Movies

[parcaleste]

... Some casual viewer called Bob sees Alienz, which is a ripoff off Alien. Then he sees Alien, and says "Alien was so bad, because it was very similar to Alienz, but had even worse soundtrack and effects"...

Dude, this is exactly what you are saying.

And you are talking about cliches and ALIEN being one of them. The movie that set the bar can be call anything, but a cliche and all the afterward look-a-like movies will be and must be compared with it. It's that simple.
And if I have to quote Wesley Snipes from "White Men Can't Jump" on the soundtrack thingy: "That's the problem. Y'all listen... You're supposed to hear it." All of the ALIEN/PREDATOR/TERMINATOR movies got an kickass soundtracks. The problem is not with the music, it is with you.

... WHY WOULD I WATCH ALIEN? ...

Because IT IS a fockin' classic.

[ThunderTitan]

OK, i think we can all agree Borsuc has awful taste when it comes to films... and special effects... probably thinks WC3 had cutting edge graphics when it came out too. BURN THE WITCH.

[Asheera]

The thing is, Borsuc, you have to take into account the technology which was available at the time a movie was made. Just because a newer version is more sophisticated re the graphics, that doesn't mean the original is bad.

Yes but this 'newer' version should get a higher score on 'entertaining' value (since you'd watch it instead of the original), but a crappy score on 'artistic' value since it's a rip-off of the original.

Come to think of it, maybe with these two types of ratings we can keep everyone (including Borsuc) happy

[Jolly Joker]

Nah. Just because a newer version may make use of more sophisticated equipment the entertainment value isn't higher PER SE. A movie in technicolor hasn't got a higher entertainment value than a b/w movie BECAUSE of that. If a movie in full technicolor sucks, it sucks, solor or not.

[Asheera]

Perhaps it may suck, but don't tell me a surround sound (example of 'quality') has no positive impact on the entertaining value at all...

I mean, there's a reason going to the cinema is considered better than just watching it at your TV from the DVD.

[Kalah]

Sure, an increase in entertainment equipment should contribute to the overall experience. But it doesn't make a movie classic.

[Asheera]

Yes, that was my point

We should have two ratings, one for overall entertainment, and another for the artistic value. Obviously movies with a high artistic value become classics.

[Jolly Joker]

Perhaps it may suck, but don't tell me a surround sound (example of 'quality') has no positive impact on the entertaining value at all...

I mean, there's a reason going to the cinema is considered better than just watching it at your TV from the DVD.

Cinema is considered more monumental.

However, surround sound is a double-edged sword since it can easily ruin a movie. Most of the time sound effects are TOO LOUD compared to dialogue. Usually I don't watch a movie because I like the accoustic impression that the attack chopper just materialized directly behind me blowing away my eardrums, if you know what I mean.

In fact, with movies you can watch the same development as with games. Technical progress makes most movies too effect-heavy for the effects' sake replacing story, thrill, originality and logic with the wonder about technical gadgets. Wonderment like "WOW, look how real that monster looks and moves" doesn't make the movie better. It's just a verhicle, a MEANS, not the end.
So, a movie that sucks, sucks, even if it has beautiful surround sound (which is highly unlikely anyway) or fine computer animations.

[Kalah]

Yeah, that's how I feel as well. We mounted a surround system here when those home cinema things began entering the market, but we found that the dialogue got ruined by it. The chopper sounds were cool, but once somebody started talking, it sounded as if his voice came from everywhere. So dad coupled the TV to his home-made system, with just two speakers and a bass. That worked much better. If you are going to make a film adapted to surround sound and all that, you have to make sure it's properly calibrated.

[Borsuc]

The thing is, Borsuc, you have to take into account the technology which was available at the time a movie was made. Just because a newer version is more sophisticated re the graphics, that doesn't mean the original is bad.

Uh, I'll need to spell it out. You know, when I watch a movie, I just really want to enjoy it, or to be immersed into it... if it's drama, emotionally. If it's a horror, then spooky. Watching movies of course, modifies the standards which I can enjoy. That's all I care when I watch a movie.

WHY-WOULD-I-CARE-HOW-IT-WAS-DONE?

or why would I care that it was good at its time? why would I care it was a revolution then? why would I care about ANY of this?

Of course, this only applies if there are better movies (even ripoffs).

Because IT IS a fockin' classic.

This is your argument?

Ok, let me put this into perspective. Take a movie like Alien and "process" it to make it sound a bit better. By YOUR logic we should rather watch the 100% original one, just for the sake of it being the original? Geez why would I care about that?

What if there's an exact ripoff but with better music and possibly effects? This would actually be a "ultra-processed" classic to make it better. I would DEFINITELY watch that. After all, why not?

Why would I watch the original crappy version?
Plus remember: Alien wasn't good except for the fact that your expectations for it aren't as high as today's simply because it was "made back then".

Like, it wasn't really horrific for me, it was also predictable after some time, and the music was boring (and thus most scenes were boring). See? It did NOT have an effect on me the same as some other movies had.

WHY-WOULD-I-RATE-IT-HIGH-JUST-BECAUSE-I-DID-SOME-RESEARCH-AFTER-WATCHING-IT-AND-FOUND-OUT-THAT-IT-WAS-MADE-A-LOT-OF-TIME-AGO? This won't change how much I enjoyed it.

This obviously didn't change my perspective when watching it, after all I already did, and had an amount of enjoyment/entertainment. What's done is done. If anything this damn 'research' into finding out how it was done is pointless and destroys your objectivity of "how much you enjoyed it".

After all, ratings are about "how much you'll enjoy this film" when trying to decide what to watch (and you haven't watched, of course). Otherwise they are pretty pointless.

Nah. Just because a newer version may make use of more sophisticated equipment the entertainment value isn't higher PER SE. A movie in technicolor hasn't got a higher entertainment value than a b/w movie BECAUSE of that. If a movie in full technicolor sucks, it sucks, solor or not.

You seem to miss the point I had. If this technicolor thing wouldn't add to the horror (and it doesn't most times) then I would agree.

However, Alien was mediocre -- even boring in some times might I add, for someone who watched it after watching other (newer) horrors (so I am not biased towards it but against it, to balance out these Alien fans ). It wasn't spectacular. Why would I rate it high? Just to "tell others" to have a difference experience than I had (and thus watch something more crappy) because I'm selfish? Or just for the sake of the flim itself instead of the actual value it has to the viewer?

Now, a good classic is Terminator for example. Even though Terminator 2 was better, the first one was more 'thrilling' so to speak so it had a different atmosphere. Can't really compare them that much (also the fact that the Terminator was the only machine in the first one).


EDIT: And you haven't answered the stuff I said regarding the Alien 'sequels'. Surely those dumb directors were so bad that's why it turned out bad, right? Did anyone start to think that it's that way because you watched Alien first and then, wow, you had different expectations than for a freaking classic?

How about you start to direct it and see how successful you are? I bet that you'll come up with the excuse "that's their job", but this job of them can't CONVINCE stubborn classic critics, they can't do the impossible. They can make a movie and no matter WHAT they do, critics will still say the classic was the best. Ever.

Crappy movie sequels are, or stubborn critics?

[parcaleste]

... WHY-WOULD-I-CARE-HOW-IT-WAS-DONE?

or why would I care that it was good at its time? why would I care it was a revolution then? why would I care about ANY of this?

Because you have a drop of brain?

Because IT IS a fockin' classic.

This is your argument?

Ok, let me put this into perspective. Take a movie like Alien and "process" it to make it sound a bit better. By YOUR logic we should rather watch the 100% original one, just for the sake of it being the original? Geez why would I care about that?

Because you have a drop of brain?

... and I can continue like that till the end of your post. Seriously. Why should I listen to these crappy sounding old QUEEN/ABBA/PINK FOCKIN' FLOYD (put a name of whatever band here) albums, when I can listen to the ULTRA-MEGA-HYPER-MODERN-STEREO-3D-SURROUND-WHATEVER covers which are flowing from the television? It's something called culture, education, choose the word that fits best by yourself.



PS ALIENS is my all time favorite movie. First when the 3-th came out, I was too small of a kid to "dig" it (+ the bootleg version here in BG was crappy as hell, I could barely see what is going on ), but now when I watch it, I am still having goosebumps. 4 was more fun and Sci Fi oriented, but perhaps it had the most gore moments of the series. Fact is, all of these movies managed to cover their expenses and even gain a big amount of profit. It could be done better, but it's done like it is and the final result is one good, entertaining ALIEN movie. I even know guys with the 4-th being their favorite and others, which praise the 3-th. Happy now?

[Veldrynus]

The thing is, Borsuc, you have to take into account the technology which was available at the time a movie was made. Just because a newer version is more sophisticated re the graphics, that doesn't mean the original is bad.

Yes but this 'newer' version should get a higher score on 'entertaining' value (since you'd watch it instead of the original), but a crappy score on 'artistic' value since it's a rip-off of the original.

Come to think of it, maybe with these two types of ratings we can keep everyone (including Borsuc) happy

Technology itself has an entertainment value. When the first films were shown, the spectators were scared by moving trains on the screen, when the first talkies arrived, they were thrilled by the sounds, and when finally colors were added, they people went "look at those colors, man!" However, this only works for the short time the technology is brand new.
A serious critic should never judge the film by the technology it uses, because that's not the directors achievement, rather he/she should focus on the inventive way that technology was used.
Entertainment value is a subjective thing and not always related to the artistic value of the film. You like films or not. A critic cannot argue alone with his subjective emotions. This is why the rating of a critic won't be the same as the casual viewer's. Both should be considered in their specific context.

[Jolly Joker]

Good point.
In AFI's 10 Top 10, which lists the top 10 in 10 movie categories as voted by some critics, ALIEN is ranked 7. in the SCI-FI category (no Horror available).

That same list shows INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS from 1956 on rank 9. Which is why it is interesting to have a look at the movie and its remakes.

The original movie is from a short story. The story is simple. Aliens land near some town in the US. They kidnap people which they copy and replace by growing an exact (but mentally altered) copy in some kind of pods who will then take the place of the copied (that is killed). The movie has a happy ending.
It's a mixture of genres - scifi and horror. It's a b/w movie. It has grave logical errors: the female main character is replicated, but isn't dead, but saved later on which shouldn't be possible. It's a movie that reflects the paranoia of the 50s about Communism, the loss of freedom and individuality and the general insecurity about the future.
It's an awkward movie, in my opinion - but it's still a classic: at that point it was a rather disturbing movie.

Now compare that with the first remake of Kaufman's (which I'd advise everyone to watch if given a chance), made 20 years later
That movie is better in EACH respect, in every single one. Including message, logical errors and ending. In fact it's a killer of a movie in my opinion. Still it's not considered a cassic - it's a REMAKE. While the did quite well, it's still only a copy. However, it MIGHT be a classic in its own right: as an example of how to make a remake.

The second remake, made by Ferreira isn't noteworthy: the message is changed to fear from neo-fascism instead of communism, and the location is changed, but that's it. Even if Ferreira is well known, it's clearly an unnecessary movie.

The Faculty - we know that Borsuc isn't, let's call it, in agreement with many of us, so his opinion about it should be taken with a grain of salt anyway - breathes the spirit of the time. The script was written by the same guy who wrote Scream - a big hit and a revival of the splatter genre in 1996 -, and Faculty is CLEVER. It's a clever adaption of a theme, giving a whole new meaning to every pupil's claim that teachers are monsters. We have good actors, a refreshing take on the whole thing, a couple of minor prizes and a quite entertaining movie. And of course it rides on the wave of Scream. But of course it's not a classic. It MIGHT be an example, though, of how to adapt something 40 years later, transferring things into a completely different surrounding and giving new life to it.

Lastly, the last remake with Kidman and Craig looks to be unnecessary - an attempt to make money with stars and a well-known theme that failed.


No, about the Alien sequels.
Tasked with making a sequel for Alien you have one problem. One major part of the original is the LOOKS of the alien and the development of it, but obviously that's not usable as a plot device. So you have to come up with something else instead.
Cameron does what he knows best - he makes an action spectacle. The movie is very good from THAT point of view, but it fails from another: Imagine the sequel of Dracula would envolv an army of vampires in some town in Transsylvania... yup, that's somehow inadequate. However, I think the movie is entertaining.
Alien 3 - I think that David Fincher is a superb director. Trouble here is the script and the fact that the movie was changed later on without Fincher's consent. From a story point of view th IDEA makes a lot of sense, and Fincher does a good job, imo. You might say that it's a bit exhausting to watch. But it's back to Ripley vs. the Alien & Earth (aka, the Androids). Still, the script is lacking.
Alien 4. My daughter loves it. That's very organic. It's something like Ripley and the Alien vs. Earth. Moreover, director Jeunet is debatable as a choice. TRue is, he has his very own style. True is also that this style is very much a matter of taste. My impression is that the script is an interesting one, but I find myself wondering whether a differenr director would have done a better job.

Anyway, the trouble with sequels is always the same - you must keep enough of the original issues to make it a real sequel and you have to introduce enough fresh ideas to make it worth a new movie. That makes it difficult no matter what.

[Asheera]

@parcaleste: You watch a movie for entertainment or for seeing how it was done and put all in place (while thinking about the technology available back then) ?

Why don't you go and watch the "making of" then?

[Borsuc]

... WHY-WOULD-I-CARE-HOW-IT-WAS-DONE?

or why would I care that it was good at its time? why would I care it was a revolution then? why would I care about ANY of this?

Because you have a drop of brain?

Cool that means you have a drop of brain, since I asked "Why would I care how it was done?" and you said that I only care when I have a drop of brain.

But I don't care, I only care about the enjoyable amount.

PS ALIENS is my all time favorite movie. First when the 3-th came out, I was too small of a kid to "dig" it (+ the bootleg version here in BG was crappy as hell, I could barely see what is going on ), but now when I watch it, I am still having goosebumps. 4 was more fun and Sci Fi oriented, but perhaps it had the most gore moments of the series. Fact is, all of these movies managed to cover their expenses and even gain a big amount of profit. It could be done better, but it's done like it is and the final result is one good, entertaining ALIEN movie. I even know guys with the 4-th being their favorite and others, which praise the 3-th. Happy now?

Of course there will be people who will like other movies. I'm talking about the actual ratings and the propagandish critics. Look at the imdb scores comparing Alien 4 with the original Alien. Stupid bias.

What I am talking about isn't that classics are bad. Well some are, and Alien is an example. It isn't bad at all, just doesn't spook me out (as in feeling horror ambience, not as in jumping from my chair, I never do that). It is also predictable and boring.

One good classic is Terminator. So I am not really saying all classics suck. But you are saying that classics CANNOT suck, but let's be honest, Alien isn't more worth to watch than any other good horror movie for someone who didn't watch them.

You can give him the details on when/how it was done after he watches it (not to be disturbed by bias). But until then people want to ENJOY a movie, not to THINK about the TECHNICAL difficulties it was made with, or when it was released. Alien simply didn't convey the message of fear or horror to me. Predictable and boring (could be better in the latter department if it had better soundtrack)

I'm not saying the director was an idiot or that those producers were dumb. I'm saying Alien isn't as good to convey horror as fanboys say everywhere.


And like Ash said, if you care how it was done, go watch the "making of"

The Faculty - we know that Borsuc isn't, let's call it, in agreement with many of us, so his opinion about it should be taken with a grain of salt anyway - breathes the spirit of the time. The script was written by the same guy who wrote Scream - a big hit and a revival of the splatter genre in 1996 -, and Faculty is CLEVER. It's a clever adaption of a theme, giving a whole new meaning to every pupil's claim that teachers are monsters. We have good actors, a refreshing take on the whole thing, a couple of minor prizes and a quite entertaining movie. And of course it rides on the wave of Scream. But of course it's not a classic. It MIGHT be an example, though, of how to adapt something 40 years later, transferring things into a completely different surrounding and giving new life to it.

To be honest with you the whole theme was kinda silly, like watching some teen-drama anime with teachers being teh evil or whatever

And the imdb score isn't that high either. Guess some critics truly are weird.

Anyway, the trouble with sequels is always the same - you must keep enough of the original issues to make it a real sequel and you have to introduce enough fresh ideas to make it worth a new movie. That makes it difficult no matter what.

It makes it almost impossible because people rate wrongly. This isn't always the case, as in Terminator for example, but most times it is.

Ratings should give you an idea of how worth/enjoyable it is to watch a movie. Not how classic/well-made/how-many-goofs it has. Or how ripoff it is. For someone new to two movies, do you think he cares that one of them is a ripoff when watching them double-blind experiment?

Low ratings mean "stay away from this". Clearly I would not stay away from a ripoff off Alien which had a better soundtrack but everything else more of less the same. Why would I? That's like refusing to play a Doom game with better music but everything else the same. JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T THE ORIGINAL CLASSIC (crappy mentality).

[Kalah]

This discussion reminds me of the teaching of John Keating in Dead poets society. Remember when he took the foreword of that poetry book and told the class to rip it out? He is saying that analyzing the quality of a poem the way Pritchard does it (on a scale) is meaningless.

Still, I think some movies are better than others, regardless of their entertainment value. After all, we can ascribe all sorts of quality measurements. Box office figures, awards given... there are loads of people who really like crappy movies.

[parcaleste]

@parcaleste: You watch a movie for entertainment or for seeing how it was done and put all in place (while thinking about the technology available back then) ?

Why don't you go and watch the "making of" then?

Of course I watch it for entertainment, but I watch it with the sense of mind "what was it like back then". You have to have that in mind. And "the makings" are interesting, yes, love to watch SOME of them, but you can't compare it with watching the original movie.
Speaking of effects and stuff, I was watching the first "Howling" few weeks ago, and when was that werewolf transformation in the second part of the movie (which lasted like, two minutes or something), I was in a total shock. The effect were WAY better than the computorised now showing stuff. It is amazing, if somebody missed that, you definitly have to go see it (aaah here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMl1qGkf ... re=related ). + the atmosphere of the oldies is cool to watch. You can see like the state of mind of the actors and even the whole generation there. It's just different and you can't miss it. I love it.

@Borsuc, you are totally not reading what one writes you, right? Because this is the impression I left with. First of, ALIEN is NOT a horror movie (in general), it's Sci-Fi (I think I said that before?) with some horror elements. The design of the monster is awesome, the design of the whole series is awesome, it has it's own atmosphere, so when you go watch the movie, just the view of a room from it you can say "Yup, it's ALIEN".
ALIEN is classic and one of the biggest in the Sc-Fi movies (like someone else pointed).

Alien (1979) - Ridley Scott - Superior sci-fi/horror film; nominee for Best Art Direction; Best Visual Effects Oscar-winner; with the tagline: "In space, no one can hear you scream"; the film's commercial towing-vehicle, named the Nostromo, was taken from Joseph Conrad's 1904 novel of the same name
Aliens (1986) - Writer/director James Cameron - Superb big-budget, adrenalin-fueled action film, a seven-time Oscar nominee, and two-time winner (Best Visual Effects, and Best Sound Effects Editing); Sigourney Weaver was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar (an incredible feat for a sci-fi film) in Rambo-like role, and lost to Marlee Matlin's performance in Children of a Lesser God (1986); the fictional spaceship U.S.S. Sulaco in the film was named after the silver mining town in Joseph Conrad's 1904 novel Nostromo.

I think all of this means that the original movie and it's sequel totally suck. Yeah, sure.

... there are loads of people who really like crappy movies.

Thank you.

[Jolly Joker]

The Faculty

To be honest with you the whole theme was kinda silly, like watching some teen-drama anime with teachers being teh evil or whatever

That is called IRONY. In some movies it helps, if you don't take them too serious - if the director is Rodriguez it has to be expected - or do you take Dusk till Dawn serious?

Anyway, the trouble with sequels is always the same - you must keep enough of the original issues to make it a real sequel and you have to introduce enough fresh ideas to make it worth a new movie. That makes it difficult no matter what.

It makes it almost impossible because people rate wrongly. This isn't always the case, as in Terminator for example, but most times it is.

Ratings should give you an idea of how worth/enjoyable it is to watch a movie. Not how classic/well-made/how-many-goofs it has. Or how ripoff it is. For someone new to two movies, do you think he cares that one of them is a ripoff when watching them double-blind experiment?

Low ratings mean "stay away from this". Clearly I would not stay away from a ripoff off Alien which had a better soundtrack but everything else more of less the same. Why would I? That's like refusing to play a Doom game with better music but everything else the same. JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T THE ORIGINAL CLASSIC (crappy mentality).

There is something like HISTORY. Let's say you make a movie. 20 years later you make the same movie again. EXACTLY the same movie, an exact copy, no differences. FOR YOU it wouldn't matter which one you look and YOU would rate them both equal. Everyone else wouldn't rate the second one at all. Now take a movie, and 20 years later you make the same movie with one exception: you replace a slightly mis-casted role with another actor. FOR YOU this would be the better movie; everyone else would say, that movie was around 20 years ago, if you do a remake it should offer a bit more than copying the work of someone else.

Let's take THE actual example for this which is of course PSYCHO, originally made in 1960 by Hitchcock in b/w, then remade SHOT FOR SHOT in 1998 by Gus Van Sant in technicolor and of course with a different (and pretty first-rate) set of actors.

This is what wiki states about the critical reaction:

"This version of Psycho received negative reviews. became a box office disappointment and was awarded two Golden Raspberry Awards, for Worst Remake or Sequel and Worst Director for Gus Van Sant while Anne Heche was nominated as Worst Actress.
A number of critics and writers viewed Van Sant's version more as an actual experiment in shot-for-shot remakes. Film critic Roger Ebert wrote that the film "demonstrates that a shot-by-shot remake is pointless; genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted". Screenwriter Joseph Stefano, who worked on the 1960 version, thought that although she spoke the same lines, Anne Heche portrays Marion Crane as an entirely different character. Even Van Sant admitted that it was an experiment that proved that no one can really copy a film exactly the same way as the original."

According to you, Borsuc, the 1998 version would have to be better, wouldn't it?

[parcaleste]

^ Geesh, you know I just watched this remake one early morning on TV1000 and it was really a total disaster. There where some good shots with the camera though, but the whole movie sucks REALLY bad.
BDW I am having Muranu's Nosferatu (1992) from some time on me PC and am looking forward (mood, girlfriend and etc.) to watch it. Gotta say this discussion "lightened my fire" a bit, so it's gotta be soon to watch this one + the 1979 remake (have that one also). I'm really curious to see the outcome.

But I have to say the first "Salem's Lot" is a pathetic attempt of a movie (I mean actors play, script and everything), but the "remake" (not sure if it has to be called like, after it's been based on Stephen King's book) from 2004 is a kick ass. It really fits perfectly with the books atmosphere. Great one to watch. However, you have to have in mind that the first one is called one of the worst horror movies of it's time as well.

[ThunderTitan]

HAN SHOT FIRST!


Now that this is settled, lets move on...