Story vs Special Effects.

123578

Comments

  • starboardstarboard Posts: 452

    I agree Phil....It is almost like dressing a nude....The nude is fine..but the clothes add an atmosphere of their own - they give it a warmth or a feeling of chill..

    Incidentlaly, I watched "Goodbye Mr. Chips" again, a little while ago.  In the film it shows the losses to the student body as World War I unfolded.  I wonder how many people realize that  life was about to imitate the movie. The movie was filmed in the midlands at a typical British school just before World War Two, Since the upper classes were approaching draft age, you wonder how many of the extras you are looking at  would survive the coming war.  

    I just love good soundtrack music.. and I found it very interesting, Diomede's post where, Micklos Rosza was mentioned... and that Ray Harrison liked to listen to them also.

     

  • Here is some modern soundtracks for those of us who live in 21 century, lol cheeky

    Cheers wink

     

  • starboardstarboard Posts: 452

    Its nice FifthElement...I like them.... Point taken, the sound tracks  submitted were of the 20th. Century......But what a century..From gliding kites of Kittihawke to landing on the moon within a lifetime....Movies from silent to Surround Sound,  So far we have more of everything but have done so much less.  Movies and sound tracks made in 1939 sound good today, That is almost 80 years later... I hope the efforts of our generation weather so well - 80 years from now....  We are struggling to send a man back to the moon - if we ever do...with vastly improved technology... not an auspicious beginning. 

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,551
    starboard said:

    ( why do they make these palid remakes?)

    They have visions and hopes of making it better, enhanced with modern equipment and techniques, less noise in both audio and video. The have epic aspirations - but then they fail! LOL

    It takes more than a great story and great effects. It takes a great Director and a great team to back up the Director's needs. I'm still very young to what it takes to make a true feature-length masterpiece. I'm glad I'm studying this stuff but that was never really my intention. I just wanted to make some fun and entertaining stuff for family and (most of all) friends to watch.

    Just learning more about what it takes to do even that really takes us on a journey! As little as I'm showing right now visually, I must say that I am having a LOT of Fun and growing a LOT in my skills - I think. And I'm also gaining this great collection along the way - a collection of materials to help put it all together from helpful guides to wonderful visual and audio elements. It's even more fun when I get some time to run in by my Carrara Beast... remember Carrara Beast Dartan? LOL  ...and make a cool animation or three - or even just set the stage for one.

    ======================================= 

    Great points, starboard, and a great list! 

    Have you seen the Ghost house series I posted? Not saying you must... just wondering... because the composer for that did a fabulous job. If we were to buy any of those films, they each come with full behind the scenes documentaries but also the soundtrack. Their store also sells soundtracks for filmmakers to use as well - which come with various matching elements to use throughout the production, like individual instrument tracks of each song as well as shorter sweeteners and the like. I was impressed when I saw that I like making music, but I'd also love to just use one of those once and make a movie with it. Very nicely composed stuff.

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,551
    edited March 2017

    I love cinematic soundtracks - modern and old.

    Yeah... I love those too, FifthElement!

    I could never seem to find the old soundtrack from Genghis Khan from back in the sixties(?) since I lost my Dad's vinyl album to a house fire :(

    I've still never seen the movie itself (though I now see that I can watch it on YouTube) but I used to play adventure with this soundtrack playing on my Dad's turntable. It's so dramatically written. Sometimes the music would cause a trajic moment in our pretending just because the emotional pull of the music is so powerful.

    Wow... and here's the full movie from 1965!

    Post edited by Dartanbeck on
  • starboardstarboard Posts: 452

    Dart,

    I got sucked in. I started watching just the beginning.. and can't stop.....That's a young   Omar Shariff..

     

  • starboardstarboard Posts: 452
    edited March 2017

    Dart,

    One good turn deserves another...This  link will take you to "The last Valley"... a terrific flick that takes place during the thirty years war. It is a wonderful cast including Michael Caine and Omar Shariff. The thirty years war has dragged on for years and most of central Europe has been plundered and impoverished. Omar Sharif is a scholar on th run and stumbles upon this untouched valley high in the alps...Unfortunately, so does a a scavaging band of mercenaries led by Micaael Caine.  They have long ago lost any resemblance to amilitary unit with uniforms and instead  wear any form of military equipment they can find or take from those they defeat. The story soon becomes a survival situation  and a battle of wits .  For some reason the link brings up the movie a couple of minutes in..You will have to move it back to the beginning.

    The whole movie is available in 8 sections online...and  can be enlarged up to HD.........Enjoy. It has been one of my favorites.

    Post edited by starboard on
  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,551

    Sweet! Thanks for this - I'll certainly watch it.

    I was just sent this by a friend whom knows how much I love and defend the entire Star Wars franchise, while he only liked the original theatrical versions of the first three... just not a fan - which is fine. I'm not as "In Love" with the movies as I might seem. I enjoy watching them for their colors, the sounds, the music, the images.

    I must admit - I do love the Star Wars everything! But for me, The Clone Wars (George Lucas' last official Star Wars work before selling to Disney) is my absolute favorite.

    But as much as I do love the movies, I can't deny that this guy has some good points! LOL

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,551

    Hmm... waffles. 

    After making waffles and blueberries for Rosie and myself, some of the words from the above review had more of a chance to roll around in the ol' brain-pan.

    I'm glad that I don't judge movies like that. I don't have a list of rules. I either come out liking the movie or not - and I often know why - but it didn't come from a checklist on how filmmakers have to work.

    Like with Star Wars, The Force Awakens, it was perfectly appropriate to not explain the story of how she got the light saber just then. They were being attacked by ruthless oposition! I did notice the thing about Rey not needing any training. That was a little hard to swallow when she used a Jedi mind-trick (which takes years to master) to get a guard to let her go from her detention cell. How would she even know about such a mind-trick? Still... it was really cool (for me) how it worked with the story, so I was fine with it. 

    The book I mention earlier helps us to work with such anomalies to prevent them from being such a stain. We need to set up the unfathomable. In 007 movies, we have Q. While he may not explain every device in Bond's arsenal of gadgets, his covering the new ones creates the set-up that James has amazing tools to help him out of nasty situations. It also explains how 007 doesn't adhere to the normal rules of main characters in that he never changes throughout the story. Most heroes go through a growth throughout the movie, and takes us along for the ride. Bond just takes us for a ride - and is very successful at doing it ;)

  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,799

    Hmm... waffles. 

    After making waffles and blueberries for Rosie and myself, some of the words from the above review had more of a chance to roll around in the ol' brain-pan.

    I'm glad that I don't judge movies like that. I don't have a list of rules. I either come out liking the movie or not - and I often know why - but it didn't come from a checklist on how filmmakers have to work.

    Like with Star Wars, The Force Awakens, it was perfectly appropriate to not explain the story of how she got the light saber just then. They were being attacked by ruthless oposition! I did notice the thing about Rey not needing any training. That was a little hard to swallow when she used a Jedi mind-trick (which takes years to master) to get a guard to let her go from her detention cell. How would she even know about such a mind-trick? Still... it was really cool (for me) how it worked with the story, so I was fine with it. 

    The book I mention earlier helps us to work with such anomalies to prevent them from being such a stain. We need to set up the unfathomable. In 007 movies, we have Q. While he may not explain every device in Bond's arsenal of gadgets, his covering the new ones creates the set-up that James has amazing tools to help him out of nasty situations. It also explains how 007 doesn't adhere to the normal rules of main characters in that he never changes throughout the story. Most heroes go through a growth throughout the movie, and takes us along for the ride. Bond just takes us for a ride - and is very successful at doing it ;)

    Interesting video. His number 1 reason for hating recent movies is exactly the same as mine, nothing has any lasting value anymore so its all meaningless. He rips the Wolverine storyines to shreds as well. I couldnt agree more.

    Dart,

    Movies and most storytelling in general is about pressing certain buttons with the audience. Everything is a metaphor. We need to ask ourselves sometimes what exactly is the "pay-off" we are expecting to receive from consuming or creating these films. Do we seek to change the world and people's thoughts with this film, or are we seeking to satisfy some other appetite? Not every film needs to be about making the audeince better, sometimes we just want entertainment. But not everyone finds the same things entertaining. I think that incorrect intent is a big a reason for recent bad movies as anything. Our approach is too shallow from the start. Why, because of this term; "demographics."

    When the film is over, most guys want to feel like a guy, not like a girl or like a child. If a film makes them adopt a perpective on life that appears weak or powerless because the main character is weak and powerless, men will likely reject it as sappy, campy, a crier type of movie. If he cannot imagine himself in the role of protagonist that is portrayed favorably, his interest will wane.

    I see Bond a bit differently than you do. For example I've always found James Bond, Batman, and Inspector Gadget to bascially be the same guy. Bear with me. They all appeal to a certain aspect of our human condition, but in particular our masculine identity. A testosterone thing. The tough guy in us, who doesn't take anyone elses crap without them paying a price for it. A regular human (male) who gains super capacities from clever technologies, who will go out on dangerous missions they shouldn't be involved in as mere humans to save the day for everyone, all the while playing by his own renegade rules. Yeah!!! They always have secret hideouts, and a trusted techie sidekick who is in no way a threat to the star's masculinity, writers ensure the sidekick is older and weaker physcially. In each movie installment or episode one or several of their technologies fail at key moments revealing them to be regular humans but it's okay; because when the battle ends it is their humanity that saves the day, not their technology after-all. Surprised yet? It's true; The main characters themselves don't really change as time passes obviously, its the rest of the world that changes around them from film to film, and our interest comes from watchng this "character" we know interact with this new world (that we also know). It's also worth noting that the actors themselves are switched out every few years to keep the audiences from consciously recognizing how stodgy the storylines of Batman and James Bond really are. As well as the requirements for physical appearance of these roles, according to the formula.

    There's always a formula. All that matters as creators is if we can adhere to the formula without drawing attention to the formula. People dont mind being manipulated. What they don't like is to know that they are being manipulated poorly, it's insulting to them. To some degree, it is a game of psychology.

    For a moment, let's examine our feeling of success of failure of a given film or franchise based on the types of ways they might tend to appeal to audiences. What are the possible appeals of  James Bond type of characters? Why do we watch these films? I'll propose a few possible reasons.

    1. Bond is an example of an Ideal Male- Bond is firstly handsome, well spoken, educated- Women tend to respond favorably to him. So that get's women into the theatres. Every Bond film must feature an unattainable female (by regular guy standards) who only Bond eventually connects with. Women watching the film like to imagine themselves abstractly as the woman of interest to all the men in the world of the movie. But even for all her beauty and charm, she cannot contain him, just like in real life. He will always move on. Darnit!! Every guy I know who isn't a James Bond with women already wishes he could be, so we go too. Thus, any actor portraying Bond must be someone who women and men both find "ideal" from a natural selection standpoint. This means that beyond a certain age, women become much less responsive, and other men become less intimidated. Yet if he's too young looking women won't take him seriously either and other men will overlook him. There's a sweet spot of sorts. Bond must be cast as a healthy looking man between 35 and 55 years of age in excellent physical condition. Same is true for Batman. No one wants to see a movie about an 18 year old Batman, nor a 76 year old one.

    2. Bond is Stong both physcially and mentally- While respect and attention from women matters a lot, respect and reverence from other men can matter even more. Bond gets everyone;s respect whihc feels good. No one wants to feel like the runt of the room. It doesnt mean being the biggest guy, just the baddest or if anything; just not the weakest. We never expect anyone who throws a punch at Bond to forget the experience anytime soon afterward, no matter how big the other guy may be.

    3. Bond is Wealthy as all heck---and so is Batman/Bruce Wayne - Being "broke" doesnt sit well with the masculine identity of most men. It's easier to look up to someone who has something more than you. Simple math.

    3. Bond is Intelligent- Smart enough to keep up with the technos he's entrusted with. Mentally stable enough to withold goverenment secrets when interrogated. Ruthless and self assured enough in his decisions to draw the line with an enemy along with a willingness to go extreme lengths to end a conflict if necessary. He'll sleep sweet dreams the very same night after he takes out someone who he's been assigned to assassinate.

    4. Bond has Courage- This guy will jump off a plane, blow up a building he's still standing in, hit a target from a mile away; all in the same take. He's the guy we all wish we could be, even one tenth of that and I'd be satisfied.

    Bascially, Bond is not a real character. Sure he has lines in the scene, but no real character. After all these movies no one can say for certain what Bond wants; what makes him happy; what matters to him when all the dust has settled. Bond, is more like a state of mind, a certain mood we find ourselves in. And for that reason, he doesnt need to be a real character so long as audiences recognize and connect with the Bond state of mind. Bond films are tough guy films, that feature prominent females in key bad girl roles...again a satisfaction of male fantasies, but little else. We watch new actors play these roles to see how well these actors can embody the state of mind that is a Bond or a Batman character.

    Admittedly, Batman is far less sexy than Bond. But do notice, for all the mask wearing you've never seen an average looking guy cast as Batman. Batman needs to be naturally selectively prefered as well, meaning his masculine prowess needs to be undeniable by all who view him. Since strength itself is a great sign of masculine idealism, Batman has to be bulky and strong. You get where I'm going. These are all comic book characters from the start. But what we forgive in print we don't always forgive on the screen. On screen, these stories seem very one dimensional. I'll explain.

    I'm less into the hyper masculine storylines, because like the silly romantic comedies that the ladies prefer, I find the tough guy films just too one sided for me to take them seriously. I CANNOT watch Jennifer Aniston fall in love with another dude, I can't. Not that there should not be any romantic comedies and tough guy films, because there should always be a bit of everything. But don't be surprised when these movies turn out to be terrible. We have to understand that films these days have target audiences, they dont make movies for story anymore, the make them to get certain people to spend money on certain things.

    Lots of hyper-masculine type movie franchises out there. People think of some of these as great films, but all I see is a guy being a guy.

    1. Wolf of Wall Street- This film has literally no value. It's just a guy who gets away with breaking all the rules, who has one unique insight that propells him above the others in his business, so he's wealthy. He has lots of sexual encounters. Uses lots of drugs, and in the end; does nothing of any real value to help anyone. The teenage guy in all of us wishes he could have been the Wolf. We watch this movie imagining ourselves as the protagonist, and we like that.

    2. Transporter - Great films for guys. The main character only needs two faces, the "I'm going to kill you" face and the "hold on for this crazy left turn" face. The character will never experience any significant emotional displays, meaning that the tough guy in the audence watching the film doesn't have to admit to his softer gushy insides, he can continue to live in his fantasy that he is the real Transporter.

    3. The Wolverine - Just another tough guy with a memory problem kicking everyone's butt. But at least he has some range and emotional capacity. But in the end his films all come down to his masculine brute strength overcoming absolutely everything in his path, even if he's clearly overpowered. X-men was suppoed to be a Sci-fi fantasy drama. Instead with the Wolvering storylines, they tunred it into a tough guy action film genre with little connection to sci-fi. While this may be staying truu to the Wolverine comics, it has made for boring movies in my opinion.

    4. The Bourne Series - Premise: Another tough guy with a memory problem kicking everyone's butt--Sound familiar?-- Admittedly, Iove every one of these films, except the last one. But again, just tough-guysiness on display. Just as boring as watching that Sex and the City movie. I mean rally, she's planning a wedding yet we only see Mr.Big on screen for 5 minutes? So one sided. Awful

    Demographically targeted content. It is what it is. And for that, is it really so bad?

    Sure these movies suck..how could they not?

    Maybe I'm alone in this thinking. Thanks for talking with me.

     

  • Steve KSteve K Posts: 3,234

    Rashad -


    "Bascially, Bond is not a real character. Sure he has lines in the scene, but no real character."


    That reminds me of the movie "No Country For Old Men".  The antagonist is Anton Chigurh, a seriously bad guy: " ... he dispassionately murders nearly every rival, bystander and even employer in his pursuit of his quarry and the money ... travels through Texas carrying a tank of compressed air and killing people with a cattle stungun. It propels a cylinder into their heads and whips it back again ... Chigurh is so evil, he is almost funny sometimes."  But he has no character, being described by one reviewer as a "cypher".  To me, the closest movie character is the shark in "Jaws".  A great job by Javier Bardem, and a great movie by the Coens, IMHO (and Ebert's).

  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,799
    edited March 2017
    Steve K said:

    Rashad -


    "Bascially, Bond is not a real character. Sure he has lines in the scene, but no real character."


    That reminds me of the movie "No Country For Old Men".  The antagonist is Anton Chigurh, a seriously bad guy: " ... he dispassionately murders nearly every rival, bystander and even employer in his pursuit of his quarry and the money ... travels through Texas carrying a tank of compressed air and killing people with a cattle stungun. It propels a cylinder into their heads and whips it back again ... Chigurh is so evil, he is almost funny sometimes."  But he has no character, being described by one reviewer as a "cypher".  To me, the closest movie character is the shark in "Jaws".  A great job by Javier Bardem, and a great movie by the Coens, IMHO (and Ebert's).

    I haven't seen "No Country...." But I have seen Jaws. Excellent example with Jaws! How these film makers managed to convince audiences that a mere fish could willfully attack members of a particular human family. That a mere fish could execute strategies to down ship and eat the people on them. That an animal that had been shot and otherwise threatened by humans would continue to attack rather than to swim away. Fascinating. Someone should give that little minnow a college degree!!

    Another recent example of the non-real character was Ramsey Bolton from Game of Thrones. Bad Bad Bad guy. But no one really knows why. The new levels of brutality that were reached in the show is what makes him memorable, and that the actor did a wonderful job with a character so one dimensional. Still, it is another shining example of what can go wrong from a writing perspective.

    Post edited by Rashad Carter on
  • Steve KSteve K Posts: 3,234

    "How these film makers managed to convince audiences that a mere fish could willfully attack ... "  Indeed.  As the story goes, the mechanical shark in "Jaws" did not work for the early shooting.  So director Spielberg used only indirect indications of the shark, e.g. a swimming woman being ruthlessly dragged around, but only above water shots, no visible shark.  Many say that was way more fightening than showing the "real" shark.  Our imaginations can be played nicely by good directors ...

  • starboardstarboard Posts: 452

    Dart Said,

    Like with Star Wars, The Force Awakens, it was perfectly appropriate to not explain the story of how she got the light saber just then. They were being attacked by ruthless oposition! I did notice the thing about Rey not needing any training. That was a little hard to swallow when she used a Jedi mind-trick (which takes years to master) to get a guard to let her go from her detention cell. How would she even know about such a mind-trick? Still... it was really cool (for me) how it worked with the story, so I was fine with it. 

    Playing fair with your audience. I remember years ago when I was reading on how to write fiction.. The author of one book I was reading gave an example from the pulp fiction days. A writer had spun a yarn that had captivated the subscribers to a weekly pulp magazine. At next to final chapter the hero had been dumped in this fifty foot deep circular pit some 12 foot across, with slick greasy walls. Nobody could figure how the author was going to get the hero out....In the final chapter,  he opened it with ,, the hero gave a mighty leap and jumped out of the pit. According to the book, this writer of this eries was not used again by this magazine.

    And not playing fair is done sometimes by some of the best, for example..Alfred Hitchock....In the beginning of "Vertigo"  has James Stewert, slide down a steep roof and hang  by his finger tips to a rain gutter. A cop tries to reach down and help him, slips and falls to his death to the alley far below. According to what was shown to the audience, there was just Stewert, the cop and the man they were chasing..The Man made his escape, so there was no immediate help available... and Stewart at least character he was pllaying, was hanging from this gutter with his fingers ... At this point Hitchcock cuts away to months later.. and never comes back to explain how Stewert got out of this desperate  situation...... In this case, this might be the genius of Hitchcock, for he left the audience with fear still hanging in their minds...so that they could understand how Stewart developed vertigo. However....I still want to know how he got out of that scape.

    I think you have to play fair within the parameters of the fiction you are telling... If you are telling a story of the real world..then can't be having people suddenly doing impossible things found in Marvel Comics as given in the first example above. For example, all the shootout movies where the bad guys can't hit beans while the hero picks them off on and two at a time. No matter how carelessly he aims while running, rolling, dong gymnastics, his bullets as if having a homing device seeks their target.   In the case of Star Wars, you have to behave within the logic system assumed by the viewer from previous episodes.  Sometimes I wonder if the writers take the fiction half as serious as those that watch it...

     

     

     

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,551
    Steve K said:

    "How these film makers managed to convince audiences that a mere fish could willfully attack ... "  Indeed.  As the story goes, the mechanical shark in "Jaws" did not work for the early shooting.  So director Spielberg used only indirect indications of the shark, e.g. a swimming woman being ruthlessly dragged around, but only above water shots, no visible shark.  Many say that was way more fightening than showing the "real" shark.  Our imaginations can be played nicely by good directors ...

    Much like Ryan Connolly's tutorial on Muzzle Flashes, which he teaches after saying that real guns don't have a muzzle flash. (My Dad's 7mm Mauser rifle sure does!)

    So after he teaches his use of layers of various elements he also demonstrates ways to not use an actual muzzle flash at all - and finally goes on to demonstrate how dramatic it can be to not show the actual shot at all - the sound alone makes it real... even final.

  • starboardstarboard Posts: 452

    Rashed,

    Great analysis of Bond and his appeal to both male and female. I remember reading an account  somewhere or other, of how the author Ayn Rand was carried away with this enthusiasm, when in the movie, Sean Connery said the "name is Bond, James Bond". I guess if this swooning can get to the originator of the objectivist Philosophy, Bond's appeal among women might be as as strong as you suggest.

    When I was younger I used to find the Bond movies entertaining....Now I find them tedious.. It seems to be the same plot, over and over again..A super criminal has a scheme to take over the world...for some reason he frequents gambling casinos where Bond displays his sophistication, meets the doll who is somehow involved,  either with or against this super criminal. 2/3 of the way into the movie, Bond gets invited/kidnapped to the criminals lair, where Bond destroys the enterprise and criminal from the inside and ends up with the doll. In the real world a successful spy is someone that few and in most cases, very few people  know they exist. Being inocuous is preferable to handsome. However it is fun fiction, so lets not go there..

    Far too many movies I believe are worshipers of physical abilities. Like so called professional wrestling, it is all grunt and display.  I find that movies where the subject has to use his wits, far more interesting than when he has to use his muscles..  

     

     

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584

    I remember being very un-wowed by some of the more recent Bond films, at the ordinariness of the villains and their machinations (although I still loved the Marchetti vs DC3 dog fight!). But there's been a very real sense of "oh, it that it?" when it comes to the final showdown.

    Jaws . . . reminded me very much of Moby Dick.

    When it comes to guns in films, honestly I wouldn't know. The only gun I've ever fired (or even held, for that matter) was a .22 rifle, way back when I was in the scouts. I've definitely seen gouts of flame coming out of the fronts of guns (and the sides) on YouTube, and silencers/suppressors don't make the sound we regularly hear.

    Speaking of sounds, this one is guaranteed to pull me right out of the movie: the "outdoors hawk screech". Whether it's New England or New Zealand, Scooby Doo or Scotlant, it's the same hawk with the same screech, regardless of how appropriate it is. That bird is probably owed millions in royalties by now! Around here we get red kites, and they most definitely don't sound like that! But if they do ever get around to making "TangoAlpha: Desk Bandit" (sure to be a blockbuster!), you can bet what hawk noise you'll hear when I open the window . . .

    I enjoyed watching the new Logan movie (guess what hawk . . . ;)), but it was much more of a character drama compared to the earlier films. But it's interesting too that the films I've most enjoyed recently were effectively docudramas - retellings of real events within or close to our lifetimes: Hacksaw Ridge, Lion, Hidden Figures, A United Kingdom, Viceroy's House . . .

  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,145

    I remember reading that in the Bond books, Ian Fleming gives meticulous descriptions of all the leading characters - except Bond himself. I think the only mention of anything about him physically is "a comma of black hair" (sounds like Superman!). I think it was deliberate - by not having a description of the main character, it is easier for the reader to imagine themsleves as that person, and I think that is basically what Bond is all about - wish fulfilment. Who wouldn't want to travel (first class!) to exotic locations, woo beautiful women, drive the best cars, eat and drink the best that is on offer, be courageous, strong, inteligent, sophisticated.

  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,168

    Excellent post, Rashad.  Character arc can make for a great story.

    PhilW, the point about the absence of description reminds me of talks I've had with my father about TV/film compared to radio.  He often pointed out that when listening to radio, his imagination always provided a scarier scene than a TV haunted house, a more attractive heroine than could be put on screen, etc.  I've listened to old radio shows while on long car trips.  There is something to it.

  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,145

    In old horror movies, it was standard practice to not show the monster/demon until well into the film, as the imagination makes it more terrifying than actually showing it - and it was quite often a bit of a let-down when you see it, as it is nowhere near as frightening as you imagined.  Unless the film is Alien...

  • starboardstarboard Posts: 452

    TangoAlpha,

    I know what you mean about the hawk screech... It might have been overdone in the movie "Lady Hawk"..a nice fantasy flick.

    We get used to the sounds that hollywood createa so that we asccept them in prference to real sounds. In the "Adventures of Robin Hood"..Erol Flyn version, hollywood created the sound of arrows hitting its target...and wwe have come to accept it.....Now I don't think there is a bow and arrow movie where this sound is not used.

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    Diomede said:

    Excellent post, Rashad.  Character arc can make for a great story.

    PhilW, the point about the absence of description reminds me of talks I've had with my father about TV/film compared to radio.  He often pointed out that when listening to radio, his imagination always provided a scarier scene than a TV haunted house, a more attractive heroine than could be put on screen, etc.  I've listened to old radio shows while on long car trips.  There is something to it.

    It's well known that radio has the best visual effects of any medium - supplied by your imagination. We still get full cast audio dramas quite regularly on the radio here, often doing adaptations of well known books and authors. And companies such as Big Finish do original audio drama for the download/cd market (okay, mostly Dr Who, but other stuff too).

  • Steve KSteve K Posts: 3,234
    Diomede said:

    talks I've had with my father about TV/film compared to radio.  He often pointed out that when listening to radio, his imagination always provided a scarier scene than a TV haunted house, a more attractive heroine than could be put on screen, etc.  I've listened to old radio shows while on long car trips.  There is something to it.

    Indeed.  Here is a favorite old related documentary I've posted before, I think, but fun if you haven't seen it.  I especially like the sound effects:

     

  • chickenmanchickenman Posts: 1,202

    Dont get me going about muzzle flashes or Grenade explosions, Carl Gustov and M72 Anti Tank rockets.

    What we see is not what i have experienced with modern weapons as they do not behave like that.

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,551
    PhilW said:

    In old horror movies, it was standard practice to not show the monster/demon until well into the film, as the imagination makes it more terrifying than actually showing it - and it was quite often a bit of a let-down when you see it, as it is nowhere near as frightening as you imagined.  Unless the film is Alien...

    That always pissed me off angered me as a kid - and can still drive me nuts to this day too. By saying "well into the movie" you're being far too kind. More like very near the end! LOL

    I've just seen Gareth Edward's "Monsters" for the first time just the other night. I loved it! It's not even really so much a monster display reel - something I'd have Loved as a kid - but more a story about dealing with adverse, and even unfair, situations with a nice love story built in. 

    I've been wanting to find/see that movie since I' ve learned of it in VFX school - here to find that it's on Netflix was Awesome!

    The fear of the Monsters comes and goes - as it was intended - and when it comes, it is excellent! I was very impressed! I see (by the not-so-good rating on Netflix) that not everyone felt the same.

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,551

    Dont get me going about muzzle flashes or Grenade explosions, Carl Gustov and M72 Anti Tank rockets.

    What we see is not what i have experienced with modern weapons as they do not behave like that.

    LOL! I don't get the reference you speak of, but... yeah... muzzle flashes are a bit unreal. I agree that they can make a gunfight scene much more fun to watch, but even in that sense, the effect is always better if it's done in a subtle manner than too overdone.

    Wanna get crazy and overdone? What not introduce a fictional weapon that does behave like that?!  ...and then really go for it!!! ;)

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584

    And don't forget that the bang of a gunshot in the movies travels thousands of times faster than the speed of sound . . .

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,551
    Steve K said:
    Diomede said:

    talks I've had with my father about TV/film compared to radio.  He often pointed out that when listening to radio, his imagination always provided a scarier scene than a TV haunted house, a more attractive heroine than could be put on screen, etc.  I've listened to old radio shows while on long car trips.  There is something to it.

    Indeed.  Here is a favorite old related documentary I've posted before, I think, but fun if you haven't seen it.  I especially like the sound effects:

    "Back of the Mike" Old Time Radio Documentary

     

    I love that show. I just posted about having the soundtrack of Ghengis Khan as a kid, I also really loved this lp record!

    I would love to do an audio drama... maybe some day?

  • Steve KSteve K Posts: 3,234
    Steve K said:
    Diomede said:

    I love that show. I just posted about having the soundtrack of Ghengis Khan as a kid, I also really loved this lp record!

    I would love to do an audio drama... maybe some day?

    I never watched "Johnny Quest", but the music sure brings back memories of similar shows.  Question: What is the image of the man at ~1:30?  It doesn't seem to fit the rest, and in fact looks like a still from GTA5 that shows up during the game load, sort of like the attached.

     

     

    GTA5 Michael.jpg
    175 x 288 - 8K
  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,168

    Steve K, thanks for posting the back of the Mike clip again.  I must have missed it the first time.  I love that the guys are wearing masks and then one of them uses the other's name!

     

    Dart - huge fan of the old Johnny Quest.  With the growth of podcasts, maybe you could do an audio drama.

Sign In or Register to comment.