DOCTOR SLEEP TRAILER

Labels: ,

4 comments:

  1. AnonymousJune 23, 2013 at 3:26 PM

    I'll admit this much, I'm not impressed, in fact, I'm underwhelmed.

    I've already posted my reasons, so there's no need to go into just now.

    I would, however like to make what I hope may be an interesting observation.

    It has to do with Kubrick's film and how people react to the imagery in it as opposed to that in Garris's miniseries.

    I'm not sure, but I think a lot of the like/dislike both films get stems from how viewers view the imagery.

    All of which is to say how viewers view the imagery in any given film, whether like or dislike, is something I've since taken an interest in.

    This may get technical so if it comes off as hard to understand, blame the writer.

    All it is another partial defense of Garris...

    Audience: Groans!

    ...and also a suggestion that even in a visual medium like film, imagery isn't as important as necessarily thought. Granted when a good image comes along (think John Ford) it's a keeper. Still, I contend that image is secondary to story, and that a good story can transcend imagery that some may feel doesn't do the material justice.

    ChrisC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 23, 2013 at 3:36 PM

      I have two examples from film that I think help make this case in relation to the Garris miniseries.

      The Terminator (1984)
      The Secret of NIMH (1982)

      Both films are regarded as masterpieces in their genres, with good acting and characters, plus an engaging story.

      However, there are two elements both films worthy of pointing out.

      One has to do with the special effects of Terminator, and the other with the overall story of NIMH.

      Believe it or not, I've heard complaints about a lot of the effects to Cameron's film, such as the future sets look cheap and fake, and that the Terminator animation is primitive.

      Now I won't lie, when I saw the final reveal of the Terminator in the film, I was first impressed...annnd then I laughed my head off. IN SPITE OF WHICH, I was still impressed, because whatever the technical limitations, they somehow all work in Cameron's favor by making the character more machine like instead of lifelike.

      It just makes sense that after all the machine has gone through it is now clunky and lumbering instead of the lifelike human façade Schwarzenegger gives (I'll be if spell check didn't recognize that name).

      Also, I've never found any real problems with the futurescape seen now and then in the film, to me it looks effective regardless of "realism" or the impact of imagery.

      In all cases, what carries you through is the STORY, not the visuals, and Terminator is a very effecting story.

      ChrisC

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 23, 2013 at 4:00 PM

      NIMH is, interestingly, almost the opposite case.

      What I'm saying is that despite affecting and interesting visuals, how shall I say this, the story is somewhat lacking.

      Audience: !!!!!!!!!!!!

      Well, hear me out.

      The main problem, as Bluth and co-conspirator John Pomeroy point out, is that they hadn't much source material to work with.

      According to a very helpful website "The Animated Films of Don Bluth":

      "Several working on the film related how the book was actually poorly written in that it was two stories. One featured Mrs. Frisby and her children. Another, equally lengthy one came near the center of the book. It focused entirely on how the rats had gained their intelligence. The lack of a clear ending also bothered some."

      More helpful info can be found on this page of the website:

      http://www.cataroo.com/DBnimh.html

      Another problem for me with the story is that it seems like a rewrite of a book called Watership Down, which tackles similar ground in animals moving to a new home, only with rabbits instead of mice.

      Because of this, the story, while coherent, to me just doesn't hold up, and the visuals, while pretty to look at, don't hold much substance without something stronger to back them up.

      ChrisC

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJune 23, 2013 at 4:08 PM

      To be fair, I'm hope I'm not trashing anybody's favorite childhood memories, or anything.

      I remember seeing it as a kid back in the eighties too, I could just somehow never get into it like I could An American Tail.

      Sure, the visuals were, again, pretty, especially the one everybody seems to remember with the Medallion.

      I look at that now and can't help but wonder where they drew inspiration for that, was it a Madonna portrait, a frieze drawn from Greek Orthodox iconography, which was it?

      Of all the visuals that one stands out most in my memory and is particularly affecting. My only wish is that it had a story worthy enough to equal that one visual.

      How all this traces back to Garris is simply the observations above make the case that it pays to look beyond a film's visual style to see if the substance beneath holds up.

      If the answer to that can be found to be yes, then what's most important is the elements of the story, not the visuals, and it's something I think Garris and King pulled off well.

      Er, sorry for taking up space.

      ChrisC

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)