Benson Marks

If you're looking for a short answer, I think the quote from above works well: "Being a good director is all about having good taste"

I don't know if you'd agree with me on this one, but I think the only true enemy of art is taste. True art has no taste, good or bad (Although it can be disgusting and tasteless).

Think of it this way. Does the explosive "Last Judgment" in the Sistine Chapel have taste? No. Or even the Sistine Chapel itself? No, again. Is a penetrating late self-portrait by Rembrandt showing the artist as a bloated wreck in good taste? Of course not. Great works of art are beyond taste, fashion, and what's trendy.

Virtually anything can be art, but there are levels of quality. I suppose a cute green clay frog or a sad circus clown on fuzzy black velvet can be a phenomenal work of art, but I doubt it. Yet something created out of chopped up green-frog clay or the paint made by grinding up the tatters of paintings of oh-so-sad circus clowns can definitely be art and may even be great art, too.

I stand by my saying that I think the best way to know why a great director is great is by his or her intelligence.

Agreed. My college as an example homes a few arrogants and they often do very well. However, they've grown increasingly un-popular throughout the course because of this.

 

Anything in moderation is a good thing.

I wouldn't necessarily put arrogance and confidence in the same sentence. Here's what I think is the difference between the two.

Confidence is where you have faith that you can do it. You're not necessarily saying you can do it, you're just assuring yourself that you can do it. This type of faith allows you to be open and decisive. For one, you're willing to get advice from others just in case you're wrong. You also let others help you because you know you can't do it all by yourself, you have to let others help you on certain things.

Arrogance, on the other hand, is sort of a prideful type of confidence. Not only do you believe you can do it, you think you're better at something than everyone else, and everybody else is a retard who doesn't know what in the planet he's doing. Obviously, this type of confidence is selfish at best and is likely to make people mad at you. I don't know the people in your college, but I wouldn't necessarily use them as an example of truly good confidence.

I think having confidence is important in any type of career, because of the things I mentioned above.

I gotta move on to something else now. This has gotten pretty philosophical.

From a novice' perspective, the acting could use some improvement (They actually sound like they were memorizing their lines), but considering that it's test footage, I guess I should expect that. Other than that, I thought it was pretty good.

The one real problem is that no matter how fancy the effects and how clever the camerawork it all plays second fiddle to a story well told and brilliantly acted.

I managed to come across Wikipedia the other day and found this:

"The films of the prequel trilogy feature events, dialogue, and brief references that echo the original trilogy. Lucas has referred to Star Wars as a poem that rhymes. The most well-known of these references is the phrase "I have a bad feeling about this"; The phrase is stated by at least one character in each film. It is one of the first lines in the film and is chronologically the first line spoken by Obi-Wan Kenobi in the films."

Do your ideas echo the originals at all?

Being nervous and carrying on a job IS fighting in the face of fear.

 

Those who are fully confident sometimes get slack. And confidence can often be misguided.

You may be right on that. Being too confident could certainly make some people a little lazy themselves and it could be said that confidence can be misguided. However, it doesn't mean that it won't get you anywhere, and that's where I have to disagree.

Take Vince Lombardi, for example. One of the things Vince was legendary for was his coaching philosophy and motivational skills. He wanted his players to be confident that they could win come game day. Vince is now considered as one of the greatest coaches of all time. He led the Green Bay Packers to win the very first Super Bowl, and has now become synonymous with the NFL (The number of honors for Lombardi are countless).

My point here is this. Sure, you can become overconfident, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be confident at all. Sometimes, the best you can do is just believe you can do it and hope for the best.

yEAS As long as I get to direct. I tell you what an all new death star with CGI the way it is today and a well written story around my ideas would smash box office records. Of course no one is listening such a waste and yes just my humble opinion what do I know anyway. :P

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry over your ideas, Mark. The problem with CGI the way it is today is that it isn't groundbreaking. The original "Star Wars" movies used an awful lot of special effects that made you ask "How did they do it?" Look at the lightsabers and the space battles in "A New Hope" and ask yourself, "How did they do it?" I'll bet most people will have a tough time answering that.

Today, if we were to ask the same question on those same lightsabers and space battles, the answer would easily be "They did it on somebody's Macintosh computer." I'm not saying that the death star won't look great after using those fancy computer graphics, but one of the essentials that made "Star Wars" such a great movie was that it was groundbreaking in the special effects category. It was stuff nobody ever saw on the big screen before. The problem is we've seen CGI stuff before and I believe we've already come to that point where we know when something was artificially done on a laptop and when something wasn't. That's going to be a tough one to maneuver through, I think.

But the main reason I'm not so sure your ideas are gonna work is because, in my opinion, I think they're a little over-the-top. I would much rather see Luke die in an Obi-Wan manner than see Luke turning over to the dark side. The latter seems a little ridiculous to me. Just being honest.

What do you think of the increase of movies that are using 3-D technology? You know, like movies such as "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" and the upcoming horror remake "My Bloody Valentine 3-D?"

IMHO, I would rather see movies in 2-D like we almost always have since the creation of movies. My main reason for this is because when I think of a 2-D film, I consider the movie to be, at least, an artform, which is just what a good movie should be, right? When I think of a movie being in 3-D though, I consider it to be just a movie interested in throwing things at you for no apparent reason and much less of an artform because 3-D is the way we see things in real life.

I think the best way to make a movie realistic is through artistic means and not by imitation of reality, 3-D, I think, seems closer to the latter.

That's just my opinion on the subject, so what's yours?

Just imagine the opening of the seventh film..

 

The death star has just been rebuilt.. Han solo has just escaped from the test planet below targeted for destruction. He manages to evade the tie fighters and death star as it blows apart the penal world below. Luke skywalker has been turned into Darth vader BECAUSE Princess leia blames him for the death of hers and Hans child and that was how he was turned to the darkside.. Han solo and Leia reunite and decide to exact revenge on luke who on reuniting cannot kill Han and the emporer tells him the truth that he wasnt responsible for Han and leias kids death and they will all die together.. They are rescued by a new Jedi group formed and the leader is Leia and Hans other son. Luke then trains his nephew and they prepare for a final battle only it all goes wrong and one of the leading cast members gets killed off..

 

STORY 2

The rise of the Jedi..

You're serious on this one, right? :lol:

Bill Russell was always incredibly nervous before each game, frequently throwing up as well. But his teammates knew that the more nervous he was, he better he played. Hence the 11 championships he won in 13 years.

 

People who never question themselves and think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread do not get very far in any field.

No, Max. The moral of the story is... Only those who fight in the face of fear are the ones who can become great people.

Bill Russell once said, "Durability is part of what makes a great athlete." In other words, he fought in the face of fear. I don't think Bill needed to question himself just because he threw up frequently. In fact, I'll bet he knew that he played amazingly when he was most afraid. Why do you suppose he'd say something like this in the first place?

I think there is only one word to describe Bill Russell... Pro-active. Those that have a can-do attitude no matter what. Those that believe they can do it even when staring right into the face of fear, and I don't think Bill is the only guy who was pro-active. Walt Disney was pretty pro-active (What do you expect from somebody with a lot of dreams?). Abraham Lincoln was pro-active (and he went through even more than Bill did). John F. Kennedy was pro-active, in fact, he even asked others to be pro-active (Ask what you can do for your country, anyone?).

Personally, I think those who can say to themselves "I can do it" are the ones who can go very far in any field.

If I were a betting man, I'd go all in for Lucas making another great movie that is not related to the Star Wars or Indiana Jones films. It's not like he's a one-hit-wonder. A new exciting concept will grab his attention, and we will see the collimation of thoughts in a film like no other. Will it be better than his early works? I don't know, but it will be different, and very, good.

Your wish is Lucas' command.

I just heard that Lucas will be releasing "Red Tails," a movie about african-american fighter pilots during WWII. It's supposed to be coming out in '09, which is just around the corner. I wonder how this will turn out, mainly because (and I don't mean to spoil the anticipation) Spike Lee did a movie that was about african-american soldiers during WWII this year called "Miracle at St. Anna," which didn't seem to work well with audiences. Of course, "Red Tails" could be different so I'd better not say this film will flop like Spike Lee's newer movie.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

"I believe that when he made the first three he was in hiis groove part of that was being involved with the latest advances but his formula was so much more than that."

First three of what?

"Recently we've been treated to technological back steps and a muppet show destroying the magic."

Huh?!? I'm sorry. If the words muppet show are supposed to be an analogy to something, I can't find what it's supposed to be related to.

"Indiana Jones was incredible and yet possible it was the kind of adventures that you might expect special forces to battle in. Now though its been given a dose of unreal Batman type impossible situations and laughs at itself with a script that could have been so much more."

No, Ed Wood's "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is a much better analogy. :lol: Just had to say it.

"Yes I am critical and I am a fan I want to see Lucas vision again riding high.. The world needs cheering up."

Speaking of Batman, "The Dark Knight" is pretty cheerful isn't it? (Sarc. Sorry, I'm just in a playful mood right now) I, on the other hand, believe the world just wants something worth watching, and unfortunately, there isn't a lot that really is worth the $10 a ticket these days. When "Star Wars" first came out, there weren't very many sci-fi movies coming out. Back then, most big blockbusters were epics that took place in Ancient Rome. "Star Wars" sold big, and, in my opinion, the reason why is because it was a very different experience and a lot of people would've been hard pressed to miss out on it, since there weren't any sci-fi movies out at that time. Today, there's hardly anything out there that's worth seeing on the big screen, let alone worth renting from blockbuster. What I think the world wants is a worthwhile moviegoing experience. Something that they wouldn't want to miss out on. Something... Different.

I have a bad feeling Lucas has already peaked. After seeing Indiana Jones 4 and Episodes I-III, I think he's lost touch with the folks. So personally, I'm afraid if he makes episodes VII-VIIII, they'll end up being stinkers just like all the other new ones, and I don't think sticking to regular old-fashioned film and older technologies are going to change anything, either. I've heard that The Phantom Menace was shot with the Arriflex 535B camera using anamorphic lenses, which is 35mm. That one was the best of all six movies, right? :P

I think the original Star Wars movies and the first three Indy films are probably the ones that will be remembered in George Lucas' once-great legacy. I hope that if there are going to be episodes VII-VIIII, that those movies become great indeed. But by now, sadly, I think George Lucas best days are over.

Well, if the topic is supposed to be about which batman is better, I'm leaning towards Bale. While Keaton may be the original batman, Bale, in my opinion, gave so much depth to the batman character that he made me forget Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney altogether. If you've seen "Batman Begins," you might notice how believable Bruce becomes throughout. He's believable when he's wearing the cape and threatening some evildoers, when he's a spoiled millionaire, and even through his flaws (his fear of bats?), making all that believable is very hard to do. Personally, I think Bale brought the character to a level that very few actors (not even Keaton) have been able to pull off so effectively. Consider also, that Bale came after Clooney put on the suit in "Batman & Robin," which almost destroyed the franchise completely. The fact that we're seeing "The Dark Knight" today, and the possibility of a third one coming out, is an accomplishment on its own.

The Day The Earth Stood Still should be coming out on the 12th this month, and, quite honestly, I don't know about this. I've seen the trailers for this movie and they don't look anything like the original. On the other hand, I think Keanu Reeves looks like the right guy for playing Klaatu, and I have to admit, I think those special effects look neat. But, in all honesty, I don't know. I want to say this'll be great, but I've got a bad feeling this might be a little too far from the original. What do you guys think?

Alright, I'll take those. They're your opinions. You may be right that the film did its job and that most of its fans were satisfied. However, this may actually prove my point that this whole Twilight deal is just simply hype. The question that, I think, should be asked is "Will this attract more people into reading the books after they've seen it?" I haven't seen the movie, but judging from the ratings at IMDB, and seeing that it's audience dropped 62.1% this week (The movie made number 1 last week, remember?), I think the answer is no, and it's just hype.

Now to Sean, by 8 out of 10 people shaking their heads in shame I'm assuming you think most people liked it. Well, watch this:

Also, have you ever been to the IMDB before, Sean? Look at the ratings of the first two Spidey flicks and compare them to the third one. Number 3 is clearly the worst.

The only thing I hate about Thanksgiving is having to eat leftovers. Ugh!

Oh well, I had a great Thanksgiving and hope everyone else did too. :)

Pretty Good Movie-- seen it twice.

 

Cinematography is hit and miss in places... mainly it's when the actors are doing their work against a green screen. There's a lot of that in "Australia" for some reason. Looks really shoddy, but not sure it it's the DP fault. More the directors.

 

There's one big scene that left me scratching me noggin'. It's the stampede scene. Scene goes from midnight to dusk to what looks like mid-day, then back and forth and in between. The King George does something but I really don't think it has anything to do with magic. This is not that kind of movie. It almost seems like something big was cut out of the middle. Otherwise this is the most glaring disregard for continuity since "Plan Nine from Outer Space." At least Ed Wood really an excuse-- he couldn't get his stock footage to match.

I don't take pleasure in romance films (Which this movie looks like to me), so, obviously, I haven't seen the movie, nor do I want to. Maybe it's just me. I think this one has a shot at making some money at the box-office (Though it seems the film hit at no. 7 at the box-office on opening day. I think it'll do better over the weekend). In fact, maybe I shouldn't say anymore about it (So as to keep myself out of this as possibly as I can.)

To all of us who live in America, a happy Thanksgiving to all of you, too.

I just heard some good news. The Indian officials are reportedly saying that the siege has ended at Mumbai's Taj Mahal Hotel. Sadly, all in all, the death toll is now at 127, and officials fear the hotels hold more bodies. A terrible situation indeed. For those of you in India, I hope you're doing alright. Stay safe.

I have to stop lamenting now. That turkey should be ready half an hour from now.

Okay, those are fair points, Tenolian. You make a good point that digital is trying to imitate film (I wish it wouldn't). In my opinion, that's not going to make digital great. I think for digital to be great it must be different from film. Personally, I don't get why a movie has to look like film to be great. Does everything have to look like an oil painting in order to be great?

In contrast to what you just said, I think digital does have a shot if it can be different, but at the way it's going I don't see it coming, either.

Oh please, this is just a bunch of bullshit. 35mm has so much resolution that even if you strike a print from an IN it still looks good in the cinema. Obviously not as good as a print from the ON, but still a much better image than anything shot on digital. And going by your argument, one had better shoot on film, because if you start with an HD image that has less resolution than film to begin with, in the cinemas nothing will be left.

 

And really, I don't think Robert Rodriguez is a reference when it comes to knowing what looks good. He's been raving about HDCam for years but his films look like poop.

Again, Max, digital is improving. There's already 4k digital cameras which can almost match the quality of film, so I stand by my argument that neither format is great anyway.

Do I have to defend Rodriguez? Not every movie he makes is horrible. In fact, "Sin City" and "Grindhouse" have been favored by most who saw those films, so maybe it's just your tastes, Max. That's all I can say.

Benson,

 

Are you saying that Robert Rodriguez HDCAM on Desparado looks better than the Techniscope of Tonino Delli Colli in say, The Good the Bad and the Ugly?. Rodriguez can hardly hype his film by saying it didn't look that good and if he was so keen on digital why did he go shoot Grindhouse on Fujifilm?

Sorry, A.J., Rodriguez shot Planet Terror with the Panavision Genesis camera using primo lenses. Sure, the movie got printed onto film using Fuji, but he didn't use Fuji for shooting.

As for your comment on Desperado not looking better than The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, certainly not. I never said Desperado looked like it was shot on anamorphic 35mm. What I did say was that by the time a 35mm film goes to theaters, the quality is already gone. It is known that every copy you make of a 35mm film print loses more of its quality and resolution than the last one. Even with a DI, you still have to make a lot of copies. So, by the end of the day, there isn't a real big advantage to shooting film other than it looks soft.

If you think about it carefully, there really isn't an advantage for either format. Film guys always seem to look for all the things that make digital horrible and yet don't look for the things that make film horrible, at least, that's what it looks like to me.

In short, digital isn't great (although it's improving), and neither is film.

The subjectivity of film and video as art will only make substantial gains in the right direction when the medium ceases to be about greed, popularity and commerce. Jazz was replaced by rock music. Literature was replaced by cinema and television. Oral story telling was replaced by prose. Only then will the true cream rise to the top.

 

Also, in matters of art, why do the "film" guys constantly talk about "image quality, control and resolution" as a defense for film? If anything, that goes against their argument because art is just as much -- if not more -- about abstraction than it is about simply recreating reality.

 

Besides, for video to ever be taken seriously as art the consumer/tech. rat race (that a lot of you endorse and contribute to I might add) has to end. R&D would have to plateau; then, and only then, would images begin to look backwards for their inherit aesthetic qualities rather than the anticipation of the next annual trade show.

I have to agree. The advantages for shooting film over digital, by the end of the day, don't really make a lot of sense. I mean, really, what do image quality, control, and resolution have to do with art anyhow? But the main reason I don't buy what the "film" guys say is because when the movie goes to theaters, what most people will see is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, so if that's what most people are gonna be seeing, the advantages really are pointless.

As for digital, I'll let Rodriguez do the talking:

OK, fine then let's say Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona,. Blood Simple or MOST of the Coen Brothers movies. :D and I happen to think the entire POTC series (they're planning a 4th installment so it'll no longer be a trilogy) is classic but I'll settle for the Legend of The Black Pearl as a classic. As far as classics go, name me ONE James Bond movie that ISN'T a classic?! so I stand by me choice there and I really don't think you realize just how many GOOD movies are made each year. There's nothing really all that different about Hollywood other than is doesn't have the monopoly it once did and there are new studios that are now major players in the game. A LOT of the films now are indies so who's to blame for bad films if there is anyone to actually blame? We're the consumers, so we really control the market. I personally think movie are better than they've ever been and will be better still. "Course, I've always been an optimist at heart! B)

I didn't say the Coen Brothers were awful, James. I just said that O' Brother, Where Art Thou was decent. In fact, I think that was their worst movie, and even then, getting a decent rating isn't a bad thing for your worst movie is it?

Now, about the pirates. Not meaning to offend you, but to say that the entire trilogy was classic is almost like saying the last two Jurassic Park movies were classic. Yes, I thought the last two were nothing compared to the first one.

As for Bond, Octopussy and The Living daylights are Bond movies we all want to forget about. So yes, there are Bond movies that aren't classics.

Yes, Hollywood isn't the monopoly it once was. Why do you suppose that is? All I can think of is because nobody likes what's coming out in Hollywood, and don't tell me it's because of the economy. Hollywood has been this way a few years before we got into the economic slump we're in right now. To prove it, 2005 is probably the worst year in Hollywood. We had the lowest audience attendance of all time in theaters across the nation, Hollywood had the lowest ratings of all time and to top it all off, 2005 had some of the worst rated movies of all time, and the economy wasn't even a big issue at that time, either. I'd like to be optimistic, James, but I just don't see Hollywood getting better anytime soon.

I stand by my saying that the last movies that have the potential to be considered as classics are the Lord Of The Rings movies. I hope Hollywood can make a turnaround and become the great place it once was, but I just don't see that happening for, at least, a while.

The world's first edible camera (Just couldn't resist saying it)!

HELLOOOO AND WELCOME TO "MAKE YOUR BOX-OFFICE PREDICTIONS!" THE GAME SHOW WHERE YOU GUESS WHAT THE BOX-OFFICE WILL LOOK LIKE NEXT SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY! THE WINNER OF THIS SHOW WILL RECEIVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (but will be given credit for being such a good guesser)!!!

THIS WEEK, WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF FILMS COMPETING AGAINST EACH OTHER, INCLUDING... THE DRAMATIC AND HISTORICAL "AUSTRALIA (applause)!" THE ACTION-PACKED "TRANSPORTER 3 (applause)!" "THE HOLIDAY FILM "FOUR CHRISTMASES (a little bit of applause)!" THE FAMILY-FRIENDLY "BOLT (applause again)!" "AND INTRODUCING LAST WEEK'S WINNER! "TWILIGHT (applause)!"

here are a few rules and regulations before playing:

1. You can say whatever movie you believe will make the list. It doesn't have to be the ones that are mentioned above. You may say whatever you believe will make the list.

2. The list should be the top 5 movies. Sorry, top 10 doesn't count.

3. You may state your reasons for certain movies being in the top 5. Just write a summary below your predictions and explain your reasons in the summary.

The one who makes the closest predictions wins!!!

AND SO, WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, LET'S PLAY "MAKE YOUR BOX-OFFICE PREDICTIONS!!!"