Dark Shape's/ Box's WOTW Experience (Filled With Spoilers)
Author |
Message |
neo_wolf
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:19 pm Posts: 11033
|
Box wrote: Archie Gates wrote: I don't see much discussion by Box and Dark Shape of the effects. Were they better than expected? Worse? Different? Same old? Excellent. Superb craftsmanship by people who are at the top of their game. The money shots are great, from beginning to end. No complaints on that front at all.
Oscar worthy? is it the best you have seen this year so far?
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:34 am |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
neo_wolf wrote: Box wrote: Archie Gates wrote: I don't see much discussion by Box and Dark Shape of the effects. Were they better than expected? Worse? Different? Same old? Excellent. Superb craftsmanship by people who are at the top of their game. The money shots are great, from beginning to end. No complaints on that front at all. Oscar worthy? is it the best you have seen this year so far?
I only watched Kingdom of Heaven and Mr and Mrs Smith so far this year
I hope it gets an Oscar nomination for sfx. Spielberg does what Jackson did with LOTR: spend slightly less than others but end up with top-notch effects that are never over-bearing or bombastic, and are at times simply awe-inspiring.
The restraint employed at times with regards to the sfx is incredible. You never really see too much; just enough to feed your imagination.
And as I said, that amazing ferry tipping sequence, what a master-stroke.
If you want to appreciate the full value of the sfx, look for the little details. That's where the difference lies in.
The only bad sfx: the aliens. They look pretty horrible. But the tripods are awesome. \
When you see the aliens, you'll know why they need tripods to be represented as the invaders of Earth.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:39 am |
|
 |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
Okay, well, I took the dive and read the ending.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most alien films end like that?
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:50 am |
|
 |
The Dark Shape
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am Posts: 12119 Location: Adrift in L.A.
|
The FX were excellent, though I don't think they were quite up to the level of Revenge of the Sith. That said, the alien mechs are breathtaking, and I love the look of the creatures themselves.
Zingaling wrote: Okay, well, I took the dive and read the ending.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most alien films end like that?
With the alien force dropping dead with no explanation until the epilogue speech?
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:56 am |
|
 |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
The Dark Shape wrote: The FX were excellent, though I don't think they were quite up to the level of Revenge of the Sith. That said, the alien mechs are breathtaking, and I love the look of the creatures themselves. Zingaling wrote: Okay, well, I took the dive and read the ending.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most alien films end like that? With the alien force dropping dead with no explanation until the epilogue speech?
*SPOILERS*
No, where the aliens don't end up taking over because of their own stupidity. In Signs, it was the water.
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:58 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=20580
AICN is back up and here is Harry's review of the movie which he loved and compared it to Spielberg's 1974 film DUEL..
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:20 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
neo_wolf wrote: El_Masked_esteROIDe_user wrote: Whatever happened to filming alternate endings so that they can screen test it to audience to see what ending they would loved the best. Perhaps they should of done that even if it means changing the ending from the book I think spielberg respects the author and decided to have the ending in the theme of the author's original.
Either that or Spielberg doesn't give 2 ##### what internet movie nerds think about his movie and the dissecting of the ending cause either way, your still going to go see it no matter what.. Hell, he might even consider that to be a little too nitpicky and will tell you to read the novel..
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:25 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
Box wrote: Guys, the ending revolving around the aliens is bad, ok, but so was Signs'.
The more awful aspect of it is the ending to the emotional aspect of the film. I can't properly articulate it without using spoiler, so be warned:
Cruise plays a dad who has not been good with his kids. In fact, their relationship is very strained. They do not trust him, he does not know how to win back their trust. The entire thing is rather shabbily done. It's hard sometimes to believe that these are unique, genuine characters. The two kids give the annoying brats from Jurassic Park a run for their money. Anyways, so Cruise spends most of his time throughout the film protecting them (even though he lets his son go in a scene that is a stunningly ill-timed display of the parent/teenage ritual wherein the teen needs to go his own way). In fact, he kills a man (Robbins' character) just so that the aliens won't hear them and thus threaten Rachel (Dakota, Cruise's daughter).
Anyways, so he goes through hell, sacrifices his life multiple times, etc. all to save his kids. The result? At the end, Rachel runs into the arms of her mom (Cruise's ex-wife), while the door opens to reveal Cruise's ex-s parents ( who are not fond of Cruise's character), and her new husband as well as Cruise's son, who mysteriously survived. What does Cruise get for going through hell? Quite literally, he only gets a frickin hug from his son. Oh great! He won't get back with his wife cause the new husband is still alive.
What a horrible, horrible way to end. He gets nothing for giving everything. His daughter, whom he has saved multiple times and for whom he risks everything, barely looks at him once her mom is back in the picture.
Well I guess his character must've been a real d-i-c-k and what he went through to save them just wasn't enough for her to put up with his Scientology s-h-i-t and she stayed with a guy who was more tolerable.. :wink:
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:28 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
Box wrote: The dynamics in film work differently than they do in real life.
When you have two or three people, you automatically differentiate between them. One is good, the other is not, etc. Look at the film Downfall, and see whether some character don't come off more sympathetically than others. Now, if you had victims of the Nazi regime, and you compared those characters from Downfall with them, those characters whom you had sympathy for all of a sudden seem much less sympathetic because your sympathy has shifted towards the victims. It's all relative. Whatever the set of characters we are given, we assign each a role in relation to all others. Some are good, some are not so good, etc.
When you have a scene where aliens are threatening you, and one of the characters is trying to make sure everyone is ok, and the other two characters are screaming their heads off, the sympathy level for those two decreases markedly.
The problem, I felt, at the beginning, was that Cruise's character would joke at the inappropriate moments, or that the two kids would be unusually unresponsive or extremely curious, all things that eventually come to be frustrating.
Dude, you remind me of my brother who's almost 50 and will sit nonstop through a film and criticize every damn scene to the point where I have to tell him to shut the f-u-c-k up and quit overanalyzing it and enjoy it for what it is: ENTERTAINMENT..
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:31 am |
|
 |
MovieDude
Where will you be?
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am Posts: 11675
|
Damn it was tough not to look at that ending. I'll say this though: The reviews have been pretty amazing thusfar, so I'm going with with a mix of immense enthusiasm and some dread about the ending, but I really doubt it'll kill me much. I loved The Village and Signs, hell I even really, genuinely thought the ending to AI was good.
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:58 am |
|
 |
bABA
Commander and Chef
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!
|
great movies with terrible endings are the worst.
which gives me all the more reason to now pick up the book and read it up again. I read an abridged one yeaaaaaaaaars ago.
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:20 am |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
That was a lot to read through.
The ending seems to be completely true to the book. I think the issue is really about how abrupt and extreme it plays on screen.
Maybe they could have stayed true to the source material and had it play out differently.
Box, Dark, you talked only briefly about the aliens themselves. Can you describe in detail how they look, how they interact with their surroundings...
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:32 am |
|
 |
Eagle
Site Owner
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm Posts: 14631 Location: Pittsburgh
|
Interesting.
Can't wait to see it and judge for myself.
_________________
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:07 am |
|
 |
bABA
Commander and Chef
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!
|
what i don't understand is ... even though both of you don't seem happy about the movie, why are the 2 of you watching the movie again tonight?
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:08 am |
|
 |
wanderer
Star Trek XI
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 8:02 pm Posts: 340
|
If the spoilers here are true, then the spoilers in the earlier reviews I read are wrong, which I guess is why early reviews have to be taken with a big grain of salt. That's actually a lot better of an ending than the first one I read, because it was totally trite (think Minority Report). So this one might be emotionally unsatisfying, but at least it wasn't formulaic.
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:28 am |
|
 |
wanderer
Star Trek XI
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 8:02 pm Posts: 340
|
Box wrote: 2) The most effective scenes are those where you see what the invasion makes people do, specifically, what people do to other people. The scene involving the car and the ferry are very difficult to get through, I felt, because of the truth that they contain: In desperate times, people will hurt each other to save themselves.
That's disappointing to me. Because from what I read, this is Spielberg's response to 9/11, and I was there for it. The media coverage of it, showing people bonding together in the face of tragedy, was accurate, believe it or not. I didn't see people hurting each other to save themselves. It felt like everyone was family, for a brief moment in time. I know that kind of behavior happens at soccer games and night club fires and the like. But when something really catastrophic happens, which is, I thought, the point of the movie, people react differently. At least, in the one catastrophe I've been through they did.
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:41 am |
|
 |
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am Posts: 13347
|
wanderer wrote: Box wrote: 2) The most effective scenes are those where you see what the invasion makes people do, specifically, what people do to other people. The scene involving the car and the ferry are very difficult to get through, I felt, because of the truth that they contain: In desperate times, people will hurt each other to save themselves.
That's disappointing to me. Because from what I read, this is Spielberg's response to 9/11, and I was there for it. The media coverage of it, showing people bonding together in the face of tragedy, was accurate, believe it or not. I didn't see people hurting each other to save themselves. It felt like everyone was family, for a brief moment in time. I know that kind of behavior happens at soccer games and night club fires and the like. But when something really catastrophic happens, which is, I thought, the point of the movie, people react differently. At least, in the one catastrophe I've been through they did.
I 100% agree with this. This is the only thing that has bothered me from reviews of WotW. I was shocked when I read Spielberg had depicted people reacting that way. Did he learn nothing from 9/11?
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:49 am |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: Box, Dark, you talked only briefly about the aliens themselves. Can you describe in detail how they look, how they interact with their surroundings...
Possible Spoilers
Like the tripods, the aliens themselves have three legs, two front, one behind. For the most part, it's pretty difficult to get a close look, because we only see them twice: once in the basement (often from Dakota's veiled perspective) and once at the end, when one of them comes out of the tripod dead. They have large eyes, like E.T.'s, but bigger. I'd say overall, they resemble cats, the ugliest and meanest cats you've ever seen. Sadly, they are more humorous than scary, at least from my perspective. I'm glad (and not surprised) that Spielberg kept their screen time to a minimum.
End Spoilers
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:00 am |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
wanderer wrote: Box wrote: 2) The most effective scenes are those where you see what the invasion makes people do, specifically, what people do to other people. The scene involving the car and the ferry are very difficult to get through, I felt, because of the truth that they contain: In desperate times, people will hurt each other to save themselves.
That's disappointing to me. Because from what I read, this is Spielberg's response to 9/11, and I was there for it. The media coverage of it, showing people bonding together in the face of tragedy, was accurate, believe it or not. I didn't see people hurting each other to save themselves. It felt like everyone was family, for a brief moment in time. I know that kind of behavior happens at soccer games and night club fires and the like. But when something really catastrophic happens, which is, I thought, the point of the movie, people react differently. At least, in the one catastrophe I've been through they did.
Two, wanderer: the tsunami as well. People gave a lot of money to others halfway across the world that they never met.
But no, in this film, it's one man against the other, and it's taken to an exreme: people do kill each other.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:02 am |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
bABA wrote: what i don't understand is ... even though both of you don't seem happy about the movie, why are the 2 of you watching the movie again tonight?
I'm not.  I have no intention of watching the film again.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:03 am |
|
 |
dolcevita
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm Posts: 16061 Location: The Damage Control Table
|
*Bwahahahahahaha!*
That ending is shit!
Spoilers in white:
While I understand neo-wolf's point about the book, and about the aliens having come to set up the take-over so much earlier that they didn't suspect contamination, etc...it doesn't make for a good film apparently. I think that would have been a bright idea, if that's right if SPielberg had slowly worked the discussion into the entire movie. If there had been signs of their imminent collapse due to poor over-sight from the fifteenth minute of the movie *little alien starts caughoing, etc* than I would consider the ending and subject to be successfully concluded. It sounds to me, however, that the entire movie fails to deal with the alien faux-pas and instead uses it as a last minute slapped on conclusion so that Cruise and Co. can make it home ok.
Unless Spielberg built tension into their demise, it also is a terrible resolution cinemgraphically. This is the last minute wrap-up and deadline coming back to haunt him.
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:04 am |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
Box wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: Box, Dark, you talked only briefly about the aliens themselves. Can you describe in detail how they look, how they interact with their surroundings...
Possible Spoilers Like the tripods, the aliens themselves have three legs, two front, one behind. For the most part, it's pretty difficult to get a close look, because we only see them twice: once in the basement (often from Dakota's veiled perspective) and once at the end, when one of them comes out of the tripod dead. They have large eyes, like E.T.'s, but bigger. I'd say overall, they resemble cats, the ugliest and meanest cats you've ever seen. Sadly, they are more humorous than scary, at least from my perspective. I'm glad (and not surprised) that Spielberg kept their screen time to a minimum. End Spoilers
Meow.
Someone else said they looked like cats. A cross between a dino and a cat. Is it true during the basement scene, they use a computer? Or was that reviewer just being funny?
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:06 am |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: Meow.
Someone else said they looked like cats. A cross between a dino and a cat. Is it true during the basement scene, they use a computer? Or was that reviewer just being funny?
That jerk!
He was just being funny, lol. They play with a bicycle wheel, and when it falls, they take a step back. The moment elicited laughter from the audience. I felt that, throughout the time they were on screen, the audience was trying not to laugh.
Btw, the reference to Jurassic Park is quite neat: they are scouring for things, just like the Velociraptors were, while the humans are trying to hide from them. Another JP reference happens right after, when Cruise's car is being crushed by the tripod who has turned it upside down.
So the dino part is not too far off: I think that they are meant in part to remind people of the Velocis. But the end result isn't that great, I thought. E.T. meets the Velocis would be a better description, but they do seem to have feline tendencies.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:10 am |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
Box, I have another alien question. Two actually.
One, is there any indication what those bastards wanted? I heard bits here and there about Earth being invaded for water, and Koepp pointed to that as well. Any proof to the theory?
And just to clear up any misconceptions, these are indeed aliens right? These aren't hyper evolved earthlings who colonized Mars because Earth's resources were wasted and have come back in time to make things right? These are true feline-like tripedal invaders.
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:11 pm |
|
 |
bABA
Commander and Chef
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!
|
Box wrote: bABA wrote: what i don't understand is ... even though both of you don't seem happy about the movie, why are the 2 of you watching the movie again tonight? I'm not.  I have no intention of watching the film again.
but that completely contradicts the thread title : )
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:13 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 43 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|