list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Star Wars on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Star_Wars/32762/default.aspx Title: Star Wars
Year: 1977
Director: George Lucas
Plot: George Lucas' mythological popcorn movie is a two-hour roller-coaster ride that has passed into movie legend. The story, for the tiny number of people not familiar with it, concerns a farm boy named Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) who discovers that the used robot recently purchased by his family plays back a message from one Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), begging for help from Obi-Wan Kenobi. Luke asks his father's friend Ben Kenobi (Alec Guinness) about this, and he discovers that Ben and Obi-Wan are one and the same. Kenobi tells Luke of the battle of the rebels against the ruling Empire and the spiritual energy called "The Force." Soon Luke, Kenobi, and a mercenary named Han Solo (Harrison Ford) join forces to rescue Princess Leia from the Empire's mammoth warship, the Death Star, controlled by evil genius Darth Vader (David Prowse, with the voice of James Earl Jones). George Lucas has frequently cited the influence of several films on Star Wars, particularly Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress and Yojimbo and John Ford's The Searchers, as well as the original Flash Gordon serials. After Star Wars became a success, Lucas announced his intention to turn the film into a series, originally totalling nine films (later pared back to six). Consequently, most reissue prints now feature the title Star Wars: Episode IV -- A New Hope, with The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and Return of the Jedi (1983) serving as Episodes Five and Six in the serial, and Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace (1999) going back to the myth's beginnings. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 175
Number of Lists: 195
Number of blog posts: 51
Number of discussion threads: 43
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:36:48 GMTStar Wars1977George Lucas<a href="/players/P___100308/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Lucas</a>' mythological popcorn movie is a two-hour roller-coaster ride that has passed into movie legend. The story, for the tiny number of people not familiar with it, concerns a farm boy named Luke Skywalker (<a href="/players/P____29931/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mark Hamill</a>) who discovers that the used robot recently purchased by his family plays back a message from one Princess Leia (<a href="/players/P____89886/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Carrie Fisher</a>), begging for help from Obi-Wan Kenobi. Luke asks his father's friend Ben Kenobi (<a href="/players/P____29203/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Alec Guinness</a>) about this, and he discovers that Ben and Obi-Wan are one and the same. Kenobi tells Luke of the battle of the rebels against the ruling Empire and the spiritual energy called "The Force." Soon Luke, Kenobi, and a mercenary named Han Solo (<a href="/players/P____24238/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Harrison Ford</a>) join forces to rescue Princess Leia from the Empire's mammoth warship, the <i>Death Star</i>, controlled by evil genius Darth Vader (<a href="/players/P____57960/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>David Prowse</a>, with the voice of <a href="/players/P____36131/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James Earl Jones</a>). <a href="/players/P___100308/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Lucas</a> has frequently cited the influence of several films on Star Wars, particularly <a href="/players/P____98309/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Akira Kurosawa</a>'s <a href=/films/15318/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Hidden Fortress</a> and <a href=/films/39264/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Yojimbo</a> and <a href="/players/P____90133/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Ford</a>'s <a href=/films/30396/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Searchers</a>, as well as the original <a href=/films/11885/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Flash Gordon</a> serials. After Star Wars became a success, Lucas announced his intention to turn the film into a series, originally totalling nine films (later pared back to six). Consequently, most reissue prints now feature the title Star Wars: Episode IV -- A New Hope, with <a href=/films/10456/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Empire Strikes Back</a> (1980) and <a href=/films/28717/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Return of the Jedi</a> (1983) serving as Episodes Five and Six in the serial, and Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace (1999) going back to the myth's beginnings. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide175Tag Target (>10)19551434http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t80933nmb1r.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Star_Wars/32762/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/4/27/41767.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 4/27/2009 9:33:11 AM
Body: NOTE: This review is based on the original 1977 print, and not the remastered edition. "Princess Leia" (Carrie Fisher) is in possession of the plans of the "Empire's" ultimate weapon, and is on her way to the secret "Rebel" base to deliver the plans for study when the ship that is transporting her is attacked and boarded by "Imperial" forces lead by "Darth Vader" (David Prowse, voiced by James Earl Jones). The princess is captured, only after putting the plans inside the "droid" "Artoo-Detoo (R2-D2)" (Kenny Baker), which is accompanied by the "protocol droid" "See Threepio (C3-PO)" (Anthony Daniels). The two "droids" escape to the nearby planet "Tatoonie," and into the care of the "Luke Skywalker" (Mark Hamill), an orphan who is being taken care of his uncle "Owen Lars" (Phil Brown) and his wife "Beru" (Shelagh Fraser), who have been taken care of their nephew since he was very young. What "Skywalker" isn't aware of is "Artoo" is searching for who it claims is his former owner "Obi-Wan Kenobi" (Alec Guiness), and that the "droid" has a recorded message from the princess asking for his help. After meeting up with the man he knows as "Ben Kenobi," the two, along with the two droids, discover the "Jawa" transport which sold "Luke and his uncle the "droids" attacked, with all hands killed "Kenobi" instantly recognizes the attack pattern of the "Imperial Stormtroopers" and "Skywalker" rushes back home after realizing that the "Stormtroopers" may have learned who the "droids" were sold to, only to find his home destroyed and his uncle and aunt killed. Sometime later, The foursome buy passage on a spaceship piloted by the smuggler "Han Solo" (Harrison Ford) and his first mate "Chewbacca" (Peter Mayhew) to bring the plans to the Princess, whom they discover has been captured and ad-lib a plan to free her. This movie is simply amazing, with good special effects, which haven't aged well in 30 years for the most part, great makeup effects and good character development. There is very little wrong with it. The special effects, for the most part, hasn't held up that well. The space scenes are still real good, especially when there is a battle. Other special effects don't work thanks to budget constraints. The wardrobes are really good, with exception of a few outfits. Many of the outfits look really cheap though, made with cheap materials. The score, which was written by John Williams, has some of the most memorable tunes in motion picture history. The music really helps set the mood for many scenes and characters. With very few exceptions, the performances are really good. A good number of the performers will be remembered for their roles in this film when they are gone. Other performances are weak thanks to some poorly written lines given to them to say. Despite the dated special effects, and other minor problems, "Star Wars" is still one of the greatest science-fiction movies of all-time.
]]>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:33:11 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog4/27/2009 9:33:11 AMNOTE: This review is based on the original 1977 print, and not the remastered edition. "Princess Leia" (Carrie Fisher) is in possession of the plans of the "Empire's" ultimate weapon, and is on her way to the secret "Rebel" base to deliver the plans for study when the ship that is transporting her is attacked and boarded by "Imperial" forces lead by "Darth Vader" (David Prowse, voiced by James Earl Jones). The princess is captured, only after putting the plans inside the "droid" "Artoo-Detoo (R2-D2)" (Kenny Baker), which is accompanied by the "protocol droid" "See Threepio (C3-PO)" (Anthony Daniels). The two "droids" escape to the nearby planet "Tatoonie," and into the care of the "Luke Skywalker" (Mark Hamill), an orphan who is being taken care of his uncle "Owen Lars" (Phil Brown) and his wife "Beru" (Shelagh Fraser), who have been taken care of their nephew since he was very young. What "Skywalker" isn't aware of is "Artoo" is searching for who it claims is his former owner "Obi-Wan Kenobi" (Alec Guiness), and that the "droid" has a recorded message from the princess asking for his help. After meeting up with the man he knows as "Ben Kenobi," the two, along with the two droids, discover the "Jawa" transport which sold "Luke and his uncle the "droids" attacked, with all hands killed "Kenobi" instantly recognizes the attack pattern of the "Imperial Stormtroopers" and "Skywalker" rushes back home after realizing that the "Stormtroopers" may have learned who the "droids" were sold to, only to find his home destroyed and his uncle and aunt killed. Sometime later, The foursome buy passage on a spaceship piloted by the smuggler "Han Solo" (Harrison Ford) and his first mate "Chewbacca" (Peter Mayhew) to bring the plans to the Princess, whom they discover has been captured and ad-lib a plan to free her. This movie is simply amazing, with good special effects, which haven't aged well in 30 years for the most part, great makeup effects and good character development. There is very little wrong with it. The special effects, for the most part, hasn't held up that well. The space scenes are still real good, especially when there is a battle. Other special effects don't work thanks to budget constraints. The wardrobes are really good, with exception of a few outfits. Many of the outfits look really cheap though, made with cheap materials. The score, which was written by John Williams, has some of the most memorable tunes in motion picture history. The music really helps set the mood for many scenes and characters. With very few exceptions, the performances are really good. A good number of the performers will be remembered for their roles in this film when they are gone. Other performances are weak thanks to some poorly written lines given to them to say. Despite the dated special effects, and other minor problems, "Star Wars" is still one of the greatest science-fiction movies of all-time. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_Which_of_these_films_written_by_Shinobu_Hashimo/657/41575/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 4/13/2009 11:38:39 AM
Body: [quote user="Windbreaker"] What a list. Quite an impact by one writer! I still need to see Harakiri & Dodes, but I'll be shocked if they dethrone Hidden Fortress. That was my first Hashimoto film and it hasn't been topped by others on this list yet. Most of the rest are tied for 2nd place. Hard to have a list where Seven Samurai and Sword of Doom are included but aren't ranked first! [/quote] Interesting, because Hidden Fortress is actually my least favorite of those I've seen (although still very good!). Maybe I was just in the wrong mood or need to see it again! I remember first time watching it knowing that it was an inspiration for the Star Wars story in a way. Maybe I was expecting something other than what it really was.
]]>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:38:39 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls4/13/2009 11:38:39 AM[quote user="Windbreaker"] What a list. Quite an impact by one writer! I still need to see Harakiri &amp; Dodes, but I'll be shocked if they dethrone Hidden Fortress. That was my first Hashimoto film and it hasn't been topped by others on this list yet. Most of the rest are tied for 2nd place. Hard to have a list where Seven Samurai and Sword of Doom are included but aren't ranked first! [/quote] Interesting, because Hidden Fortress is actually my least favorite of those I've seen (although still very good!). Maybe I was just in the wrong mood or need to see it again! I remember first time watching it knowing that it was an inspiration for the Star Wars story in a way. Maybe I was expecting something other than what it really was. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/27/41289.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2009 9:00:44 AM
Body: Though the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/27/2009 9:00:44 AMThough the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/5/40839.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/5/2009 10:00:20 AM
Body: Many smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/5/2009 10:00:20 AMMany smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/3/40806.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/3/2009 8:01:06 PM
Body: I have always tried to maintain low expectations for Hollywood product in general. But when it comes to highly anticipated movies, particularly blockbuster sequels to popular sci-fi action franchises, my excitement can get the best of me. Whenever I need to calm down my expectations, though, I simply recall all the disappointments of 1997 (Alien Resurrection, The Lost World, the Star Wars Special Edition), and I can get through the hype pretty safely. Considering I’m one of the few who actually loved both Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and (yes, even) McG’s Charlie’s Angels movies, it’s hard for me to believe that I’m also one of the few who isn’t now expecting Terminator Salvation to be the second coming of Christ The Terminator after watching the new trailer (embedded below). Sure, Christian Bale could very well be a lucky charm to franchise reboots (though does anyone believe this will be even a tenth as good as Batman Begins?) and T4 could easily be better than rival summer blockbuster Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (though “easily” is an understatement, because Transformer 2 will suck just as bad as Transformers 1). But with two and a half months left until the movie opens, it’s just too early for us to be going so ga-ga over one piece of marketing. The only thing left to happen now is a backlash, which I guess I’m sort of starting right now? Here’s a sample of the most extreme gushing to hit the blogosphere since the trailer’s premiere last night: Vulture gets credit for both the Batman Begins and the Transformers comparisons: From the looks of this trailer [McG] seems as if he’s on the cusp of delivering one of the best franchise reboots since Chris Nolan decided to take on Bruce Wayne…guaranteed to make Michael Bay seethe with jealousy: huge robots, even huger explosions, and, gasp, realistic-seeming human emotion! Sean at FilmJunk adds to the better-than-Transformers discussion: “Not only does Terminator Salvation have giant robots, explosions and impressive special effects, but it also has acting talent, an interesting story, and a sense of style.” While I’m sure (and hoping) she’s at least half-joking, Best Week Ever’s Michelle Collins nicknames the director “McGenius” and believes the trailer is great enough to now ensure people will be lining up days in advance. Note to Warner Bros.: you apparently needn’t spend money on further marketing materials. You’re good. Neil Miller at FIlmSchoolRejects is overly dramatic and overly excited: Even Christian Bale, master of all things badass — a man who has saved Gotham City twice from disaster — cannot stop the elimination in McG’s soon to be awesome Terminator Salvation. Am I being dramatic? Yes. Is this movie going to rock you to your core? Absolutely, yes. Alex Billington at FirstShowing.net, on the other hand, still prefers to hate on the director in spite of all his excitement: “Watching this makes me forget that McG is even directing this and makes me believe that we may actually see an awesome Terminator movie. This year’s summer movie season is looking better and better with every new day!” Rob at Topless Robot at least seems to understand the relativity that’s affecting his fanboy salivation: “Am I the only one excirted because my expectations for a McG-directed Terminator were so abyssmally low?” Todd Brown at Twitch nominates the spot as the “Best Trailer of The Year” and claims it’s better than any of the trailers for either of the James Cameron installments: To him, it “comes as near to perfection as I’ve seen in a long, long time.” Meredith Woerner at io9 pumps up the fanboys with screenshots, including some resembling parts of Star Wars and Firefly. Empire (and also Topless Robot) also sees some Battlestar Galactica resemblance. Oh, TMZ, you’re still on the Bale tirade story? Don’t you know today’s a day for positive T4 news? Okay, there is at least one blogger with lower expectations than I have: Rod at ThePlaylist. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:01:06 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/3/2009 8:01:06 PMI have always tried to maintain low expectations for Hollywood product in general. But when it comes to highly anticipated movies, particularly blockbuster sequels to popular sci-fi action franchises, my excitement can get the best of me. Whenever I need to calm down my expectations, though, I simply recall all the disappointments of 1997 (Alien Resurrection, The Lost World, the Star Wars Special Edition), and I can get through the hype pretty safely. Considering I’m one of the few who actually loved both Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and (yes, even) McG’s Charlie’s Angels movies, it’s hard for me to believe that I’m also one of the few who isn’t now expecting Terminator Salvation to be the second coming of Christ The Terminator after watching the new trailer (embedded below). Sure, Christian Bale could very well be a lucky charm to franchise reboots (though does anyone believe this will be even a tenth as good as Batman Begins?) and T4 could easily be better than rival summer blockbuster Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (though “easily” is an understatement, because Transformer 2 will suck just as bad as Transformers 1). But with two and a half months left until the movie opens, it’s just too early for us to be going so ga-ga over one piece of marketing. The only thing left to happen now is a backlash, which I guess I’m sort of starting right now? Here’s a sample of the most extreme gushing to hit the blogosphere since the trailer’s premiere last night: Vulture gets credit for both the Batman Begins and the Transformers comparisons: From the looks of this trailer [McG] seems as if he’s on the cusp of delivering one of the best franchise reboots since Chris Nolan decided to take on Bruce Wayne…guaranteed to make Michael Bay seethe with jealousy: huge robots, even huger explosions, and, gasp, realistic-seeming human emotion! Sean at FilmJunk adds to the better-than-Transformers discussion: “Not only does Terminator Salvation have giant robots, explosions and impressive special effects, but it also has acting talent, an interesting story, and a sense of style.” While I’m sure (and hoping) she’s at least half-joking, Best Week Ever’s Michelle Collins nicknames the director “McGenius” and believes the trailer is great enough to now ensure people will be lining up days in advance. Note to Warner Bros.: you apparently needn’t spend money on further marketing materials. You’re good. Neil Miller at FIlmSchoolRejects is overly dramatic and overly excited: Even Christian Bale, master of all things badass — a man who has saved Gotham City twice from disaster — cannot stop the elimination in McG’s soon to be awesome Terminator Salvation. Am I being dramatic? Yes. Is this movie going to rock you to your core? Absolutely, yes. Alex Billington at FirstShowing.net, on the other hand, still prefers to hate on the director in spite of all his excitement: “Watching this makes me forget that McG is even directing this and makes me believe that we may actually see an awesome Terminator movie. This year’s summer movie season is looking better and better with every new day!” Rob at Topless Robot at least seems to understand the relativity that’s affecting his fanboy salivation: “Am I the only one excirted because my expectations for a McG-directed Terminator were so abyssmally low?” Todd Brown at Twitch nominates the spot as the “Best Trailer of The Year” and claims it’s better than any of the trailers for either of the James Cameron installments: To him, it “comes as near to perfection as I’ve seen in a long, long time.” Meredith Woerner at io9 pumps up the fanboys with screenshots, including some resembling parts of Star Wars and Firefly. Empire (and also Topless Robot) also sees some Battlestar Galactica resemblance. Oh, TMZ, you’re still on the Bale tirade story? Don’t you know today’s a day for positive T4 news? Okay, there is at least one blogger with lower expectations than I have: Rod at ThePlaylist. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/27/40680.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/27/2009 6:01:20 PM
Body: While Karina (and indieWIRE) sits off to the side celebrating the recent indie box office record-breaker, most of the interweb is talking about the weekend’s mainstream achievements. Well, actually people are mostly focusing on just the shocking success of Friday the 13th, which I believe broke records for its franchise, its genre, its rating and for President’s Day weekend (though not for the month of February). As for the other monumental marker, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, I’ve seen maybe two bloggers comment on how it’s just passed $100 million. How is this a remarkable feat? Well, not only does this make Paul Blart the highest grossing January opener ever, but the oft-derided comedy is also the first film to debut in January to reach the $100 million point (not counting the special edition re-release of Star Wars, that is). As this is a holiday and most of the web cinephiles are celebrating appropriately by watching North by Northwest or Point Break, there isn’t much else being written about, so here are some noteworthy quotes and links regarding the stunning box office figures: Let’s begin with a comment from horror expert Scott Weinberg (of Cinematical and elsewhere), from whose Twitter I learned of the F13 tally: “Wow, $42m for “Friday the 13th”? Get ready for a bunch of dumb articles about how horror is “back!”" And not even just from the mainstream media, Scott! As one of the very excited F13 fans at Bloody-Disgusting.com writes: “2009 is going to put horror back on the map! Could we see a repeat of the 80’s? As one person said, MBV 3D got 50 million and this is predicted 100 million. Back that up with the earnings that New Line will rake in with Final Destination 4 plus Vincenzo Natali making a return with Splice and niche horror titles coming to DVD such as Hush, Shortcut, Triangle and God knows universal will get returns on The Grudge 3. THAT is something we can cram down peoples throats and say, “Yeah, mock our genre now, bitches!” HORROR RULES!!!!!!!!!!! THIS YEAR WE WILL CHECKMATE THE FILM INDUSTRY AND TAKE THE BOX OFFICE BY STORM!!!!” In what seems to be an analogy relating Jason Voorhees to Richard Nixon, Stu at Defamer writes, “Fittingly or not, the biggest President’s Day weekend in box-office history was led by a bloodthirsty, unlikable and unkillable man who’s spent the last 30 years strategically decimating his opponents. Jason Voorhees’s landslide triumph reaffirmed his supremacy and mandate for years to come, or at least until David Frost corners him to ask why he didn’t burn the tapes and if he would like to apologize to the American people for anything in particular. Actually, Frost/Jason doesn’t sound half-bad.” It might sound better if Frost/Nixon wasn’t considered the opposite of Friday the 13th in terms of box office success. In yet another analysis of yet another weekend in which “the Oscar bump” was nowhere to be seen despite the otherwise stellar box office numbers, Patrick Goldstein at The Big Picture notes, “It’s time for filmmakers to grasp the new reality: The Oscars have become a hollow brass ring. They may be the ultimate status symbol to everyone inside the industry, but outside–in the real world, where Oscar ratings have been steadily dropping–the awards have less and less impact.” Minute details about the box office numbers are worth paying specific attention to, by the way. While Nikki Finke ponders the following, “I don’t know which is worse: that moviegoers flocked to horrific Friday The 13th 2009 from New Line/Warner Bros because it’s Friday the 13th. Or that they also saw a machete-wielding psycho killer with a loved one on Valentines Day.” Radar points out, “That’s impressive, though the signs for continued success aren’t so good: nearly half that total was netted on Friday, meaning that the die-hards went to see it and didn’t necessarily recommend it to their friends. And — okay. Maybe it wasn’t the best date movie in the world on Saturday for Valentine’s Day.” Gabe Toro at The Playlist still sees continued success: “Though the dropoff was steep after a nearly $20 million Friday (I guess couples didn’t want to spend Valentine’s Day watching people hacked and slashed to death?), don’t be surprised to see the franchise suddenly have new legs after this becomes by far the most successful of the series. The awful, reductive, embarassingly simplistic series.” Screen Daily comments on the triumph for the R rating: “That the number one launch was R-rated compared to [former horror top-grosser] The Grudge’s less problematic PG-13 certification is all the more impressive and vindicates Warner Bros’ decision to release this latest New Line bequest over Valentine’s Day weekend.” Of course, it’s worth reporting that The Grudge still sold more tickets. At Film Threat, Scott Mendelson has some quick thoughts on another remake: “I guess the $50 million 4-day Friday the 13th opening means the feared Nightmare on Elm Street remake is about to get fast tracked, right quick (when are we going to see that Martin Campbell remake of The Birds?). For the record, the movie could actually use a remake. The original still holds up as a creepy and surreal horror film, but all of the kid actors are pretty mediocre (yes, even Johnny Depp). And good on Platinum Dunes for getting a hungry, artistically talented rookie to direct the thing.  Better a hungry music video vet with something to prove than a theoretical auteur just in it for the glory (think Rob Zombie).” And finally, for no other reason than it has to do with the other record-breaker, a trailer mash-up of Paul Blart and the similar yet darker upcoming comedy Observe and Report (via Best Week Ever): Seth Rogen in Paul Blart Mall Cop Trailer @ Yahoo! Video Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:01:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/27/2009 6:01:20 PMWhile Karina (and indieWIRE) sits off to the side celebrating the recent indie box office record-breaker, most of the interweb is talking about the weekend’s mainstream achievements. Well, actually people are mostly focusing on just the shocking success of Friday the 13th, which I believe broke records for its franchise, its genre, its rating and for President’s Day weekend (though not for the month of February). As for the other monumental marker, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, I’ve seen maybe two bloggers comment on how it’s just passed $100 million. How is this a remarkable feat? Well, not only does this make Paul Blart the highest grossing January opener ever, but the oft-derided comedy is also the first film to debut in January to reach the $100 million point (not counting the special edition re-release of Star Wars, that is). As this is a holiday and most of the web cinephiles are celebrating appropriately by watching North by Northwest or Point Break, there isn’t much else being written about, so here are some noteworthy quotes and links regarding the stunning box office figures: Let’s begin with a comment from horror expert Scott Weinberg (of Cinematical and elsewhere), from whose Twitter I learned of the F13 tally: “Wow, $42m for “Friday the 13th”? Get ready for a bunch of dumb articles about how horror is “back!”" And not even just from the mainstream media, Scott! As one of the very excited F13 fans at Bloody-Disgusting.com writes: “2009 is going to put horror back on the map! Could we see a repeat of the 80’s? As one person said, MBV 3D got 50 million and this is predicted 100 million. Back that up with the earnings that New Line will rake in with Final Destination 4 plus Vincenzo Natali making a return with Splice and niche horror titles coming to DVD such as Hush, Shortcut, Triangle and God knows universal will get returns on The Grudge 3. THAT is something we can cram down peoples throats and say, “Yeah, mock our genre now, bitches!” HORROR RULES!!!!!!!!!!! THIS YEAR WE WILL CHECKMATE THE FILM INDUSTRY AND TAKE THE BOX OFFICE BY STORM!!!!” In what seems to be an analogy relating Jason Voorhees to Richard Nixon, Stu at Defamer writes, “Fittingly or not, the biggest President’s Day weekend in box-office history was led by a bloodthirsty, unlikable and unkillable man who’s spent the last 30 years strategically decimating his opponents. Jason Voorhees’s landslide triumph reaffirmed his supremacy and mandate for years to come, or at least until David Frost corners him to ask why he didn’t burn the tapes and if he would like to apologize to the American people for anything in particular. Actually, Frost/Jason doesn’t sound half-bad.” It might sound better if Frost/Nixon wasn’t considered the opposite of Friday the 13th in terms of box office success. In yet another analysis of yet another weekend in which “the Oscar bump” was nowhere to be seen despite the otherwise stellar box office numbers, Patrick Goldstein at The Big Picture notes, “It’s time for filmmakers to grasp the new reality: The Oscars have become a hollow brass ring. They may be the ultimate status symbol to everyone inside the industry, but outside–in the real world, where Oscar ratings have been steadily dropping–the awards have less and less impact.” Minute details about the box office numbers are worth paying specific attention to, by the way. While Nikki Finke ponders the following, “I don’t know which is worse: that moviegoers flocked to horrific Friday The 13th 2009 from New Line/Warner Bros because it’s Friday the 13th. Or that they also saw a machete-wielding psycho killer with a loved one on Valentines Day.” Radar points out, “That’s impressive, though the signs for continued success aren’t so good: nearly half that total was netted on Friday, meaning that the die-hards went to see it and didn’t necessarily recommend it to their friends. And — okay. Maybe it wasn’t the best date movie in the world on Saturday for Valentine’s Day.” Gabe Toro at The Playlist still sees continued success: “Though the dropoff was steep after a nearly $20 million Friday (I guess couples didn’t want to spend Valentine’s Day watching people hacked and slashed to death?), don’t be surprised to see the franchise suddenly have new legs after this becomes by far the most successful of the series. The awful, reductive, embarassingly simplistic series.” Screen Daily comments on the triumph for the R rating: “That the number one launch was R-rated compared to [former horror top-grosser] The Grudge’s less problematic PG-13 certification is all the more impressive and vindicates Warner Bros’ decision to release this latest New Line bequest over Valentine’s Day weekend.” Of course, it’s worth reporting that The Grudge still sold more tickets. At Film Threat, Scott Mendelson has some quick thoughts on another remake: “I guess the $50 million 4-day Friday the 13th opening means the feared Nightmare on Elm Street remake is about to get fast tracked, right quick (when are we going to see that Martin Campbell remake of The Birds?). For the record, the movie could actually use a remake. The original still holds up as a creepy and surreal horror film, but all of the kid actors are pretty mediocre (yes, even Johnny Depp). And good on Platinum Dunes for getting a hungry, artistically talented rookie to direct the thing.  Better a hungry music video vet with something to prove than a theoretical auteur just in it for the glory (think Rob Zombie).” And finally, for no other reason than it has to do with the other record-breaker, a trailer mash-up of Paul Blart and the similar yet darker upcoming comedy Observe and Report (via Best Week Ever): Seth Rogen in Paul Blart Mall Cop Trailer @ Yahoo! Video Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/28/40034.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/28/2009 4:01:33 PM
Body: Today’s clip isn’t exactly film-related, but it does tie into Kevin’s list from earlier about unsuccessful movie prophecies. Plus, its title somewhat references Back to the Future, and anything paying tribute to BTTF immediately sparks my interest (this tie-in may have even influenced my vote for president). The comedy short comes from FunnyorDie.com and stars Paul Scheer of Human Giant (and Bride Wars, just to make this more movie-related) in two roles. One role, really, but its divided into two parts, “Alex” and “Future Alex.” And the whole thing is a play on the idea of fashions of the future. Anyway, the video made me think of the Oscars’ usual ignorance of science-fiction costumes, particularly of designs for films set in the future (meaning Star Wars‘ win in the category was apparently okay). Why wasn’t Jean-Paul Gaultier nominated for The Fifth Element? And what about Milena Canonero for A Clockwork Orange? Of course, even more disappointing than those snubs was the failure to nominate Joanna Johnston for Back to the Future Part II, a film so visionary in its futuristic fashions that fans campaigned to have Nike produce a pair of sneakers similar to those seen in the movie. Maybe we won’t have self-drying clothes in 6 years, but what a great concept and what a great execution of that idea in Marty McFly’s jacket. Much better work than anything seen in Driving Miss Daisy, that’s for sure. If only we could go back in time and change the Academy’s mind. “Clothes to the Future” with Paul Scheer from Paul Scheer Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:01:33 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/28/2009 4:01:33 PMToday’s clip isn’t exactly film-related, but it does tie into Kevin’s list from earlier about unsuccessful movie prophecies. Plus, its title somewhat references Back to the Future, and anything paying tribute to BTTF immediately sparks my interest (this tie-in may have even influenced my vote for president). The comedy short comes from FunnyorDie.com and stars Paul Scheer of Human Giant (and Bride Wars, just to make this more movie-related) in two roles. One role, really, but its divided into two parts, “Alex” and “Future Alex.” And the whole thing is a play on the idea of fashions of the future. Anyway, the video made me think of the Oscars’ usual ignorance of science-fiction costumes, particularly of designs for films set in the future (meaning Star Wars‘ win in the category was apparently okay). Why wasn’t Jean-Paul Gaultier nominated for The Fifth Element? And what about Milena Canonero for A Clockwork Orange? Of course, even more disappointing than those snubs was the failure to nominate Joanna Johnston for Back to the Future Part II, a film so visionary in its futuristic fashions that fans campaigned to have Nike produce a pair of sneakers similar to those seen in the movie. Maybe we won’t have self-drying clothes in 6 years, but what a great concept and what a great execution of that idea in Marty McFly’s jacket. Much better work than anything seen in Driving Miss Daisy, that’s for sure. If only we could go back in time and change the Academy’s mind. “Clothes to the Future” with Paul Scheer from Paul Scheer Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/27/39987.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/27/2009 5:01:13 PM
Body: Both are broadly classifiable as science fiction, but Alien is basically a horror flick and Aliens has all the conventions of a war film. That’s a pretty slick transition from one type of movie to another, especially since the switch was so immediate within the series. Most movie franchises don’t play with genre in such a way until they’ve gone through a number of sequels, and even then the series usually just simply takes its characters into outer space, a la Moonraker, Jason X and Leprechaun 4. Genre jumping isn’t that easy, though, unless a franchise inhabits a whole universe in which to expand through. Like Star Wars, for example. Originally a film series, the Star Wars franchise spread out into novels, which has allowed for dips into the romance genre and now horror. That’s right, an upcoming novel by horror author Joe Schreiber, titled Deathtroopers, takes the Star Wars universe into frightening territory described by Schreiber as “in the vein of The Shining and Alien, with a little dose of William Gibson mixed in.” So, if Star Wars can venture into the horror genre, what other movie franchises should attempt a genre jump? To toy with the idea, we’ve selected five film series in need of a change and suggested a possible redirection of genre for each. Franchise: Indiana Jones New Genre: Spy Film With Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the franchise already made a slight genre leap, turning an adventure series with minor fantasy elements into a lame science fiction tale. In a way, George Lucas pretty much did for Indy what past producers did with James Bond, Jason Voorhees and the Leprechaun. Only, this time, the outer space came to the characters instead of the other way around. That installment was quite a disappointment and now the only way to save the series is to head in a more serious direction and cut out all sci-fi/fantasy material altogether. Set in the 1960s, Indiana Jones and the Bay of Pigs will be more C.I.A. thriller than mystical archaeological adventure, but while Harrison Ford will get to bring a piece of his Jack Ryan portrayal into the franchise, it won’t completely abandon the elements that make it an Indiana Jones movie. He’ll still be in search of an ancient object, this one located in the Cuban rain forest, but he’ll also be battling Communists in more of a Jason Bourne and Daniel Craig as 007 style. No flying fridges, no swinging Shias and definitely no aliens. Just pure Cold War-era suspense. Franchise: Harry Potter New Genre: Teen Sex Comedy The Harry Potter series has evolved throughout its novels and films to darker and more mature themes, but the next step, if Warner Bros. decides to continue the franchise after the last J.K. Rowling adaptation, is to regress into a lighter and more immature genre. Along the lines of the teen sex classic Zapped!, as well as the hilarious fantasies/screenplays of actor Patrick Stewart (as depicted on Extras), Harry Potter and the Clothes That Magically Fall Off, would involve Harry’s days at university, during which he uses his powers to see female classmates naked and win basketball games (because it’s an American “Muggle” college and so there’s no Quidditch team). But in the end, he realizes that he doesn’t need to use magic to win the girl of his dreams (really just his college fling since he later settles down with someone else) or the championship game. Franchise: Ocean’s Eleven New Genre: Western There aren’t many places left for Steven Soderbergh to go with this series, which kicked off with a remake of the Rat Pack film Ocean’s 11. So, instead of moving ahead with Ocean’s Fourteen, he should move sideways and do a remake of Sergeants 3. Itself a loose remake of Gunga Din, the western comedy was the only other movie to feature all of the Rat Pack guys. Technically, this new version won’t be another sequel to Ocean’s Eleven, but it would surely be considered part of the franchise, as it will still star Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Affleck, Caan, Jemison, Qin, Gould, Reiner and Cheadle (sadly, Bernie Mac can not join them). Who wouldn’t love to see that cast playing tongue-in-cheek in the old west? In any genre those actors together would make an enjoyable piece of blockbuster fluff. Franchise: Die Hard New Genre: Marital Drama Weren’t you disappointed to learn that John and Holly McClane are divorced by the fourth Die Hard installment, Live Free or Die Hard? After all, the original movie wouldn’t have happened were it not for the main character’s attempt to save their marriage. And the events of Die Hard 2 also pretty much revolve around the status of the relationship. So, let’s go back to the beginning and look into the cracks between the four action flicks. We know John can thwart terrorists in any given scenario, but how does he function on a normal day? How does he deal with the threats of separation and divorce when he doesn’t have the distraction of action and the benefit of coming off a hero? This prequel/concurrent drama, titled Die Slowly, would depict marital dysfunction and collapse similar to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Revolutionary Road, except that in this film, whenever the couple goes at it, the husband gets to shout, “I saved you from terrorists. Twice. Give me a f—ing break!” Franchise: Friday the 13th New Genre: Romantic Comedy We’ve seen Freddy Vs. Jason. Now it’s time for Jason , a romantic pairing of Jason Voorhees, of the Friday the 13th series, and Angela Baker, of Sleepaway Camp. The two meet-cute when they both attempt to kill the same camper, accidentally stabbing each other instead. Rather than uniting to kill more kids, the new lovers realize that they’ve only been slashing people because they’ve never been hit with Cupid’s arrow (Jason actually had encountered the little cherub once, but he mistakenly decapitated him, stole his arrow and used it to impale a naked teen). But the movie isn’t all happy lovey-dovey montages. Like all romantic comedies, this one features a misunderstanding, and here it comes about when Jason and Angela first become intimate and the former discovers that the latter is in fact a boy. The result, though, is tragically more Boys Don’t Cry than The Crying Game, and ends with Jason killing Angela and returning to his old murderous ways. It’s a harsh conclusion, sure, but some genre jumps must be expected to be only temporary. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:01:13 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/27/2009 5:01:13 PMBoth are broadly classifiable as science fiction, but Alien is basically a horror flick and Aliens has all the conventions of a war film. That’s a pretty slick transition from one type of movie to another, especially since the switch was so immediate within the series. Most movie franchises don’t play with genre in such a way until they’ve gone through a number of sequels, and even then the series usually just simply takes its characters into outer space, a la Moonraker, Jason X and Leprechaun 4. Genre jumping isn’t that easy, though, unless a franchise inhabits a whole universe in which to expand through. Like Star Wars, for example. Originally a film series, the Star Wars franchise spread out into novels, which has allowed for dips into the romance genre and now horror. That’s right, an upcoming novel by horror author Joe Schreiber, titled Deathtroopers, takes the Star Wars universe into frightening territory described by Schreiber as “in the vein of The Shining and Alien, with a little dose of William Gibson mixed in.” So, if Star Wars can venture into the horror genre, what other movie franchises should attempt a genre jump? To toy with the idea, we’ve selected five film series in need of a change and suggested a possible redirection of genre for each. Franchise: Indiana Jones New Genre: Spy Film With Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the franchise already made a slight genre leap, turning an adventure series with minor fantasy elements into a lame science fiction tale. In a way, George Lucas pretty much did for Indy what past producers did with James Bond, Jason Voorhees and the Leprechaun. Only, this time, the outer space came to the characters instead of the other way around. That installment was quite a disappointment and now the only way to save the series is to head in a more serious direction and cut out all sci-fi/fantasy material altogether. Set in the 1960s, Indiana Jones and the Bay of Pigs will be more C.I.A. thriller than mystical archaeological adventure, but while Harrison Ford will get to bring a piece of his Jack Ryan portrayal into the franchise, it won’t completely abandon the elements that make it an Indiana Jones movie. He’ll still be in search of an ancient object, this one located in the Cuban rain forest, but he’ll also be battling Communists in more of a Jason Bourne and Daniel Craig as 007 style. No flying fridges, no swinging Shias and definitely no aliens. Just pure Cold War-era suspense. Franchise: Harry Potter New Genre: Teen Sex Comedy The Harry Potter series has evolved throughout its novels and films to darker and more mature themes, but the next step, if Warner Bros. decides to continue the franchise after the last J.K. Rowling adaptation, is to regress into a lighter and more immature genre. Along the lines of the teen sex classic Zapped!, as well as the hilarious fantasies/screenplays of actor Patrick Stewart (as depicted on Extras), Harry Potter and the Clothes That Magically Fall Off, would involve Harry’s days at university, during which he uses his powers to see female classmates naked and win basketball games (because it’s an American “Muggle” college and so there’s no Quidditch team). But in the end, he realizes that he doesn’t need to use magic to win the girl of his dreams (really just his college fling since he later settles down with someone else) or the championship game. Franchise: Ocean’s Eleven New Genre: Western There aren’t many places left for Steven Soderbergh to go with this series, which kicked off with a remake of the Rat Pack film Ocean’s 11. So, instead of moving ahead with Ocean’s Fourteen, he should move sideways and do a remake of Sergeants 3. Itself a loose remake of Gunga Din, the western comedy was the only other movie to feature all of the Rat Pack guys. Technically, this new version won’t be another sequel to Ocean’s Eleven, but it would surely be considered part of the franchise, as it will still star Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Affleck, Caan, Jemison, Qin, Gould, Reiner and Cheadle (sadly, Bernie Mac can not join them). Who wouldn’t love to see that cast playing tongue-in-cheek in the old west? In any genre those actors together would make an enjoyable piece of blockbuster fluff. Franchise: Die Hard New Genre: Marital Drama Weren’t you disappointed to learn that John and Holly McClane are divorced by the fourth Die Hard installment, Live Free or Die Hard? After all, the original movie wouldn’t have happened were it not for the main character’s attempt to save their marriage. And the events of Die Hard 2 also pretty much revolve around the status of the relationship. So, let’s go back to the beginning and look into the cracks between the four action flicks. We know John can thwart terrorists in any given scenario, but how does he function on a normal day? How does he deal with the threats of separation and divorce when he doesn’t have the distraction of action and the benefit of coming off a hero? This prequel/concurrent drama, titled Die Slowly, would depict marital dysfunction and collapse similar to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Revolutionary Road, except that in this film, whenever the couple goes at it, the husband gets to shout, “I saved you from terrorists. Twice. Give me a f—ing break!” Franchise: Friday the 13th New Genre: Romantic Comedy We’ve seen Freddy Vs. Jason. Now it’s time for Jason , a romantic pairing of Jason Voorhees, of the Friday the 13th series, and Angela Baker, of Sleepaway Camp. The two meet-cute when they both attempt to kill the same camper, accidentally stabbing each other instead. Rather than uniting to kill more kids, the new lovers realize that they’ve only been slashing people because they’ve never been hit with Cupid’s arrow (Jason actually had encountered the little cherub once, but he mistakenly decapitated him, stole his arrow and used it to impale a naked teen). But the movie isn’t all happy lovey-dovey montages. Like all romantic comedies, this one features a misunderstanding, and here it comes about when Jason and Angela first become intimate and the former discovers that the latter is in fact a boy. The result, though, is tragically more Boys Don’t Cry than The Crying Game, and ends with Jason killing Angela and returning to his old murderous ways. It’s a harsh conclusion, sure, but some genre jumps must be expected to be only temporary. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Imagination_of_Fantasy/Re_The_Best_Fantasy/47/38868/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: The Imagination of Fantasy
Post Date: 12/26/2008 9:31:00 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] I had to check your list to see how broadly you classified a movie as being fantasy. I see you put Groundhog Day on there which really doesn't have a lot of fantastical elements other than one basic anomaly that causes him to keep reliving the same day over and over. Other than that, each day is actually pretty normal without any magic or strange creatures or fantastical geography. So it's kind of hard for me to determine in my mind which movies that have some fantastical element are fantastic enough to be considered "fantasy" Here are a few good ones though: Ugetsu Monogatari - although ghosts aren't that uncommon in East Asian storytelling. I think more people have historically considered them a part of reality more than in the west. The Devil and Daniel Webster - again, how real this is may depend on your belief in the spritual world, but mostly it's an alegory. Groundhog Day / It's a Wonderful Life - Groundhog Day is a great movie, and if we are going to include that, I think we should inclued It's a Wonderful Life too. The Seventh Seal - I guess it looks like most of my absolute favorites feature spiritual or ghostly elements. Here we have Death personified. Star Wars - the whole first trilogy of course! No Such Thing - kind of an exploration of fantasy and monsters and why the human race needs or no longer needs these characters Who Framed Roger Rabbit All of Miyazaki's movies Stalker - Stunning! Sleepy Hollow / Beetlejuice - some of my favorite Tim Burton fantasy Shoot, I'm going over 10. Let me list a couple more: Alice in Wonderland, The Sword in the Stone, Pete's Dragon, The Green Mile, Time Bandits, Hellboy, The Thief of Bagdad [/quote] Ah, but see in our Fantasy group, it's not all about dragons and magic and elves and unicorns and things. If you'll notice, the other lists include topics like "What If?" movies because, basically, if you're imagining an answer to a "what if?" that could take on many shapes and sizes, you're engaging in fantasy. Case in point: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, just released, imagines a what if scenario asking the question "what if a person is born old and grows young?" Maybe that's too obvious, though. Groundhog Day imagines, "What if you were stuck in the same day over and over again, what would happen or what would you do." Similarly, It's a Wonderful Life imagines, "What if you were never born?" Those are all questions that involve flights of imagination, and fantasy. Note dictionary.com's uber-available definition (noun form only): fan⋅ta⋅sy   /ˈfæntəsi, -zi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fan-tuh-see, -zee] Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -sies, verb, -sied, -sy⋅ing. –noun 1. imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained. 2. the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing. 3. a mental image, esp. when unreal or fantastic; vision: a nightmare fantasy. 4. Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream. 5. a hallucination. 6. a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies. 7. caprice; whim. 8. an ingenious or fanciful thought, design, or invention. 9. Also, fantasia. Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters: The stories of Poe are fantasies of horror. Besides, the AFI validates Groundhog Day and It's a Wonderful Life on these fronts, if you have any truck with them: http://www.afi.com/10top10/fantasy.html So, yes, this is a long-winded way of saying let's include them, we like it all here, but you did go over 10. Can you limit your list and pick the absolute 10 best fantasy films from your nominations? I know it'll be a challenge, but I'm going to hold myself to that too! If you can't, that's ok, but there's a method to the madness...:-)
]]>Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:31:00 GMTpippin06The Imagination of Fantasy12/26/2008 9:31:00 PM[quote user="Risselada"] I had to check your list to see how broadly you classified a movie as being fantasy. I see you put Groundhog Day on there which really doesn't have a lot of fantastical elements other than one basic anomaly that causes him to keep reliving the same day over and over. Other than that, each day is actually pretty normal without any magic or strange creatures or fantastical geography. So it's kind of hard for me to determine in my mind which movies that have some fantastical element are fantastic enough to be considered "fantasy" Here are a few good ones though: Ugetsu Monogatari - although ghosts aren't that uncommon in East Asian storytelling. I think more people have historically considered them a part of reality more than in the west. The Devil and Daniel Webster - again, how real this is may depend on your belief in the spritual world, but mostly it's an alegory. Groundhog Day / It's a Wonderful Life - Groundhog Day is a great movie, and if we are going to include that, I think we should inclued It's a Wonderful Life too. The Seventh Seal - I guess it looks like most of my absolute favorites feature spiritual or ghostly elements. Here we have Death personified. Star Wars - the whole first trilogy of course! No Such Thing - kind of an exploration of fantasy and monsters and why the human race needs or no longer needs these characters Who Framed Roger Rabbit All of Miyazaki's movies Stalker - Stunning! Sleepy Hollow / Beetlejuice - some of my favorite Tim Burton fantasy Shoot, I'm going over 10. Let me list a couple more: Alice in Wonderland, The Sword in the Stone, Pete's Dragon, The Green Mile, Time Bandits, Hellboy, The Thief of Bagdad [/quote] Ah, but see in our Fantasy group, it's not all about dragons and magic and elves and unicorns and things. If you'll notice, the other lists include topics like "What If?" movies because, basically, if you're imagining an answer to a "what if?" that could take on many shapes and sizes, you're engaging in fantasy. Case in point: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, just released, imagines a what if scenario asking the question "what if a person is born old and grows young?" Maybe that's too obvious, though. Groundhog Day imagines, "What if you were stuck in the same day over and over again, what would happen or what would you do." Similarly, It's a Wonderful Life imagines, "What if you were never born?" Those are all questions that involve flights of imagination, and fantasy. Note dictionary.com's uber-available definition (noun form only): fan&sdot;ta&sdot;sy&ensp; &ensp;/ˈf&aelig;ntəsi, -zi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fan-tuh-see, -zee] Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -sies, verb, -sied, -sy&sdot;ing. &ndash;noun 1. imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained. 2. the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing. 3. a mental image, esp. when unreal or fantastic; vision: a nightmare fantasy. 4. Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream. 5. a hallucination. 6. a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies. 7. caprice; whim. 8. an ingenious or fanciful thought, design, or invention. 9. Also, fantasia. Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters: The stories of Poe are fantasies of horror. Besides, the AFI validates Groundhog Day and It's a Wonderful Life on these fronts, if you have any truck with them: http://www.afi.com/10top10/fantasy.html So, yes, this is a long-winded way of saying let's include them, we like it all here, but you did go over 10. Can you limit your list and pick the absolute 10 best fantasy films from your nominations? I know it'll be a challenge, but I'm going to hold myself to that too! If you can't, that's ok, but there's a method to the madness...:-) http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Imagination_of_Fantasy/Re_The_Best_Fantasy/47/38814/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: The Imagination of Fantasy
Post Date: 12/24/2008 1:01:46 PM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] Hi fantasy lovers! You may have noticed if you joined the group that there is a list, currently locked, called "The Best Fantasy." I created that list when I created the group, mostly because it was an excuse for a list I could create, but most of the entries are what I think are the best. I locked it because I realized - I think we need a compiled list from the membership. Something a la some of these other groups I belong to...something like a poll, or a Top 5, or a list of collaborative recommendations (and credit to all from whom I am, uh, tweaking the idea). Therefore, it's time for you to weigh in! Pick your favorite fantasy movies. No fewer than one, no more than ten. Tell us why you think they are the best! With enough responses, we can compile our very own Best Fantasy list, and then, perhaps, we can Spout it for all of Spout to hear! Mwa ha! After all, who better to make this list than us? I'll let you get the ball rolling, since I already made that list...give us a start. I'll contribute my faves asap! [/quote] I had to check your list to see how broadly you classified a movie as being fantasy. I see you put Groundhog Day on there which really doesn't have a lot of fantastical elements other than one basic anomaly that causes him to keep reliving the same day over and over. Other than that, each day is actually pretty normal without any magic or strange creatures or fantastical geography. So it's kind of hard for me to determine in my mind which movies that have some fantastical element are fantastic enough to be considered "fantasy" Here are a few good ones though: Ugetsu Monogatari - although ghosts aren't that uncommon in East Asian storytelling. I think more people have historically considered them a part of reality more than in the west. The Devil and Daniel Webster - again, how real this is may depend on your belief in the spritual world, but mostly it's an alegory. Groundhog Day / It's a Wonderful Life - Groundhog Day is a great movie, and if we are going to include that, I think we should inclued It's a Wonderful Life too. The Seventh Seal - I guess it looks like most of my absolute favorites feature spiritual or ghostly elements. Here we have Death personified. Star Wars - the whole first trilogy of course! No Such Thing - kind of an exploration of fantasy and monsters and why the human race needs or no longer needs these characters Who Framed Roger Rabbit All of Miyazaki's movies Stalker - Stunning! Sleepy Hollow / Beetlejuice - some of my favorite Tim Burton fantasy Shoot, I'm going over 10. Let me list a couple more: Alice in Wonderland, The Sword in the Stone, Pete's Dragon, The Green Mile, Time Bandits, Hellboy, The Thief of Bagdad
]]>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:01:46 GMTRisseladaThe Imagination of Fantasy12/24/2008 1:01:46 PM[quote user="pippin06"] Hi fantasy lovers! You may have noticed if you joined the group that there is a list, currently locked, called "The Best Fantasy." I created that list when I created the group, mostly because it was an excuse for a list I could create, but most of the entries are what I think are the best. I locked it because I realized - I think we need a compiled list from the membership. Something a la some of these other groups I belong to...something like a poll, or a Top 5, or a list of collaborative recommendations (and credit to all from whom I am, uh, tweaking the idea). Therefore, it's time for you to weigh in! Pick your favorite fantasy movies. No fewer than one, no more than ten. Tell us why you think they are the best! With enough responses, we can compile our very own Best Fantasy list, and then, perhaps, we can Spout it for all of Spout to hear! Mwa ha! After all, who better to make this list than us? I'll let you get the ball rolling, since I already made that list...give us a start. I'll contribute my faves asap! [/quote] I had to check your list to see how broadly you classified a movie as being fantasy. I see you put Groundhog Day on there which really doesn't have a lot of fantastical elements other than one basic anomaly that causes him to keep reliving the same day over and over. Other than that, each day is actually pretty normal without any magic or strange creatures or fantastical geography. So it's kind of hard for me to determine in my mind which movies that have some fantastical element are fantastic enough to be considered "fantasy" Here are a few good ones though: Ugetsu Monogatari - although ghosts aren't that uncommon in East Asian storytelling. I think more people have historically considered them a part of reality more than in the west. The Devil and Daniel Webster - again, how real this is may depend on your belief in the spritual world, but mostly it's an alegory. Groundhog Day / It's a Wonderful Life - Groundhog Day is a great movie, and if we are going to include that, I think we should inclued It's a Wonderful Life too. The Seventh Seal - I guess it looks like most of my absolute favorites feature spiritual or ghostly elements. Here we have Death personified. Star Wars - the whole first trilogy of course! No Such Thing - kind of an exploration of fantasy and monsters and why the human race needs or no longer needs these characters Who Framed Roger Rabbit All of Miyazaki's movies Stalker - Stunning! Sleepy Hollow / Beetlejuice - some of my favorite Tim Burton fantasy Shoot, I'm going over 10. Let me list a couple more: Alice in Wonderland, The Sword in the Stone, Pete's Dragon, The Green Mile, Time Bandits, Hellboy, The Thief of Bagdad http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Great/MemberTagFilms.aspxGreat
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:11:49 GMT231202371Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6176

Number of people who tagged: 180

Number of times used: 607

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:50:24 GMT6176180607Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brilliant/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT179137285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 364

Number of people who tagged: 116

Number of times used: 188

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:57:46 GMT364116188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226102215Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 492

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 258

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMT492101258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Cool/MemberTagFilms.aspxCool
Number of films tagged: 103

Number of people who tagged: 97

Number of times used: 188

]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:20:50 GMT10397188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/film/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilm
Number of films tagged: 657

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 190

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT65782190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comingofage/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomingofage
Number of films tagged: 1186

Number of people who tagged: 72

Number of times used: 219

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:51:56 GMT118672219Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/religion/MemberTagFilms.aspxreligion
Number of films tagged: 1123

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 176

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:31:00 GMT112367176Tag