Page 2 of 3

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:03 am
by Voly
Directing it IS easy, it's much harder to actually move the figures. The director just says what he wants them to do, and how.

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:04 am
by Guitar_clock
He has to do both, I'm guessing, in today's day and age.

Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:25 am
by Astica
Voly wrote:Directing it IS easy, it's much harder to actually move the figures. The director just says what he wants them to do, and how.

Sometimes you say the stupidest fucking things.

@Topic: I am certainly never going to see this film. Its just yet another copy of every other film Tim Burton has put out with Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter in recent years. The man is rapidly becoming a disgrace to expressionism. I kind of feel like the only point of this film is to open up the opportunity for merchandise, and it appears that they're just pretending that the book 'Through the Looking Glass' never happened, despite it being a direct sequel to 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland', and I liked Through the Looking Glass :(

I was discussing this with a guy in my film class who was trying to convince me I was too cynical and it was gonna be great, but he apparently ended up finding it really disappointing. Tim Burton has lost his edge and dissolved into gimmick territory.

Oh, and way to make the Mad Hatter look like this guy from this band -
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RH9DELpPmU[/youtube]

Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:10 am
by dickwad
tim burton = self-parodying.

Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:17 am
by Astica
dickwad wrote:tim burton = milking misunderstood pre-teen audiences who care more about image than quality

Fixed.

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:45 am
by Voly
Like I said, I watch his movies for the aesthetics.

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:32 am
by courtneycoles27
I watched it yesterday.... it was nice movie.....

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:32 am
by Astica
Voly wrote:Like I said, I watch his movies for the aesthetics.

There are plenty of films that use the same aesthetic style but manage to have decent storylines and be somewhat original at the same time. I suggest you broaden your horizons a little.

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:27 pm
by dot.
I'm with Voly on both counts.

What's so hard about directing claymation?

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:07 pm
by Kichinia
Speaking of claymation, there's a cute (but slightly perverted) series called Usabitti (pronounced usabichi, spelled うさびっち) on YouTube. It's a 39 part series (each part is only 1:30 long).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQJKuj2fKzk[/youtube]
This is episode 1. (Sadly, you actually have to search around for certain episodes after this one. . .)

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:09 am
by Voly
I don't remember saying his movies are the only movies I have seen with similar aesthetics. I said I like them.

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:22 am
by Astica
Voly wrote:I don't remember saying his movies are the only movies I have seen with similar aesthetics. I said I like them.

But if you watched other films with similar aesthetics, that featured narrative as well as spectacle, you probably wouldn't like Tim Burtons as much :P

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:40 pm
by Voly
I'm capable of watching films just for their aesthetics.

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:06 am
by Astica
Voly wrote:I'm capable of watching films just for their aesthetics.

Looking at the pretty moving pictures without having the brain capacity to take in story lines and shit isn't really something to be proud of, Shane -.-

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:05 am
by Voly
Sorry for appreciating beauty.

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:24 am
by Guitar_clock
Yeah... just cause you watch for aesthetics for the most part does not mean that you can conclude that he doesn't have the ability to let the story line sink in.

Thats illogical.

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:22 pm
by Azgarth
agreed, watching for one thing doesn't mean you exclude the other. and if excluding the other on purpose, that still doesn't mean you're incapable of understanding said other.

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:02 am
by Voly
You're using a false dilemma as an argument, Ast.

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:30 am
by Astica
-.- I just don't understand how you can watch the exact same film aesthetically over and over again without at any point wanting to broaden your mind to anything else available. Its small minded and incredibly sad.

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:17 am
by Guitar_clock
And you're incredibly judgmental :(

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:57 am
by dickwad
astica is just a film snob, i thought this was apparent by now.

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:54 am
by Azgarth
ast, who says he doesn't want to broaden his mind at that point?
doing one doesn't mean you can't do the other.

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:45 am
by Astica
Azgarth wrote:ast, who says he doesn't want to broaden his mind at that point?
doing one doesn't mean you can't do the other.

He implied this earlier when he said he watched films just for the aesthetics.

dickwad wrote:astica is just a film snob, i thought this was apparent by now.

<3

I generally try and avoid this section of the forum to avoid talking to you guys about film, since I'm registered with another forum full of major film geeks, and the conversations here are just frustrating and uninformed by comparison.

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:16 am
by Guitar_clock
Implied┬┐

@ast: This is how I feel every time people go off talking philosophy and don't even use argument. But I'm not a dick about it am I

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:31 am
by Voly
Voly wrote:I'm capable of watching films just for their aesthetics.


Capacity does not a strict preference make.
That implication is loosely based, if based at all. You're probably pulling the whole "Hollywood is in America, so Americans only watch Hollywood movies" card here, where it is not even applicable. I didn't realize it was such a sin to appreciate the aesthetics of an otherwise mediocre film, even when there are less mediocre films with similar aesthetics.