list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Star Wars [Film Series] 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_Film_Series/44324/default.aspx Title: Star Wars [Film Series]
Year: 1977
Plot: Doubtless there are still executives at 20th Century Fox who rue the day the studio gave away the sequel rights to a soon-to-be released science fiction film to its director, George Lucas. Who could have guessed Star Wars would become one of the greatest money makers of all time and inspire a phenomenally popular series of follow-ups? The original films in the Star Wars trilogy are now numbered episodes four through six, thanks to the new series of prequels Lucas has undertaken (beginning with 1999's Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace). Star Wars (aka Star Wars : Episode IV -- A New Hope) introduces us to Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), Han Solo (Harrison Ford), R2D2 (Kenny Baker), C-3PO (Anthony Daniels), and the evil Darth Vader (David Prowse, with the voice of James Earl Jones), as a wide-eyed farm boy from another planet join forces with stout-hearted rebels out to defeat the evil ruling Empire and rescue a beautiful princess. Star Wars: Episode V -- The Empire Strikes Back reunites this band of heroes and villains as Darth Vader continues his war against the rebels, fighting increases on both frozen and desert planets in the galaxy, Han Solo reunites with his clever but duplicitous old pal Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams), and Luke receives intensive Jedi instruction from the mystical Yoda (Frank Oz). And Star Wars: Episode VI -- Return of the Jedi concludes the series as Han Solo and Princess Leia (in a metal bikini that made her the lust object of sci-fi fans everywhere) escape the clutches of the disgusting Jabba the Hutt, Luke confronts his heritage in a battle with Darth Vader, the furry Ewoks help save the day, and Luke and Leia find out why their romance would never work out. All three of these films were re-released in 1997 in new editions with revised special-effects sequences and deleted scenes restored; both the original versions and these "special editions" are available on home video, and have been packaged in boxed sets. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 16
Number of Lists: 25
Number of blog posts: 10
Number of discussion threads: 5
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:00:40 GMTStar Wars [Film Series]1977Doubtless there are still executives at 20th Century Fox who rue the day the studio gave away the sequel rights to a soon-to-be released science fiction film to its director, <a href="/players/P___100308/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Lucas</a>. Who could have guessed <a href=/films/32762/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Star Wars</a> would become one of the greatest money makers of all time and inspire a phenomenally popular series of follow-ups? The original films in the Star Wars trilogy are now numbered episodes four through six, thanks to the new series of prequels Lucas has undertaken (beginning with 1999's Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace). <a href=/films/32762/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Star Wars</a> (aka Star Wars : Episode IV -- A New Hope) introduces us to Luke Skywalker (<a href="/players/P____29931/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mark Hamill</a>), Obi-Wan Kenobi (<a href="/players/P____29203/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Alec Guinness</a>), Princess Leia (<a href="/players/P____89886/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Carrie Fisher</a>), Han Solo (<a href="/players/P____24238/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Harrison Ford</a>), R2D2 (<a href="/players/P_____3418/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kenny Baker</a>), C-3PO (<a href="/players/P____16857/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anthony Daniels</a>), and the evil 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>), as a wide-eyed farm boy from another planet join forces with stout-hearted rebels out to defeat the evil ruling Empire and rescue a beautiful princess. Star Wars: Episode V -- The Empire Strikes Back reunites this band of heroes and villains as Darth Vader continues his war against the rebels, fighting increases on both frozen and desert planets in the galaxy, Han Solo reunites with his clever but duplicitous old pal Lando Calrissian (<a href="/players/P____76383/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Billy Dee Williams</a>), and Luke receives intensive Jedi instruction from the mystical Yoda (<a href="/players/P___105306/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Frank Oz</a>). And Star Wars: Episode VI -- Return of the Jedi concludes the series as Han Solo and Princess Leia (in a metal bikini that made her the lust object of sci-fi fans everywhere) escape the clutches of the disgusting Jabba the Hutt, Luke confronts his heritage in a battle with Darth Vader, the furry Ewoks help save the day, and Luke and Leia find out why their romance would never work out. All three of these films were re-released in 1997 in new editions with revised special-effects sequences and deleted scenes restored; both the original versions and these "special editions" are available on home video, and have been packaged in boxed sets. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide16Tag Target (>10)251054http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/v70766scbj6.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Star_Wars_Film_Series/44324/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/9/40917.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/9/2009 6:00:40 PM
Body: One thing you have to love about the fanboys, they’re always a glass-half-full kind of people. Whenever one of their beloved movies gets ripped apart by critics, they point to the box office results with pride. Critics are meaningless, they remind us, because Transformers and the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and the Star Wars prequels made so much money. And now, with their Watchmen having received both mixed reviews and a relatively disappointing opening weekend, they’re still defending its success to the end. Drew McWeeny of HitFix said it best in a Tweet this morning: “Box-office talk is absolute death to me. I just don’t care. It got made. I liked it. I win.” McWeeny may not exactly be the king of the geeks, but he does inadvertently represent them today. Because whether or not Watchmen has technically underperformed (or “failed” in any way) should not be their concern any more than the negative reviews (or our list of reasons claiming the comic adaptation is unnecessary). But if they are going to use the defense that the box office doesn’t matter, they aren’t allowed to celebrate grosses this summer when Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen receives bad reviews yet still has a strong opening. More on the debate on the topic of Watchmen’s success or failure after the jump. Glass Half-Full: Eugene Novikov of Cinematical lays out the good (and the bad, see below): I think comic book geeks and other well-read folks who revere the graphic novel — and rightfully so — forget that Watchmen is not a brand name in the world at large. And it’s 163 minutes long. And it’s rated R (and I’ve heard some anecdotal evidence that some theaters were going out of their way to exclude the underage and unaccompanied). So we’re not exactly talking about Spider-Man 3, here. “It did fare pretty well,” argues Alex Billington of FirstShowing.net, “and has caused quite a bit of commotion.” “A certified success — despite clocking in with lower-than-desired numbers,” claims Casey Seijas at Splash Page. Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere as usual claims no dog in the race, but he does seem more on the optimistic, half-good side: “I really do think $57 million isn’t half bad.” Radar’s headline: “Watchmen Wins Weekend By Landslide. In addition, they point to all the sold out IMAX shows. “For the die hard fans,” writes Rodney at The Movie Blog, “it isn’t about the numbers this movie rings in on the registers, but a momentous moment that the movie is finally released.” Scott Mendelson at The Huffington Post puts the gross into a positive perspective: Watchmen, based on a comic book that only the hardcore had even heard of, had a bigger three-day weekend than Superman Returns. It had a bigger three-day weekend than Batman Begins. Heck, Watchmen has the second biggest DC Comics three-day opening weekend of all time, behind (obviously) The Dark Knight. Mark Graham at Vulture thinks the leaked video of Watchmen’s opening credits sequence could be good for the film’s second weekend: We’re pretty sure that this visually striking sequence is the best marketing tool that’s available to Warner Bros. at this point; if they decided to officially release and heavily promote this video over the course of this week, you can bet that it would pique the interest of droves of non-fanboy types who avoided the film on its opening weekend. Brian Jacks at MTV Movies Blog points out that if the movie doesn’t get a sequel, it’s at least not because of how the movie opened. Gold Derby’s Tom O’Neil spins positively with mention of the tech achievements from the Watchmen crew that could get the film kudos from the Oscars, MTV Movie Awards, People’s Choice Awards, Teen Choice Awards, Saturn Awards and respective guild honors. Glass Half-Empty: Cinematical’s Eugene Novikov with the other side of the coin: Watchmen did take a fairly massive Friday-to-Saturday-to-Sunday tumble, which is admittedly worrisome. And having seen the film I’m pretty confident that word of mouth will not carry it along. Not because it’s bad, necessarily, but because it’s not particularly “crowd-pleasing,” and rather inaccessible to the uninitiated. “The film certainly didn’t ‘bomb’ in the conventional sense, but given the hype, it did fall somewhat short,” writes G4’s Joseph Baxter, who gives his theory for why it underperformed. Vulture’s Lane Brown isn’t sure if it’s a hit or not, but he does wonder, “While Watchmen’s gross is pretty huge considering its bleak worldview, geeky source material, and three-hour running time, if a movie like The Dark Knight can do $160 million in a weekend, then why couldn’t this one have made a little bit more?” John Cairns at Film School Rejects has a perspective to combat Mendelson’s positive spin: “For all the hype and buzz, the opening weekend haul was really no better than what The Incredible Hulk pulled in last year. More negative perspective from Leremy Legel at RopeofSilicon.com: It opened below Twilight and Fantastic Four. No bueno. It’s going to have to scramble to hit $200m domestically and the darker fare doesn’t usually attract international audiences as well. Take Dark Knight for instance. It only made $15m in Japan, where Spider-Man cleared $50m. Steven Zeitchik at Risky Biz Blog weighs in on “the day after”: When is a solid opening still a disappointment? When it comes attached to “Watchmen.” After the legal battles, the fanboy hype and the boxoffice hopes, the pic came in with a $55 million opening — pretty decent for an R-rated March movie … but not that decent when you consider nothing opened against it and it was on 3,600 bloody screens. “It was supposed to be the biggest movie ever,” notes Richard at Gawker. “Surely Watchmen’s lower-than-hoped first dance is a big disappointment for Warner Brothers, which spent a hell of a lot of money and squawking time on the grim, turgid superhero alternate history. Mark at I Watch Stuff addresses the film’s marketing error: The non-stop barrage viral marketing wasn’t enough to push Zack Snyder’s latest past his previous March opener, 300, which had no viral marketing except the promise of some dudes fucking some other dudes up and someone getting foot-pushed into a hole. Now we know what brings in the crowds. David Poland at The Hot Blog speculates on whether or not the film will at least break even for Warner Bros.: “On the low end, the movie will still be looking to be about $20 million in the red in marketing costs, not close to putting money towards the production costs. And on the high end, marketing costs will be covered and about $0 will go towards the cost of production.” “If the thing can’t top next weekend’s ‘Race To Witch Mountain,’” worries Gabe Toro at The Playlist, “WB has a financial sinkhole on their hands and can only hope to score on its ‘Bigger Blue Dick Director’s Cut’.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:00:40 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/9/2009 6:00:40 PMOne thing you have to love about the fanboys, they’re always a glass-half-full kind of people. Whenever one of their beloved movies gets ripped apart by critics, they point to the box office results with pride. Critics are meaningless, they remind us, because Transformers and the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and the Star Wars prequels made so much money. And now, with their Watchmen having received both mixed reviews and a relatively disappointing opening weekend, they’re still defending its success to the end. Drew McWeeny of HitFix said it best in a Tweet this morning: “Box-office talk is absolute death to me. I just don’t care. It got made. I liked it. I win.” McWeeny may not exactly be the king of the geeks, but he does inadvertently represent them today. Because whether or not Watchmen has technically underperformed (or “failed” in any way) should not be their concern any more than the negative reviews (or our list of reasons claiming the comic adaptation is unnecessary). But if they are going to use the defense that the box office doesn’t matter, they aren’t allowed to celebrate grosses this summer when Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen receives bad reviews yet still has a strong opening. More on the debate on the topic of Watchmen’s success or failure after the jump. Glass Half-Full: Eugene Novikov of Cinematical lays out the good (and the bad, see below): I think comic book geeks and other well-read folks who revere the graphic novel — and rightfully so — forget that Watchmen is not a brand name in the world at large. And it’s 163 minutes long. And it’s rated R (and I’ve heard some anecdotal evidence that some theaters were going out of their way to exclude the underage and unaccompanied). So we’re not exactly talking about Spider-Man 3, here. “It did fare pretty well,” argues Alex Billington of FirstShowing.net, “and has caused quite a bit of commotion.” “A certified success — despite clocking in with lower-than-desired numbers,” claims Casey Seijas at Splash Page. Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere as usual claims no dog in the race, but he does seem more on the optimistic, half-good side: “I really do think $57 million isn’t half bad.” Radar’s headline: “Watchmen Wins Weekend By Landslide. In addition, they point to all the sold out IMAX shows. “For the die hard fans,” writes Rodney at The Movie Blog, “it isn’t about the numbers this movie rings in on the registers, but a momentous moment that the movie is finally released.” Scott Mendelson at The Huffington Post puts the gross into a positive perspective: Watchmen, based on a comic book that only the hardcore had even heard of, had a bigger three-day weekend than Superman Returns. It had a bigger three-day weekend than Batman Begins. Heck, Watchmen has the second biggest DC Comics three-day opening weekend of all time, behind (obviously) The Dark Knight. Mark Graham at Vulture thinks the leaked video of Watchmen’s opening credits sequence could be good for the film’s second weekend: We’re pretty sure that this visually striking sequence is the best marketing tool that’s available to Warner Bros. at this point; if they decided to officially release and heavily promote this video over the course of this week, you can bet that it would pique the interest of droves of non-fanboy types who avoided the film on its opening weekend. Brian Jacks at MTV Movies Blog points out that if the movie doesn’t get a sequel, it’s at least not because of how the movie opened. Gold Derby’s Tom O’Neil spins positively with mention of the tech achievements from the Watchmen crew that could get the film kudos from the Oscars, MTV Movie Awards, People’s Choice Awards, Teen Choice Awards, Saturn Awards and respective guild honors. Glass Half-Empty: Cinematical’s Eugene Novikov with the other side of the coin: Watchmen did take a fairly massive Friday-to-Saturday-to-Sunday tumble, which is admittedly worrisome. And having seen the film I’m pretty confident that word of mouth will not carry it along. Not because it’s bad, necessarily, but because it’s not particularly “crowd-pleasing,” and rather inaccessible to the uninitiated. “The film certainly didn’t ‘bomb’ in the conventional sense, but given the hype, it did fall somewhat short,” writes G4’s Joseph Baxter, who gives his theory for why it underperformed. Vulture’s Lane Brown isn’t sure if it’s a hit or not, but he does wonder, “While Watchmen’s gross is pretty huge considering its bleak worldview, geeky source material, and three-hour running time, if a movie like The Dark Knight can do $160 million in a weekend, then why couldn’t this one have made a little bit more?” John Cairns at Film School Rejects has a perspective to combat Mendelson’s positive spin: “For all the hype and buzz, the opening weekend haul was really no better than what The Incredible Hulk pulled in last year. More negative perspective from Leremy Legel at RopeofSilicon.com: It opened below Twilight and Fantastic Four. No bueno. It’s going to have to scramble to hit $200m domestically and the darker fare doesn’t usually attract international audiences as well. Take Dark Knight for instance. It only made $15m in Japan, where Spider-Man cleared $50m. Steven Zeitchik at Risky Biz Blog weighs in on “the day after”: When is a solid opening still a disappointment? When it comes attached to “Watchmen.” After the legal battles, the fanboy hype and the boxoffice hopes, the pic came in with a $55 million opening — pretty decent for an R-rated March movie … but not that decent when you consider nothing opened against it and it was on 3,600 bloody screens. “It was supposed to be the biggest movie ever,” notes Richard at Gawker. “Surely Watchmen’s lower-than-hoped first dance is a big disappointment for Warner Brothers, which spent a hell of a lot of money and squawking time on the grim, turgid superhero alternate history. Mark at I Watch Stuff addresses the film’s marketing error: The non-stop barrage viral marketing wasn’t enough to push Zack Snyder’s latest past his previous March opener, 300, which had no viral marketing except the promise of some dudes fucking some other dudes up and someone getting foot-pushed into a hole. Now we know what brings in the crowds. David Poland at The Hot Blog speculates on whether or not the film will at least break even for Warner Bros.: “On the low end, the movie will still be looking to be about $20 million in the red in marketing costs, not close to putting money towards the production costs. And on the high end, marketing costs will be covered and about $0 will go towards the cost of production.” “If the thing can’t top next weekend’s ‘Race To Witch Mountain,’” worries Gabe Toro at The Playlist, “WB has a financial sinkhole on their hands and can only hope to score on its ‘Bigger Blue Dick Director’s Cut’.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/23/38761.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/23/2008 12:00:52 PM
Body: Should special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:00:52 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/23/2008 12:00:52 PMShould special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/mythman/archive/2008/12/2/37869.aspx Post By: mythman
Post To: Watch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good
Post Date: 12/2/2008 7:00:47 PM
Body: Star_Wars_Film_Series's detail page Uncle MythMan says ... Oh, so-many things have been said about read more Originally posted on:mythman's Xombyte
]]>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:00:47 GMTmythmanWatch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good12/2/2008 7:00:47 PM<a href='http://www.spout.com/films/Star_Wars_Film_Series/44324/default.aspx'>Star_Wars_Film_Series's detail page</a> Uncle MythMan says ... Oh, so-many things have been said about read more Originally posted on:mythman's Xombyte http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_August_11_The_Secret_Society/625/34016/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/14/2008 5:20:00 PM
Body: Well, my persistent fear of fraternities throughout college started after seeing the amusingly bad The Skulls in which a Yale fraternitiy is cover for a secret group that can pretty much do whatever they want. The Da Vinci Code deals with all those various secret groups like the Prior of Scion and the Knights Templar. I just remember Tom Hanks and his creepy semi-mullet that made him look like a child molester. Tomb Raider mentioned the Illuminati but never really explained too much about it. More mainstream are of course is Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix which probably doesn't need any explanation; Batman Begins had the League of Shadows which again probably needs to explaining; Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events had that group that the children's parents belonged to and were trying to find out about through the movie; The Mummy which had that secret group of nomads that were protecting/guarding the pyramid from crazy morons like Brendan Fraser; and lastly Star Wars which in the newer trilogy introduced the Sith and that whole secret anti-Jedi group. My favorite films with mention of secret socieites are: Eyes Wide Shut which was already mentioned (when Tom Cruise's character gets called out during the ritual and is asked to strip gave me the willies when I first saw it); The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which I ended up hating because it was nothing like the graphic novels which are so incredible; and Cruel Intentions. What you ask? Cruel Intentions? Well, the scene in which Sarah Michelle Gellar's character convinces the naive Selma Blair that being a bisexual slut means you are in a "secret society" is just plain hilarious. Other notable mentions are The Beach which was a group of hippie potheads inhabiting an isolated island off of Thailand and starting their own secret society, going to extreme measures to make sure it stays a secret and The Stepford Wives (remake - I didn't see the original) which was horrible but had it's moment of hilarity when the men of the gated community are all together at their secret clubhouse being complete nerds and fighting robots.
]]>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:20:00 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme8/14/2008 5:20:00 PMWell, my persistent fear of fraternities throughout college started after seeing the amusingly bad The Skulls in which a Yale fraternitiy is cover for a secret group that can pretty much do whatever they want. The Da Vinci Code deals with all those various secret groups like the Prior of Scion and the Knights Templar. I just remember Tom Hanks and his creepy semi-mullet that made him look like a child molester. Tomb Raider mentioned the Illuminati but never really explained too much about it. More mainstream are of course is Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix which probably doesn't need any explanation; Batman Begins had the League of Shadows which again probably needs to explaining; Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events had that group that the children's parents belonged to and were trying to find out about through the movie; The Mummy which had that secret group of nomads that were protecting/guarding the pyramid from crazy morons like Brendan Fraser; and lastly Star Wars which in the newer trilogy introduced the Sith and that whole secret anti-Jedi group. My favorite films with mention of secret socieites are: Eyes Wide Shut which was already mentioned (when Tom Cruise's character gets called out during the ritual and is asked to strip gave me the willies when I first saw it); The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which I ended up hating because it was nothing like the graphic novels which are so incredible; and Cruel Intentions. What you ask? Cruel Intentions? Well, the scene in which Sarah Michelle Gellar's character convinces the naive Selma Blair that being a bisexual slut means you are in a "secret society" is just plain hilarious. Other notable mentions are The Beach which was a group of hippie potheads inhabiting an isolated island off of Thailand and starting their own secret society, going to extreme measures to make sure it stays a secret and The Stepford Wives (remake - I didn't see the original) which was horrible but had it's moment of hilarity when the men of the gated community are all together at their secret clubhouse being complete nerds and fighting robots. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_More_than_one_trilogy/598/29752/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 5/22/2008 2:04:05 PM
Body: Samuel L. Jackson: Star Wars and Jurassic Park Al Pacino: Godfather and Ocean's 13 Leslie Nielson: Naked Gun and Creepshow (even though the third was straight to DVD) Johnny Depp:Pirates of the Caribbean and Once Upon a Time in Mexico Bruce Willis Look Who's Talking, Die Hard\ Willem Dafoe: Once Upon a TIme in Mexico, Spider Man, Clear and Present Danger, My brain hurts now.
]]>Thu, 22 May 2008 18:04:05 GMTusesoapMovie Games5/22/2008 2:04:05 PMSamuel L. Jackson: Star Wars and Jurassic Park Al Pacino: Godfather and Ocean's 13 Leslie Nielson: Naked Gun and Creepshow (even though the third was straight to DVD) Johnny Depp:Pirates of the Caribbean and Once Upon a Time in Mexico Bruce Willis Look Who's Talking, Die Hard\ Willem Dafoe: Once Upon a TIme in Mexico, Spider Man, Clear and Present Danger, My brain hurts now. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_More_than_one_trilogy/598/29569/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 5/20/2008 1:03:36 PM
Body: Christopher Lee - Lord of the Rings & Star Wars I think he is going to be in all the Golden Compass movies too if they get made and he lives that long.
]]>Tue, 20 May 2008 17:03:36 GMTmercurialMovie Games5/20/2008 1:03:36 PMChristopher Lee - Lord of the Rings &amp; Star Wars I think he is going to be in all the Golden Compass movies too if they get made and he lives that long. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/14/27278.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/14/2008 12:01:16 PM
Body: If you’ve been watching the cable channel Spike lately, you’ve been sufficiently reminded of what a disappointment the Star Wars franchise has become. But if you haven’t caught the station’s heavily advertised run of all six movies, you may not want to watch this leaked trailer for the CGI-animated The Clone Wars, at least if you’re attempting to go on convincing yourself that Star Wars is still cool. Actually, if you’re still a big Star Wars fan, you’ll probably love this trailer (which may still be on Gizmodo after YouTube takes it down). It features a number of your favorite characters and it may get you excited for the theatrical release of the film, which is sort of a pilot to an animated series coming to the Cartoon Network later in the year. And if you’re a Star Wars fan, you’re probably a fan of the video games and will therefore have no problem watching a movie that looks like the back story sequences for those games. In fact, this could be the movie that begins blurring the line between cinema and gaming, ushering in that future we’ve all imagined in which movies are replaced by the more-interactive form of visual entertainment. Of course, some of you guys may very well be confused when you realize you can’t control the action in The Clone Wars with your joysticks. The story may be exciting, though, without your being able to master its outcome. However, personally, I’m sick of watching prequels and other stories that occur prior to Return of the Jedi. When do we get to see (rather than read) what happens next? Last night, a friend and I were watching Jedi and imagining the movie that takes place later, when Leia is pregnant with the twins and Han is neurotically worrying about the birth and having nightmares in which the babies are born half-Wookie. What, too silly? Not any more than the prequels were. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:01:16 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/14/2008 12:01:16 PM If you’ve been watching the cable channel Spike lately, you’ve been sufficiently reminded of what a disappointment the Star Wars franchise has become. But if you haven’t caught the station’s heavily advertised run of all six movies, you may not want to watch this leaked trailer for the CGI-animated The Clone Wars, at least if you’re attempting to go on convincing yourself that Star Wars is still cool. Actually, if you’re still a big Star Wars fan, you’ll probably love this trailer (which may still be on Gizmodo after YouTube takes it down). It features a number of your favorite characters and it may get you excited for the theatrical release of the film, which is sort of a pilot to an animated series coming to the Cartoon Network later in the year. And if you’re a Star Wars fan, you’re probably a fan of the video games and will therefore have no problem watching a movie that looks like the back story sequences for those games. In fact, this could be the movie that begins blurring the line between cinema and gaming, ushering in that future we’ve all imagined in which movies are replaced by the more-interactive form of visual entertainment. Of course, some of you guys may very well be confused when you realize you can’t control the action in The Clone Wars with your joysticks. The story may be exciting, though, without your being able to master its outcome. However, personally, I’m sick of watching prequels and other stories that occur prior to Return of the Jedi. When do we get to see (rather than read) what happens next? Last night, a friend and I were watching Jedi and imagining the movie that takes place later, when Leia is pregnant with the twins and Han is neurotically worrying about the birth and having nightmares in which the babies are born half-Wookie. What, too silly? Not any more than the prequels were. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Antagonists/190/27116/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/9/2008 1:54:50 AM
Body: Top 5 Antagonists: Human1.) Dazed and Confused - O'Bannon - Ben Affleck's character takes the cake as the biggest a**hole and eventually gets what he deserves.2.) Mutiny on the Bounty - Captain Bligh - Sadistic and unflinchingly evil, Captain Bligh is undoubtedly one of cinemas most hated antagonists.3.) What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? - Jane - Bette Davis oozes nastiness from her caked on makeup to her hoarse, smokers voice.4.) Se7en - John Doe - The unseen serial killer in this film intensifies the terror and dread the viewer feels throughout this film, even more so when he reveals himself and his final acts of brutality.5.) Groundhog Day - Phil "like the groundhog!" Connors - Bill Murray is incredibly noxious for most of the film as a jaded weather man forced to relive the same day over and over again.Runner's Up: Strangeland, Misery, All About Eve, Man Bites Dog, Lemony Snicket's, Dogville Top 5 Antagonists: Supernatural / Science Fiction1.) The Wizard of Oz - The Wicked Witch of the West - Damn if that green-skinned witch isn't the meanest *itch in all of Oz and cinema.2.) Star Wars Trilogy - Darth Vader - Masked and menacing, Darth Vader is felt through each film even when he's not on screen.3.) Jaws - The Great White Shark - Only supernatural in it's damned ability to know what's going on in every inch of the ocean, the shark is one evil son of a *itch.4.) Halloween - Michael Myers - Again, masked and scary as hell, Michael Myers is the definition of a nightmare come to life.5.) Alien - The Alien - In my opinion, one of the creepiest monsters ever imagined.Runner's Up: A Nightmare on Elm Street, Poltergeist, Friday the 13th, Mommie Dearest (Joan Crawford must have had supernatural powers to be that wicked). Top 5 Antagonists: Inanimate Objects1.) The Money Pit - The House - Definitely one of the most aggravating movies where the main antagonist really does nothing but sits there (and continues to fall apart).2.) Speed - The Bus - You try to keep your cool while maintaining the speed limit in L.A. traffic!3.) Cube - The Cube - Murderous booby-traps aplenty, room after room after room after room after room after room after room etc.4.) Maximum Overdrive - The Machines - When those damned semis went crazy, they really went crazy.5.) Modern Times - The Machines - Again, those damned machines getting a mind of their own.
]]>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:54:50 GMTmercurialTop 54/9/2008 1:54:50 AMTop 5 Antagonists: Human1.) Dazed and Confused - O&#39;Bannon - Ben Affleck&#39;s character takes the cake as the biggest a**hole and eventually gets what he deserves.2.) Mutiny on the Bounty - Captain Bligh - Sadistic and unflinchingly evil, Captain Bligh is undoubtedly one of cinemas most hated antagonists.3.) What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? - Jane - Bette Davis oozes nastiness from her caked on makeup to her hoarse, smokers voice.4.) Se7en - John Doe - The unseen serial killer in this film intensifies the terror and dread the viewer feels throughout this film, even more so when he reveals himself and his final acts of brutality.5.) Groundhog Day - Phil "like the groundhog!" Connors - Bill Murray is incredibly noxious for most of the film as a jaded weather man forced to relive the same day over and over again.Runner&#39;s Up: Strangeland, Misery, All About Eve, Man Bites Dog, Lemony Snicket&#39;s, Dogville Top 5 Antagonists: Supernatural / Science Fiction1.) The Wizard of Oz - The Wicked Witch of the West - Damn if that green-skinned witch isn&#39;t the meanest *itch in all of Oz and cinema.2.) Star Wars Trilogy - Darth Vader - Masked and menacing, Darth Vader is felt through each film even when he&#39;s not on screen.3.) Jaws - The Great White Shark - Only supernatural in it&#39;s damned ability to know what&#39;s going on in every inch of the ocean, the shark is one evil son of a *itch.4.) Halloween - Michael Myers - Again, masked and scary as hell, Michael Myers is the definition of a nightmare come to life.5.) Alien - The Alien - In my opinion, one of the creepiest monsters ever imagined.Runner&#39;s Up: A Nightmare on Elm Street, Poltergeist, Friday the 13th, Mommie Dearest (Joan Crawford must have had supernatural powers to be that wicked). Top 5 Antagonists: Inanimate Objects1.) The Money Pit - The House - Definitely one of the most aggravating movies where the main antagonist really does nothing but sits there (and continues to fall apart).2.) Speed - The Bus - You try to keep your cool while maintaining the speed limit in L.A. traffic!3.) Cube - The Cube - Murderous booby-traps aplenty, room after room after room after room after room after room after room etc.4.) Maximum Overdrive - The Machines - When those damned semis went crazy, they really went crazy.5.) Modern Times - The Machines - Again, those damned machines getting a mind of their own. http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2007/12/21/23048.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 12/21/2007 4:15:18 PM
Body: Interview with Christopher Smith director of Severance, a fall-down-funny-then-cover-your-eyes slasher flick opening in theaters tonight. The FilmCouch group reloads discussion on what makes a villain from FilmCouch 18, and somehow draws a connection between American Beauty and Star Wars. A 33 year old German film is more relevant today than ever–Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (1974), by New German Cinema pioneer Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Download FilmCouch #20 or subscribe in the iTunes store (search for “filmcouch” or click here to launch iTunes) and a new free episode will download every Friday. Films under discussion: Severance Star Wars American Beauty Ali: Fear Eats the Soul Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul
]]>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:15:18 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com12/21/2007 4:15:18 PMInterview with Christopher Smith director of Severance, a fall-down-funny-then-cover-your-eyes slasher flick opening in theaters tonight. The FilmCouch group reloads discussion on what makes a villain from FilmCouch 18, and somehow draws a connection between American Beauty and Star Wars. A 33 year old German film is more relevant today than ever–Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (1974), by New German Cinema pioneer Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Download FilmCouch #20 or subscribe in the iTunes store (search for “filmcouch” or click here to launch iTunes) and a new free episode will download every Friday. Films under discussion: Severance Star Wars American Beauty Ali: Fear Eats the Soul Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2007/12/21/23044.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 12/21/2007 4:15:14 PM
Body: Sympathy for the Devil: Summer blockbuster season starts today. It will rise and fall on whether or not the villains are convincing. Kevin and Paul believe it all boils down to answering one question: What makes the bad guys do mean things? Download FilmCouch #18 or subscribe in the iTunes store (search for “filmcouch” or click here to launch iTunes) and a new free episode will download every Friday. Under discussion: Unforgiven The Godfather Star Wars Scarface Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul
]]>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:15:14 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com12/21/2007 4:15:14 PMSympathy for the Devil: Summer blockbuster season starts today. It will rise and fall on whether or not the villains are convincing. Kevin and Paul believe it all boils down to answering one question: What makes the bad guys do mean things? Download FilmCouch #18 or subscribe in the iTunes store (search for “filmcouch” or click here to launch iTunes) and a new free episode will download every Friday. Under discussion: Unforgiven The Godfather Star Wars Scarface Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6177

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 608

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT6177179608Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/I/MemberTagFilms.aspxI
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 45

]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:50:14 GMT444445Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/wow/MemberTagFilms.aspxwow
Number of films tagged: 28

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 33

]]>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:15:56 GMT283033Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/star/MemberTagFilms.aspxstar
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 14

]]>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:23:03 GMT13914Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Score/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Score
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 35

]]>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:08:48 GMT27735Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Cinematography/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Cinematography
Number of films tagged: 24

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 30

]]>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:16:58 GMT24630Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/jawesome/MemberTagFilms.aspxjawesome
Number of films tagged: 113

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 118

]]>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:03:02 GMT1135118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/BoxSets/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoxSets
Number of films tagged: 25

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 27

]]>Sat, 23 Jun 2007 07:48:13 GMT25327Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ultimate/MemberTagFilms.aspxultimate
Number of films tagged: 3

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:18:07 GMT333Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/darkside/MemberTagFilms.aspxdarkside
Number of films tagged: 17

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 17

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:41:42 GMT17217Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/skywalker/MemberTagFilms.aspxskywalker
Number of films tagged: 3

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 3

]]>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:52:57 GMT323Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/TheForce/MemberTagFilms.aspxTheForce
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 3

]]>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:37:25 GMT223Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/wars/MemberTagFilms.aspxwars
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:16:30 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/darthvader/MemberTagFilms.aspxdarthvader
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 2

]]>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:37:25 GMT212Tag