Slashdot Mirror
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Set in a mythic version of the late 1930s, this movie is a stunning tribute to classic sci-fi serials, comics and pulp magazines of that era. Starting with a reporter investigating the disappearances of top scientists, the story quickly becomes a nearly constant barrage of giant robots, aeroships, submarine planes, ray guns and retro technology on a grand scale. The plot, which hurtles across maps of the world Indiana Jones style, definitely take a back seat to the effects. The character interactions are all predictable. But all of that is consistent with the genre, and for me it didn't get in the way of enjoying the hell out of this movie.
What sets this film apart from others is that every scene was shot against a blue screen. Except for some hand props and the actors themselves, the whole thing was computer generated. We've certainly seen plenty of CG, going all the way back to "The Last Starfighter" in the 80s, but I've never seen anything done so stylishly or so well. Perhaps the hazy, murky look is perfectly suited to both the 1930s atmosphere and the current state of the art of CG. It works.
The packed screening was followed by a Q&A with director Conran, who turned out to be an impressively low-key, likable guy. He started working on the film about 10 years ago with a blue screen in his living room, wondering whether he could create an entire movie in his Mac. The first 6 minutes took him 2 years. Initially he made an animated version, which actors later used as a guide as they mimed their way through the live version. When Paramount got involved they insisted on big-name actors, so the theatrical release is actually version 3. Hopefully all three will make it onto the eventual DVD. Conran mentioned that for his next project he wants to tackle Edgar Rice Burroughs' epic John Carter series.
The presenter, a filmmaking friend of Conran's, closed the screening with a joke about Pete Townshend meeting Eric Clapton in a London bar and commiserating about some new kid named Hendrix, "who's gonna kick our asses." He imagined that Spielberg and Lucas might soon be having a similar conversation somewhere in California. I have to agree that it seems like a distinct possibility.
Thanks to serutan for this review!
Let's see. 1. It's a Sci-Fi Movie. 2. It's not a sequal or a remake. And 3. It's not Star Trek!
Wow, they should make more of these!
The plot, which hurtles across maps of the world Indiana Jones style, definitely take a back seat to the effects. The character interactions are all predictable. But all of that is consistent with the genre
Is this a little contradictory? Special effects are not ground-breaking. Give me a movie with effects like these and a plot that doesn't insult me. Then, we can call it "groundbreaking."
I saw my first preview for this movie this past Holiday season, when I was also playing through "Crimson Skies", the Xbox port. Both have a similar vibe, a retrofuture that never quite was, lots of planes, exploding dirigibles, etc. I'm really looking forward to this flick...
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
It does look cheesy, the commercials suck.
From what I've read, I want to see this film, but it hasn't sparked even the remotest interest for, say, my kids - who are the ones they want, to turn this into the Star Wars of their generation.
Angelina Jolie is IMO overrated and sucktastic. The commercials feature her fat lips so prominently it looks like another wretched Tomb Raider promo.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
"The plot, which hurtles across maps of the world Indiana Jones style, definitely take a back seat to the effects."
Why can't Hollywood make movies that have great special effects AND good plots? The Matrix and Spiderman were the the only two decent movies in recent times that have had good CG and a decent plot. I guess you could toss some of the Pixar flicks as well, but that's still a small minority when compared to all the crap that has come out.
Hollywood, pay attention: we need something that interests us, not just something that looks pretty.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
He imagined that Spielberg and Lucas might soon be having a similar conversation somewhere in California. I have to agree that it seems like a distinct possibility. Wonderful. We'll have another director who relies solely on CG to sell his films, without any real focus on plot, dialogue, or acting, just like Lucas does these days. I don't think that this is a good trend; it makes for bad movies and deligitimizes CG technology, so that directors who actually use it well (like Peter Jackson in LOTR) don't get the recognition they deserve.
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect
Special effects are not ground-breaking.
Why not? There's no SFX ground to break? Or does this not constitute a ground-breaking level of SFX achievement according to you?
Give me a movie with effects like these and a plot that doesn't insult me.
The plot insults you? WTF?
Its a pulp! I love these! Indiana Jones, Tom Strong, and now Sky Captain. I'm happy.
If you don't like pulps, that's your loss, but to say that it insults you...that's something else.
You can't take the sky from me...
Actually, in the BSOD context, that was really funny. Too bad that's not what you intended. :)
That's what I thought too, except for the "unwitting" part. I'd like to see a non-campy movie that really DOES pay homage to pulps. The pulps themselves were not campy, nudge-nudge wink-wink affairs, so there's no reason that movies like "Doc Savage" and "The Phantom" et al. need to be. Of course, I'm just going by the trailers and commercials for "Sky Captain," like you are.
I also don't like that waxy white "CGI" sheen that everything has. The latest Harry Potter movie had that, too. Ick.
I think the difference is that many big budget sci-fi "epics" aspire to something more cerebral than their material will allow. Take all of that stuff and reprise the old Buck Rogers serial experience in a CGI package and you have something called fun. It's a foreign concept among "serious" directors and actors (and perhaps pretentious movie goers).
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
This isn't a review, it is a few paragraphs about having seen the film.
/. is trying to waste my time with worthless sci-fi sychophants and their crap about bad sci-fi(All of Star Trek).
Is not a review a critical assessment of the films intentions and its success in achieving its aims?
Why do articles like these get approved?
Sometimes I think
is because it's hard.
hollywood is kind of like the gymnasts in the olympics. you always want them to do a spectacular routine, they always wants to do a spectacular routine, they practice forever to do it right, but they can still screw up badly, even at the highest levels of competition. it's just plain HARD. and you can still fail on the easy stuff you know how to do in your sleep.
there is just so many variables involved, and so many nuances of execution to keep track of, that hollywood will always be churning out bad movies.
but look at it this way: there are no peaks without valleys. you can't have something seem great if you compare it against a bunch of other movies equally as great. you're a tough judge. we all are. if every movie was matrix-quality, then it stop impressing you as much as it did. so bad movies will be made, in a greater number than good movies, forever. it's statistical inevitability and human psychology conspiring together.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Don't they all start off as little guys?
Thats exactly right. Going to the movies is supposed to be a fun event. There is plenty of fun to be had in cheesy movies. When I go to see a movie I want to be entertained. Way too many people look at movies and take it way too seriously.
Even movies that are flat out bad can be watched in such a state of mind that one can find fun in them (without chemical influences of course).
You made the right call.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
here here! i agree completely
The Rocketeer was one of the most underrated movies of my time, I'm really looking forward to next weekend.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
Unless she will actually be sucking I get tired of her playing the same character over and over again.
Let me know if she is going to be naked most of the time, then it'll make seeing her character worthwile.
evil is as evil does
He had the most inane and illogical opinions, but I really enjoyed his articles because they just generated levels of flaming and hilarity that are classic on slashdot.
What happened to Katz? Why did he stop contributing to slashdot? Is he still talking about Columbine and geekdoom? Did he lear to use a computer?
I wish slashdot would post an interview with him, I predict record page hits!
Jon Katz we miss you, you sucked, but you are missed!
- sigs are for wimps.
Now, if he had self-published, set up a website and sold his own DVDs, now that would be worth trumpeting.
Sadly, if he did that, few would have the opportunity to share in even a "corporatized" version of his vision simply because all the trumpeting in the world isn't enough to reach the masses.
It's all about distribution.
I also have to think that anyone who has dated a batshit crazy woman (ah, the good old days... when I could look beyond a woman's crumbling psyche and see the great rack inside), sees the downside in Angelina. Basically, I might want to do someone who looks like Angelina, but even just a night with that psycho might be more work than it's worth.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
They really missed the boat on the commercials. They employed that same overused, overwrought, narrator that menacingly voices every action movie commercial in his baritone growl (you know the one). It just really takes away from the mythic period-piece nature of the movie. It's kind of confusing for the average viewer...you hae the standard sci-fi or action voice, but an entirely different look and feel. There's an expectation violation. They should have either had no voice-over (like the downloadable trailer), or made the narration more period appropriate--like a "Newsreel" type voice over.
"I wouldn't change a thing..."
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
It's easy to decry someone who 'sells out'. But why lambast someone who used the system to bring a dream to life?
Gainsaying mainstream distribution by mplying traitorship to some imagined cause is silly. What's the cause in this case? Simply an artist's desire to bring his vision to life.
To reach the masses, he cannot do this on his own. He either uses 'establishment' media channels or uses the internet, which despite the apparent chaos and freedom, still runs on a commercial backbone. He cannot show the world his vision without some medium (or media) to carry the message, who cares what path he takes? The important thing is that a man had a vision, and that vision was powerful (or at least compelling) enough to make the powers-that-be in the media industry sit up and take notice. Why should we not celebrate his success for what it is?
If visionaries can make their visions seen, by hook (the internet) or by crook (big media) what more revolution do we need?
"Yes, Jayne, she's a witch. She's had congress with the beast..."
"She's in Congress?" - Firefly, "Objects in Space
Well then...
The set designer for Tron must have been a genius.
I can answer it correctly. My wife is slim. If yours isn't, you blew it long before any married-life questions were asked.
(Go ahead, mod me -1: Smug, I don't care!)
What a butt-load.
Just because you haven't had an idea worth making into something significant, don't carp that this guy did.
Dying alone and silent in idealism is nothing to hawk to the masses. Or even individuals.
Some possible safe answers are:
Take off your clothes so I can compare.
What fat?
Damn I think I left the oven on (run from the room and out the front door and don't ever come back).
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
This is an artifact of fools who were so fixated with the now and contained by fashion that they failed to come up with any remotely descriptive label. I see no reason why we should continue to humor them, and it is certainly wrong to interject this kind of drivel just because someone used the word "modern" in a correct, natural, and perfectly clear way.
using the word "modern" to refer to the past can be confusing, I know
No, it's stupid. There's a difference. Confusing would be if it were hard to understand. It's not. Stupid would be like using the word modern to refer to the past.