Overrated "classics"

[Scouse]

I found some of the effects in 2001 far more convincing tbh.

I was going to get banned for the picture I was considering posting but I decided against it and thought I'd give a verbal description for the above sentance:


That's a load of testicular atrophy.






Shite. Utter utter fucking load of complete bollocks.

I've got about 3000 films in my collection, both of the above. In NO WAY are you convinced about that without needing glasses.....


.....or should I lighten up m8?




/edit: it was not pleasant looking at the wide range of pictures of testicular diseases that I was going to post as an answer to the above. I've suffered for this post

 

[Bodhi]

I was going to get banned for the picture I was considering posting but I decided against it and thought I'd give a verbal description for the above sentance:


That's a load of testicular atrophy.






Shite. Utter utter fucking load of complete bollocks.

I've got about 3000 films in my collection, both of the above. In NO WAY are you convinced about that without needing glasses.....


.....or should I lighten up m8?




/edit: it was not pleasant looking at the wide range of pictures of testicular diseases that I was going to post as an answer to the above. I've suffered for this post

I was going to get banned for suggesting what you could do with those testicular diseases, but a post as retarded as the above requires a different strategy. I feel in this instance re-education is the key, as you clearly think a vast film collection is a good substitute for intelligence.

What you have rather dimwittedly failed to realise, is that there is more to realism than what you see. It's also about what you see, even what you feel. At no point in Star Wars did I feel like I was actually there, the overblown orchestral music providing a pretty poor substitute for Kubrick's deathly silence, overlaid with the astronaut's insistent breathing. This aspect of 2001 has yet to be beaten imo. The sounds and even some of the effects themselves were done better in 2001 imo (I'm thinking the Discovery sequence). Yes there are places where it looks a shitload worse - the apes look a tad laughable nowadays, and I've already mentioned the Wormhole sequence. However that wasn't my point. It was claimed that nothing like Star Wars has been seen upon its release, I just pointed out that some of the effects in 2001 were more convincing imo.

 

[old.user4556]

Have to agree with Bodhi, the effects in 2001 were incredible because of the sheer realism of the total silence of space.

Additionally, as bodhi says, the breathing of the astronauts - you could feel a real sense of danger and being so alone especially with HAL going a bit wrong in the head.

The special effects of 2001 were more psychlogically disturbing, as opposed to bubble gum visual "ka-blams" of Star Wars. For me, 2001 was a hell of a lot better effects wise.

The monolith, now theres another fucking great concept.

Shit, gonna have to go and watch it now

G

 

[Tom]

Its quite interesting to any photographers here (who will understand the problems of shooting small-scale models and eliminating depth of field problems), how they shot those sequences. They took days (and I'm not including the setup time, I'm talking about how long the camera was running), to do each shot.

Its still nice to see a film use Newtonian laws to great effect. Mind you, I've just got Star Trek The Motion Picture (directors cut) on DVD, and that still looks fantastic. The set design must have won some awards for that.

 

[FuzzyLogic]

A Saturn award

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/awards


Other than that, not a bean.


Although it did get something for the enhanced/restored scenes, haven't seen the new cut yet, I just remember it being...poncy...

 

[Scouse]

I was going to get banned for suggesting what you could do with those testicular diseases, but a post as retarded as the above requires a different strategy. I feel in this instance re-education is the key, as you clearly think a vast film collection is a good substitute for intelligence.

What you have rather dimwittedly failed to realise, is that there is more to realism than what you see. It's also about what you see, even what you feel. At no point in Star Wars did I feel like I was actually there, the overblown orchestral music providing a pretty poor substitute for Kubrick's deathly silence, overlaid with the astronaut's insistent breathing. This aspect of 2001 has yet to be beaten imo. The sounds and even some of the effects themselves were done better in 2001 imo (I'm thinking the Discovery sequence). Yes there are places where it looks a shitload worse - the apes look a tad laughable nowadays, and I've already mentioned the Wormhole sequence. However that wasn't my point. It was claimed that nothing like Star Wars has been seen upon its release, I just pointed out that some of the effects in 2001 were more convincing imo.

Fair enough Bodhi - disagree - but don't get insulting. At least I was toungue in cheek with it.

 

[Scouse]

BTW - I totally agree with Star Trek: TMP. Apparently somewhat controversially I think it's the best of the old-style films aswell (Wrath of Khan is a pretty damn close second tho)...

 

[Tom]

Scouse, have you seen the director's edition yet? Its very good, although I was a bit disappointed they didn't clean up the print.

 

[Nuked]

the godfather Trilogy - im sure everyone will disagree with me, don't get me wrong .. very nice set .. but to this day i dont understand what makes people rant about this set

 

[Zarjazz]

Shawshank Redemption - I just do not get what the fuss is over this film. I found it slow, boring and it failed to grab me in anyway. Essentially you wait for an enternity for someone to crawl through shit.

It's a Wonderful Life - Am I the only person in the world to find this film depressing? Basically James Stewart character is told it's okay that he's wasted his life and not followed his own personal dreams (ie left the town / had the job he really wanted etc) because he's stuck with a wife and kids and happened to do a few nice things for some people around him.

PS: I do like "nice" films, "Lost in Translation" is very good and makes you feel all wanm and cuddly

PPS: 2001, Usual Suspects - Great Films!!

 

[Deebs]

pls die, painfully. thx

I don't care if you say this crap in jest. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. READ OUR CoC.

Banned for 7 days.

 

[Wij]

Bodhi - are you mad ?

In what way was Revolutions the best Matrix film ?

(ooh - bad Tom (1 week ago))

 

[Clown]

Wasn't it posted before you changed the CoC?

 

[Scouse]

Scouse, have you seen the director's edition yet? Its very good, although I was a bit disappointed they didn't clean up the print.

Nope. What's added? It's a cracking film - and I like the fact that they tried to make Star Trek a little more highbrow.....

.....shame it bombed

Was the most expensive film ever made at the time!

 

[Scouse]

I don't care if you say this crap in jest. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. READ OUR CoC.

Banned for 7 days.

Would it be ok if he had added "with metal in your face"?

 

[xane]

Shawshank Redemption - I just do not get what the fuss is over this film. I found it slow, boring and it failed to grab me in anyway. Essentially you wait for an enternity for someone to crawl through shit.

Mr Ross needs to learn from you

Another enlightened soul, join the rebels, one day we shall see good films not ruined by gaping huge plot holes at the end.

 

[Bodhi]

Bodhi - are you mad ?

In what way was Revolutions the best Matrix film ?

Cos I enjoyed it more than the first two.

 

[Tenko]

/pubdebateModeoff

I love this thread but I do have to take a big breath before posting as some peoples worst films are some of my favourites of all time and I could easily get myself banned


I can usually find something ok in any movie so this is a damned hard question and if I don't like a film then it kinds of slips from my mind.

I hate The Sound of Music but i suspect many blokes do.

Oh!!

I get bored shitless watching The Great Escape!

That surely counts?

But maybe thats just repeat viewings, so I dunno.

Tell you what I do think is shit.


Fatal Attraction.

Glen close is a minger so he should of seen that coming for fucks sake!!

 

[00dave]

I can't believe people are defending 2001, please tell me you were chemically/alcoholically enhanced when you made these decisions.

 

[nath]

Cos I enjoyed it more than the first two.

Best reply evar.

Oh and 00dave, 2001 is often hailed as one of the best films of all time, surely even if you don't like it you could see that some people would defend it if it were criticised?

 

[old.user4556]

I can't believe people are defending 2001, please tell me you were chemically/alcoholically enhanced when you made these decisions.

I daresay it's probably not your generation of film.

 

[00dave]

I daresay it's probably not your generation of film.

And from the trivia section of imdb:


Rock Hudson walked out of the Los Angeles premiere, saying, "Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?"

So I'm not the only one.

 

[old.user4556]

And from the trivia section of imdb:


Rock Hudson walked out of the Los Angeles premiere, saying, "Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?"

So I'm not the only one.

Well that proves everything doesn't it. Rock Hudson didn't even know his own sexuality

 

[nath]

It's about the deterioration of humanity, all kubrick films are. Easies point to spot is that Hal, a computer, shows more signs of humanity and emotion than Dave does.

 

[Bodhi]

And from the trivia section of imdb:


Rock Hudson walked out of the Los Angeles premiere, saying, "Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?"

So I'm not the only one.

No, sadly, there are more stupid people in the world than just yourself.


If you want to understand the film, read the book. It explains the last 45 minutes fo the film, and once you see what Kubrick was actually trying to do, you realise that 2001 is teh 0wn.

 

[nath]

There's also a load of essays written about the film on this here interweb, some of them very interesting.

 

[00dave]

If you want to understand the film, read the book. It explains the last 45 minutes fo the film, and once you see what Kubrick was actually trying to do, you realise that 2001 is teh 0wn.

I don't want to understand it I just want the hours back that it stole and abused with it's crapness.

 

[nath]

I'm going to use that age old condescending term that film snobs have used for so long, but really really does apply here.

It's not crap you just don't understand it!

 

[Dubbs]

2001 is one type of film for one type of person. If you want a philosophical message implanted into a sci-fi film then you've got it. If you want cowboys and indians in spaceships then Star Wars gives it. If the back of your mind says you want cowboys and indians but you're trying to look more intelligent then star trek floats your boat.

Personally I thought Dune was a rather epic tale.

As for the godfather-goodfellas stuff, I'm a BIG fan of Mafioso-style films and would say that goodfellas stands up well as an intro to this type of film. Godfather triology is practically a documentary so not one for those that aren't really into the genre - they'll just be bored. Casino is similar, if you like the genre then you'll sit there like a pig in shit loving every minute.... anyone else will be snoring by the time you wince at Pesci getting beaten with a shovel...

You can tell I'm an expert as I've successfully managed to get the missus into Sopranos... not bad going when the silly bint like's nothing but the usual chick flick stuff

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Casino is similar, if you like the genre then you'll sit there like a pig in shit loving every minute.... anyone else will be snoring by the time you wince at Pesci getting beaten with a shovel...

Hi, we DO have a spoiler tag on these forums. Please use them.