Comments on: Opinion In A Haystack: Summer Movies, Bitter Fossils, and Self Reflection

By: chicobob

chicobob — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:15:32 +0000

Bob doesn’t have a girlfriend. Silly rabbit. Trix are for kids.

By: opinioninahaystack's girlfriend

opinioninahaystack's girlfriend — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:33:32 +0000

Being the girlfriend of someone as adamant about film as Bob is can sometimes be trying. I’ve heard the CGI rant and the Indy rant and the Speed Racer rant more than a few times. The CGI rant gets longer every time in case anyone was wondering. And also in case of curiosity, my opinion of CGI cannot be better stated than Bob has already. I can, however, translate it into the language of my industry (graphic design). When using Photoshop (a program I’m sure many of you are at least aware of if not familiar with), there are many nifty filters you can use. You can turn your photo into a mosaic, or posterize it, or make it look like a painting or watercolor or colored pencil or any myriad of other techniques with just a few clicks of the mouse. However, when you look at your finished filtered photo, it looks (to anyone at your skill level or above) like you used that filter. That you spent five seconds clicking in a few settings and voila! The filters are meant to be tools, tools that help experienced users get to a more creative, artistic end more quickly. They are not meant to be the final product. And also, if you have a shitty, low resolution photo to begin with, no amount of tinkering with filters is going to make that photo look better. If I lost people back there, my analogy is this: the photo = the movie, the filters = the CGI. The filters (CGI) can enhance your photo (movie) if its already good, but don’t overuse them (it), because its painfully obvious when you do; when you try to cover up your lack of creativity by letting the computer program create for you.

I wanted to throw in my own two cents (in this increasingly lengthly post) about George Lucas and his ever-mounting insanity. I am a Star Wars fanatic, and have been since I was a little girl. I sadly missed seeing the original trilogy (hereafter referred to as OT) by only one year, since I was born in that infamous Orwellian year 1984. I will admit to having enjoyed the prequels for about 8 seconds after the credits rolled (juiced on the high of John Williams amazing “credits roll” fanfare). But after those 8 seconds, well, thats when I realized the shit that I had just been presented with. Star Wars fans like myself have been anally raped again and again by George Lucas. And not only did he just present us with canonical shitballs of cinema, he went back and changed the previous perfection into more canonical shitballs. Unlike Indy fans (though I know there is quite a bit of overlap between Indy fans and Star Wars fanatics) Star Wars fans cannot safely ignore the recent desecration of what we love. We have to really search to find pure, untampered versions of the OT. So, in essence, my point is: Indy fans have it pretty easy compared to us. Thats not to say I don’t feel for my brother and sister fans out there. I watched the hopes and dreams of my boyfriend slowly ground into a gooey, greasy mess. I grieved for him as though he’d lost a family member. But in the end, Indy fans can still ignore this recent travesty; pretend it didn’t happen. I cannot ignore the prequels and the special editions, because Lucas (allegedly) burned the master copies of the original trilogy. What exists right now is what Star Wars has become. And so my assraping is complete.

Kinda hurts.

By: Godslayer UK

Godslayer UK — Sat, 31 May 2008 10:17:49 +0000

True enough about the ants fight, probably the same could be said about the fight in the warehouse too.

But OH MY GOD!! The fridge, the monkeys, the close encounters of the thirds kind!? What were they thinking?!

By: opinioninahaystack

opinioninahaystack — Fri, 30 May 2008 13:05:43 +0000

godslayer, if you read this before you go see it, pay very close attention to the scene in which indy is fighting the russian colonel Dovchencko…probably better known as the ANTS scene…but that small fight between the two of them is the only time in the movie when I truly felt like I was watching something from the originals, it was greatness surrounded by mediocrity…if only the entire movie could have embodied what that small scene (which is painfully downplayed by the fact that Shia Labarf just had the biggest action sequence in the whole film mere seconds before). Trust me, for a good 3 minutes of that Russian vs. Indy fist fight you will feel like you are watching a genuine old-school hardcore indy flick…but as for the rest of the film, well I promise nothing.

By: Godslayer UK

Godslayer UK — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:00:57 +0000

Ah Crap, that doesn’t bode well.

I’m seeing this tomorrow night. I’ve heard there’s a certain scene involving ‘monkeys’ that threatens to ruin the entire movie?

Goddammit Lucas, just leave things alone and crawl back into your pile of money!

By: opinioninahaystack

opinioninahaystack — Mon, 26 May 2008 05:06:15 +0000

for anyone that comes back and reads this…I will eat a good chunk of the words I wrote about spielberg…I thought we were going to get an old school ass kicker…instead we got a badly written, edited, and CG’ed piece of GEORGE LUCAS liquid shit that Spielberg should never have let happen. It doesnt taint the original 3 for me, but I would prefer it not to exist…Godslayer, I apologize for refuting your comments through my hopeful rosecolored glasses…I guess it’s time for people of my generation to start accepting that thier cinematic heroes are dieing or dead. FUCK!!!

By: opinioninahaystack

opinioninahaystack — Wed, 21 May 2008 02:45:32 +0000

kasey r,

I agree with you, except for the last part…I dont play video games…ONLY FILM…

By: Kasey R.

Kasey R. — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:58:06 +0000

As far as media and culture go, it is no surprise to me that movies are going the way music did so many years ago.

As it gets cheaper and easier to produce and distribute, the quality begins to vary greatly. We already have our hands and theaters full of the cinematic equivalents of Britney Spears and Ashley Simpson. Spielberg and Lucas are our Beatles (I think Lucas has a touch of the Ringo if you know what I’m saying).

There are two answers to this. The first is to become more discriminating and find the movie equivalents of Hendrix and Dylan. The second is to turn to a new medium for your entertainment. I don’t want to blow a tired horn but GTA IV is a remarkable piece of art with all the makings of a great movie. Character, art and story are all there. More and more investors are viewing the returns on games like that and World of Warcraft with a greedy eye.

In short, I guess all I’m saying is that you should sell your MGM stock and buy EA.

By: opinioninahaystack

opinioninahaystack — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:52:13 +0000

to wesley meyer: calling you old fashioned is a compliment in terms of the movies…thanks

chuck: right on!

Godslayer: Thanks for your comment, and yes I fully agree pixar is great. However I did not mean to address fully CG animated films, to me those are a different entity all to themselves…I think the problem is the integration of live action and CG that I have the problem with.

And yes, I fully admit that Spielberg isnt perfect, I’m a huge fan, but he isnt the same Steven that made CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, JAWS, RAIDERS, or even JURASSIC PARK anymore…still love him unabashedly.

I also think CGI can be done well (LOTR, Jurassic Park, Pan’s Labyrinth) but what it is doing “well” is being out weighed, in mainstream cineama, by what it’s ruining.

Seriously though, agree or disagree, I really appreciate all the comments and discourse guys. thank you.

By: Godslayer UK

Godslayer UK — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:16:21 +0000

Does full blown CGi make for a bad move? some would disagree, I think that it’s entirely in the conception of the movie.

Pixar base their entire output on full length computer animated movies, but are they all mind numbing shallow movies there purely to extract hard earned money from the cinema goers wallet? No (With the exception of ‘Cars’). Pixar seems to be the best example of how to do CGI ‘right’, as not only is the quality of the art design and writing exceptionally high but with directors like Brad Bird you get an overwealming sense that they love movies and that seems to be the main difference. Not to mention Ratatoulie was possibly the best movie of that year.

Unfortunatley, I dont think Speilberg has this ‘love’ anymore. War of the Worlds and Tranformers all seemed to lack that certain spark that was in his earlier movies such as Jaws and back to the future.

Indeed from what you’ve been writing about here, I seem to have heard the exact opposite about Indy IV. Lucas and Spielberg have been at odds about the script due to one heavily convoluted plot twist that was aparantly “the best George could come up with”. Surely if Speilberg loved the franchise that much then he would put the whole thing on hold rather than risk it all on another one of Georges’ ‘masterpieces’?

So where am I going with this? Well, I’m still of the opinion that CGI can be done well and still tell an interesting story without sacrificing the integrity of the movie… unfortunatley it just doesn’t seem to have happened yet.

By: Chuck S.

Chuck S. — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:03:10 +0000

Well done Bob, I too have recently sat through Iron Man and Speed Racer. I did love Iron Man, also not for the CGI, but for the story, and Robert Downy Jr. Who is amazing, for more of a reason why he is awesome, see KissKiss BangBang. But Speed Racer, besides almost going in to an epileptic ceisure, during the track scenes, i actually started to fall asleep. CGI can't polish a terd, and the F'ed up thing is I loved Speed Racer growing up, and I actually thought I would like this one. Film vs. Video, now thats a topic i could argue both sides for passionatly. There is just a look that film gives, it is amazing, and with video it is a mere attempt at duplicating that look, I just wish film stock, and processing wasnâ€t so expensive. But the affordability of video lets hacks like myslef try to tell the story. Which in movie making I think is the most important and overlooked aspect. The story should stand as the key to any movie. The story is what moves you, it is what keeps you watching it on cable at 3 am when you have seen the movie a dozen times. And to it being possible to compare movies from 20 years ago, I think it is, and it should be done. The CGI, doesnâ€t make a movie, it should be used as a tool to further the story, not to be what the movie is about(i.e. speed racer). If you start to compare movies today to that of 20 years ago, hell even 10 years ago, you might learn how to tell an origanel story that actually does more then entertain for 2 hours. Sorry i went on a bit there... -Chuck

By: opinioninahaystack

opinioninahaystack — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:30:44 +0000

I understand that, please not I do say I’m very bitter and at some points very offbase…However I don’t feel alone in my arguments. thanks for the comment.

By: Wesley Meyer

Wesley Meyer — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:20:17 +0000

well stated. Can not have described the need for “FILM” to continue. The computer age should not obliterate “FILM”. Sad to say, we have no more control over the future of “FILM” than what we can do about the price of gas!
Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer the oldies. Computerized digital media is phenomenal, however the best films will be from those films made in the early to middle days of the twentieth century.

By: Aaron P.

Aaron P. — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:09:26 +0000

This fad is not a new one.
People gushed over the first Superman for the exact same reasons you’re giving out about them gushing over Iron Man.
It’s cyclical.
And it’s impossible to compare movies from over 20 years ago to those out now.
People’s tastes change.
They expect different things from the cinema.
It’s like scolding a child for not like “Metropolis”.
Different audience, man.