Looks like they have a working title. Anybody else following this? Looks like something worth seeing.
Looks like they have a working title. Anybody else following this? Looks like something worth seeing.
Posted
by
ChiliCon
at
13:42
Labels: J.J. Abrams, movies, scary
Everything makes a little more sense when it's anchored.
13 comments:
hmmm... serious question: is there something new being offered here?
they must think their creatures are really cool, since they are off-camera. either that, or they haven't been rendered yet. on the other-hand, we know they make the typical alien meat-slurping noises when cavorting in shadow-play with the hero's girlfriend.
instead, the aliens should make clown noises.
shit! even that's been done.
rumor is.... that the movie is filmed from assembled video cam tapes assembled after it happened. so you never get a good look at anything.
SPOILER ALERT
the alien is Morgan Freeman as the wise, calm talking old guy (he may wear a straw hat in some scenes)
yes! every film needs a super-duper magical negro.
Evan Almighty
Bruce Almighty
and wasn't Will Smith playing Morgan Freeman in Baggar Vance?
Tormp, are you saying that a movie has to offer something completely new to be good or worth seeeing?
I've heard what Doug had heard about the nature of the filming. BlairWitchish, the idea to bring you, the viewer, into the situation more fully. So it's not completely new but it's new for a movie of this plotline.
In just about every monster thriller movie, you don't fully see the monster until near the end. Think 'Signs', 'Jaws', 'The Abyss'... the same idea for 'Se7en' and 'Rear Window' for people-as-monster.
It seems that for a colossal monster you couldn't pull that off, but the character held cameras give you that possiblity. That's a new way of fitting together those ideas.
My fear is that it will be so haphazard and incomprehensible that it will suck. If they can maintain a feeling that you don't fully know what's going on it's more thrilling and draws you in more. You want to know. But if you're confused enough then you just don't care.
no, i don't think a film has to offer something completely new to be worth seeing. but we have had kind of a glut of "spectacle films" in the last decade or so. i guess seeing landmarks destroyed and people shouting "run!" does ratchet my skepticism up a little bit.
with that said, the whole "assembled from witness media" idea sounds really cool, and i didn't get that out of the preview. it would be amazing if, for example, a major character just disappeared in the middle of the film, without explanation or resolution, because the narrative point of view shifted to someone else's camera. in general the fact that a significant percentage of the population carries devices capable of recording sound and video at all times seems like fertile ground for speculative fiction.
still, i'd like to see a movie where aliens land and *build* a bunch of monumental architecture. or maybe just clean and repair ours.
That would be cool if they use this story-telling technique in new ways. I've got a thing for movies where you see the something happen from different perspectives (Blood Simple, favorite movie, see it!). This would be easy to do effectively with the assembled footage idea and what you said about everyone has a recorder.
I hope that the movie doesn't try to explain everything, but if they leave you bewildered at too much it will blow. Seems like a tough balance.
Oh, and those aliens should have made Lady Liberty copper-colored again instead of taking her head off.
Everbody loved Alien versus Predator.
They're making AvP II. Also, if you haven't seen No Country For Old Men, go correct your error. And read the book, it's pretty good too.
Damnit, I'm trying to see No Country for Old Men tonight, and it's in no theaters near my hometown.
i read the book a couple of weeks ago in anticipation of the movie. it's a lot different from blood meridian -- you can rip through it in a couple of days easily. it's enjoyable, but it didn't really get under my skin the way blood meridian did. on the other hand, its focus on dialog over image seems like it'd lend itself to a great film adaptation. i have to say there was at least one wild turn that took me by surprise.
seems like people who read the book end up divided into two camps, based on appreciation for the sheriff's credo segments vs the chigurh / moss segments. i generally prefer the latter, but the aforementioned twist sort of forces you to reconsider the whole thing. that kind of saved the book for me, i think.
i saw blood simple not too long ago. it was great. do you prefer it to fargo? it's hard to believe that was their first film. i'm pissed off that i didn't listen to this commentary track while i had the DVD here, it sounds awesome.
I'm actually not too keen on Fargo. I'd put at least The Big Lebowski and O, Brother Where Art Thou? over Fargo in my ranking of Coen Brothers flicks.
I have seen some of that fictional film company stuff on the DVD, they have some promo with it. I started to watch one of the normal commentary tracks once but I have trouble getting through those things. I'll have to check to see if I have that made up one.
It is hard to believe it's their first movie - wow.
Post a Comment