Originally Posted By oc_dean >><1) The dialog was a little too "now" in places - the comment from Franco for the Munchkins "to take five" jarred me a bit.> << The producers of the first major Oz film ('39) were smart enough to remove the Jitterbug number. But it seems the crew of this new one, aren't as smart?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 And when you compare the big chase scene in "Skyfall" when Bond is on the back of a car fighting with someone -- it looks a heckuva lot more realistic than that ridiculous Jeep / fencing sequence in 'Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull' Anyone else feel that way?<< Feel exactly the same way, too much CGI really takes me out of the film, but in Skyfall, the action scenes felt realistic and believable. If I am not mistaken, they still film quite a bit of James Bond movies with minimal CGI...
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yep. Kind of a video game look. Overly airbrushed or something.<< Exactly. Hard to place - too polished? Too plasticky? I really don't know, but I am so beyond over it. What bothers me is now I read good reviews for these movies, as if critics are immune to it, so I go see them and think afterwards, "What? That was supposed to be a good one?" (See also, The Avengers....) I was so excited for Lincoln I actually went to a midnight showing last night. Been a long, long while since I've done that. It's not perfect - think more Amistad than Schindler's List for Spielberg comparisons, but I loved it. Acting and storytelling, the human condition and conflict and tensions to move us. Matter of fact, I don't think there was a single explosion in the whole movie....
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA As contrast to that, just watched "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" -- an okay movie, but so much CGI -- a completely computer-animated stampede of horses. The GGI lens flare always annoys me too.
Originally Posted By matthewdort This looks insufferably overwrought and exactly like all the other dark, broody, effects-laden movies of the moment. Have people not bored of these "the fate of the world rests in your hands" films yet? Gah.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >> Have people not bored of these "the fate of the world rests in your hands" films yet? Gah.<< Very spot-on observation! So true!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA As for Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" -- I never thought for a minute I was in this fantasy world. Just a green screen stage, with computerized camera movements and CGI effects. It bores me.
Originally Posted By leobloom I agree with Jim, ecdc, and all the others who are sick of the plastic CGI look. I always associate the Star Wars Prequels with popularizing this kind of look, even though the look of those films (the reliance on green-screen, e.g.) seemed very polarizing and disjunctive with the first trilogy.
Originally Posted By tonyanton True...some of the scenes that worked the best for me were ones that utilized actual sets/locations...Tatooine, the palace in Naboo....Didn't care for the plastic look of the gungan/droid battle of the first film, or even Mustafar in the final film. The scenes of Amidala's apartment in the final flim struck the best balance with the CGI...perhaps because the futuristic mostly nightime cityscape backdrop lent itself better to CGI.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I remember seeing some making-of thing re: the Star Wars prequels. George Lucas was excited because they could move actors' positions over to one side, an 1/8th of an inch or something, in order to "perfect" the shot. If only that sort of detail and nuance went into the actual scripts and dialogue.
Originally Posted By oc_dean So ... the movie is set to open world-wide in just under 3 weeks. And if this turns out to be another "Burton Alice" box office sensation ... will fans .. (right on cue) .... jump on the - "I heard a rumor about a ride coming" ... bandwagon? Seems every time a major film comes out ... people jump on the "When is the ride going to be built?" campaign. And lets just say ... it does turn out to be a major box office hit ... That shouldn't mean an instant disqualification for ride/land ideas ... that just might be better than an "Oz" land! I'm hoping the back side of Frontierland ... makes way for an enlarged Frontierland (ORIGINAL ride idea - No film ties, please!) ... to really emphasis on that word - F.R.O.N.T.I.E.R. The current thinking seems to be on mini-lands - last one being Toontown. Then we have Critter Country and New Orleans Square. No more mini lands in Disneyland please. If they want to push an Oz Land .... please save it for a place .. where land is plentiful! WDW
