30 Days of Night (2007)

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

Okay, how do you visually tell the audience that 30 days have passed on a piece of land where sunshine doesn't hit and it snows really hard?

Each film uses its own logic rules and accepted lore/myths. The key is telling the audience this rule and establishing it early on. Of course, doesn't mean that the audience will buy it.

Prior to the last vampire/dracula films of the 90s (which was mostly based on comics and novels), UV light as a deadly light was unheard of. Writers uses logic and science to support the age-old myth, based on genetic anomalies of some poor people inflicted with it. If a novel/comic/movie comes along that can believably explain using pseudo-science why if you kill the vampire that created you you can cease to be a vampire, people can suspend their disbelief (in vampire lore anyway) and go along with the story. If you tell them that you can kill the vampire with garlic bon-bons, well you're going to have another thing coming.

There's also a thing called cinematic convention. For example: I was woken up by the sound of the Death Star exploding.


fuad

That's kinda my point. A great director/writer or whatever - would come up with ingenious ways to convey "30 days of night" to the audience. Is it easy? NO. Is it hard? Yeah! That's the whole magic about movie making. It's to pull the viewer into the movie and become part of the story. To make them think it literally is "30 days of night" that is taking place.

I am by no means a professional but I do enjoy watching movies and the best movies are ones that suck you into the film. Make you literally feel like you are a part of it. Very few of them do that these days.

30 Days of Night - While a good "flick" - is nothing more than just that. This is my OPINION - not fact so please don't take it as such

[glenn22]

I really wanted to see this in the theater but the opportunity never came up... I will probably check it out on BD come February.

[KingDeezie]

Should look awesome on Bluray....

I personally enjoyed the movie myself. I'll be picking it up.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

That's kinda my point.

Well that's kinda my point too. How would YOU visually present days passing when there's no sun to clue you in, the vampires don't age and plants are not blooming or withering?

Another point to consider is that since this was a comic adaptation, there PROBABLY no graphic presentation of time passing in the comic. Just words indicating had time had passed.

It's a scary and intense flick. A lot better than AVP-R.


fuad

[martinp1]

i wouldnt waste my $ on this film.. it was so horrible.. i kept fallin asleep.. ill pass on this..

[owa]

Originally Posted by Tekman

30 Days Of Night Blu-ray Announced by Columbia/Tri-Star February 26th

Excellent, can't wait to pick this one up. Thanks for passing along the info.

[Barnum]

Originally Posted by Tekman

30 Days Of Night Blu-ray Announced by Columbia/Tri-Star February 26th

Why oh why do they continue to release garbage movies?

[aygie]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

Well that's kinda my point too. How would YOU visually present days passing when there's no sun to clue you in, the vampires don't age and plants are not blooming or withering?

Another point to consider is that since this was a comic adaptation, there PROBABLY no graphic presentation of time passing in the comic. Just words indicating had time had passed.

It's a scary and intense flick. A lot better than AVP-R.


fuad

AVP doesn't even come close! piece of trash, garbage!

30 days is a fantastic refreshing vampire movie. Everyone is moaning about how vampire movies should be, you know what? thats why one in twenty are any good, cause they're all the same old boring crap.

This was such a breath of fresh air, visually, sonically and artistically. The only part which was crap was the end battle, it just didn't fit with the rest of the film.

oh yeah and for a Hartnett hater i thought he was f**king brilliant in this movie.

A no brainer.

for everyone else theres Underworld

[Drewza89]

I'm really excited about renting this one. I couldn't make it to the theater to see it, but it will be even better on Blu.

[zMadMonk]

I'm eagerly anticipating this one as well. I'm a sucker for a good vampire tale. (I haven't seen this one yet, I'm finding that Blu has totally spoiled me to the theater experience.... I'd rather wait and watch the bugger at home, the picture is superior, and I can pause to pee when I need to! And no irritating people bothering my view, using cell phones, etc.)

Hopefully it IS a good movie.

Now if only one of the studios would adapt the Anita Blake novels into a good flick. Of course, it won't be as good as the books (they seldom are) but if done right, what a franchise!

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

It's a scary and intense flick. A lot better than AVP-R.

I didn't find it to be scary nor hardly intense and although it is a better film than both "AVP" movies that is not saying much.

Originally Posted by zMadMonk

Now if only one of the studios would adapt the Anita Blake novels into a good flick. Of course, it won't be as good as the books (they seldom are) but if done right, what a franchise!

Why is it that many people seem to think novels/literature are a better form of art than film?

[zMadMonk]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

Why is it that many people seem to think novels/literature are a better form of art than film?

I don't think that novels/literature are a better form of art, per se. I think that many factors go into the "the book was better than the movie" ideal.

The main factor (and most important, I think) is that reader is not limited by budget or actors. They are only limited to the boundaries of their own imagination. The author of the book has to evoke these images through their choices of words, and because everyone IS different and has different levels of imagination, the book (and visual) become very unique and personal.

When watching a movie, the viewer is forced to see what the various people who made the movie (directors, producers, screenwriters, etc.) had envisioned from reading the book. Compound this with getting the right casting (it's never exactly right) and the right budget, and what kinds of effects ARE available, and it never is going to "live up to" what ANY reader with a vivid imagination envisioned.

I guess using this same principal, the reason why remakes are viewed as "not good." The viewer goes into the movie, with a preconceived idea of how this movie should "feel" based upon their previous viewing of the original. While the effects may be better - to the viewer, the movie is just "off." I think the same can be said for many sequels that "don't live up" to the original movies feeling. Expectations are there, and they aren't met. Of course, there are those sequels that deliver and then some (Aliens, et al.).

Anyway, I'm yappy. I now return you to your regularly scheduled something....

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by zMadMonk

When watching a movie, the viewer is forced to see what the various people who made the movie (directors, producers, screenwriters, etc.) had envisioned from reading the book. Compound this with getting the right casting (it's never exactly right) and the right budget, and what kinds of effects ARE available, and it never is going to "live up to" what ANY reader with a vivid imagination envisioned.

Well, I think movies can be just as personal and unique of experiences as the written word can be and I'd have to disagree with the casting bit as although, sure, your imagination usually doesn't put an already-known face to a character, I think there have been quite a few times when casting has been spot-on.


All a matter of the eye of the beholder, obviously.

[Jerec]

Originally Posted by Aygie

for everyone else theres Underworld

Underworld 1+2 is better then this.

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Jerec

Underworld 1+2 is better then this.

I think we have to agree to disagree.

[Jerec]

Originally Posted by Aygie

I think we have to agree to disagree.

They have Werewolves fighting Vampires, with a hybrid and Kate Beckinsale.

I think they win.

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Jerec

They have Werewolves fighting Vampires, with a hybrid and Kate Beckinsale.

I think they win.

ummm actually thats why they lose

Kate Beckensdale - No tits, she's out.

werewolves fighting Vampires - Most original idea of the Century

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Barnum

Why oh why do they continue to release garbage movies?

It's being released because it's a new film. New films eventually make their way to home video. It's been that way for around 30 years.

[eli1277]

Originally Posted by Jerec

Underworld 1+2 is better then this.

you can't compare this movie to those movies, they are not even close to being the same type of movie. the thing thats the same is that they both deal with vampires.

to the post up there about kate beckinsale, are you crazy, she is smokin'

[aygie]

Originally Posted by eli1277

you can't compare this movie to those movies, they are not even close to being the same type of movie. the thing thats the same is that they both deal with vampires.

to the post up there about kate beckinsale, are you crazy, she is smokin'

nah im English so we've been stuck with her for a long time . Go watch shooting fish and tell me shes hot in that