I definately like Spirited Away better (not to take anything away from PM though). I do think that it had something to do with the need to "localise" may'be.
Spirited Away is couched pretty heavily in Japanese mythology and the like, but has pretty universal themes. Its less approachable on one level (the world's culture), but more understandable in tone and story.
Whereas Princess Mononoke had a world that was quickly introduced, and though fairly blunt instrument thematically, the themes reflect something that no other culture on earth relates with. It has the environmental theme that's in a lot Miyazaki's work, and industrial development, it it goes further to include the bomb imagery- I think it was intended to have more gravity and serious intent, and it makes it harder to love.
Spirited Away was more lyrical, painterly, and for all that, its the more approchable and appreciated one.
The best example I recall about the translating vs interpreting that Gaiman did is a scene where Ashitaka and the monk/cleric is having soup. The monk complains about it and the literal japanese is "this soup tastes like watery', which Gaiman changed to "This soup tastes like donkey piss" or something like that, and that carries the weight of the insult better. The pt being, you could have had the dub version say that the soup was watery, but it would've sounded like the soup was just weak. The line in japanese apparently implies something about class and wealth as well-- its not that you made watery soup, its that you can't afford to add anything to your water.
I made it to the last one (I think, a couple of them blur), and bar none, Herbert's staging of religion was the most interesting in sci-fi, at least to that scale. But eventually, I really only enjoyed reading the epigraphs, and lost interest in all the characters or stories...
And eventually, the story devolved into two hypersexed prosmicuous sex races breeding...
He also seemed to reintroduce jews as the only free standing group to survive millions of years of culture and history- which just didn't make sense. I don't recall them appearing before in the series, and coming out in the 5th or 6th was a bit of a shock.
You know, even accepting these terms, the fact is it wouldn't cover the whole breath of MS product use.
I see a lot of posts about how this and that CS department that I was in never used MS- well really, thats not unusual at all is it? But the average computer labs, PC, Mac, or otherwise, generally will. Not including the helpdesk (which I spent my four years in) support of student computers- beyond pure administrative use, universities should support all comers, especially for students and staff disinclined to learn alternative systems.
All this also does include the cost, in money and people power, for transitioning over the huge bureucracies that make up unis. You know what, even accepting youngish students learning alternative products, my 70ish english professor who's just mastered outlook and basic surfing IE, he's really not going to take to it well.
There's nothing wrong with donors restricting the use of how their money is spent, but the scope of the restriction far outweighs any benefit the uni would get out of accepting it- something that is realistically unreasonable as well.
Right enough, there's really no one to complain to if the dvd is bare and no material is on it- as a consumer you can either buy it or wait and see if another version is going to come out. But what if there's no way to get it in the US (or wherever) in general?
I'm a big fan of kung-fu and asian cinema in general, and I swear at every corner I turn I see miramax screwing me. A large number of older films are bought by them, and when released on dvd only have the dub- regardless of the job on it, i want the option of the original language track. Now, personally, this is irksome enough, since usually, Asian dvd editions exist with both of them on them- but by rights miramax blocks their sale in the us as well. I can't get a good region 1 version, and I have to pay a premium for an import.
All this is compounded by cuts in the film made by miramax, whose nature or logic has not yet been revealed to me. Sometimes cited for cultural reasons, sometimes for time (these movies clock in typically around 100 minutes in the first place) --always supposedly "to make it a better movie". Who do they think is going to watch Iron Monkey anyway? We're all pretty die-hard already. And what ten second buddhist temple scene is going to upset anyone?
There's also the ongoing "Hero" saga. Hero is a film by Zhang Yi Mo (sp), a martial-arts epic out of the crouching tiger mold. It has an all-star cast/crew- and is definately meant to try to recreate the latter's success. Whether or not it would, i think the director is good, and his style is significant;y different , and would make a worthwhile addition to the genre anyway. So the theatrical cut (rumor mill blaming miramax for it) is only 98 minutes, w/ 20 minutes missing. Now its an emptier movie, a wannabe Cthd w/ less plot and character development- say 20 minures worth.
Its been released in China, but not in the US- until Nov. this year. This from a date pushed from last year (Mx had pinocchio to promote, i would say City of God, but it didn't do much for that one) and spring of this year. Assuming a dvd release is coming out, of the theatrical (out in asia now), it wouldn't be till spring '04 in the us. The extended one, well, thats all speculation right now- since it would steal the thunder when mx deigns to actually show the film.
All of this is to say, if big american made titles get too many versions and too much attention, then its the smaller or foreign movies that get short shrift. My problem isn't waiting for a version with more extras to come out, my problem is getting to see the intended version in the first place.
Editing and cutting is the hardest bit of the creative process, imo. Making movies must be one of the most arduous versions of it- so many people are involved with so many interests...
But probably due to me ver deterioating attention span, i think more movies could deal with deletions. I like the time/money ratio working out, but i swear, i feel every movie I go into is over two hours for no good reason.
Even good movies suffer from this- I loved Magnolia. The showing I went to was so late it didn't start till midnite, and I was still entranced and itnerested and not the least bit tired, but you know what? That movie is too long.
I watched Boogie Nights (which suffers the same way) a while ago on dvd, and saw PT Anderson's "illuminating" commentary on his deleted scenes...I know you have to be ballsy to do take on some of the scenes he did, but man, you cut it cause it was crap, not because you ran out of time. He's a great director, but he's my best example of a man who refuses to cut material, that while good, add nothing to the whole.
A good editor cuts to get rid of the bad material, a great editor cuts material for the whole work.
I agree with everything there. The amount of style and craft for the show is better than, well, any tv show I've seen since Twin Peaks. Its nice when they work images WITH the music.
Better yet, its episodic enough to be interesting, while still being a wothwhile cohesive whole series. A lot of other shows seem to get bogged down in their themes and lose track of their time frame.
All that said, I wouldn't say it was meant for Americans. It might be about a love affair with America, or at least American music. But then, Japanese culture is rife with that- personally I cringe whenever english is injected into songs. And entertaining though it is- Honky Tonk Blues is about bluesy as...well, Shania Twain.
So the title change, though regrettable, is a marketing thing. And me, I know it from Guns N' Roses...
Oh, the Oscars make perfect sense. Marketing etc as usual.
But anyway, each country has a committee that nominates a film for the Oscars, and Mexico voted for a different one this year. Britain had a primarily Hindu language film rejected because of language (apparently having 1.5 mil isn't enough) And Afghanistan, w/o a committee, couldn't nomate one of their highly rated films at all. And Spain went with someone other than Almodovar (because they're tired of nominating him). China wanted Hero nominated for best picture, but since Miramax never made a screening the US, it couldn't- though it means it could qualify next year.
So the Best Screenplay Nomination was actually the Academy's way of giving Y Tu Mama Tambien credit since they couldn't give it a best foreign film nod.
I think Talk to Her was probably the best movie I saw made last year, but even that has nothing to do with it. best Foreign Film only needs to be released in said country.
Ahh... City of God. may'be not he best, but worth a nod at least. Visually dynamic, great juggling of multiple stories, great music- and one of the most gut-wrenching scenes ever. And best/worst part yet- based on true stories. How's that for an adapted screenplay?
Its for people who the execs don't expect to win Best Actor nods, either because the performances might not be strong enough, or it might take away an award from someone else with a better chance in the same movie.
Originally, the award went for those character actors who were never top stars themselves, and the best supporting actress was given to the hot young thing with potential (Marisa Tomei, Anna Paquin, Mira Sorvino- the most dubious choices)- but now that each and every nomination or award can be tacked onto a poster or package for a quantifiable increase in revenues after- all the studios will jigger their nominations for maximum effect. Julianne Moore for The Hours for example.
Miramax is leader in Oscar campaigning, but they all do it now. I don't even want to talk about how the politicking for foreign film nominations, or Oscars and foreign films in general.
On a sidenote- IMO-- Chicago was a decent movie entirely undeserving of any of these nominations. Ah well, I'm less opposed to it than Gladiator or Beautiful Mind
You know, I actually thought the movie was decent satire. Verhoeven's more than a bit ham-handed, but why else put doogie howser in SS wear, WW2 propaganda designed clips, and young, pretty (and decidedly crappy) actors...he knew it, he grew up in occupied Holland- so he was obviously going to have his own spin on Heinlen's militiristic society.
The man's very much a populist as well as a satirist- Robocop's better. 4 mpg cars, ultra violence and "2 dollar" jokes and all that.
As a translation of the book, its probably crap- but then, its a different animal when someone else tells the story.
Except if appearance really didn't matter- then they'd have stayed the same as they started, then it would've genuinely been irrelevant.
Thats what really irritated me about Shrek, it had slight surface posture about being an inverted fairy tale, when its own supposed moral got crushed by its quest for a laugh.
Why bother showing that ugly doesn't count if you go out of your way to make the villian short and petty looking as well? Even among the humans?
That's certainly a fair point. I personally have a bit of defensiveness coming from the US. If the other person in conversation has no base of knowledge beyond Spider-Man et al (which I do like), comics do have a childish reputation. But I think of "graphic novel" as a bit of a dodge. Its describing a medium which works in the brain in so many different ways than just words and pictures that the gravity that "graphic" and "novel" add to it as terms takes more away from how the medium actually works than it lends weight.
Scott McCloud's book/comic Understanding Comics is by the far the best argument for it. He doesn't solve the problem of content neutral term that gives the medium its full respect, but he might raise the term comic itself.
All pts taken. You've just been caught in my personal crusade to justify my own expensive hobbies.
A term that came into popularity with Maus (still the greatest of the literary comics). On the other hand, if you ask Spiegelman, he calls it a comic.
"Graphic Novel" seems like a term created specifically to dodge the stigma of the rightful descriptor. I remember "prestige format" editions. Heh. I think Chris Ware, who along with Daniel Clowes seems to be getting the most play amongst outside 'reputable media' for the comic work had it best when hidden in the isbn section of one of his works it said (paraphrased):
Under no circumstances file under literature or fiction. File only under Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Role-Playing Games.
They're comics damnit!
Ah well, I do the same thing with 'movie' and 'film' to differentiate what between something I describing as good or just enjoyed.
DC is owned by Warner Brothers, and Marvel meanders on its own, failing (until recently) to really capitilize on all its licenses. Marvel's financial woes- bankruptcy and the like, were generated by over expansion and the 90s comic bubble.
As for Alan Moore, great stuff coming out now, but he came back for a spawn issue first, which meant he had to deal with McFarlane (we all know what he did to gaiman), and I'm ever so glad he didn't decide to quit with companies on our side of the continent all together.
This is sort of tangential, but piracy has devastated the Asian movie industry. This doesn't mean it would do it in the US or other parts of the world, but when the society at large is willing to see the movie in less than auspicious circumstances- in asia, I'm told that the theaters aren't as generally good as ours, so the incentive for the movie going experience isn't as persuasive.
Many a film in asia has been devastated by the piracy there. There's a movie called Hero that I'm really really looking forward to that had armed guards during the first week of screenings- the ratio of guards to audience members being something ridiculous like 1 guard per six watchers.
In any case, I don't believe that scenario is a likely in the US or most of the world at all, but its not entirely a toothless specter.
fuzzies huh? I honestly don't know the origin of that.
Anyway, I went to a liberal arts uni in the northeast, and I was an english major. Personally, I avoid math at all costs (both my parents were math teachers, and one too many afternoons of practice later...) but I enjoyed all my courses, science included.
The thing to keep in mind is that these courses aren't for you, as serious majors or really interested parties to take. Well, you can start off with them, thats part of their point. But I know english (et al) majors complain about such things, but I also hear hard science complain about the english or whatever classes they are 'forced' to take. I took a couple of those too, and they're equally light- to me.
The simplified courses happen to everyone, but they're there for expousure. My roommate was a chem major, and while I don't think either of us really understands why the other likes what they do, we respect each other's interests, and know ('cause we consider ourselves intelligent folk) there's depth that only motivated study would reveal.
I hear that MIT has a really good humanities system (crapload of money will do that)- just that its underutilized. And that they can't write- but then, lab reports aren't thesis.
The point being, its up to everyone to learn a bit from other disciplines. But one class isn't going to make experts of everyone.
Still, it could be worse. I spent a semester abroad and what the Scottish considered broadening your knowledge was a chem student studying physics or english history.
I'm sure other people have commented on the need of shipping costs inherent in being an island, but one more thing to take into account, at least with gas, is taxation as social policy.
Certainly, the government makes a lot of revenue with heavy taxation, but the added effect (aided by having small geographical mass and a decent national transit system) is that you have less cars on the road. As an American, we seem to expect cheap gas as a god-given right, no matter what. As someone from new jersey, I expect full service all the way.
Anyway, its not just price gouging, it has something to do with how you want to shape your society as well.
Well, the Saruman's use of the orb (forgive me, fellow geeks, for I have forgotten its name) which the movie shows pretty quick has corrupted him to Sauron's side.
In the literary version, he decides to pursue his own agenda, but it is basically the same as Sauron's. He's a powerful, megalomaniacal figure, good gone bad with hubris. Sort of what should have happened in AotC, how great a story would it have been to have Count Dooku just a misguided good guy? Over the edge? I digress...
The movie simplifies the story by just putting him under Sauron. He's basically the center of all evil in the world anyway, and everything's his fault. Evil just straight getting lumped together makes for a simpler, less complex story. Could've kept the old story in, frankly, with Saruman's corruption less obvious right away, but hey.
He wasn't the only one to acknowledge Kurosawa...and didn't he deny it for years? As soon as the hype around the movies grew beyond its humble serial-inspired beginnings, Lucas's ego grew with it. Once upon a time he had that ability to recognize talent. That's why so many of the movies he helped create but didn't direct are so well remembered. e's great a plot or story creation, after that he needs spielburg, kirshner, and the like to make it.
I think AotC succeeds with its set pieces and the glimpses of bladerunner or fifth element, or gladiator/monster flicks. And the old mainstay for Lucas of the John Ford western. With most directors I'd call it inspiration, influence, or homage. But with Lucas it feels like theft...
As for ILM, I'm a little bit sad. His devotion to it has turned the story and characters, even the simpler archtypal ones, into 2nd class citizens in ovie-making, and technical achievement the main virtue. Its pretty, but movie making its not.
Personally, I think the level of hostility thats being generated over this will prevent the rumor from coming true. And its his right to change it, and its his right to deny us the originals in dvd. But the problem is that we know that any he adds is only going to make it worse. Ah well. At least this time I was just bored instead of disgusted.
Mainly because he can't write. The most irritating thing about Lucas has been his ever changing storyline considering his motives. He came out with Star Wars saying it was fun movies recreating the serials, but as the movies gained the holy aura about them, his story changed, and suddenly he decided to try his hand myth making. Mitochlroides? (sp) and that ridiculous immaculate conception, a tacked on mother with a tacked on boy with tacked on feelings for her...sigh...
He makes these movies for his own flawed inner vision, w/o regard to the audience. When its good, he meant to have it big, and when it's criticized, well, he was making it just for kids. He needs less yes-men and fanboys around him, most of the problems any average honest movie-goer can see and even Lucas can fix.
I watched Phantom Menace again on DVD recently, to see if it was as bad as I remember it, to overcome my spite toward the man. Man, that movie sucked...I tried to give the actors credit, they had nothing to work with, but the dialogue...
I watched for the stereotyping, I caught it the first time and wanted to see if I was being too sensitive. Well, I still am sensitive to it. Historical movies, movies with extremists are a different story, but I was irritated again with clear racial accents in phantom menace. In a dated peice, you let it go. In a historical peice, I like them close to factual, so the germans wouldn't get to complain. But the cowardly machiavellian alien with an asian accent isn't a historical figure. I won't say insulted, its too obviously harmless in intent, but for osmeone who has been made fun of with accents and the like, and knows how movies and media make stereotypes (Romulans and Klingons in that other Sci-Fi series), its sad and painful. Confrontation is a good thing, stereotypes start somewhere, but you have to mean it and be ready to address it, make a point with it, not go "whoops" and brush it aside.
jar-jar improved actually. Thinking of him as kids cartoon helped...irritating yes, but no longer stupid beyond belief.
As for critics, the Village Voice is an especially pretentious one, but they're the ones who evaluate them to see if they go beyond entertainment, and in this case, to go beyond the glow that movies imprints on its fans. Then again, I like the onion reviews the best.
David Edelstein of Slate has a reasonable review of it, saying that entertaining and its flaws are evident. But hey, its entertaining.
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2065822&device=
Loving something a lot doesn't make it high art, but don't riled up when people point that out either. Remember one last thing, being better than Phantom Menace still might not make it a good movie.
Slashdot Mirror
"...I've just finished reading 1984. Go figure."
Whatever else they may be, in this day and age, I can't knock anyone who reads something worthwhile.
I definately like Spirited Away better (not to take anything away from PM though). I do think that it had something to do with the need to "localise" may'be.
Spirited Away is couched pretty heavily in Japanese mythology and the like, but has pretty universal themes. Its less approachable on one level (the world's culture), but more understandable in tone and story.
Whereas Princess Mononoke had a world that was quickly introduced, and though fairly blunt instrument thematically, the themes reflect something that no other culture on earth relates with. It has the environmental theme that's in a lot Miyazaki's work, and industrial development, it it goes further to include the bomb imagery- I think it was intended to have more gravity and serious intent, and it makes it harder to love.
Spirited Away was more lyrical, painterly, and for all that, its the more approchable and appreciated one.
The best example I recall about the translating vs interpreting that Gaiman did is a scene where Ashitaka and the monk/cleric is having soup. The monk complains about it and the literal japanese is "this soup tastes like watery', which Gaiman changed to "This soup tastes like donkey piss" or something like that, and that carries the weight of the insult better. The pt being, you could have had the dub version say that the soup was watery, but it would've sounded like the soup was just weak. The line in japanese apparently implies something about class and wealth as well-- its not that you made watery soup, its that you can't afford to add anything to your water.
I made it to the last one (I think, a couple of them blur), and bar none, Herbert's staging of religion was the most interesting in sci-fi, at least to that scale. But eventually, I really only enjoyed reading the epigraphs, and lost interest in all the characters or stories...
And eventually, the story devolved into two hypersexed prosmicuous sex races breeding...
He also seemed to reintroduce jews as the only free standing group to survive millions of years of culture and history- which just didn't make sense. I don't recall them appearing before in the series, and coming out in the 5th or 6th was a bit of a shock.
Ah well. Can't get it all right.
You know, even accepting these terms, the fact is it wouldn't cover the whole breath of MS product use.
I see a lot of posts about how this and that CS department that I was in never used MS- well really, thats not unusual at all is it? But the average computer labs, PC, Mac, or otherwise, generally will. Not including the helpdesk (which I spent my four years in) support of student computers- beyond pure administrative use, universities should support all comers, especially for students and staff disinclined to learn alternative systems.
All this also does include the cost, in money and people power, for transitioning over the huge bureucracies that make up unis. You know what, even accepting youngish students learning alternative products, my 70ish english professor who's just mastered outlook and basic surfing IE, he's really not going to take to it well.
There's nothing wrong with donors restricting the use of how their money is spent, but the scope of the restriction far outweighs any benefit the uni would get out of accepting it- something that is realistically unreasonable as well.
Right enough, there's really no one to complain to if the dvd is bare and no material is on it- as a consumer you can either buy it or wait and see if another version is going to come out. But what if there's no way to get it in the US (or wherever) in general?
I'm a big fan of kung-fu and asian cinema in general, and I swear at every corner I turn I see miramax screwing me. A large number of older films are bought by them, and when released on dvd only have the dub- regardless of the job on it, i want the option of the original language track. Now, personally, this is irksome enough, since usually, Asian dvd editions exist with both of them on them- but by rights miramax blocks their sale in the us as well. I can't get a good region 1 version, and I have to pay a premium for an import.
All this is compounded by cuts in the film made by miramax, whose nature or logic has not yet been revealed to me. Sometimes cited for cultural reasons, sometimes for time (these movies clock in typically around 100 minutes in the first place) --always supposedly "to make it a better movie". Who do they think is going to watch Iron Monkey anyway? We're all pretty die-hard already. And what ten second buddhist temple scene is going to upset anyone?
There's also the ongoing "Hero" saga. Hero is a film by Zhang Yi Mo (sp), a martial-arts epic out of the crouching tiger mold. It has an all-star cast/crew- and is definately meant to try to recreate the latter's success. Whether or not it would, i think the director is good, and his style is significant;y different , and would make a worthwhile addition to the genre anyway. So the theatrical cut (rumor mill blaming miramax for it) is only 98 minutes, w/ 20 minutes missing. Now its an emptier movie, a wannabe Cthd w/ less plot and character development- say 20 minures worth.
Its been released in China, but not in the US- until Nov. this year. This from a date pushed from last year (Mx had pinocchio to promote, i would say City of God, but it didn't do much for that one) and spring of this year. Assuming a dvd release is coming out, of the theatrical (out in asia now), it wouldn't be till spring '04 in the us. The extended one, well, thats all speculation right now- since it would steal the thunder when mx deigns to actually show the film.
All of this is to say, if big american made titles get too many versions and too much attention, then its the smaller or foreign movies that get short shrift. My problem isn't waiting for a version with more extras to come out, my problem is getting to see the intended version in the first place.
Sigh...thats my rant.
Editing and cutting is the hardest bit of the creative process, imo. Making movies must be one of the most arduous versions of it- so many people are involved with so many interests...
But probably due to me ver deterioating attention span, i think more movies could deal with deletions. I like the time/money ratio working out, but i swear, i feel every movie I go into is over two hours for no good reason.
Even good movies suffer from this- I loved Magnolia. The showing I went to was so late it didn't start till midnite, and I was still entranced and itnerested and not the least bit tired, but you know what? That movie is too long.
I watched Boogie Nights (which suffers the same way) a while ago on dvd, and saw PT Anderson's "illuminating" commentary on his deleted scenes...I know you have to be ballsy to do take on some of the scenes he did, but man, you cut it cause it was crap, not because you ran out of time. He's a great director, but he's my best example of a man who refuses to cut material, that while good, add nothing to the whole.
A good editor cuts to get rid of the bad material, a great editor cuts material for the whole work.
I agree with everything there. The amount of style and craft for the show is better than, well, any tv show I've seen since Twin Peaks. Its nice when they work images WITH the music.
Better yet, its episodic enough to be interesting, while still being a wothwhile cohesive whole series. A lot of other shows seem to get bogged down in their themes and lose track of their time frame.
All that said, I wouldn't say it was meant for Americans. It might be about a love affair with America, or at least American music. But then, Japanese culture is rife with that- personally I cringe whenever english is injected into songs. And entertaining though it is- Honky Tonk Blues is about bluesy as...well, Shania Twain.
So the title change, though regrettable, is a marketing thing. And me, I know it from Guns N' Roses...
Oh, the Oscars make perfect sense. Marketing etc as usual. But anyway, each country has a committee that nominates a film for the Oscars, and Mexico voted for a different one this year. Britain had a primarily Hindu language film rejected because of language (apparently having 1.5 mil isn't enough) And Afghanistan, w/o a committee, couldn't nomate one of their highly rated films at all. And Spain went with someone other than Almodovar (because they're tired of nominating him). China wanted Hero nominated for best picture, but since Miramax never made a screening the US, it couldn't- though it means it could qualify next year. So the Best Screenplay Nomination was actually the Academy's way of giving Y Tu Mama Tambien credit since they couldn't give it a best foreign film nod. I think Talk to Her was probably the best movie I saw made last year, but even that has nothing to do with it. best Foreign Film only needs to be released in said country. Ahh... City of God. may'be not he best, but worth a nod at least. Visually dynamic, great juggling of multiple stories, great music- and one of the most gut-wrenching scenes ever. And best/worst part yet- based on true stories. How's that for an adapted screenplay?
Its for people who the execs don't expect to win Best Actor nods, either because the performances might not be strong enough, or it might take away an award from someone else with a better chance in the same movie.
Originally, the award went for those character actors who were never top stars themselves, and the best supporting actress was given to the hot young thing with potential (Marisa Tomei, Anna Paquin, Mira Sorvino- the most dubious choices)- but now that each and every nomination or award can be tacked onto a poster or package for a quantifiable increase in revenues after- all the studios will jigger their nominations for maximum effect. Julianne Moore for The Hours for example.
Miramax is leader in Oscar campaigning, but they all do it now. I don't even want to talk about how the politicking for foreign film nominations, or Oscars and foreign films in general.
On a sidenote- IMO-- Chicago was a decent movie entirely undeserving of any of these nominations. Ah well, I'm less opposed to it than Gladiator or Beautiful Mind
You know, I actually thought the movie was decent satire. Verhoeven's more than a bit ham-handed, but why else put doogie howser in SS wear, WW2 propaganda designed clips, and young, pretty (and decidedly crappy) actors...he knew it, he grew up in occupied Holland- so he was obviously going to have his own spin on Heinlen's militiristic society.
The man's very much a populist as well as a satirist- Robocop's better. 4 mpg cars, ultra violence and "2 dollar" jokes and all that.
As a translation of the book, its probably crap- but then, its a different animal when someone else tells the story.
Except if appearance really didn't matter- then they'd have stayed the same as they started, then it would've genuinely been irrelevant.
Thats what really irritated me about Shrek, it had slight surface posture about being an inverted fairy tale, when its own supposed moral got crushed by its quest for a laugh.
Why bother showing that ugly doesn't count if you go out of your way to make the villian short and petty looking as well? Even among the humans?
That's certainly a fair point. I personally have a bit of defensiveness coming from the US. If the other person in conversation has no base of knowledge beyond Spider-Man et al (which I do like), comics do have a childish reputation. But I think of "graphic novel" as a bit of a dodge. Its describing a medium which works in the brain in so many different ways than just words and pictures that the gravity that "graphic" and "novel" add to it as terms takes more away from how the medium actually works than it lends weight.
Scott McCloud's book/comic Understanding Comics is by the far the best argument for it. He doesn't solve the problem of content neutral term that gives the medium its full respect, but he might raise the term comic itself.
All pts taken. You've just been caught in my personal crusade to justify my own expensive hobbies.
A term that came into popularity with Maus (still the greatest of the literary comics). On the other hand, if you ask Spiegelman, he calls it a comic.
"Graphic Novel" seems like a term created specifically to dodge the stigma of the rightful descriptor. I remember "prestige format" editions. Heh. I think Chris Ware, who along with Daniel Clowes seems to be getting the most play amongst outside 'reputable media' for the comic work had it best when hidden in the isbn section of one of his works it said (paraphrased):
Under no circumstances file under literature or fiction. File only under Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Role-Playing Games.
They're comics damnit!
Ah well, I do the same thing with 'movie' and 'film' to differentiate what between something I describing as good or just enjoyed.
DC is owned by Warner Brothers, and Marvel meanders on its own, failing (until recently) to really capitilize on all its licenses. Marvel's financial woes- bankruptcy and the like, were generated by over expansion and the 90s comic bubble.
As for Alan Moore, great stuff coming out now, but he came back for a spawn issue first, which meant he had to deal with McFarlane (we all know what he did to gaiman), and I'm ever so glad he didn't decide to quit with companies on our side of the continent all together.
This is sort of tangential, but piracy has devastated the Asian movie industry. This doesn't mean it would do it in the US or other parts of the world, but when the society at large is willing to see the movie in less than auspicious circumstances- in asia, I'm told that the theaters aren't as generally good as ours, so the incentive for the movie going experience isn't as persuasive.
Many a film in asia has been devastated by the piracy there. There's a movie called Hero that I'm really really looking forward to that had armed guards during the first week of screenings- the ratio of guards to audience members being something ridiculous like 1 guard per six watchers.
In any case, I don't believe that scenario is a likely in the US or most of the world at all, but its not entirely a toothless specter.
Oh, the CGI in Clones was great.
They were talking about the actors.
fuzzies huh? I honestly don't know the origin of that. Anyway, I went to a liberal arts uni in the northeast, and I was an english major. Personally, I avoid math at all costs (both my parents were math teachers, and one too many afternoons of practice later...) but I enjoyed all my courses, science included. The thing to keep in mind is that these courses aren't for you, as serious majors or really interested parties to take. Well, you can start off with them, thats part of their point. But I know english (et al) majors complain about such things, but I also hear hard science complain about the english or whatever classes they are 'forced' to take. I took a couple of those too, and they're equally light- to me. The simplified courses happen to everyone, but they're there for expousure. My roommate was a chem major, and while I don't think either of us really understands why the other likes what they do, we respect each other's interests, and know ('cause we consider ourselves intelligent folk) there's depth that only motivated study would reveal. I hear that MIT has a really good humanities system (crapload of money will do that)- just that its underutilized. And that they can't write- but then, lab reports aren't thesis. The point being, its up to everyone to learn a bit from other disciplines. But one class isn't going to make experts of everyone. Still, it could be worse. I spent a semester abroad and what the Scottish considered broadening your knowledge was a chem student studying physics or english history.
I'm sure other people have commented on the need of shipping costs inherent in being an island, but one more thing to take into account, at least with gas, is taxation as social policy.
Certainly, the government makes a lot of revenue with heavy taxation, but the added effect (aided by having small geographical mass and a decent national transit system) is that you have less cars on the road. As an American, we seem to expect cheap gas as a god-given right, no matter what. As someone from new jersey, I expect full service all the way.
Anyway, its not just price gouging, it has something to do with how you want to shape your society as well.
Well, the Saruman's use of the orb (forgive me, fellow geeks, for I have forgotten its name) which the movie shows pretty quick has corrupted him to Sauron's side.
In the literary version, he decides to pursue his own agenda, but it is basically the same as Sauron's. He's a powerful, megalomaniacal figure, good gone bad with hubris. Sort of what should have happened in AotC, how great a story would it have been to have Count Dooku just a misguided good guy? Over the edge? I digress...
The movie simplifies the story by just putting him under Sauron. He's basically the center of all evil in the world anyway, and everything's his fault. Evil just straight getting lumped together makes for a simpler, less complex story. Could've kept the old story in, frankly, with Saruman's corruption less obvious right away, but hey.
He wasn't the only one to acknowledge Kurosawa...and didn't he deny it for years? As soon as the hype around the movies grew beyond its humble serial-inspired beginnings, Lucas's ego grew with it. Once upon a time he had that ability to recognize talent. That's why so many of the movies he helped create but didn't direct are so well remembered. e's great a plot or story creation, after that he needs spielburg, kirshner, and the like to make it. I think AotC succeeds with its set pieces and the glimpses of bladerunner or fifth element, or gladiator/monster flicks. And the old mainstay for Lucas of the John Ford western. With most directors I'd call it inspiration, influence, or homage. But with Lucas it feels like theft... As for ILM, I'm a little bit sad. His devotion to it has turned the story and characters, even the simpler archtypal ones, into 2nd class citizens in ovie-making, and technical achievement the main virtue. Its pretty, but movie making its not. Personally, I think the level of hostility thats being generated over this will prevent the rumor from coming true. And its his right to change it, and its his right to deny us the originals in dvd. But the problem is that we know that any he adds is only going to make it worse. Ah well. At least this time I was just bored instead of disgusted.
Mainly because he can't write. The most irritating thing about Lucas has been his ever changing storyline considering his motives. He came out with Star Wars saying it was fun movies recreating the serials, but as the movies gained the holy aura about them, his story changed, and suddenly he decided to try his hand myth making. Mitochlroides? (sp) and that ridiculous immaculate conception, a tacked on mother with a tacked on boy with tacked on feelings for her...sigh...
He makes these movies for his own flawed inner vision, w/o regard to the audience. When its good, he meant to have it big, and when it's criticized, well, he was making it just for kids. He needs less yes-men and fanboys around him, most of the problems any average honest movie-goer can see and even Lucas can fix.
I watched Phantom Menace again on DVD recently, to see if it was as bad as I remember it, to overcome my spite toward the man. Man, that movie sucked...I tried to give the actors credit, they had nothing to work with, but the dialogue...
I watched for the stereotyping, I caught it the first time and wanted to see if I was being too sensitive. Well, I still am sensitive to it. Historical movies, movies with extremists are a different story, but I was irritated again with clear racial accents in phantom menace. In a dated peice, you let it go. In a historical peice, I like them close to factual, so the germans wouldn't get to complain. But the cowardly machiavellian alien with an asian accent isn't a historical figure. I won't say insulted, its too obviously harmless in intent, but for osmeone who has been made fun of with accents and the like, and knows how movies and media make stereotypes (Romulans and Klingons in that other Sci-Fi series), its sad and painful. Confrontation is a good thing, stereotypes start somewhere, but you have to mean it and be ready to address it, make a point with it, not go "whoops" and brush it aside.
jar-jar improved actually. Thinking of him as kids cartoon helped...irritating yes, but no longer stupid beyond belief.
As for critics, the Village Voice is an especially pretentious one, but they're the ones who evaluate them to see if they go beyond entertainment, and in this case, to go beyond the glow that movies imprints on its fans. Then again, I like the onion reviews the best.
David Edelstein of Slate has a reasonable review of it, saying that entertaining and its flaws are evident. But hey, its entertaining.
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2065822&device=
Loving something a lot doesn't make it high art, but don't riled up when people point that out either. Remember one last thing, being better than Phantom Menace still might not make it a good movie.