Most Revolutionary Movie
Reply to Topic
What about Star Wars? Changed special effects in the industry forever!
Well actually, whats your question? Most revoultionary movie to revolutionize the industry, or revolutionize society?
Well actually, whats your question? Most revoultionary movie to revolutionize the industry, or revolutionize society?
__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.
X
Favorite Movies
I think to revolutionize society or the film industry, Star Wars is more prevalent. If 2001 was so imitable then every Sci-Fi film or TV show would have space ships moving at real life speed. And society? Not enough people have seen 2001 to allow it to have an impact on society.
STAR WARS changed the way films are made, probably for the worse. Films went from being an art form to a commercial endeavour. That being said, it's success probably saved the cinema which was going through a slump at the end of the 70s.
It also has had an impact on society. Just check out all those Star Wars Conventions.
For me the three films besides Star Wars that most changed the film industry were Birth of a Nation, Citizen Kane and the Godfather. These films brought a new culture, a new ideal to cinema and changed it very much for the better. Birth of a Nation was the first film as we know it today. Citizen Kane highlighted brilliant cinematography, script, editing, special effects, direction, acting. I don't think it's the greatest film of all time but it's certainly the most influential. And the Godfather which was important in that every film since has got some of its influence stamped on it.
STAR WARS changed the way films are made, probably for the worse. Films went from being an art form to a commercial endeavour. That being said, it's success probably saved the cinema which was going through a slump at the end of the 70s.
It also has had an impact on society. Just check out all those Star Wars Conventions.
For me the three films besides Star Wars that most changed the film industry were Birth of a Nation, Citizen Kane and the Godfather. These films brought a new culture, a new ideal to cinema and changed it very much for the better. Birth of a Nation was the first film as we know it today. Citizen Kane highlighted brilliant cinematography, script, editing, special effects, direction, acting. I don't think it's the greatest film of all time but it's certainly the most influential. And the Godfather which was important in that every film since has got some of its influence stamped on it.
__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.
I disagree -- I think Star Wars has sparked better movies. Movies can be exciting and good/interesting/well-done at the same time, like The Matrix, or Jurassic Park.
People here will think I'm nuts, but I think movies now are better than ever -- why? Because there are no limitations on things anymore. If you can imagine in, all you need is funding, and BOOM: it's on the big screen. From your head, to the screen.
Yes, it is more commercial, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I also don't think we're anywhere near the point where all movies are shoot-em-up action flicks for people with Attention Deficit Disorder.
Heck, just this year (or early next) and we have Ali, Lord of the Rings, and A.I.
People here will think I'm nuts, but I think movies now are better than ever -- why? Because there are no limitations on things anymore. If you can imagine in, all you need is funding, and BOOM: it's on the big screen. From your head, to the screen.
Yes, it is more commercial, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I also don't think we're anywhere near the point where all movies are shoot-em-up action flicks for people with Attention Deficit Disorder.
Heck, just this year (or early next) and we have Ali, Lord of the Rings, and A.I.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Star Wars was revolutionary, and in their own ways so were Dracula, King Kong, 2001, Jaws, It Happened one Night, The Graduate, Breathless, The Silence of the Lambs, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Stranger than Paradise, Blue Velvet, GoodFellas, Clerks, and literally scores of other movies.
John Cassavetes' Shadows is one of the more important ones, I suppose. It bascially "revolutionized" American indie cinema.
My pick for the last ten years is Pulp Fiction. No film had more impact on the way movies were made in the 1990s, simply for the fact that almost every "crime" movie since has been in some way or another overshadowed by it. The intercrossing of stories, the topical pop-culture references, the unlikely blend between humor and violence, the N word, etc have all been more or less ripped off from or influenced by Tarantino's 1994 film.
I don't think there is a most "revolutionary" movie of all time, to even try and pick one is an exercise in futility. Who can say that 2001's effects and tone are MORE revolutionary than Citizen Kane's use of sound and photography? That's stupid to even attempt to explain.
And since when was Jurassic Park considered a classic?
John Cassavetes' Shadows is one of the more important ones, I suppose. It bascially "revolutionized" American indie cinema.
My pick for the last ten years is Pulp Fiction. No film had more impact on the way movies were made in the 1990s, simply for the fact that almost every "crime" movie since has been in some way or another overshadowed by it. The intercrossing of stories, the topical pop-culture references, the unlikely blend between humor and violence, the N word, etc have all been more or less ripped off from or influenced by Tarantino's 1994 film.
I don't think there is a most "revolutionary" movie of all time, to even try and pick one is an exercise in futility. Who can say that 2001's effects and tone are MORE revolutionary than Citizen Kane's use of sound and photography? That's stupid to even attempt to explain.
And since when was Jurassic Park considered a classic?
It's considered a classic by whomever thinks of it that way -- the majority be damned! I don't believe I said it was a classic, though. If I did, my apologies, but I don't recall saying that.
Jurassic Park was a GOOD movie. It was well-done, yet still "cool", exciting, and interesting. Big summer flicks are rarely as interesting as that, and I thought it was very refreshing.
You want revolution? JP was, in my opinion, the first film to show us what CGI work could really do on the silver screen -- there's no doubt it has started an amazing trend, without which many of today's movies might not have been "realized" until much further down the line.
Jurassic Park was a GOOD movie. It was well-done, yet still "cool", exciting, and interesting. Big summer flicks are rarely as interesting as that, and I thought it was very refreshing.
You want revolution? JP was, in my opinion, the first film to show us what CGI work could really do on the silver screen -- there's no doubt it has started an amazing trend, without which many of today's movies might not have been "realized" until much further down the line.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Jurassic Park is a classic in its genre. Its definitely one of the better blockbusters of all time.
TWTCommish. I just want to know why you think commercialism isn't bad for cinema. Expand on this point a bit.
For me, all these executives that are listed in the credits. All these strikes about pay. The fact that movie people are more interested in what makes money than what is successful creatively is wrong.
Back in old Hollywood, a film wouldn't be made unless it was commercially viable. However, once it got the go-ahead, the studio backed it with the best writers, performers and directors until they were proud of it. I don't the studio wishes to be proud of their movies anymore, they aren't in it for the acclaim, they're in it for the money.
Sure the special effects have improved but I, too, don't like the way this has developed. Cinema, more and more, is being created on computer hardware. It's frighteningly easy. Think about the creativity that was used to make a giant monkey move in Godzilla. The ingenuity behind Harold Lloyd hanging off the clock. There were no computers, no stuntmen.
It was better.
TWTCommish. I just want to know why you think commercialism isn't bad for cinema. Expand on this point a bit.
For me, all these executives that are listed in the credits. All these strikes about pay. The fact that movie people are more interested in what makes money than what is successful creatively is wrong.
Back in old Hollywood, a film wouldn't be made unless it was commercially viable. However, once it got the go-ahead, the studio backed it with the best writers, performers and directors until they were proud of it. I don't the studio wishes to be proud of their movies anymore, they aren't in it for the acclaim, they're in it for the money.
Sure the special effects have improved but I, too, don't like the way this has developed. Cinema, more and more, is being created on computer hardware. It's frighteningly easy. Think about the creativity that was used to make a giant monkey move in Godzilla. The ingenuity behind Harold Lloyd hanging off the clock. There were no computers, no stuntmen.
It was better.
I disagree -- I don't think it's nearly as bleak as some people believe, where money is all that matters and no one is free to be creative. In my opinion, this lack of creativity and surplus of greed is a myth.
This happens all over the place -- the "good old days" -- it happens when people discuss baseball. Try to tell someone that Ken Griffey Jr. is athetically superior to Willie Mays or Joe DiMaggio and they'll probably scream bloody murder, because they've built those two up as legends over time.
Movies are better because they lack limits. Technical limits are becoming a thing of the past, which means movies are more interesting, and more visually stimulating -- who is to say this is a bad thing?
My father put it best: movie-making is an art that combines all other arts: graphics (today's equivalent of painting really) and sound are needed along with a picture. It stimulates in all these areas.
If you think using CGI takes away from a picture, does using music do the same? What about sound at all? Are you a better actor if you hold your own in silent films? My philosophy is that this new technology is a good thing, and should be used whenever needed without hesitation.
We build up a reverence for classics over time, so that it seems to be blasphemy to try to put today's movies in the same league as them.
This happens all over the place -- the "good old days" -- it happens when people discuss baseball. Try to tell someone that Ken Griffey Jr. is athetically superior to Willie Mays or Joe DiMaggio and they'll probably scream bloody murder, because they've built those two up as legends over time.
Movies are better because they lack limits. Technical limits are becoming a thing of the past, which means movies are more interesting, and more visually stimulating -- who is to say this is a bad thing?
My father put it best: movie-making is an art that combines all other arts: graphics (today's equivalent of painting really) and sound are needed along with a picture. It stimulates in all these areas.
If you think using CGI takes away from a picture, does using music do the same? What about sound at all? Are you a better actor if you hold your own in silent films? My philosophy is that this new technology is a good thing, and should be used whenever needed without hesitation.
We build up a reverence for classics over time, so that it seems to be blasphemy to try to put today's movies in the same league as them.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Are you not in the least bit afraid that in the future the movies we'll be watching will be entirely digitally created - voiceovers and all?
Technology is improving so radically that this is conceivable. Look at pictures for Final Fantasy. It looks real. But it's not.
I love Antz, Toy Story 1 and 2 and I'm sure I'll love Shrek, but there is a possibility that such technology will change the face of film forever.
Actors now can be duplicated. Pretty soon you're going to see Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall coming to a cinema near you. These fat cats in hollywood know that the biggest budgetary problem on a film is the actor's salaries. If computers can do the same job for a cheaper price then why not? I'm not a technophobe. I embrace new technology but I'd prefer to keep it out of the film studio.
There is a chance that good old fashioned filmmaking with a couple of actors and a camera will become old hat. When that day comes, and it will, cinema will be dead. Video Games will have replaced our beloved artform.
Technology is improving so radically that this is conceivable. Look at pictures for Final Fantasy. It looks real. But it's not.
I love Antz, Toy Story 1 and 2 and I'm sure I'll love Shrek, but there is a possibility that such technology will change the face of film forever.
Actors now can be duplicated. Pretty soon you're going to see Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall coming to a cinema near you. These fat cats in hollywood know that the biggest budgetary problem on a film is the actor's salaries. If computers can do the same job for a cheaper price then why not? I'm not a technophobe. I embrace new technology but I'd prefer to keep it out of the film studio.
There is a chance that good old fashioned filmmaking with a couple of actors and a camera will become old hat. When that day comes, and it will, cinema will be dead. Video Games will have replaced our beloved artform.
I don't think so -- I think there is too much of a demand for that to happen ANYTIME soon. And besides, where can we draw the line? When does it become too much? I don't know if any of us can pinpoint that.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I think Jurassic Park is deffinetely a classic.
I don't see anything wrong with commercial movies? And whats wrong with CGI?
I doubt you have ever seen SciFi's show Exposure, but Zweeedorf can vouche for me when I say some of the short movies they play on there, that are only CGI, are amazing. With CGI, the movies that can be made are almost double. There is almost nothing you can't do with CGI. You would be surprised to know how many movies actualy use CGI.
I don't see anything wrong with commercial movies? And whats wrong with CGI?
I doubt you have ever seen SciFi's show Exposure, but Zweeedorf can vouche for me when I say some of the short movies they play on there, that are only CGI, are amazing. With CGI, the movies that can be made are almost double. There is almost nothing you can't do with CGI. You would be surprised to know how many movies actualy use CGI.
X
Favorite Movies
I don't have a problem with commercial or non-commercial films; good is good.
The use of CGI is opening things up completely, and after watching some of the films on that show exposure, I can completely back you up on this OG. CGI's use has been both important and a curse; soon there will be no new aesthetic to be pursued because everything can be done.
What exactly is your definition of "classic"?
The use of CGI is opening things up completely, and after watching some of the films on that show exposure, I can completely back you up on this OG. CGI's use has been both important and a curse; soon there will be no new aesthetic to be pursued because everything can be done.
What exactly is your definition of "classic"?
Well, for the record, Dictionary.com puts it this way:
From: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=classic
Belonging to the highest rank or class.
Serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of colonial architecture.
Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
Adhering or conforming to established standards and principles: a classic piece of research.
Sounds to me like it can mean anything excellent in its field, but most people today use it as a way to describe things that are excellent, as well as fairly old.
From: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=classic
Belonging to the highest rank or class.
Serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of colonial architecture.
Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
Adhering or conforming to established standards and principles: a classic piece of research.
Sounds to me like it can mean anything excellent in its field, but most people today use it as a way to describe things that are excellent, as well as fairly old.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
People here will think I'm nuts, but I think movies now are better than ever -- why? Because there are no limitations on things anymore. If you can imagine in, all you need is funding, and BOOM: it's on the big screen.
The problem is that today films can get away with not having these qualities because people will be focusing on the special effects. THe Phantom Menace is a good example of this.
JMHO
.
My statement, I don't believe, implied that special effects were everything. But we have to face up to one simple fact: a movie is a visual experience as much as it is anything else. Special effects are BENEFICIAL overall.
My point was meant to illustrate one simple thing: the boundries are gone. A movie like LOTR obviously has a solid storyline already, being based on such wonderful books and all, but until recently the special effects needed to translate the story onto the screen did not exist.
The LOTR trilogy is a perfect example of why today's technology is so special. If you can imagine it, you can probably do it.
I'm sorry, but despite the fact that older movies had to rely more on plot and acting ability, I don't know that that's necessarily such a good thing. The point of a movie is to be entertaining -- or, in some cases, to make you cry, or in others, to make you laugh, or, in other cases, to make you think.
Today's movies still do that. I see now sign of a downturn. I don't dreamily ponder the "Golden Age" of movies, because that age is upon us. Movies now are simply better than ever.
I remeber when I say "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- great movie. Well acted, and interesting. It was interesting DESPITE the fact that it was non-exhilirating. I'd be lying if I said I'd rather watch it over The Mummy Returns.
The problem is this odd notion that enjoying special effects and the way they are used is somehow shallow in comparison to appreciating acting. And let's not forget that you are not simply limited to one or the other. A bad actor in a film with good special effects can really mess things up.
My point was meant to illustrate one simple thing: the boundries are gone. A movie like LOTR obviously has a solid storyline already, being based on such wonderful books and all, but until recently the special effects needed to translate the story onto the screen did not exist.
The LOTR trilogy is a perfect example of why today's technology is so special. If you can imagine it, you can probably do it.
I'm sorry, but despite the fact that older movies had to rely more on plot and acting ability, I don't know that that's necessarily such a good thing. The point of a movie is to be entertaining -- or, in some cases, to make you cry, or in others, to make you laugh, or, in other cases, to make you think.
Today's movies still do that. I see now sign of a downturn. I don't dreamily ponder the "Golden Age" of movies, because that age is upon us. Movies now are simply better than ever.
I remeber when I say "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- great movie. Well acted, and interesting. It was interesting DESPITE the fact that it was non-exhilirating. I'd be lying if I said I'd rather watch it over The Mummy Returns.
The problem is this odd notion that enjoying special effects and the way they are used is somehow shallow in comparison to appreciating acting. And let's not forget that you are not simply limited to one or the other. A bad actor in a film with good special effects can really mess things up.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Special effects simply enhance movies. Why do most people assume that a movie with amazing special effects, must have bad actors in it. Take a look at the Phantom Menace. It had Liam Neilson(spelling?), it had Ewan McGregor, Samuel L. Jackson, and Natalie Portman. Those are all great actors. The thing that made the movie bad for me, was the plot. And the EXCESIVE use of CGI. A movie does not need all CGI people in every case. Animatronics would of looked alot better.
I think CGI is today's equivelent of old school animation. I don't really think there really is much difference between the two. Animation allowed for directors to include things never included before. Did people shun that? I don't think so. Animation was widely excepted, so whats so much worse about CGI?
I think CGI is today's equivelent of old school animation. I don't really think there really is much difference between the two. Animation allowed for directors to include things never included before. Did people shun that? I don't think so. Animation was widely excepted, so whats so much worse about CGI?
X
Favorite Movies
I agree with what you're saying about how acting, writing, etc is essential to a movie's success, but special effects DON'T matter. Look at Raiders of the Lost Ark. This is a film where the special effects are, for lack of a better word, mediocre (mainly in the end). But because of Steven Speilberg's brilliant direction and Harrison Ford's wonderful acting, the special effects fit the story PERFECTLY. A movie like The Mummy Returns may have effects that wipe the floor with Raiders of the Lost Ark, but the story is hollow and the acting below average. (And, off the subject a bit, I thought the special effects in The Mummy Returns weren't all that great.)
Story is what MAKES a movie. Special effects a movie do not make. Movies are indeed a visual experience, but the best movies have stories that penetrate to our mind and heart, as well as to our eyes.
I don't necessarily think that appreciating special effects is "shallow" compared with appreciating acting, but anyone can say "Wow, that big wave in The Perfect Storm looked so REAL!" Not a lot of people notice the magic behind Morgan Freeman's eyes in The Shawshank Redemption. That is a movie that doesn't NEED special effects to tell its story, because the story stands on its own (and moves the audience to tears).
I think that special effects are good when they are in the context of the story. If the story is laughable, or uninteresting, then it leaves me asking "why did this movie get made?" instead of "wow, those special effects really entertained me!".
And that's the truth, Ruth.
Story is what MAKES a movie. Special effects a movie do not make. Movies are indeed a visual experience, but the best movies have stories that penetrate to our mind and heart, as well as to our eyes.
I don't necessarily think that appreciating special effects is "shallow" compared with appreciating acting, but anyone can say "Wow, that big wave in The Perfect Storm looked so REAL!" Not a lot of people notice the magic behind Morgan Freeman's eyes in The Shawshank Redemption. That is a movie that doesn't NEED special effects to tell its story, because the story stands on its own (and moves the audience to tears).
I think that special effects are good when they are in the context of the story. If the story is laughable, or uninteresting, then it leaves me asking "why did this movie get made?" instead of "wow, those special effects really entertained me!".
And that's the truth, Ruth.