The Worst Production Design

I don't think Dogville is on the Dogme 95 list, actually. The reason why I thought Loner's choice of the film in this thread was a "good one" was because it was funny. And I'm well aware of what Lars von Trier was trying to accomplish by making it this way, and I'm certain Loner knows as well, whether he liked the film and approach or not.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Yeah it definitely wasn't part of the movement, that screen shot alone conflicts with some of the rules but von Trier certainly took some elements of it

__________________

Almost a satirical approach to the movement he helped start. The title alone even implies this.

I'm sure that absolutely no one will agree with me on this, and I'm not putting it forward as the worst example, but I really didn't like much about Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

I was in two minds whether to see it or not, but the thought of seeing, what I thought would be an amazing looking film, on the big screen was too tempting, so I went. Big disapointment. The blood was about the only thing that looked ok, but the sets looked as if they were made of cardboard and that really wasn't what I wanted. In fact, the only part that I really liked was the dream sequence. That was fabulous.

You're right, I don't agree.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Here is a link to an article about Von Trier, Dogville and their relationship to Dogme95 for anyone who is interested.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/ar...-dogmatic.html

__________________
Louise Vale first woman to play Jane Eyre in the flickers.

That's great, really. I still don't see why you posted the Dogme 95 mantra in the first place.

I guess Lars must have missed rule 1.

Hi, SoulInside

Actually I wasn’t ignoring you. Me busy. I do think the blue alien sucked. I thought it looked bad back in ‘97 when I first saw the movie on the big screen. Just looks like blue paint and rubber to me. I thought the entire alien design for the signer was poorly done. The space orcs also are cheesy rubber suits. A lot of money spent on B movie FX. Too bad. What a waste. You show a grainy still photo of Looloo (or whatever her name was) laying up against a stone building and wearing straps. What does this represent? Good still photography? You should have shown a close up of the horrible bad orange and yellow dye job on her hair (which matches Bruce’s shirt, oh, how cute).The last photo you display is a CGI shot. Huh? The CGI was good for the time it was done. Cartoonish, but technically excellent. The only reason I mentioned 5th Element is because it cost so much and looked so bad. Moving on ….

TIM BURTON
Always has had a major problems with his sets. His sets look fantastic – but they always look like sets. He reminds me of someone who puts on theatre plays. You can always tell you are looking at a sound stage. He really needs help with this – with broadening his world.


Low budget movies usually do have bad sets and makeup and such – but when they spend millions, that’s when I really notice.


Indiana Jones is good example. On all the films. The fist one looks great – but to this day you can still see the log sticking out of the bottom of the truck when it rolls over. I had expected Spielberg to remove that with the DVD release – nope. The second movie has numerous prop placement flaws from shot to shot (as does the first movie) – the third movie (Last Crusade) did look cheesy at times and too rich at other times. The new film is a $185 million stink bomb. I hated most everything about that movie, including the poorly conceived and designed temple at the end scene, the stupid generic space ship and the boring aliens. Yawn.

__________________
R.I.P.

Her full name is Leeloo Minai Lekatariba-Lamina-Tchai Ekbat De Sebat, short : LeeLoo

But I got your point.

A production design I hate is the painted landscape.

You know, a giant painting in the back of a set.

Throw a couple of paper mache rocks out front and were in The Alps!

Some sand, a fake plastic palm tree, Malibu!

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover




2001: A Space Odyssey





Can you guys believe this crap used to be considered, "Good."

I think we can all just sit back and consider ourselves lucky because this, yes, THIS, is the future of cinema! The future of us! Marvel at the pixels! Be taken-a-back by the lighting! BEHOLD THE BEST MOVIE ON PLANET OF U.S.A EARTH!

Ogre

__________________

Maybe a cousin of this badly drawn boy?

Wow – I would never have thought anyone would list 2001.

To this day I still think this movie gives the most realistic depiction of modern and futuristic manned space engineering. Probably because many of the designs originate with Von Braun.

With a few minor complaints (Dave shooting himself out of his POD into the airlock, for instance) – I would say this is the best (and most realistic) space faring movie of all time.

Even the flat panel display screens – so far ahead of their time, give example of its foresight. When they made 2010 they changed the Discovery’s video panels to curved screens (stupid move – and not accurate to what we use today or will use in the future). Twenty years earlier – Stanley had a better grasp on the future than the people that made 2010.

I think Stanley’s vision far closer to the truth than anyone else has realized on film.

I would list 2001 as one of the greatest production design jobs of all time. Then again, maybe I’m just brainwashed. I have watched 2001 about 20 times in last month. But that’s another story.

Wow, that was all real? I saw the other post and was very confused.


And yea, 2001 described as bad production design? Quite surprising.

I think, I think, V2.0 was being sarcastic.

No it is I, who was confused. I thought Dogville was a Dogme film. I thought all of Von Trier's films were. And I hadn't actually seen Dogville because though I like Dogme, I don't like Von Trier. So I put my foot in it. Then I did some research and came up with that article that I thought was interesting and related to the topic at hand and I still think the Dogme stuff is interesting especially regarding production design and values. If nothing else, the Dogme Manifesto puts a great spin on low production values and is excellent PR for a group of indie filmmakers. So I'll take my lumps from Harry and Loner and back out the thread like a good MOFO.

By the way, I don't get the mention of 2001 either? I think it still holds up.

The new Indiana Jones, the Crystal Skull one was AWFUL. I have never seen such horrible sets--Cheez-O!
I Am Legend had the worst CGI.
I think any CGI after LOTR Trilogy has to bring it--it either has to measure up or exceed the technology of LOTR.

LOTR is great - but already the CGI is looking old. That's what happens with CGI dependant movies - and that is one of the reasons some directors (e.g., Quentin Tarantino) stays away from them.

I still love models and glass matte painting and other old school methods.

But LOTR is great - I bow in awe to Peter Jackson.