are you a film expert? (1 Viewer)

[Michael_UK]

I was just thinking on how I rate films have changed in the last few years.
I have always loved films and I feel that getting into home theater/DVD has changed my out look on films.
I used to watch VHS all the time and sound was not a issue at all, it all came though a very small TV speaker and I cared not for Sound effects but dialog and visual effects.
Then I started to watch a lot of films in the cinema(and I still do) I thought the sound was great and the whole experience was better then on VHS.
Then came DVD and I started re watching films(with good sound) and I started to notice things with in movies, Movies started to be even better if there was bass and good Left or Right sound imaging.
E.g. Titan A.E would loose a lot if the sound effects were weak and boring.
For a while I hated going to the cinema their sound was too Loud or too Quiet, too Bright or too Dull and I came to hate Fools chatting and ruining key scenes in movies.
Now I care a bit less about the sound(in the cinema) and try and enjoy the movie as a whole.
I personaly don't call my self 100% a film expert.
I do notice a lot of things most people do not in films I have a fairly sharp eye to detail and oftern have strong option about endings in films e.g. Total Recall and AI.
What about you guysgals are there parts to a film that mean more to you than the story line?
[Edited last by Michael_UK on October 15, 2001 at 03:37 PM]

 

[paul o'donnell]

The thing to learn is that no matter how much of an expert you consider yourself, there is always someone who knows more.
I consider myself the most well versed in film of my non internet friends. But on here, there are plenty who could wipe the floor with me in a knowledge contest. Although most of them have been around a lot longer than me (I'm 19).
As far as bits in movies go, Im very much narrative based more than anything else, I can deal with bad direction/acting etc more than bad scripts. But that is very generally speaking. The film can be about nothing and I could love it. Its all a big mystery why I love the movies I love.
Yah, that was a bit of a ramble alright.
Edited:
I don't think you'll find many people on here that don't hate people who talk loudly during cinema presentations.
And we all get annoyed about poor sound or visuals that detract from the presentation which ultimatly hurts the film.
[Edited last by paul o'donnell on October 15, 2001 at 04:20 PM]

 

[Dan Brecher]

Nice thread.
I was just saying in a thread I started the other day (which I shant link to since it's now got me into far too much trouble) that there is a significant change in what elements of a movie people regard highly in order to give it praise, and I think in many cases it's now built around the overall experience and impact of seeing a certain kind of visually and sonically appealing movie like Star Wars, The Matrix or Gladiator.
My personal demand that story come first remains, yet that is not to say I will cast aside any thought of a movie like The Mummy, a movie that I think is remarkably silly but ultimately enjoyable, which is quite often all one wants.
Having said that, it's obvious to me (however much I may not like it) that audiences now are increasingly easier to please by just dishing out something thats appealing in aspects other than a solid screenplay. To an extent, that's good enough, to many I accept that it's more then enough, but it's harmful to the chance of seeing movies with strong stories in future when the majority vote goes toward the crowds that are easier to please.
Right now, we've probably broken the fine line where more serious and emotionaly stimulating material and blockbuster material could co-exist evenely in terms of success. One could say that the stuff with greater narrative is losing out to the "brainless blockbuster" (call it what you will). Strong story material can still stand its own in this day in age, American Beauty is proof enough of that, but since a lot of good material these days is still tied to being independent, it's still a struggle to compete with what the majority want, which these days just seems to be a Fast and the Furious instead of a Ghost World.
Hope that wasn't too much of an answer.
Dan (UK)
[Edited last by Dan Brecher on October 15, 2001 at 04:23 PM]

 

[Jesse Leonard]

Dan,
I can now understand what you were trying to convey in that "other" thread (your paragraphs above get your point across beautifully. Somehow that just wasn’t coming across before.). And with that point, I do agree with you. I'm not so sure that this is limited to England, though. I think this is pretty much a worldwide phenomenon.
People are stimulated by both visuals and audio during a movie. Prior to say, the 70's, studios were limited to what they could do in either category. The story had to carry the movie (I know, what a novel idea). But with the advance of technology and the willingness of theaters to employ the latest-and-greatest sound systems, studios seem a little puzzled on how to combine all three elements (story, visuals and audio).
It's a huge balancing act, but I think studios are starting to see that every big-budget summer movie isn't going to be a sure thing. We as an audience are at a point that we aren't going to be won over by just adding more visuals or a jumped-up soundtrack. We want to see the three elements combined more evenly and this is showing at the box-office. Studios are trying to blame the economy or the large number of movies being released or …….... But take a movie that combined all three elements, Shrek, and look how well it did!

 

[Holadem]

Like many of you, I believe among my friends I am... but online I am nowhere close to that by any strech of the imagination
--
Holadem

 

[Michael_UK]

Dan or anyone else???
Do you think it is increasingly harder for film directorsproducers to release satisfying films because audiences are wanting an ever increasing demand for the movie to deliver better Sounds, Explosions, Gore and Sex.
Movie Hype can't help because (JSP) audiences are oftern driven to a greater opinion of a movie,(Good example StarWars :TPM.... Huge hype and to some big let down) mabye Matrix II and III will need to deliver Big to satisfy peoples increasing needs.
The future will be Interesting....eh.

 

[Dan Brecher]

quote: Do you think it is increasingly harder for film directorsproducers to release satisfying films...[/quote]
Absolutely, this is precisely my point in my fourth paragraph in my above post. As a filmmaker in practice myself I can't help but notice, and worry, about this.

...because audiences are wanting an ever increasing demand for the movie to deliver better Sounds, Explosions, Gore and Sex.

I don't even think they always demand something better, many seem quite content with seeing the same old stuff over and over again rehashed as a different movie. In that respect I find audiences to be less demanding these days which is where my major upset lies.
On the subject of movie hype not helping get the message out to wider audiences, I actually think it can, but only if one has the power to create and back such hype. I use American Beauty as an prime example, seen by many more people who would not have seen it had it been an independent release. Dreamworks took a risk and it paid off and I love them for it! I wish other studios would follow suit, that way we could have that nice balance between studio films of greater narrative and movies of pure escapism and fantasy.
Dan (UK)
[Edited last by Dan Brecher on October 16, 2001 at 12:50 PM]

 

[Pieter_L]

wouldn't it be great if Hollywood start making big budget epics as complex, multi-layered, and thought provoking as APOCALYPSE NOW again?
all the action / effects totally in support of the greater whole, instead of the other way around.
------------------

 

[Dan Brecher]

Pieter,
Absolutely! Who knows, the studios may now be learning this lesson after the underwhelming reaction (after opening weekends) to many of this summer's releases. Maybe that majority IS becoming more demaning after all, we'll just have to see...
Dan (UK)