I think the difference in a lot of the older films and now was that they actually had martial arts skills. If someone back then didn't have skills they would slow down the film speed to speed them up on playback. Now they shoot a lot tighter shots and often the two people are not in the same shot, so you see someone kicking, but it is not connecting to anything. Then they cut to the kick connecting in a completely different shot.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@comcast.net>wrote: > > > I disagree that Blair Witch is more of a gimmick, as you seem to suggest. I > think the "guessing" was actually suspenseful. I see why you aren't crazy > about it though: people loved or hated it. Despite its simplistic nature, i > an watch it right now and still be creeped out by it. For me it evokes those > feelings of being lost and alone in a strange place, of fearing things that > go bump in the night, and of not knowing whether one is being menaced by > curious fortest animals, ghouls, or simple mundane serial killers. > > > > But i agree that many of its better elements have been co-opted by way too > many in H'wood, with disastrous results. If you read any of my posts here, > you know i detest the new trend for shaky and over-active camera work. It's > one thing to add a bit of FX to enhance a story, but the folks directing and > shooting nowadays have no concept of subtlety. When I saw G.I. Joe, i was > amazed at how awful the camera work was. I literally couldn't tell what was > going on in the fights. I'd see a move, and say "I *think* it was a cool > move", but couldn't be sure because the camera literally didn't stay on a > single angle for more than *two* seconds in a single fight or battle scene > (i started timing them). > > > > Recently the retro film channels on cable have been running a lot of Bruce > Lee and Jet Li marathons and the like. I sit there and watch great fights, > including both men doing things that still amaze me. And with Lee, > especially, I watch the camera stand back from a vantage where I can see > everything he's doing, i can see his opponent(s), I can take it all in, it's > fast-paced and exciting, but it's not dizzying. I really don't get why so > many directors are doing this. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Omari Confer" <clockwork...@gmail.com> > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, January 1, 2010 4:47:40 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] BBC America brings back Van Helsing in Demons > > > > Blair Witch was clever....thus does not hold up over time. Its a one time > thing that puts people in seats and becomes more of a sign post in the road > to cinematic progression. > > The cleverness has now been co-opeted and you see the shaky camera > everywhere.... > > There is nothing old school about Blair Witch. You want the audience to > think not to guess... > > Purposeful suspense is golden.. done by many aand mastered by few > > Nothing beats simple solid storytelling.... > > > > c w m > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@comcast.net > > wrote: > >> >> >> But see, I liked Blair Witch, and I don't think it fits the mold we're >> discussing. I have no problems with inexpensive filmmaking. I salute someone >> who can turn a profit. But Blair Witch was cleverly done; indeed, it's the >> exact opposite of the CGI-porn, torture-porn, overactive camera-porn we're >> discussing. It's an old school film in that the viewer has to use >> imagination to fill in the blanks--it's not all painted on screen for us. >> No, what I'm decrying is stuff like Transformers, G.I. Joe, even the over >> active Star Trek. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Omari Confer" <clockwork...@gmail.com> >> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:01:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada >> Eastern >> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] BBC America brings back Van Helsing in Demons >> >> >> >> Why pay for a great story when CGI is less expensive? >> >> (why is Uwe Boll still working) >> >> Short term....flash bulbs and scarlet liquid is the thing.. >> >> Long term....content is king.. >> >> >> You make your reputation in the long term but you make the money in the >> short term. >> >> For every Merchant Ivory film...you have to make a Blair Witch... >> >> c w m >> >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@comcast.net >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I agree about Van Helsing. But I always find myself wondering: do we >>> *have* to produce CGI/FX/action heavy films over sturdy writing and acting >>> to get younger people to watch? I guess that tail-wagging-dog question is >>> brought up with every new generation, but I often feel that if we give >>> people good quality, they'll appreciate it and learn to like it. >>> The method of just giving up is like saying there's no use to cook a good >>> hamburger or steak anymore, because everyone's palette is ruined by >>> McDonalds and places like that. Can't people still appreciate a superior >>> burger when one's given to them? >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Omari Confer" <clockwork...@gmail.com> >>> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 10:26:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada >>> Eastern >>> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] BBC America brings back Van Helsing in Demons >>> >>> >>> >>> Van Helsing, along with all genre work these days is designed for teens >>> that have never seen a classic horror movie. Never seen Lon chaney or >>> Frankenstein fight Dracula... >>> >>> In this post Matrix age, things have to be visually appealing before >>> anything else......forget that we just watched Dances with Wolves.....in >>> Blue D. >>> >>> Van Helsing is just carmel popcorn made of a corn substitute.... >>> >>> The movie was born for cable. >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Keith Johnson < >>> keithbjohn...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I had to chuckle when reading about "Van Helsing". I despise the movie. >>>> I was critiquing it the whole time phyllis and I watched it in the theatre: >>>> the anachronistic rock soundtrack, the bad dialogue, Kate Beckinsdales (who >>>> I think is hot as hell) with that horrible on-again-off-again accent, the >>>> bad CGI, the stupid characters, the horrible camera work. It's the movie >>>> that to me showcases the rather empty talent the director is, as he'd put >>>> out barely passable fare with the Mummy movies >>>> Funny thing is, my older brother--a big scifi fan himself--loves Van >>>> Helsing. He is always trying to convince me that I'm too hard on it, and >>>> make me change my opinion. He thinks I'm a bit of a hard ass in the way I >>>> review and critique movies, saying I miss the fact that every movie has >>>> things in it to like. We have different tastes. He tends to like things >>>> that >>>> are a bit more fluff, fun, and visually striking. While I like those >>>> things, >>>> i tend to focus more on good acting and realistic plots. For example, he >>>> doesn't like the darker themes in the comic and animation worlds, while I >>>> love them. At any rate, he's on me all the time about "Van Helsing", even >>>> getting irritated when I repeat for the eleventy millionth time that I hate >>>> it. >>>> And don't get me started on his feelings about my indifference towards >>>> "The Fifth Element"! >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Tracey de Morsella" <tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com> >>>> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:41:10 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada >>>> Eastern >>>> Subject: [scifinoir2] BBC America brings back Van Helsing in Demons >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Though I still haven't forgiven the great Dr. Abraham Van Helsing for >>>> allowing that awful movie with Hugh Jackman to be made about him -- or for >>>> not showing up and killing the entire cast of the *Twilight* -- I'm >>>> excited to catch his descendants on the new British import, *Demons*. >>>> >>>> A new horror series from the writers of past British hits *Hex* and * >>>> Merlin*, >>>> *Demons*<http://www.bbcamerica.com/video/index.jsp?bclid=27610373001&bctid=55969482001>features >>>> Philip Glenister ( >>>> *Life on Mars, Ashes to Ashes*) as cold, stern American Rupert Galvin. >>>> The yank must recruit the last descendant of Van Helsing to join forces >>>> with >>>> him commit to life battling monsters -- before those monsters kill him. >>>> >>>> *Demons* unveils a world just out of humans' sight -- full of vampires >>>> and other inhumans. (Insert joke about politicians here.) Luke Rutherford >>>> (Christian Cooke) is the "everykid" teenager forced to come to terms with >>>> the harsh reality that he's the direct descendant of the vampire-hunting >>>> Van >>>> Helsing. >>>> >>>> To train Luke, Galvin calls on the beautiful, haunted Mina Harker (Zoe >>>> Tapper), a blind concert pianist and authority on the beasts preying on >>>> humanity. The creepy Father Simeon (Richard Wilson) is Luke's other teacher >>>> on the lore behind his enemies. >>>> >>>> Looking at the pilot, I do wish the hero was a little older as I don't >>>> want to see "Jim Henson's Van Helsing Babies." But, I'll give it a shot. >>>> >>>> *Demons* premieres Saturday, January 2, 10:00 p.m. on BBC America. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/12/20/bbc-america-brings-back-van-helsing-in-demons/ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> READ MY BLOG >>> http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com >>> STRING THEORY >>> http://stringtheory.podbean.com >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> READ MY BLOG >> http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com >> STRING THEORY >> http://stringtheory.podbean.com >> >> > > > -- > READ MY BLOG > http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com > STRING THEORY > http://stringtheory.podbean.com > > > > > -- Bringing diversity to perversity for over 9 years! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
