28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[amberlita]

* Julie Andrews! *

Speaking of, I'm watching Victor, Victoria on TCM. What the fuck? This movie is atrocious.

edit: on the other hand...Centauri!

[B-side]

"Toy Story's" weaker visuals will eventually (if they haven't already) create a sort of 'barrier to entry' into the film's world.

If this were ever going to happen, it would've happened with something like A Trip to the Moon, which is over 110 years old. Even college students taking film class for fun find it impressive.

[Irish]

If this were ever going to happen, it would've happened with something like A Trip to the Moon, which is over 110 years old. Even college students taking film class for fun find it impressive.

Honestly, that makes no sense in the larger context of the conversation.

[Watashi]

Who really cares about dated effects? No one on this forum does. I don't even know why we are arguing this.

[Irish]

Who really cares about dated effects? No one on this forum does. I don't even know why we are arguing this.

Speak for yourself & don't be a douche. If you want to move the thread in another direction, maybe you could throw out another topic for discussion?

[B-side]

Honestly, that makes no sense in the larger context of the conversation.

Sure it does. You're arguing that a film's "dated" look will create a barrier in which people won't be able to appreciate it, and I've given a fine example of how untrue that is, since you seem to favor arguing from a populist standpoint, rather than a personal or practical one.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I can't make a useful generalization about all kids, but I know that, when I was young, I liked movies that looked great for their time but are primitive in key ways today. Pinocchio, The Wizard of Oz, Jason and the Argonauts, Star Wars. But I still enjoyed them, most likely because they had strong stories and a sense of imagination to their effects.

I think imagination goes a long way, and Toy Story has plenty of it. Sid's nightmare creations, original toys like Buzz and the claw aliens, etc. More importantly, the story is rock-solid, and the premise behind it has immediate appeal: what kid wouldn't immediately be excited by the idea that toys are alive?

I'd bet that, had I seen the film as a child (instead of a twelve-year-old), I wouldn't have given a lick about the sophistication of the effects.

Also, I think the filmmakers were very savvy to make their story so predominantly about stiff, plastic toy characters. Great example of writing with limitations in mind.

[Irish]

Sure it does. You're arguing that a film's "dated" look will create a barrier in which people won't be able to appreciate it, and I've given a fine example of how untrue that is, since you seem to favor arguing from a populist standpoint, rather than a personal or practical one.

Pointing to cinema studies students here is a form of self-selection bias. You're talking about people who are already interested in the subject and highly motivated to watch movies like "A Trip to the Moon." (This is aside from the fact that the group isn't choosing to see the movie, because they don't control the syllabus. The professor is choosing to show it to them).

[Irish]

I'd bet that, had I seen the film as a child (instead of a twelve-year-old), I wouldn't have given a lick about the sophistication of the effects.

I think that's true, but only up to a point. Audiences seem pretty unforgiving these days (witness the pasting Ang Lee received over his "Hulk," even before the movie was released).

The thing that has me curious is that the medium gets better exponentially every year. It's easier to tell when a digital movie was made than with other forms of animation. Absent outside knowledge and cultural cues, I don't think most people would be able to tell that Fleischer's "Superman" shorts were made almost twenty years earlier than "What's Opera, Doc?" or "Sleeping Beauty." But with digital, it's a lot more obvious. Even the low end stuff of today looks better than the high end stuff of ten years ago.

Time will tell if any kind of hard bias will form. Outside a certain very young age range (and motivated movie nerds), I think it will. I'm basing that assumption on a US culture, which gets ten thousand more entertainment options every year, that largely eschews black and white movies ("too old") and foreign films ("I don't go to the movies to read"). It's an entertainment culture not predisposed to give what may be flawed, or different, material much of a chance.

[Qrazy]

I agree partially with both sides of the argument. That is to say that storytelling comes first and a well told and engaging story will endure the test of time. That said some effects do date and some date more quickly than others. The same is true of both film and videogames. I will use the videogame example first because I think lessons applicable to film can be gleaned from it. Some genres of games date more quickly than others, the first person shoot for instance. Wolfenstein and Doom are horribly graphically dated first person shooters and because there isn't much of a story in either one, at this point they can only really be enjoyed from a nostalgic point of view or the gameplay/atmosphere. A game like Chrono Trigger however, which is a top down RPG action/adventure game is somewhat dated but still hugely enjoyable because it has a great story and also the fantastic art design keeps it from seeming as graphically dated. To be clear though the most important part of a game is not graphics or story but gameplay. A game must be constructed so that it is fun to play. So no matter how bad it looks by today's standard a well constructed game is still fun to play today (Pac-man).

The same is true with film. 2D animation doesn't date all that much for the most part (unless there was almost no budget to begin with). A Disney film made 50 years ago and one made 10 years ago aren't that vastly different. Animation improvements have been made sure but at the end of the day they aren't that different to significantly impact the viewing. Granted Rebuild of Evangelion 2.0 looks amazing compared to say Takahata's The Little Norse Prince.

CGI is different though. It is a medium of storytelling which does date quite drastically. Like Wolfenstein or Doom (although not as badly as those), graphically Toy Story is horribly dated. That being said, the great art design and story on display can overcome this shortcoming and overall the film remains one of the better instances of the genre.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Speaking of prior conversations,

I finally watched The Iron Giant. Excellent filmery. I'd held off for years because cultural osmosis made it clear what the ending was gonna be. I mean, if you know the basic premise, you know it's a tearjerker, and you know the word "Superman," you can easily piece it all together.

Still, excellent, and that ending was satisfyingly emotional. The big surprise for me was how wonderful Christopher MacDonald was as Kent Mansley. I understood completely where he was coming from, and I like how his plausible concerns transformed him into a gibbering coward by the end of the film, and MacDonald's vocal performance shows his ability to turn between comedy and villainy on a dime.

[Sycophant]

For whatever it's worth, I played Doom for the first time ever a few months ago and was very impressed with every aspect of it.

[Qrazy]

For whatever it's worth, I played Doom for the first time ever a few months ago and was very impressed with every aspect of it.

You were impressed with these graphics?



Come on bro.

[Winston*]

The bit in Doom II where you get the Cyberdemon to fight the Spider Mastermind is up there with the best of Pixar's canon.

[Irish]

The bit in Doom II where you get the Cyberdemon to fight the Spider Mastermind is up there with the best of Pixar's canon.

Man, you really gotta start working harder on your material. :lol:

[Winston*]

All those hours I spent writing the bot that made that post were all for naught.

[Irish]

All those hours I spent writing the bot that made that post were all for naught.

:lol: See, now that one was funny!

[Sycophant]

You were impressed with these graphics?



Come on bro.

Yes, I was impressed. Its art direction is atmospheric, clever, and interacts with the design of the levels to make a cohesive, navigable space for the player to play in.

I suppose there's an amount of "for its time" or "with its limitation" in my considerations. Obviously, it's less graphically impressive than loading up last month's releases on my PS3. But Doom is a great videogame and isn't made irrelevant for the same reasons Toy Story and Ub Iwerks's animation in early Disney shorts aren't irrelevant or unwatchable.

EDIT: Somehow I missed the fact that you said "can only really be enjoyed from a nostalgic point of view or the gameplay/atmosphere" and if I had caught that the first time around, I wouldn't have said anything.

[Qrazy]

Yes, I was impressed. Its art direction is atmospheric, clever, and interacts with the design of the levels to make a cohesive, navigable space for the player to play in.

I suppose there's an amount of "for its time" or "with its limitation" in my considerations. Obviously, it's less graphically impressive than loading up last month's releases on my PS3. But Doom is a great videogame and isn't made irrelevant for the same reasons Toy Story and Ub Iwerks's animation in early Disney shorts aren't irrelevant or unwatchable.

EDIT: Somehow I missed the fact that you said "can only really be enjoyed from a nostalgic point of view or the gameplay/atmosphere" and if I had caught that the first time around, I wouldn't have said anything.

I added it afterward to be more in line with my own sentiment and the sentiment of the rest of my post. My point was that in films and videogames visual effects can date which can impact one's appreciation for a film/game, but if the storytelling/gameplay rises above this issue than that issue is less of a detriment. That said I find FPS's particularly suffer from becoming dated quickly. I have no problems playing old school side scrolls or RPG's but I tried to play Deus Ex last year and couldn't get more than 5 minutes in I was so nauseated by the movement/graphics of the game.

[Irish]

That said I find FPS's particularly suffer from becoming dated quickly.

I agree, except in the case of "Quake." That game seems immortal. I was blown away by the 'Quake Live' port, so you could play the old co-op games right in your browser.

[B-side]

Pointing to cinema studies students here is a form of self-selection bias.

Sounds precisely like what you were doing by selecting a group of nameless young people who mysteriously hate dated CGI and allow it to completely prevent them from enjoying an older film.

[Rowland]

I suddenly have a hankering to play Doom 64, Hexen, and the first Turok. I'd probably tire of them after 15 minutes apiece, but still.

[Izzy Black]

You seem to be arguing from taste, which is fine, I guess. But that's not really what my argument was ever about.

That's not really clear to me.

Not so much. I'd say "Blade Runner" is more a marvel of production design and cinematography than it is a technical achievement (there's no F/X in it that Lucas and ILM weren't doing in the "Star Wars" films).

I didn't say it broke ground per se in terms of effects. I'm talking more about its execution.

In the realm of digital animation, there is.

Faster and cheaper rendering makes more things possible. Look back again at "Toy Story" versus "Toy Story 3." The third film has an enormous number of set ups and locations over the first. "3" has much more complex compositions and much more action. It depicts environments that they just couldn't do in 1995, and they couldn't do them because of the limits of the tech.

Again, it isn't "more is better," for me. I don't think Toy Story 3 is substantially better than the first visually because the environments are more complex, or because there are more set ups and locations. It's nice that Toy Story 3 takes advantage of technological progress, and it's doing so certainly may make the film different in a lot of ways, but not necessarily better.

I actually respect the principle that I think is motivating your argument, but I just don't think it's going to work in all cases, and for me, it doesn't work here. Here's one way I can respect it. If I thought, when I saw Toy Story, there were some particularly weak visual elements, and with the advancement of digital technology, the sequels improved on these errors, then you'd have a point. And I agree there can be this kind of progress. But this assumes, again, that I was some how disappointed by the visuals of the original in the first place. I can also get behind the idea that Toy Story 3 could have potentially built on the visuals of the first in a way that would have put the original to shame, but again, I just don't think that obtains in this case. What progress there is seems pretty marginal, and more importantly, what counts as "progress" isn't merely mapped onto technical development. It assumes, for instance, that I would rather see "unblocky" figures in my Toy Story movies and more involved environments. But I don't prefer that, so it's hard to see how there's much room for improvement here.

My only point here is that technological progress doesn't automatically equal improvement in aesthetic quality or beauty. It only achieves this relative to whatever aesthetic normative standards are in place ('X film should look like this'!). As for my standards with regard to Toy Story, there's little improvement over the visuals in the sequels. The original film still just looks damned good to me. My suspicion is that it always will too.

[Irish]

@B-side: Uh. No. Not at all.

@Israfel: I can't say too much else without repeating myself (much to Watashi's eternal boredom) or posting a series of screen caps and smooshing them into your face. That probably wouldn't be constructive or interesting for either of us.

I enjoyed that last post of yours, though. Good thoughts, and fair enough.

[Izzy Black]

CGI is different though. It is a medium of storytelling which does date quite drastically. Like Wolfenstein or Doom (although not as badly as those), graphically Toy Story is horribly dated. That being said, the great art design and story on display can overcome this shortcoming and overall the film remains one of the better instances of the genre.

I don't agree. The reason Wolfenstein and Doom looks so dated is because they are 3d video games that strive for some level of realism or photorealism. These games are built around the premise that realism is the standard and 3d technology is the means to that end. As 3d technology has progressed, those games clearly begin to date as the the amount of detail, texture, and modeling of its successors eclipse the technology (and thus style) of those games.

Toy Story, on the other hand, doesn't have 'realism' or 'photorealism' as an obvious end or standard. It's something more like quasi-cartoonish-realism. Really, for me, Toy Story creates its own unique stylistic univerise that's a charming blend of the cartoonish and the realistic. I've tried to stress this since my original post. Again, I like the fact that the original Toy Story isn't as sleek as the third, that it's more blocky or "toyish," even. In the realm of artistic animation and cartoons, the standards for quality and greatness vary considerably. What looks good for Toy Story won't be the same as what looks good for some 3d style anime film, and what looks good for one 3d style CGI film may not be the same as for another. Style considerations, then, are very relevant here.