BBC Blog Network

User Profile

ultramagic

Listed below are comments made by ultramagic between Tuesday, 4th August 2009 and Friday, 13th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Screening Room: Disaster! 08:34am on 13 Nov 2009 Sorry to comment this in the wrong place; but regarding 3D film:

I just watched the screening room episode with the 3D film discussion, and it helped me clarify my opinion on it. Right now, essentially yes, 3D is a gimmick, the tool is used well sparsely (see Coraline) and otherwise is not something that deepens or broadens the value of the current string of pictures that it is in. However, I think its important to attach the line 'as relates film content' when people suggest 3D is crap.

Not to turn your own words against you Mark...but I will! Within that screening room discussion you suggested that its best kept to the trashy films where it will sit well. In another blog sometime this year, you also proposed that exploitation pictures were a key conduit through which top quality filmakers learn their trade. Logically this would suggest that through use of the 3D tool with tongue firmly in cheek for a horror or comedy, a great director could really learn how to best use the technique.

Whether this is as another small tool in the arsenal of the cinema director, or as something now all of its own; a digital media experience, this still means that 3D has potential. Personally I'm not a huge fan of 3D beyond the gimmick, but its wrong to rule out the potential.

Working in the videogames industry means I have high hopes 3D will come into its own in that platform. Given that 3D artist already create fully functioning 3D worlds for games, it only makes logical sense to utilise them, unlike in film where laborious set-ups have to be arranged, beyond what would be the norm for 2D.

In summation- give the technique a chance- whether in film or not.
Screening Room: Disaster! 01:06am on 13 Nov 2009 Did you literally only have 25 seconds to do that segment? You were charging through it!
Twilight of the blogs 7:27pm on 03 Nov 2009 Mark- in aid of men's health, continue the growth for...MOVEMBER.

www.movember.com
The second second time around 9:55pm on 26 Oct 2009 On a similar note to the Anchorman comment (although personally I find most of Will Ferrel's comedy to be lowest common denominator crap), I think that Spinal Tap is a film that regardless how many times its watched, always gives you something new to chuckle about. There really is depth and breadth to it, and little nuances that aren't quite so obvious the first twenty times jump out later!

On a TV related slant...Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is similarly funny, and worth a look, again for replay value. It really has some amazing touches, and insane levels of production research (some of which only became clear to me after reading a few H.P Lovecraft stories)
Cost report 8:54pm on 20 Sep 2009 I tend to agree Mark. However, I think that knowing about the production can be an exciting and interesting element to the story of a film. I always feel that a movie should stand on its own and be capable of entertaining me with its running time alone. Its a tricky stance to take on films though as it is very hard to see a movie now that you don't have a vested interest in or a semblance of knowledge about in the first place. The trailers are difficult to get away from, and sometime even the title can give away too much of the concept.

I'm the type of person who rewatches films almost pretending to myself I haven't seen them before. I tend to use Alien as an example an awful lot, but when I rewatch it I have to pretend like I don't know what the Alien is like or what happens next. But as I said, with a title like that, you're definately signposting the content before its actually in front of you.

As I work in Games Production, I have a keen interest in the backstory and development process. Knowing about the production and seeing the concept art, production notes and the toils that take place on a movie set only heighten my ability to enjoy a film on repeat viewings, and in actual fact, probably more than I would if I was just rewatching the film alone.

I think perhaps the money is not the issue. If an audience can appreciate the effort or work that has gone into making a film, it can genuinely add value. Preferrably I'd want to see a film blind to begin with though.
Screening Process 10:19am on 16 Sep 2009 So what exactly has been 100% approved as worse than bride wars?
5 Live Review: Adventureland 5:42pm on 15 Sep 2009 I'm finding movie clips during the radio show more and more annoying now- especially ones like Adventureland. About 80% of that clip was background noise- which doesn't translate well over the radio or with static images...
The Tarantino Continuum 11:32am on 26 Aug 2009 Cheers Dr.K
The Boorman/Tarantino Nexus 6:54pm on 14 Aug 2009 CHEERS Dr.K for failing to mention who posted their thoughts on the renaming of Inglorious!! Jeeeze, what does it take to get some recognition round here?!

I jest. Just don't let it happen again...
John Boorman: an exorcism 5:22pm on 04 Aug 2009 Hi Mark,
just wondering what your take on the rebranding of 'Inglorious Basterds' to simply 'Inglorious' is? In my mind its a shocking PR flop that clearly wasn't thought through when the original name was dreamt up. (Although the new name is about 100 times better than the first iteration)

Advertising a presumably violent film pre-watershed with a toned down name is just pure Tarantino- it makes me dislike his new efforts more and more before I can even sit down to watch them. I'm most certainly of the ilk that believe his only truly interesting work is Jackie Brown, and more and more his movies are simply star vehicles for whomever it may be that's leading. With luck I won't find myself having to watch the Brad Pitt ego show that is Inglorious... or is that Inglorious Basterds... ugh.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

ultramagic