This is topic Latest trend in movies: defying physical laws. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002241
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-09-2003, 02:38 PM:
 
The review of Charlie's Angels made me think of the latest annoying trend in movies these days. Characters can no longer simply kick or punch someone in fights. They must now jump 10 feet high, pause in the air, change direction, and kick on their way back down. Or, if they really want to show-off, they turn a flip while climbing in altitude, stop, simultaneously kick two people while they're up there, change direction, wait for the other bad guy to approach from the front so they can kick him, and then do a back flip on the way back down.

What's with this crap? Are we supposed to be impressed? Are filmmakers doing it to impress themselves? Well, it's not working, it's spoiling a lot of pictures.

You can get the audience to accept most any premise or fantasy element. But even within fantastic situations there has to be a framework, an element of credibility; the characters must remain believeable. And certain things should remain constant - like basic physical laws applied to normal human characters!

Certainly, Luke Skywalker can grab a light saber from across the room, but unseen worlds and the concept of "the force" have been established within that story. It doesn't betray the characters. But if C3PO performed the same feat, or Luke suddenly broke into a song, we couldn't accept it.

Charlie's Angels are supposed to be present-day detectives (or whatever they are). And, yes, I understand that picture's a farce, but the wild wire stuff is defintely wearing thin.
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-09-2003, 03:50 PM:
 
But it LOOKS SO COOL!!! [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-09-2003, 04:27 PM:
 
Tim,

it`s a fact that most filmmakers do not know any more how to shoot a simple dialogue scene that will hold viewers interest. They know nothing about body language of actors, so they stick to their tv-like closeups and think it will be "intense". [Mad]

How many directors could do a good comedy timing like, let`s say Blake Edwards? While I like rough comedy, I find it less and less exciting seeing yet another sh*t-flying-around or kick-in-the-balls or caught-in-the-zipper gag. [Roll Eyes]

But certainly with films like MATRIX RELOADED the trend of non-stop action will come to an end. What can you put on top of that CGI/action stuff?
I found myself losing interest in ALL CHARACTERS because they are never truly in danger, they resurface like in a Tom&Jerry cartoon and nothing this side of a nuclear blast can hurt them.

People will get tired of that phoney stuff, but what is to replace it? Quality pictures cannot be bought a X zillion budget, they have to happen. [Cool]
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2003, 06:51 PM:
 
Cut the special efx budget.

Put the savings into the writing budget.

That would solve 90% of the problems.

This is why Pixar and other animation houses have such good stories...they are not catering to some stupid star egos, they are spending the money on story.
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 07-10-2003, 03:13 AM:
 
Yep: Not having 16 or so screens to choose from, X-MEN, MATRIX, CHARLIE'S ANGELS, HULK and TERMINATOR in a row is just what You need to not even bother going into Your own cinema. It's as painful as it is true ! -But from tomorrow screen 2 will have the anti-stuff: THE THIRD MAN as matinee the next week. Thank God for old stuff to at least comfort Your own taste.

p.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-10-2003, 02:43 PM:
 
Good points, guys. (Okay, Mike, we're supposed to be impressed. Thanks for clarifying that. [Smile] )

Christian made a good observation; the fancy-schmancy impossible stuff makes you not care about the characters. There is no peril. Indeed, I hope it comes to an end.

Mike and Per, I couldn't agree more!

I've always said the art of good moviemaking was lost sometime in the 1950s, forget technical advances. It's no wonder most of the movies I have at home are old ones. They're more satisfying.
 
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-10-2003, 11:13 PM:
 
Of course, this all goes along with americans paying the cosmetic surgeons to make them look as fake as possible. All this goes hand in hand.....you know???
 
Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 07-10-2003, 11:38 PM:
 
Beginning with MI:2 this really got out of hand, most of the stunts that are clearly impossible could be made to be just as cool but cutting the efx, and hiring professional stunt drivers and people, although they cant do 20 flips in the air and suddenly stop or jump a 500 ft span in a car, I think the real thing looks much better.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-10-2003, 11:56 PM:
 
I get really tired of all the phony DIGITAL crap-o EFX that seems to be the standard in a lot of the films of today.

To me, it stems from too many of the young and up-and-coming (Hollywood) film-makers not having a foot in reality and their heads up their collective ass.

They were brought up on video EFX and role-playing games and have no concept of what looks real and believable. That, plus the lame teeny-bopper and bubble-gum and 20-something audiences that were brought-up the same way and enjoy that crap, seem to perpetuate BAD films.

I would much rather watch "real" EFX than all that digital crap! (Even if it's cheesy!)

I think there is more of a thrill in watching when you know it's real and there is a real person that risked their life to pull it off! NOT some asshole that wanted to save $ by using digital people. Maybe it's the fault of the bean-counters, but I doubt it. They may contribute to the crap, but it's more of a producer forcing the director to "make-all-the-$-ya-can." Gosh, what do you call that? Oh, yeah... GREED!!!!

By the same token, I think SOME digital EFX are great as an AUGMENT to the real thing.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-11-2003, 01:27 AM:
 
My $.02:

In THE MATRIX, it falls within the story that a person can jump ten feet in the air, kick two people at the same time, change directions, hold position in mid air and wait for another bad guy to kick, etc.... This is all explained in the story, so it is acceptable. (If you've seen the movie, you obviously know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, just trust me that in The Matrix, and only in The Matrix, it IS acceptable for these things to happen.) BTW, I think The Matrix was an awesome movie. But I do not think that film makers should borrow these ideas and use them in movies that take place in present day with "normal" characters, such as Charlies Angles. It is possible that they are making fun of The Matrix. This was fine when it first came out. The first movie I can recall to do this was Deuce Biggalow: Maile Gigolo. But so many movies have done it since then that it is no longer funny. In fact, it has not been funny for quite some time.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 07-11-2003, 02:27 AM:
 
also, the hallmark effect of the matrix -- the camera pan while the action is frozen -- is basically an honest-to-god photographic effect, and that is very cool. matrix 2, on the other hand, was just bloated with cg crap.

carl
 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-11-2003, 02:47 PM:
 
Ken,

there certainly is a logic within the Matrix situation where the characters can do such impossible things. But when we really care for characters in a film, we do it on a non-abstract level. We accept them as real people within the film`s universe. But although we KNOW (on an intellectual level) that they can jump ten stories down or ten feet high in the air, EMOTIONALLY we react like it happened in a real world.
I can speak only for myself, but I couldn`t care more than for a cartoon character that just walked from a cliff.

There has to be some kind of link between our real-life experience and a film`s reality. Remember John Carpenter`s THE THING (1982) ?
Around the middle of the film I felt somewhat numbed by the crazy gore effects, and I thought: "What else could they do?".
Well, they DID find something.
The characters decide to check each man`s blood for alien infection. When a scalpel cut into the first thumb, an audience of 400 people squirmed in their seats!
After so much ultra-violence Carpenter got them by the simplest of effects - something which could happen to you...

Well, I thought MATRIX RELOADED was an entertaining film, but what it left fades quick from my memory. Maybe it a question of age, and at 35 I am just too old to have fun with that kind of action...
[Razz]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-11-2003, 02:51 PM:
 
Anyone notice Pirates of the Caribbean didn't have any of this crap in it, yet it was a great movie?
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-11-2003, 02:57 PM:
 
Yes, Brad, those ghost pirates were very realistic. Except for the tiny detail that they were dead, it didn`t seem that they violated any natural laws. The guy whose eye kept popping out was very realistic too - he reminded me of a friend whose eye kept popping out in the weirdest situations. Then it would lie on the table, staring at you.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-11-2003, 03:11 PM:
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGGHHHHHHHHH! But you've never seen a cursed pirate in the moonlight, Michael. You shouldn't speak of what you don't know. Not to worry, we have plenty of them here in the US for you.

Besides, I was referring to the movie in general, not the 10 minutes of ghost pirates. That was needed for the story.
 
Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 07-11-2003, 04:04 PM:
 
I agree with Christian Appelt, the most. Directors don't know how to make a simple movie with out special effects. I thought to make a movie was to tell a story, give us characters we care about and a script we can relate to. I guess they don't teach that in film school.

My sister just graduated with a degree in theatre arts and she has produced 2 reality T.V shows called Exiled and Exiled 2. What they did was copy every other reality T.V show out there, but use college students. They used the MTV style of shooting, cut and slash, get close up, cut away etc.... It turned out nice but you ask you self one question: Where is the change?

Hollywood is at a point where special effect are the norm. Why not just copy "Bullet Time" or use "Wire Fighting" that some other 100 million dollar used and cash in on their fame. Hoping to create the illusion that is different.

What my point is there are no original ideas anymore. Take T.V and movies, everyone is copying each other. That is why when something new comes out it is all the rave and everyone rushes out to make copy that is inferior. We as the public bare the blunt of their absurdity.

Exiled

Exiled Official Site
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 07-11-2003, 04:26 PM:
 
Another thing that absolutely annoys the hell out of me on the boob tube is the excessive use of laugh tracks on what are supposed to be "comedy" shows. Just about all of todays "commedy shows" cannot even come close to being in the same league as, say Carole Burnette and gang, Red Skelton, Jack Benny and gang...etc, etc. Every 5 seconds there is a laugh track! Today, an "actor" walks normally into a room...laugh track...gets a normal drink of water w/o comedy gage...laugh track, asks another actor a mundane simple question....laugh track....ENOUGH ALREADY!
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-11-2003, 04:47 PM:
 
Malcolm in the Middle does not use a laugh track and is shot on real film. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-11-2003, 07:57 PM:
 
All the discussion made me think of a technique that has also worn out its welcome. I call it "the 12 year-old operator". It's where every shot looks like a 12-year old is operating the camera, and it absolutely can NOT be held steady. S w i n g around for a closeup, then we're up, we're down, we're to the left, right... trying to keep it in the frame... STOP!!!

I can't watch those movies/tv shows that use this annoying technique because my eyes can't focus on a point. I know the filmmaker is attempting to make the scene look immediate; to give it an ENG flavor, but they're breaking a fundamental principle that relates to viewer comfort.

In shooting a movie, it's beneficial to keep the viewers eyes from jumping about too much. They should be generally focused to similar points from one cut to the next. It's fatiguing for them otherwise. It's too much "work".

Whoever started this ridiculous practice must've missed class that day. After all, it's taken 100 years to learn what we know about what works and what doesn't in film language.
 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-12-2003, 12:30 AM:
 
Will, now you know why I don't watch TV. Instead of laugh tracks, maybe they should try moan tracks.

Today's comedians are about as interesting as an old roll of toilet paper that has already done it's job.

The comedians like Jack Benny, George Burns, Red Skelton, Carol Burnette and a few other old-timers never needed laugh tracks because they were naturally funny. My favorites of them all was Jack Benny and Red Skelton.

And you are right. Some idiot pours a cup of coffee, and yes...the old laugh track comes in. Jeeze....
 
Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 07-12-2003, 12:42 AM:
 
Well, [shameless plug] in MY upcoming movie everything obeys the laws of physics. Some examples"
[/shameless plug]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-14-2003, 06:39 AM:
 
This was posted today in another thread. It fits perfectly into this discussion.

here
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2