MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
I started college at age 17 in 1971 without having skipped any grades beforehand. It wasn't all that uncommon back then.
Yes, Katherine Ross had that natural beauty so popular then, not the (ironically) plastic & unreal look that so many people think of as being "hot" today.
Agreed. He could play any range of character, from villain to heroic lead to charming rogue to romantic lead to comedy. One of those actors who never got the public acclaim, but always gave his best.
We won't see her like again, alas.
Definitely! We lose the individuals in the mass in modern battle scenes.
I agree. A lot of viewers today have grown up with rapidly-paced, rapidly-cut films that appeal to adrenalin & sensation, rather than to intellect & deep emotional feeling. The latter, like all art, requires a more contemplative, patient approach ... and a viewer who's well-versed in that approach.
Amen, Artisan! In Excalibur, I always get the sense of individual knights in the midst of the melee, rather than some CGI-homogenized mass of faceless figures. Every individual, every sword-stroke, counts, just as they should, with personal prowess & personal courage making the difference. It's what knighthood is all about, after all.
I agree. There are some directors & some films that just don't connect with me, but I can still recognize their quality & understand why so many other people like them. I don't understand why the hater contingent takes everything so drastically, as if they're threatened by what they don't like, or feel personally insulted by it.
Yes, for some scenes that we love & that we would have loved to see onscreen, I can still see why they were deleted for narrative flow. Even the BBC radio adaptation from the 1980s did the same thing, and they had hours & hours to work with.
I don't even want to think about what Jackson did to The Hobbit, though. The old Rankin-Bass animated TV version is so much better in presenting the story with the proper tone, and not indulging in Jackson's grotesque fan-fiction!
I've no doubt he would have intensely disliked some of the changes Jackson made—in particular, the changes to characters, as with Faramir, because Jackson could not believe or accept that a man could be as decent & quietly noble as Faramir actually is in the books.
More than that, though, he would have disliked even more intensely the changes made to appeal to modern viewers, i.e., the diminishment of the moral & spiritual aspects of the story, which were so important to him.
When Jackson is true to the narrative & the tone of the original, he can be very good; when he decides to "improve" for the sake of contemporary sensibilities, he almost always gets it wrong.
A little courtesy goes a long way, doesn't it? :)
I see no reason people can't honestly disagree about beloved films, without having to get nasty or insulting.
I've heard from people who've encountered Ringo over the years & say that he's the same affable bloke in person as he appears to be in public.
While I don't really see 2010 as a true sequel to 2001, as I don't think there could be one or that it needs one, I thoroughly enjoy 2010 on its own terms.
Well said!
If forced to make an absolute choice between science or the humanities, my personal interests & innate temperament would tend towards the humanities. But the two fields are not mutually exclusive, and it's a pity that they've come to be regarded as such by many. I quite literally owe my life to science, as well as the restoration of my eyesight, so I'm not going to dismiss or downgrade it.
To me, what the film is saying is that science is a vital & necessary part of human knowledge ... but that it's not the end-all & be-all of the human experience. For instance, an intensely Romantic poet like Shelley was a lifelong enthusiast for science. But he also saw that there is more the substance & meaning of our existence than just science.
It's not an accident that the final words of the film are given to the Poet.
If it were attempted, he'd be a good choice as director, I agree.
I do think that the book & the film are two entirely different entities. And as much as I've always loved Arthur C. Clarke's work, in this case I think that the film is the true work of art.
<blockquote>I appreciate you like it, but you are not representative of the audiences of today.</blockquote>
Well, this is quite true. :)
For me, it's probably because as a boy in the early 1960s, older films were on TV constantly, even some silent films, so they seemed as new to me as the then-contemporary films in theaters. And so I had my horizons expanded quite naturally, before I was even old enough to comprehend the full meaning of the phrase. I'm glad to have had that particular introduction to film!
You know, I recently re-watched 2001 & didn't find it slow at all. But as you say, that's very much a minority reaction these days, especially for those raised with faster-paced films. I'm afraid that something precious is being lost, the slower contemplation of any work of art ... and as you so wisely point out, films today are more a matter of cranking out product than making art.
I occasionally post a new message to the boards for both films, as I'm sure there are at least a few people out there who love them. :)
That's a fair & valid reaction. :)
Yes, that sense of the world being headed in the wrong, potentially fatal direction, and feeling that little or nothing can be done about, has only become stronger in the intervening decades, hasn't it?
Definitely agree with you on that!