|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
posted May 11, 2016 01:03 AM |
|
|
|
@juc: Well, "THe Nice Guys" are coming out next week and it seems to be a fun film. It is an action comedy set in the 70's with Ryan Gosling and Russel Crowe in main roles. Trailers for it looked promising, so you should check them out. You may also like to see "Money Monster" if the reviews are good (they come out tomorrow.) Its story revolves around a broker who lost all of his money on Wall Street and decides to kidnap a host of a popular program about stock exchange (George Clooney) and its producer (Julia Roberts.) The trailer for it made me intruiged.
|
|
juc
Hired Hero
Hired Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 01:15 AM |
|
|
Pawek_13 said:
@juc: Well, "THe Nice Guys" are coming out next week and it seems to be a fun film. It is an action comedy set in the 70's with Ryan Gosling and Russel Crowe in main roles. Trailers for it looked promising, so you should check them out. You may also like to see "Money Monster" if the reviews are good (they come out tomorrow.) Its story revolves around a broker who lost all of his money on Wall Street and decides to kidnap a host of a popular program about stock exchange (George Clooney) and its producer (Julia Roberts.) The trailer for it made me intruiged.
Thanks for the recommendations. Usually not a big fan of the comedy genre as the movies usually don't involve a lot of thought, but heck I might give it a go anyway. I've liked a lot of comedy movies that I watched in the past (never the american pie stuff though) so it might be interesting! Trailers are overrated   Money monster seems like it might have an interesting plot. Might be worth a watch later on! George Clooney isn't that bad either, except in some of his worst movies but every actor has their really bad movie...
Anyway. Any older movies that I can watch right now that could be recommended? Next week is too much time, I watch a lot of movies at the moment!
____________
juc
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 03:32 AM |
|
|
Galaad said:
And of course the animated series counts! 
the joker isn't just a voice. it was a great voice, don't get me wrong(and a great laugh), but the character himself just wasn't there. you have to have living flesh for the monster to hold dominion over, and thus, cross over into the audience. think of it like a possession. because it is. you can't possess with only a voice. take "the exorcist" for example; the voice was perfect, but it would be nothing without the flesh to bring forth the character into the world. a drawn cartoon will never be able to encompass a being like that. not like a flesh and blood human can, anyway.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 04:51 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:00, 11 May 2016.
|
fred said:
a drawn cartoon will never be able to encompass a being like that.
That's quite a weird opinion since he is originally a comic book character and remained one for decades till the 60's TV show. Even if he wasn't, a graphic artist can indeed produce such a character if he's talented enough and backed up by an inspired writer. Actually, you don't even need the graphics, what if it was a novel? A lot of monstrous characters exist only in text, remember.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Homer171
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 09:40 AM |
|
|
"Captain 3" was a blast. Sure it had it's flaws but fight scenes where nicely executed. Logic behind, siding, battling each others was fair enough. New characters where all nice additions. Both Captain and Iron Man where two dimensional what I liked.
____________
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 09:47 AM |
|
|
juc said:
Anyway. Any older movies that I can watch right now that could be recommended? Next week is too much time, I watch a lot of movies at the moment!
"Seven Samurai", if you haven't seen it yet. A great example of an old movie which has aged very well.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 11:17 AM |
|
|
artu said:
fred said:
a drawn cartoon will never be able to encompass a being like that.
That's quite a weird opinion since he is originally a comic book character and remained one for decades till the 60's TV show. Even if he wasn't, a graphic artist can indeed produce such a character if he's talented enough and backed up by an inspired writer. Actually, you don't even need the graphics, what if it was a novel? A lot of monstrous characters exist only in text, remember.
true. i just think the best characters translate better as flesh. like jack torrance from "the shining", patrick bateman from "american psycho", bill from "naked lunch", etc... seeing those characters from books or comics portrayed by a real human being, makes the character come across better to the audience, i think; it makes them seem more real.
|
|
juc
Hired Hero
Hired Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 11:41 AM |
|
Edited by juc at 11:49, 11 May 2016.
|
Zenofex said:
juc said:
Anyway. Any older movies that I can watch right now that could be recommended? Next week is too much time, I watch a lot of movies at the moment!
"Seven Samurai", if you haven't seen it yet. A great example of an old movie which has aged very well.
Already seen it, sadly.  It's a good movie though, so I can see where you're coming from. (wow that smiley is a hundred times more angry than sad)
I agree with fred79 in that human actors are preferable when compared to animated characters, and batman is no exception. But batman wouldn't have existed without them, I guess. Would've been kind of nice though. But I think there's more of a relatable character and more of a powerful emotional side in a human actor's version of a character. Animated ones aren't the same kind of thing at all. A good example would be the movie Spirited away, where the movie would probably be one of the best movies of all time if it wasn't animated. TV series such as thw simpsons are fitting subjects for animation, they're basically initially appealing for children age 10+.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 11:57 AM |
|
|
Idk, animated characters can nail those complicated facial expressions (not so true when it comes to cartoons sadly) almost perfectly and consistently and voice acting is the only thing that can break it (most of the time, there are times where animations are badly done), while entire well written movies can be ruined by actors just being crap in general.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
juc
Hired Hero
Hired Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 12:10 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
Idk, animated characters can nail those complicated facial expressions (not so true when it comes to cartoons sadly) almost perfectly and consistently and voice acting is the only thing that can break it (most of the time, there are times where animations are badly done), while entire well written movies can be ruined by actors just being crap in general.
And that is why high budget movies are generally better, because their producers can probably afford the good and probably secretly greedy actors. And that is why high budget superhero movies are so disappointing as well, because these high budget movies have such a potential to be an amazing movie. Sadly, some people have decided that superheroes are the next thing.
Cartoon characters... It's a very difficult subject to discuss. I believe I read a study sometime that showed the influence that cartoon characters have over children's behaviour in some ways. I guess the directors of today have abandoned the idea of movies foe thinking people and has switched their previous audience to improve the minds of their new audience - the children - with movies such as Batman vs. Superman. Not that children will have a good role model in the idiot that is Bruce Wayne, though.
What kind of emotions do the cartoons have that the normal actor-based movies haven't? Artificial emotions? Of course they can create relatable emotions, but not in the same way. A human is capable of so much more. And the voice acting is a big part of the emotional connection: just like how radio programmes can bring forth emotions because it is relatable they would probably do much better if their put some of their money in upcoming actors that could do the same kind of show that the cartoon characters can, but I'm not entirely sure.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 12:29 PM |
|
|
An animation can be more real in a neo-platonic sense. It can depict the idea of joy, sadness or anger in a more concentrated way than any photographic reality could. Most animations are not on such a level, of course. But any feeling that can be expressed through abstraction can be potentially expressed even better through an abstraction. In a way, that's what art is all about.
And a lot of the times (not always), a character on text can transmit many notions more alive than an actual actor because all of us fill in the blanks with our own imagination. Your own imagination can be more vivid than any photography if the artist plays his cards right. That's why in many horror classics, you never see the monster, you are just constantly poked about its existence. Think of the classic Jaws and then think of all the B-movie sequels that just showed the shark more and more. None of them has the effect of the first one because you simply get used to seeing a monster.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
juc
Hired Hero
Hired Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 12:45 PM |
|
|
artu said:
An animation can be more real in a neo-platonic sense. It can depict the idea of joy, sadness or anger in a more concentrated way than any photographic reality could. Most animations are not on such a level, of course. But any feeling that can be expressed through abstraction can be potentially expressed even better through an abstraction. In a way, that's what art is all about.
I'm not entirely sure about this. How so? How is something entirely artificial more relatable than a perfectly performed actor's try of the same subject? I don't think I agree with you on the abstraction part. To me, emotions aren't expressed through abstraction but rather by relatable social situations that are subtly abstract and not the chaos in what cartoons usually are. The more organised animated movies would've been better off if they had actors: at least I'm pretty sure of it.
Quote:
And a lot of the times (not always), a character on text can transmit many notions more alive than an actual actor because all of us fill in the blanks with our own imagination. Your own imagination can be more vivid than any photography if the artist plays his cards right. That's why in many horror classics, you never see the monster, you are just constantly poked about its existence. Think of the classic Jaws and then think of all the B-movie sequels that just showed the shark more and more. None of them has the effect of the first one because you simply get used to seeing a monster.
Why not always?
Of course an animated movie can be better than a photographic one, but I think that's about the movie's plot and cast more than the style of art. Compare movies such as spirited away with awful movies such as Epic Movie, Shark attack 20000 or whatever and batman vs superman. But I still think great animated movies have morw potential than people think: emotions and social interactions would've been expressed more thoroughly with good actors. It takes an absolute master of art or an extremely advanced machine to create the same kind of feeling as the greatest actors in the world would create.
About the horror movies - I agree entirely. The suspension and the social scenarios are more important than seeing the monster itself in such movies. However, it wouldn't be better with stick figures. Part of the feeling comes from human beings in a common situation that takes a weird turn. That is what makes the movie for most people, with the weird turn being scary and still somewhat realistic to one's imagination.
____________
juc
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 12:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How is something entirely artificial more relatable than a perfectly performed actor's try of the same subject?
What makes you think acting isn't also artificial in that sense? Do you believe actors actually cry when they act crying?
Quote:
Why not always?
Because acting is also an art, sometimes a talented actor can indeed bring an additional dimension and depth to a fictional character.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 01:06 PM |
|
|
fred79 said:
the joker isn't just a voice. it was a great voice, don't get me wrong(and a great laugh), but the character himself just wasn't there. you have to have living flesh for the monster to hold dominion over, and thus, cross over into the audience. think of it like a possession. because it is. you can't possess with only a voice. take "the exorcist" for example; the voice was perfect, but it would be nothing without the flesh to bring forth the character into the world. a drawn cartoon will never be able to encompass a being like that. not like a flesh and blood human can, anyway.
Hey Fred sorry I missed your post.
To me animated is full enough, in fact I find it harder for an actor to encompass such being than a drawing. I fully get your point and can understand why you favor Ledger but I just felt the need to contradict your statement of him being the best of all while I consider his incarnation of the character to be, not bad far from it, but incomplete.
Also you say others are childish yet they kill and torture with sadism just as much, even if adapted to a younger audience, and probably the latter is what really is bothering you.
If an adaption of the Joker in some horror-like movie would be made with all his traits respected and carefully depicted, I bet you would appreciate it even more than Ledger.
____________
|
|
juc
Hired Hero
Hired Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 01:10 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
How is something entirely artificial more relatable than a perfectly performed actor's try of the same subject?
What makes you think acting isn't also artificial in that sense? Do you believe actors actually cry when they act crying?
A "good" actor would have the ability to either cry for real, or have the ability to use crocodile tears in a masterful way. A real person crying is so much more influential than courage the cowardly dog being sadder than humanly possible. This applies to all animations.
Quote:
Quote:
Why not always?
Because acting is also an art, sometimes a talented actor can indeed bring an additional dimension and depth to a fictional character.
Of course. A talented voice actor would make the animated character so much more interesting as well. In the same way a really talented actor makes a fictional human photographic character better than said voice actor to an animated character. The perfect actor would master the art of drama and beat all the bland characters and superheroes to hell forever. Would make a better plot than some bad movies, even.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 01:14 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Do you believe actors actually cry when they act crying?
Actually the really good ones do. But we witness this much more in theater than in the movies.
____________
|
|
Artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 01:29 PM |
|
Edited by Artu at 13:31, 11 May 2016.
|
Galaad said:
artu said:
Do you believe actors actually cry when they act crying?
Actually the really good ones do. But we witness this much more in theater than in the movies.
Well, this French guy disagrees with you and there was no cinema when he wrote this. A fascinating book by the way, I highly recommend it.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
juc
Hired Hero
Hired Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 02:50 PM |
|
|
Artu said:
Galaad said:
artu said:
Do you believe actors actually cry when they act crying?
Actually the really good ones do. But we witness this much more in theater than in the movies.
Well, this French guy disagrees with you and there was no cinema when he wrote [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Actor]this[/url]. A fascinating book by the way, I highly recommend it.
Hm. Haven't read the essay, but seems rather interesting. Prematurely I would come to the conclusion that Diderot didn't discuss animated movies and their voice actors, though? In a way, animation is a kind of acting as well. There's obviously a creator behind every Mickey Mouse out there (which, in a way, shows that there's a kind of actor behind every role) , whereas actors have more influence themselves on the plot (even if it's small and often directed by the money invested in them). I read a summary of the essay (which was probably not enough), but I still believe this is a fault with every kind of acting. The perfect actor would still be more relatable than the perfect animated character, to me at least. In theory.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted May 11, 2016 09:10 PM |
|
|
Artu said:
Galaad said:
artu said:
Do you believe actors actually cry when they act crying?
Actually the really good ones do. But we witness this much more in theater than in the movies.
Well, this French guy disagrees with you
But Stanislavski agrees with me.
Supposing that we go through fiction (the Lie) then the experience of the game "really" throws us in a foreign land, the one where we accomplish ourselves beyond real and where it embodies a prolongation of our lives. Crying, dreaming, imagining, creating, all is accessible. Art of the game requiring to foil the anticipation. How to prepare oneself without controlling the outcome. If my preparation drives my imaginary within imposed circumstances by the scene, then I explore the set (the fiction) as an experience. The advantage of lie and silence is that it imposes the power to deploy sens where our reality limits itself to ambient noise. My tears will flow for "real" "reasons". To note, the genius who invented cinema by his own back in his time is called Stanislavski.
If the actor is distant to what he plays, he risks to be a mirror of our respective personas. A whole kind of theater exists staging all these conditionings. The extraordinary thing being to glimpse areas of wild freedom getting out of frames and social conventions of a certain theater (cf. Diderot).
The big difficulty being to trigger this side acting us 95% of the time (our subconscious) as soon as we are observed, scanned, judged on a set. The paradox will want to be alone in public, intimate in public, vulnerable while exposed. This mad risk-taking calls for greatest courage and tons of comedians entrench themselves behind fortresses of ideas, of bias, of certainties, contributing to the impoverishment of this major art.
To stimulate this creative side which never stops to invent us despite us and making bearable our lives subject to modern crisis, this insane part being much more mine (nightmare, dream, intuition) generates this creative thought. The actor's animality, his sense of smell, the intuition giving us back this genial part of the being. The actor would then go through a huge working time to appropriate to himself the imaginary conditions and to access, drunk with happiness, to this part of freedom of himself that will allow him to exist within the fiction. It won't take long for emotions to arrive and the tears where the expected results by the starving audience will flow for many other reasons than the ones apparently evoked (by the director in example).
One difficult thing to understand is that the thought is not mental. For the actor, it is sensory. For it to translate into the game it necessarily has to settle into our imaginary (at the same time sensible at the level of feeling, of olfactory, of sounds, and obviously of images). Declan Donellan explains that, as a slide show the visionary actor projects into space these images from which the audience drinks from. To access his inner self, sensible, the actor will need to tune himself as a musical instrument to his own music, his dreams, his desire, his needs, his selfish envies, his fears, his multiple doubts, and all that shameful side of being. To enter in fiction will require the actor to live this inner Odyssey. Where blind and deaf for himself he will need to go through the labyrinth with as sole Ariane's thread his honesty and good sense. Rare are the actors who dare to get out of these challenges unharmed.
One more time, the Actor will have to translate into his inner world the constrains linked to the needs of the author, of the director, of the text. To create the necessity within himself, inside imaginary circumstances, to feel and experience them and to be amazed to the point of daring living them fully. There will then be nothing acquired, only a practice that, at the edge of the abyss leads us to feel alive. And a balance that will permit us to bring Euridice back from hell. The lie then becomes an awoken dream.
The foundations of the preparation of greatest actors of our time (Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep etc) supposes to settle our imaginary into extremely concrete things. The logic of the situation being the best compass. As an actor, what would I truly do in such situation if it was real?
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 12, 2016 11:20 AM |
|
|
What you explain here is a simulation. (Keep in mind that simulation is not exactly imitation.) Yes, of course it is sensory and not plastic but it is an intellectual process which is not fundamentally different than any other artistic action. So when the context is comparing it to drawing or writing, the acting of frustration or insanity is no more "real" than putting such an emotion into poetry or painting. When someone suggests that acted emotions are always more real than drawn emotions by default, I take it as a problem of being captured harder through something more abstract. It is not much different than people who suggest music with lyrics is always more direct or non-figurative paintings are empty, they are not.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
