I'm getting really annoyed with the cinema at the moment i go every other Wednesday and every time the film gets ruined by people talking and playing on their phone.
If you're not gonna watch the film don't pay to go and see it!!!!!!!! why ruin it for everyone else who's payed good money to see the film.
they say that piracy will be the death of cinema... no, stupid good for nothing idiots who keep talking are gonna be the death of cinema.
and also people kicking the seats behind you. how hard is it not to get watching a film confused with football???
Thursday, 29 March 2012
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Sequals and Trilogies (spoiler alert)
Although i can't complain when good filmmakers create follow ups to amazing films some examples include Jurassic Park, Alien and Star wars. However i will complain when the follow up films aren't all that good.
I will start with Jurassic park 3, the first two were awesome films, shot well, brilliant graphics and sound design i couldn't fault them, even the story lines were well thought out. But why didn't this happen with the third film??????? A dare devil boy goes to close to the island while hand gliding or something and gets trapped there (good start) a lie is told to get an expert and mercenaries to go and rescue him, also a good start. But the first problem for me is when Alan (the expert) is on the plane and he dreams of a velocaraptor in the plane that talks to him..... OK, i can understand how he'd have a bad dream about a dinosaur in the plane, but why the hell did it talk? i don't know whether Ive missed anything but for me that took away the scariness of this dinosaur because it humanized it too much, maybe if it was explained a little more then maybe it would've been OK. the second error is: why did they change the look of the velocaraptors?? in the first and second films they were a simply plain dark green/Grey color. but in the third film some of them were almost multicolored, and some of them had weird thing on their heads which looked strangely like a Mohawk hairstyle. then there is no break from them being chased by something that wants to eat them, in the first two films they have time to regroup and talk and plan and it makes for a little more interesting story. but in the third film all they do is run, call me a skeptic but in my opinion only athletes who train a lot have the ability to run as much as they do in the film. seriously though a mother (who's job is not reviled) an office worker, a 14 year old boy and two people who spend most of there time on their knees brushing dust off bones, something tells me that these people aren't trained athletes. and if i was attacked as much as they were in this film id just give up... big dinosaur that looks oddly like a tyrannosaurus Rex but isn't, then they run into an actual tyrannosaurus and then the big dinosaur comes back (and as a side note the big dinosaur is meant to be bigger than the tyrannosaurus but its smaller but still wins in a fight... oh and yeah the big dinosaur also has a mohawk thing), then velocaraptors, then the big dinosaur, then big man eating birds, then the big dinosaur and then velocaraptors. they never seem to meet any nice herbivores.
Now i'll move onto the 'Alien' quadrilogy. the first 2 films again i couldn't fault them. the Third and fourth films are filled with so many continuity errors its not even funny. The basic principles of the film is that a face hugger lays one egg inside a host then dies. So in the third film why is it that the one face hugger that is on board the escape ship manages to lay 2 eggs? one in a dog and one in Sygorny Weever. In the fourth film Ripley (Sygorny Weever) is cloned, however in the cloning process the cloned sygorny weever gets Alien blood, which is essentially acid, so when she gets hit in the nose and her blood burns through the floor why does it not burn through most of the ship as it does in the first film? then because of the cloning process the Alien queen has a human womb which she uses to birth a alien human hybrid, so where do all the face huggers come from?? because as far as the story implies apart from the single egg that was on the escape ship, all the face hugger eggs and aliens were destroyed in the second film, and with only a human womb the alien queen can't lay face hugger eggs!! WHY WON'T THIS FILM MAKE SENSE??????
To be honest, i think that people should just stick to trilogies, because a fourth film always seems rushed and just annoying. and if they are going to make a third film, PUT MORE THOUGHT INTO IT INSTEAD OF DOING IT FOR MONEY.
I will give the benefit of the doubt, because Steven Spielberg is making a 4th Jurassic Park film, so with any luck he will revisit the style of the first two films, (i would like to make it clear that the benefit of the doubt is given in this instance only because it is Steven Spielberg.)
I will start with Jurassic park 3, the first two were awesome films, shot well, brilliant graphics and sound design i couldn't fault them, even the story lines were well thought out. But why didn't this happen with the third film??????? A dare devil boy goes to close to the island while hand gliding or something and gets trapped there (good start) a lie is told to get an expert and mercenaries to go and rescue him, also a good start. But the first problem for me is when Alan (the expert) is on the plane and he dreams of a velocaraptor in the plane that talks to him..... OK, i can understand how he'd have a bad dream about a dinosaur in the plane, but why the hell did it talk? i don't know whether Ive missed anything but for me that took away the scariness of this dinosaur because it humanized it too much, maybe if it was explained a little more then maybe it would've been OK. the second error is: why did they change the look of the velocaraptors?? in the first and second films they were a simply plain dark green/Grey color. but in the third film some of them were almost multicolored, and some of them had weird thing on their heads which looked strangely like a Mohawk hairstyle. then there is no break from them being chased by something that wants to eat them, in the first two films they have time to regroup and talk and plan and it makes for a little more interesting story. but in the third film all they do is run, call me a skeptic but in my opinion only athletes who train a lot have the ability to run as much as they do in the film. seriously though a mother (who's job is not reviled) an office worker, a 14 year old boy and two people who spend most of there time on their knees brushing dust off bones, something tells me that these people aren't trained athletes. and if i was attacked as much as they were in this film id just give up... big dinosaur that looks oddly like a tyrannosaurus Rex but isn't, then they run into an actual tyrannosaurus and then the big dinosaur comes back (and as a side note the big dinosaur is meant to be bigger than the tyrannosaurus but its smaller but still wins in a fight... oh and yeah the big dinosaur also has a mohawk thing), then velocaraptors, then the big dinosaur, then big man eating birds, then the big dinosaur and then velocaraptors. they never seem to meet any nice herbivores.
Now i'll move onto the 'Alien' quadrilogy. the first 2 films again i couldn't fault them. the Third and fourth films are filled with so many continuity errors its not even funny. The basic principles of the film is that a face hugger lays one egg inside a host then dies. So in the third film why is it that the one face hugger that is on board the escape ship manages to lay 2 eggs? one in a dog and one in Sygorny Weever. In the fourth film Ripley (Sygorny Weever) is cloned, however in the cloning process the cloned sygorny weever gets Alien blood, which is essentially acid, so when she gets hit in the nose and her blood burns through the floor why does it not burn through most of the ship as it does in the first film? then because of the cloning process the Alien queen has a human womb which she uses to birth a alien human hybrid, so where do all the face huggers come from?? because as far as the story implies apart from the single egg that was on the escape ship, all the face hugger eggs and aliens were destroyed in the second film, and with only a human womb the alien queen can't lay face hugger eggs!! WHY WON'T THIS FILM MAKE SENSE??????
To be honest, i think that people should just stick to trilogies, because a fourth film always seems rushed and just annoying. and if they are going to make a third film, PUT MORE THOUGHT INTO IT INSTEAD OF DOING IT FOR MONEY.
I will give the benefit of the doubt, because Steven Spielberg is making a 4th Jurassic Park film, so with any luck he will revisit the style of the first two films, (i would like to make it clear that the benefit of the doubt is given in this instance only because it is Steven Spielberg.)
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Documentary update
Finally finished editing.
i am very happy with the finished result. i think we have managed to create the feel of the piece that we set out to create.
Many thanks should be given to John Parr, Simon and Graham Mathews. for taking time out to help us in this project by doing interviews and providing us with archive footage.
This project has taught me if not all of us a lot. the main lesson from this project was during our meeting with the Liverpool film institute - it really opened my eyes to what really goes on during pre-production.
i'm really looking forward to presenting this piece.
i am very happy with the finished result. i think we have managed to create the feel of the piece that we set out to create.
Many thanks should be given to John Parr, Simon and Graham Mathews. for taking time out to help us in this project by doing interviews and providing us with archive footage.
This project has taught me if not all of us a lot. the main lesson from this project was during our meeting with the Liverpool film institute - it really opened my eyes to what really goes on during pre-production.
i'm really looking forward to presenting this piece.
King of Laughter - Nick Hillel
I didn't like this documentary as much.
For me it seemed pointless and without a message.
The reasons for this are numerous, the first being that this man who apparently is always laughing just seems to be very over the top and fake. If someone was to walk up to me and just randomly start laughing at me (as it seems to show him doing in the piece) i wouldn't laugh back. my reaction would be along the lines of "get out of my face" or "is there something funny about me eating?".
i understand that this man went through some bad times and i agree with the positivity of his attitude, but that wouldn't include continuous laughter in my eyes.
I am not a fan of the close up head shot of the man as he is walking around, but it appears as though everything else is moving faster because the camera never moves from him. i feel it is overused, not just in this piece but also in general. i have seen it used in many different programs in many different scenarios including: drug and alcohol related programs and even in the second episode of 'Torchwood' where a woman was possessed by a gas alien. so as i said its over used and i don't think it really serves a purpose.
I dont feel as though the documentary really puts this man in a good light as it is meant to, it makes him appear as though he is the crazy man in the room, who randomly walks in and starts laughing for no apparent reason.
call me grumpy but that would just annoy me or even freak me out a bit rather than cheer me up - no matter where i lived.
http://www.4docs.org.uk/films/show/5/King+of+Laughter
For me it seemed pointless and without a message.
The reasons for this are numerous, the first being that this man who apparently is always laughing just seems to be very over the top and fake. If someone was to walk up to me and just randomly start laughing at me (as it seems to show him doing in the piece) i wouldn't laugh back. my reaction would be along the lines of "get out of my face" or "is there something funny about me eating?".
i understand that this man went through some bad times and i agree with the positivity of his attitude, but that wouldn't include continuous laughter in my eyes.
I am not a fan of the close up head shot of the man as he is walking around, but it appears as though everything else is moving faster because the camera never moves from him. i feel it is overused, not just in this piece but also in general. i have seen it used in many different programs in many different scenarios including: drug and alcohol related programs and even in the second episode of 'Torchwood' where a woman was possessed by a gas alien. so as i said its over used and i don't think it really serves a purpose.
I dont feel as though the documentary really puts this man in a good light as it is meant to, it makes him appear as though he is the crazy man in the room, who randomly walks in and starts laughing for no apparent reason.
call me grumpy but that would just annoy me or even freak me out a bit rather than cheer me up - no matter where i lived.
http://www.4docs.org.uk/films/show/5/King+of+Laughter
The Archive - Sean Dunne
i really liked this short documentary. it starts by really showing the passion that this man has for the records he's collected.
The documentary moves through a range of emotion from happy to sad when we find out that everything that he has achieved is undone because he has to give up his collection.
i also enjoyed the way Sean Dunne uses visual metaphors in this piece for example, at the end when all the lights are turning off, is almost a metaphor for the end of an era, the closing down of this mans shop and the end of the collection.
The music choices are very interesting as well, Dunne uses happy and lively music at the start of the piece and then towards the end he uses slower more emotional music towards the end when we find out that no one takes this man and what he has done seriously.
i think this documentary was very effective in portraying the message it sets out to put across.
http://www.4docs.org.uk/films/show/6/The+Archive
The documentary moves through a range of emotion from happy to sad when we find out that everything that he has achieved is undone because he has to give up his collection.
i also enjoyed the way Sean Dunne uses visual metaphors in this piece for example, at the end when all the lights are turning off, is almost a metaphor for the end of an era, the closing down of this mans shop and the end of the collection.
The music choices are very interesting as well, Dunne uses happy and lively music at the start of the piece and then towards the end he uses slower more emotional music towards the end when we find out that no one takes this man and what he has done seriously.
i think this documentary was very effective in portraying the message it sets out to put across.
http://www.4docs.org.uk/films/show/6/The+Archive
Thursday, 15 March 2012
Idea change, LIverpool filming and editing plan update.
Before travelling to Liverpool to film our documentary, our group had a change of idea. Instead of documenting the restoration of Albert Dock, we decided that we would film a documentary about a restoration of a life boat that Hoylake museum had brought back to Liverpool after 30 or more years.
The Liverpool filming was pretty successful. we did have some problems in regards to getting permission to film on Albert dock. We had been trying to get in contact with the docks for over a week with no success. On the day of production we finally got through and were transferred to 'The Liverpool film institute' and we had to go to a meeting so we could fill out a form and sign licensing agreements in order to have permission to film on Albert docks. this took up a large portion of our day. We met John Parr, the chairman of the Hoylake lifeboat museum at 12:30, he then gave us permission to film on the actual boat itself which was a real plus. We filmed about half an hours worth of interview footage with John Parr on the boat. We did have a few problems with sound, as there was a little bit of wind on the day, a lot of the sound we captured was tainted with wind and distortion. Also as it was so bright we have had problems with over exposure and even some footage being too dark due to the ND filter. However I feel we have a lot of useable footage and that the editing will be successful.
We have planned the edit; we are attempting to create a very relaxed feeling about the piece. We want to show the personal meaning of the lifeboat to John Parr, as he has spent his entire life working around lifeboats and it has always been a lifelong dream of his to own his own. We also want to split the documentary between personal experiences and facts about the lifeboat and the class of lifeboat. I hope that the final piece will be quite uplifting and also educational at the same time. We will add some calm music underneath the piece to fill in gaps between speaking and also to help create the calm atmosphere.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)