 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 11, 2013 - 8:33 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
One case here is fair use. The other is not. I'll let you figure out which is which.
Oh, funny how it is fair use for you eh?
I am pretty sure that Paramount Pictures would disagree
And in the spirit of this article, it appears that posting the entire article in this forum is probably more "fair use" than using copyrighted film images
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/copyright-troll-righthaven-achieves-spectacular-fair-use-loss/
Copyright troll Righthaven achieves spectacular “fair use” loss
Righthaven set out to save newspapers by suing wildly. Instead, its campaign …
by Nate Anderson - Mar 22 2011, 3:05pm CDT
76
Whoops—in its bid to sue hundreds of bloggers, commentors, and website operators from posting even a few sentences from newspaper stories, the copyright zealots at Righthaven have just scored an own goal. Last Friday, a federal judge ruled in one of the company's many lawsuits, saying that even the complete republication of copyrighted newspaper content can be "fair use."
--
That was the case with the Oregon-based Center for Intercultural Organizing (CIO), which Righthaven sued in August 2010 after the group posted a Review-Journal newspaper article on the deportation of illegal immigrants on its own website. The case must have seemed like a good fit for Righthaven; it had found someone taking the entire article! Defense lawyers contented themselves with arguing that the case should be heard in Nevada, and it didn't even bother to contest the issue on fair use grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 12, 2013 - 4:49 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
don't mean to be a jerk Mr. Ado but why only focus on the bad reviews?
Sure, well I think that the hero genre is tired, and the tortured hero is even more tired. And when a formerly non-tortured hero from a classic hero picture with some joy to it is remade by a hack director with a $200 million budget and a $125 million marketing budget I am already really skeptical. When I see the trailers and read some reviews all of that is confirmed, and even some of the positives for this film read like this 'it has this problem with the story etc etc, but it is so big and massive that you will be overwhelmed' - well that is not really what a good picture is to me, persuaded by the enormity of effects and action. It is also my opinion, and apparently some others here, that the 'dark hero' and dark apocalyptic themed action pictures cashed in on by Nolan's Batman series is pretty much over, it is tired and cliched, it is not interesting or new.
We are seeing some definite commonality to the criticisms here, weariness, joylessness, action for the sake of action, lack of imagination. Below are top critics
Chicago Sun Times
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/20677169-421/man-of-steel-beset-by-kryptonite.html
Man of Steel’ beset by Kryptonite
RICHARD ROEPER: Here’s the most ambitious and occasionally the most impressive take on the Superman myth we’ve ever seen, but it falls far short of the bar set by the “Dark Knight” trilogy or even the “Iron Man” troika. Though there are moments, even complete scenes, when we see glimpses of what might have been, but then we’re plunged back into a mostly underwhelming film, with underdeveloped characters and supercharged fight scenes that drag on forever and offer nothing new in the way of special-effects creativity.
EW review - they call it joyless
Chris Nashawaty on director Zack Snyder's too joyless retelling of Superman story starring Henry Cavill
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20483133_20687777,00.html
Meanwhile, Shannon's Zod huffs and puffs, demanding that the puny earthlings hand over Superman, which leads to endless brawls between the two where neither seems able to get hurt. I understand that fight scenes like these have become de rigueur centerpieces in comic-book popcorn extravaganzas, but here they go on forever and have a numbing sameness. They're simply excuses to smash the scenery to bits while Hans Zimmer works up a sweat beating the drums of war on the soundtrack. The only moments of real spectacle come when Superman learns to fly. He rockets through the air like a comet, and it's thrilling. There aren't enough of these gee-whiz moments of wonder in Man of Steel. Never has a race to save the fate of humankind seemed so tedious. C
MetaCritic has it at a very not great 58, with a lot of mixed reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/man-of-steel
RT dropped it 3 points since yesterday
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom line, ppl could be burnt out on "dark".
More to the point, I think people are done with that whole "post-9/11 vibe" bullshit, which is something Nolan, the new Spider-Man and the last Star Trek all cashed in on.
totally agree
if i read a film described as a "post-9/11 allegory" one more time i might blow something up
(just kidding FBI  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 12, 2013 - 1:38 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Bottom line, ppl could be burnt out on "dark".
More to the point, I think people are done with that whole "post-9/11 vibe" bullshit, which is something Nolan, the new Spider-Man and the last Star Trek all cashed in on.
The good news for you LeHah, is that Man of Steel doesn't even delve in the subject.
And looking at the world outside of this very sheltered message board, I'd say -- especially these days -- "post-9/11 vibe" isn't bullshit, but actually very real. You can ignore it if you choose, but the writers and artists of any generation have always used current events to strike chords with their audience.
It used to be that people went to cinema to escape reality, not have it discussed and preached upon. What was a big success during wars and depression? They were escapist fluff like musicals and silly films that made people happy.
One of the best comic films, and purely escapist and joyous was the Dick Tracy by Warren Beatty. It is purely escapist, purely created and imaginative fun. The brilliance of the drawn cityscapes that are transparently fake. The animated locomotive. The vibrant colors throughout, the sweet romantic score, the cartoon fireworks over the city. Daring, brilliant craft.
It had no pretension other than to materialize a comic into a film, and it was totally successful. I wonder if something that joyous and pure and simple could be made now, and if it was would the audience sneer at it with a cynical point of view because it is not CG enough, not fast enough, not dark enough etc etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Millions die in wars prosecuted by governments
dozens die in "terrorist" acts
It is a cop-out by filmmakers to make 'terrrorists' the ultimate evil, dontcha think?
bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom line, ppl could be burnt out on "dark".
More to the point, I think people are done with that whole "post-9/11 vibe" bullshit, which is something Nolan, the new Spider-Man and the last Star Trek all cashed in on.
.... Man of Steel doesn't even delve in the subject.
A.
so what are we talking about it for ??????!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 12, 2013 - 5:46 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
nuts_score
(Member)
|
It used to be that people went to cinema to escape reality, not have it discussed and preached upon. What was a big success during wars and depression? They were escapist fluff like musicals and silly films that made people happy.
Except that war films, noirs, Westerns dealing with racial themes and westward expansion, and historical biopics (not to mention others I'm just not recalling now) have existed as long as the "escapist" cinema that many film buffs seem to have re-written history with. Films like Birth of a Nation, Sunrise, Battleship Potemkin, Gojira, James Whale's Frankenstein, The Seventh Seal, Network, hell even They Live, and onwards have proven to be brilliant allegorical cinema which have amassed adoration long before -- and long after -- you came upon this coil and decided that fluff was what the audience really wanted to see. Who are you to claim that current big budget superhero cinema like The Dark Knight or Man of Steel don't make people happy? They are obviously spending their money on it, so there must be some joy to be derived from them. Just sit back and enjoy the movies you like and realize the world is bigger than the fluff out there.
One of the best comic films, and purely escapist and joyous was the Dick Tracy by Warren Beatty. It is purely escapist, purely created and imaginative fun. The brilliance of the drawn cityscapes that are transparently fake. The animated locomotive. The vibrant colors throughout, the sweet romantic score, the cartoon fireworks over the city. Daring, brilliant craft.
There you lost me. Dick Tracy is your argument against modern-thinking films? Sure, one could claim it a guilty pleasure (my personal choice from this odd period of superhero and pulp adaptations is Russell Mulcahy's The Shadow) but Beatty's Dick Tracy does not have a long legacy of entertaining. It was reviled upon its release and even the current cult for it hardly classifies a revision of its subject matter. The cinematography may be lush (though doomed by bad set work when seen on Blu Ray), the campy villain performances "creative," and Elfman's charming score can be considered its attributes. It was a nice, perhaps thoughtful experiment by a far-reaching Beatty, but you might be hard-pressed to find supporters of this one lining up for a re-issue. It's a fun film to maybe you and me but a general audience will not find anything to like within its contents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 12, 2013 - 6:51 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
It used to be that people went to cinema to escape reality, not have it discussed and preached upon. What was a big success during wars and depression? They were escapist fluff like musicals and silly films that made people happy.
Except that war films, noirs, Westerns dealing with racial themes and westward expansion, and historical biopics (not to mention others I'm just not recalling now) have existed as long as the "escapist" cinema that many film buffs seem to have re-written history with. Films like Birth of a Nation, Sunrise, Battleship Potemkin, Gojira, James Whale's Frankenstein, The Seventh Seal, Network, hell even They Live, and onwards have proven to be brilliant allegorical cinema which have amassed adoration long before -- and long after -- you came upon this coil and decided that fluff was what the audience really wanted to see. Who are you to claim that current big budget superhero cinema like The Dark Knight or Man of Steel don't make people happy? They are obviously spending their money on it, so there must be some joy to be derived from them. Just sit back and enjoy the movies you like and realize the world is bigger than the fluff out there.
One of the best comic films, and purely escapist and joyous was the Dick Tracy by Warren Beatty. It is purely escapist, purely created and imaginative fun. The brilliance of the drawn cityscapes that are transparently fake. The animated locomotive. The vibrant colors throughout, the sweet romantic score, the cartoon fireworks over the city. Daring, brilliant craft.
There you lost me. Dick Tracy is your argument against modern-thinking films? Sure, one could claim it a guilty pleasure (my personal choice from this odd period of superhero and pulp adaptations is Russell Mulcahy's The Shadow) but Beatty's Dick Tracy does not have a long legacy of entertaining. It was reviled upon its release and even the current cult for it hardly classifies a revision of its subject matter. The cinematography may be lush (though doomed by bad set work when seen on Blu Ray), the campy villain performances "creative," and Elfman's charming score can be considered its attributes. It was a nice, perhaps thoughtful experiment by a far-reaching Beatty, but you might be hard-pressed to find supporters of this one lining up for a re-issue. It's a fun film to maybe you and me but a general audience will not find anything to like within its contents.
On Dick Tracy, I was just talking about it, not making an "argument" at all. But I find Dick Tracy many times more pleasurable than Dark Knight, and I would imagine that I would find it much more pleasurable than Man of Steel as well. And one of our most valid lovers of film and critics said this;
"It is one of the most original and visionary fantasies I've seen on a screen."
Roger Ebert
Read his review on his site. He gave it 4 stars.
I think that The Dark hero trend was 'enjoyed' or it 'gave pleasure' to people to the extent that horror films do, they are a controlled/contained form of fear and dread and doom that is 'overcome' to some extent in the closure of the narrative in the film. Personally I have never enjoyed horror films that much, and Dark Night was like being run over by a train, I would not say that it was 'pleasure' for me. If that makes me not as complex or something, then I guess I like my pleasure more simple. Frankly I am weary of the dread and doom and apocalypse notes that figure so prominently in films these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 13, 2013 - 5:40 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
At least the London Evening Standard likes it.
http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/film/film-review-man-of-steel-8654796.html
I'm not that sure they even did....
well more specifically, they recommend it if you are 12.
Rotten Tomato score dropped from 72 a few days ago to 60 today.
The trend of reviews on this film is down, down down.
So it seems to me the question(s) are
1)why do you see a film?
2)what it makes it 'good'
3)what is pleasure in a movie?
I think it is not enough anymore to be 'impressed' or 'overwhelmed' by the scale of production and effects. It is a dead-end.
I would say about 1968 (2001) to 1977(Star Wars) was the start of an shift in movies that impressed us and gave us pleasure with effects and story that had never been done. ILM started an era, along with Trumbull, Dykstra, James Cameron and other wizards that pushed films bigger and more visually grand so it became a one-upsmanship game, and it became much more so with commonplace CG effects.
I would say that the tank ran empty on the effects / spectacle era, probably about the time of Lord of the Rings, so roughly 30 years of ever advancing effects and larger scales have depleting impact on the audience and depleting profitability. Even at the Lord of the Rings pictures at least I was telling myself that most of what I saw was more animation code than traditional film making. Some of these ideas are addressed in the posting Lukas made about Franchise Fatigue.
In any case we are at the point at which they spent well over $300 million dollars for a Superman picture. Not a new concept, not a new story really, with much of the feedback saying it is impressive and overwhelming but non fun or pleasurable. This is a tipping point that Spielberg talked about with huge pictures cratering-out this 30 years pattern of super spectacles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
