|
|
Post by Gilberto on May 2, 2010 11:43:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on May 3, 2010 5:46:53 GMT -5
Ha, you were right about not actually giving us a MacGyver survival guide, you might have to do a part two for that! Not that that has ever wrecked an episode, this is a good discussion that I really wanted to hear more of. I'm totally in for a LOTR how we would have done it ep, as you know I'm your bookie girl and I have some very definative ideas about how I would have done the movies better... as you guys said, great movies but could have been tweaked a bit to bring it closer to the source material. Might also give me a great excuse to actually read the books all the way through for once. We can also talk about how we hope they do the Hobbit movies.
Also, "The Hunt For Gollum", which you mentioned, is fairly good for a fan film but hindered by a sort of boring plot, because not a lot happens. Also, instead of writing an original script they just took lines from the Peter Jackson films and stuck them in this one, so they obviously put the least amount of effort into scripting. Ben said to him it felt like a weak copy of the Jackson films, but for what it was a good effort. Seen worse I guess. I feel like if you're going to do a film with a small budget, you can't get money for effects or good actors or expensive equipment, but you can spend a good deal of time making a good script. There's always writers groups and things that can help you with writing, it's a nice cheap way of making your film better. I'm singularly unimpressed with the writing of films these days, so many big movies are not focussing on the plot but on the effects. I'm sick of people telling me that the plot and dialogue doesn't matter. It's the one thing we little filmmakers can really do to show up the big guys. Oh, also, originality, but yes, plot. For example of this see Dr Horrible, plot and characterisation based on good writing and of course actors working with that creates magic out of very little.
Am I still typing? sorry, ranting again, my bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on May 3, 2010 19:08:21 GMT -5
I thought the actors did a good job, but I think HFG suffered because it was trying to be a companion piece to the films rather than creating fan film from the books. They didn't have enough budget to really show Gollum, which led to a lot of wandering around with a guy in a sack. I'm also not sure how this timeline would fit the films. It almost helped to illustrate what not to do in the new films, especially the Hobbit follow-up that's supposed to bridge that story with LOTR. Prequels never seem to work because they depend on a requisite knowledge of the movies they precede, which makes you wonder at the point.
Unfortunately small filmmakers are turning to fan films as a way of getting attention so they can show off their production skills, so the writing become irrelevant. Batman: Dead End is a good example of this, because Sandy Collora (sp?) was trying to show off what he could do by picking a topic that would get a lot of Google hits. But there are still people who say "that's the way a Batman movie should be!" So Batman should fight the Joker, Alien and Predator in an 8 minute action sequence? That's the story you're looking for?
This is a microcosm of what's wrong with movies. Like you said, even the upstarts have no respect for story. The costuming and makeup in both these movies is awesome, but especially HFG, which is a 40 minute moody character piece, suffers from the filmmakers wanting to play in that world without feeling a responsibility to contribute something substantive to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by panic on May 4, 2010 22:31:45 GMT -5
Allow me to be your sub-arctic expert with regard to your MacGyver and the Gilberto Apocalypse Preparation Program (just 16 easy payments of $19.99, but wait! act within the next 30 minutes and you get a free Gilberto luchador mask!)
1. The lady who used Chex Mix to get her car moving on an icy road. Here's a handy tip: use ANY drygood. Pringles, M&Ms, sugar-free wafer cookies. They'd all work. Or throw a floor mat under a back tire. If it doesnt give you the traction you can always make some money wagering on the distance your spinning tire flings it down the road. I'm just saying that, as a patriotic fat American, don't waste your snack goods. That guy who lasted 40 days without food on the Himalayas probably used his chex mix for traction along the way.
2. Fleeing to the sub-arctic during the zombie apocalype: Sure, I guess. But bodies decompose much faster down in your hot sticky part of the world than they do in mine, at least during our six months of winter. So what you gain in zombie immobility, you lose in zombie longevity.
Again, great show guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on May 6, 2010 17:14:03 GMT -5
Zombie longevity is likely to take a hit if everybody knocks the head off every frozen zombie they see. Then you can head back to hotter country (or, as it will become known, the Stink) when you're confident all the tropical dead have rotted.
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on May 6, 2010 23:05:13 GMT -5
It's a toss up between well-preserved but frozen solid zombie and hyperactive but falling apart zombies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scary Gary on May 21, 2010 12:50:50 GMT -5
|
|
