Guest Glen Alexander Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) May a thousand locusts take up residency in your undershorts. :P Aww, it was mind-numbingly boring, exposition drivel theater. The Thin Red Line was the one with dreary eyed-people stumbling out of the theater. I saw this near/on Christmas near UCLA, Fox Theater or someplace with the usual "industry types" attending. Many coming out saying, "Did I actually have pay to see that?" I've sat through the director's cut of "Das Boot" like 4 hours or something, even "Das Boot" was more interesting. Edited June 26, 2008 by Glen Alexander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glen Alexander Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 According to Wikipedia anyway, Velveeta was available in the UK for a while, but presumably was not a success. I used to think Spam was revolting, but when my wife slices it and fries it in an egg and flour batter, it tastes wonderful. Now where is that guy who rants about people getting all their knowledge from wikipedia? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayz Waraich Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 :P Aww, it was mind-numbingly boring, exposition drivel theater. The Thin Red Line was the one with dreary eyed-people stumbling out of the theater. I saw this near/on Christmas near UCLA, Fox Theater or someplace with the usual "industry types" attending. Many coming out saying, "Did I actually have pay to see that?" I've sat through the director's cut of "Das Boot" like 4 hours or something, even "Das Boot" was more interesting. 7 Oscar Nominations would beg to differ. As would I, and many critics. But opinions rock... I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) 7 Oscar Nominations would beg to differ. As would I, and many critics. But opinions rock... I guess. God-damned filmmakers who don't make mainstream action movies with easy-to-follow-along-with, even if you're drunk, or didn't finish primary education, plots. . . :rolleyes: As for what Max said about "Saving Private Ryan", I definitely think that film deserved best picture, but not best cinematography, although they did do some very gutsy creative stuff with the bleach-bypass, mistimed shutter, and filtration on that film. I think the story on "Thin Red Line" just didn't work, but it was a brilliant failure. I think with better editing it could have worked, although I'm not certain. There was probably material shot that could have made the movie more coherent. Regardless of how I feel the plot failed, the visuals in that film blew "Private Ryan" out of the water, no matter how much of a heart-throw the female audience considers Matt Damon to be. Edited June 26, 2008 by Karl Borowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glen Alexander Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 7 Oscar Nominations would beg to differ. As would I, and many critics. But opinions rock... I guess. Did you stop to consider that there is more to a nomination of a film than just content? Especially when the film used about every actor available in LA at the time. Why wouldn't it get a lot of nominations, when everyone who can vote on the awards, actually worked on the movie. No big surprise really. you can find many for or against, here are some against He didn't like it either http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/reviews/19..._08reviewa.html T H E B I G D E A D O N E neither did they http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9812/30/...ew.thinredline/ Review: 'The Thin Red Line' a beautiful bomb from other people http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/dfrv?mid=18034...RUTOKjUCsj42g-- Could this be the worst war movie of all time? http://www.historyplace.com/specials/reviews/red-line.htm http://www.allwatchers.com/Topics/Info_4259.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glen Alexander Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 God-damned filmmakers who don't make mainstream action movies with easy-to-follow-along-with, even if you're drunk, or didn't finish primary education, plots. . . More pretentious film makers who are concerned more with visuals than the actual story. Pretentious film makers who have never heard of a plot-point? or Syd Field. Pretentious film makers who pay no attention to casting or character development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Did you stop to consider that there is more to a nomination of a film than just content? Especially when the film used about every actor available in LA at the time. Why wouldn't it get a lot of nominations, when everyone who can vote on the awards, actually worked on the movie. No big surprise really. you can find many for or against, here are some against He didn't like it either http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/reviews/19..._08reviewa.html T H E B I G D E A D O N E neither did they http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9812/30/...ew.thinredline/ Review: 'The Thin Red Line' a beautiful bomb You're right Glen just about everyone was in the film! Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, John Travolta, "Jesus" Jim Caviezel, Ben Afleck, amongst others. All I am arguing is that it should have gotten the "Best Cinematography" nod. Emphasis on added on BEAUTIFUL in "Review: 'The Thin Red Line' a *beautiful* bomb" It just didn't work. It could have and it probably should have. I'd say this film would qualify for a recut on Blu-Ray. Maybe it would help if we read the book. I can understand what's going on throughout the film "2001" because I read the Clarke novel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted June 26, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 26, 2008 Regardless of how I feel the plot failed, the visuals in that film blew "Private Ryan" out of the water Actually, I believe it was a German artillery shell that blew "Private Ryan" out of the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted June 26, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 26, 2008 www.nukethesmartassvelveetaspammetaphorfridge.com or or Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) Actually, I believe it was a German artillery shell that blew "Private Ryan" out of the water. GROAN! ! ! ;) Totally off topic, please tell me you have a film in the pipeline for this summer. I am going stir crazy not having any crew work in so long. See thread "Reconciling DP Aspiration with Parents" for my current alternate plan to making a movie :ph34r: Edited June 26, 2008 by Karl Borowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Speaking of 15-page battle royale threads.. aren't we due for another "Saving Private Ryan" vs "The Thin Red Line" thread? :) IMO, "Saving Private Ryan" is aimed more at the NASCAR/Budweiser/flag-waving crowd, while "The Thin Red Line" is aimed at the literary/artistic/intellectual crowd. Am I saying that the average IQ of a TTRL fan is about 10 to 15 points higher than the average IQ of a SPR fan? Yes I am! *dives into a foxhole and prepares to get flamethrown* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayz Waraich Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Did you stop to consider that there is more to a nomination of a film than just content? Especially when the film used about every actor available in LA at the time. Why wouldn't it get a lot of nominations, when everyone who can vote on the awards, actually worked on the movie. No big surprise really. you can find many for or against, here are some against Right. So what's your point? That the film is bad because oscar nominations don't always hold merit? Because my point is that just because you say it's a bad movie, doesn't exactly make it officially so. As long as there's people who think othwerwise. So the film is probably great in some circles, and not so great in others. I believe its called "sensibilities." Having said that -- I think you're wrong. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glen Alexander Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Right. So what's your point? That the film is bad because oscar nominations don't always hold merit? Because my point is that just because you say it's a bad movie, doesn't exactly make it officially so. As long as there's people who think othwerwise. So the film is probably great in some circles, and not so great in others. I believe its called "sensibilities." Having said that -- I think you're wrong. :P That was the point. Here it is again since you missed it. Saying a movie has blah nominations and expecting everyone to bow down and bury their head in the sands and not question or contradiction is ridiculous. Unless this is a Red forum with fanboys. It's not "sensibilities" or morays, it is freedom of expression. There are many great films that have been and are overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayz Waraich Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Saying a movie has blah nominations and expecting everyone to bow down and bury their head in the sands and not question or contradiction is ridiculous. Just for the record here, no such expectation was implied or expressed. Unless you consider someone offering a different POV to yours an expectation to bury your head in the sand. I'd like you quote me where I may have implied the final word of god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted June 27, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 Velveeta !! is that a Fuji stock name used in the US. ? It's an example of not adequately researching a name before applying it to a product. Who would want their raw stock associated with cheap pseudofromage? ;-) Of course, there are worse ones, the Chevy Nova stands out. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Taylor Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 IMO, "Saving Private Ryan" is aimed more at the NASCAR/Budweiser/flag-waving crowd, while "The Thin Red Line" is aimed at the literary/artistic/intellectual crowd. I used to work for a bunch of these types. Forklift driving gun loving hicks. The war movie the actually put at the top is "We were Soldiers." One guy proudly admitted that he teared up during the montage with the photographer bravely taking his great battle shots. That movie was so stupid that I gave my copy of the DVD to my dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bruno Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 One big things that I still like about film is its organic nature. It's a different image every 24th of a second, whereas digital is an image that is being created on a stagnant matrix that does not move or shift at all. Also, you can do 8K scans of 35mm. It takes longer, but it's been done. And we should not forget about larger formats. Should I take pictures with a hasselblad digital or film? It's a matter of preference. The only people who are going to notice the difference is this small coloister of people who seem hell-bent on arguing over minutia. Light it well and tell a damn good story and people will love it. All those pixar films don't originate on film, and you can't tell me that people don't connect with those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted June 27, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 Now where is that guy who rants about people getting all their knowledge from wikipedia? :lol: Excuse me, that was a response to an outrageous assertion (by a certain multilingual gentleman whose only real talent appears to be being boring in several different languages), that all MY knowledge derives from proficiency with Wikipedia searching. Prefacing a Wikipedia-sourced fact with: "According to Wikipedia anyway," should be a sufficent notification that the writer has no absolute way of determining the veracity or otherwise of the statement, but he has no reason to believe that it is NOT true, which is certainly not the case with most of the tripe in there :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted June 27, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 It's not "sensibilities" or morays, it is freedom of expression. Morays? What was that about? It sounds like a film like Jaws or Anacondas, but featuring giant eels. I don't recall seeing that one in the local video library :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted June 27, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 27, 2008 It's an example of not adequately researching a name before applying it to a product. Who would want their raw stock associated with cheap pseudofromage? ;-) Of course, there are worse ones, the Chevy Nova stands out. -- J.S. Or the products on this site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glen Alexander Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Morays? What was that about? It sounds like a film like Jaws or Anacondas, but featuring giant eels.I don't recall seeing that one in the local video library :P :lol: ha ha, you try typing english on a french keyboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mei Lewis Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I read all the way to the end and no one mentioned Hitler. Not once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted December 4, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted December 4, 2009 I read all the way to the end and no one mentioned Hitler. Not once. Well, you just did. It's like: "This page deliberately left blank" Except that once you put that on there, it no longer is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mei Lewis Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 D'oh! Well at least I learned that the film Vs digital debate is just as heated for moving images as it was for stills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted December 4, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted December 4, 2009 I read all the way to the end and no one mentioned Hitler. Not once. There are several here who can correctly claim a far better than average understanding of that stretch of history. They choose not to trivialize it by making farfetched analogies. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now