On The Movies...
Wydren is online.
Doom Gaze: Narnia 2 is badass!
Wydren: Is it?
Doom Gaze: Indeed.
Thought I'd throw that out there
I'm about half way through it
And unless the last half totally fails on every level.... It is indeed a worthy sequel
Wydren: Are you watching it on your computer?
Doom Gaze: ya
Wydren: You fail.
Doom Gaze: I do everything on my computer.
It's a telecine
Lucky me.
Wydren: Telecine?
Doom Gaze: Ya
The "editing" copy of the movie.
Wydren: Yeah, but it's not the final movie.
Doom Gaze: Barring a slightly lower quality, it actually is.
Sometimes they get intercepted at or on their way to the duping house.
That's where most of em come from.
The rest of the pirated 0-days are taped in theaters or are dvd screeners
I ran into a very nice DVD screener for I Am Legend, for example
Wydren: Does it have editing effects added in?
Filters, complete foley, all that yot?
Doom Gaze: Yup
I probably wouldn't watch it if it didn't.
I do have standards, you know.
Wydren: Good, that's better than nothing.
Doom Gaze: I went through about 3 copies of Ironman before I gave up just last week.
Wydren: Still, you should watch that stuff how the director intended.
And don't give me that "I can't afford it" crap. You were talking about buying a PS3 last week.
Doom Gaze: Well, if you want to take that to the extreme, you'd be requiring me to own a projection TV, a DTS sound system and my own popcorn popper.
Wydren: Within reason.
Film and DVDs are mixed a certain way.
Most bootlegs don't take that into account.
Although, a telecine seems closer than some dude taping it off the projected image with a camcorder.
Doom Gaze: I don't think you've ever actually seen one. They're very close to DVD quality
Minus the AC3 and you've got yourself a damn good quality copy.
Wydren: So, the movie is boss, eh?
I talked to a guy here at work who's seen it, he's suprised that it's only rated PG.
Doom Gaze: It hasn't been incredibly violent so far, but any movie that has kids killing adults with impunity makes me wonder. :)
The older girl already has 2 notches on her belt and I'm only 45 minutes in.
Wydren: I've heard that this summer may be like the summer with "Temple of Doom", what with Narnia being PG and The Dark Knight being PG-13
Doom Gaze: I dunno. It depends on how many women's backs Heath Ledger breaks on-screen.
Wydren: Women's backs?
Doom Gaze: In the comics, the Joker broke the commish's daughter's back.
She was wheelchair bound last time I saw her.
Wydren: Nah, he shot her through the spine.
Doom Gaze: There ya go. I had her confused with Batman/Bane
Wydren: In "The Killing Joke", which is one of the comics Ledger based his performance off of.
Doom Gaze: Hmm...
This might be the first time we've seen the real Joker on screen.
Wydren: I've got that one. Pretty good, by Alan Moore.
Well, it depends on what you think of as the "real" Joker.
Doom Gaze: In the cartoon series and the first movie he was depicted as a super-villan with a sense of humor.
However.
He should be a merciless killer with an overdose of dementia.
Wydren: Yeah, but that's just your opinion. To be fair, it's mine too, but I don't think Nicholson did a bad job.
I think he should be a merciless killer with a sense of humor. Of course, that sense of humor should only be funny if you're depraved.
Doom Gaze: We're about to journey over old ground. Tread lightly, lest you step on the dead horse.
Wydren: Heh
In a recent comic, Commissioner Gordon shot him in the knee, and the Joker thought it was funny, because he "got the joke". Gordon crippled him to pay him back for crippling his daughter.
That's one of the things I liked in the trailer. It looks like the Joker blows up a hospital, because it's funny.
Doom Gaze: he he
Wydren: That people would go there to get healed, but instead they'd be better off if they stayed away.
That's the Joker I like. I just hope they stress that he finds this stuff funny.
Doom Gaze: Anybody who's played a GTA game would probably find it funny too. Natch.
Wydren: One of my favorite parts of Batman 89 is when he poisoned the cosmetic products, and the next scene was of all the reporters talking about it on TV without any makeup.
Doom Gaze: lol
That's the Joker I love!
Wydren: Yeah. I hope they don't lose that trying to make him too dark and serious.
I don't think they will (I think Heath Ledger was a great actor), but it's a fear.
Doom Gaze: I agree. That is certainly a valid concern.
Wydren: Despite all that, I'm pretty sure it'll be either #1 or 2 on my list of favorite summer movies.
And I gaurentee it'll be the 2nd highest grossing movie this summer, and have the biggest weekend.
Sent at 2:03 AM on Wednesday
Doom Gaze: Lemmie guess... Indy....?
Wydren: Wall-E.
I've heard rumblings that that's the best family movie since ET.
Think about that for a second.
Doom Gaze: What about Indy? Indiana Jones is Hollywood's 500 pound gorilla.
And, technically, he's not even from Hollywood.
Wydren: It'll be in the top 5, but the highest review I've seen of it is a 6.5 out of 10.
It'll make money, but it won't break the bank.
Doom Gaze: That's... disappointing...
Wydren: I don't know if it'll make more than Iron Man.
Yeah, but kind of expected, at least from me.
Doom Gaze: 20 damn years for a new Indy flick and it probably won't even break 120M
Wydren: Think of the last franchise George Lucas came back to after 20 years.
Oh, it'll break $200M.
I just think Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and Wall-E will all break $300.
Doom Gaze: Well, I'm not in the US right now, so I'm not attuned to the movie industry like I used to be.
I plead ignorance.
Please have mercy.
Wydren: No problem.
Iron Man is already almost to $250 million. I don't think Indy will beat it.
Of course, I've been wrong before.
Doom Gaze: No, I agree with you. Pixar is an institution in the theaters right now. Parents know they can take their kids to see a Pixar movie and it'll be baller.
Wydren: Dude, they got a movie about a French Rat above $200 Million.
Wall-E is going to be the highest grossing movie of the summer, I'll bet you actual money.
Doom Gaze: I'll defend the rat over the Mouse any day. At least the rat knew how to cook.
Wydren: The thing I'm unsure about is Indy's performance.
Doom Gaze: That's true. But consider this...
Wydren: Are the reviews accurate, will that matter to the public, is there any competition that can knock Indy out of the minds of ADD America?
Etc.
Consider what?
Doom Gaze: Retro is the in-thing right now. If Indy can captialize on that and evoke the same sense of adventure that it did back in the day AND capture the retro feel of having a movie with Nazis in it...
It could surf above the review scores.
Wydren: Yeah, and that's one of the things I hate about America right now. A movie will have a huge opening weekend regardless of quality.
Doom Gaze: Also, consider that the only real adventure movies we've had in the last couple of years have been the National Treasure movies and the Da Vinci Code.
Wydren: Yeah
That's why I think it will be top 5.
Doom Gaze: Are you saying that you've already decided Indy will be crap?
Wydren: I just don't think it can beat Wall-E and Batman. And I doubt it can beat Iron Man.
No, I haven't decided.
Doom Gaze: You've said it yourself: review scores don't mean much.
Wydren: I'm just tempering my expectations.
I've learned what I call "the Episode One lesson".
Doom Gaze: Just give me more Harrison Ford.
Yeah, but episode 1 didn't have Han Solo.
Episode I was definitely lacking in the Solo dept.
Wydren: Yeah, but the previous Indy movies didn't have 65 year old Han.
We'll see if he still has the magic.
I just don't get excited about anything Lucas touches anymore.
Doom Gaze: If Air Force One didn't convince you he still had the 'magic', you need a boot to the head.
Harrison Ford is my hero.
Wydren: Yeah, but that was 10 years ago.
And Air Force One was fun, but the president in that was no Indy or Han.
I hope I'm wrong. I just don't have high hopes for the movie.
Doom Gaze: Same. Damn. Character. Just in a suit and carrying an MP5.
Wydren: Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Yeah, but that movie didn't have the same feel. I'm sure that's due to more than just Harrison Ford.
But Spielberg isn't what he used to be, and Lucas sure as hell isn't.
Doom Gaze: I think you underestimate Speilberg in particular.
I don't think I haven't ever seen a Spielberg movie that I haven't liked.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a love/hate relationship with the guy.
Wydren: Yeah, but none of his movies from the last 10 years have been "great".
Not as great as ET or Jaws. But he's the one I have the most faith in. The question is, how much did he listen to Lucas.
Doom Gaze: I think Spielberg probably knows more than anybody how much of a tool Lucas actually is.
What's more, Lucas trusts him.
Wydren: We'll see. I just think it says something that a new Indy movie is #5 on my "want to see list".
Maybe that's just saying something about me.
Doom Gaze: I was about to say that, but you took my emasticated words right out of my mouth.
Wydren: The prequels hurt, man. They hurt me bad.
Episode III was good, but overall they did more to damage Star Wars than to help.
Doom Gaze: I think RotS made up for Episode 1 and partially for Episode 3
** 2
Wydren: Yeah, I don't think so. It was good, but not that good.
It used to be that Star Wars was cool. Now, it's no better than Star Trek.
Doom Gaze: Oop! I think you just stepped on the horse!
Wydren: I did, didn't I?
Doom Gaze: Go ahead! Why didn't you think the prequels were as good as the originals?!?
I'm waiting...
You know this one! I've heard it a million times.
Wydren: They felt more obligatory than anything else.
Doom Gaze: BZZZZZT! Wrong!
Wydren: Ok, what's the right answer? No Han?
Doom Gaze: The correct answer was, "Luke, I am your father!"
Wydren: Well, it is a cultural milestone.
Almost everybody in the western world recognizes that quote, even if it is misquoted all the time.
Ready for some true nerdiness?
You even misquoted it there.
Doom Gaze: Did I?
Wydren: Yep. It's "No, I am your father!".
He doesn't say Luke at all, but everyone throws it in there.
That's why I said it's true nerdiness that I know that.
Doom Gaze: Actually... wasn't it, "No, Luke. I am your father!"?
Wydren: Nope.
"Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father".
"He told me enough. He told me you killed him".
"No, I am your father."
"That's not true! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!"
Doom Gaze: Kkkk.
I'm reading off IMDB right now.
Wydren: I can keep going if you want.
Doom Gaze: No. No. That's not true! etc...
Wydren: Man, don't trust IMDB. That's the chucklehead corner of the internet.
Doom Gaze: Actually, I want you to tap the whole script out right now.
You may go.....
Now.
Act I, Scene 1
I wonder if you can recall the opening paragraphs.
Wydren: I don't have time to do that.
"It is a period of civil war".
Rebel fighters, striking from a hidden base...
Doom Gaze: And he stalls!
Srsly, lol.
Wydren: Yeah, I can't do that anymore.
I got into girls, got married, etc.
Doom Gaze: This is fun!
Wydren: Man, I honestly can't remember the rest.
That kind of saddens me.
The Star Wars nerd grows up.
I need to relocate my inner child.
Guess I know what I'm doing when I get home.
Doom Gaze: That's the spirit!
Just remember one thing though. You're "jaded" now.
Wydren: I know. Hopefully Indy 4 will be more than just "adequate". Otherwise, I'll just get more jaded.
I just hope Lucas brings out a decent copy of the Original Trilogy on DVD.
I've got bootlegs, but the quality on those isn't great.
Doom Gaze: Just remember not to give up hope. That leads to the Dark Side.
He did, didn't he?
I thought I remembered hearing about that.
Wydren: They're not cleaned up (so they've got all the original scratches, etc) and they're non-anamorphic.
That's a big deal to me now.
Doom Gaze: You could fix that yourself.
I could show you.
Wydren: I am jaded enough that I won't buy those movies whenever Lucas says jump.
Yeah, but I can't clean it up near as well as a professional studio.
Doom Gaze: Hmmm...
Well, you COULD hack together a hybrid version.
I think I heard tell of someone doing that actually.
Wydren: Yeah, but do you know how much work that would take?
Doom Gaze: Not as much as you'd think.
Lucas didn't actually change THAT much on the new ones, if you think about it.
It's nothing a copy of Adobe Premier and Aftereffects couldn't accomplish with a couple of weeks of work.
Simply a matter of cutting out the new bits and syncing the old bits released on the latest retro DVD sets to the new footage.
Then, you sync them up on a reel and blend in the bits that you want from the original.
Drop out all the extra scenes and footage and you got a remastered copy.
I've been dicking with this shit lately. It's not as hard as they'd have you believe - trust me.
For example, did you know that 7.1 is bullshit?
Sent at 2:50 AM on Wednesday
Wydren: Sorry, was away.
Why is 7.1 bullshit?
And there's a fair bit Lucas changed. All of Boba Fett's dialogue, for instance.
Doom Gaze: For starters, the 2 extra channels are only a mix of the 2 surround channels.
The dialogue is a piece of cake to get back. Next.
Wydren: I thought they were starting to record 2 extra discrete channels on movies nowadays.
Doom Gaze: You can pull it off the old VHSs, which came with dolby surround.
Wydren: Yeah, it's bull for older movies, but aren't new movies being recorded in 7.1?
Doom Gaze: Not that I can tell.
I measured the rear levels in NT:BoS last week...
Wydren: NT: BoS?
Doom Gaze: And as near as I can tell, the waveforms are only a mix of the surround channels.
Book of Secrets
Wydren: Ah. Well, do you have Blu-Ray or HD-DVD?
Doom Gaze: No. It's a DTS track.
Wydren: DVDs are only encoded with 5.1 discrete channels of sound.
All that 7.1 does in that case is mix the rears, true.
Doom Gaze: LIES! That's actually only Dolby Digital, my friend.
Wydren: I'll admit, I don't know much about DTS.
Doom Gaze: If a DVD includes a DTS track (most don't, since it's added cost above and beyond the enforced "standard") then it supports 7 discrete channels.
Wydren: Everything I've read says that DD is better for movies, DTS is better for music and vigemagames.
Doom Gaze: Also lies.
If you want to talk quality, DTS has DD by a long shot.
DD is lossy. Hence, it sometimes overloads the decoder, resulting in a loss of sound or difficult to hear effects. It's not perfect, not by a long shot.
DTS is lossless, which is why most studios don't do a DTS track: they simply take up too much space on disc.
Wydren: Ahh.
Doom Gaze: Also, DD decoders are not very well standardized. Dolby does little to no quality control on the products with it's brand on it.
Apparently, instead of opting for a quality movie experience, they instead opt for more extras which appear to give the movie added value.
Most people either don't know what a DTS track is or don't have any use for it.
So there is no added value for them.
Try this: got any Superbit DVDs?
Wydren: Nope. But go ahead anyway.
Doom Gaze: Find yourself a copy of The 5th Element Superbit.
Then watch the movie in DD. After, watch it again in DTS and tell me that DTS isn't better.
Wydren: I'm always interested in learning.
I may have to try that.
Doom Gaze: In fact, you don't even need to use a Superbit.
Lemmie find a good recent movie that included a DTS track...
Wydren: I'm sure I've got one, though I can't name one off the top of my head. Maybe Pirates of the Caribbean?
Doom Gaze: Here's another thing about DTS the DVD standards committee didn't want you to know about: If it has DTS on it, it also HAS to have a DD track.
That's right: The specs for all DVDs state that if you want to make a DVD and have an enhanced audio track other than 2.0 stereo, then you HAVE to include a Dolby Digital track. Which is stupid since most decoders are more than capable of downmixing adequately to 5.1
Do you have Saving Private Ryan?
Wydren: So DTS can hold 7 discrete channels of audio, and it doesn't take up too much space on the DVD?
Nope.
I'll need to make sure my receiver is set up for DTS when I try that out.
Doom Gaze: No. DTS tracks take up MUCH more space.
Wydren: Everything I've learned about audio I've taught myself over the last year and a half (researching for my 5.1 setup).
Doom Gaze: For example, a lossless version of any given MP3 I have takes up about 30-40 megs.
The standard MP3 only takes up about 3-5 megs.
Wydren: Ok, so it's a choice between DTS or special features?
Doom Gaze: Gladiator?
Wydren: That would make sense.
Doom Gaze: Exactly.
MM!
Wydren: Yeah, I own Gladiator, but I'm not sure if I want to watch that back to back.
Doom Gaze: The Lord of the Rings!
The extended versions have DTS
Wydren: Man, I might want to watch that back to back, but I'm not sure if my butt can handle it.
I'm picky!
Doom Gaze: I should have fucking thought of that.
Wydren: What's that? The length?
That's a minumim of 7 hours of movie man.
Doom Gaze: Bah! Just watch a few scenes.
Easy peezy.
Wydren: Where are you looking for these specs? Amazon.
Doom Gaze: I just remembered that one off hand.
Wydren: That's what I figure. One of the battle scenes, like the Mines of Moria.
Doom Gaze: Yup.
You might also want to try it on one of the quieter scenes too.
Yeah, it's amazing how many places just use loud, bombastic scenes to sell audio equipment.
I've heard that The Incredibles contains a great surround track, but I'm not sure if it has DTS.
Sent at 3:14 AM on Wednesday
Doom Gaze: Here's one for ya!
Wydren: I'm not buying that movie just to check out the audio. I haven't seen it, and it's not a blind buy.
Doom Gaze: I can vouch for it.
Wydren: I'll just use 5th element or one of the LOTR movies.
Doom Gaze: It's a good fun dumb action movie.
Wydren: Yeah, but your taste in movies sucks.
Doom Gaze: Fuck off.
Wydren: Says the guy who thinks Dawn of the Dead is a terrible movie.
Doom Gaze: It was.
Wydren: Well, everyone, and I'm not exaggerating, disagrees with you.
Doom Gaze: Yeah, no. I have have an entire shop that disagrees with you. We all watched it together and the unanimous opinion was that it sucked.
Perhaps if I saw it in the 80's I'd have a different opinion.
I'm sorry, late 70's
Wydren: Yeah, but you watched it in 15 minute chunks.
Doom Gaze: I admit that. However, are you truly going to call this movie the kind of high art that requires it to be watched to it's conclusion uninterrupted? Very few movies require that.
Wydren: No, most movies require that.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1005339-dawn_of_the_dead/
Doom Gaze: yeah. You can take your 97% and shove it right up your ass.
:D
Wydren: Sorry, I was exaggerating. Not everyone disagrees with you.
Just 97% of everyone.
You and your 15-minute-chunk-watchin' shop.
:D
I miss you man.
Doom Gaze: Likewise. :(
It comes down to entertainment value.
If a movie does not have significant entertainment value than it will inevitably fail.
Wydren: By that logic, Schindler's List is a terrible film.
I'll agree that all art is subjective.
Doom Gaze: Ah, but you're not understanding the meaning of entertainment.
Wydren: But you've got to be able to recognize that something is good even if you don't like it.
Doom Gaze: A movie does not have to crack jokes, show gratuitous cleaveage or gore to be entertaining.
For example, although most were unhappy with the way Spider-Man 3 was produced, none can deny that it was at the very least, entertaining.
However, the entertainment came from, in that movie, two sources.
Firstly, the action/special effects and secondly the interplay between Parker and Venom.
Specifically, Emo-Spider-Man.
Now, you may disagree on whether it was done right or even should have been done at all.
That point is moot, though. The bottom line was that it entertained long enough to get the movie on its feet and to it's conclusion, regardless of how horrible it really was.
You either get it, or you don't.
For example, in Minority Report, you are prepared for something of a detective story. In The Fountain, you are prepared to have to figure things out.
Wydren: But that's pretty subjective.
I'd say so subjective that you can't really use that to judge a movie.
Doom Gaze: The difference is that Dawn of the Dead either doesn't prepare the audience to think about that or loses it's message behind a veil of grindhouse cinema.
Wydren: Or at least, to judge it for anyone but yourself.
Doom Gaze: In simpler terms, a crappy movie with a social commentary embedded in it's script is still a crappy movie. It just appeals to art-house pricks.
Wydren: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19790504/REVIEWS/905040301/1023
I know you really dig Ebert, so read what he has to say.
You don't realize that part of what you call that "veil of grindhouse cinema" is part of the message.
And Romero was never grindhouse, but that's a different arguement.
Doom Gaze: ... Looks grindhouse to me.
Wydren: Ehh, that one's debatable.
I'd say the way he shot the film makes it more than grindhouse, but like I said, that's another arguement.
We can have that one if you want, since I doubt I'm going to make any headway convincing you DotD is a great movie.
Doom Gaze: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.
Wydren: Keep in mind, you've also had Land of the Dead (which, while enjoyable, is easily the worst of the "Living Dead" films) to color your perceptions of Dawn.
Doom Gaze: It was actually a lot easier to spot the social commentary in that than it was in Dawn.
Plus, it looked nice and had John Leguizamo in it.
Wydren: That's why it's lesser, the commentary and horror movie sensibilities aren't balanced as well as they are in Dawn. I just don't see how you can say Dawn is a crappy movie, other than just that it was "boring".
Which is one of the most subjective terms for a movie.
Doom Gaze: I agree.
A lot of people give Solaris crap for that.
I thought it was a very cerebral movie. Though I recognize why people thought it was boring.
Wydren: They probably do. And though I haven't seen it, I'd probably agree with that.
A lot of people said the same about the Fountain.
Which makes me think I really need to see Solaris.
Doom Gaze: You really do.
Wydren: I'll add it to my list.
Doom Gaze: Please note that you haven't read The Light of Other Days.
Wydren: So, why do you think Dawn is crappy? Can you give me a reason beyond that you were bored of it.
I read that.
Doom Gaze: Did you???
Wydren: It was the other one you mentioned I haven't read yet.
By Steven Alten?
Domain?
Doom Gaze: The Light of Other Days was Clarke
Wydren: Yeah, I read that one.
Doom Gaze: Resurrection was Alten.
Wydren: Yeah, that's the one I haven't read.
Doom Gaze: What did you think of that one?
Wydren: And I started to read Resurrection, then realized it's a sequel. The anal part of me won't let me read a sequel without reading the first.
I liked Light.
Decent hard Sci-Fi.
Doom Gaze: I hope you're happy: I have a 720p DotD coming down the pipe now.
Wydren: It's not one of Clarke's best, but when it's Clarke even the ones that aren't his best are still great.
You don't have to rewatch it. I'm just interested in seeing if you have a good reason why you think it's crappy.
I can understand not liking it. But can you realize it's good without liking it, like I can with some Country music?
Doom Gaze: Here's the thing you don't realize about Resurrection: even though it alludes to events in the first book, it is not required.
The book is supposed to be that way.
You won't realize that until you've read it to the end.
Wydren: I'm anal like that though. I tried to read Prince Caspian, but I had to read the other 3 first.
Doom Gaze: Did I tell you I'm getting started on the Dark Tower series?
Wydren: No.
That series is awesome, but peaks in the middle.
Doom Gaze: I'll be the judge of that
He "remastered" the first 3 books. So mebbie the series I'm reading will be better.
Wydren: Go for it. It has some interesting twists toward the end.
Remastered? WTF?
Doom Gaze: Ya.
Wydren: Well, maybe it will flow better.
Doom Gaze: That's basically what he explained in the 20+ page introduction.
It should be entitled "On being Seventeen"
Wydren: What's that, the series?
Or the introduction?
Doom Gaze: Ya.
The introduction.
Wydren: Ok.
Doom Gaze: To the "remastered" books.
Wydren: They're definitely enjoyable books.
And you've got to remember, some people waited almost 20 years for him to finish the story with the last 3 books.
After 20 years, the book could be a collaboration between Jesus, Buddah, and 1970's George Lucas and still disappoint people.
Doom Gaze: Getting back to Dawn of the Dead...
Here's why I didn't like it:
Wydren: Ok, GO.
Doom Gaze: 1) The zombies wear makeup.
2) Bad acting.
3) Poor pacing.
Here's the rub: Almost all of this can be chalked up to the movie's age.
Wydren: The makeup I'll give you, but that's a limitation of budget.
Doom Gaze: They had over half a million dollars.
Wydren: The bad acting, I disagree, but that's subjective I guess.
Doom Gaze: That's a quarter of the budget of the first Star Wars movie.
Wydren: But the pacing? That movie's almost perfectly paced. That sounds like an attempt to legitimize a complaint of it being boring.
Doom Gaze: I guess they blew all their cash on extras.
Wydren: Yeah, and the first Star Wars movie was considered "low budget".
Doom Gaze: I'll admit that. However, instead of filling up the slow spots with boring social commentary, they could have easily lightened it up instead of sticking to it's laurels.
Wydren: But if they lightened it up, it would have undermined the social commentary.
I mean, the best zombie movies aren't about the zombies.
Doom Gaze: Which was boring when it wasn't in the context of ZOMBIES EATING PEOPLE.
I think we found it.
Wydren: They're about what the zombies represent about us.
So you're complaint is that it was boring.
Because all you wanted to see was a simple gory horror movie. And I don't believe it couldn't work on that level either.
Doom Gaze: Lemmie put it this way: What does a good DM do when a D&D game gets boring?
Wydren: I don't know, I've only played it the once.
Doom Gaze: 5 words: "Someone kicks in the door!"
Simple trick, keeps things moving, let's the storytelling work.
Another thing was this: The "horror" wasn't that horrific to me.
It was funny.
Wydren: Hang on, as to the not moving complaint.
Not all movies have to be a roller coaster ride full of thrills.
Doom Gaze: Combine that with the boring social commentary and bad acting (IMHO) and it comes off as something that should have been on MST3K.
Wydren: In fact, the best horror movies aren't.
Psycho, The Exorcist, Halloween.
Doom Gaze: Those movies were creepy horror. There's a difference between creepy horror and gore horror.
Wydren: Moving on to your next complaint, what do you call the "horror"?
Doom Gaze: I think the problem with that also comes with age.
Wydren: Ah, I think that's a difference. This is creepy horror, with the gore of the day added on top.
Doom Gaze: And the creepy parts come off as lame and the gore parts come off as fake. Also, due to age. Here's what I'm getting at:
Back in "the day," people weren't as desensitized to zombie flicks like we are today.
Wydren: But you said you didn't even recognize the creepy parts in the movie, because that's what the social commentary is.
Doom Gaze: The gory bits we're used to today totally lay the smack down on what they could do on half a million dollars in 1978.
It didn't creep me out. What doesn't creep you out, personally, comes off as lame.
Don't you agree?
Wydren: Yeah, but what do you think is the creepy horror in Dawn?
I want to see what you say before I give you what I think.
Doom Gaze: Here's the other thing: zombies aren't creepy to me unless there's the latent possibility that one is hiding around the corner waiting to eat me.
Wydren: See, that's what you miss about the movie. The zombies in it are irrellevant.
Doom Gaze: Discuss.
Wydren: They could be replaced with any threat. Natural disaster, terrorist attack, whatever.
What's creepy is that in the face of that threat, the people could make it if they worked together.
But they don't.
They let their own greed get the better of them.
They could have lived fine in the back rooms of the mall. But they wanted the entire thing. And one of them died as a result.
They could have shared with the biker gang (which is debatable, but they didn't have to start shooting the gang). But they were greedy, and another died.
Likewise, greed kills people that way in the real world. And if we can't learn to work together, mankind can end up destroying itself.
Granted, that possibility is more remote now that the Cold War is over, but it's still there.
Doom Gaze: Question: Are you referring to people as a species or people as in the rag-tag group that finds themselves wholed up in the mall?
Wydren: Holed up. And the answer is both.
That's the social commentary, and what makes it creepy is that it's true.
The group of people holed up in the mall is representative of society as a whole.
Or, different factions of society, anyway.
Doom Gaze: I don't find that creepy.
Interesting, but not creepy.
Wydren: That mankind is capable and willing to destroy itself through shortsightedness?
Doom Gaze: That's a fact of life that's been known for awhile.
I'm content to lay back in my chair and call the whole group a bunch of dumbasses.
Wydren: If that doesn't creep you out, or scare you at least, you're tougher than me.
Doom Gaze: Heh. I've seen the inside of the government entity. Nothing phases me.
Wydren: So does any horror movie scare you, or is it all just superficial jump scares?
Doom Gaze: That and I do alot of research on human social dynamics and I think I have a deeper understanding of the human condition than most.
I find myself in a constant search in looking for a movie that scares me without overusing cheap scares.
It usually comes from the paranormal thrillers.
The Mist, for example, was quite good.
And I watched that one in the break-room too, in all fairness.
Wydren: See, I loved The Mist, but a lot of that had to do with its simillarity to good zombie movies.
You don't see how DotD and The Mist are similar?
They have almost the exact same social commentary.
Or were the monsters the only thing you found scary in that?
I only ask because it seems intellectually dishonest to say you found one scary and not the other.
Both are excellently made movies (made on a lower budget, I might add) that have almost the exact same social commentary which makes them scarier.
Doom Gaze: It is because it comes down to suspension of disbelief.
It was much easier to suspend disbelief in The Mist than it was in Dawn.
crap
are you there?
Wydren: Yeah
Why?
Doom Gaze: I think my connection dropped there for a minute.
Wydren: Well, it's back on now.
Did you get my last message?
Doom Gaze: ..."exact same social commentary which makes them scarier."
Wydren:
Doom Gaze: It is because it comes down to suspension of disbelief.
It was much easier to suspend disbelief in The Mist than it was in Dawn.
Wydren: But why? Was it just because of the special effects?
Doom Gaze: Yes.
Wydren: See, I think that's a limitation you put on yourself.
Doom Gaze: No, it's a fault in the movie.
Its the same thing you experienced in The Minority Report.
You could not suspend disbelief because you figured it out.
That's a fault in the movie: It was too easy for you to figure out.
Therefore, you could not suspend disbelief.
Wydren: But that's a criticism of the story, not the special effects.
Doom Gaze: You say potato, I say potAto.
Wydren: The special effects are limited to a specific time period. By that logic, King Kong is a terrible movie.
Hell, by that logic you could say that all black and white movies are bad.
Doom Gaze: It's still comes down to suspension of disbelief. And yes, if the original King Kong were released today and viewed by an audience for the first time ever, it would inevitably be condemned as crap.
Citing the movie's age and budget is no shield to quality.
Wydren: Yes it is.
Those are superficial things.
If you're judging on special effects.
Doom Gaze: For example, if you look at a lot of these reviews of Dawn on Rotten Tomatoes, most of them refer to it as a "cult classic." Which means that it was viewed by the reviewer at a time when it was new to them.
Wydren: Which is what I thought we were doing here.
Doom Gaze: No, I'm judging it on suspension of disbelief. That's totally separate.
Wydren: But you said you couldn't suspend your disbelief because of the special effects.
Wydren: But why? Was it just because of the special effects?
Doom Gaze: Yes.
Doom Gaze: Exactly. The bottom line is that Dawn could have been much better if it had LESS zombies in it.
Too many detailed close ups of zombies eating people foiled suspension of disbelief because the zombies did not look believable to me.
Wydren: But I'm saying that when judging a movies speical effects (and you're suspension of disbelief relating to them) you have to take time period and budget into account.
Doom Gaze: I'm saying that there are ways to work around all those limitations.
Star Wars did.
Wydren: I know some people who believe that almost all CGI doesn't look believable. So by that definition, almost every movie made now a days is terrible.
And Dawn did too, for it's day.
Doom Gaze: Those people would probably disagree with you. But I don't look that close.
Wydren: I mean, Dawn worked around those limitations.
Doom Gaze: I don't think it did.
Wydren: You've just been desensitized, which I don't think is fair to hold against the movie.
Doom Gaze: I can if it didn't entertain me. That's why I don't like it.
I watched The Maltese Falcon a couple of weeks ago.
Wydren: I never said you had to like it. But you've got to admit that it's a well made movie.
It's good, even if you don't like it.
I can admit that about Minority Report.
It wasn't the greatest movie, and I didn't care for it, but I'll admit it was a good movie.
Doom Gaze: By that logic, any movie ever made by anyone ever is a good movie. Obviously someone liked it, otherwise it wouldn't still be around.
Wydren: I'm saying you've got to judge it on things other than how much you liked it. Otherwise, what's the point in talking movies?
All conversations would be "I didn't like it so it's bad". "Well, I did, so it's good".
And no, there are some movies that are bad even though people like them.
I love Van Damme movies, though I'll admit most of them are terrible.
Doom Gaze: Like I said, I'll give it one more fair shake.
Wydren: But in order to give it a fair shake, you've got to get past the budget and special effect limitations.
If you take those into account, the movie's damned impressive in those regards.
Doom Gaze: I'm sorry, but that still doesn't work. I can't give the movie a totally fair shake if I can't suspend disbelief. That's the point of suspension of disbelief - I can't do it willingly or say "Oh, that's because they had a crappy budget. So that's okay." If I'm thinking about that, then it's already lost the battle.
Remember when we watched Legend?
Wydren: And I say that's a limitation on your part.
Yeah, but Legend isn't a good movie.
It's appeal relies entirely on nostalgia. Or, almost entirely.
It's a limitation on your part, because then any science fiction movie is terrible, because that stuff doesn't happen in the real world and you can't suspend your belief that much.
Doom Gaze: When I can't suspend disbelief, I immediately shift into MST3K mode.
So sue me.
Wydren: LOTR stinks, because elves, hobbits, and orcs don't exist and I can't suspend disbelief enough.
Back to the Future is terrible, because time travel is impossible.
You've got to adjust your standards by taking certain things into account. If you don't, you're not giving the movie a fair shot. Yeah, it's all subjective, but there's generally an agreed standard of quality, and by those standards, Dawn of the Dead is a good movie, even if you didn't like it.
You don't need to rewatch it unless you can do that, because it'd just be a waste of time.
Doom Gaze: Suspension of disbelief doesn't work that way. A movie must work within its own context to suspend disbelief. Let me clarify: If, for example, Legolas pulled out a revolver during the Battle of Pelennor Fields, that would obviously break suspension of disbelief. In the same way, if a movie is telling me that these people shambling about are actually dead, and therefore horrifying, then they should look that way all the time. If I see even one zombie that doesn't look real, then it breaks suspension of disbelief because it ceases to be consistent within its own context.
Wydren: But what does a "real" zombie look like?
Doom Gaze: Not alive.
Wydren: Dawn totally works within it's own context.
Doom Gaze: Wrong.
Wydren: Can you give me an example?
Doom Gaze: Suspension of disbelief is broken multiple times throughout the movie due to it's own budget. This is mostly a problem with the make up.
Wydren: But you're stating that like it's some objective thing. It's not.
It's totally subjective.
In fact, it's one of the most subjective things.
It doesn't break it's on internal logic, or context as you called it.
Doom Gaze: I think it is when I see one zombie that looks pretty good in one scene and then in another scene some guy sweated through his makeup and I can see pink skin.
Wydren: But that's really why you think it's a bad movie? Becaue one guy sweated through his makeup?
Doom Gaze: There are quite a few instances in that movie where it is pretty obvious that that happened.
I'm not citing any one scene in particular.
I am citing the entire movie as inconsistent.
Wydren: But still, that's your entire problem with the movie, and why you think it's a terrible film? Because they couldn't make the zombies look "real" enough.
?
And you make no allowances for budget and the time it was made?
Doom Gaze: It's not my decision. The decision is made subconciously. Like it is for most people.
Wydren: Well, if you do watch it again, try to look past that.
Otherwise, Back to the Future is terrible because I can see matte lines.
It just seems so superficial, an easy to declare a movie bad just because you didn't like it.
Like I said, I think Minority Report is a good movie, I just didn't like it.
*It just seems so superficial, an easy way to declare a movie bad just because you didn't like it.
Doom Gaze: That's why I'm watching it again.
I'll give it the good 'ol college try.
Wydren: But can you look past the special effects?
Doom Gaze: I guess we'll find out, won't we?
Wydren: Well, I'm saying, if you can't, it's not a fault of the film.
Doom Gaze: I think what I'm trying to say is that the movie tried to do too much at the same time.
Wydren: And you may think that. But it's not a bad movie just because you didn't like it.
Doom Gaze: If you want to paint a sprawling epic zombie movie with a rotten heart at the center they could have condensed the script into a smaller setting and made it easier to suspend disbelief.
Less zombies, more cerebral.
Wydren: Yeah, but that wouldn't have helped with the special effects.
Doom Gaze: Sure it would have.
Wydren: Ah, but the number of zombies isn't a fault of the script.
Doom Gaze: The dude that did the make up for the movie had to apply makeup to 300 extras every DAY.
You can't tell me they couldn't have rewritten that after they got their budget.
Wydren: I mean, how much smaller can you get than 4 people in a mall?
One guy in a phone booth?
Doom Gaze: Clever, that.
Wydren: But see, most people don't have that problem with the movie. So, they didn't think they needed to rewrite it.
Doom Gaze: But the problem isn't with the actors (primarily), it's with the level of consistency of believability of the zombies.
Wydren: In fact, almost everyone thinks they didnt' have to rewrite it.
Doom Gaze: Here's one for you: Imagine this conversation.
Romero: Shit! We only have half a million to make this movie. We're hosed!
Wydren: What's really funny about this is that the guy who did the special effects was a photographer in Vietnam, who made the effects as believable as he could with the budget he had.
Doom Gaze: Writer: Well, we could set the movie in a smaller locale and use less zombies on camera. Then we could focus our special effects budget on fewer, more realistic zombies!
Romero: Screw that crap! That would compromisie the creative integrity of my work!
Wydren: Well, you can imagine all the conversations you want. That doesn't effect reality.
Doom Gaze: I have no doubt that this conversation, or something similar, might have taken place.
Why not use less on camera zombies?
Wydren: So wait, your complaints about the special effects, and the guys sweating through their makeup, you only noticed that in the scenes with 300 zombies on screen?
Doom Gaze: Why not take the same horror and social commentary and put it into a less comprehensive setting in order to preserve the integrity of the story?
Nope. It was mostly with the closeups. Although there were many cases where a zombie that was obviously not supposed to be closely inspected wound up getting a little too close to the camera and was easily spotted as fake.
Too much work and money to support the setting.
**and not enough money
They did the same thing with The Fountain.
They said: Hey! Our budget is hosed!
Well, we could rewrite with the same concept.
And they did.
And it was a good movie.
Wydren: They made the setting smaller in scope?
Doom Gaze: Much smaller.
Watch the extras.
Wydren: So, instellar space is smaller than a mall. Good to know.
Sorry, that's condescending.
Doom Gaze: It's aight. But it's much easier to render a backdrop on a simple matte than it is to render an army.
Wydren: But still, you're main complaint is that you can point at the screen and say "Hey, that guy's not really a zombie!"
Doom Gaze: I don't have to point, as I've already stated.
Wydren: Heh, you are main complaint.
Doom Gaze: It's pretty damn obvious.
Wydren: Man, I suck.
Doom Gaze: Hey, we both know our grammar skills are above and beyond.
Wydren: I hate to tell you, but it's always obvious, no matter the special effects.
Doom Gaze: No point in nitpicking grammar. :)
Wydren: cool.
Doom Gaze: The point I'm driving home is, "How much is good enough?"
Wydren: But that's what I'm saying, that's all up to you and not the film.
For most people, they can see beyond that.
If you think you can, watch the film again. If not, there's not point in rewatching it.
I'd think that we've moved that point from subconsious to consious.
Doom Gaze: Well, it's already eating up hard drive space, so I might as well.
Why is that?
Dude, if anyone should know this, it should be you: I don't go in looking for flaws in a film.
You do know that don't you?
Wydren: Because we've talked about it so much, I hope it sticks out when you watch it next.
Yeah, I know that.
Doom Gaze: But if I don't like it, I can tell you why.
Wydren: I'm just saying I think you got hung up on this one point, and missed what makes the film great.
And you don't have to like it.
Doom Gaze: For example, why didn't you like The Matrix Reloaded, again?
Wydren: But hopefully you can at least see that it's a well made film.
It ignored the first movie, and set up a whole bunch of questions that didn't get answered in the third.
Doom Gaze: How did it ignore the first movie?
I'm playing devil's advocate here, btw.
I can show you why it's the same.
Wydren: I see that. Neo wasn't the all powerful being he was at the end of the first movie. He was the same, with the added bonus of flying and force pull/push.
I mean, he was the same as he was before he realized he was "the one".
Why what's the same. Why I don't like the Matrix Reloaded, or why it's a good movie?
Doom Gaze: Did you consider the fact that that may not be the fault of the movie?
Wydren: How is it not?
And don't give me that "they purposefully lied to you" crap. That's fanwank of the highest order.
Doom Gaze: It's very simple: They never knew when they made the first movie that it would have been as popular as it was.
Hence, they didn't plan on the possiblility of a sequel.
The idea of the sequel didn't come about until the first one hit it big.
Wydren: But that's very much a fault of the movie. That's not something I brought to it.
Doom Gaze: After that, the Bros. went on record as saying that then ending would have been substantially altered had they known there would have been the possibility of a sequel.
Wydren: Yeah, but all you can judge is what's on screen.
Doom Gaze: For example, the entire first half-hour of Reloaded would be tacked on to The Matrix.
Wydren: In fact, that's them saying it's the fault of the movie.
Doom Gaze:
Wydren: Yeah, but all you can judge is what's on screen.
There it is.
Wydren: As far as story, yeah, there it is.
But you never gave me a problem with DotD's story. It was all special effects.
My problem with the Matrix sequels has nothing to do with special effects.
Actually I think the special effects were great. In fact, judging solely on special effects, I had no problem with suspension of disbelief with the Matrix sequels.
Doom Gaze: It's the same difference though.
See what I'm saying?
Wydren: No, I don't. You're saying DotD is terrible because of something you brought to the movie. I'm saying the Matrix sequels are not good because of a problem with the story.
It's there whether I want to see it or not.
Doom Gaze: However, for both of us in both cases, the other broke suspension of disbelief.
"And the truth, shall set you free."
Wydren: But your arguement there boils down to "it's all subjective". Yeah, I can't argue that.
But then there's no point in discussing art.
It all boils down to "it's good because I liked it". or "It's bad because I didn't like it".
However, there are typically standards set for these things. By those standards, DotD is a great movie. The Matrix sequels are average.
Doom Gaze: What I'm saying is that just because a movie maintained suspension of disbelief for you does not mean that it did not maintain suspension of disbelief for someone else.
That's why I'm going to try to watch Dawn again.
Wydren: But it's not a suspension of disbelief issue.
Doom Gaze: It is.
You're saying Reloaded broke suspension disbelief because of a difference in "power levels", if you will, between 1 & 2.
For some, that difference was apparent.
For others, it was not.
Wydren: No, I'm saying the movie made the first one irrelevant, which is a problem with the basic storytelling.
Doom Gaze: That does not, however, mean it was not a Good Movie®.
Wydren: Yeah, it does.
Doom Gaze: It's the same difference! Can't you see it?
Wydren: Can you name me any great movie that had a bad story?
You can make a terrible movie out of a good script, but you cannot make a good movie out of a bad script.
That's a pretty basic rule in film fandom.
Doom Gaze: You're saying that I should look past the flaws of Dawn because of it's budget and special effects but you're saying you can't look past the flaws in Reloaded because of a story hampered by the fact that a sequel was not anticipated?
Both problems could have been potentially resolved by another look at the script.
Wydren: Yeah. Special effects are the icing on the cake. Put as much polish on a turd as you want, it's still a turd.
Doom Gaze: But they were allowed to go through because someone deemed that suspension of disbelief could be maintained.
Wydren: But what I'm saying is that the story, or script, is the basic building block on which to hinge a movie.
Special effects are not.
The problem with the Matrix sequels is in the script. The problem with DotD is in the special effects.
Doom Gaze:
Wydren: Yeah. Special effects are the icing on the cake. Put as much polish on a turd as you want, it's still a turd.
Wydren: Like I said, that's the standard. If you don't have the standards, there's no point in talking about film.
Doom Gaze:
Doom Gaze: In simpler terms, a crappy movie with a social commentary embedded in it's script is still a crappy movie. It just appeals to art-house pricks.
Wydren: But that's what I'm trying to say. Dawn is not a crappy movie.
You just think it is because you couldn't get past the icing.
To be fair, the Matrix movies aren't crappy either. They're average.
Doom Gaze: But you are saying that Reloaded was a crappy movie because you couldn't get past a flaw in the script.
Wydren: Yeah.
Doom Gaze: It's the same difference.
Same.
Wydren: What flaw in the script of Dawn couldn't you get past?
Doom Gaze: You still don't get it. It still comes down to suspension of disbelief.
Wydren: You haven't mentioned any script errors, it was all special effects.
Special effects can be forgiven if a story is good. It doesn't work the other way around.
Doom Gaze: Yes, and for you, what broke suspension of disbelief was an inconsistency in the script. What broke it for me was special effects.
Sure it does.
Wydren: No, it doesn't.
Doom Gaze: Loads of movies have been successful purely on the basis that they had great special effects.
But that's beside my point.
SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF.
Wydren: I can agree that the Matrix sequels were better than Transformers. Just because I like TF more doesn't make it a better movie.
Doom Gaze:
Wydren: But successful in what respect?
Doom Gaze: As I said, that's beside the point.
Wydren: In making money? That's not a good judge of quality.
Doom Gaze: I digressed.
:)
Wydren: Ok. So you think special effects can excuse a poor story?
That's what it sounds like your saying, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Man, incorrect use of your/you're again. I suck again.
Sent at 5:36 AM on Wednesday
Wydren: I think that's the crux of this arguement. I'm saying that a good story can excuse poor special effects, and you disagree.
Doom Gaze: All I'm saying is that suspension of disbelief can make or break a movie. If disbelief is truly not suspended during a movie for a given person then they will trivialize the movie.
That's what we have both done.
Wydren: Well, I think mine is more valid (because more people happen to agree with me), but that's really subjective.
But if you can't get past the special effects, there's no point in watching the movie again.
By the way, this discussion is why I miss you. I can't get into this type of discussion with anyone else here. Christina can't get into a discussion like this without making it too serious (she can't accept that people can have heated discussions and realize that it's all just shooting the breeze) and Dan just says "Whatever".
Doom Gaze: "Well, I think mine is more valid (because more people happen to agree with me), but that's really subjective."
I agree. The Matrix movies are less than perfect. However, to nitpick script inconsistencies is the same as nitpicking special effects when it comes to suspension of disbelief. Loads of people thought the special effects in the Matrix were fake but had no problems with the story.
Appreciated. ^_^
Wydren: See, that's the base of it. I think if a story's flawed, no amount of special effects can make up for that. Most critics agree with me (which doesn't make it right, I guess).
However, if a story's good, the special effects can be a little poor.
That's why you get a huge amout of crap in the horror genre with "great gore".
The gore is easy to get right. The story is a little harder.
Doom Gaze: The story is flawed but I think that the Bros. made more of an effort on the philosophical underpinnings than they did on those inconsistencies you mentioned.
Wydren: Yeah, I'll agree with that.
Doom Gaze: The gore
Wydren: Yeah. And to most people (again, the only barometer we have for success) the story in Dawn is great.
Doom Gaze: I think we're a lot better at this when we chat. :)
Wydren: Heh, probably.
Doom Gaze: We should just make a blog with these conversations.
Just these.
Copy-paste.
Wydren: I'll admit that the special effects look cheesy, but I'm saying if you can get past that, there's a great movie there.
Doom Gaze: Raw and uncensored.
Same diff.
Wydren: Oh, I'd be all for copy/pasting this to our blog.
Doom Gaze: If you could look past the story inconsistencies and recognize why they're there, the Matrix sequels would be great movies!
Wydren: That's the difference. When I say great movie, I'm basing it on things like story, editing, shot composition, etc.
I guess it's just easier for me to make allowances for special effects due to budget, because the budget doesn't really effect the story.
Doom Gaze: shot composition, etc.
How is that different from special effects? Both are cosmetic elements. Kevin Smith didn't even know about shot composition until Dogma came around.
Wydren: Yeah, but his movies aren't great movies. They're fun and enjoyable, but they aren't on most people lists of great movies.
But to be fair, neither are the Matrix sequels.
In fact, I'd be tempted to say that the more Kevin Smith learned about film making, the worse he got.
But that's another discussion and I have to go in about 10 minutes.
Doom Gaze: Call me when you get on the road. :)
Wydren: Sure.
Special effects are different, because not every movie needs special effects. Every movie needs story, dialogue, shot composition, editing, etc.
That's why I used the term "icing on the cake". They're not an essential part.
Doom Gaze: That depends on the story being told.
Wydren: Another problem is the term "great movie". I'm talking movies that are great quailty wise. I doubt the Matrix sequels or any Kevin Smith movie would get 97% fresh on the tomatometer.
I'd be tempted to say that if your story depends on the special effects more than the shot composition, it's a poor movie.
Doom Gaze: The bottom line that is if suspension of disbelief is maintained (i.e. all elements of the movie are in synergy [is that a word?]) then a movie has attained it's goal for a given person.
Wydren: Yeah, synergy is a word. Good one.
Doom Gaze: If it has not been maintained for the majority of people, the movie will be panned.
Wydren: But that's looking at movies in a superficial way.
you've got to get beyond all that.
Doom Gaze: I'm in it for the spectacle. :)
Wydren: Otherwise, old movies are bound to stink. Look at the CGI in Jurassic Park.
Looks dated today. Does that make it a bad movie?
Doom Gaze: I think Jurassic Park still holds up remarkably well.
That's because it doesn't overextend it's reach with the special effects.
Wydren: But you don't think the special effects look dated?
Doom Gaze: I'd have to watch it again to be sure. But I am confident in saying that those special effects still suspend disbelief.
It only has to be enough to reach that milestone.
Wydren: But do you see how that is pretty subjective.
?
Doom Gaze: The original Star Wars still suspends disbelief for me. That's because it's consistent.
The core of my argument is that Dawn is inconsistent. That is was breaks suspension of disbelief.
Wydren: Yeah, but those special effects still look realistic today.
Doom Gaze: I disagree. However, they are consistent.
Wydren: But that suspension of disbelief is based totally on special effects?
Doom Gaze: No.
Wydren: So all those things have to work in tandem, otherwise it's a bad movie? You must not think too many movies are good then.
Doom Gaze: For example, to suspend disbelief in Matrix 2, you have to accept that Neo isn't actually ALL POWERFUL. Yet.
Wydren: But see, that's internally inconsistent.
Doom Gaze: You know me. I love almost everything.
Wydren: Yeah, so obviously you don't put so much weight on stuff in other movies.
Doom Gaze: Like what?
Wydren: Well, the special effects in the Matrix movies wasn't entirely consistent. There were several scenes where you can tell it's a cgi guy.
Or "not real".
Doom Gaze: I didn't notice it on initial viewing.
Wydren: But you realize the limitations, and accept them.
Doom Gaze: I DID notice that some people noticed it though.
I was too busy enjoying the spectacle.
Wydren: I noticed it. But it's fine. The special effects were great, because I took the limitations into account. There's no reason for a story to have those limitations. Plus, I think movies should be about more than just spectacle.
Ok man, I need to get going. Can I call you in a few?
Doom Gaze: The Matrix is a movie that is all about the spectacle. The Bros. have gone on record to this effect. But they wanted to have an action movie that was a bit more than that.
I guess the same could be said of Dawn.
Yes.
Wydren: Ok.