Shame.

And THE HOWLING was just fine the way it was, thank you.

Didn't the Underworld flicks make money? Didn't Twilight make a shitload of money? I'm not advocating for films of their quality, merely pointing out two films about classic monsters that made money without needing to be a remake (ignoring the fact that Twilight was a book series, of course).

If you producers had ONE iota of intelligence, you'd come up with your own story instead of piggybacking on someone else's genius.

Just give me a damn call. I'll help.

If you liked the ned DOTD, fine, I got no problem with it. But I can see no reason why it had the same title as the original save for a crude attempt to cash in on its cult fame. Zack Snyder's DOTD has nothing to do with Romero's and should of had its own unique title.

Like I said, original title means we wouldn't even be having this discussion and the movie itself would be judged by itself instead of being compared to the original.

I used to laugh at the whole.."Avatar will fuck your eyeballs" hyperbole...but now I swear to god I hope it does...SOMEONE needs to inject some life and creativity into this bankrupt town.

However, I very much doubt that's the same case here, that its why the producers are remaking AAWiL. I do not think they have an idea for a werewolf that travels to London, and in order for it to not be called a ripoff, they'll just call it a remake.

Isn't that the whole point of remakes anyway? What I meant, was this: in the argument for and against remakes, there is usually the opinion that they should just retitle the remake. What I meant was that retitling it would draw even more criticisms because it would be deemed a ripoff.

I guess the best thing to do would be to tell everyone its a remake, but change the title in some small way. Something stupid like "Dawn of the Dead: Requiem".

In fact, just add Requiem to the end of this remake's title. Problem solved.

I mean, imagine how hard it would be to raise money for a Werewolf movie nowadays. No investors getting to feel comfortable in putting money into that. But you tell him you are remaking AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, and point out how the original was a hit and still a popular film, then maybe somebody will feel like it is a good investment.

Biggest victim of this recession - us movie goers. We'll be stuck with nothing but remakes, family movies and adaptations of books, comics and toys for awhile.

In fact, they probably only kept the mall to keep it somewhat similar to Romero's. I bet they could of lost the mall and no one would of cared - they could have been held up in a school or an office building or a hospital or whatever. The mall didn't play a part like it did in the original.

As for "Why a mall?" Because malls are awesome. And you could survive for weeks in there, unlike a school or office building. That's easy. I'd waste all my time in the arcade. If this were the late 90's, I mean.

So, if done right by someone would great vision, the story of a girl and her young brother stalked by a tiger after a hurricane has decimated the area could be great. I'm more interested in that kind of film that this kind of crappy remake.

Plus, I love the title's allusion.

TheHOWLING was the"pioneer"!

NO

If you MUST do anything with this movie, how about a sequel/follow-up that doesn't fucking suck. Get Pegg & Wright, so we can forget about the CGI shitfest that was Paris.

I second that emotion. I have The Howling first, with AWIL a close second! IMO

I think for some reason audience members can handle people ripping off another filmmakers ideas as long as he doesn't try to usurp his place and makes the newer version different enough from the original. I mean, 28 Days Later is a big rip-off of a lot of Romero's ideas but Danny Boyle never had to face the scrutiny that Snyder did because he didn't call his film DAWN OF THE DEAD.

Final argument for ripping off - Brian De Palma. He has half-a-dozen movies that are rip offs of Hitchcock movies that can stand on their own. Ripping other people off - it is an American tradition.

I usually buy a ticket to a movie that deserves my money, and after, I'll check out the crap de rigueur!

Equus, Logans Run, AWIL! Nice!

And The Omen just took the basic idea of Rosemary's Baby and went one step further with it. I wouldn't call that a ripoff either.

But I see your point. Back then, you could remake a film and you did so for different reasons. It wasn't brand recognition (as evidenced by the different titles), and that's all today's braindead producers are concerned with- the name, and that's it. That's why we hate hearing these stories, because we know the filmmakers don't give a shit about doing the story or its characters justice. Unless you're a Carpenter or a Jackson or a Cronenberg with a real love and respect for the original (and you're pretty damn creative to boot), we're not going to believe this bullshit.

But for the record, the transformation scene in Werewolf of London (when he transforms while walking behind the pillars) is still my favorite.

Today though we don't get inspired, we get lazy fucks who just want to rip off (in a bad way) other peoples work and the good will their film generates. I understand why Hollywood makes remakes, in a financial/marketing sense, but as a fan of movies God I detest their cowardice.

Other than that, I will only see a remake if I think it will be good and there hasn't been any film that fits that criteria for quite awhile.

GO BUY SOME RIGHTS TO SOME FREAKIN' BOOKS OR SOMETHING. GO SEARCH FOR SOME SPECS! GHEEZ WHIZ PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But then, like you said above, those past "remakes" were all different films in their own rights. The producers of today's remakes are just looking for a quick buck, looking to hire some music video or commercial director who will be easy to boss around. Then they throw some DP on the project to give it a very slick sheen, toss in some Abercrombie models, and voila. Stupid teenager fodder.

I've been inspired by a lot of great films, and my little notebook of ideas has a few gems I'm sure would make a good film. But none of them are remakes.

Wait I take that back, only one of them is. But that film isn't a classic in any sense of the word.

My Bloody Valentine- another remake I refused to see. If I had a free pass, though, I wouldn't *pass* it up (snicker). I don't enjoy crapping on films I haven't seen (though I do it a lot with remakes... a bit hypocritical, I know), so I'd watch it.

Remakes and reality shows - is this what American has to resort too?

Everyone here pisses an moans about every remake that comes along but you all go and pay money to see them. Every ticket you buy is a vote for Hollywood to keep making them. Once the box-office dies, the remakes will die. Hollywood isn't making films to make you happy. They're making films for money. Movies are to Hollywood, what a cheeseburger is Mcdonalds.

SHE SUNK THE TITANIC.

IN 2010... THE TERROR COMES TO LONDON.

It's happening.

Avatar should be fascinating.

Never mind, it made a lot of money and the tweens are happy.

Some elements of the David Lynch movie were better, (Francesca Annis is just too beautiful for words) but it's pretty good.

The second mini-series, with Susan Sarandon though, was a fucking joke. Avoid like the plague.

and casablanca was redone as barb wire.

Back on topic: this is a shit idea. Do something original for chrissakes. SO happy the writers are off strike...

That's not to say that all CG effects are worthless, just not as intriguing. When CG is coupled with great artistry, it can be a work of magic, like the Lord of the Rings. However, even in those instances CG is usually backed up with practical effects.

Might I suggest Seth Green and Topher Grace for the college guys. Both would have to dial it down a bit, but it could work nicely. Get Landis back for it, I doubt anyone else would get the tone right, and end up going too comedy with it.

I preferred AWIL over The Howling due to the tone, as well as the crappy Were-Gerbil thing at the end of The Howling; that knocked it down a few points.

A francise huh? An American Werewolf in Russia? in Bangkok? The Paris edition sucked enough thank you.

Also maybe that Blues Brothers 3000 that Landis needs to poop out can happen soon as well.

I saw this in the theater as a kid and I remember covering my ears and hiding part of my vision - that's how fucking scary those scenes were and yet, you barely got a glimpse of "the monster" the entire time. Pure pacing and atmosphere and purely brilliant true horror film-making. You can disagree with the overall quality of the film but if the pacing of those scenes are "slow" or "boring" to you, then you're apprently not one to appreciate nuanced, and dare I say "quality" horror. I could be wrong but clever methods of dispatch do not make for even 5 seconds of quality pacing and mood in a horror movie.

I'd say AWiL was true 'Lightning in a bottle' filmmaking and not even greater talent than what was originally involved could reproduce the film in any remote stretch of the imagination.

But go for it you money grubbing dickheads. You unoriginal types are like slugs..leaving a trail of slime in your wake while the giants whose shoulders you attempt to stand on left trails of ass-kickery.

I wonder sometimes if these remake/sequel/prequel obsessives aren't really lost cinema geeks just like us except they don't realize that in their search for the cinema nostalgia of youth, they're green-lighting hollywood into the dirt in terms of quality and compelling cinema in most genres.

Congratz on making what finally sounds to be pure ACTION PORN in the form of that Transformers movie so successful. As in nothing beyond "Action" worth watching in Bay's modern work like there's nothing beyond the "Sex" worth watching in actual porn movies. There was more 'story' in the "torture porn" movies a few years back so I say we use this term officially "Action Porn". Love it, or else reveal yourself as having no balls cause action = balls and transformers = action so no-transformers = no-balls! natch!

I hope the second week fall-off gives you assholes permanent vertigo and makes you piss yourself randomly.

Especially seeing that after years of arguing against the stupidity of insisting upon lowest setting possible for what's considered 'quality', stupid makes a predictable comeback in the form of all of the assholes insisting that you cannot criticize Bay's work until (a) you make your own action-movie blockbuster and earn hundreds of millions of dollars or (b) realize that not every movie ever made is Citizen Kane of The Godfather and stop being insistent that all movies but those 2 movies are shite...or is it that you can't always get Shakespeare?

I'm not even sure what I'm *allowed* to think about Bay's work anymore.

REAL effects is whatever gets the fucking job done. Mirrors, Mechanics, Rubber or Rendered. It's the fucking PEOPLE that use them you should be venerating or damning. It's funny how none of you (including you Quint) are aware of how you jump back and forth between simplistic hero worship of a 'name' in Baker and then mindlessly flipflopping back into a subjective vilification of a bloody TECHNIQUE as if THAT'S responsible. Which argument IS it? Make up your minds! Everyone shits on CG in GENERAL because there aren't any heroes they can latch onto - moronic. A computer doesn't do SHIT by itself. A PERSON does the good/bad animation, and even all the secondary stuff like physics/procedural effects have to be purpose-written by a techie and then art-directed by a PERSON. And because you can all say "Baker! Bottin!" you forget that there was a SHITLOAD of BADLY done practical makeup FX back in the day. You forget or aren't even aware or the majority of lumpy built-up prosthetics and awful puppets. But many of you were kids when the CG/digital age arguably started in 89 with The Abyss, so you don't even KNOW what the general level of work was like back then! The divide between cheap budgets and quality stuff with better resources is the SAME now in cg - and the unifying factor is that there isn't enough time allotted to either.

In short, most of those commenting here aren't old enough to know shit/don't know enough about oldschool to make a balanced argument, and those who are shouldn't be so fucking disingenuous/should know better.

And yeah, the "looks REAL" thing. Be more careful with your semantics. In the old practical stuff people ignore the fact that even if it sort of looked real in the literal sense because it was physically there, it was still generally rooted to the fucking spot (which can mess with characterisation), or the movement it DID have wasn't generally natural/character based but borne from the physical limitations of the mechanics or a hand up it's arse. The way the latex/material could drag the lower part of the face & nose down when moving the mouth and got in the way of a PERFORMANCE. All-or-nothing eyeblinks (or in Dark Crystal's case, half-blinks restricted by the structure and materials). So certainly THAT part of the character didn't 'look' real. And even when CG looks real in a still frame, generally movement give it away too. But people don't generally look at still frames of cg effects.

And yet you guys don't even REALISE (admittedly due to Oz's brilliance) that Yoda never said/lipsynced more than "ba ba ba". Or you excuse the militation as part of the 'charm'. Which is fine, but you'd fucking jump all OVER it if some CG creature didn't have a decent amount of mouth movement. All I'm saying is you guys either don't notice or choose to play down the importance of the many drawbacks of the old stuff to concentrate on it's merits. Which is also fine, but you CAN"T change the rules for CG by being more unforgiving without looking like MORONS. Which is exactly what is happening here and in every other TB where these sort of criticisms are ignored.

If you ARE talking about the people, then be fair there too. Blame PEOPLE for the lousy CG. And Praise PEOPLE for the good stuff. And what no-one including QUINT seems to acknowledge is that people like Dennis Muren, Phil Tippett, Ken Ralston and John Dykstra are responsible for BOTH the old effects techniques AND the new ones, and brought the same eye for detail and lateral problem-solving to BOTH.

ESPECIALLY in CG where most people are using the SAME programs and tools (proprietary code/programs notwithstanding for big houses), it's these same PEOPLE that are the difference between great stuff and the rest of the dross. The SAME as in the old days when everyone had the same basic toolkit and techniques for going to work on an actor's face or making a puppet. Whether it's Muren running the film backward and shooting upside down with dry-for-wet, or him getting past the early limitations of enveloping/tearing geometry by taken the damn frame into photoshop and retouching the problem on a 2-d pixel basis, laterally solving a complicated problem in a simple way, it's the SAME brilliance. Tippet knowing fur should be ticked due to the agouti gene brings the SAME convincing quality whether it's a practical fur suit or an ad for Blockbuster, and other people STILL don't do it, either practically or in cg..

I'm not saying the old stuff was crap. It was brilliant and I love it to bits. I try to be objective enough to not ignore the limitations, because if you can RECOGNISE the drawbacks of something you love you can move on to overcoming them. And you can FAIRLY judge the plusses AND minuses of new techniques.

Like I said in the last TB, People were dumping on CG and Benjamin Button BECAUSE it was CG. The joke there was that it was based on the work of Baker and Tsuji's incredible maquettes, and used CG for it's strengths in doing something that COULDN'T be done accurately with makeup. Cannom did the oldschool ADDITIVE stuff. The DD guys did the SUBTRACTIVE effects. And Craig Barron (also one of the greatest of the oldschool guys whose Matte World does better matte effects than EVER - QUINT that's aimed at you) did the amazing digital matte fx work. My argument is all the best approaches were used for the right reasons and toes weren't stepped on. They didn't have to account for Tim Roth's nose (injoke for anyone paying attention).

If you're gonna fight, make it a fair fight. Otherwise you need to understand why your bleating is dismissed. Ya buncha ignorant whingers.

Which is why the floating mountains that were meant to be in Kubrick's 2001 will finally turn up in Cameron's Avatar.

Many many MORE folks just bleat CG is shit than talk about the people. But you're right. I spent so long on my little rant I'm sure I missed many intervening posts.

And yes, I'm needed on set (in my newer guise as White)!

I'm not disagreeing that there is a lot of horrible CGI, I mean look at Assylum Films but to say CGI werewolf transformations look rubbery when the transformation in AWIL was rubber and looks like ruber stretching? Come on buddy, the CG werewolf effects in the latest Underworld movie and the in Van Helsing from a few years a go destroy AWIL. If you want to compare old school, The Howling always had a better werewolf transformation and werewolf for my money.

Dick Smith's amazing Sallieri had highlights that were almost fluoro yellow so that they would read in the agreed-upon tungsten/warm/yellowish lighting. It woulda looked like shit if the lighting had changed. That's the sorta thing I'm getting at.

But there are far too many instances where a special effect looks great, but you know its a special effect because you know it couldn't be achieved any other way, and so you decry it as "bad". But those people who do so fail to take into account that had that very same effect been achieved with practical effects, the results would still be the same- it would look like a special effect. A good one, but still you'd know its an effect.

People just toss around the "crap CGI!" statement too much nowadays. Like people that hate Transformers. They hate the films and then say the films had terrible special effects. If anything, the best part about those films *are* the special effects; they are pretty stellar.

People just need some perspective.

Maybe I shoulda done it in the Transformers TB instead... they even use the c word in there!!

And yeah I keep saying in these TBs that there will NEVER be a time when we will be completely fooled. Ever. Because these movies show us stuff which CAN'T possibly be real. Where our brains are concerned that's both the anachronism AND the fascination.

The irony is that's why we GO to movies and are into genre fiction. The idiocy is that these people are COMPLAINING about it! Genre and outrageous fiction have completely taken over mainstream media and the nerds are STILL complaining!! Inherited the Earth - and STILL not happy!

However, I do like your taking people to task for not knowing their history and for parroting the 'company' line bullshit. Kids gotta learn.

There was crowd replacement/extension in Robert Wise's original The Day the Earth Stood Still. And it was done for exactly the same reason it's done now. Money. They moved the crowd around and did a photochemical quadrupal exposure. Wise couldn't afford what Lean did in foreign countries where they'd work for almost nothing. Nowadays they can't afford to pay shit (or no pay but meals and drinks) like then. In America or elsewhere.

Jobacca. same deal. That pic's funny and ironic, but there was more model work in episode 1 than all 3 previous 'old-school' pics combined. That you don't know that says a lot. Also, there's no difference at ALL between greenscreen and what they used to use - bluescreen. Both used in the same way for the same result. On Alien 4 even redscreen was used. On Spiderman everything was shit because the colour of the screen , digital or photochemical is generally predicated by the absence of that colour in the foreground elements they're trying to extract. On Spiderman 1 they were annoyed because they had a red-and-blue costumed guy fighting a green costumed guy! But there's much more latitude with digital. You don't even have to light the screen so much. It used to be blue because there was less grain structure there for a better edge matte.

One such thread by Rick, of many: http://tinyurl.com/mtq6s7

Rick has also written several CG sculpting tutorial for Gnomon:

http://tinyurl.com/neylyq

http://tinyurl.com/nrje4v

As a CG artist myself... Give up the ghost Harry. Practical effects are great, but they are also practically limited and can only achieve so much. The technology behind CG is moving so quickly that the need for practical work to achieve photoreality will be gone - on a regular basis - before you know it.

NO! The reason CGI is shit is because 90% of movies take it too far. They stretch credibility, 'because they can'. Suddenly they have their CGI creations jumping up walls, charging down tunnels, making huge leaps with no adherence to the laws of physics, friction, or gravity. It's 'movement' that comes off worst of all.

You know I ROBOT and I AM LEGEND could have been decent dystopic sci-fi movies but they were both fucked up by this sort of thinking.

Why have a bunch of CG robots hanging on Will Smith's car and jumping all around the tunnel during a high speed chase? It looked about as real a a fucking Loony Tunes cartoon. Why have those CG plague vampires running up the walls and sucking the drama and reality of the situation away (fuck just give em a bit of make up and red contact lenses like 28 DAYS LATER, save a fortune and looks twice as good). And these are just two of the literally hundreds of genre films that CG has fucked up.

I'm kinds curious to see it, rather than excited to see it. Not yet sold on Benicico being able to carry a movie. Any opinions?

That still leaves 10% of movies that get it right... STARSHIP TROOPERS, T2, LOTR, THE MATRIX, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, a few off the top of my head.

I kind of liken it to people saying analog is better than digital for music. In that case I think it comes down to appreciation of turn table and needles, vs the ease and clear sound of digital. I have audiophile friends who will fight to the death proclaiming analog as the best.

I think some of it just comes from people wanting to run counter to the conventions of the day. For me, a high end Analog is equal to or slightly superior than digital. But it is still a subjective thing.

I think high end CGI is equal to and in some cases superior than practical - but not always. It is subjective.

Although the ONLY thing I would defend about Legend (which I really didn't like - especially the poor-man's CHris Cunnignham/Come to Daddy-which WAS the inspiration-design), is the running about. They DID try it practically, with stuntpeople. They're vampires though. Which means they're running around at night right? Even WITH trained stunties and wires or whatever, there was just no getting around that real people are looking out for obstacles and trying not to break their fucking necks. It. Didn't. Work. But in the script these things ARE literally out for blood. Now which approach serves character and story better? CG. But speaking of that, it's disingenuous to say CG fucked up the adaptation of IAL. The fact that the writers didn't even UNDERSTAND the context and even the meaning of the title will give you a clue. Writers and directors need to step up. Kaufman can do it. Others can't. This why we've been getting superhero movies for the last decade - because the work of combining writing and visuals has been FOR them to a great degree in the source material.

I, Robot's biggest problems are a star and writers whose pop-culture ebonics obscure and distract from the central racial/slavery allegory. And the biggest embarrassment for me in that chase even beyond overkill (redundant in a story about killer robots but anyway) is the old cliché of the hero getting out of it by luck/accident. Zero character progression, and as Hitchcock said, action IS character. I have a bias in that example but I think those points are fair. I get your "because they can" thing though. Absolutely.

at full moon...

However, everyone who is wary of too much CGI pretty much admits that it can be used to great effect if it's in the right hand. Claiming that people are Luddites because they are cautious of a new technology is attacking an argument that isn't being offered.

Don't lump me in by making a gross oversimplification with the box-office/grosses thing. A huge sign of success? Sure. Mass appeal? Yep. Quality? No fucking way. Shrek made squillions and is a piece of utter shit with hardly any redeeming qualities. Same for Polar Express. Same for Mamma Mia. Your dreamers/practical thing isn't very well thought out. And even the statement about AICN being created to be a 'dreamers' site has nothing necessarily to do with the people who post in the TBs. Harry IS a dreamer. But he can't write for SHIT. Grammar and spelling and even a lucid through-line are abysmal for someone who gets PAID (which is the true definition of professional) to write. It's not even good CONVERSATIONAL writing. I suck at Maths and Science, and topped English and Art. You don't even come off like a dreamer, but you may well be pretty damned stoned! And nostalgia practically defines our generation and why we're in here talking about hundred million dollar movies based on our childhoods. Jay-zus!

I 'believed' in the bugs in STARSHIP TROOPERS, but less so with the Gorilla turning invisible in THE HOLLOW MAN. That was a hugely ambitious shot to try and pull off, and I don't think they quite nailed it.

Action scenes are more believeable and imho more exciting when you can clearly tell its a stuntman rather than CG.

And Spidey doing what he does where they make him hit poses from the comics or hit a wall at a rate the laws of physics tell us he can't survive but the characterisation tells us he can is one of those things that will ALWAYS look wrong. Same with the Hulk jumping miles at a time. He did it in the comics and they kept it. But a photoreal being of that size and mass and therefore momentum and inertia can NEVER have that ability. And I don't know if you can make a qualitative statement about things regressing decades when it A) wasn't even an option the old way; and B) is a character thing that will ALWAYS requite a heaping helping of suspension of disbelief. And I have no problem with suspending mine.

Also, I would hope that I'm one of those who are cautious but embrace new tech. But there ARE heaps of folk just literally stating CG is shit outright in here, which is what gets me started in every one of these practical FX type Tbs. Cheers.

And lest you think I have no sense of humour whatsoever, fuck YES someone should have kidnapped the OH&S guy and hooked them up with a bit of the old White Vader.

Speaking of which, I don't know why my handle regressed to Half Vader when I'm White Vader these days (in His homour). Don't they get rid of your old handle?

And when it's cg it's interesting to note that people rave about Gollum and it's the fantastic performance and animation in concert, and no-one notices in his introductory scene (as I recall, don't quote me verbatim here) that wind and hair may be flying but Gollum's isn't at all (and no, I didn't notice at first either). Which makes no practical/logical sense, but if you're watching THAT then it's getting in the WAY and you just missed a great scene. It's about picking battles. Make his hair move when people won't notice because he's all blurry from moving so much anyway, or spend longer on the split personalitymonologue/dialogue to tweak the tiny stuff? That's what I mean.

Austinite, I guess we agree on a lot then after all, just not the B.O. Gross and 2 types thing. On JP the fx were intercut more than mixed, which makes sense because tracking cg onto a practical plate (Galli stampede being the main one) was er, prehistoric compared to now where you can actually mix cg pieces with prosthetic fx like Del Toro likes to do or Terminator 3 & 4. I get what you meant though. But yep - I love the "best of all worlds" approach.

Doubt if anyone can answer this, but I haven't seen Stallone's JUDGE DREDD for years and am trying to remember - near the start there's a long aerial shot that swoops over Mega City. An fx shot that really wowed me at the time. Is it a practical shot with models or a CG one?

But I'm drawing a blank as to which film it could have been...

Lionel Richie also danced on the ceiling back in the Eighties. I think he's the true innovator.

Except that all the main characters mock Sly's voice/delivery. That shit's hilarious.

Carradine mentioned it in his book Spirit of Shaolin.

"Let me tell you a story. When FIST FULL OF DOLLARS opened in Tokyo, Kurosawa's friends called him up and said `You must see this picture.'

Kurosawa replied, "Yes I understand it is rather like YOJIMBO.'

`No, it's not like YOJIMBO; it is YOJIMBO. You have to sue these people.'

`I can't sue them,' he responded.

`Why not?'

`Because,' Kurosawa confessed, `YOJIMBO is Dashiel Hammet's RED HARVEST."

Maybe I should do a pile of White Vader to help.

Dredd sucks, but Chris Cunningham's (he was Chris Halls at the time) animatronic ABC warrior and prosthetic Mean Machine makeup are mega-cool. Halls/Cunningham started out as a bit of a Bisley clone on the comic itself. What's the story/urban legend? He was like 18/19 and head of the art dept/sculpting on Alien 3 or something? Or was it this movie? I have vague recollections he was on Nightbreed too... I need to take my own advice and do the homework. But it's 6 in the morning and time for bed.

Of course Alien 3 had a lot of running about on ceilings. What was that? 93? Yes, we must all bow to Lionel Ritchie. Although I don't think he chased down and killed anyone. Not that I recall...

Trek-"Yojimbo". That's terrible dude. Dad joke!

And I've said this before too but JP is a great example of the director getting carried away with new toys as I said to Cobra Kai before. The crappy deus-ex-machina ending came because SS was so enamoured that he just HAD to take advantage of the new toy even at the last minute. Which is why we get this total surprise (how DID a t-rex get in there, and so quietly?!) with the rex & raptors. And from the king of telegraphic/buildup. He even telegraphs the raptors, but the rex comes totally out of left field. I had the script breakdown before the film came out and it was supposed to be a sort of powerloader/queen deal with the rex vs earthmoving equipment sort of thing and you can see how it would have played out but we got the "more cg instead". You can just tell it's been shoehorned in there. Really blatant, clunky, and not in keeping with the rest of the film or Spielberg's usual approach. I think I have it in a box somewhere...

And Series, it IS Romanek. He also gave us a heap of the greatest music videos of all time. He's used digital FX but in stuff like the Nine Inch Nails Closer video he even used an original hand-wound silent film camera. He's no hack MTV type, whether you like One Hour Photo or not.

Granted, I had to watch the film a few times on home video to work it all out.

Imagine hearing the David Fincher was going to direct something after Alien 3, you wouldn't really care. Sure Romanek is a great music director, but he hasn't done enough with a movie to make me care about him getting replaced yet. I mean check out the credientials of the guy who directed Torque, he is like the greatest music director out there right now. But a good music video director does not always mean they will be great at movies.

The HOWLING is my favorite too!!!

CGI and makeup effects are TOOLs, just like how a handheld, steadicam and dolly shots are all TOOLS. It is how you choose to use them that makes them work or not, and a bad director (or a good director making a bad decision) will sometimes chose the wrong tool. Fuck, look at all the bad shaky cam recently - no one is saying we should ban handheld cameras, they are just saying directors are lazy and unimaginative. Well, the same goes for their use of CG.

I like Del Toro's use of CG in creating some of his awesome nightmare visions in Pan's Labyrinth, the CG really helped the practical makeup achieve some horrific looking monsters.

I Am Legend however was a joke, stupid fucking stretchy-mouthed bulgy-eyed pieces of garbage. A combo of stuntmen and CGI techniques would have worked well assuming they had some patience to do the work. Wire work could have achieved the stupid jumping and wall-walking shots....that movie featured full on CGI for absolutely no fucking logical reason.

End of argument! You may all go to bed now. Or eat your supper if its not too late.

Personally I have no problem with a Thing remake as long as the monster is DIFFERENT. Shit, every 20 some years they should remake it with a new type of monster - vegetable man for the first, shape-shifter for 80s version, and for a new one, I don't know, maybe some kind of creature that transforms you like the monster in Quatermass Experiment.

Not much of a horror movie there...That fucker wouldn't stand a chance. If the Sex offenders didn't go full beastiality on him he'd have to avoid gangs of salivating, hungry eyed Koreans carrying big assed spits and armed to the teeth with jars of Kim-chee.

Cross-licensing FTW!

And good on ya for the shaky-cam one. I missed that in my rant. Props.

Anyway the main point was Spielberg, who is well known for the technique of "telegraphing" to build suspense (the concentric ripples being his most famous and the music cue in Jaws), and who used it all through JP (ripples, shadows, raptor clicking, the goat setup, etc etc), abandoned it completely there and it's out of whack. Telegraphing and editing tricks are movie magic too. I'm not talking about suspension of disbelief (see the earlier tirade for that stuff). Just the huge inconsistency of last minute changes because of infatuation overcoming judgement. Which is what Cobra was talking about (he didn't believe it was so blatant with directors if I understood right). It's very different to the telegraphing throughout Jaws then the shock moment (but it's already even accounted for in the framing) where the shark unexpectedly appears behind Scheider. That's all I meant.

Prepare to fall before my tweaking fists of fury!

Technically in terms of camera placement and movement I love the Pixar films. No matter how fast the cutting, you ALWAYS know what's going on, and what the geography is. Their stuff is so phenomenal in terms of filmmaking proficiency they make it look so easy. And it's really not!

And yeah, while it used to be an arcane art that pioneers/grandstanders like Warren Newcombe would shroud in mystery and blackmail the studio itself into submission to protect the artists, one side effect of the modern openness in techniques and drawback of the specificity of current director plaything cg previz is that it makes budget and timing estimates so tight and myopic that effects artists these days are asked to do so much better in so little time with so little prep. Things are incredibly restrictive now, both because of AND irrespective of the advancements in technique. In that aspect it certainly WAS easier in the old days where the requirements were more respected. The other thing is that these days some marketing twit sets an end date and books it into theatres before things have even BEGUN. What an arsehole thing to do, and in no way conducive to quality. When all the CG SUX morons wail and moan they never concede THOSE ones.

Shakeycam and handheld was in use in the silent era, French new wave and right up to now. Not a fad either. Which is another reason the current shakey-crazy stuff is weird. Purist? What are you on about? Pay attention dude!

To many filmmakers do not understand the limitations of CG, just like they also don't understand the limitations of practical effects. You can't get just shoot something and then magically have it look good, it has to be pre-planned and well executed. Hence, that is why Spielberg's GG has always been effective (Jurassic Park's dinosaurs still hold up, as do the effects in War of the Worlds and Minority Report) and why the practical effects of Nolan's TDK and Tomas Alfredson's Let the Right One In work well - all three now how to plan a f'ing shot!

Quick synopsis: a young man turns 18 in Malibu, California and finds out he has inherited the family curse of Lycanthropy, Now he tries to figure out how to lift the curse while locking himself up at night so he doesn't accidentally kill someone.

That is it - simple, direct, and you don't have to plunder a beloved movie to make it. Cast Zac Efron for all I care.

I expect my consulting fee check in the mail.

But that's all secondary to how beautifully those shots are set up and choreographed. Magically appearing ravines notwithstanding ! ;) I may be a bit harsh a times, but I still hope I can tell what's important in the scheme of things - and JP was the biggest blow-you-out-of-your-seat experience since the first Star Wars. And it must be said that the cg was no qualitatively better or worse than the animatronics - awesome rex, cool triceratops but also super dodgy spitter and baby hatchling. Spielberg is also great at using boards and more recently pre-vis but then getting to set and turfing it if something better happens on the day. He's prepared so they can get what they wanted, but open and not held back by the same stuff. And he's good enough to account for the newer breed of pre-vis guys who AREN'T trained board artists (who think with a cinematic vocabulary) when they should be. Considering pre-vis offers much better control and conveyance of pace and movement it's shocking how many pre-vis guys DON't understand it having come from a straight techie background. So you need a director who knows EXACTLY what he wants until those guys get a few years under their belt in terms of thinking cinematically. Or you go the Jackson route and do it like a doco where you choreograph stuff and set up your unlimited virtual cameras like the most unfettered documentary of all time. Then you just edit it all together like normal. Both approaches work. But still, it's all about the people.

And I agree with you about the outrageous van shot in WOTW - and equally the amazing shot in Children of Men where they worked out how to do it PRACTICALLY!

But yeah you're right. The more advanced the tools in the toolbox the more suits and producers and lazy/infatuated directors will think there's a magic red button you push (that they're paying for) and they can just back the creatives further and further into the corner. I hoped the fiasco of The Mummy 2 (you just know the ILM guys were horrified they let that stuff out) would teach them something but nnnnope!

I'd forgotten the name of man with a movie camera. That's the one with the rear-projection in the train station isn't it?

The Jaws one is a hard question with all sorts of 'for's and 'against's. Spielberg had such a horrendous time I reckon he'd say go the CG in a heartbeat. The mechanical thing hardly worked, shooting it was a complete bitch and while we can only go on the net result of brilliant compromises that worked for us as audience members with SS pulling every trick in his filmmaking bag to win us over, only ss really knows how much better it might have been had the thing done what it was originally supposed to or if he'd had more workable means at his disposal. That one will go on forever. It's the old restriction forcing creative solutions vs. freedom of unfettered imagination conundrum. Being in a creative role I ALWAYS lament the neutered final product even if audiences or customers love it - I always think "Yeah but it COULD have been so much BETTER!".

Yeah I was saying in the Smith TB I think, it's great how Del Toro likes to mix both.

Sometimes I just get selfish, and happy that when the remake comes out I'll get a spanky new better-than-ever version of the "beloved original" on Blu-ray or DVD or whatever. If the new version rocks, then great. If it sucks, I've got a great copy of the original to go back to. It's a win either way as far as I can see. Except maybe for Thunderbirds, where they cropped the originals. Grrr.

And +1 btw for Let the Right One In!

So if a respected filmmaker came in and said I want to remake AAWIL, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but can't stand to see other people basically coming in and living off the good will generated by other people. I see this as another version of the Fog, where they take an interesting Cult Classic and just lazily throw something together to cash in on it cult classic status.

We currently are at the same stage with CG - few people know how to use it, and employ it like early talking pictures used sound - just have it in there thinking that is what the audience wants.

And that wasn't a big tangent Blakindigo, that's exactly the thing I was talking about in the "Sure Conti" WOTW vs COM post! :)

And Conti, I completely get your point about plundering name value. I do think the lesser efforts fall away eventually compared to the better, whether remake or original, but your point is valid. So is the sound/cg analogy.

You can throw colour vs B&W in there too - the argument was that just as cinematographers were really hitting their stride with what can be done with mood and tone and lighting in black & white (you couldn't get away with a ton of Citizen Kane for example the fake ceilings which were scrims through which they projected light for the set! Holy Crap!), people go all crazy and get distracted by colour when nobody is really used to it yet! Remember the attitude was much more understandable because 2-strip colour came first with it's weird red & blue abstract palette, not full-blown three strip Technicolour! No wonder they were grouchy.

Can't really remember much at all about Deep Blue Sea beside that L.L. Cool J and skinny-arse Saffron Burrows were in it. I liked the Solaris remake, but need to watch the original again. Dad showed it to me when I was a kid, so I can't remember a whole lot beside being firmly in Star Wars mode and sorta feeling ripped off with the heady stuff. Stalker is in my queue to watch first though.

BTW speaking of Cursed do you guys know if there's a version with any Baker stuff left in? I thought there was and it was mentioned in the making of or something, yet on the version I watch there was nothing in sight. And I watched the whole thing (I knew it was gonna be crap) for the Baker stuff! Grrr!

My holy grail is actually to see the aliens Baker did for "Night Skies". I'm sure you know the story behind that one... I wish they'd just snuck 'em into the background of MiB or something. Those things are makeup fx legend, and if you put 'em in a MiB film there'd even be a poetic aspect to it!

The original book ending had Grant being stalked by raptors in one of the laboratories where eggs were being incubated surrounded by a very humid mist. Grant hid under the tables and had a syringe full of a fast-acting toxin, which he then stabbed into the tails of the raptors as they walked around him, searching for him.

This is all before the other subplot where Grant and Harding and others go into the raptor nests in the volcanic fields.

Haven't seen Cutting Magic Demon. Hafta check it out.

Visions of Light and Cinematographer Style (which is mainly anecdotal if you like that sort of thing) are cool if you're into that side of things.

I wonder why they stopped making it? Surely it was a great promotional tool for the movies themselves? I'd love to have that series on DVD.

But the Cutting Edge had some great things in there like Walter Murch saying "editing is really a dance of the eyes", basically expanding an Goddard's old phrase "The easiest cut is a cut on a glance."

A great book is Murch's "In the Blink of an Eye."

Creeeeeeepy.

Yeah Murch's book is great. I like how he puts little action figures or whatever next to the monitor to get a better approximation of true scale and how things 'read' on a big screen. I draw little stick figures at the side of my boards. Same thing. For board artists I think it's important to have yourself in the right headspace, seeing as how many of them come from comics - it's all too easy to frame too close because you're used to composing for a few inches or 1:1 on a page or monitor rather than 20 feet tall. And I like the analogy of a blink being like a natural cut.

Thanks mitortilla, I sort of see what you're getting at now. Cheers.

Lights Camera Action eh? Never saw that one. Just checked it out on youtube - my boy will be into that!

Speaking of which, I'm having a great time with my kid at the moment - He's old enough now and I've been watching Raiders, Jurassic Park, Close Encounters, Explorers and stuff like that with him. And he's loving them to bits. He's a big Thunderbirds fan too. My Dad introduced me to Jason and the Argonauts and Seven Samurai, so it's pretty cool to be doing the same thing with my boy too. And both he and my twin girls love the Miyazaki stuff. I'm bringin' em up right! Awww!

Great stuff! Nimoy will be at Dragon*Con this year...I'll have to try to bring up that show if I see him...

His monkey-man-Frankenstein monster analogy was also good. I pull that out once in awhile on directors and producers (of course, they don't really get the lesson of it).

And why? No Jenny Agutter titties.

That shower scene set to Moondance by Van Morrison, the Underground Werewolf attack and the Transformation sequence are three of the greatest sequences in modern cinema.

I can't recall the Frankenstein anecdote (although I've got a decent idea) - what was that story again? From the first book, or the "Conversations" one?