tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9770118.post7583715658478424903..comments2023-12-24T18:38:47.076-05:00Comments on ACHTENBLOG: The Digital VoidMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05213866618922724603noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9770118.post-74211143371517679762008-06-13T10:26:00.000-04:002008-06-13T10:26:00.000-04:00Yes, I agree Mark, "consistency" is the key when a...Yes, I agree Mark, "consistency" is the key when applying any sense of logic or style to the craft of motion picture storytelling. If the audience doesn't get that they will, of course, feel betrayed.<BR/><BR/>Mystery Man has also posted about the Frank Darabont screenplay, an earlier and apparently superior version, which has been making the rounds on the net. The original purveyor of the .pdf file online got stomped pretty hard by Paramount but once something gets released onto the toobs it's impossible to stop.<BR/><BR/>I got my copy at:<BR/><BR/>http://rs323.rapidshare.com/files/121833632/Indiana_Jones_and_the_City_of_the_Gods.pdf.html<BR/><BR/>I'll be reading it tonight.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9770118.post-56573131500888981922008-06-10T22:54:00.000-04:002008-06-10T22:54:00.000-04:00mark, there are so many things wrong with Indy IV ...mark, there are so many things wrong with Indy IV <BR/>that I wouldnt know where to begin.<BR/><BR/>spielberg should stop making films he recent track record is pathetic. george should go serve fries in nevada and David Koepp continues to be a pathetic excuse for a screenwriter.<BR/><BR/>dumb dialogue, too much exposition, long talky scenes...oh and that ending....paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01264061725629712704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9770118.post-60354890692086980422008-06-10T14:01:00.000-04:002008-06-10T14:01:00.000-04:00For me, it comes down to the logic you follow in t...For me, it comes down to the logic you follow in the world you create. Raiders seemed to be grounded in the physical reality of our world so you expect that they will follow that logic through the sequels. The Matrix had it's own logic and the effects were an extension of that unique universe (and groan inducing in Charlies Angels). <BR/><BR/>It isn't that films need to be tied to realism but you need to maintain the illusions you are creating. No magician would ever allow the audience to say 'that looked fake' or 'I saw where you put the coin'...Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05213866618922724603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9770118.post-82756760621679877912008-06-10T12:12:00.000-04:002008-06-10T12:12:00.000-04:00I was going to recommend Mystery Man's dissection ...I was going to recommend Mystery Man's dissection of the numerous flaws but you have it right there at the end of your post.<BR/><BR/>As for Butch and Sundance leaping off the cliff - yeah, it was two stunt men making the jump - the water below them was open and clear - the effect of the white water was achieved using outboard motorboats to churn up the surface of the water - and the boats were concealed and the scene made to look more dangerous with a glass painted foreground of jagged rocks. So it was "real", but Hollywood real.<BR/><BR/>I just recently watched the 1938 version of "The Adventures Of Tom Sawyer", produced by David O. Selznick one year prior to "Gone With The Wind" and was struck not by the "real" nature of old film making but by the artistic illustrative style of the early Hollywood productions. Matte paintings to extend a scene were in common usage in those days - as is detailed in Mark Cotta Vaz's book "The Invisible Art". But they were done in a way that was seamless - not because they were so "real" but because the entire look of the films was romanticized and painterly.<BR/><BR/>The nitty gritty of film noir was style an exercise in visual style used to convey the deeper meanings and emotions of the tales being told. The verité of neo-realism and the impact it eventually had on films through the late '60's and the '70's primed our consciousness to appreciate and expect "the real". The advent of the imaginative blockbusters from the likes of Spielberg, Lucas and others almost brings us full circle to the "heightened realities" of the classic films which influenced them in their youth.<BR/><BR/>Technology in cinema has always been that double edged sword which cuts new paths while simultaneously carving away the ground beneath our feet. Colour, sound, and CG are just part of the palette available to film makers.<BR/><BR/>In the beginning days of cinema audiences were astonished to merely see images of everyday life moving before them. Cutting to a closeup was once an astonishing display of emotional force. Animation, animatronics, matte paintings, miniatures, dolly shots, steadicam - the list goes on and is expanded daily with new technological innovations. The shift from the over 100 year old chemical film process to digital is seismic! And every new tool, every new toy, will be used and abused until it becomes embedded in our vocabulary as both creators and audience.<BR/><BR/>The shift to a new graphic novel style in cinema is something I find exciting. It's being abused horribly but will prove to be a seminal development in the evolution of the art of cinema. The boundaries of what is "real" don't, nor should they, apply to storytelling in motion pictures.<BR/><BR/>What's sad in the case of "Indiana Jones" is that Lucas and Spielberg have pissed all over their legacy. At this stage in their careers one would have thought (or liked to have thought) they were capable of expanding on their oeuvre without turning it into a bobble-head turd-on-stick puppet show.<BR/><BR/>Those are colours in the palette I can do without.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com