Post by: Svevan on June 20, 2006, 08:00:01 PM
Hey Einstein, I'm on your side!
Do a barrel roll! There's yet another Podcast for you, and this time both regular hosts, Mike and Evan, tearfully reunite after weeks apart. Sorry to shake things up these past two weeks, but variety is the spice of life (read: deal with it).
I'm pleased to announce that for the bourgeoisie in our audience who use iTunes, the AAC version of the Podcast is specially enhanced. Visually minded? iTunes will display pictures of the topics as we discuss them. Prefer written words? The pictures will link to pertinent articles on Planet GameCube. The proletarian audience need not worry, though; this special edition costs those bourgeois pigs extra. No, not their money - just their souls.
Episode 6: Uwe Boll Will Beat You Up
You can also stream it via Odeo
This week, after some gushing about how much each Podcast Editor loves the other, we talk about Peter Moore's announcement of a completely indefinite, in fact far too early to talk about, goshdarnit I shouldn't have mentioned it, "simple" controller for the XBOX 360. We also managed to take some time to discuss the strong sales of DS Lite, Super Paper Mario, and Uwe Boll's outrageous plans to win a mate. Finally, we answer some listener mail regarding old GameCube games, which Mike uses as an opportunity to crush my soul.
If you have any questions, complaints, compliments, or criticisms please send them to our new podcast email address:
You can also leave comments in the talkback thread. *Sniff* You're becoming more like your father.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 21, 2006, 07:20:35 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on June 21, 2006, 08:06:33 AM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on June 21, 2006, 08:20:03 AM
Post by: mantidor on June 21, 2006, 08:57:08 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on June 21, 2006, 10:12:14 AM
Post by: TrueNerd on June 21, 2006, 10:22:30 AM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on June 21, 2006, 06:58:31 PM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on June 23, 2006, 08:32:45 AM
Burch, read that back to yourself and tell me it isn't the most preposterous example of movie snobbery that you've ever heard. The Lord of the Rings movies, for the material they were adapted from, were AMAZING.
Just because they weren't done by some fruity European auteur director, and they made a ton of money, doesn't mean they weren't significant.
Hugs hahahaha
Post by: IceCold on June 23, 2006, 07:16:03 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on June 23, 2006, 07:24:40 PM
Post by: Svevan on June 24, 2006, 08:58:14 PM
Lindy: My remark is movie snobbery, I won't deny it, but today's audiences could use to be more snobbish. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies are among the best fantasy epic pictures, but there's not much competition, and I only hope something better comes out soon. (If a film ever does top LotR, the Academy Awards will ignore it.) And although the films missed the point of Tolkien's work in several regards, the major misstep is merely the slapdash narrative style. Certain scenes are utterly incomprehensible because of Jackson's layers of cuts and audio; his methods are proven faulty by the large amount of reshoots and redubs he had to do just to make the movie make sense. In King Kong it is clear he had a chance to plan and breathe: he knew what his themes were and what he wanted to film. A project as massive as Lord of the Rings deserves more respect than having five different "assistant" directors filming entire chunks of important plot. Now, if the final product was cohesive, I wouldn't complain about his methods; however, one look at the pretentiously named "Appendices" on the LotR DVDs shows that Jackson and Co. revel in their mosaic method.
My major complaints with the film's lack of cohesion, narrative pull, and thematic emphasis can be traced to Jackson's use of his camera. Instead of making an expressive film with a swooping God's-eye perspective, Jackson abuses his ability to place the camera anywhere in space and makes his Middle-Earth look like a diorama or a real-time strategy videogame. Then he uses the most banal of methods to film a conversation with two characters, and it is no wonder we get bored (the first half of The Two Towers is wickedly snooze-worthy). Finally, too much of the film is shot handheld - much unlike the cinema-verite of French New Wavers Godard and Truffaut, and moderns like Paul Greengrass or even Steven Spielberg, Jackson's handheld camera seems cheap and wasted when compared with the massive CGI landscapes and lush, romantic score that cover the film. Spielberg's Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan have an immediacy through their handheld cinematography, while LotR's reeks of scotch tape and glue. Why, tell me, is LotR shot with more handheld camera than King Kong? Surely King Kong, a film with less ideas and having no real content, should have more whizz-bang action shots. Yet King Kong has far more deliberate framing and composition than LotR. In King Kong, Jackson presents themes of gender, masculinity, and sex that, while still shallow, are deeper than anything found in LotR. King Kong exposes LotR for what it is: a cheaply filmed, overproduced masterpiece of lifeless fantasy film. In satisfaction and depth, it is more akin to the cheap emulations of Tolkien than to his actual work.
Post by: ShyGuy on June 24, 2006, 09:54:14 PM
Post by: Svevan on June 24, 2006, 10:32:08 PM
Post by: wandering on June 24, 2006, 11:30:03 PM
Yeah, I know, all that CGI, all that detail in the sets and costumes, and he shoots it as if none of that stuff were there! That's what I love about the film - they worked for years getting the smallest details right, and then PJ shot it as if it were a regular film. Handheld shots that put the focus on the action from the character's perspective during the epic battle scenes. Close-ups when the characters are talking with each other, even when they are in fantasitic locales - fantasitic locales which are generally highlighted beautifully when characters discover them.
Quote
King Kong exposes LotR for what it is: a cheaply filmed, overproduced masterpiece of lifeless fantasy film. In satisfaction and depth, it is more akin to the cheap emulations of Tolkien than to his actual work.
The only thing King Kong exposes is that you shouldn't attempt an overwrought tribute to your favorite film after stretching yourself to the limit on a masterpiece.
Quote
his methods are proven faulty by the large amount of reshoots and redubs he had to do just to make the movie make sense.
If movies are proven faulty by reshoots and redubs, most films made must be faulty...
Post by: Kairon on June 24, 2006, 11:49:38 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: wandering on June 25, 2006, 12:01:26 AM
Oh, Sveven, one more thing:
Quote
"I think that with King Kong, Peter Jackson proves that he is really more devoted to making a well-crafted action film than anything of any true significance, despite what the Academy Awards say about Lord of the Rings."
You really, really need to see Heavenly Creatures.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 25, 2006, 02:40:15 AM
Post by: wandering on June 25, 2006, 05:57:58 AM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on June 25, 2006, 11:55:04 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 25, 2006, 06:57:36 PM
Post by: Requiem on June 26, 2006, 04:27:32 AM
It was all really - really entertianing to watch, even if the story wasn't the best.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on June 26, 2006, 08:10:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
I really need to see Dogville. I'm still kicking myself over missing a chance to see it in a theatre.
I saw it in a theater. I left after an hour, partly because I was sick and couldn't sit quietly any longer, but also because the movie was unbearable.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 26, 2006, 09:34:25 AM
Post by: Bloodworth on June 26, 2006, 06:46:04 PM
Post by: wandering on June 27, 2006, 04:44:04 AM
Quote
There were three T-Rexes fighting a giant ape in King Kong. That movie is a success, regardless of what any of you may say.
Oh, it was a lot of fun...it just suffered for being made right after Lord of the Rings. The film really didn't need to be three hours long. And it sure as heck didn't need the film, production diaries that were originally offered for free online, and a new extended version that Jackson wants to do, all sold seperatley.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on June 28, 2006, 08:04:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SvevanLindy: My remark is movie snobbery, I won't deny it, but today's audiences could use to be more snobbish. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies are among the best fantasy epic pictures, but there's not much competition, and I only hope something better comes out soon. (If a film ever does top LotR, the Academy Awards will ignore it.)
I don't think there's ANY competition because LotR was the first project of its kind. The material is mind-boggling in scope and content, and to have all three movies filmed consecutively and helmed by a single director is an amazing achievement. I never thought Return of the King would win best picture, but I looked at its win as the Academy saying, "OK, we really don't want to give you this, but since you tackled a project of unparalleled size and scope and did a great job, we can't deny you." I personally think it deserved the award because, as a die-hard Tolkien fan, it left me completely satisfied aside from some plot changes.
Quote
And although the films missed the point of Tolkien's work in several regards
Missed the point? How? The films faithfully recreated the story from the books in spectacular fashion. What other point could there be?
Quote
the major misstep is merely the slapdash narrative style. Certain scenes are utterly incomprehensible because of Jackson's layers of cuts and audio; his methods are proven faulty by the large amount of reshoots and redubs he had to do just to make the movie make sense. In King Kong it is clear he had a chance to plan and breathe: he knew what his themes were and what he wanted to film. A project as massive as Lord of the Rings deserves more respect than having five different "assistant" directors filming entire chunks of important plot. Now, if the final product was cohesive, I wouldn't complain about his methods; however, one look at the pretentiously named "Appendices" on the LotR DVDs shows that Jackson and Co. revel in their mosaic method.
Comparing the plot of LotR to the plot of King Kong is like comparing the plot of the Bible to the plot of a Pokemon cartoon. They aren't even on the same planet. Of course Jackson had room to plan and breathe with King Kong, because the story has the depth of a Bazooka Joe comic. His challenge was to stretch it out the story, not compress it. Agreed, the LotR movies are busy, but I think that "incomprehensible" is much too harsh. Jackson could have added another two hours onto the 9-hour trilogy and still not have done it justice...there's just that much material.
Quote
My major complaints with the film's lack of cohesion, narrative pull, and thematic emphasis can be traced to Jackson's use of his camera. Instead of making an expressive film with a swooping God's-eye perspective, Jackson abuses his ability to place the camera anywhere in space and makes his Middle-Earth look like a diorama or a real-time strategy videogame. Then he uses the most banal of methods to film a conversation with two characters, and it is no wonder we get bored (the first half of The Two Towers is wickedly snooze-worthy).
As for the God's-eye perspective, I can see where you're coming from with that, but Jackson had to straddle the line of allowing viewers to connect on a personal level with the characters while also staying true to the "historical account" feel of the book. Not every scene can be the battle of Helm's Deep. The first half of the Two Towers may have been snooze-worthy to you, but to me it was very necessary plot.
Quote
Finally, too much of the film is shot handheld - much unlike the cinema-verite of French New Wavers Godard and Truffaut, and moderns like Paul Greengrass or even Steven Spielberg, Jackson's handheld camera seems cheap and wasted when compared with the massive CGI landscapes and lush, romantic score that cover the film. Spielberg's Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan have an immediacy through their handheld cinematography, while LotR's reeks of scotch tape and glue. Why, tell me, is LotR shot with more handheld camera than King Kong? Surely King Kong, a film with less ideas and having no real content, should have more whizz-bang action shots. Yet King Kong has far more deliberate framing and composition than LotR. In King Kong, Jackson presents themes of gender, masculinity, and sex that, while still shallow, are deeper than anything found in LotR. King Kong exposes LotR for what it is: a cheaply filmed, overproduced masterpiece of lifeless fantasy film. In satisfaction and depth, it is more akin to the cheap emulations of Tolkien than to his actual work.
LotR also has about 20 more relevant characters than King Kong, and none of them are primates. I think the handheld camera suits the film because it makes the world feel more real. Tolkien's books always impressed me with the degree to which they fill out every detail, practically convincing you that his world did or does exist in an alternate dimension somewhere. A God's-eye view wouldn't convey the carnage of the assault on Minas Tirith or the battle outside the Black Gates, but the handheld camera takes you there.
