Heartland

JB wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote:

JB wrote: Been peeking at my VHS collection again?

and mine

Yes, but mine's a goonie free zone.

your loss

Quiff Boy wrote:

JB wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote: and mine

Yes, but mine's a goonie free zone.

your loss

One I can live with.

indeed. you've lasted nearly 20 years without it already

Quiff Boy wrote:indeed. you've lasted nearly 20 years without it already

Living in these 80's time warps comes in handy sometimes.

RicheyJames wrote:

Padstar wrote:it saved cinema you know!!!!!!!

what?!? fucking killed cinema more like!

the seventies were a golden age in hollywood. films like taxi driver, chinatown, midnight cowboy, apocalypse now, network and the deer hunter were produced by mainstream studios for a mainstream audience. complex, adult films full of moral ambiguities and subtle characterisation.

then came star wars. two-dimensional characters, one-dimensional plot. a simplistic, child-like vision of good versus evil, a romantic sub-plot that would have been rejected by a fifties b-movie producer as too trite and a villain so villainous that he wouldn't have looked out of place twirling his moustache in a 1920s silent western. admit it, you're imagining carrie fisher tied to the railway tracks already...

but somehow this half-baked melange of old saturday morning serials and californian pseudo-spiritual hippy nonsense became a huge hit and, in the process, changed the film-making landscape. and what were the eightiess equivalents to those great films of the seventies? gremlins, the goonies, ghostbusters, beverly hills cop and rambo. well excuse me if i'm not quick to thank george lucas for infantilising mainstream cinema.

i could go on, i've not even mentioned the explosion in merchandise heralded by those oh-so-collectable figures which started us on the path to the hollywood blockbuster as ninety-minute toy advert, but i've long known that this i'm fighting a losing battle. i console myself by recalling the small boy in the crowd shouting out what everyone else knew to be true but forced themselves not to see. for star wars, and the mythology surrounding it, truly is the emperor's new clothes for the twenty-first century.

Escaped from the cupboard you did. A correct opinion you have not.

heavens. mostly agreed with richey. oops.

emilystrange wrote:heavens. mostly agreed with richey. oops.

Nobodys perfect dear...
Paddy

Except me.

ermmmm...

Paddy.

It's profoundly ridiculous to characterize Star Wars as being simple minded, I've met plenty of people that unfortunate as i might be, learned things about other cultures, especially Japanese culture, from Star Wars, kids who went on to read Sun Tzu's "the art Of war" and understand a great deal of it, people that grow up respecting the most diverse aspects of other people's appearance because they've been looking at weird shaped creatures in movies like Star Wars, or tv show such as The Muppet Show or Sesame Street... The Music is at least also bringing Classical music into the limelight thanks to John Williams, who may not be Beethoven, but he's definitely more musically inclined than Eldritch lately.
So some of it is shtick comedy, what's wrong with that? So it's not "mulholland dr." by David Lynch (whom i also love)...

At least star wars is idealistic, and the Jedi represent some sort of goal, a straight line, a Yes where others may say No...

Nietzsche would have loved Star Wars, it deals with the future of mankind, it portrays accurately the trends towards technological fusion between man and computer... where will this take us? how can we approach the future idealistically, morally, and yet not over-simplify things into good v.s. evil...

I object to that stereotype the most, as it is in the Character Of Anakin Skywalker that the crux of the series revolves around, Lucas has stated this adamently... and Anakin represents how Good and Evil are a riddle, wrapped around one another, that they are desicions we make, and that one individual can affect and cause effects to a greater degree than they will ever be aware of, That is what Anakin represents...Because Good and Evil are both found buried in the Body And Soul of every man, and it actually takes conscious effort to not be Evil, Finally Anakin represents Redemption... If you are not familiar with the ancient religious archtypes that C.Jung explored, then the deeper layers of Lucas' work will not unfold for you, and yes, archtypes can be seen in a very simple light, all wisdom is like this...

Anakin deals with loss, and the tragic fall of someone destined for greatness when they cannot deal with what befalls them,
yet how in the end mysteriously, life has a way of balancing itself,
Like some strange Hegelian Equilibrium theory, Like the Yin and Yang of Taoism, or the Chi, or Force that surrounds us, flows through us and binds us to everything else in the universe...

Let me see you deal with all of these complicated issues, in two hours, and make the subtext still look superficial enough for morons in holywood or small children's attention spans...and pull it off, and make money doing it... if he wants to put Hayden Christiansen into the film to create continuity, the same way AE might put some friggin' synth strings into Body Electric, it's all about them constantly evolving the past work further.

George Lucas has also admitted to being very obssessed with Fast Things, fast cars, fast planes, fast women... etc...
His first movie was about Drag Racing...

Why are people like Eldritch and Lucas so hung up on Fast Things?
Think it over and get back to me....

Besides, Fast, they both like things to be Shiny don't they?

Like The Sisters, Star Wars is full of beautiful Paradoxes, and that's why I love them both...


Aaron

Hun......Brace yourself...........It's not real!!

Quiff Boy wrote:

Gary wrote:what box set?

*feels left out*

star wars on dvd

Oh that.. star wars bores me..

aaron_quinton wrote:If you are not familiar with the ancient religious archtypes that C.Jung explored, then the deeper layers of Lucas' work will not unfold for you, and yes, archtypes can be seen in a very simple light, all wisdom is like this...

Thank you. This is part of what I was trying to say (although I must admit you are a lot more eloquent about it!)

The power of the Star Wars movies comes from the simplicity and the universality of the archetypes.

Lets you and me gang up on Richey and try to out-pretentious him

When is the extended version of Return Of The King coming out?

To be fair, it all depends on how old you were when it came out. If you were just the right age (between 6 and 10) this was a defining moment of your childhood. Plus it is genuinely good cinema with a warm happy feeling inside. There's room for both that and more serious works in the world, isn't there?

hallucienate wrote:When is the extended version of Return Of The King coming out?

Inquiring minds want to know...

markfiend wrote:

hallucienate wrote:When is the extended version of Return Of The King coming out?

Inquiring minds want to know...

http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_400_hv_home.html

Two-disc theatrical version of the award-winning conclusion to The Lord of the Rings trilogy takes home video bow prior to the planned holiday release of special extended edition.

Doesn't get more specific than that

markfiend wrote:
Even now, art-house cinema is dialogue-driven, when cinema should be visually-driven. Star Wars could, and indeed should have been a leader of an avant-garde to reclaim a visual artform from the shadow of drama, where it has lingered for far too long.

I know I'm going back a bit, but sorry mate, this is utter rubbish.

Some "art-house" cinema is dialogue-driven, as is some mainstream work. A film like Before Sunset could be put into either art or mainstream category, or could be staged as a play. For me it works because the characters are interesting and engaging, even if they don't shoot anything or have bright shiny toys to play with.

But most of the "independent" film I've seen recently (mainly European rather than American, to be fair) has been profoundly visually powerful. Yesterday I saw a Hungarian film called Kontroll (a good-v-evil allegory set on the Budapest Metro, if you will) which was working very hard at the visual realisation of a literal and metaphorical underworld. The Russian film-makers from Tarkovsky through to Sokulov seem to treat the screen as a canvas. Some of the imagery in Mirror (Tarkovsky 1977) is like an extension of the traditions of the C19th Russian landscape artists. More recently The Return, by a new director whose name now escapes me, is another Russian film which is like watching a work of art (thoroughly recommend, btw).

Sokulov, meanwhile, produced Russian Ark, filmed in a single 90-minute take through the rooms of the Hermitage. It's a bizarre, mannered and confusing thing to watch, being a string of tableaux vivants from Russian history, in no particular order, but it is visually stunning. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're fascinated by Russia, arty films or men in curious frock-coats.

The reverse effect is arguably achieved by a film like Lars von Trier's Dogville. Remove almost all visuals and you create a unique (if somewhat tiresome) cinematic experience. Like most von Trier it's intelligent but needs better editting and a patient audience. Nicole Kidman helps a lot

None of these films feature elaborate special effects, but they are all supremely visually-led. In many ways they are driven more by their on-screen images then the Hollywood blockbusters, for all their spectacle. Remember that even the limpest SFX-vehicle tacks on some sort of dubious plot to hold it together, making it ultimately narrative-driven and by extension dialogue-driven.



I shouldn't be given days off work with nothing to do but talk crap.

hallucienate wrote:Doesn't get more specific than that

I just checked my order history on amazon; FOTR extended edition was shipped to me on 11 Nov 2002, (after being pre-ordered in August! ) so that seems a likely ball-park date.

@ andymackem

Yeah, I know all that. I was just bullshitting to wind up RicheyJames

And don't get me started on the turgid, over-long patronising bilge that was Return of the King.

Here's a hint, guys. If you've had to cut half the novel (apparently, never read it, can't face after the film) to fit in your over-sized splurge, try delivering dialogue without ........



long ......




portentious .......





pauses .......





in ......






every ......






fucking ...........







sentence ..........

Three hours? I felt like I'd aged three years! The girl who took me to that has no idea how much I love her. I was still there at the end.

Ah well, it wouldn't do if we all liked the same would it?

Here's you complaining about a three-hour film, yet me and hal talking about getting an extended version on DVD that (if rumours are true) has almost another two hours of extended scenes and what-not!

markfiend wrote:Ah well, it wouldn't do if we all liked the same would it?

Here's you complaining about a three-hour film, yet me and hal talking about getting an extended version on DVD that (if rumours are true) has almost another two hours of extended scenes and what-not!

Another two hours? Where's my noose?

There must have been shorter prison sentences, surely?

I'm not averse to long films, but they need to justify their length. Few of them succeed.

My longest and most painful cinematic experience, for which I can only blame myself, was submitting myself to a three-and-a-half our French adaptation of Proust, called Time Regained. Unbelievably slow, heavy going. Made Tolkien look like chick-lit! On the bright side, I'm now officially excused from ever having to _read_ any bloody Proust. This is a good thing. Clearly.

I have nothing to add to this discussion.
I only wanted to share this.
clicky

I’m so happy!, see you in a few days

christophe wrote:I have nothing to add to this discussion.
I only wanted to share this.
clicky

I’m so happy!, see you in a few days

Nice. Is that the edge of "Trilogy" I can see on the left too?

PS. Nice to see that "clicky" has caught on.