|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Exodus: Is it going to be another "Noah?"
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-09-2014 09:08 PM
I was just looking at some of the reviews from overseas showings of Exodus.....and it's not good. Many people praise the special effects and the use of 3-D, but beyond that, people are criticizing the acting, the writing, the directing, and the departure from Scripture.
Why is it, when Hollywood goes to make a movie based on the Bible, that they can't stick to the Bible? Don't they know that if they depart drastically from the Scriptures that their target audience will then hate the movie? This movie, for example, apparently shows God as a crotchety 10-year-old kid. I know it's not fashionable in Hollywood these days to believe in God (or even show any respect to those of us who do believe), but good grief. Why not at least SORT OF stick to the source material?
Just from watching the trailers, it's easy to tell that the writing sounds like "today," instead of thousands of years ago. The acting, especially from Christian Bale, seems wooden, the same way the acting was in "Noah."
Anyway...I'm still hoping to like this movie but I sure hope I don't feel like hiding from customers at the end of it, like I felt with "Noah."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 12-10-2014 08:36 AM
quote: Justin Hamaker
is that if they were just going to remake The Ten Commandments, what would be the point of making a new movie?
Hollywood has been remaking movies for as long as movies have existed. For example, The Maltese Falcon was remade three times in a 11 year period. The first was in 1931 with Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels, then again in 1936 as Satan Meets A Lady with Warren Williams and Betty Davis, and they finally got it right in 1941 with Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor. The 1941 version is almost a word for word remake of the original 1931 version, but the 1931 is dull as watching paint dry, and the 1941 version is a great fast moving film. The difference is acting and directing.
As for tampering with bible stories, personally that does not bother me if they keep to the spirit and meaning of the original and it is a good film. They did not in Noah, don't know about Exodus.
I also find it strange that they are releasing Exodus now. This is the story of Passover, which occurs in early April.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-10-2014 10:24 AM
I haven't seen the original Ten Commandments but would like to, not least because it was of the first world premieres to take place at the theater where I work.
Silent movies have to be treated the same way, essentially, as widescreen epics and other event films: the presentation is utterly crucial. Silent drama features acquired a horrible reputation, I think, because for about 30 years from the '70s to the early '00s the only way they could be seen was either on duped-to-death and grainy 16mm prints in universities and film societies, or on occasional late-night TV broadcasts, always at 24fps (25 in Europe), very rarely with tints/tones/Handscheigl/other authentic color, and usually with cheesy recorded music cut and pasted onto the audio track with little or no attempt made to match it to action. So silent movies looked primitive, and were exclusively associated with comedy if you weren't a film history geek.
This started to change in the '90s with Carl Davis and the Thames Silents series and eventually the DVD, and there is now an avalanche of decent restorations of teens and 20s features coming through. I don't think The Artist could ever have been made if that hadn't happened. Intolerance, Wings, The Crowd, etc., are all now available in something that looks and sounds much closer to what teens and '20s audiences would have experienced, and for that reason I think the broader public are starting to wake up to the fact that silent cinema doesn't have to be primitive - it just works in a slightly different way.
As for frame rates, there was no global standard before sound. They gradually increased from the late teens onwards, mainly because big picture palaces with longer throws to bigger screens were opening. That called for more light on the screen, which caused a move from three-blade to two-blade shutters in projectors, which need a higher frame rate to appear flicker-free to the viewer. As a general rule, European studios stuck with lower frame rates for longer: 17-21 was typical for German, French and British studios throughout the 1920s, whereas Hollywood was more or less standardized on 24 by the early 1920s. This was essentially why it became the standard sound speed. The early RCA Photophone tests were done at 22, by they had to go with 24 in the end because everyone else did.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic