Originally Posted By Mr X Okay...hopefully that's fixed now. Spoilers Thread...cool! Okay, good stuff, liked some of the visuals, enjoyed the Monkey and China well enough, thought Franco did a passable job UNTIL... bad stuff - he was way over the top and silly at the end there. I just didn't buy it. Should've channeled his Goblin days better or something. Just the severed head stuff, everything else was cool. Still, I liked him and I bought the fact that he was both a trickster and fibber, as well as a good hearted hero who needed a little push towards greatness. Further bad stuff - is it me or was the old MGM Oz somehow more magical? It's not the special effects, I dunno...just something seemed sort of ORDINARY about this place despite the handful of bizarre characters (monkey, china, etc). Those water pixies, by the way, were a harry potter ripoff times a million and POINTLESS...almost as if they were thrown in just to show us how "weird" this place was but sort of sent everything going in the opposite direction (not weird, nor magical, nor special, just HOLLYWOOD). Perhaps some of it has to do with what Dean was talking about, we don't get to see that whole population full of whimsical oddballs the way we did in the old days, or if we do see them they're just sort of thrown in out of some sense of obligation or something. More bad stuff - good witch, bad witch, and sith lord with green force lightening? I mean, I know they bought star wars but Geez... AND Glinda, yeah, talk about wooden. And the fight scenes, you know the heroine isn't doing a good job when seeing her get pwned and knocked down makes you feel a little happy inside. Worst for last - I'm sorry but Meg Griffin, er, I mean MILA, not only was the costume LAME and not scary in the least, the acting was blech all the way through and BOY, if I ever meet a young actor/actress I'm gonna warn them NOT to do an anime series first because, man, I just could NOT get over the fact that the part of the wicked witch of the west was played by Meg Griffin. Overall, not too bad but could've been loads better.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>just something seemed sort of ORDINARY about this place despite the handful of bizarre characters<< I think it's because we have seen these CGI sorts of places so much in the last decade. I wouldn't have been terribly surprised to see a cameo by the characters from Avatar or Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. The MGM Oz was mostly actual sets constructed and populated with living beings, not people having to pretend to interact as they talk to tennis balls on sticks and so forth. I remember watching the making of the original Willy Wonka. The chocolate factory set, designed by Disney Imagineer Harper Goff, was kept under wraps by the director. The actors were allowed to see it finally during the shot where we see their reaction to it. Compare that to the plastic, too-slick Tim Burton version where you never for a minute forget that this is a totally video-game looking world. In some ways, movies have gone backwards a bit. There was a little scene in Oz where he had just staggered onto the shore. It was remarkable to me because you could see actual water and set pieces, before once again we were the world of totally artificial CGI.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>In some ways, movies have gone backwards a bit.<< So this. I recently took my kids to see Lincoln. It struck me the second time around that there were no grand, CGI sweeping shots of Washington, circa 1865. You know, the kind that are ubiquitous in every single other period movie anymore (Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc). There was no huge, CGI battle of Gettysburg, or Antietam, or any other battle. It was so very welcome that I didn't even appreciate it the first time I saw it because I was so engrossed in the film and not yanked out of it by CGI eye candy. Next on my list of movies to almost certainly not see: The Lone Ranger.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The trailer for Lone Ranger looks terrible. Almost as if the "Airplane" or "Scary Movie" guys decided to do a spoof of over the top Hollywood movies of this sort.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I think it's because we have seen these CGI sorts of places so much in the last decade*** You hit the nail on the head, I would say. Something about the CGI, cool and slick as we all know it is, is just TOO cool and slick and our brains (or my brain, at least) reject it as fake. Or, in my case, PLAIN (when the intention is nothing of the sort). I felt the same about Avatar, and the new Star Wars movies as well. Like watching a cartoon with a few humans added in as a special effect (which, yeah...that's exactly what it is). Good point about sets and set-design playing a major role. Even the ones that are built are REAL in a sense, since they were crafted just like a real place is. I think that's why I scoff at anyone who claims that Disneyland will be overthrown by virtual reality. Maybe so, but for now there's something much more tangible about a truly "magical" place (in the sense that no-place else like it exists) you can see, hear, taste, breathe, and touch.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Almost as if the "Airplane" or "Scary Movie" guys decided to do a spoof of over the top Hollywood movies of this sort.<< Every single time I see the trailer, I just think of that Simpsons' episode where the executives decide to create Poochie. You know there were a bunch of people standing around talking about how wild and in your face THIS Lone Ranger was going to be. The thing is, I get it's the movie business. If an executive can keep green lighting movie after movie that rakes in Scrooge McDuck sized money bins full of cash, good for them. I don't begrudge anyone in the industry for trying to make a living. I just wish the moviegoing public had a little bit better taste so the stuff that made billions was something worth our time.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub I would love to see the original Wizard of Oz on the big screen and can't stand it on television with commercials.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I would love to see the original Wizard of Oz on the big screen<< Coming soon to a theater near you. In 3D!! Not joking.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub Figures. I can remember seeing the original version Bambi on the Disney cruise one year and loved every grainy moment. I also loved the entire theatre was filled with fathers and their children...I guess it was mom's day at the Spa!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Something about the CGI, cool and slick as we all know it is, is just TOO cool and slick and our brains (or my brain, at least) reject it as fake. Or, in my case, PLAIN (when the intention is nothing of the sort)." Exactly. It has started to conjure up the exact opposite of a sense of wonder.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I remember watching the making of the original Willy Wonka. The chocolate factory set, designed by Disney Imagineer Harper Goff, was kept under wraps by the director. The actors were allowed to see it finally during the shot where we see their reaction to it.<< A similar strategy was used with the snow-covered forrest in the first Narnia movie. The shots of Lucy falling out of the wardrobe and being amazed by it are the actress's genuine reactions to the enormous set. Of course, they had a green screen background behind it to add more depth, but the vast majority of it was a physical place. And you know what? The Narnia movies (the first one at least) is one of the few recent movies in a fantasy world that actually manages a sense of wonder about the setting. Yes, it has some CGI scenes, but the majority of it was done with physical sets. Funny how that works. The only other modern films that fit that same category are the LOTR series (not to be confused with the new Hobbit ones), though I haven't seen them in a few years to see how they've held up.
