Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[OARmaster]

Yikes...guess I'm in the minority as a Kubric fan:

Full Metal Jacket
The Shining
Barry Lyndon
Dr. Strangelove
Spartacus

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

TBH guys I adore Phantom Menace for what it was, a lighter Star Wars movie that revived a franchise that had been dormant for 19 years.

However, none of the qualities you describe, by definition, can be present in Avatar.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by OARmaster

Yikes...guess I'm in the minority as a Kubric fan:

Welcome, to a minority called "taste".

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Pretty much nothing can be worse than a Kubrick movie in my book. Seriously, 2001 is a 50 minute CBS special stretched out to 2:20 because Kubrick refuses to hire an editor Frankly I thought the Shining was boring as hell in all its forms anyway. Except the Simpsons. Kubrick may have been a great composer of his shots, but the problem was that when it came to direction and pacing he was ass.

The cuts to The Stand were probably more for runtime than anything else. "it must fit in 3 90min blocks" essentially. Removed from 10min acts and those artificial constraints, stuff like Joe could breathe more.



All the Terminator lawsuits I'm aware of are based on the rights to the franchise (as in future installments), and not the movie. All that will potentially change is who WB writes the check to



Again, easily be made PG-13 if you don't appease the gorehounds.

And if you remove the child love scene. Not to mention the stuff pertaining to the leper.

[MerrickG]

Avatar looks awesome to me. I am curious about your comments though about Cameron being given no restraints.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

TBH guys I adore Phantom Menace for what it was, a lighter Star Wars movie that revived a franchise that had been dormant for 19 years. While easily the weakest SW film to date, it did what it was meant to do and gave us SW again. I don't think I've had a theatrical experience that beats seeing SW on the big screen for the first time.

Actualy Jedi is a much weaker movie, considering that it was made in the period that all the haters love to pretend that Lucas was so different then he is now. Dancing muppets, musical numbers, Eworks.....I think that Phantom Menace is a much interesting movie.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Actualy Jedi is a much weaker movie, considering that it was made in the period that all the haters love to pretend that Lucas was so different then he is now. Dancing muppets, musical numbers, Eworks.....I think that Phantom Menace is a much interesting movie.

Phantom Menace I think would've been better if it had focused a little less on kiddie Anakin and a bit more on the two Sith Lords. Not to mention while I ADORE Amidala, it would've been better if they had cut down a bit on the politics on Coruscant. Also while I get that podracing was a huge part of the story, they focused on that too much, to the point that my mind wanders whenever I see those scenes.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Phantom Menace I think would've been better if it had focused a little less on kiddie Anakin and a bit more on the two Sith Lords. Not to mention while I ADORE Amidala, it would've been better if they had cut down a bit on the politics on Coruscant. Also while I get that podracing was a huge part of the story, they focused on that too much, to the point that my mind wanders whenever I see those scenes.

Granted the pod racing was a tad long for nothing. I guess he wanted to establish the skills of Anakin, they needed a reason for Qui Gon to take him out of Dodge city.

[PeterTHX]

Count me in on the Kubrick was overrated club.

I think 2001 was a masterpiece, but it isn't the greatest sci-fi film of all time, and there is serious pacing problems.

Spartacus was great, but wasn't he under the studio's thumb with that one?

I thought the first half of Full Metal Jacket was great, then it becomes Platoon with big helping of Kubrick WTF.

Eyes Wide Shut...when you consider he shot this for over a year then you really start to wonder about his ego.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Count me in on the Kubrick was overrated club.

I think 2001 was a masterpiece, but it isn't the greatest sci-fi film of all time, and there is serious pacing problems.

Spartacus was great, but wasn't he under the studio's thumb with that one?

I thought the first half of Full Metal Jacket was great, then it becomes Platoon with big helping of Kubrick WTF.

Eyes Wide Shut...when you consider he shot this for over a year then you really start to wonder about his ego.

+1

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I fail to see how, for example frank poole spinning for 5 minutes, or 10 minutes of beauty shots of a space station set to a piece of stock music improve the film. There needs to be plot, dialog, character development. As it is, the film can be summed up thusly:

Heywood Floyd spends 45 minutes sitting on two planes, having a short conversation, and holding his head.

A few space repairmen spend an eternity replacing a part, their kid locks them out, so they spank him and drop acid and take the car out to celebrate



You have to read the book to get any meat out of it. Which I enjoy greatly I might add.

He also has a huge jumpcut after the spinning where there's zero explaination. All of asudden Discovery is at Jupiter and Bowman cruises toward the monolith. The book contains a gigantic amount of material between the two events.



I wasn't that thrilled with Avatar's trailer. It's screaming Phantom Menace to me. A talented filmmaker given no limits and too many toys

I pray I'm wrong, but those blue things are screaming Jar-Jar flashbacks

I am absolutely floored. A movie that was made in 1968 and was ground breaking in film technology and technique. This was done with almost no blue screening. And almost all in camera effects. An absolute great film achievement in directing. Seriously look at it. Does that look 1968 to you? There is crap put out 40 years later FORTY, that is not as clean as looking as 2001. I can certainly accept that it is not "your cup of tea" that's fine I respect people that do not lkie it. But that movie is more of a piece of art and less of a movie and maybe that is your point.

In 1991, it was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress.

I think age might have something to do sometimes with not liking this movie. I think the younger generation need things fast paced. I'm 44. I'm in no hurry.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Blu2U

I am absolutely floored. A movie that was made in 1968 and was ground breaking in film technology and technique. This was done with almost no blue screening. And almost all in camera effects. An absolute great film achievement in directing. Seriously look at it. Does that look 1968 to you? There is crap put out 40 years later FORTY, that is not as clean as looking as 2001. I can certainly accept that it is not "your cup of tea" that's fine I respect people that do not lkie it. But that movie is more of a piece of art and less of a movie and maybe that is your point.

In 1991, it was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress.

I think age might have something to do sometimes with not liking this movie. I think the younger generation need things fast paced. I'm 44. I'm in no hurry.

Your theory is wrong, I am 41, love the book but find the movie a total waste of time, like the poster said before, if you want to actualy know what is going on, read the book cause Kubrick sure won't be telling you.

[Jeff Kleist]

I am absolutely floored. A movie that was made in 1968 and was ground breaking in film technology and technique. This was done with almost no blue screening. And almost all in camera effects. An absolute great film achievement in directing. Seriously look at it. Does that look 1968 to you? There is crap put out 40 years later FORTY, that is not as clean as looking as 2001. I can certainly accept that it is not "your cup of tea" that's fine I respect people that do not lkie it. But that movie is more of a piece of art and less of a movie and maybe that is your point.

Course it looks clean. It was all shot against black velvet. There's no matte lines because there were no mattes for the most part. Yes it is my point that its not a movie, but essentially a moving photo gallery. If it wasn't masquerading as a narrative film I'd have less of a problem with it.

In 1991, it was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress.

I remind you that by 1991, the same stoners that saw it back in the 60s were in power in said LoC I also remind you that "The Terminator" is also in there. A polar opposite if there ever was one It moves quickly, has horribly "dirty" effects work and a plot

I think age might have something to do sometimes with not liking this movie. I think the younger generation need things fast paced. I'm 44. I'm in no hurry

I like plenty of movies of the same and earlier vintage, and have an extensive collection of pre-1970 works

Either way, I challenge any Warner people looking to subtitle the book underneath the film for the next re-issue, or better yet do a "Maximum Movie Mode" where it's explained what is actually happening

[MerrickG]

I actually think that TPM has a script that makes the most sense. It doesnt require a huge leap of logic.

Its just that it had too much silly dialogue.

Attack of the Clones- The love story for starters came out of absolutely NO WHERE. The kiss scene felt soooo forced. Ugh.

Revenge of the Sith had the biggest leap of logic of all of them. I felt that while it was easily the most entertaining of the prequels. It did a PISS-POOR job of handling Anakins turn to the darkside. I mean one minute he is on the side of the jedi and the next he is killing them off and being a child killer.

Lucas dug himself into a hole with that one. Yet, in RotJ we are supposed to believe that there is good in Anakin.

Yet, despite my criticisms I LOVE the prequels.

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Your theory is wrong, I am 41, love the book but find the movie a total waste of time, like the poster said before, if you want to actualy know what is going on, read the book cause Kubrick sure won't be telling you.

Please for crying out loud I purposely highlighted underlined and italicized the word sometimes, said "I think" and finished with imo. Save your wrongs for facts. The book and screen play were written simultaneously.

[Jeff Kleist]

Please for crying out loud I purposely highlighted underlined and italicized the word sometimes, said "I think" and finished with imo. Save your wrongs for facts. The book and screen play were written simultaneously.

That was never brought up. The fact that the book has a clear narrative, character development, lack of jumping around and explanations of events that the movie lacks is where the problem lies

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Course it looks clean. It was all shot against black velvet. There's no matte lines because there were no mattes for the most part. Yes it is my point that its not a movie, but essentially a moving photo gallery. If it wasn't masquerading as a narrative film I'd have less of a problem with it.

In 1991, it was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress.

I remind you that by 1991, the same stoners that saw it back in the 60s were in power in said LoC I also remind you that "The Terminator" is also in there. A polar opposite if there ever was one It moves quickly, has horribly "dirty" effects work and a plot



I like plenty of movies of the same and earlier vintage, and have an extensive collection of pre-1970 works

Either way, I challenge any Warner people looking to subtitle the book underneath the film for the next re-issue, or better yet do a "Maximum Movie Mode" where it's explained what is actually happening

I got ya bro...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Welcome, to a minority called "taste".

What kind? Certainly not good.

Kuby =

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

That was never brought up. The fact that the book has a clear narrative, character development, lack of jumping around and explanations of events that the movie lacks is where the problem lies

As someone who loves both the book and the film, the book is narratively more coherent and dense.
I think proper enjoyment of the film would be limited by not reading the book.

2001 is surely a hard movie to love or appreciate, but I do. Just because someone else does not doesn't make them wrong - it just means different taste.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Blu2U

Please for crying out loud I purposely highlighted underlined and italicized the word sometimes, said "I think" and finished with imo. Save your wrongs for facts. The book and screen play were written simultaneously.

If you think the movie and the book are the same well good for you. I've read the book 20 times, yes I am well aware they were done at the same time, Clark mention's it a few times. All the movie had going for it was the special effects and the music but there was no way to follow the story while watching it. I had already read the book, so I knew what was happening when I first watch the movie, I can well imagine how confuse the rest of the audience who never read the book were.