The OtherArena Forum IndexThe OtherArena Forum IndexThe OtherArena Forum Index The OtherArena
"Best not to think about it. I know that's a problem for you... not thinking. " -Steve Yohe
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Yohe's Movie Update
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 76, 77, 78, 79, 80  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The OtherArena Forum Index -> Entertainment
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 16880

PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

$21M budget per Forbes, though that doesn't factor in marketing.

There may be some countries left. I don't see any money for China or Japan. France was on 7/17 and no money is reflected yet. Brazil in next week. My guess is that it will get to $100M.

Two of her three movies in post-production look like Oscar-bait, which is a key thing for actresses to extend their careers.

The third is a Zemeckis movie. He's has three straight bombs to semi-bombs since Flight. He's got some tough source material to adapt into a box office success.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
corrado



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 4800
Location: LI

PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the topic of Anne:

http://newwwoz.blogspot.com/2016/05/anne-hathaway-reads-wonderful-wizard-of.html

Hilarious. Hope she recovers. Great actress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2825
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:26 am    Post subject: Great stuff Reply with quote

Thought ONCE UPON A TIME …..IN HOLLYWOOD was great ****. Brad Pitts is great. Cast is Great. The little girl & the dog are great. No film for spoilers.---Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bob Morris



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2856
Location: New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I watched the live action LION KING last week. I thought it was worth it. They didn't divert that much from the original material, but the voice acting is very good and the CGI work is great -- it really makes you believe these are actual animals.

If you liked the original Lion King, you'll like this one, too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2825
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But it's not live action. It's CG. It's Fred Astaire dancing with Micky Mouse, or a Marvel movie. The cartoon was great....why do a CG version? Why? There is no difference.

They should have a category at the Oscars for CG movies....so the public could figure out the difference. Then some real movie people could feel better about voting for something like the Avengers or Black Panther.--Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 16880

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is so much CG in movies and television, including movies and television that people love, that it's a waste to bitch about the general concept of CG. It's like people who bitch about color in movies.

The focus should be on bad CG, poorly "shot" CG, pointless CG, hard to track CG, poorly blocked out CG, etc.

In other words, the same things we complain about "normal" movies.

Dunkirk was a massive movie of CG. Nolan could not have made that movie without CG, and an absolute shitload of CG on pretty much every scene.

Yet it's a great movie. The CG is great. Not just great in how the effects are craft, but in how Nolan and his team use them.

* * * * *

Tarantino probably is out there talking about, or having his people talk about, how they recreated old Los Angeles by all sorts of methods other than CG. They likely are downplaying the CG in the movie.

I'll give them massive kudos for the old school methods they used, and the "look" of the movie is really great. Despite that, it would have been impossible for them to shot that movie without any CG. In turn, that CG helped make the movie look even better than what the team could have done without it.

Largely good CG. Though I'm sure if folks picked it apart, they would find effects that weren't good, or goofed up, or were flaky.

* * * * *

The recent Godzilla? A lot of shit CG. The irony is that there is a lot of effects that look very good (i.e. the design of the monsters is exceptional). It's how they "shot" the CG, blocked it out, scripted it, etc that ended up being shitty... just like the script and direction and plot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2825
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah your right. I was watching an movie the other night, and I was thinking "Why did I dislike this when it came out. And the answer was "because it was one of the first CG movies...and I wasn't accepting them".

CG has replaced matt painting and a lot of other old tricks. And it's better & you don't notice it. It's in every movie & you can't tell. DEADWOOD was filmed in a parking lot, so was all the stuff at sea in GAME OF THORNES. It's faster than "stop focus motion", and some of the old camera tricks.

CG was used right for GAME OF THRONES but there was real sets & locations. A lot of shots were enhanced by CG too. Most of the action was real, but there was CG there too. And you wanted a CG Dragon. Creating cities and locations that don't exist anymore, when well done, is great. The CG in JUNGLE BOOK worked well for me. It really helps to stop the old mistreatment of animals in movies.

What I bitch about how is the completely CG movies. The have actors talk in front, & do moves, in front of a blue screen….and then just send it to the SF's guys....and they put the movie together. Those are CG movies.

Last year, for about two weeks, they had a Oscar category for "entertainment films", or something like that. They wanted to give a bone to the fans who only watch blockbuster & Marvel movies. They dropped the idea real fast because it sounded bad.

They already compromised by creating a category for animated films (cartoons)….why not a CG section. So some of the big popular films can say they won something.

There going to have to create a bunch of new voters, before Best Picture is given to pure CG stuff. The old voters block the idea, because they remember real film making.

CG is a good tool, but it shouldn't be everything. It should be used only if the old ways don't work. R. Scott claims that CG costs films a lot more than regular sets. The cheap films that make money, without going over 300 mil, don't have a lot of CG effects.

But Disney just turning there old Cartoons into CG movie I'm against. The Dumbo mess got me on this rant. A good number of those cartoon were perfect and part of the culture. It's just a money move & they are doing too much of it. Does Disney want all the money?

Shouldn't they & all the other studios be thinking about something new. New idea, instead of going back on past hits. At this time, it's all that's making them money. Brainwash the movie goers into something else.--Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 16880

PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A set of examples that I would give:

Batman vs Superman and Dawn of the Justice League (or whatever the fuck it was called) has a shit ton of Bad CG. It's poorly shot. The blocking is crap. How it's used is crap. The effects, colors, designs... they are really crappy. They just don't add to the movies, which already have enough issues anyway.

Wonder Woman has "okay" CG, and some of it is good-to-very-good. I don't think any of it is great, and some of it is so-so (like a chunk of the stuff in the run towards the finish with Ares). But overall, the CG is okay and fits into the movie. And the movie itself has a good enough plot, is enjoyable, moves along, has some good characters including the leads. As I've said in the past it's probably overrated because it is so much better than the earlier DCU movies and is so much more fun/enjoyable than them. But it's a good comic book movie and the CG is perfectly fine in it.

Aquaman is goofy as all heck. And the CG is over the top and goofy as all heck, and a lot of it is Really Goofy. But... but... but... Aquaman seems to know it's an old school goofy comic book movie about one of the goofier "major" characters, and seems to have fun with being in on the goofiness. The script and performances play into it. To be honest, the CG does as well. And you know... it works for what it is. The movie isn't remotely close to the best comic book movies, and probably isn't even as good as some of the MCU movies that we think of as disappointing. But since it's DCU and actually having fun rather than being grim as shit, we go with it as being perfectly fine.

Shazam is somewhere in between Wonder Woman and Aquaman. It has fun with its own goofiness like Aquaman, but it tells a story closer to Wonder Woman. They clearly are going smaller on the effects since it's a smaller budget movie coming after the bigger failings of BvS and JL. The CG compliments things, can be goofy at times but good at others, and overall doesn't really get in the way.

These are all "CG Movies". It would be impossible to make any of them without the CG.

The ones where the CG stands out as being Bad are the movies that are actually Bad.

The one where we thinks it's overall Good is the movie that is actually Good... and even there, the CG section that stands out as weak is the part of the movie that most people is weaker than the balance of the movies (i.e. the end run).

The one with the most goofy CG is the one where either the script and performances work for you on a goofy level, or doesn't work. If the it works, than you accept the CG... and if it doesn't work, than the CG is just another part of the movie that is goofball. Aquaman worked for me, but I'd admit it's a big, dumb, silly movie... but one with some heart, a lot of fun, and doesn't take itself too seriously and so it works. I'd get it not working for others.

In turn, Shazam is the type of comic book movie we could have seen in the 70s or 80s and enjoyed... except this is better CG than we would have seen in the 70s and 80s. It's a solid, grounded movie in the genre.

Overall, it tends to be the quality of the movie that drives whether the CG is acceptable or not acceptable.

* * * * *

I think that's the case when we get beyond the obvious CG movies like comic book movies or monster movies.

The John Wick movies have to include a lot of CG. They don't talk about it much in the bonus features of the DVDs, instead wanting to on the "fight" and "gun" and "weapon" aspects. All that other "good stuff", along with the "cool" of the Wick character, distracts us from the fast that there has to be a lot of CG in it. I like the Wick movies, though perhaps #3 a bit less than the first two. The CG doesn't stand out to me as anything other than "it works".

Dunkirk was mentioned above, and I think we would agree that the CG is fucking fantastic... just epic. But if we spent much time thinking too hard about it, we also would come to the understanding that so much of what we are seeing is CG... would we reach the point of thinking about how fake it is? I don't know.


I think this has always been the case. Terminator 2 is one of the greatest action movies of all-time. Crap ton of CG, including the new terminator. We accept it. The original RoboCop is a bit like that. Roger Rabbit is CG... just doesn't exist without CG.

* * * * *

I guess my point at the end of these two posts:

Knock the CG in the context of being Bad CG within a bad or weak movie, rather than CG as a concept is bad.

It's a bit like old timers hating Jushin Liger as a "flippy floppy wrestler". We all would agree that there is such as thing as bad flippy floppy wrestling. That doesn't mean all spots up in the air are bad in wrestling. Some of it is great. :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2825
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FAST & FURIOUS PRESENTS: HOBBS & SHAW has story problem, pacing problem & is a mess. Starts out as a stunt film, then is a comedy & then a John Ford bar fight film. It felt like the longest movie ever made. I like long movie, but this was way too long. Too many cameo spots. Too much Ryan Reynolds. The actors kind of save it, because they are used to doing this type of crap. I like the girl a lot. It's going to make money. Fine, but it's not a real movie. **7/8. Roman is in it as Rock's brother. A Rock ego trip. Doesn't resemble the other Fast & Furious films.--Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 16880

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good Boys was funny as shit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2825
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FAST & FURIOUS PRESENTS: HOBBS & SHAW as I said had Roman Reigns in a small part as Rock's brother, and was in the big fight scene. In WON, Dave was talking how little reaction he got live in the theater. Others have said the same thing, and he got no reaction on opening night when I went. What other WWE superstar, built up as the top guy in the company, would get no reaction like that. He was just there...like any movie stand in. It's a little strange....but tells you something.---Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2825
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They knew they had a money maker & they came thru to make a good movie....so I liked IT CHAPTER TWO. Major reason was the cast. Actors were all good...or better. For the type of movie it was....things popping out at you...it was a classic. Uses stuff from THE THING & THE SHINNING. ***1/3 I went with three grandkids & one of their boyfriends & it was a good time. I don't think the powers realize how big Bill Hader is as a star. I think he is major. The film is too long & the ending goes on & on. It just not neat. Not perfect but Ok. ---Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2825
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AD ASTRA is a film I've been wanting to see. A rarity this days. I'm a Brad Pitt guy & I've heard good things. Monday I checked for tickets, & the site were not selling them. I thought maybe they were sold out. This was encouraging, because I consider Brad Pitt the world's biggest star & he needs a huge hit to prove the point. Then, by Tuesday, they were on sell, but no one was buying. I checked 4 theaters and all were empty. I couldn't believe it. How could Brat Pitt in space not draw people. I worried about people saying it was a cross between APOCALYPSE NOW and 2001, because neither film would make money in today environment. I was hoping it wasn't another TREE OF LIFE, a great movie than no one saw. So I traveled to Long Beach tonight, to find the place empty. I kept saying to Westbrook, "Do these missing people know something I don't?". "And how did they find out?"

AD ASTRA is an art film about space with some action, great cinematography, wonderful acting, and special effects that shows space and the moon like no other film. The craftmanship is superb. But it's an art film, with a pacing that drags for today's easily bored computer kids. It's a film made for thinkers not popcorn eaters. Brad Pitt is very good in it, and everyone else, but it not a film with a lot of talking. I would says it's a film that creates a bunch of questions, and gives no answers. I could understand it, but I worried about the rest of the room. And the science seems off in a lot of ways. Still some parts of the movie made me think David Lean was working the camera. Also the culture of the film makes me think the time period was after Don Trump wins in 2020. The ending works ok, but a 100 million dollar movie demands more. You expect a twist, that never comes. I liked a lot of it, but it's boxoffice seems doomed. Maybe I'm wrong & there are a bunch of people out there who are tasteful enough to over look what's missing in it. ***1/2 Oh ya...what's with the title? It one of the questions not answered. (Latin for "To The Stars")

It doesn't seem like Brad Pitt is good at picking projects. He needs to move away from art films, and make another zombie movie. I don't think he has a problem, because he is a major producer. --Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 16880

PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kind of feels like you're holding down your star rating for AD ASTRA due to "it's not going to make money". You write it up as a movie for thinkers, and that you liked thinking about it.

If it doesn't make money, fuck everyone else. :)

I'll toss out a contrast.

That McConaughey movie by Nolan, Interstellar, tries really hard to be both entertaining while also trying to be "thinking"... but really it ends up being a dumbass movie. I tend to like Nolan going back to Insomnia, and think Inception did a better job of balancing out the "thinking" with the "entertainment" than Interstellar while avoiding the dumbass shit.

Yet people tended to ignore the dumbass shit about Interstellar because tried to be a big showy epicy faux-smart movie. It really wasn't.

So...

If AD ASTRA really is a good thinking man's movie for you, that isn't quite showy enough to draw fans, and ends up kinda bombing at the box office... fuck 'em. Have faith in thinking it's good. :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 16880

PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And not a knock at you, Steve. I just happened to re-read your review of the alligator movie the other day, and the *** for a nothing good / nothing bad movie stuck in my head.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The OtherArena Forum Index -> Entertainment All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 76, 77, 78, 79, 80  Next
Page 77 of 80

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
The OtherArena topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group