hornet's nest

Posted by Donovan from mail.bauerpublishing.com (209.178.193.64) on Monday, October 07, 2002 at 9:30am :

In Reply to: Have Video Games Ruined Movies? posted by MK from dialup-65.59.31.9.Dial1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (65.59.31.9) on Sunday, October 06, 2002 at 9:06pm :

it's my personal opinion that whenever something that is inappropriate to the material is intorduced it detracts from the movie. No one is forcing filmmakers to use the types of camera effects et al that you're talking about. It worked brilliantly in the Matrix, and it works brilliantly in other movies as well, but there are dozens of movies where it seems out of place and egregious.

But if you think about it you could apply this reasoning to other elements of a movie as well - that weird rock and roll number Lucas put into the rerelease of Return of the Jedi feels totally out of place, does that mean modern music is ruining movies? Or the farting pack animals in Phantom Menace - is potty humor ruining movies? Or the Ewoks (I think it's safe to say they were universally loathed by anyone out of grade school) - is puppetry ruining movies? or by catering to a younger audience are you ruining moviemaking?

It all depends on how it's handled. Like clothing: you'd wear a tux to your wedding, but not to a ball game because it would stick out like a sore thumb at Yankee Stadium. Movies work the same way with music, effects, hammy actors, etc. If it doesn't fit within the movie it detracts.

In my opinion good example would be Minority Report - in recent years there has been a lot of debate about product placement in movies but in Minority Report it's integral to the way they portray the future. So in Minority Report even though there is TONS of it, it's handed well and well integrated into the movie. On the other hand would it seem weird to have Indy stop and guzzle a Mountain Dew? ABSOLUTELY.

Another good example is Crusade, around 1989 there was debate about special effects in movies (because a lot of films were being released that were thin on plot and heavy on effects) - does that mean the scene where Donovan ages ruined the movie? no because the special effects weren't out of place, they were appropriate to the film.

So should the new Indy film eschew effects, no - just don't do something that seems out of place or like it doesn't belong in an Indy film - like bullet time camera work.

And as an aside the thing that killed me about Superman was that godawful Chad Kroeger Nickelback song they used. That song is complete shite! I thought the rest of the movie worked though.

Follow Ups:

Good points, except for the one - Indiana Texas girl 1:14am 10/08/2002

Brett... - Indiana Texas girl 1:17am 10/08/2002

Ewoks suck! - JuggleEwok 8:45pm 10/09/2002

Man, today is a great day for topics here.... - Jimmie 2:39pm 10/10/2002

Re: Man, today is a great day for topics here.... - JuggleEwok 5:46pm 10/10/2002

Well said... - Brett Maverick Lambert 1:07pm 10/07/2002

Post a Followup

Name:

E-Mail: ( default )

Subject:

Message:
: it's my personal opinion that whenever something that is inappropriate to the material is intorduced it detracts from the movie. No one is forcing filmmakers to use the types of camera effects et al that you're talking about. It worked brilliantly in the Matrix, and it works brilliantly in other movies as well, but there are dozens of movies where it seems out of place and egregious. : But if you think about it you could apply this reasoning to other elements of a movie as well - that weird rock and roll number Lucas put into the rerelease of Return of the Jedi feels totally out of place, does that mean modern music is ruining movies? Or the farting pack animals in Phantom Menace - is potty humor ruining movies? Or the Ewoks (I think it's safe to say they were universally loathed by anyone out of grade school) - is puppetry ruining movies? or by catering to a younger audience are you ruining moviemaking? : It all depends on how it's handled. Like clothing: you'd wear a tux to your wedding, but not to a ball game because it would stick out like a sore thumb at Yankee Stadium. Movies work the same way with music, effects, hammy actors, etc. If it doesn't fit within the movie it detracts. : In my opinion good example would be Minority Report - in recent years there has been a lot of debate about product placement in movies but in Minority Report it's integral to the way they portray the future. So in Minority Report even though there is TONS of it, it's handed well and well integrated into the movie. On the other hand would it seem weird to have Indy stop and guzzle a Mountain Dew? ABSOLUTELY. : Another good example is Crusade, around 1989 there was debate about special effects in movies (because a lot of films were being released that were thin on plot and heavy on effects) - does that mean the scene where Donovan ages ruined the movie? no because the special effects weren't out of place, they were appropriate to the film. : So should the new Indy film eschew effects, no - just don't do something that seems out of place or like it doesn't belong in an Indy film - like bullet time camera work. : : And as an aside the thing that killed me about Superman was that godawful Chad Kroeger Nickelback song they used. That song is complete shite! I thought the rest of the movie worked though.

Optional Link ( default )

URL:

Title:

Optional Image Link ( default )

URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com