San Francisco, 11:18 PM
Sun Dec 6
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
why does Neytiri sound like Natasha from Bullwinkle?
Well, I guess if you're going to have an alien species that somehow speaks the same language that you do, the easy way to explain that astronomical wtf coincidence is to give them an accent.
You know, with tons of people ripping on this film based solely on the trailer, I don't think they realize how much effort was really put into the film. It's kinda sad really. I think there's too much over saturation of films that heavily relies on CGI that most people think it's really easy to put together and tend to forget how difficult it can actually be. This clip is a good reminder that making movies is not as easy as it seems.
Now we just have to see if all that effort pays off with a good movie.
@Pessimippopotamus: I think a little bit of both. I remember when the first trailer came out, people bashed out the CGI seemed pedestrian, or how it wasn't revolutionary or up to their standards. But then again, Cameron did hype the movie to be the end all of CGI movies.
@W10002: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing w/ what you're saying, I'm just taking your point one step further.
When talking about "how much goes into item-X" it is an odd thing to talk about b/c the amount of work hardly ever reflects the acceptance. There are tons of movies where the budget was crap, which lead to ingenuity where as a movie that has a monster budget is not guaranteed a monster win. Apply that mentality to something like art and we find that a person can know how to do something (think Ansel Adams and his b&w landscapes) exactly the same as the artist (in this case, use proper chemicals to develop the film properly) but that doesn't necessarily make that person AN artist. It is more than just technological/financial-awe, it is the actual spirit of it all.
so what i was going for here was an approachable, feline femininity that every individual so inclined would want to engage in acts of a physical congress with.
I'm so excited! The Road is the kind of book where I won't mind if they make changes in adapting it to a movie.
I pretty sure that it wasn't a nuclear disaster in the book, but I'm still going to spend a lot of the movie worrying about their exposure to radiations (No! Don't drink that! It's +10 rads/sec). I blame Fallout 3.
@Traveshamockery: It doesn't really specify in the book. I've always assumed multiple meteor impacts worldwide. It's the explanation that makes the most sense given the available information.
@RandomFrequentFlierDent: Why do you think it wasn't nuclear in the book? It doesn't specify it, but it seems clearly a nuclear-winter scenario (yeah, meteorites would do that as well), and well... they wouldn't talk about radiation because there's nothing they can do about it. Also, It doesn't need to be radioactive everywhere for there to be a nuclear winter, just several big explosions that release enough dust
@Dirk Anger: While reading the book I went back and forth between a nuclean conflict and massive volcanism. On the one hand you had the flashback of the power going out/glow on the horizon, which led me to think of a nuke stike/EMP. On the other, you have the idea that this unnamed cataclysm has wiped out civilization on the entire planet, with massive amounts of ash still blocking the sun and coating things years later.
@WLDaywalker: @Dirk Anger: The glow on the horizon is what made me think it wasn't nuclear - if they were close enough to see a nuclear strike of that size I figured they'd be pretty nuked. That's why I assumed meteor. Super volcano makes sense too.
I guess my reading of it just gave me more of a "man destroyed by nature" vibe. McCarthy's never said what it was - I think we're supposed to be debating it.
@cletar: I'd recommend it. It's a nice story and a fast read. If you like post-apocalypse settings (admittedly I'm a huge fan of the genre) you should enjoy it.
@tonilost: After seeing a preview screening last night I can definitely say this is true. The acting in this, on all fronts, is astounding. To top it off, the script is a great adaptation of the novel, keeping the true feel of the source material and adding just a little more for that emotional impact.
@tonilost: I'm constantly impressed by how much work he puts into his characters. His acting is obviously more than just a way to make money. I have to say that I really respect him, which isn't something that can be said about many actors.
11/30/09
Well, I guess if you're going to have an alien species that somehow speaks the same language that you do, the easy way to explain that astronomical wtf coincidence is to give them an accent.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
Now we just have to see if all that effort pays off with a good movie.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
When talking about "how much goes into item-X" it is an odd thing to talk about b/c the amount of work hardly ever reflects the acceptance. There are tons of movies where the budget was crap, which lead to ingenuity where as a movie that has a monster budget is not guaranteed a monster win. Apply that mentality to something like art and we find that a person can know how to do something (think Ansel Adams and his b&w landscapes) exactly the same as the artist (in this case, use proper chemicals to develop the film properly) but that doesn't necessarily make that person AN artist. It is more than just technological/financial-awe, it is the actual spirit of it all.
11/25/09
[news.cnet.com]
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
so you were going for cat people sex?
yes.
11/25/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
I pretty sure that it wasn't a nuclear disaster in the book, but I'm still going to spend a lot of the movie worrying about their exposure to radiations (No! Don't drink that! It's +10 rads/sec). I blame Fallout 3.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
I guess my reading of it just gave me more of a "man destroyed by nature" vibe. McCarthy's never said what it was - I think we're supposed to be debating it.
You win this time Cormac.
11/24/09
I never read the book, by the way. Should I? Should I read the book then see the movie, or vice versa?
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Great film, go see it.
11/24/09
[spin.com]
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Omigod, I was wrong!
It was earth, all along!
Oh, you finally made a monkey...
out of MEEEEEE!
11/24/09
"I hate them all,
from Chimpan A
to Chimpan Z!"
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09