January 15
 

[Forum note: I'm going to start noting subsites in the thread descriptions, to make it easier to tell which update a thread is about.]


Today I did some more modding at the forums -- the thread linked in yesterday's newspost will fill you in if you're interested. I know not everybody who comes here is a forumgoer, so I'm done with mod updates for now. However, I'm not done with those three presents for the community... speaking of which, it makes sense to give three gifts around Epiphany rather than Christmas anyway, doesn't it?


Meanwhile, we've got another 5M.net birthday to celebrate. Today it's Gatac's turn. Now Gatac is fond of many things, but perhaps none more than the movie Equilibrium. So happy birthday, Gatac -- have a The Top 10 Ways Grammaton Clerics Kill Time.

:lol:

Thanks. I really appreciate that.

Gatac

Heh, a good one, Zeke.

But not Aldous Huxley's? :wink:

But not Aldous Huxley's? :wink:

Statement to the effect that it is hard to type while rolling around on the floor and that the #1 was pure genius.

If you want to list every source Equilibrium borrows from, you'd be here all week.

Gatac

I've never actually read Brave New World. (It's on my list of Important Things to Read Sometime, like Romeo and Juliet.) I have read Fahrenheit 451, and while I enjoyed Equilibrium, I think the similarities were so overwhelming that they might as well just have called it a new film adaptation of Bradbury's book. After all, how many movies have there been that kept the original title and changed far more than this? (The latest War of the Worlds is a good example -- of both this phenomenon and the fact that the resulting movie can still be great.)

Gatac disagrees, though, and I respect that. I'm often in his position, defending things like Voyager episodes even when they appear -- or heck, just are -- derivative.

By the way, pursuant to the remark at the top of this thread, I've added descriptions to all the news threads on the first page. Should make this forum easier to navigate.

Still holds up as a good read, I think. Unlike the Foundation trilogy -- I read it, and while I love Asimov, I was rather disappointed by those. R&J you should probably see as the Zeferelli movie version first, so you get the drama of the thing, and then read the text for the marvel of the wordplay -- for example, that the first 14 lines they speak to each other create a sonnet.

Are there any film majors or even classic film buffs here of whom I can ask a related question? Why is Citizen Kane supposed to be on everyone's list of Important Movies to See Sometime? I thought it was confusing and boring, and critics have been raving about it for decades.

^ As I understand it, it isn't so much to do with what the film is about, but how it was made. A lot of film-making techinques that were used, though standard today, were very much groundbreaking in 1941.

I found it hard to stay with Citizen Kane as well. The problem is that all sorts of innovations in filmmaking (camera techniques, etc.) were introduced by Orson Welles in that picture, but they have long since become so much a part of the common vocabulary that you and I don't really notice them when watching Kane. It was revolutionary at the time, but you'd have to study up to know all the reasons why, and I confess I haven't done that.

This is how my brother explained it to me, and he's a fair bit more knowledgeable than I on the subject of film and filmmaking history.

Too slow old man! :P

<ramble>Of course, the Star Wars films and the Back to the Future trilogy were both pioneers of new techniques... BTTF I believe made vast strides in split-screen technology - anyone else remember the times in BTTF 2 where Michael J Fox was playing basically his entire future family? Of course, that isn't what the trilogy is remembered for, any more then the original Star Wars trilogy is remembered for it's use of Special Effects. I guess the big difference is that my examples were decent films even without the 'WOW' factor, which is why people today have generally watched them...</ramble>

Yes, I agree. And I've heard about the "CK used groundbreaking techniques" thing before, I guess I was just hoping that there was something more to the film than that.

Actually, I kind of liked CK, especially after I realized he was Superman. But Citizen Kane wasn't bad either.

Wait...Calvin Klein is Superman?

You guys have some strange nicknames for Captain Kirk.

Well, it's also a very interesting take on the vast power that the media can wield, and also on a more basic level it carries the message that money can't buy you happiness. I rather think the main problemt with it is that it's so well known, and people go into watching it expecting something vastly different than what it actually is.

CK Jeans? What?

*reads No. 1.

Facepalm. That sets new records of abysmalness. Congratulations :D