro - now del Toro, while it is simplistic to say he only does one genre, I can see were you are coming from here.If you look at Hellboy, animated Hellboy, Mimic, Pan's Labyrinth, Blade II, Geometria, At the Mountains of Madness, The Devil's Backbone , and Cronos we are dealing with speculative fiction. To me, done with great vision, but none
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many of his contemporaries. Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:KeithBJohnson%40comcast.net writes: for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyrinth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of wonder Pan had other theme intertwined in the movie. The Hobbit is not a mature prequel. Maybe he could do Tne Simarillion. Hellboy was a cheap comic book adaptation. It is good for the Sci Fi channel or FX. I don't see The Hobbit being a sci fi or FX kind of movie. The tone is too different. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in your home viewing experience? -- Original message -- From: Daryle [EMAIL PROTECTED] And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many of his contemporaries. Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:KeithBJohnson%40comcast.net writes: for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyrinth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of wonder Pan had other theme intertwined in the movie. The Hobbit is not a mature prequel. Maybe he could do Tne Simarillion. Hellboy was a cheap comic book adaptation. It is good for the Sci Fi channel or FX. I don't see The Hobbit being a sci fi or FX kind of movie. The tone is too different. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
You nailed it Keith. Hellboy is freakin fantastic. One of the best comic to fim adaptations ever. B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i gotta disagree on Hellboy. That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I mean, after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyrinth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of wonder Pan had other theme intertwined in the movie. The Hobbit is not a mature prequel. Maybe he could do Tne Simarillion. Hellboy was a cheap comic book adaptation. It is good for the Sci Fi channel or FX. I don't see The Hobbit being a sci fi or FX kind of movie. The tone is too different. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] I got friends who are in prison and Friends who are dead. I'm gonna tell ya something that I've often said. You know these things that happen, That's just the way it's supposed to be. And I can't help but wonder, Don't ya know it coulda been me. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I'm the industry expert? Me, who from Philly forgot about Smith's Production company? I do not think so. Thanks though. I really do not know how they got together. I think if we fans were not so hungry for more of the the magic that Jackson created with the Lord of the Ring series. Since the Hobbit is part of the same world he created with the Lord of the Ring series, we can't bear the thought of someone else doing it. I think if Raimi and Jackson were teaming up for something else, prior to his Spidey 3 debacle, we would be extremely excited. Separate from the Hobbit project, I think they make an intriguing combination. They could make great movies together [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i only saw part of Pan's Labyrinth, but it was awesome. his vision and outre imagination are something else. You know, as a child del Toro literally had waking dreams, where he saw some of the very images that he'd later put into movies, but in his real life. Not sure what the condition was (is?) but that helped shape his imagination. Tracey, you're the film industry expert, getting all the inside dope. i'm curious as to how the Jackson - Raimi connection came about. Are they friends? Have they collaborated on anything in the past? -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] I forgot the Children of Men guy did Potter as well. In that case, I would say he is an excellent choice if we could not have Peter Jackson. I would also trust Del Toro's vision over Raimi these days. I have not Seen Pan Labyrinth. While the critics rave, most people I know who have seen it don't get that excited by it. What did you think about Pan's Labyrinth? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyritnth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of wonder. To use wholly inaccurate words, i just feel he's a more mature fantasy director than Raimi would be, even though both are on the dark side. I've never seen any Potter film past the first one, but my other choice Cuaron got props for his work on the Potter film he did -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The think del Toro is dark on the order of Raimi and Burton, however, I won't argue against the idea that he has vision. Children of men is fantastic, but I can't see what about his work makes you think he would be good for the Hobbit. I've only seen one Harry Potter all the way through, but I would say the imagery could work. What do you think of that guy's storytelling? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that's why i said Raimi wouldn't be my first choice. I'd go with one of the two Mexican directors who've shown with Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, Children of Men, and Harry Potter that they can balance all the aspects required of such a film as one based on The Hobbit -- Original message -- From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally I want Jackson, but I was trying to come up with someone who had the imagination for it. I agree he is probalby way to dark, but i do not think he is any worse than Raimi --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/21/2007 10:27:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about Tim Burton? Tracy, If I could I would come through this computer and slap you silly for that. LOL!!! Johnny Depp would be an awful choice for Bilbo. Bilbo would be a drunken hairy odd little man with peculiar tastes. Depp would basically be playing himself. You do understand that if we get Burton we also get Helen Bohman Carter. She would revise her role in Merlin. *Shudder* **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Chris says it will be a cold day in hell before you ever see catch him on camera doing the powerpuff dance. But he'd be happy to catch me and Kira doing it. However, last wee,k during our family tree trimming gathering, Kira put the Christmas tree skirt on his shoulders and gave him a big candy cane for an septre shouting King Daddy Christmas We just got that flip camera, so I got my my brother in law to take video of the Christmas King. . So... anything is possible. Such great blackmail material. Unfortunately, now he is out for revenge. I'm scared. I do a lot of goofy stuff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: awesome! so, when do we get to see you, Chris, and Kira on You Tube doing the deMorsella Super Power Family Dance!! Power Puff Girls is awesome. No one-adult or child--can watch that silly show without laughing -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ohhh! I was about to start really hating Raimi. The Dance - my daughter really loves the Grinch and she loves to dance. She likes me to dance with her, so its this thing we do. She just discovered Power Puff Girls and seems to have created a dance that show too. This dance has sound effects that she shares with people that she meets as she explains to them that she is a Powerpuff girl. After telling me she hating them (prior to viewing it) after she saw it, we had to see the same episode four times. She has got a thing for Super heroes, so I knew that a dance would be forthcoming with this one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no sorry, i changed films and directors, and should have noted that. Ron Howard did the Grinch; i was simply comparing the styles of films, both of which gave me headaches of color overload... what's up with the dance? -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] He did the Grinch?!?!?!?!? My daughter has been torturing me with that crap all week. What a mess. What was he on. It was so hard to watch the piggy people and he does not seem to know what shade of red and green are used for Christmas colors. I agree, that the cartoon is a classic. I almost did not mind the torture of playing the song 25 + times this week or seeing the DVD of the cartoon six times. I think was my favorite before this week. You should see our silly Grinch song dance. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Burton can be a bit too--what's a good word...?--artificial-seeming to me. All the riotous colors, the crazy angles of Willy Wonka all turned me off so that I never saw the film. I was the same way with 'The Grinch, which I unfortunately did see: it was over-the-top, over saturated with bright colors, loud, insufferably long, boring, and just a waste of time. Taking an absolute classic like the cartoon (which is, by the way, my second favorite Christmas cartoon of all time, after Charlie Brown Christmas) and stretching it from 27 minutes to two hours? Bad, bad idea! -- Original message -- From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree, but if the can get Jackson, who has the imagination and vision? By the way, how was Willy Wonka. Depp's Michael Jackson performance in the trailers hs just creeped me out --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Burton's tastes run a bit to the more gothic and outre side; he's perfect for stuff like Nightmare Before Christmas and the dark Batman, but I don't think he'd have quite the right touch of whimsy for *this* particular film. It's a tricky mix to get the humour, action, drama, FX, and magic down pat -- Original message -- From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about Tim Burton? --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Gymfig@ wrote: The hobbit is a children's book. It is not a serious film about love and lost. I don't think that there is a director out there that could capture that. If Henson were alive I think that he could have done it. I think the person that directed the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe could do a great job. I heard the movie was great. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:00:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: they're good examples of story, acting, plotting, action, FX, CGI, and that all-important, all-evasise look of a film. They may be okay directors but they don't have the it factor. I don't expect Scorsese to do the Hobbit. It is not his style. I don't expect Eastwood to do it either. I can see Ang Lee doing it. He has don different genres of film. These directors have not. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
we just disagree on this, which is cool. i seem to like Del Toro, Cuaron, and their work more than you do. i think Hellboy is way more than simple CGI... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:16:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... True but Jackson has talent. Hellboy is typically CGI. Nothing to write home about. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Well you are in good company. Filmmakers, critics, authors and more see them in a similar light. Most think Cuaron specifically does have it I think he's won awards for his work.I agree that it is fine that people have different perspectives, but this is one time were I can not even relate to the perspective that they lack talent. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we just disagree on this, which is cool. i seem to like Del Toro, Cuaron, and their work more than you do. i think Hellboy is way more than simple CGI... -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 12/22/2007 11:16:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Frighteners, I never would have pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... True but Jackson has talent. Hellboy is typically CGI. Nothing to write home about. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/21/2007 10:27:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about Tim Burton? Tracy, If I could I would come through this computer and slap you silly for that. LOL!!! Johnny Depp would be an awful choice for Bilbo. Bilbo would be a drunken hairy odd little man with peculiar tastes. Depp would basically be playing himself. You do understand that if we get Burton we also get Helen Bohman Carter. She would revise her role in Merlin. *Shudder* **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
In a message dated 12/22/2007 12:22:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's a tricky mix to get the humour, action, drama, FX, and magic down pat Something that only Jackson can do. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
that's why i said Raimi wouldn't be my first choice. I'd go with one of the two Mexican directors who've shown with Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, Children of Men, and Harry Potter that they can balance all the aspects required of such a film as one based on The Hobbit -- Original message -- From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally I want Jackson, but I was trying to come up with someone who had the imagination for it. I agree he is probalby way to dark, but i do not think he is any worse than Raimi --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/21/2007 10:27:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about Tim Burton? Tracy, If I could I would come through this computer and slap you silly for that. LOL!!! Johnny Depp would be an awful choice for Bilbo. Bilbo would be a drunken hairy odd little man with peculiar tastes. Depp would basically be playing himself. You do understand that if we get Burton we also get Helen Bohman Carter. She would revise her role in Merlin. *Shudder* **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
Burton can be a bit too--what's a good word...?--artificial-seeming to me. All the riotous colors, the crazy angles of Willy Wonka all turned me off so that I never saw the film. I was the same way with 'The Grinch, which I unfortunately did see: it was over-the-top, over saturated with bright colors, loud, insufferably long, boring, and just a waste of time. Taking an absolute classic like the cartoon (which is, by the way, my second favorite Christmas cartoon of all time, after Charlie Brown Christmas) and stretching it from 27 minutes to two hours? Bad, bad idea! -- Original message -- From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree, but if the can get Jackson, who has the imagination and vision? By the way, how was Willy Wonka. Depp's Michael Jackson performance in the trailers hs just creeped me out --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Burton's tastes run a bit to the more gothic and outre side; he's perfect for stuff like Nightmare Before Christmas and the dark Batman, but I don't think he'd have quite the right touch of whimsy for *this* particular film. It's a tricky mix to get the humour, action, drama, FX, and magic down pat -- Original message -- From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about Tim Burton? --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Gymfig@ wrote: The hobbit is a children's book. It is not a serious film about love and lost. I don't think that there is a director out there that could capture that. If Henson were alive I think that he could have done it. I think the person that directed the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe could do a great job. I heard the movie was great. **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
The think del Toro is dark on the order of Raimi and Burton, however, I won't argue against the idea that he has vision. Children of men is fantastic, but I can't see what about his work makes you think he would be good for the Hobbit. I've only seen one Harry Potter all the way through, but I would say the imagery could work. What do you think of that guy's storytelling? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that's why i said Raimi wouldn't be my first choice. I'd go with one of the two Mexican directors who've shown with Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, Children of Men, and Harry Potter that they can balance all the aspects required of such a film as one based on The Hobbit -- Original message -- From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally I want Jackson, but I was trying to come up with someone who had the imagination for it. I agree he is probalby way to dark, but i do not think he is any worse than Raimi --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/21/2007 10:27:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about Tim Burton? Tracy, If I could I would come through this computer and slap you silly for that. LOL!!! Johnny Depp would be an awful choice for Bilbo. Bilbo would be a drunken hairy odd little man with peculiar tastes. Depp would basically be playing himself. You do understand that if we get Burton we also get Helen Bohman Carter. She would revise her role in Merlin. *Shudder* **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyritnth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of wonder. To use wholly inaccurate words, i just feel he's a more mature fantasy director than Raimi would be, even though both are on the dark side. I've never seen any Potter film past the first one, but my other choice Cuaron got props for his work on the Potter film he did -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The think del Toro is dark on the order of Raimi and Burton, however, I won't argue against the idea that he has vision. Children of men is fantastic, but I can't see what about his work makes you think he would be good for the Hobbit. I've only seen one Harry Potter all the way through, but I would say the imagery could work. What do you think of that guy's storytelling? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that's why i said Raimi wouldn't be my first choice. I'd go with one of the two Mexican directors who've shown with Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, Children of Men, and Harry Potter that they can balance all the aspects required of such a film as one based on The Hobbit -- Original message -- From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally I want Jackson, but I was trying to come up with someone who had the imagination for it. I agree he is probalby way to dark, but i do not think he is any worse than Raimi --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/21/2007 10:27:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about Tim Burton? Tracy, If I could I would come through this computer and slap you silly for that. LOL!!! Johnny Depp would be an awful choice for Bilbo. Bilbo would be a drunken hairy odd little man with peculiar tastes. Depp would basically be playing himself. You do understand that if we get Burton we also get Helen Bohman Carter. She would revise her role in Merlin. *Shudder* **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Raimi Helming Hell, Then Hobbit
I forgot the Children of Men guy did Potter as well. In that case, I would say he is an excellent choice if we could not have Peter Jackson. I would also trust Del Toro's vision over Raimi these days. I have not Seen Pan Labyrinth.While the critics rave, most people I know who have seen it don't get that excited by it. What did you think about Pan's Labyrinth? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyritnth, Hell boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of wonder. To use wholly inaccurate words, i just feel he's a more mature fantasy director than Raimi would be, even though both are on the dark side. I've never seen any Potter film past the first one, but my other choice Cuaron got props for his work on the Potter film he did -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor) [EMAIL PROTECTED] The think del Toro is dark on the order of Raimi and Burton, however, I won't argue against the idea that he has vision. Children of men is fantastic, but I can't see what about his work makes you think he would be good for the Hobbit. I've only seen one Harry Potter all the way through, but I would say the imagery could work. What do you think of that guy's storytelling? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that's why i said Raimi wouldn't be my first choice. I'd go with one of the two Mexican directors who've shown with Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy, Children of Men, and Harry Potter that they can balance all the aspects required of such a film as one based on The Hobbit -- Original message -- From: tdemorsella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally I want Jackson, but I was trying to come up with someone who had the imagination for it. I agree he is probalby way to dark, but i do not think he is any worse than Raimi --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/21/2007 10:27:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about Tim Burton? Tracy, If I could I would come through this computer and slap you silly for that. LOL!!! Johnny Depp would be an awful choice for Bilbo. Bilbo would be a drunken hairy odd little man with peculiar tastes. Depp would basically be playing himself. You do understand that if we get Burton we also get Helen Bohman Carter. She would revise her role in Merlin. *Shudder* **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
