Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

sycasey

Members
  • Content count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sycasey


  1. Yeah, that's what I figured. But it's so misleading! And pointless! Why go out of their way to distance themselves from the V word then? Just say 'yeah we're vampires, but here's more details that the stories got wrong. And here's our Academy. Etc.'

     

    It's like when superhero movies try to make fun of the silly costumes they wore in the comics. I mean, why are we here? I'm watching this movie because I want to see superheroes. It's okay if they look like superheroes.

    • Like 4

  2. I'm still not sure how to vote on this one. I enjoyed the movie, but not sure it's quite a GREAT film on its own terms (likeThe King of Comedy is), and I don't see that it's had a huge cultural legacy (like, say, Wrath of Khan does). I'll wait to read more arguments in the thread here to see if I can be swayed.

     

    I'm not buying Amy's argument for why this film makes better use of the camera than Wrath of Khan does. I think that film makes just as much use of the background/foreground stuff she referenced for The Bad Seed, though at times it's more of a left side/right side divide, owing to the more modern widescreen 2.35:1 frame.

    • Like 1

  3. This is a very strange movie. It's like they took all of the necessary scenes, threw them into a blender, and assigned them at random. Every scene seems to have almost nothing to do with the last. As nonsensical as some of the pop-culture references were, all of the lampshading the screenwriter did with this very silly concept is the only thing that makes it at all watchable. At least it's attempting a campy tone, rather than taking everything deathly seriously.

     

    Anyway, I had some thoughts about Natalie (Sarah Hyland's character). Paul notes that it was strange to have the other characters make fun of her for wearing glasses, like this is something out of the 1950s. By 2014, it seemed like thick-rimmed plastic glasses had become downright fashionable among teenagers, so at first this does seem like a weird throwback trope and an example of lazy writing. But then I realized that at this school, Natalie appears to be the only person who needs glasses. That includes students, teachers, administrators, the royal family, whoever. No one else wears them. Given that the Vision Council of America states that about 64% of the population wears glasses, it seems noteworthy that only one person at this school appears to need corrective lenses. Perhaps there is something about being a vampire (or half-vampire or whatever) that is supposed to eliminate the need for vision correction, but Natalie missed out on it and is forever outcast for that reason? That might go a long way towards explaining her bizarre psychosis.

    • Like 6

  4. I feel that as long as Devin is directing BirthMoviesDeath readers to vote on these polls, there's little chance of any film NOT making it into the canon (at least, of the ones which he supports). This isn't a dig on him at all. It's just from the overall tone of the discussion here, I'd expect a more even result, if not an outright "no".

     

    Hard to say if this is a BMD influence or just people who voted "no" feeling more compelled to post. Devin didn't do the same active campaigning for this one he did with Re-Animator.


  5. Damn, The Motion Picture has a bad rap around here. It is a slow burn sure but its pure sci fi on a scale we rarely ever see, and its undeniably Star Trek. Not to mention some of the most incredible visuals in the genre and a fantastic soundtrack. I appreciate the way it's a polar opposite to Khan while also being the soil that Kirk's story takes root in for WoK.

     

    EDIT: Not to mention some great character work, like Bones' reintroduction and everything with Spock. It's a great movie that has suffered a lot from people only watching it on their dinky home movie setup.

     

    It's suffered a lot from being kinda boring.


  6.  

    Somehow, I doubt that. I checked. Most of them are on Devin's side. Here, it's more an even split. He's looking at these opinions about WoK - Galactiac's view, your's, etc - with a sad shake of the head.

     

    There are a handful of negative takes over there, so it's probably both.

     

    I'd actually say this thread tilts towards the negative (or perhaps mostly "soft no" votes -- people who like the film but don't think it's a Canon film). And yet, it's held a pretty consistent 65-35% lead in the voting.


  7.  

    It's a HUGE factor. They basically folded the budget of the failure-to-launch "Star Trek: Phase II" TV series into "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" budget which dramatically inflated the budget from what it really was, making if extremely unprofitable even though the box office wasn't terrible. To earn some of that back they pretty much stripped STII:TWoK down to the absolute bare bones. It's actually pretty amazing, considering what they had to work with. (for similar reasons, I am very forgiving of Hellraiser IV: Bloodline". Talk about some incredible budgetary & studio shenanigans!)

     

    Indeed. Honestly, I think Amy is conflating "low-budget" with "TV Movie." At one point she notes that the camera just remains in a static master shot sometimes; she attributes this to either the cheapness (budget) or filmmaker laziness (TV Movie). I think that's plainly wrong. Holding a long master shot is usually a CHOICE. A cinematic choice. Check out Every Frame a Painting on "ensemble staging":

     

     

    Now, I don't think Meyer takes his ensemble staging to the same extremes that Bong Joon-Ho does in this video, but the principles are the same: he understands that Star Trek is fundamentally an ensemble piece, so he uses his camera placement to emphasize the ensemble whenever possible. Even if Bones or Sulu or whoever aren't really doing anything major in that scene, he wants them in the shot. He wants you to know they are there.

     

    It's also not "easy" to shoot a scene this way, though it looks deceptively simple. If you watch TV shows, they typically do NOT hold the master for very long. TV directors much prefer to cut to close-ups as soon as possible. It's the most expedient way to draw audience focus and tell the story quickly. If you choose to hold a master shot, it means the actors all have to be on their game and ready to play off of each other. It puts onus on the staging, blocking, and subtle camera movement to help tell the story. And IMO, it also subtly enhances the tension in the scene, whether it be comedic or dramatic tension: the whole thing feels like more of a high-wire act, people performing without a net. A perusal of the careers of Woody Allen and Richard Linklater can demonstrate the subtle power of long takes and ensemble staging. It bothers me when critics take this classical approach as "simple" or "uncinematic." It's subtle, but that's not the same as simple.

    • Like 3

  8. I think it's interesting how in the Boyz N The Hood episode, Devin took John Singleton to task for his unmotivated camera. Meanwhile Amy pointed out how Wrath of Khan is basically a tv movie with it's staging and it's written off as part of the 'charm'. I fear that nostalgia is causing some to lower the bar as to what is a great movie.

     

    I disagree with Amy's characterization of the filmmaking in Wrath of Khan. The limitations are mainly ones of budget (having to re-use sets, not shooting on location, etc.). However, I think Meyer makes good use of the widescreen frame, and the editing does a pretty good job of "covering" for the fact that everyone is standing on cheap-looking sets (and in some cases not even in the scene together). He's not swinging the camera around like Scorsese, but it's a solid "classical" filmmaking approach. The camera is not unmotivated most of the time.

    • Like 2

  9. I haven't commented on my vote yet, so here goes:

     

    I voted yes. The first time I saw the film I liked it very much, but I'm not sure I would have voted for it at that time. However, over the years I have come to see how much it means to people, both hardcore Trek fans and casual ones (I'd count myself in the latter group). It's clearly had a life beyond just being "good for a Star Trek movie." The "Khaaaaan!" scream and Spock death/funeral have entered the larger cultural lexicon, perhaps not on the level of, say, the most iconic Star Wars scenes, but on a level just below that. The clincher for me was watching it last week in preparation for the podcast, and damned if the movie didn't still work. I found it just as entertaining and engrossing as ever. Spock's death and Kirk's speech were still moving, Montalban still a very entertaining villain, and the thematics hit home very well.

     

    Some of the criticisms laid out in this thread make a certain logical sense, but I think miss the point of why the film has power: it is a simple, elemental genre story. So yes, of course the themes are obvious, and of course the conflict lacks nuance: that's the strength of it! Wrath of Khan is about simple, easily understood human themes -- aging, death, revenge -- and it weaves those themes consistently throughout the narrative. That seems easy, but when you think about how many genre films fail at this "simple" task, the focused, muscular storytelling of Khanseems like even more of a miracle. It's not reinventing the wheel in terms of technique, but I think on a technical level (given budget restrictions, etc.), I think it's well made. I didn't have any issues with Meyer's choices re: editing or camera placement.

     

    As for Amy's arguments against it: some of them I think are valid: it's fair to question how well this works for a non-fan, or to point out that Star Trek might be better served by inducting the whole series into the Canon rather than singling out one movie. What I don't like is when she starts getting into "remaking the movie" criticisms. For example, taking issue with the fact that Kirk doesn't ever struggle with wanting revenge himself. Could that be an interesting take if he did? Sure, but at that point you have a different character and a different film with different concerns. You'd practically have to re-write the whole thing to make that work. I'd rather hear about what this film is trying to do and why that does/doesn't work. Whatever Devin's faults may be, I think he's usually good about sticking to that. Sometimes Amy exasperates me with her digressions.


  10. Regardless of what anyone thinks of this movie, this episode was bad. So much (to use an awful neologism) mansplaining. If you're not going to listen to Amy just let her take a day off

     

    It's not mansplaining if the men are actually more knowledgeable about the subject. Devin and Dave certainly are more knowledgeable about Star Trek than Amy is.

     

    This term ("mansplaining") is so badly misused now, it's used to describe ANY time a man says something you don't like to a woman. That's not what it means. It's when a man goes on explaining something to a woman who almost certainly knows more (or at least as much) about the subject than he does. I don't think it's fair to accuse Devin and Dave of that.

     

    If the argument is that they talked too much and didn't allow Amy a chance to give her take, then that's something else (not mansplaining). Personally, I don't think so. Amy got a chance to make her points. Devin and Dave may not have AGREED with those points, but it's not like they didn't actively try to give her space (Dave especially).

    • Like 2

  11.  

     

    I'm a huge Trekkie and I honestly don't consider Wrath of Khan to be "so well plotted and themed and executed" that it can "break out and touch people who otherwise have no interest in the genre."

     

    I think it's an okay, but fun movie that mostly appeals to people that have already watched 60+ hours of a television show. Which really just makes it good supplemental content to a television series than a great film. That's why judging it on its own merit is important. I really don't think this movie has the universal appeal to non-genre lovers that some people think. I also think it's clunkier than people like to admit.

     

    I saw Wrath of Khan before I'd ever seen an episode of the original series, and I immediately understood that it was a good, well-told story. Honestly, the opinion that it doesn't hold up outside of Trek fandom baffles me. It is THE movie that showed Trek could hold up outside of that.

    • Like 1

  12. It is absurd to me that this movie is going to get into the Canon when Empire was utterly shut out with this logic: "Star Wars stands on its own, Empire depends on it". How does this NOT apply to the second Star Trek movie that follows a TV show as well..? This movie would not be a tenth as popular if it stood on its own. Period. And by the rule of precedent, it cannot be allowed in.

     

    Empire was voted out based on "vs." episodes, though. If it had been a stand-alone episode I think there's no question it gets in.

     

    Though I am still baffled by Jurassic Park winning over Empire in that episode.

    • Like 2

  13. EDI playlist:

     

    1. David Bowie - Heroes

    2. The Ramones - The KKK Took My Baby Away

    3. Led Zeppelin - What Is and What Should Never Be

    4. INXS - Need You Tonight

    5. The Skyliners - Since I Don't Have You

    6. The Strokes - Last Nite

    7. Johnny Cash - I've Been Everywhere

    8. Eiffel 65 - Blue (Da Ba Dee)

    9. Bill Medley/Jennifer Warnes - (I've Had) The Time of My Life

    10. The Pixies - Monkey Gone To Heaven

     

    This fairly reveals me as a classic and/or 80s rock fan who occasionally dips into VERY cheesy/campy stuff.

    • Like 9

  14. Nope. At no point did either host give a justification for this being in the canon. This just falls into the general list of "movies we like." Everybody has movies they like. That's nice and it's fun to share those with others. But WHAT makes this a canon film? I don't have anything in particular against the movie. I just can't find any reason to elevate it into a position of prominence above other films.

     

    HA! I started writing this right before the very end with their Amy and Devin's votes and I'm listening as they give their opinions. She just said the same thing. I more often side with Devin's viewpoints, but this time Amy and I are echoing each other.

     

     

    I liked Devin's idea that the film is Canon-worthy because it was prescient about what popular culture would be like in the future. That solidifies my Yes vote.

     

    But I also think sometimes a film can be Canon-worthy if it's just GREAT enough that it has to be seen. The King of Comedy is one of those for me.

    • Like 2

  15.  

     

    I mean it already has a pretty poor audience score on RT. Maybe that's just some kind of hipster backlash that will clear up in a few years, but I think it will just get worse.

     

    But hey, obviously that's not the majority opinion here, so welcome to the canon The Blair Witch Project. I surrender. Really fun discussion, guys.

     

    I wonder where that audience score comes from. A lot of it might be from the original release, when a lot of people went to see it based on the media hype and didn't know what they were in for. Experimental or avant-garde films tend to get bad audience scores, because general audiences don't like feeling confused. It doesn't necessarily prevent them from building a major legacy.


  16.  

    Nostalgia. And I really believe it will fade as more time passes and there are more and more adults who weren't old enough to see it in 1999. I was, but I put it off for 17 years. I think it will feel more and more staged to people; which obviously it is, but when you "feel it" the spell is broken and the film turns into a pumpkin.

     

    Don't think the odds are in your favor on this one, but you are welcome to your opinion.


  17. Yeah I feel very differently. I feel like The Blair Witch Project is a big gimmick and a fad, and as the decades go by it will work for fewer and fewer people and seem less and less important. That doesn't mean people shouldn't experience it for themselves, but it does mean, for my money, it's not a canon movie. I feel similarly about Forest Gump, Shawshank Redemption, and The Sound of Music (though I wouldn't call them gimmicks). Those movies are important to a lot of people, and anyone that's read up on a bit of film history should see them for themselves, but they didn't make it into the canon, and I think it's perfectly justifiable.

     

    This is an interesting case I think, because I can tell that my experience with The Blair Witch Project was dramatically different from the people that love it. But I guarantee if they experienced the movie the way I did there would be no question this movie doesn't belong here. It's just a curiosity to me, not a great film, not even a scary film, and often pretty irritating.

     

    Honestly, I think your personal dislike of the film is blinding you a little bit to its overall cultural impact. I mean, it's already been 17 years since The Blair Witch Project's release and people are still talking about it, and clearly it's still popular enough to inspire a sequel/reboot. I'd say that's enough to qualify it as more than a gimmick or fad. It hasn't faded.

     

    That said, I agree that simply having a large cultural impact and/or influence on future filmmakers isn't BY ITSELF enough to make a film worthy of Canon status. It's a big point in the film's favor, but it's not everything.


  18. Did anyone else think that Sam Shepard's plan to kill Josh Lucas seemed needlessly complicated? His plane is out of fuel! Just let him crash in the ocean, no fuss, no muss. Instead he gives him the location of a secret Alaskan base, and then rather than have him killed as soon as he lands on the tarmac, they all wait to have a phony "doctor" administer poison with a needle. Everyone at this secret base seems in on the "kill Josh Lucas" plan, so why not get it over with right away? Instead, they took exactly the right amount of time to let Josh figure out that it was a setup.

     

    This seems like a sub-Bond villain plan, with none of the usual flair you get in those movies. Well below the standard we should expect from the United States Navy.

    • Like 11

  19. But that's the thing, the structure of the lore, the camerawork, the performances (especially by Heather and the townspeople,) and all the things discussed in the episode are other things the film offers than "a gimmick" and "scares." You can say none of it works for you - that's fine, I feel the same way about A Clockwork Orange and American Beauty - but there are too many elements to this film that have been laid out both in the episode and the thread to reduce it to a gimmick.

     

    Maybe this gets into what they also discussed on the podcast: it's an experimental film. It's not making any concessions towards being "audience friendly." It's actively trying to remove any sense that you're just watching a movie.

     

    For something like A Clockwork Orange or American Beauty there is probably a certain level of technical accomplishment or aesthetic beauty that can be appreciated even if the film isn't "working" for you. With The Blair Witch Project they have (by design) removed those kinds of aesthetics. I can see how that creates a more polarized reaction.

    • Like 2
×