|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 12, 2016 11:52 AM |
|
|
Galaad said:
Hey Fred sorry I missed your post.
To me animated is full enough, in fact I find it harder for an actor to encompass such being than a drawing. I fully get your point and can understand why you favor Ledger but I just felt the need to contradict your statement of him being the best of all while I consider his incarnation of the character to be, not bad far from it, but incomplete.
Also you say others are childish yet they kill and torture with sadism just as much, even if adapted to a younger audience, and probably the latter is what really is bothering you.
If an adaption of the Joker in some horror-like movie would be made with all his traits respected and carefully depicted, I bet you would appreciate it even more than Ledger.
question for you: which do you prefer, the lord of the rings trilogy(and hobbit trilogy), or the cartoon hobbit movies from the 80's(?)? 
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted May 12, 2016 12:25 PM |
|
|
Artu said:
What you explain here is a simulation. (Keep in mind that simulation is not exactly imitation.) Yes, of course it is sensory and not plastic but it is an intellectual process which is not fundamentally different than any other artistic action. So when the context is comparing it to drawing or writing, the acting of frustration or insanity is no more "real" than putting such an emotion into poetry or painting. When someone suggests that acted emotions are always more real than drawn emotions by default, I take it as a problem of being captured harder through something more abstract. It is not much different than people who suggest music with lyrics is always more direct or non-figurative paintings are empty, they are not.
It was under my understanding that we had to reply to the question whether comedians tears were real or not, by describing the process stimulating subconscious creation of those tears and to enter into the secrets of the acting art I was hoping to answer in the sens to say they are real tears.
I do not understand your reply. If it seems too abstract to you, theory indeed doesn't allow to access practice. Yes it is practice, concrete and sensory, where the whole being engages itself and, certainly not a simulation! Of course the actor is not insane, if that attempt to loose oneself in order to fully live the fiction functions at some times, at other times he also realizes that he is facing an audience with a foreign text etc. But he will channel his efforts to stimulate once more his imaginary and fully live the situation. Thus your comparison with other arts is rather flattering to the actor, but won't the painter paint real thoughts? Doesn't the pianist into musical senses refines our emotions beyond possible? Describing a process is not intellectual. I do not understand now, in relation to initial question, if that could tend towards convincing you. Real tears, or simulacrum of tears?
fred79 said:
question for you: which do you prefer, the lord of the rings trilogy(and hobbit trilogy), or the cartoon hobbit movies from the 80's(?)?
I can't answer, as from what you quote I've only seen the LotR trilogy.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 12, 2016 12:55 PM |
|
|
Well, let me clarify it a little bit more, if that is the case. The performances are not "real" in the sense that they are by default more real than a drawn/written fictional character's potential transference of those feelings to the audience/reader without humans in flesh. (When it's done right, of course). But they are not unreal in the sense that they are a complete, dry imitation of the surface. An actor may or may not use his own experiences to stimulate the situation he's acting. Examples contrary to yours also exist, I remember De Niro talking about thinking of phone numbers while acting, I remember another (local) example where the actor was supposed to look so touched and sad while talking to the statue of a great leader, but since it was a statue he kept on failing to appear torn apart, finally the director told him to look at the statue like looking at dung and voila, he got the expression right. You can never guess the torn apart look was captured that way if you don't know the background story. Anyway, even in cases where they use their own fitting experiences, that is not something which necessarily makes a performance emotionally more transmitting than an animated version of the same fictional character. (And yes, emotionally more transmitting sounds stupid but I couldn't think of a more proper description in English.)
|
|
JUC
Hired Hero
Hired Hero
|
posted May 12, 2016 01:35 PM |
|
|
fred79 said:
which do you prefer, the lord of the rings trilogy(and hobbit trilogy), or the cartoon hobbit movies from the 80's(?)?
Not my question, but I'll take the liberty to give you my input as well. The former is superior in every quality-regarding way, except if you really have a thing for cartoon movies. Or nostalgic reasons. Or whatever. Quality-wise, the former are so much better, even if I'm not a big fan of fantasy movies and think tolkien's works are pretty much overrated in general. (they're still good though, for fantasy movies.)
Well, there's a small chance that I might be wrong, considering that I haven't seen the last two movies in the hobbit trilogy and the fact that I haven't seen the cartoon series either, but I'm going after iMDB rating and fame this time. It's a pretty safe way to see what movies are worth watching and not anyway, with some exceptions (personal preferences, such as superhero movies being good in some way, which really doesn't make sense at all to me at least)
artu said:
Well, let me clarify it a little bit more, if that is the case. The performances are not "real" in the sense that they are by default more real than a drawn/written fictional character's potential transference of those feelings to the audience/reader without humans in flesh. (When it's done right, of course). But they are not unreal in the sense that they are a complete, dry imitation of the surface.
artu said:
An actor may or may not use his own experiences to stimulate the situation he's acting. Examples contrary to yours also exist, I remember De Niro talking about thinking of phone numbers while acting, I remember another (local) example where the actor was supposed to look so touched and sad while talking to the statue of a great leader, but since it was a statue he kept on failing to appear torn apart, finally the director told him to look at the statue like looking at dung and voila, he got the expression right. You can never guess the torn apart look was captured that way if you don't know the background story. Anyway, even in cases where they use their own fitting experiences, that is not something which necessarily makes a performance emotionally more transmitting than an animated version of the same fictional character. (And yes, emotionally more transmitting sounds stupid but I couldn't think of a more proper description in English.)
This would mean that the actor isn't perfect, right? Like every other human being?
About the first part - I found this interesting. As I mentioned in my earlier posts - wouldn't the perfect-utopia-almighty actor be able to do acting without imitating? Say an actor who could identify with the play character 100%, this person would definitely do a better job in impressing people than the perfect artist would with a cartoon movie. Perhaps I'm overdoing this, but to be entirely realistic (as no one could ever be the perfect actor, at least that's what I believe), a 99% by-the-book actor would still be extremely impressive and a hundred times more relatable.
Why wouldn't it be more "emotionally more transmitting" ( ) than a cartoon version of the character? Care to elaborate? I personally like some animated movies as well, but still I think they would've been better if they were done by real actors (good ones, specifically)! I myself relate a lot more to human people than artificial figures by a huge margin. Of course a comic book can have impact on my thinking and can influence my emotions, but not in the same way a movie with real people and more relatable situations can. I'm not talking about an unrealistic movie here, but say a normal drama movie with common situations but with nice social twists?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 12, 2016 03:27 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:50, 12 May 2016.
|
I'm not an exclusive animation fan either. I just don't see any hypothetical prevention of an animated Joker as terrifying as Ledger's Joker. Especially, when it comes to characters that don't require empathy but rather shock, I think the tools of graphic arts has the potential to be as impressive as the art of acting. It would be very unlikely to see an animated "Rain Man" as touching as Dustin Hoffman, sure. But in that case, your hypothetical blade cuts both ways and the perfect graphic artist can manage a way to express such a thing using the instruments of drawn expression. He would just need a style different than your usual cartoons. There are many animations, that try many approaches which you wont be aware of if you are only stuck in Batman, Hobbit, etc. A short-film called World of Tomorrow was one of the most interesting sci-fi, I've seen recently for example. And it just wouldn't be the same if it was acted. The results of the child-like drawing style was right on spot, it had an effect of innocence and wonder, creating a contrast with the cold and robotic future.
Also, I don't think there is a single perfect way to act successfully. There are different methods, just like some writers work better when they concentrate on their inner feelings and some need a distance and an overall perspective to be more productive, some actors try things looking deeper in their own psyche, while others need a certain level of alienation to be in control. Everybody knows the famous Dustin Hoffman - Laurence Olivier dialogue in which Hoffman says he didn't sleep for 3 days for a part where he was supposed to be sleepless and worn out and Olivier simply replies: Why don't you just try acting? The dialogue when nitpicked like that is partly urban legend but it has a solid point. They are both good actors using different methods, educated in different schools of thought.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JUC
Hired Hero
Hired Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2016 04:41 PM |
|
|
artu said:
I'm not an exclusive animation fan either. I just don't see any hypothetical prevention of an animated Joker as terrifying as Ledger's Joker.
Of course there could be! What I'm saying is that the maximum frightening potential is higher with human actors than with artificial images (with the exception of really well-made human 3d models in the future, of course). Personally, neither any cartoon joker nor Ledger's joker has been frightening to me - but I am not the right one to judge the joker, considering my heavy dislike for superhero movies in general.
Quote:
Especially, when it comes to characters that don't require empathy but rather shock, I think the tools of graphic arts has the potential to be as impressive as the art of acting. It would be very unlikely to see an animated "Rain Man" as touching as Dustin Hoffman, sure. But in that case, your hypothetical blade cuts both ways and the perfect graphic artist can manage a way to express such a thing using the instruments of drawn expression. He would just need a style different than your usual cartoons. There are many animations, that try many approaches which you wont be aware of if you are only stuck in Batman, Hobbit, etc. A short-film called [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Tomorrow_%28film%29]World of Tomorrow[/url] was one of the most interesting sci-fi, I've seen recently for example. And it just wouldn't be the same if it was acted. The results of the child-like drawing style was right on spot, it had an effect of innocence and wonder, creating a contrast with the cold and robotic future.
I meant that there could potentially exist an even more touching act than Dustin Hoffman as the "Rain Man", or even Jim Carrey in the spotless-mind-whatever-movie, and any other social drama movie. I'm saying that I believe unrealistic imagery (as in cartoon-style movies) won't make the same connection to the human mind as extremely skilled human actors would do. I haven't seen the movie you recommended, I'll look into it when I got the time for it! I'm still pretty convinced that whatever plot the movie/short-film contains, there could be potential for a better expression of feelings with the utopian actors.
Quote:
Also, I don't think there is a single perfect way to act successfully. There are different methods, just like some writers work better when they concentrate on their inner feelings and some need a distance and an overall perspective to be more productive, some actors try things looking deeper in their own psyche, while others need a certain level of alienation to be in control. Everybody knows the famous Dustin Hoffman - Laurence Olivier dialogue in which Hoffman says he didn't sleep for 3 days for a part where he was supposed to be sleepless and worn out and Olivier simply replies: Why don't you just try acting? The dialogue when nitpicked like that is partly urban legend but it has a solid point. They are both good actors using different methods, educated in different schools of thought.
Why not? There has to be a way to act perfectly, millisecond by millisecond. Of course it won't be likely at all (unless artificial genetic interference), there has to be luck involved as well. But I think actors can be much more skilled than they are today in many ways. There are good actors sure, but that's just compared to the worse actors. There's still room for a lot of improvements to the acting scene overall, and I might not be able to see the future in acting, but I truly believe that there's so much more to acting than we know. There has to be. More than just rushing a couple of images of pluto and mickey mouse chasing a squirrel.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 12, 2016 11:04 PM |
|
|
I'm going to watch Harry Potter for the 1st time tonight. Let's see how good it is.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2016 12:17 AM |
|
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted May 13, 2016 12:33 AM |
|
Edited by EnergyZ at 00:36, 13 May 2016.
|
Huh. I get the feeling, Ubi, as infamous as they are, saw Warcraft movie and did the same for Assassin's Creed. Maybe I'm just overimaginating things.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the movie becomes defective and starts having glitches like them games. The guy jumps down and before he lands, the screen freezes and Ubi'll be all like "the rest is coming in an expansion pack, wait for official support". That'd be a real laugh.
____________
Come and visit the Might and Magic Wikia!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 13, 2016 12:46 AM |
|
|
Well that's an interesting role for Michael Fassbender.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted May 13, 2016 06:11 AM |
|
|
Corribus said:
Well that's an interesting role for Michael Fassbender.
It's from the same director as 2015 "Macbeth." It seems that Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard and Justin Kurzel (the director of both kf this films) like working together.
Speaking of the trailer itself - meh, it's okay except for that song at the end. It didn't fit at all with the rest of the trailer. Ugh.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted May 13, 2016 09:49 AM |
|
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted May 13, 2016 12:35 PM |
|
|
Elvin said:
Try this one 
Although the editing in the second half doesn't quite fit the music, it still is way better than the original one.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted May 13, 2016 02:10 PM |
|
|
Anything is better than Kanye West in an assassin's creed video.. Ffs.
Meanwhile I watched the civil war, was nice  Good action and lots of funny moments. Also best spidey ever! Marvel may get a bit silly at times but their films have soul, something that DC lacks at the moment.
I like how the focus shifted from the comics' cold political ultimatum to a personal belief of how things should be. This is less about the system and more about what each character feels. The ramifications are not apparent, we only know that the current state of things has.. questionable results. But here is where the premise gets weak. I mean..
We have an alien invasion and an Asgardian deity trying to take over that could have resulted in the town getting nuked at best or a successful alien takeover at worst. And we get a video of the hulk wrecking some walls as if that was the problem.
A whole city crumbling apart that could have ended up with all its inhabitants dead and disastrous consequences if it got further out of control. Ultron was Stark's screw up but as far as the public was concerned, Sokovia could have been a far greater disaster.
If the plot wanted to push this angle, I'd expect a greater emphasis on where the avengers messed up. In the original source, the events of civil war are jump-started by some inexperienced, fame-seeking superhero-wannabes that do a poor job against some bad guys and end up killing kids in an explosion. That is a major cause of concern! But the explosion captain America fails to prevent? He was not some n00b, he was a soldier with a lot of experience on the field. It could have happened to another.
That aside, the character struggles and motivations work like a charm. An especially messy one  Kinda wish the black panther was more imposing, he was a total bad@ss in the civil war comics. The accent somehow didn't sit well with me, maybe I expected a deeper voice, maybe a more powerful aura? Maybe it's just me, will have to see more of him. I'm interested in seeing how Wakanda will be presented in the marvel cinematic universe. Spidey was appropriately talkative and excitable, I loved him. I was pretty indifferent to his inclusion at first but the kid pulled it off. And antman's antics are just fun. He makes things interesting just by being around. I am fond of the cast in general, except Rhodes that is rather boring.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Homer171
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2016 04:24 PM |
|
|
Pawek_13 said:
Speaking of the trailer itself - meh, it's okay except for that song at the end. It didn't fit at all with the rest of the trailer. Ugh.
Agreed. What kinda nonsense is that anyway: "I'm god even tough aim man of God" Who ever votes this sad excuse of pop-star I wonder. Seriously?
____________
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
|
|
Humanoid
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Rest in Peace Juvia (48-499)
|
|
posted May 13, 2016 07:58 PM |
|
|
|
I watched again the movie "Kingdom of Heavens" aka Stronghold Crusader the movie.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 13, 2016 08:03 PM |
|
|
It's funny how the cut bits in the extended version have some of the most interesting bits if you want to get some of those juicy historically accurate interactions, especially love Godfrey's brother and nephew, it truly illustrates the vile underhanded nature of the barons and castellans of the medieval periods. Among other things ofc.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2016 04:03 AM |
|
|
|
watched civil war. not sure what i think about the movie not having any real bad guys in it. too many shades of moral gray, possibly.
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted May 14, 2016 09:21 PM |
|
Edited by Pawek_13 at 21:22, 14 May 2016.
|
fred79 said:
watched civil war. not sure what i think about the movie not having any real bad guys in it. too many shades of moral gray, possibly.
I've just seen the film and these are two of the reasons why I like it so much. The other one is that it focuse so strongly on Cap and Iron Man and didn't let itself devolve into a senseless hero-on-hero smackdown. All the people involved in that conflict had a clear motivation for standing on their side - something that BvS lacked. It also helps that the action was. Besides - I love new Spiderman. I think I've enjoyed it more that "Winter Soldier."
Last two Marvel films directed by Russo brothers made me excited for two "Avengers" films directed by them - something I did not expect at all. Good job.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted May 14, 2016 09:34 PM |
|
|
|
and it's still one of their more memorable villains
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
