What is the point of movies like up in the air or descendants

Tools    





CGI means anyone can inject hollow "scale" into anything, though.
I hate CGI in a movie. But, for some strange reason, I was shocked that “matte paintings” were used by directors, including Hitchcock in The Birds. I always like movies that are shot “off set” in the real world, but it seems that some outdoor scenes are no more real than CGI. These 2 photos are from The Birds. Melanie was in a boat, but the rest is fake. IIRC, I think this technique was also used in GWTW.


__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



Matte paintings, film layers and blue screen have been used since the earliest days of movies, and were never any better than the digital equivalent. I can recall when I bought a 4K tv and rewatched some old disks I already had and was surprised at how visible the painted background became. It was even revealed in lower-resolution DVDs with by the software that "upscales" the image. I think we were just used to the way the old ones looked and, like flickering, low-def tube TVs, just decided in our brain to not see it.



I hate CGI in a movie.
I think that when most of us say this, we're actually talking about CGI that is noticeably CGI (ie bad or incomplete CGI). And for me, specifically, that usually means people or animals/creatures.

But there is a TON of CGI that goes into a film that most of us never know. Some examples just off of the top of my head: in Knives Out, they were unsure what paintings would be in the different room. They filmed with frames filled with nothing but green screen and used CGI to put the paintings in later. The herd of sheep in Brokeback Mountain was CGI. In action films like The Raid or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon CGI removes wires and harnesses.

Heck, googling this for this post, I found out that the baby in Children of Men was CGI!



These are movies about regular people doing regular things and the directors find a spin on daily routine and somehow they get recognized for their work. But in the end its still a movie about people doing stuff that is not particularly interesting or engaging.

Just because you make a movie about a bank teller that is trying to connect with his long lost daughter doesnt mean his bank teller life is interesting enough to be made into a movie. I just dont get why someone would even aspire to become a director like alexander payne or worse jason reitman. Its just regular people doing regular stuff.
I tend to gravitate towards regular people regular movies. Up In The Air is top 10 movie for me. Think it is a beautiful piece of art. The Descendants was forgettable to me. It was well done, but ultimate I vaguely remember anything in it.
__________________
I came here to do two things, drink some beer and kick some ass, looks like we are almost outta beer - Dazed and Confused



Ohh i forgot about him - Richard Linklater is another one.....his movies are also so natural and non events and cheap.
A Scanner Darkly would love to have a word with you.



Ohh i forgot about him - Richard Linklater is another one.....his movies are also so natural and non events and cheap.

Linklater has made all kinds of movies. Some are pretty minimal and "not for all". Some are highly creative. I guess you're reffering to things like Boyhood? I wasn't too thrilled with it.

Waking Life is great, but maybe not your cup of tea. Try The Newton Boys. It's more the conventional entertainment type of movie and perhaps more up your alley. I saw it on TV by coincidence and really liked it. Had no idea it was made by Linklater before the movie was over so there was no bias.



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
A Scanner Darkly would love to have a word with you.
Even that movie is made without any risk...it was a cheaply made movie because its experimental so that if the movie doesn't work...losses would be kept at minimal.

Moreover this movie and waking life are prime examples of "just because its there doesnt mean you have to do it" type of movies. Just because that kind of animation is cheap to make doesnt mean you have to use it.



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
Linklater has made all kinds of movies. Some are pretty minimal and "not for all". Some are highly creative. I guess you're reffering to things like Boyhood? I wasn't too thrilled with it.

Waking Life is great, but maybe not your cup of tea. Try The Newton Boys. It's more the conventional entertainment type of movie and perhaps more up your alley. I saw it on TV by coincidence and really liked it. Had no idea it was made by Linklater before the movie was over so there was no bias.
Yeah..i guess his style is not for me. His movies lack any sense of danger or cool factor. A movie like newton boys should feel badass and cool but he makes it look like a movie about girl scouts. His sensibilities are feminine.



Even that movie is made without any risk...it was a cheaply made movie because its experimental so that if the movie doesn't work...losses would be kept at minimal.
It kind of feels like you're shifting the goalposts. I was mainly responding to your assertions that his films are natural and non-events.

Cheapness as a literal metric doesn't mean anything. Assault on Precinct 13 was made for about $150,000. Linklater's Boyhood was made for $4 million and made $48 million. Your avatar comes from American Psycho, which was made for $7 million and earned $34 million.

What are you trying to say?

1) Do you think that artists shouldn't make films about everyday people? Because it's very easy to not watch films that don't interest you.

2) Are you saying that films must have spectacle to be meaningful? Because many, many people will tell you (and are telling you in this very thread) that they find both meaning and entertainment in films that are small in scope.

It's fine to have types of films that you like and types of films that you don't. Taste is subjective. But you seem almost . . .mad that there are artists making art that isn't for you or that there are viewers enjoying art that you don't enjoy. Why not just value the art that you like? Why is it necessary to devalue the stuff you don't?



Ohh i forgot about him - Richard Linklater is another one.....his movies are also so natural and non events and cheap.
There is a solution to your distaste for these movies and it will keep some money in your pocket.....just don't go. I adopted that strategy for anything with the words Star and Wars anywhere in close proximity in the title and it's been working quite well.



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
There is a solution to your distaste for these movies and it will keep some money in your pocket.....just don't go. I adopted that strategy for anything with the words Star and Wars anywhere in close proximity in the title and it's been working quite well.
Of course i do that..i just dont want these types of movies to be popping up in theaters at all...theaters are for spectacles or movies that have certain bite to them.



No they're not.

Saying that repeatedly is not an argument and is clearly belied by the evidence of the theater owners themselves concluding otherwise, with their clear financial incentives.
__________________



Welcome to the human race...
Says you, OP. Since you already started a thread about this very tangent, I'll just repeat what I wrote there

The idea that a movie's worth is inherently tied to its budget (or lack thereof) is a fallacy. There are good cheap movies and bad expensive movies, so the idea that the latter automatically deserve theatrical release while the former does not would indicate a lack of concern for the actual quality of movies (or even just commercial success since cheaper movies are more likely to make their money back and turn a profit). This rule you suggest is not only extremely arbitrary (especially with an $80m cut-off, which seems like that would encourage a $70m movie to waste an extra $10m just to secure a theatrical release), but the idea that it would encourage directors and studios to make more epics would not be the solution you seem to think it is. I liked Inception and all, but I recognise that it (and Nolan's work in general) is an anomaly amidst the blockbuster landscape and that very few filmmakers could turn out work of that caliber if they were suddenly forced to work on that scale (and that's without accounting for how they may be compromised by studio interference anyway). Putting more money into bigger movies means that fewer movies get made and there's more pressure on those movies to succeed - we're already inundated with countless blockbusters whose success is meant to keep studios alive regardless of how good they actually are and your suggestion is that studios make more of them on the off chance that we end up getting the next Nolan out of it? To put it simply, bigger is not always better.
__________________
Iro is to reviews as Kubrick is to films.



Yeah, I'll quote myself, too, since I said it the first time and it was ignored, then quoted it again and it was ignored a second time. Might as well go for the trifecta:

Like, seriously, why do you think they're there? You think theater owners aren't trying to make money? They have lots of screens. They exhibit the things they think will maximize the amount of money they make, and since they can't put the latest inane Transformers film on every single theater (and don't need to, since even blockbusters aren't selling out all those screens), they put other films that appeal to other kinds of moviegoers, albeit not as many. It's not complicated, or confusing, unless you completely lack an understanding of cinema economics and basic empathy.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
Theaters are for popcorn and texting between naps. Change my mind. Can't. I win. Game over. /thread. Stuff. I could probably create a new thread for this topic, but seems pointless considering I'm defining reality as my very own. So this end post IS the start of a new thread. All threads are now reversed. Forever. Because that is what I have announced to be.
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you."
- Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy."
- Captain Steel



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
There's a pizza joint about 20 minutes from where I work named Trifecta. They have really good pizza. They also have pretty good gyros.



I think that when most of us say this, we're actually talking about CGI that is noticeably CGI (ie bad or incomplete CGI). And for me, specifically, that usually means people or animals/creatures.

I found out that the baby in Children of Men was CGI!
I was thinking more of fighter pilots in the air for noticeably annoying CGI, that kind of thing. But your point is good.

The baby was CGI? Please tell me the Lassie movies had a real dog.



Of course i do that..i just dont want these types of movies to be popping up in theaters at all...theaters are for spectacles or movies that have certain bite to them.
If you really want to get down to it, theaters are for whatever sells tickets and puts butts in the seats, whether it's yet another Star Wars iteration or colorized reruns of the Katzenjammer Kids. That's one of the things that's interesting about "little" movies. In the right environment, theaters that deliberately avoid big franchises make money from people like me that roll their eyes at the thought of spending Friday night at a mall cineplex consuming half gallon Cokes in a room full of people that can't avoid texting for more than 10 minutes.