Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:30 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Ranking Spielberg films with the Tiers approach. 
Author Message
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3308
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Ranking Spielberg films with the Tiers approach.
NotHughGrant wrote:
People will pay to see older films if they are good.. whether in 3D or not.

If the film is poor, it will just remind everyone how poor it was first time around.

Whether is "poor" or not is a matter of opinon, like it or not, that film made a ton of money back when it was first released, so obviously a lot of people did like it. I think people were just getting sick of Star Wars re-releases and didn't much feel like paying to see another one in theaters.

Finding Nemo most people consider a good iflm, yet it's 3-D re-release ultimately came up short money wise. People may pay to see "good" films but that dosen't they'll pay to see them in 3-D, BTW Wizard Of Oz is getting a 3-D re-release and tons of people are already boycotting it.


Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:40 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Ranking Spielberg films with the Tiers approach.
It is an opinion that the Phantom Menace is a poor film, but it is a fact that a lot of people think it's a poor film. It's not very surprising that, in the absence of the fan hype and enormous marketing campaign that drove the film in 1999, people did not turn out in droves to see the 3D update. The original trilogy might have done much better with auds if they'd gone with that first, but the notion of having to wait through three other movies that they don't really care about probably had a big hand in killing interest in the rerelease.

If they'd started with the originals and worked their way through in order of release, perhaps they would have hit a snag all over again once they got to The Phantom Menace, but they'd at least get through three movies before that happened. I'd bet good money that people are more tired of the prequels than they are of the endless tinkering with the original films, even if the tinkering is the real travesty at the end of the day.

It's a shame, really. I sincerely believe in principle that messing with movies that are already made is worse than making new movies that disappoint their audience. Yet I readily admit that I'd go to see the originals in theaters all over again even despite updates that I view to be unnecessary and harmful. But I couldn't see getting fired up for another go-round of the prequel trilogy in order to get to that point... and I'm not even a big prequel basher.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:51 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1216
Post Re: Ranking Spielberg films with the Tiers approach.
NotHughGrant wrote:
People will pay to see older films if they are good.. whether in 3D or not.

If the film is poor, it will just remind everyone how poor it was first time around.


Image

I will never see another movie in 3-D because it is -- and always will be -- little more than a gimmick. I don't need images coming out at me to immerse myself in the movie's world. :P


Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:24 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3308
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Ranking Spielberg films with the Tiers approach.
H.I. McDonough wrote:
NotHughGrant wrote:
People will pay to see older films if they are good.. whether in 3D or not.

If the film is poor, it will just remind everyone how poor it was first time around.


Image

I will never see another movie in 3-D because it is -- and always will be -- little more than a gimmick. I don't need images coming out at me to immerse myself in the movie's world. :P

I won't see a film in 3-D unless it was originally shot that way, it can be done right. But if they stopped making films in 3-D tomorrow, I can't really say I would miss it much.


Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:16 pm
Profile
Post Re: Ranking Spielberg films with the Tiers approach.
O.K. here I go again off topic commenting on 3-D, but I guess that's O.K. for one post since I already contributed to this thread 100% on-topic.

I think there are exactly five problems with the existing 3D:

1) "depth clues in 2D" - we humans have the ability to read two dimensional images rather well, taking our depth clues from estimating the size of objects and persons, colors (distant objects tend to get more hazy = less saturated in color, ligher and with a progressively blue-ish hue depending on atmospheric conditions). And we are used to the looks of 2D photography with different kinds of lenses and depth-of-field.

2) "3D from both eyes is unreliable information" - we can "see" the first two dimensions (x- and y-axis: horizontal and vertical), but we can only "feel" the third dimension (z-axis = depth) because it is done in the brain from two superimposed two dimensional image information. Add to that the fact that three dimensional viewing becomes weaker progressively with distance (that's why we see the stary night sky as a two dimensional "blanket"). So depth information coming from two eyed viewing is the least relevant one regarding viweing. It is fuzzy and unreliable to say the least. In real life it adds a lot to complete the "picture", but is the first "data" we can do without. Cover one eye: 2D. Move your head and shoulders sideways - 3D again with only one eye.

3) "frame rate" - "films" (which are not films anymore but data, but that's another topic and a dead horse), are still shot and projected at 24 frames per second. That "film look" doesn't go well with 3D.

4) "no peripheric vision from which - in real life - we pick up clues of movement and a fuzzy image around the small focussed era" - we are still looking at a square in a dark room with added 3D. I'd prefer ultra high def and a dome-like image wrapped all around us, so we don't have the picture frame to constantly remind us that we are looking "at" a picture instead of being inside it. We need peripheric vision and a lot of margin up and down completely covered by the image to be truly "in side" the movie. This would mean: movies have to be shot, directed, designed and edited in a completely new way. A ultra hi def (say: about 14K which is almost exactly the equivalent of a true IMAX "film") movie wrapped around us to cover peripheric vision and margins for looking up and down in 2D is endlessly more exciting than a 3D movie which is otherwise done in the coinventional way.

5) "lensing in cinematography" - a good 3D image does not have contradicting information regarding depth and the dimensions/sizes of objects. Even "native" 3D movies are usually lensed like traditional 2D movies. That often leads to actors and objects looking like toys or puppets because the size and 3d information calculated in our brains from left eye and right eye images often don't correspond - in real life they always do. Did I mention that the human eye scanning through depth is focussing and superimposing exactly "hand in hand"? Now if the focussing already has been done for us by a cinematogrtapher, results are often very off looking. I remember shots from the final "Harry Potter" movie (3D conversion): blurred people in the background still are in 3d looking like some kind of three dimensional clouds - very strange. In real life they would come in to focus, because we are trying to focus them. Not so in a 3D movie, much less in post conversion.

I rest my case.


Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:10 am
Second Unit Director

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:14 am
Posts: 287
Post Re: Ranking Spielberg films with the Tiers approach.
NotHughGrant wrote:
People will pay to see older films if they are good.. whether in 3D or not.

If the film is poor, it will just remind everyone how poor it was first time around.


Will people pay first-run wide release prices, much less with a 3D surcharge, to see a re-release though? That's where I think the problem is. The only audience I can see going for it is people who saw and fell in love with the film on TV or home video, and think it would be an incredible theatrical experience. That's why Star Wars was successful in re-release in the late '90s; there was a whole generation of moviegoers who hadn't seen it in theaters, but watched it numerous times on TV or video. I'd argue that problem #1 with Finding Nemo was that they didn't wait long enough to re-release it.

When I've paid to watch re-releases in theaters it was primarily to see a midnight showing, which were half the price or lower than typical movie tickets. The only recent exceptions were theatrical showings of The Lord of the Rings extended editions, which of course were different versions than the initial releases.


Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:39 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1556
Post Re: Ranking Spielberg films with the Tiers approach.
I recently paid to see a 70 mm of Lawrence of Arabia, and even that was barely worth it. I respect that movie, but I don't love it. Now when they did the Bond marathon last year, I was there for every one of them that I could be within a reasonable convenience. Because those movies I love and I had never seen them in theater before. How do you force someone to pay $15, or even $20 in LA, to a see a movie which, whether they liked it or not, they already saw it in theaters when they were younger? You can watch a great movie an infinite number of times, but you can only watch it for the first time once.


Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:15 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:54 am
Posts: 69
Post Re: Ranking Spielberg films with the Tiers approach.
Bones wrote:
Classic
Saving Private Ryan: I've never come close to souring on this one. Even the middle sections. Spielberg was given a solid script, and completely knocked every set piece, dialogue scene, and quiet moment out of the park. Even the sentimental ending feels of a piece and completely earned.
Raiders Of The Lost Ark: A perfect adventure movie.
Jaws: A perfect adventure movie. He did it twice, and neither is his best movie. That's... pretty good.
Jurassic Park: Has aged marvelously. I just saw it on the big screen a couple months ago and pretty much everything (other than the herd effects) completely held up. Nearly perfectly paced, in a very modern way. Compare to The Fugitive, the other great 1993 adventure movie. The Fugitive is still a great movie, but its pacing doesn't quite hold up as well as Jurassic Park's.

Classic in Waiting
Lincoln: I agree that more time has to pass before it definitely gets in the Classic tier. Or at I'll need a second viewing. For what it's worth, I am anticipating this DVD release more than other 2012 movie. If I had to guess, I'd slot it in just below Jaws.

Very Very Good
Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade: Lot of fun. A pretty impressive job of recreating the tone of the first one, with some good comedy thrown in.
Minority Report: I think I feel about this one like a lot of people feel about Jurassic Park. The ending isn't quite earned, the plot holes grate on me a little, and some of the action scenes feel oddly antiseptic.

Solid Movies
Hook: I was born in 1983, so I think I'm genetically wired to love Hook. Which I still mostly do.
Catch Me If You Can: Worth it entirely for Chris Walken's scene with his son in the restaurant. Should have been the first Spielberg film to win an acting Oscar. Rest of the movie is good, too.
War Of The Worlds: One of his better directed movies. He loses his way a bit at the very end, but for the first 9/10, Spielberg carries a mediocre script with one fantasticly staged set-piece after another.
Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom: Definitely seems better after Crystal Skull. It's a real "Indiana Jones" movie. So, yay.

Some Cracks are Showing
The Lost World: Lightweight sequel.
War Horse: A couple scenes toward the end are pretty tough to sit through, but the first two thirds are very solid.
AI Artificial Intelligence: Am I still allowed to think the ending fell apart completely if I didn't realize until years later that they were advanced robots and not aliens?
The Adventures Of Tintin: Just felt... off to me, somehow. More like Sahara than Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The Terminal: OK, I suppose, but that's about it.
Duel: Maybe I just didn't get it. Seemed like a mid-tier Twilight Zone episode stretched way out.

Bombs
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull: Very similar to Revenge of the Sith for me. Convinced myself it was pretty good in theaters. But every time I rewatch it--it gets fantastically worse every time.
Always: Yikes.

Shameful
That I still haven't seen Schindler's List.


E.T. - Just rewatched E.T. for the first time in forever. I forgot how amazing it is. Nearly perfect family movie. Definitely Classic tier. Probably just below Jurassic Park for me. It does drag a bit at the beginning of the third act, when E.T. is dying, but that's a pretty minor quibble. Also, I forgot just how much Spielberg stuck the landing on that one. Or, rather, how much John Williams knocked it out of the park.

Also, after rewatching Lincoln four or five times, I'd keep it right where it is, straddling Classic and Very Good. Probably it belongs more to the Very Good tier, since the Classic tier are all movies where Spielberg more or less nailed the ending. With the possible exception of Saving Private Ryan.


Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:46 am
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:08 am
Posts: 31
Post Re: Ranking Spielberg films with the Tiers approach.
Bombs: Super 8, Crystal Skull


Thu Jun 06, 2013 2:20 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr