Best movie you've seen

[ddrueding]

Damage control: It is "loses"

 

[Santilli]

Lack of proof reading. Sorry.

 

[ddrueding]

No worries, I've done the same. Just wanted to intervene before anyone went postal

 

[Mercutio]

What I love about Marvel is the characters are rarely one dimensional.

It might be more correct to say that entirely one-note characters are usually fleshed out well enough over time that they're given depth beyond the original conception. Captain America still has a bunch of completely flat and generic Nazi villains but we don't much care about them since, y'know, they're Nazis.

On the other hand, another throw-away Asian character who was created in the 1950s to give the illusion of some racial diversity, Jimmy Woo, didn't really get any more depth despite decades of appearances as an agent of SHIELD (who most often showed up in, of all things, the Godzilla and Shogun Warriors comics, both of which were part of the Marvel Universe). In 2006, Jeff Parker took him and a bunch of other completely undeveloped characters and made a pretty sweet comic called Agents of Atlas. But it took THAT long for Marvel to get around to making a legitimate Asian-American lead character (Shang Chi, the Master of Kung Fu, is of course Chinese; Elektra from Daredevil is a ninja but she's ethnically Greek; the Iron Fist is WASPy Danny Rand...).

 

[Santilli]

OK: And why do I care if we have an Asian-American character? The topic on the table was the Mandarin, half chinese, and half english.


In fact, Jimmy Woo was FAR more then a one dimensional character:
However, as Plan Tzu aged, he grew less concerned over the Atlas Foundation's traditional pursuits of world domination and hoped that his successor would instead use its covert power and influence for humanity's greater good. His selected successor, Woo Yen Jet, was taken to America, however, as his parents wanted no part of Khan's legacy. He was named Jimmy Woo and grew to become one of the nation's top FBI agents. Secretly monitoring Woo, the Atlas Foundation decided to help him advance his career and hone his skills by creating a super-menace for Woo to defeat: thus the Yellow Claw.

More on Marvel.com: http://marvel.com/universe/Yellow_Claw#ixzz2DOwaqPCA

http://marvel.com/universe/Wasp_(Ultimate)
Asian-American Wasp? That's a fairly major character.

 

[Mercutio]

OK: And why do I care if we have an Asian-American character? The topic on the table was the Mandarin, half chinese, and half english.

He spent 50 years almost completely devoid of backstory. All the stuff you just quoted wasn't written until 2006 or later.

Asian-American Wasp? That's a fairly major character.

That's the Ultimate Universe, which is a kind of a thought-experiment and not the main Marvel continuity. The Ultimate Wasp was eaten alive by the Blob, which was depicted in a very tasteless way on-panel and in any case was, across the 20 or so issues of comics where she actually appeared, mostly just used to create conflict between male members of the Ultimates (Avengers) team.

 

[LunarMist]

I'm not seeing much worth watching for a mature moviegoer this season.

 

[timwhit]

I'm not seeing much worth watching for a mature moviegoer this season.

Lincoln or Argo?

 

[Santilli]

The lack of character fill-in in the Mandarin WAS his back story. He was a mysterious, very bad guy, that wanted to dominate the world, and wouldn't go away. He reminded me of the energizer bunny,
you thought he was gone, and he would pop up again, trying to concur the world again.

Anyone watched Skyfall?

You know it's bad when Tim Burton is directing a movie with Abe Lincoln as a vampire killer.

 

[Santilli]

The Avengers are going to need more soldiers when they go up against Thanos:
http://marvel.com/universe/Thanos

Another Marvel character who had little background when first brought out. I suppose we have to be politically correct and not anti-eternal.

Therefore he will have to be from another race. Say, a skrull?

 

[Mercutio]

Marvel can't use the word "Skrull" in movies. It was licensed along with Dr. Doom, Galactus and the Silver Surfer to Fox when they picked up the Fantastic Four. That's why the guys in the Avengers movie are called Chitauri.
"Chitauri" are also used in both the Ultimate Marvel comic universe and in the Ultimate animated universe.

They don't really have to explain what the hell Thanos is in a movie. He's just a space warlord of demigod or something. It'd be cool if they brough in the thing with the Eternals and the Kree and the Celestials and some of the other cosmic backstory, but that doesn't appear to be the direction they're going.

 

[Santilli]

That reminds me of Japanese alleged pornography, and the sensor stuff.

When is this stuff going to revert to, I think, Disney/Marvel?

 

[Mercutio]

When is this stuff going to revert to, I think, Disney/Marvel?

Never, as long as they make a new movie using the IP every seven years or something. Marvel JUST got Daredevil back, years after the Elektra movie was made. In all likelihood what will happen is of intellectual property licenses or something similarly silly. "Sure, Doctor Doom can show up in an Avengers movie, but our logo stays on the credits of the next three Star Wars movies."

 

[sdbardwick]

Just watched the Avengers twice on Blu-Ray. I enjoyed it much more in 2D rather than 3D (watched 2D first as I forgot I could watch in 3D), and the hokey 3D effects really distracted from the film. The only effects that I liked were the more subtle atmospheric effects (floating embers, some smoke/fog/mist). Otherwise it looked like 2D animated cutouts placed at different 'depths'.

 

[timwhit]

I saw The Hobbit last night in 48FPS 3D, the higher framerate took a few minutes to get used to. But, later in the movie during action scenes it looked really good.

The movie itself was good, there was a lot of new material added that wasn't in the book. Now, I just need to wait 2 more years for the next 2 movies.

 

[Howell]

I saw Hobbit 3D on a BigD screen last night. I had to choose between IMAX and BigD but could not find much info on the difference between the two so opted for the more convenient show time. It was my first 3D movie in the theater. I thought the story and the 3D was worth it but I might have enjoyed it even more had it been the HFR version.

I believe the movie is fairly faithful to the book and ancillary material from what I remember. So since the story was written for a younger audience some parts of the story (physical danger primarily) are not as realistically portrayed as you might do for an older audience. Either that or dwarves can take an incredible amount of abuse. So it was hard to take the danger too seriously. Good for kids; bad for adult suspension of disbelief.

As expected gollum's psychosis was brilliantly portrayed and easily the most complex character in the movie.*

We did not see the HFR version and did notice some blurring maybe 5 times for a few seconds. It did detract but the few seconds were not that important for the movie as a whole. I would like to see how the HFR version could improve those scenes and possibly scenes I didn't know needed to be improved. My favorite uses of 3D were with escape of Radagast, the eagles,and when the dwarves go underground in order of how long the effect lasts.

There were a few reports on the internet that the 3D effect made people sick and/or gave people headaches. I think you should give it a shot on the biggest screen you can find and get a refund if it makes you sick.


Interesting article on working in 3D*
http://lennylipton.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/compositional-differences-real-d-vs-imax/

 

[Mercutio]

So far I've seen The Hobbit in 3D, IMAX 3D and un-enhanced 24fps. As usual, I'll say that the penalty of color fidelity is too high to justify the 3D experience, even if it is occasionally pretty neat. I'd like to see a 48fps showing but I don't feel like going in to Chicago for it. I was on the edge of my seat during the riddle contest, but I was disappointed at how cartoonish the Goblin King was.

 

[LunarMist]

So far I've seen The Hobbit in 3D, IMAX 3D and un-enhanced 24fps. As usual, I'll say that the penalty of color fidelity is too high to justify the 3D experience, even if it is occasionally pretty neat. I'd like to see a 48fps showing but I don't feel like going in to Chicago for it. I was on the edge of my seat during the riddle contest, but I was disappointed at how cartoonish the Goblin King was.

Are all three the same (new) movie from this Friday? If so, are you a critic or have a website or some other reason to watch three times for comparison?

 

[Mercutio]

Are all three the same (new) movie from this Friday? If so, are you a critic or have a website or some other reason to watch three times for comparison?

I'm a big enough fan of the Lord of the Rings movies that I listen to all 12 hours of the score at least once a week, usually in a single sitting. Of course I'll go more than once. Especially when I have girls to take.

 

[LunarMist]

OCD?

 

[Howell]

Gizmodo

http://m.gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

 

[Mercutio]

I just read all that and it sounds like some doofus is grasping at straws to justify his dislike of progress.

 

[ddrueding]

I just read all that and it sounds like some doofus is grasping at straws to justify his dislike of progress.

I haven't seen the film yet, but the HD+ high-FPS stuff I've seen makes me agree with you.

 

[timwhit]

I just read all that and it sounds like some doofus is grasping at straws to justify his dislike of progress.

What did you think of 48fps?

 

[Handruin]

I just read all that and it sounds like some doofus is grasping at straws to justify his dislike of progress.

I read the article also and I agree with several points made by the writer. I'm a large fan of Vincent Laforet (the writer of the article) and the work he has done over the years and I have even had a chance to meet him in person and chat with him briefly. Calling him a doofus is unjust and makes you sound like uneducated jackass. Your remarks hold zero credibility to this filmmaker and you are clearly grasping at straws. He is experienced in his field and knows his stuff. He has credibility to express an educated opinion on the mater. Dismissing it without any kind of reason is just a waste.

I went and saw only the 48FPS 3D version of the film because that was how Peter Jackson wanted to represent the film. Vincent isn't grasping at straws and he makes a lot of valid points. I went and saw the film with a group of friends and we agreed that the lighting and exposure were off from what we are typically accustomed to. I was distracted more with the visual differences from a traditional 24FPS film that I didn't connect with the characters. I didn't get the traditional experience I'm accustomed to with this film. Watching the film was an odd sensation and during the film I continued to tell myself to like it because it was the Hobbit and not some cheesy Spanish soap opera. Secretly though I was wishing for a slower frame rate with a more dramatic presentation and feel. I'm open to the differences and advancements but this was distracting as my first exposure to a higher frame rate film.

I still think people should go see and experience the 48FPS but also see the film in the classic 24FPS. I want to go see it again without the distractions of 3D and higher frame rate to see what I may have missed emotionally in the film. I admit I was distracted by it. It's something new and unfamiliar so why wouldn't I be distracted?

 

[timwhit]

You could try watching it again at 48fps and see if you are still distracted.

 

[Handruin]

If I'm going to spend my time in a theater again, I'd rather see another rendition of the film to compare.

 

[Mercutio]

Your remarks hold zero credibility to this filmmaker and you are clearly grasping at straws. He is experienced in his field and knows his stuff. He has credibility to express an educated opinion on the mater. Dismissing it without any kind of reason is just a waste.

The author makes a rather large number of statements that are grounded in his personal opinion or his judgment of an audience's reaction. There are an awful lot of sentences in that piece that start with "I think..." or include utterly unquantifiable observations. If the author wanted to write a convincing piece about his antipathy toward high frame rate film making, it would behoove him to structure his argument in such a way that it sounds less like editorial bloviating. Presumably he was paid to write that piece and has been paid in the past to write other work that was also apparently fit for publication, but based on what I read I see no reason why I should give any credence to his opinions.

I'd have to visit the north side of Chicago to go to a 48fps screening. It's not really an option for me, timwhit.

 

[Handruin]

The author makes a rather large number of statements that are grounded in his personal opinion or his judgment of an audience's reaction. There are an awful lot of sentences in that piece that start with "I think..." or include utterly unquantifiable observations. If the author wanted to write a convincing piece about his antipathy toward high frame rate film making, it would behoove him to structure his argument in such a way that it sounds less like editorial bloviating. Presumably he was paid to write that piece and has been paid in the past to write other work that was also apparently fit for publication, but based on what I read I see no reason why I should give any credence to his opinions.

I'd have to visit the north side of Chicago to go to a 48fps screening. It's not really an option for me, timwhit.

It's an opinion article. You've yet to share your feedback/opinion of where he is inaccurate with the 48FPS format. So far you've only shared an opinion of the author as a person which wasn't at all helpful in discussing the actual 48FPS viewing of the film.

Let me see if I understand things here.

• Vincent works in the industry making films and has been doing this for many years. He shares his opinion occasionally using the words "I think..." and therefore he is discredited somehow by you because of this.
• You assume he was paid for the article with no proof of such but go forth assuming so because it seems to help your case. Therefore his experience and opinion no longer count based on your fact-less claims. Even if he was paid, I see no contrasting opinion on your thoughts of the 48FPS version.
• Oh right...you have not actually seen the 48FPS version of the film but can some how throw down the author's opinions as if you know any better from your experience and have any credence of your own?

Sure...keep going with this. You're starting to win me over. :roll:

 

[Howell]

You are being more ridiculous than usual Merc. It is precisely his experience in the field that makes his opinion and intuition worth listening to when quantifiable tests do not exist.

I agree with the article for the most part but do not think the cause is as lost as the author. I have more comments about why I think a blurry picture can tell a story better and what will need to be done to transition but I need a better keyboard.

 

[Mercutio]

It's an opinion article.

There is nothing meritorious about this person's qualitative statements. You say he's an expert. I say that if he is an expert, he should be able to provide more instructive analysis than statements couched in his opinion. I'm not arguing that there might be something wrong with 48fps filmmaking as it is presented in The Hobbit, I'm arguing that this person did a poor job making a case for his position and gave the reader no reason to lend it any credence.

 

[Handruin]

You are being more ridiculous than usual Merc. It is precisely his experience in the field that makes his opinion and intuition worth listening to when quantifiable tests do not exist.

I agree with the article for the most part but do not think the cause is as lost as the author. I have more comments about why I think a blurry picture can tell a story better and what will need to be done to transition but I need a better keyboard.

My opinion of the author is based on following him over the years and what I've found is that he is fairly humble and transparent with his process and film-making. Listening to him speak in public helped to reaffirm this impression. I did not perceive him as a cocky, super-opinionated, know-it-all movie jock which is why I felt his opinions and thoughts on the movie were worthy of consideration and reading. I'm glad you shared the article because I may have missed it for a couple weeks. It is his humbleness and willingness to share when he doesn't know things is why I'm more interested in reading his thoughts than other film critics.

I would certainly like to read more of your thoughts about how a motion-blurred picture can tell a story better than the technically more-brilliant 48FPS film that peter Jackson made. Somewhere in this bold format change is a middle ground to make more people happy. This may also just be one of those things in life that will be hard to gain acceptance.

 

[Handruin]

There is nothing meritorious about this person's qualitative statements. You say he's an expert. I say that if he is an expert, he should be able to provide more instructive analysis than statements couched in his opinion. I'm not arguing that there might be something wrong with 48fps filmmaking as it is presented in The Hobbit, I'm arguing that this person did a poor job making a case for his position and gave the reader no reason to lend it any credence.

He made a case for his position and gave instructive analysis with reflections on the technical aspect of filmmaking. Not every opinion contained this backing, nor should it; doing so would make for a tiring article of technicalities reading like a white paper for configuring Microsoft's active directory services. The only statements I'm seeing as being couched in their opinion are yours. You've offered me no reason or example to warrant any consideration of your opinions against the author. Convince me that this author is a so-called "doofus" and I'll drop this stupid arguing. Otherwise I'm calling you out on your warrant-less crap claims.

 

[ddrueding]

10FPS would suck, 24 is better, I see no reason to believe more isn't better in this metric. All the arguments seem to be couched in "what has been done before".

 

[ddrueding]

Re-read the gizmodo piece, and I don't think there are any real arguments there. Many of his sentances could refer to any upgrade in medium, including from books to radio or radio to movies. Yes, it is harder to make because you are showing a more complete story. Yes, the presentation itself is more distracting because the consumption of the (more complex) material takes more brain power. Watching movies and becoming immersed is only possible because we have practiced consuming media in that way. This will require some adjustment as well.

 

[LunarMist]

I thought I Max had a high fame rate decades ago.

 

[Howell]

I thought I Max had a high fame rate decades ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Technical_specifications

 

[ddrueding]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Technical_specifications

Per that link, they refer to the IMAX HD variant which was 48fps. Started in 1992.

 

[Clocker]

I just watched End of Watch. Excellent movie. Sad in many spots throughout but very good. Somewhat hard to watch since both my brother-in-laws are police officers. Tough at the end.

 

[Mercutio]

Convince me that this author is a so-called "doofus" and I'll drop this stupid arguing. Otherwise I'm calling you out on your warrant-less crap claims.

Were he not a doofus, he would have written a better article. QED.