|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Nov 7, 2005 11:05:58 GMT -5
Thanks. Going to watch SW 3 tonight, so if I spot any more there, I'll let you guys know. Good job Slayrrr, I'm waiting impatiently for your new remarks  I'm trying, but since my "Never-ending shame" series has taken center stage viewing requirements, it'll be awhile before I do that. We have the DVD, so I can watch it anytime. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Nov 7, 2005 11:17:04 GMT -5
It seems like some people have been expecting me to get upset over innacuracies in the science of the STAR WARS movies being all screwed up being pointed out. Nah, man. I look at it like this. It's science fiction/fantasy. And SW has always been fantasy first.
Since back in the seventies, 'science types' have been pointing out things like, "Why do the starcraft/spaceships always meet up with each other right side up, when in real life some would be upside down, from our perspective?" and "We shouldn't be able to see flames everytime a ship blows up". That damn pesky gravity and oxygen in space thing.
Even though it's not accurate, pretty much every filmmaker has followed suit anyway because cinematically, it's just more interesting. Who wants to see the Death Star explode, without an actual explosion of flames and so forth?
And regarding the outdated fighting styles used by soldiers in ground fights? "A LONG TIME AGO, IN A GALAXY FAR, FAR AWAY...". Lucas has always looked to the past, whether it be fairy tales, folklore, legends, world history or just past works of cinema. He's always wanted that stuff to look otherworldly, but at the same time still somehow look familiar to us. The Battle on Endor in RETURN OF THE JEDI for instance, was his fantasy take on Vietnam, where the Vietnamese (The Ewoks), a supposed uncivilized people with lesser weaponry, was able to overtake and outmanuever the much better trained U.S. Army (The Galactic Empire), despite their having the superior firepower.
The dogfights between the X-Wing and TIE Fighters above and in the trenches of the Death Star in A NEW HOPE, was filmed to duplicate old WWII footage of dogfights between fighter planes.
The Republic Gunships in Episodes II & III hovering above the ground and dropping off platoons of Clone Troopers, looks just like old Vietnam footage of American soldiers being dropped off by choppers in the middle of the jungle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Nov 7, 2005 12:16:10 GMT -5
If I were a filmmaker, those kind of innacurracies would really bother me. Even if science-fiction, I would want as much of it as possible to live in the world of fact--just to make it all seem so much more real. So people would go home and talk about the fantastic things they see and then someone like Spacer would chime in and say, "actually, that's based on real theories--and there's evidence for it." Then the people would be more in awe of what they saw--it'd have a stronger impact.
But that's just me. For instance, if I did a film where I had giant bugs wandering around--a scientific impossiblity due to scale, weight, and their basic structure--I wouldn't just have straigh-forward giant bugs--they'd have to carry a mutation allowing their enormous size to be practical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Nov 7, 2005 13:26:34 GMT -5
Oh, I have no problem with filmmakers getting their facts straight in more realistic movies, and I prefer it, but when it comes to sci-fi, fantasy & horror, I'll let a lot more of that kind of stuff slide.
I can't sit there thinking about things like, "Hey, if a radioactive spider really bit Peter Parker, he'd probably just die from radiation poisoning, not get those amazing abilities!". "How the hell did King Kong get so big in the first place??" "How does E.T.'s healing ability work??".
It's better to just accept that kind of stuff as that movie's particular reality and go with the flow or it gets pretty hard to suspend disbelief and just enjoy a movie.
Not to say that I never question stuff in genre movies, but unless it's something totally insane and out of left field, I tend to let it slide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Nov 7, 2005 15:15:59 GMT -5
King Kong had a hormonal problem. You didn't know...?
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Nov 8, 2005 2:49:55 GMT -5
Oh, I have no problem with filmmakers getting their facts straight in more realistic movies, and I prefer it, but when it comes to sci-fi, fantasy & horror, I'll let a lot more of that kind of stuff slide. I can't sit there thinking about things like, "Hey, if a radioactive spider really bit Peter Parker, he'd probably just die from radiation poisoning, not get those amazing abilities!". "How the hell did King Kong get so big in the first place??" "How does E.T.'s healing ability work??". It's better to just accept that kind of stuff as that movie's particular reality and go with the flow or it gets pretty hard to suspend disbelief and just enjoy a movie. Not to say that I never question stuff in genre movies, but unless it's something totally insane and out of left field, I tend to let it slide. Oh, Heineken, we really don't differ too much, if you know how much I can swallow and accept and find explanations for busted concepts and cinema shots. I all the time bear it in my mind that Lucas always repeated like mantra that his saga is a fantasy not science-fiction so I'm really very lenient with him. But whatever he says his flicks were always seen as sci-fi primarily not as fantasy. I don't try to be overcritical and bash all the flicks for any scientific irregularities, many I agree are not to be avoided even if directors tried to. But most just don't care, is incompetent, indifferent and don't see that many scenes might actually look much better and be much more entertaining. The real science might look more bizarre than fantasy. I don't claim here too, that directors should be good in science but they should recognize the problem and be ready to take advantage of the science to make the films scenes more powerful, entertaining and enjoyable. All explosions made in Hollywood look the same and are in the same way lame no matter how hard f/x masters tried if they're shown in a too large number. OK we can have small explosions, big ones, more smoke, less smoke, and so on... Now imagine an explosion in deep space to be more realistic, no lame big explosion out of nowhere after a single aimed shot but a better one. There are really plenty of opportunities and ways how to show it better and in agreement with scientific truth. Ok... You are an observer on a ship, the other had been just hit, no immediate fireball, no explosions bang, it looks downgrade a bit but it's really building tension, suddenly you can hear the delicate rustling then a drumming than the whole ship is turning wild and then you look through the hull to see the remnants of the other ship to hit yours....... In the midst of the battle two ships meet each other faced in different directions... to me sounds much better and much more 3-D than usual 2-D. Also the battle mechanics and dynamics will be much more compelling than spaceships behaving like cars in the highway. Example (to me one of the best action scenes) 5th Element, the taxicab plunge right down through the other lanes. I lack such scenes. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Nov 8, 2005 8:20:27 GMT -5
All good points, Spacer. King Kong had a hormonal problem. You didn't know...? Oh, it's hormonal? Well, there ya go! ;D Check out the new trailer in the KING KONG thread. |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 13, 2005 10:57:35 GMT -5
Okay, I figured this one out yesterday, not having seen the movie and got the inspiration to think about it by seeing a billboard along the side of the road:
In both King Kong's, Kong's fall at the end is incredibly unrealistic. An object his size and girth falling from those heights would leave more of an imprint on the ground than a few small cracks on the sidewalk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Dec 13, 2005 11:11:05 GMT -5
I guess it depends on what's beneath him when he lands...
New York is a city built of steel and concrete, that would be a pretty hard landing. It'll be interesting to see how Peter Jackson does it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Pulpmariachi on Dec 13, 2005 12:40:42 GMT -5
Well, spoilers.
I'm assuming that 2001 was pretty scientifically accurate (well, discounting the Jupitor and Beyond the Infinite... sequence) and that movie had some tense moments dealing with no gravity and no sound in space (where I think most of the suspence came from, just the silence, or when we only hear the breathing through Bowman's helmet). Like rescuing his companion, intense.... Or bursting through the air lock thing to get HAL. Then there's just the beauty of the docking spacecrafts.
I don't know, I always assumed that Kubrick sat around libraries all day, researching and getting his facts right.
But I've been making a lot of assumptions lately.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 13, 2005 14:29:30 GMT -5
Don't worry, Pulp, assumtion is the mother of all fuck-ups. (You know the day is bad when you find yourself quoting a Steven Seagal movie.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Dec 13, 2005 15:14:46 GMT -5
Well, spoilers. I'm assuming that 2001 was pretty scientifically accurate (well, discounting the Jupitor and Beyond the Infinite... sequence) and that movie had some tense moments dealing with no gravity and no sound in space (where I think most of the suspence came from, just the silence, or when we only hear the breathing through Bowman's helmet). Like rescuing his companion, intense.... Or bursting through the air lock thing to get HAL. Then there's just the beauty of the docking spacecrafts. I don't know, I always assumed that Kubrick sat around libraries all day, researching and getting his facts right. But I've been making a lot of assumptions lately. Where's Spacer? He'll know... As far as I know, 2001 was immensley accurate--especially given that we had yet to actually land on the moon!! |
|
