Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4892425
JurorNo.2 wrote:I think he's just trying to make a point, though I certainly wouldn't mind the idea. There's potential there.
Yeah because after the massive critical and commercial success of Blues Brothers 2000 (which had zombies?) everyone really wants another entry. :roll:
SpaceBallz wrote:Does anybody remember "Demolition Man" with Sylvester Stallone? Just watched it today for the first time in years, our society is heading into that direction.
Studied it in Film & TV Studies.
Fritz wrote:They should do a remake or sequel to the Blues Brothers. And have Leslie Jones in it!
I think they should reboot the Blues Brothers will an all female cast for the purpose of paying female actors higher wages. Also they should have it set in a parallel universe directed by a feminist. Guys it'll do fantastic! :lol:
#4892429
pferreira1983 wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:I think he's just trying to make a point, though I certainly wouldn't mind the idea. There's potential there.
Yeah because after the massive critical and commercial success of Blues Brothers 2000 (which had zombies?) everyone really wants another entry. :roll:
I never watched that obvious abortion of a movie, BB2000. (Guess I never got in a debate about it, where I felt I had to, lol). Dear Lord!
Image
#4892446
pferreira1983 wrote:Yeah because after the massive critical and commercial success of Blues Brothers 2000 (which had zombies?) everyone really wants another entry. :roll:
Actually the New York Times praised BB2000 if you go back and look. And in fact, a lot of BB fans still ask for another one. A lot of them enjoy what did work in BB2000. Some because they grew up with it, but others because they're fans, and therefore they enjoy the Blues Brothers, simple as that. A little loyalty never hurts. Sports fans understand this. Not sure why it's always such a struggle for movie fans.

I'm not blind btw, I can tell the movie feels off. I've tried to work out what exactly is wrong, because technically it has a lot of the same elements as the original. Bottom line I think, the movie never settles on one plot point. If you want to make it about Elwood and Joe Morton's character, cool do that. If you want to make it instead about Elwood and the kid, cool do that. But nothing is ever committed to, and that's usually a sign of a movie that's been compromised, by creators and executives not coming to an understanding. That wouldn't necessarily happen again if they tried again.
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on April 9th, 2017, 8:44 am, edited 5 times in total.
#4892456
HunterCC wrote:I never watched that obvious abortion of a movie, BB2000.
I always tell people, watch the very beginning, watch the concert at the end, and watch this scene. You notice in the YT comments, people who hate the movie still love this scene. Ironically, it has a sentiment right up pferreira1983's alley:

#4892472
JurorNo.2 wrote:
HunterCC wrote:I never watched that obvious abortion of a movie, BB2000.
I always tell people, watch the very beginning, watch the concert at the end, and watch this scene. You notice in the YT comments, people who hate the movie still love this scene. Ironically, it has a sentiment right up pferreira1983's alley:

Maybe I'm missing context from the rest of the movie, but I didn't like this scene. Maybe if you saw Elwood's expression change, show that he had a change of heart, before he gave a speech that the content was good, but delivery lacking.

Still thanks for sharing, I don't mind hearing about BB2000 if though I don't like what I've seen about it.
#4892473
pferreira1983 wrote:
HunterCC wrote:I never watched that obvious abortion of a movie, BB2000. (Guess I never got in a debate about it, where I felt I had to, lol). Dear Lord!
This is what would happen if you brought the band back together. :lol:


:( Good point. Still think it would have been better than the movie that did come out.
#4892474
HunterCC wrote:Maybe if you saw Elwood's expression change
That's not really Elwood's thing. ;) Anyway, like I said, the plot didn't really come together, but there's some good moments, like the speech, which is what the Blues Brothers were about from the beginning.
Still thanks for sharing, I don't mind hearing about BB2000 if though I don't like what I've seen about it.
Well you know he's still playing Elwood Blues every week on the radio (I think since the early '90s), interviewing Blues musicians, it's neat: http://thebluesmobile.com/
HunterCC liked this
#4892521
JurorNo.2 wrote:
HunterCC wrote:Maybe if you saw Elwood's expression change
That's not really Elwood's thing. ;) Anyway, like I said, the plot didn't really come together, but there's some good moments, like the speech, which is what the Blues Brothers were about from the beginning.
Still thanks for sharing, I don't mind hearing about BB2000 if though I don't like what I've seen about it.
Well you know he's still playing Elwood Blues every week on the radio (I think since the early '90s), interviewing Blues musicians, it's neat: http://thebluesmobile.com/
Very cool website, Juror! Thanks for sharing. Blues is cool, just haven't heard much in a long time. Bookmarked.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4892652
JurorNo.2 wrote:Actually the New York Times praised BB2000 if you go back and look. And in fact, a lot of BB fans still ask for another one. A lot of them enjoy what did work in BB2000.
There are a lot of problems with the second movie but doing a third movie would be difficult since a lot of the band have died since the second movie. the majority of critics and audiences hated the second movie and refuse to even mention it other than a disaster. I have to agree it's not the worst film I've ever seen but it's not a great sequel.
JurorNo.2 wrote:I'm not blind btw, I can tell the movie feels off. I've tried to work out what exactly is wrong, because technically it has a lot of the same elements as the original. Bottom line I think, the movie never settles on one plot point.
HunterCC wrote:Maybe I'm missing context from the rest of the movie, but I didn't like this scene. Maybe if you saw Elwood's expression change, show that he had a change of heart, before he gave a speech that the content was good, but delivery lacking.
Likewise I do feel it's missing something and I can point to exactly one of the main reasons people dislike the sequel: no John Belushi! You can't do a Blues Brothers movie without Bulushi. The sequel came out 17 years after the original, that's one long time to wait for a second movie. Too little, too late. Ask anybody and they'll say the sequel is rubbish because Belushi isn't in it. Without him one of the two main components is missing.
#4892743
pferreira1983 wrote:There are a lot of problems with the second movie
There's a lot that's right about it too though. You really have to look at it like a remake, only aimed at a younger audience. You know, Coneheads came out when I was a kid, and to this day my friends know exactly what "Narfle the Garthok" means, lol. That took a very adult comedy sketch and just tweaked it a bit to be more kid friendly. And BB2000 did that as well. They're both living cartoons. Now, maybe Ghostbusters is the one that took the best route with an actual cartoon (RGB). I'll grant that. Coneheads tried having a cartoon in '83, but retained all the adult humor and probably the network didn't know what to do with it. It's cute though, check it out on YouTube. I know BB tried doing a cartoon as well but it never got to air. But apparently they want to try again, so we'll see!

You know, as a teenager and young adult, I was pissed off at the Star Wars prequels because they were (as Plinkett says) "for babies." But I'm going to be 34 soon and, I don't know, I now find it...inappropriate to be spitting with rage just because a movie is aimed at children. I've already had my milestone movies. It's the next generation's turn to have theirs. And they may not be able to identify with my milestone movies, at least not right away. So sometimes you need a remake or whatever to grab their attention, and very often it has worked. And I do absolutely believe that is going on right now with ATC.

It's like when people complain about colorizing old movies. Well you know what, colorization helped 8 year old me appreciate old movies. And it worries me a bit that kids today might miss out on that, because of some whiny purists who have forgotten what it it's like to be a kid.

Another thing I find it interesting. I notice online that, often, people who like BB2000 seem to have no idea it's so hated (kinda like how I had no idea GB2 was so hated). They just like what they like and move on, ignoring the bandwagon effect. There's something to be said for that.
You can't do a Blues Brothers movie without Bulushi.
Well I mean John was his friend and it's his property, he's entitled to do what he wants with it. Plus you could have all the key players, but studio interference would still be an issue. Anyway, the only creator I was ever really annoyed with was George Lucas making changes to the original SW trilogy. Again, not going to rage about it, but it just seemed very OCD of him.
Sav C, Kingpin, Alphagaia liked this
#4892876
JurorNo.2 wrote:There's a lot that's right about it too though. You really have to look at it like a remake, only aimed at a younger audience.
Nah you're completely off here. They tried to make a sequel and failed. It wasn't made for a younger audience any more than an adult audience. It was for all intent a sequel not a remake.
JurorNo.2 wrote:You know, as a teenager and young adult, I was pissed off at the Star Wars prequels because they were (as Plinkett says) "for babies." But I'm going to be 34 soon and, I don't know, I now find it...inappropriate to be spitting with rage just because a movie is aimed at children.
Honestly that wasn't the problem with BB2000. The problem is they tried to reassemble everyone but there's a huge difference in trying to make a movie from 1980 and a movie in 1998, for one thing cost. The original had an unlimited budget, the sequel had a tight budget. I don't go for Plinkett's reviews because he's too annoying. The prequels are still disappointing movies but have less to lose than any new Star Wars sequels.
JurorNo.2 wrote:It's like when people complain about colorizing old movies. Well you know what, colorization helped 8 year old me appreciate old movies. And it worries me a bit that kids today might miss out on that, because of some whiny purists who have forgotten what it it's like to be a kid.
No one, absolutely NO ONE should be watching colourised films! It's a fake, cheap and tacky practice for people who can't handle b/w. Kids should grow up watching black and white movies, not the bastardized versions. That's like watching the 1984 version of Metropolis. It's not the correct version, it's not how it was intended to be seen and that's what matters. I can't believe you'd even suggest people should watch colourised movies.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Another thing I find it interesting. I notice online that, often, people who like BB2000 seem to have no idea it's so hated (kinda like how I had no idea GB2 was so hated). They just like what they like and move on, ignoring the bandwagon effect. There's something to be said for that.
Depends if you rely on critics for reviews doesn't it? Also it might be embarrassing if I suddenly say within a group of people that Super Mario Bros is a terrific movie. I agree ignorance is bliss but it also pays to keep an open mind to what others think if you're interested in film critique.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Well I mean John was his friend and it's his property, he's entitled to do what he wants with it. Plus you could have all the key players, but studio interference would still be an issue.
Having Dan and not John is like bringing back the Beatles without Lennon, it's like bringing back Queen without Freddie. They made it what it was, without the main players it's not going to be well liked.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Anyway, the only creator I was ever really annoyed with was George Lucas making changes to the original SW trilogy. Again, not going to rage about it, but it just seemed very OCD of him.
Some of the changes were annoying but some were very welcome. I certainly wouldn't want to get rid of all the changes he made.
#4892878
pferreira1983 wrote:Nah you're completely off here. They tried to make a sequel and failed. It wasn't made for a younger audience any more than an adult audience. It was for all intent a sequel not a remake.
Dude, come on. You don't have to like the movie, but the fact that it's for a younger audience is screaming you in the face. Why do you think the little kid is in the movie at all? And even more than GBII, it just repeats beat after beat from the first movie. If you don't want to look at it as a remake, a lot of people also refer to it as a tribute. In any case, from what I read the little kid was likely a studio decision. That's why I said earlier that it feels like the creators and the studio couldn't get together on the tone of the movie.

I get that you're intent on insisting that someone "failed." Not a very pleasant motivation, but that's up to you.
The problem is they tried to reassemble everyone but there's a huge difference in trying to make a movie from 1980 and a movie in 1998, for one thing cost. The original had an unlimited budget, the sequel had a tight budget.
That may very well be but can you give a specific example of how that affected the movie?
JurorNo.2 wrote:No one, absolutely NO ONE should be watching colourised films!
I did, and it's part of the reason I've adored older movies my entire life. I won't be ashamed of that. And obviously eventually I got over the B&W thing. It's just a transition some kids go through. It's not a big deal.
It's a fake, cheap and tacky practice for people who can't handle b/w.
Not people. Children, lol. Children aren't logical, rational beings who understand that studios couldn't afford color in 1933. All they see is, "There's no color and that's weird because real life has color." You have to meet kids on their own terms sometimes or they'll never learn.
JurorNo.2 wrote:I agree ignorance is bliss
There's a difference between ignorance and doing your own thing. ;)
JurorNo.2 wrote:Having Dan and not John is like bringing back the Beatles without Lennon
Which, um, the Beatles did do. ;)
Without the main players it's not going to be well liked.
Again, even with all the main players, there still would have been conflicts with the studio.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Some of the changes were annoying but some were very welcome. I certainly wouldn't want to get rid of all the changes he made.
I wouldn't want to keep any random character or background shot he added. That was just him tinkering with CGI. He can do that on his own time, not in Star Wars. :) I wouldn't want to keep prequel Anakin showing up at the end of Jedi. Definitely not the "Nooooo!" at the end of Jedi. Do you mean you want to keep the suped up special effects? If so, how is that different from colorizing movies?
#4892893
pferreira1983 wrote:No one, absolutely NO ONE should be watching colourised films! It's a fake, cheap and tacky practice for people who can't handle b/w. Kids should grow up watching black and white movies, not the bastardized versions.
But what if the job's done well? Why should colourising something be considered an unacceptable choice, or somehow "bastardizing" it when it may actually help to breath new life into an old film, when it may even help introduce it to a new audience? There's no actual merit to a film being black and white over being in colour, it's simply the result of a lack of technology from the time.

As modifying an older film goes, it's probably the most acceptable form of "tampering" you could apply to a film that doesn't border on George Lucas-style bastardization.

It's why I'm glad the BBC has made efforts to re-colour the "lost episodes" of Doctor Who that have only been relocated in a black and white print, sure, it's easier to just keep it B&W, but the effort made to make it colour again is appreciated.

I appreciate the fact though that it's not quite the same thing with Doctor Who as colourising the 1930s King Kong, or Citizen Kane.
pferreira1983 wrote:That's like watching the 1984 version of Metropolis.
I tried to watch one of the more recent "faithful" releases of Metropolis (full black and white), and I stopped watching after thirty minutes or so. Maybe it's partly due to my attention span, my exposure to more current storytelling, or other factors, but I found it rather dull, and the narrative unsatisfactory, despite it's classic status. Being someone who enjoys a good story, I didn't like that only a fraction of the cast's dialogue actually resulted in a caption card.
pferreira1983 wrote:I can't believe you'd even suggest people should watch colourised movies.
Not everybody gets as bent out of shape at suggesting something might work better in colour as some others, not all of us are film purist snobs. :P

If they'd had the technology at the time, you bet your bottom dollar that unless they were going for some sort of particular artistic approach, it would've been in colour. Clerks would've been in colour if the colour film stock hadn't been so much more expensive. :)
#4892894
JurorNo.2 wrote:You don't have to like the movie, but the fact that it's for a younger audience is screaming you in the face. Why do you think the little kid is in the movie at all?
I don't hate the movie, I just don't think it's a good sequel. I'll meet you halfway on this by saying you're probably right about the age thing. Since the original movie I'm sure it's built up a fanbase of people who weren't even born when the original was made although I can't help but think adding Buster was just to give Elwood something to do.
JurorNo.2 wrote:I get that you're intent on insisting that someone "failed." Not a very pleasant motivation, but that's up to you.
Well it's not up to me. The film did fail financially and nearly everyone whether it's fans or critics really disliked it but yeah it depends on the person of course. I like films that are disliked by many.
JurorNo.2 wrote:That may very well be but can you give a specific example of how that affected the movie?
It didn't play a huge part (weird because you think it would) but it didn't help. The original had an unlimited budget which meant anything that was dreamed up could happen, with a budget you end up having to restrict yourself. One of the reasons I enjoyed the original is because it's so overblown.
JurorNo.2 wrote:I did, and it's part of the reason I've adored older movies my entire life. I won't be ashamed of that. And obviously eventually I got over the B&W thing. It's just a transition some kids go through. It's not a big deal.
It's just I've always found watching colourised movies as a incomplete experience of how the film should be watched.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Not people. Children, lol. Children aren't logical, rational beings who understand that studios couldn't afford color in 1933. All they see is, "There's no color and that's weird because real life has color." You have to meet kids on their own terms sometimes or they'll never learn.
I'm sorry to get annoyed like that but as a film fan I can be a purist about this. I didn't watch It's a Wonderful Life until university but I can't really imagine watching it as a child in colour since it was never shot in colour to begin with.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Which, um, the Beatles did do. ;)
Some would probably argue it wasn't the same. :)
JurorNo.2 wrote:Again, even with all the main players, there still would have been conflicts with the studio.
Would there? Do you know if the sequel had any conflict with the studio?

JurorNo.2 wrote:I wouldn't want to keep any random character or background shot he added. That was just him tinkering with CGI. He can do that on his own time, not in Star Wars. :) I wouldn't want to keep prequel Anakin showing up at the end of Jedi. Definitely not the "Nooooo!" at the end of Jedi. Do you mean you want to keep the suped up special effects? If so, how is that different from colorizing movies?
I don't mind him adding Boba Fett into A New Hope, having said that the Jabba effects regardless of which version you watch are going to be iffy. The huge dance number in ROTJ has no reason to exist. Like I said depends on which parts. You've highlighted changes made that weren't even part of the original SE. The Darth Vader "Noooooo!" was added to the blu-ray version. In some cases he's added new scenes or added a couple of extra lines that work really well so I'm thankful for that.

Lucas has also changed or as you say 'suped' up the visuals. The soldiers at the end of A New Hope are no longer cardboard cut outs and some of the flying scenes are much better. This is all different to colourising movies because the original creator is in control of what's been changed, the colourised versions had no one giving their blessing.
#4892897
Kingpin wrote:There's no actual merit to a film being black and white over being in colour, it's simply the result of a lack of technology from the time.
Here's a quote from Gremlins 2 which answers this point:

"Building Announcement: Tonight, on the Clamp Cable Classic Movie Channel, don't miss Casablanca, now in full color with a happier ending."
Kingpin wrote:It's why I'm glad the BBC has made efforts to re-colour the "lost episodes" of Doctor Who that have only been relocated in a black and white print, sure, it's easier to just keep it B&W, but the effort made to make it colour again is appreciated.
Ah but that's different. Those Jon Pertwee episodes are supposed to be in colour so it's necessary for them to be restored through colourisation. It reminds me I hope someone down the line gets asked to recolour Episode 1 of Invasion of the Dinosaurs since that wasn't done properly the first time.
Kingpin wrote:I tried to watch one of the more recent "faithful" releases of Metropolis (full black and white), and I stopped watching after thirty minutes or so. Maybe it's partly due to my attention span, my exposure to more current storytelling, or other factors, but I found it rather dull, and the narrative unsatisfactory, despite it's classic status. Being someone who enjoys a good story, I didn't like that only a fraction of the cast's dialogue actually resulted in a caption card.
It's a silent movie. If someone needs to see a colour version of a silent movie to get more excited by it then they shouldn't be watching silent movies.
Kingpin wrote:If they'd had the technology at the time, you bet your bottom dollar that unless they were going for some sort of particular artistic approach, it would've been in colour. Clerks would've been in colour if the colour film stock hadn't been so much more expensive. :)
Insert that Gremlins 2 quote from the beginning of this post again. :mrgreen:
#4892898
pferreira1983 wrote:I don't hate the movie, I just don't think it's a good sequel. I'll meet you halfway on this by saying you're probably right about the age thing. Since the original movie I'm sure it's built up a fanbase of people who weren't even born when the original was made although I can't help but think adding Buster was just to give Elwood something to do.
Well it's just that I read Tom Davis' book (he co-created the Coneheads on SNL) and he talked about the goal with Coneheads the movie was to appeal to both adults who remembered the sketch, and now their kids. I can believe BB2000 had the same goal in mind.
JurorNo.2 wrote:One of the reasons I enjoyed the original is because it's so overblown.
Well here's where I'll criticize the movie with you, hehe. The original works because of the brothers' oblivious attitude to all the craziness around them. In BB2000, the characters' reactions aren't the focus the way they should be.
JurorNo.2 wrote:It's just I've always found watching colourised movies as a incomplete experience of how the film should be watched.
I did learn that eventually. But initially, like in grammar school, I liked it better in color.
JurorNo.2 wrote:I'm sorry to get annoyed like that but as a film fan I can be a purist about this.
Hey, I'm right there with you, I've been a purist many a time. I guess lately I realized, A. It wasn't making me happy, in fact I was quite miserable because nothing was ever living up to my exceptions. And B. I realized it took a load off my shoulders giving other people the benefit of the doubt, maybe they were seeing good things I wasn't aware of.
Some would probably argue it wasn't the same.
Sure! I mean, I would hope nobody argued otherwise, lol. I mean those two songs they did with John's voice, they were OK, but almost like a weird Frankensteiny job, if that makes sense. It was just cool seeing the guys working together again.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Would there? Do you know if the sequel had any conflict with the studio?
Well like there's this interview with John Landis: "The studio insisted we have a kid as a co-star, and we had to have it rated PG-13. We didn't like that. The foul language was an integral part of the original movie, but we had no choice, if we wanted to make the movie." http://www.thewag.net/film/landis.htm
JurorNo.2 wrote:You've highlighted changes made that weren't even part of the original SE. The Darth Vader "Noooooo!" was added to the blu-ray version. In some cases he's added new scenes or added a couple of extra lines that work really well so I'm thankful for that.
Hmm, fair enough. I definitely won't pretend to know all the details of the changes and which issue they were made in, etc. And I can understand enjoying new scenes.
This is all different to colourising movies because the original creator is in control of what's been changed, the colourised versions had no one giving their blessing.
Well that's true, the colorizing wasn't a creator's decision, that's a good point. I guess that's where my purist instincts come in though. I don't like the idea of going back and altering history. How will film students, for instance, learn about the old ways of film if Lucas goes and "fixes" everything?
#4892909
JurorNo.2 wrote:Well it's just that I read Tom Davis' book (he co-created the Coneheads on SNL) and he talked about the goal with Coneheads the movie was to appeal to both adults who remembered the sketch, and now their kids. I can believe BB2000 had the same goal in mind.
Coneheads is less well known in the UK that BB2000 so that didn't work.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Well here's where I'll criticize the movie with you, hehe. The original works because of the brothers' oblivious attitude to all the craziness around them. In BB2000, the characters' reactions aren't the focus the way they should be.
It's more that due to the unlimited budget there's so much wanton destruction. The criticisms of how the sequel approached this came from everywhere. I remember Jonathan Frakes in Star Trek Magazine commenting how John Landis wasted all those police cars in the sequel compared to the original where the direction of them being destroyed was done better. And that was from a Star Trek mag!
JurorNo.2 wrote:Hey, I'm right there with you, I've been a purist many a time. I guess lately I realized, A. It wasn't making me happy, in fact I was quite miserable because nothing was ever living up to my exceptions. And B. I realized it took a load off my shoulders giving other people the benefit of the doubt, maybe they were seeing good things I wasn't aware of.
There's nothing wrong with being a purist about something. To be able to be flexible is necessary but both are needed.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Well like there's this interview with John Landis: "The studio insisted we have a kid as a co-star, and we had to have it rated PG-13. We didn't like that. The foul language was an integral part of the original movie, but we had no choice, if we wanted to make the movie."
Okay so there was definitely studio interference. Well the end product is what people see and what is judged, not what happened behind the scenes. Most people can't tell a director's intentions, the movie does.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Hmm, fair enough. I definitely won't pretend to know all the details of the changes and which issue they were made in, etc. And I can understand enjoying new scenes.
Well you did say Lucas likes to keep making changes. Ha, ha! :lol:

There are fan recreations like the 'Despecialised' Star Wars that tries to remove every change even the good ones although it means they take out stuff that was added like Luke meeting Biggs before the Battle of Yavin which I really liked. Here's one example of Lucas adding a line to the SE that I really liked:


JurorNo.2 wrote:How will film students, for instance, learn about the old ways of film if Lucas goes and "fixes" everything?
Good point although to be fair and while this isn't a defensive of his way of doing things Lucas is into keeping archives. All these changes are documented at least.
#4892910
pferreira1983 wrote:Here's a quote from Gremlins 2 which answers this point:
But it doesn't, there is no merit to a film being in black and white as opposed to colour. The monochrome presentation adds nothing to the story, the characters, or the setting.

It's like a film that's a silent "pre-talkie", it's the way it is because that's all the technology could deliver at the time, but that doesn't mean those are positive attributes.

The only time I'll go with black and white being a good option is in photography, as strangely there appears a greater level of detail in night-time photographs of skylines, like New York.
pferreira1983 wrote:Ah but that's different.
I know it's different, I think I said as much.
pferreira1983 wrote:It's a silent movie. If someone needs to see a colour version of a silent movie to get more excited by it then they shouldn't be watching silent movies.
It's not the worst thing that could be done to introduce it to a new audience. Thank goodness we're a bit more forgiving with adding English subtitles to non-English/American films so people here can enjoy them. I'd have missed out on Train to Busan, one of the best zombie films in years, as I don't know Korean.
Alphagaia liked this
#4892911
Kingpin wrote:
But it doesn't, there is no merit to a film being in black and white as opposed to colour. The monochrome presentation adds nothing to the story, the characters, or the setting.
Some movies took advantage of the B&W, using shadows and outlines to enhance the atmosphere. Not all movies of course, mainly film noir, but also even romances like Casablanca. But yeah, there are definitely other B&Ws that practically scream for color.

That's a good point about subtitles though!
Sav C liked this
#4892912
pferreira1983 wrote:It's more that due to the unlimited budget there's so much wanton destruction. The criticisms of how the sequel approached this came from everywhere. I remember Jonathan Frakes in Star Trek Magazine commenting how John Landis wasted all those police cars in the sequel compared to the original where the direction of them being destroyed was done better. And that was from a Star Trek mag!
Yeah I can see that. I guess it was one of those "People liked the destruction in the first movie, so let's do more of it in the sequel!"
There's nothing wrong with being a purist about something. To be able to be flexible is necessary but both are needed.
Oh yeah, both are needed. Just that for me being a purist started representing a loss of hope. That things would never been as good again, and that's just no way to live, at least it wasn't for me. It makes more sense for me to realize that older people always think their movies are better and it's just a normal cycle that repeats itself.
Luke meeting Biggs before the Battle of Yavin which I really liked. Here's one example of Lucas adding a line to the SE that I really liked:
That's true, those are cool. That's what I meant by OCD, the changes were fine to begin with, but then Lucas started changing everything that moved, it just became weird.
Good point although to be fair and while this isn't a defensive of his way of doing things Lucas is into keeping archives. All these changes are documented at least.
This is true!
#4892998
Here's where I stand on the whole Black and White vs Color argument, in the support of Black and White.

1) It costs roughly ten times the amount to colorize a film than it does to scan one. That means that for every colorized film there are nine B&Ws out there waiting to be transferred. The more time it takes to transfer them, the more they degrade. Especially the older ones when they hadn't figured the stock out yet.

2) Color is a tool. If it is not used correctly it can actually detract from a shot, and even change its feeling/mood completely. Besides it's not what the cinematographer, or any other crew member for that matter, had in mind while making the film. (Although when used right, color can definitely enhance a film.)

That being said some stuff does look really good when colorized.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4893010
Sav C wrote:1) It costs roughly ten times the amount to colorize a film than it does to scan one.
I appreciate it's an expensive process, and did not wish to underwrite just how expensive it could be. I simply wished to defend colourisation, that it shouldn't immediately be discounted as an abhorration just because it transforms a black & white film in a major way.
Sav C liked this
#4893046
If colourisation can attract a new generation to watch a movie they wouldnt have otherwisethan I think thats worth it, though it should never be considered the real thing, only an introduction to a movie because what you are getting has nothing to do with the directors vision. Cinematography is an art form, and those films were filmed very specifically to look a certain way in black and white, to capture a certain atmosphere and feeling or emotion. Running a film through a computer program to colourize it isnt an art and a computer cant create feeling.

I also think its wrong to say there is no merit to a film being in black and white and that its just down to technology. Film noir is an entire genre of film that relies on black and white photography and exploits the stark contrast between dark and light and long shadows to create mood. And black and white still photography is still popular.
Sav C, JurorNo.2 liked this
#4893056
Commander_Jim wrote:because what you are getting has nothing to do with the directors vision. Cinematography is an art form, and those films were filmed very specifically to look a certain way in black and white, to capture a certain atmosphere and feeling or emotion.
Cinematography is an artform, but I don't believe black and white (unless it has been explicitly employed in the post-colour age) is.
Commander_Jim wrote:Running a film through a computer program to colourize it isnt an art and a computer cant create feeling.
It's doubtful a program could do much more than a very basic level of colourisation, you'd still need the human element to implement the computer side of thing more effectively.

And I don't see why it can't still count as art. Colourising black and white photographs for postcards used to be extremely popular, and could be argued to be an artform in itself.

I also think its wrong to say there is no merit to a film being in black and white and that its just down to technology. Film noir is an entire genre of film that relies on black and white photography and exploits the stark contrast between dark and light and long shadows to create mood. And black and white still photography is still popular.[/quote]
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4893075
Kingpin wrote:It's like a film that's a silent "pre-talkie", it's the way it is because that's all the technology could deliver at the time, but that doesn't mean those are positive attributes.
Okay I don't think you quite understand my Gremlins 2 quote so let me try and give you this one instead which adds to what the Gremlins 2 quote is going on about:

Image
JurorNo.2 wrote:Oh yeah, both are needed. Just that for me being a purist started representing a loss of hope. That things would never been as good again, and that's just no way to live, at least it wasn't for me. It makes more sense for me to realize that older people always think their movies are better and it's just a normal cycle that repeats itself.
That hasn't been the case with every movie I've watched. Tron Legacy turned out ok for me because it felt like the people behind the movie understood the original. X-Men Days of Future Past I was sceptical it could be as good as the first few movies since a lot of time has passed since Bryan Singer directed any of those movies yet I was pleasantly surprised watching it. It felt like not only a complete movie but also that he understood the best way to maximise the potential of the storyline and direction. Most directors don't do that with today's movies.
JurorNo.2 wrote:That's true, those are cool. That's what I meant by OCD, the changes were fine to begin with, but then Lucas started changing everything that moved, it just became weird.
When the DVDs of the trilogy was released a lot of stuff went passed Quality Control that was terrible, worst was the colour correction which really ruined scenes. Some of these mistakes were corrected for the blu-ray but not all. Vader still looks like he has a pink/orange lightsaber in some shots due to the colour correction problems from the DVDs.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4893094
pferreira1983 wrote:Okay I don't think you quite understand my Gremlins 2 quote so let me try and give you this one instead which adds to what the Gremlins 2 quote is going on about:
You should've gone with the Malcolm quote from the beginning s it left no ambiguity.

Still though, I genuinely do think it'd be more of a positive than a negative if the original Kong, Casablanca, Doctor Strangelove, To Kill a Mockingbird etc were breathed into colour, on the prevision that the colourisation was not done on the cheap, or lazily.
#4893098
Kingpin wrote:You should've gone with the Malcolm quote from the beginning s it left no ambiguity.
"Building Announcement: Tonight, on the Clamp Cable Classic Movie Channel, don't miss Casablanca, now in full color with a happier ending."

My point with the quote is that Clamp Plaza is seen as futuristic and capitalist in the movie. Clamp Plaza takes whatever is old and tries to make it new in a bid to modernise just for the sake of profit. It does nothing. If you haven't watched the movie you'd think Clamp Plaza is presented as a great place. It isn't. Casablanca is coloured because Clamp doesn't think kids can watch b/w movies. A happier ending has been created to conform to modern day tastes. The above quote beautifully illustrates that just because modern technology is available that some things are best left alone otherwise you ruin the purity of the original. In case you never watched the movie Clamp Plaza ends up a death trap because it's easily broken into by the Gremlins. The place is filled with lots of conveniences that do nothing. The place is a complete whim of modernisation ideas without an understanding of what made the original interesting and unique.
#4893309
Kingpin wrote:I have seen the film, many times, and I remember the building announcement, as well as Grandpa Fred explaining Clamp's mindset: (he) "only likes colour".

The Malcolm quote still got the point over better.
I would say the Gremlins 2 one does a better job. The movie is totally correct there in it's it's reasoning that's why the quote is so funny.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14

I don't remember exactly, But I think I've had pr[…]

Someone ID'd them on Facebook first, there w[…]

Two specific ideas I have are basically holiday sp[…]

While waiting impatiently for Frozen Empire to rel[…]