Prozium
Jay
Saw Kung Fu Panda yesterday, it was good
I saw it as well yesterday (my 2nd time).
-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
Last movie you saw
- Thread starter molloch!
- Start date
I saw it as well yesterday (my 2nd time).
tarn_seiche
Give Us Live Action BB
More from BIFF.
Night Watching, Peter Greenaways latest. If you want to see it already, I need only say that it is more like "The Draghtsmans Contract" than his more recent work, although there are still many times when I anticipated a moodily lit alcopop to round out the scene, and I was not disappointed of a herd of fat Friesian milch cows.
If you are not familiar with Peter Greenaway's movies, this is a story about a much vandalized painting by Rembrandt. The painting became known as "The Night watch" because the varnish it was covered with darkened with age, giving the impression that it was depicting a night scene. It was revolutionary at the time because it showed movement and action, instead of being merely a gallery of static portraits of paying patrons. The script is fast and clever - too much for me to keep up with, but Mr Greenaway has thoughtfully released a book of the script already, so I will have to get it out some time. One I remember "This is the 17th century, and women of the 17th Century are allowed to smoke, write, correspond with Descartes, wear spectacles, insult the Pope, and breastfeed babies."
There is lots of chiaroscuro and lots of naked ladies as one would naturally expect. There is an absence of cellulite on the women that one would not expect - the muses seem to be those of Botticelli, or the pre-Raphaelites, or more to the point, a twenty-first century aesthetic and the work of Peter Greenaway, rather than the buxom beauties of Rembrandt.
The myth that the story is based on, that Rembrandt is revealing in this portrait, a scandal involving the members of the mitilia he is commissioned to paint, is about as credible as the one about the cover of Abbey Road revealing the death of Paul McCartney, but no matter.
This is artistic truth, not a documentary, but an exploration of possibilities. There is a central motif of a bed - a theatrical four-poster bed on a cart that is wheeled on to centre stage. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors, and even the broad daylight scenes are enveloped in a milky haze, with just a face, or a prop, bobbing up unexpectedly in crystal clarity, like a week old corpse in a millpond. It does managed to capture the gist of the twentieth century art criticism of Rembrandt and the Night Watch.
Still, if you haven't seen this sort of thing before (and you still want to after all I have said to warn you) - you might find it drags a bit if you do not already know a bit about Rembrandt, the renaissance in Holland, and the art of the time. Peter Greenaway makes movies for people who already know a bit about these things, and he doens't wait for the rest of us to catch up.
Night Watching, Peter Greenaways latest. If you want to see it already, I need only say that it is more like "The Draghtsmans Contract" than his more recent work, although there are still many times when I anticipated a moodily lit alcopop to round out the scene, and I was not disappointed of a herd of fat Friesian milch cows.
If you are not familiar with Peter Greenaway's movies, this is a story about a much vandalized painting by Rembrandt. The painting became known as "The Night watch" because the varnish it was covered with darkened with age, giving the impression that it was depicting a night scene. It was revolutionary at the time because it showed movement and action, instead of being merely a gallery of static portraits of paying patrons. The script is fast and clever - too much for me to keep up with, but Mr Greenaway has thoughtfully released a book of the script already, so I will have to get it out some time. One I remember "This is the 17th century, and women of the 17th Century are allowed to smoke, write, correspond with Descartes, wear spectacles, insult the Pope, and breastfeed babies."
There is lots of chiaroscuro and lots of naked ladies as one would naturally expect. There is an absence of cellulite on the women that one would not expect - the muses seem to be those of Botticelli, or the pre-Raphaelites, or more to the point, a twenty-first century aesthetic and the work of Peter Greenaway, rather than the buxom beauties of Rembrandt.
The myth that the story is based on, that Rembrandt is revealing in this portrait, a scandal involving the members of the mitilia he is commissioned to paint, is about as credible as the one about the cover of Abbey Road revealing the death of Paul McCartney, but no matter.
This is artistic truth, not a documentary, but an exploration of possibilities. There is a central motif of a bed - a theatrical four-poster bed on a cart that is wheeled on to centre stage. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors, and even the broad daylight scenes are enveloped in a milky haze, with just a face, or a prop, bobbing up unexpectedly in crystal clarity, like a week old corpse in a millpond. It does managed to capture the gist of the twentieth century art criticism of Rembrandt and the Night Watch.
Still, if you haven't seen this sort of thing before (and you still want to after all I have said to warn you) - you might find it drags a bit if you do not already know a bit about Rembrandt, the renaissance in Holland, and the art of the time. Peter Greenaway makes movies for people who already know a bit about these things, and he doens't wait for the rest of us to catch up.
K
Kiya
Guest
saw wanted the other night. awesome visual effects
Saw wanted the other day, was enjoyable, its definitely a sit back, enjoy and don't think about the story sort of film.
Watched Stargate Continuum tonight. The new star gate sg 1. It was quite good, obviously if you're a fan of the series you'll like it. Unlike Ark of Truth which wrapped up the series, this is a proper stand alone movie. I really hope they keep making more of these!
Watched Stargate Continuum tonight. The new star gate sg 1. It was quite good, obviously if you're a fan of the series you'll like it. Unlike Ark of Truth which wrapped up the series, this is a proper stand alone movie. I really hope they keep making more of these!
molloch!
Obsessive :)
Hmm i don't know, i loved Drusilla as a character but her voice grated on me at times. Loved it when Angel set her and Darla on fire though.
tarn_seiche
Give Us Live Action BB
And More from BIFF
Sukiyaki Western Django - of course it was bitter for me to be faced so suddenly with a Quentin Tarentino cameo at the start of this movie (returning the favour for the director, who played Miike Takashi for Tarentino in "Hostel" –he is the patron that warns Paxton: “Be careful, you could spend all your money in there” ). Worse, I had to hear other viewers making gushing comparisons between this and "Kill Bill" (which I have still never seen), but in spite of these provocations, this cultural pastiche is a real hoot.
Like "Nightwatch", I need only mention the directors name (Takashi Miike - for those of you who don't know already) for some people to know if they want to see or avoid it.
This film is relatively free of his trade-mark manga-style violence and sexual perversion...although it still fully deserves an R rating. It is very much a director’s conceit, extremely clever, beautiful, and consciously derivative. People who have seen more of his work than I have assure me it is one of his good ones - and this film is masterful. It contrives to make something perfectly Japanese out of elements that are so obviously occidental. Both the concrete props like chiffoniers, bodices and ranches, and conceptual ones like Shakespeare and the Wild West, are, in the way they are meticulously placed, posed and treated, transformed into something utterly Japanese, without altering the authenticity of the objects.
The MC who introduced the film claimed it was an homage to the creator of the Spaghetti Western, director Sergio Leone (creator of "Fist full of Dollars", "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”,” Once Upon a Time in the West") - and maybe it is.
But it seems to me to be at least as much homage to the work of Akira Kurosawa. Or maybe it is a fusion of the two. This deft blending (but not mingling) of East and the West, cowboy and the ronin, red and the white, is the heart of this film.
Sukiyaki is to Japan what Spaghetti is to Italy, after all.
So we have the only western character quoting “The sound of the Gion shôja bells echoes the impermanence of all things; the color of the sôla flowers reveals the truth that the prosperous must decline. The proud do not endure, they are like a dream on a spring night; the mighty fall at last, they are as dust before the wind.” from the eleventh century Tale of the Heike Clan by Murasaki Shikibu (one of the worlds earliest surviving works from a female novelist). And Yoshitsune, the head of the Heike Clan, waving his copy of Shakespeare and insisting that his followers call him "Henry" in honour of the victorious Lancastrian Henry IV (part one, of course).
Murasaki Shikibu also wrote Genji monogatari (The Tale of Genji), and the Genji are the Yorks of this film.
So the Genji wearing white colours, and the Heike red, but the floral emblem symbolising the oneness and the impermanance of all things is a variegated red and white rose, not pink cherry blossom, and the variety of representations of red and white is a visual theme, and very well done.
There are other varieties of eastern and western consciousness’, like mountains in the autumn mist, with dark pines standing solitary in the blaze of beech and cedar, recognizably American, but with an unmistakably Japanese aesthetic; contrasted with the blunt two dimensional backdrop of Mt Fuji in the opening scene, in the Hollywood studio style. The treatment of the indigenous people is particularly funny. It is not more realistic than any of Mr. Fords Hollywood Westerns, but it is meticulously, pointedly, incongruous and adds another layer of meaning. And of course, with Django in the title, there is a coffin dragging scene.
Now, if you don't have a cultish devotion to the director or to the Western, this is going to be like Greenways creation (only bloodier) - a stylish visual feast with lots of inexplicably funny and unexpected moments, but a lot of time between those moments.
it is a long film, fully two hours. There were promo people handing out V’s at the door, a damning insinuation the movie did not entirely deserve.
If you don't know that this was Bruce Lee's line in "Kung Fu" or that was Rock Hudson in "The Golden Blade" the acting might seem unconvincingly horrible (Japanese actors speaking badly dubbed Engrish) and the plot hole ridden and ridiculous, and every single frame a cliché that has already been done to death.
So among the audience laughing knowingly at quotes like "I knew your mother. She was a damn fine woman." and hooting with delight as the lone gunman is warned "or you'll be whistling Dixie”, I did spy a few who looked bored rigid, and one who appeared to be sleeping.
But that is the point. You have been warned.
On the other hand, the people I spoke to who had seen Kill Bill, were definitely enjoying it a lot, without knowing or caring about any Western made before Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or knowing anything about Leone, or Django. (Not that I am exactly a huge fan of Westerns, just born early enough to have copped a lot of them in the form of Midday movies and early morning repeats in black and white. While I recognized a lot, there were some things I recognized but couldn’t place, and of course, there are some things that can only be understood by people who have seen Kill Bill.) So maybe you will find reasons beyond my ken to love it.
Of course, if you are a fan of this sort of thing, it is one to get on DVD and watch frame by frame, over and over. It is that sort of movie.
[patriotic moment] just thought I would add, the Oilskins are Driza-bones.[/patriotic moment]
Sukiyaki Western Django - of course it was bitter for me to be faced so suddenly with a Quentin Tarentino cameo at the start of this movie (returning the favour for the director, who played Miike Takashi for Tarentino in "Hostel" –he is the patron that warns Paxton: “Be careful, you could spend all your money in there” ). Worse, I had to hear other viewers making gushing comparisons between this and "Kill Bill" (which I have still never seen), but in spite of these provocations, this cultural pastiche is a real hoot.
Like "Nightwatch", I need only mention the directors name (Takashi Miike - for those of you who don't know already) for some people to know if they want to see or avoid it.
This film is relatively free of his trade-mark manga-style violence and sexual perversion...although it still fully deserves an R rating. It is very much a director’s conceit, extremely clever, beautiful, and consciously derivative. People who have seen more of his work than I have assure me it is one of his good ones - and this film is masterful. It contrives to make something perfectly Japanese out of elements that are so obviously occidental. Both the concrete props like chiffoniers, bodices and ranches, and conceptual ones like Shakespeare and the Wild West, are, in the way they are meticulously placed, posed and treated, transformed into something utterly Japanese, without altering the authenticity of the objects.
The MC who introduced the film claimed it was an homage to the creator of the Spaghetti Western, director Sergio Leone (creator of "Fist full of Dollars", "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”,” Once Upon a Time in the West") - and maybe it is.
But it seems to me to be at least as much homage to the work of Akira Kurosawa. Or maybe it is a fusion of the two. This deft blending (but not mingling) of East and the West, cowboy and the ronin, red and the white, is the heart of this film.
Sukiyaki is to Japan what Spaghetti is to Italy, after all.
So we have the only western character quoting “The sound of the Gion shôja bells echoes the impermanence of all things; the color of the sôla flowers reveals the truth that the prosperous must decline. The proud do not endure, they are like a dream on a spring night; the mighty fall at last, they are as dust before the wind.” from the eleventh century Tale of the Heike Clan by Murasaki Shikibu (one of the worlds earliest surviving works from a female novelist). And Yoshitsune, the head of the Heike Clan, waving his copy of Shakespeare and insisting that his followers call him "Henry" in honour of the victorious Lancastrian Henry IV (part one, of course).
Murasaki Shikibu also wrote Genji monogatari (The Tale of Genji), and the Genji are the Yorks of this film.
So the Genji wearing white colours, and the Heike red, but the floral emblem symbolising the oneness and the impermanance of all things is a variegated red and white rose, not pink cherry blossom, and the variety of representations of red and white is a visual theme, and very well done.
There are other varieties of eastern and western consciousness’, like mountains in the autumn mist, with dark pines standing solitary in the blaze of beech and cedar, recognizably American, but with an unmistakably Japanese aesthetic; contrasted with the blunt two dimensional backdrop of Mt Fuji in the opening scene, in the Hollywood studio style. The treatment of the indigenous people is particularly funny. It is not more realistic than any of Mr. Fords Hollywood Westerns, but it is meticulously, pointedly, incongruous and adds another layer of meaning. And of course, with Django in the title, there is a coffin dragging scene.
Now, if you don't have a cultish devotion to the director or to the Western, this is going to be like Greenways creation (only bloodier) - a stylish visual feast with lots of inexplicably funny and unexpected moments, but a lot of time between those moments.
it is a long film, fully two hours. There were promo people handing out V’s at the door, a damning insinuation the movie did not entirely deserve.
If you don't know that this was Bruce Lee's line in "Kung Fu" or that was Rock Hudson in "The Golden Blade" the acting might seem unconvincingly horrible (Japanese actors speaking badly dubbed Engrish) and the plot hole ridden and ridiculous, and every single frame a cliché that has already been done to death.
So among the audience laughing knowingly at quotes like "I knew your mother. She was a damn fine woman." and hooting with delight as the lone gunman is warned "or you'll be whistling Dixie”, I did spy a few who looked bored rigid, and one who appeared to be sleeping.
But that is the point. You have been warned.
On the other hand, the people I spoke to who had seen Kill Bill, were definitely enjoying it a lot, without knowing or caring about any Western made before Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or knowing anything about Leone, or Django. (Not that I am exactly a huge fan of Westerns, just born early enough to have copped a lot of them in the form of Midday movies and early morning repeats in black and white. While I recognized a lot, there were some things I recognized but couldn’t place, and of course, there are some things that can only be understood by people who have seen Kill Bill.) So maybe you will find reasons beyond my ken to love it.
Of course, if you are a fan of this sort of thing, it is one to get on DVD and watch frame by frame, over and over. It is that sort of movie.
[patriotic moment] just thought I would add, the Oilskins are Driza-bones.[/patriotic moment]
Last edited:
Taylia
Domestic Goddess
very rarely get to go to the movies, but with husband's in-laws staying met hubby and saw the Get Smart movie. very entertaining. i love comedies and laughed all the way through, something mr tay had not seen in a long time (but thats another story). highly recommended if you like comedies
randomhousemate
Gotta love Big Brother!
took myself to the pictures today on my own (looved doing that, can sit where I want, eat what I want!)and saw
"And when did you last see your father?"
I liked it but it was different. I don't know if I ended up liking ANY of the characters but the story was good. Colin Firth played a brilliant role and the dad was very good as well.
Would love to hear what anybody else thought. If you have or had a difficult relationship with your father then it would resonate really deeply with you.
"And when did you last see your father?"
I liked it but it was different. I don't know if I ended up liking ANY of the characters but the story was good. Colin Firth played a brilliant role and the dad was very good as well.
Would love to hear what anybody else thought. If you have or had a difficult relationship with your father then it would resonate really deeply with you.
tarn_seiche
Give Us Live Action BB
The Burning Season
This will be screened on ABC TV on the 7th or 14th of October as part of a series called "The Future Makers".
This is a documentary about an entrepreneur with a plan that will give a financial value to the rain-forests of Indonesia, making them more valuable to save than to destroy, and thus save habitat for Orangutans, reduce carbon emissions in Indonesia (third highest emitter in the world, after the USA and China), preserve biodiversity (third most biodiverse rainforests, after Brazil and the DRC ) and providing employment to raise locals out of poverty.
I hope the scheme works, but unfortunately, the film was dull, dull, dull. And it is hard to see why.
There is drama. Dorjee Sun, the Eco entrepreneur (former web master of Australia Zoo) sees the potential of Emissions Trading in Indonesia, has a plan, and is attempting to corner some of the most effective carbon sinks in the world, before they are gone.
Filming starts in 2007, before Australia had ratified the Kyoto treaty, before the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in Bali.
Dojee starts out with about as much chance as an equatorial glacier in 2050 on current projections; any proposed emissions trading scheme was voluntary, obliged to operate without specific, government regulated targets; he was a citizen of a country that was not party to the Kyoto treaty( he is Australian); and the Kyoto treaty which did not include avoiding deforestation when it came to calculating greenhouse gas emissions for targets and trading, anyway.
It ends after the Bali talks in December 2007, with Australia a signatory to Kyoto; with avoided deforestation included in the amendments to Kyoto...and with the project looking very hopeful indeed.
There are some really interesting people being interviewed (like Lone Dröscher Nielsen , Irwandi Yusuf, Paul Wolfowitz (a Bahasa speaking ambassador with a deep interest in Indonesian environmental issues decades before Iraq and Neo-con infamy), and even Terri Irwin . There are, literally, barrow-loads of orphaned Orangutans.
There was stuff there to make it dramatic and interesting.
Only it wasn't. And there were burning questions sitting there, like Orangutans on the conference table, with everyone pretending they don't see them.
What about Corruption? (it is an issue in Indonesia, it has happened, it does happen. What is to prevent it happening?)
And what about the big multi-national companies that are deforesting right now? The Malaysian, Singapore, Taiwanese and Hong Kong concerns that are paying loggers $11/m³, selling from Chinese warehouses at $202/m²,retailing to us (through Ikea, and Bunnings, to name two known offenders) as furniture and flooring for as much as $2288/m³?
What about Kalimantan? That is the island of Indonesia where the greatest number of Orangutans are under threat. Where are the governors of Kaimantan?
How is this going to be policed, exactly? And who are the enforcers, exactly?
And what part is the central government of Indonesia to play in all this?
And the World Bank?
And speaking of banks, what are the chances of doing a deal with Merrill Lynch, as they scramble to get out of the sub-prime shakeup?
And speaking of shakeups - what is the deal with Starbucks now?
And is emissions trading going to reduce greenhouse emissions anyway?
Also, (for us at BBBA) where was Claire Madden? Is it possible that a film could be produced in Australia in 2007, on Orangutans, with Claire being either in Borneo, filming palm oil plantations, or else in film school, or else at home, catching up with old workmates....and not hear about it? (There was no mention of her being involved in this film, not even as a clapper loader.)
There is an insultingly simple (although stylishly done) power-point presentation explaining what an emissions trading scheme is. And the film does put Indonesia's greenhouse contribution into context. But there are many issues and people whose relevance could be better explained, but were not. For example, Terri Irwin tells how she had been 'banging her head against this for so long, and she thought they all wanted the same thing'. No clarification about what Terri Irwin has been doing with Wildlife Warriors and the Tsunami project, nor what it was they all wanted. How hard would it have been to get Terri Irwin to put in a plug for Wildlife Warriors?
Cathy Henkel did explain, in a talk after the screening, that there were some difficulties with money during filming - the FFC agreed to fund the film in February, didn't sign until June, the money did not hit the bank account until the first of December. Until then it was overdrafts and bankcards that kept the project going. Maybe that is part of the reason that there are no Australian politicians seen anywhere in the film until the Bali talks, when a triumphant prime minister Rudd, flanked by Wong and Garret, march in to sign the Kyoto treaty.
A few other things she mentioned - when she showed the film to Bob Brown, he pointed out to her that Australia has a burning season too. We are still burning forest in Tasmania.
Palm oil is in heaps of products, labeled generically, as 'vegetable oil', or not labeled at all, and found in baked foods, biscuits, chips, lollies, peanut butter, ice cream, margarine, toothpaste, lipstick, soap, industrial lubricants,animal feeds.
That there are more details about the issues on the movieswebsite. That(and I hope I am quoting her correctly here):"Basically I was interested in following a young guy with an attitude like 'You put on a backpack, go out into the world and discover something.'"
I was reminded of another (dull) piece of Cinéma Vérité called Startup.com that I saw in 2000- a couple of guys going around Silicon Valley to get venture capital for their B2G website, getting massive amounts of money (it was at the height of the tech bubble, and it was obvious that these people wanted to float the company so they could stag it, and use it as a vehicle for other machiavellian plans). There was another partner, that bobbed up for the first time in the middle of the movie, when the company had a value of about 12mil., demanding to be bought out. They couldn't grow the business fast enough, it started hemorrhaging money, things got nasty (as they typically do when money is being lost), one of them shafts the other, demoting from CEO to senior technical officer, then does his damndest to spread the sails while he ignores the fact that he is now captain of a sinking ship, going full speed to Davy Jones locker. There was folly and chicanery, with the story becoming incoherant and the characters ducking from the cameras as the question of how this business was supposed to make money loomed larger and became more intriguing.
There are ominious similarities between the enterprise in "Startup.com" and the one in "The Burning Season". There is the same lack of credible detail in their business model, with an insultingly simple power point presentation to take the place of germane details ( hopefully, in this case, they are known, and realistic but still being negotiated, and prudently kept confidential) There is the same stand-offish contempt combined with creepy, vampirish interest from the hard headed money men. The anxious parents, assuring us that their son has poured his life into this project (which he obviously and definitely had) are there too.
And that got me thinking...what happened to the guys that were involved in govWorks.com? Where are they now? So I got to googling.
Tom Herman, the guy that was sacked from his own company, is going strong, with a couple of projects that really worked under his belt since govWorks went belly-up. He has ruefully pointed out that the concept did work - pointing to the website that is now doing what govWorks was set up to do, as proof. He even devoted a web page to his lessons learnt.
Kaleill Saza Tyman, the remaining partner, started a business to help start-up web entrepreneurs make a go of it, (a need gap he identified as a direct result of the govWorks project). He is also doing just fine, although he has a different take on the experience.
Cheih Chung, the third partner, came out halfway through with about $4 million, so we know he did alright. All I could find out about him, was that he donated to Obama's presidential campaign.
All prospering now.
This has cheered me up and given me hope. Even though I didn't really like the "The Burning Season" as a film, even though there were a lot of areas left hazy, and maybe some cases of deliberately blowing smoke up our arses, there is still a chance that good might come of this.
And maybe there will be a sequel. Hopefully, it will be more interesting than this one.
This will be screened on ABC TV on the 7th or 14th of October as part of a series called "The Future Makers".
This is a documentary about an entrepreneur with a plan that will give a financial value to the rain-forests of Indonesia, making them more valuable to save than to destroy, and thus save habitat for Orangutans, reduce carbon emissions in Indonesia (third highest emitter in the world, after the USA and China), preserve biodiversity (third most biodiverse rainforests, after Brazil and the DRC ) and providing employment to raise locals out of poverty.
I hope the scheme works, but unfortunately, the film was dull, dull, dull. And it is hard to see why.
There is drama. Dorjee Sun, the Eco entrepreneur (former web master of Australia Zoo) sees the potential of Emissions Trading in Indonesia, has a plan, and is attempting to corner some of the most effective carbon sinks in the world, before they are gone.
Filming starts in 2007, before Australia had ratified the Kyoto treaty, before the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in Bali.
Dojee starts out with about as much chance as an equatorial glacier in 2050 on current projections; any proposed emissions trading scheme was voluntary, obliged to operate without specific, government regulated targets; he was a citizen of a country that was not party to the Kyoto treaty( he is Australian); and the Kyoto treaty which did not include avoiding deforestation when it came to calculating greenhouse gas emissions for targets and trading, anyway.
It ends after the Bali talks in December 2007, with Australia a signatory to Kyoto; with avoided deforestation included in the amendments to Kyoto...and with the project looking very hopeful indeed.
There are some really interesting people being interviewed (like Lone Dröscher Nielsen , Irwandi Yusuf, Paul Wolfowitz (a Bahasa speaking ambassador with a deep interest in Indonesian environmental issues decades before Iraq and Neo-con infamy), and even Terri Irwin . There are, literally, barrow-loads of orphaned Orangutans.
There was stuff there to make it dramatic and interesting.
Only it wasn't. And there were burning questions sitting there, like Orangutans on the conference table, with everyone pretending they don't see them.
What about Corruption? (it is an issue in Indonesia, it has happened, it does happen. What is to prevent it happening?)
And what about the big multi-national companies that are deforesting right now? The Malaysian, Singapore, Taiwanese and Hong Kong concerns that are paying loggers $11/m³, selling from Chinese warehouses at $202/m²,retailing to us (through Ikea, and Bunnings, to name two known offenders) as furniture and flooring for as much as $2288/m³?
What about Kalimantan? That is the island of Indonesia where the greatest number of Orangutans are under threat. Where are the governors of Kaimantan?
How is this going to be policed, exactly? And who are the enforcers, exactly?
And what part is the central government of Indonesia to play in all this?
And the World Bank?
And speaking of banks, what are the chances of doing a deal with Merrill Lynch, as they scramble to get out of the sub-prime shakeup?
And speaking of shakeups - what is the deal with Starbucks now?
And is emissions trading going to reduce greenhouse emissions anyway?
Also, (for us at BBBA) where was Claire Madden? Is it possible that a film could be produced in Australia in 2007, on Orangutans, with Claire being either in Borneo, filming palm oil plantations, or else in film school, or else at home, catching up with old workmates....and not hear about it? (There was no mention of her being involved in this film, not even as a clapper loader.)
There is an insultingly simple (although stylishly done) power-point presentation explaining what an emissions trading scheme is. And the film does put Indonesia's greenhouse contribution into context. But there are many issues and people whose relevance could be better explained, but were not. For example, Terri Irwin tells how she had been 'banging her head against this for so long, and she thought they all wanted the same thing'. No clarification about what Terri Irwin has been doing with Wildlife Warriors and the Tsunami project, nor what it was they all wanted. How hard would it have been to get Terri Irwin to put in a plug for Wildlife Warriors?
Cathy Henkel did explain, in a talk after the screening, that there were some difficulties with money during filming - the FFC agreed to fund the film in February, didn't sign until June, the money did not hit the bank account until the first of December. Until then it was overdrafts and bankcards that kept the project going. Maybe that is part of the reason that there are no Australian politicians seen anywhere in the film until the Bali talks, when a triumphant prime minister Rudd, flanked by Wong and Garret, march in to sign the Kyoto treaty.
A few other things she mentioned - when she showed the film to Bob Brown, he pointed out to her that Australia has a burning season too. We are still burning forest in Tasmania.
Palm oil is in heaps of products, labeled generically, as 'vegetable oil', or not labeled at all, and found in baked foods, biscuits, chips, lollies, peanut butter, ice cream, margarine, toothpaste, lipstick, soap, industrial lubricants,animal feeds.
That there are more details about the issues on the movieswebsite. That(and I hope I am quoting her correctly here):"Basically I was interested in following a young guy with an attitude like 'You put on a backpack, go out into the world and discover something.'"
I was reminded of another (dull) piece of Cinéma Vérité called Startup.com that I saw in 2000- a couple of guys going around Silicon Valley to get venture capital for their B2G website, getting massive amounts of money (it was at the height of the tech bubble, and it was obvious that these people wanted to float the company so they could stag it, and use it as a vehicle for other machiavellian plans). There was another partner, that bobbed up for the first time in the middle of the movie, when the company had a value of about 12mil., demanding to be bought out. They couldn't grow the business fast enough, it started hemorrhaging money, things got nasty (as they typically do when money is being lost), one of them shafts the other, demoting from CEO to senior technical officer, then does his damndest to spread the sails while he ignores the fact that he is now captain of a sinking ship, going full speed to Davy Jones locker. There was folly and chicanery, with the story becoming incoherant and the characters ducking from the cameras as the question of how this business was supposed to make money loomed larger and became more intriguing.
There are ominious similarities between the enterprise in "Startup.com" and the one in "The Burning Season". There is the same lack of credible detail in their business model, with an insultingly simple power point presentation to take the place of germane details ( hopefully, in this case, they are known, and realistic but still being negotiated, and prudently kept confidential) There is the same stand-offish contempt combined with creepy, vampirish interest from the hard headed money men. The anxious parents, assuring us that their son has poured his life into this project (which he obviously and definitely had) are there too.
And that got me thinking...what happened to the guys that were involved in govWorks.com? Where are they now? So I got to googling.
Tom Herman, the guy that was sacked from his own company, is going strong, with a couple of projects that really worked under his belt since govWorks went belly-up. He has ruefully pointed out that the concept did work - pointing to the website that is now doing what govWorks was set up to do, as proof. He even devoted a web page to his lessons learnt.
Kaleill Saza Tyman, the remaining partner, started a business to help start-up web entrepreneurs make a go of it, (a need gap he identified as a direct result of the govWorks project). He is also doing just fine, although he has a different take on the experience.
Cheih Chung, the third partner, came out halfway through with about $4 million, so we know he did alright. All I could find out about him, was that he donated to Obama's presidential campaign.
All prospering now.
This has cheered me up and given me hope. Even though I didn't really like the "The Burning Season" as a film, even though there were a lot of areas left hazy, and maybe some cases of deliberately blowing smoke up our arses, there is still a chance that good might come of this.
And maybe there will be a sequel. Hopefully, it will be more interesting than this one.
Last edited:
That's the only way to see a movie IMHO. I don't know about others, but what I most desire from a movie is escapism. I love being transported to another realm and the high you feel walking out of the theatre. If there is another person with you, especially an acquaintance who you must employ tedious small talk with - the entire experience is ruined. Even if you know the person well enough to just enjoy a companionable silence, you've still got to decide where and what to do next, which could threaten the spell a good film can weave.
R
RustyAngel73
Guest
Saw Wanted and liked that. And the Dark Knight, in lovee with that.
Wanna see Pineapple Express this week.
Wanna see Pineapple Express this week.
tarn_seiche
Give Us Live Action BB
And one more from BIFF
Funny Games could have been a good splatter film, except that all the violence is off camera.
It could have been a good suspense film, except that a suspense film builds up to a climax.
It could have been a comedy of manners, if it had a stronger script.
It could have been a thriller, if it had a faster pace.
It could have been a quirky, colourful, oneiric deconstruction of nihilism and existentialism, if the director (Micheal Haneke) had not had other games to play.
Slow and tortured is a good way to describe this film. It starts promisingly enough, (promising is also a good word to describe this film) with a happy, affluent family heading for their lakeside hideaway, gorgeous wooden sloop in tow, guessing which Opera singer is performing which aria by which composer.
They stop by the neighbours' house, to tell them they have arrived, to play golf with them tomorrow and to enlist their help in launching the yacht today. They notice Fred was not his affable self, and was accompanied by two young men dressed in immaculate tennis whites, and white cotton gloves. As they continue merrily on their way, the thrash metal soundtrack ('Bonehead' by Naked City) gives us a none too subtle hint that Fred has excellent reasons for being a little strange today.
Coccooned in their car, they return to their classical music guessing game - George (Tim Roth):"Handle?"
Anne (Naomi Watts): "Guigno"
George: "Guigno. Of course it is!"
A more subtle hint. 'Grand Guigno' is the Naked City album following 'Torture Garden'. The aria is 'Ebben? Ne andrò lontana' composed by Alfredo Catalani, and sung by Angela Gheorghiu, as used in the soundtrack of 'Someone to Watch over Me'.
There is an even more subtle hint in the lyrics Gheorghiu is singing: "Well then? I will go far away."
This is very good advice, and if you take it when you hear it, you can still get your money back.
Really, this movie has no excuse for being as truly appalling as it is.
The actors are all competent. Micheal Pitt (Henry Parker from Dawsons Creek) does superbly as he plays Paul to Barry Corbet's Peter (or Butthead to his Bevis, or Jerry to his Tom, as the case may be). Watts, Roth and child actor Devon Gearhart are no rookies.
The other half of the cast are barely speaking cameos - and they do their job really well, anyway. There is no blaming the actors.
Or the soundtrack - carefully chosen and artfully woven into the movie, with layers of significance of its own, it is brilliant.
Or the props, the location, the costumes - all very well done.
The cinematography is brilliant, beautiful, crisp and clear.
The script needs work 'tis true, but the concept is a good one.
And there is no end of money thrown into this project.
I can't even say that the direction is terrible, although he knew exactly what he was doing when he meticulously sculpted this pile of excrement, and therefore cannot be blameless.
At first, when these softly spoken sticklers for good manners come seeking eggs, I was prepared to forgive the transparency of the plot device. Yes, it was not much of a ploy, but it obviously wasn't intended to convince - just one of the many witty statements on how the need to seem well mannered can make us devious, liars, concealing our real interests, inviting psychopaths into our homes.
The motivations of the characters are a little harder to explain when the young men are politely asked to leave, I felt the script could be improved somewhat there, however, I was not going to nit-pick and the suspense was definitely building.
But when the games start and their lives depend on it, our protagonists are so inexplicably slow moving and slow witted, have so much difficulty remembering where their injuries are (confused, no doubt, by their complete lack of correlation to the trajectory of any blow, or to the bruises flowering on random parts of their bodies), are so incapable of escaping the flimsiest restraints, seem so determined to ignore devices that could save their lives, give up on escapes that require only a small amount of extra effort, and generally flaff around like dying mullet, that I ceased to care if they saw the daybreak, ceased to care how many bullets were in that gun, ceased to care if that was the point the movie was attempting to make; in fact, I found myself hoping that they and it were dispatched much more quickly, so I could go home.
So when 'Paul' started to make his meta-comments direct to camera blatently self-referential, it is too late for me to do anything but growl to myself 'No! you can't worm out of it that way'. And by the time they start to chat philosophically about the communications problems of matter and antimatter, all I could do was scream inside my head 'I DON'T CARE'.
The whole point of this movie is that the sanctimonious and sadistic director lures the cinema goer to part with money and sit quietly in a darkened room for an hour and fifty-one minutes. He does this by pretending you are going to be entertained by suspense, or violence, or comedy, or innovation. He is toying with you. If you sit there and watch this movie, you are playing his game. Whatever you thought you were getting, you are not going to get it. That is why it is funny. For him.
He already made this movie, ten years ago, in Germany. This English language remake with American cast and locations is just so he can make more money with the same low trick. But I only found that out after I saw it.
You want a real ending with plausible plot development?
See something else.
Funny Games could have been a good splatter film, except that all the violence is off camera.
It could have been a good suspense film, except that a suspense film builds up to a climax.
It could have been a comedy of manners, if it had a stronger script.
It could have been a thriller, if it had a faster pace.
It could have been a quirky, colourful, oneiric deconstruction of nihilism and existentialism, if the director (Micheal Haneke) had not had other games to play.
Slow and tortured is a good way to describe this film. It starts promisingly enough, (promising is also a good word to describe this film) with a happy, affluent family heading for their lakeside hideaway, gorgeous wooden sloop in tow, guessing which Opera singer is performing which aria by which composer.
They stop by the neighbours' house, to tell them they have arrived, to play golf with them tomorrow and to enlist their help in launching the yacht today. They notice Fred was not his affable self, and was accompanied by two young men dressed in immaculate tennis whites, and white cotton gloves. As they continue merrily on their way, the thrash metal soundtrack ('Bonehead' by Naked City) gives us a none too subtle hint that Fred has excellent reasons for being a little strange today.
Coccooned in their car, they return to their classical music guessing game - George (Tim Roth):"Handle?"
Anne (Naomi Watts): "Guigno"
George: "Guigno. Of course it is!"
A more subtle hint. 'Grand Guigno' is the Naked City album following 'Torture Garden'. The aria is 'Ebben? Ne andrò lontana' composed by Alfredo Catalani, and sung by Angela Gheorghiu, as used in the soundtrack of 'Someone to Watch over Me'.
There is an even more subtle hint in the lyrics Gheorghiu is singing: "Well then? I will go far away."
This is very good advice, and if you take it when you hear it, you can still get your money back.
Really, this movie has no excuse for being as truly appalling as it is.
The actors are all competent. Micheal Pitt (Henry Parker from Dawsons Creek) does superbly as he plays Paul to Barry Corbet's Peter (or Butthead to his Bevis, or Jerry to his Tom, as the case may be). Watts, Roth and child actor Devon Gearhart are no rookies.
The other half of the cast are barely speaking cameos - and they do their job really well, anyway. There is no blaming the actors.
Or the soundtrack - carefully chosen and artfully woven into the movie, with layers of significance of its own, it is brilliant.
Or the props, the location, the costumes - all very well done.
The cinematography is brilliant, beautiful, crisp and clear.
The script needs work 'tis true, but the concept is a good one.
And there is no end of money thrown into this project.
I can't even say that the direction is terrible, although he knew exactly what he was doing when he meticulously sculpted this pile of excrement, and therefore cannot be blameless.
At first, when these softly spoken sticklers for good manners come seeking eggs, I was prepared to forgive the transparency of the plot device. Yes, it was not much of a ploy, but it obviously wasn't intended to convince - just one of the many witty statements on how the need to seem well mannered can make us devious, liars, concealing our real interests, inviting psychopaths into our homes.
The motivations of the characters are a little harder to explain when the young men are politely asked to leave, I felt the script could be improved somewhat there, however, I was not going to nit-pick and the suspense was definitely building.
But when the games start and their lives depend on it, our protagonists are so inexplicably slow moving and slow witted, have so much difficulty remembering where their injuries are (confused, no doubt, by their complete lack of correlation to the trajectory of any blow, or to the bruises flowering on random parts of their bodies), are so incapable of escaping the flimsiest restraints, seem so determined to ignore devices that could save their lives, give up on escapes that require only a small amount of extra effort, and generally flaff around like dying mullet, that I ceased to care if they saw the daybreak, ceased to care how many bullets were in that gun, ceased to care if that was the point the movie was attempting to make; in fact, I found myself hoping that they and it were dispatched much more quickly, so I could go home.
So when 'Paul' started to make his meta-comments direct to camera blatently self-referential, it is too late for me to do anything but growl to myself 'No! you can't worm out of it that way'. And by the time they start to chat philosophically about the communications problems of matter and antimatter, all I could do was scream inside my head 'I DON'T CARE'.
The whole point of this movie is that the sanctimonious and sadistic director lures the cinema goer to part with money and sit quietly in a darkened room for an hour and fifty-one minutes. He does this by pretending you are going to be entertained by suspense, or violence, or comedy, or innovation. He is toying with you. If you sit there and watch this movie, you are playing his game. Whatever you thought you were getting, you are not going to get it. That is why it is funny. For him.
He already made this movie, ten years ago, in Germany. This English language remake with American cast and locations is just so he can make more money with the same low trick. But I only found that out after I saw it.
You want a real ending with plausible plot development?
See something else.
Last edited:
R
RustyAngel73
Guest
Pineapple Express. Fkn hilarious, and James Franco is damn fine. My new fave of Seth Rogen's movies.
tarn_seiche
Give Us Live Action BB
The bitter after-taste of Funny Games has been sweetened somewhat by Pineapple Express. Anything at least partly written by Apatow with Goldberg / Rogan has to hit the spot at least once - Apatow speaking to people precisely my age, and the other two being just outrageously hilarious.
These guys were tickling my funnybone unmercifully in this film.
I especially appreciated how they recreated the original vibe of "Electric Avenue", a quarter of a century after it was startling to combine socially aware reggae with cash-happy electropop. And the Jeff Goldblum jokes.
The traditional movie formula exploring trust and betrayal between father and son, siblings and spouses has been done to death. Ditto mates - at work or on the field. Which leaves the delicate dilemma of what to do when your drug dealer takes you for a personal friend largely unexplored. How much trust should you bring to a relationship based on the sale of illegal drugs? How far should you trust his dealer? Or his? And how much of that trust can you trust when you are so stoned that you are laughing at irrelevantly unfunny reruns of "Everyone Loves Raymond"? Pineapple Express leaves this teritory largely unexplored and degenerates into a fast paced, mindless, brothers-in-arms and shoot-em-up type Hollywood movie instead.
Unlike their usual quirky style, the 'good guys' resort to armed conflict with the 'bad guys' (and gal) and a swarm of putatively Asian extras, in an old fashioned big bang Hollywood climax, in a wonderfully spacious and obtrusively well ventilated hydroponic irrigation operation that is curiously flammable (in spite of being adequately equipped with fire extinguishers).
But I am being picky. If you get it out on DVD, and start watching it when you are fairly straight, it will all make sense at the end. On the other hand, blowing a joint and slowly sobering up as you watch it in the cinema is probably not the way to view it - although at least that way you can blame yourself for the loss of plot when they try to combine the Brotherhood of Stoners V Mongol hordes theme.
If you value plausible plot development more than mindless violence, you won't like this at all.
It is not as creative as, say, Superbad. But there is fast paced action, snappy dialogue , clever jokes, great characters (especially loved Cleo King "I am a police liaison officer. I don't work for the police, the police work for me"), provocative film making (man v woman brawling type violence, schoolboys being sold weed, smoking and driving/working) , just there's lots of spin in this mix. Vorsprung durch pyrotechnic.
Strangers is exactly the kind of film that "Funny Games" was parodying. Sparse cast, hostages in a house of horrors. It begins extremely lamely, emphasising its claim that it is based on a true story with a sepulchral voice fatuously intoning that "there are an estimated 1.4 million violent crimes in America each year" to some solemn ambient sounds, as the cameras pan over that blight of the suburban hinterland, McMansions on acreage.
However, it delivers all the scares that "Funny Games" promised. In spite of some clumsy hopping, a commando crawl that somehow reminds me of Dr Dakota Block from Planet Terror, and occasional which-leg-is-injured syndrome, Liv Taylor does very well. The three tormentors are given no back story (except, if you are desperate, what can be gathered from their choice of Merle Haggard's "Mumma Tried" as the soundtrack of terror). The violence is off screen, but terrifying.
There are holes in the plot, like why all the time cues, when they conflict so blatantly? And isn't "Sprout and the Bean" the second track on Milk-Eyed Mender? (something we would never know if they had CDs, like everyone else). But these things are irrelevant. This film is scary. It is like being strapped into an electric chair and being delivered shocks of random intensity by a crazy person who is trying to work out which dial to twist to make it lethal.
Even though it ends with a reminder that "Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental", don't watch it late at night on your own.
These guys were tickling my funnybone unmercifully in this film.
I especially appreciated how they recreated the original vibe of "Electric Avenue", a quarter of a century after it was startling to combine socially aware reggae with cash-happy electropop. And the Jeff Goldblum jokes.
The traditional movie formula exploring trust and betrayal between father and son, siblings and spouses has been done to death. Ditto mates - at work or on the field. Which leaves the delicate dilemma of what to do when your drug dealer takes you for a personal friend largely unexplored. How much trust should you bring to a relationship based on the sale of illegal drugs? How far should you trust his dealer? Or his? And how much of that trust can you trust when you are so stoned that you are laughing at irrelevantly unfunny reruns of "Everyone Loves Raymond"? Pineapple Express leaves this teritory largely unexplored and degenerates into a fast paced, mindless, brothers-in-arms and shoot-em-up type Hollywood movie instead.
Unlike their usual quirky style, the 'good guys' resort to armed conflict with the 'bad guys' (and gal) and a swarm of putatively Asian extras, in an old fashioned big bang Hollywood climax, in a wonderfully spacious and obtrusively well ventilated hydroponic irrigation operation that is curiously flammable (in spite of being adequately equipped with fire extinguishers).
But I am being picky. If you get it out on DVD, and start watching it when you are fairly straight, it will all make sense at the end. On the other hand, blowing a joint and slowly sobering up as you watch it in the cinema is probably not the way to view it - although at least that way you can blame yourself for the loss of plot when they try to combine the Brotherhood of Stoners V Mongol hordes theme.
If you value plausible plot development more than mindless violence, you won't like this at all.
It is not as creative as, say, Superbad. But there is fast paced action, snappy dialogue , clever jokes, great characters (especially loved Cleo King "I am a police liaison officer. I don't work for the police, the police work for me"), provocative film making (man v woman brawling type violence, schoolboys being sold weed, smoking and driving/working) , just there's lots of spin in this mix. Vorsprung durch pyrotechnic.
Strangers is exactly the kind of film that "Funny Games" was parodying. Sparse cast, hostages in a house of horrors. It begins extremely lamely, emphasising its claim that it is based on a true story with a sepulchral voice fatuously intoning that "there are an estimated 1.4 million violent crimes in America each year" to some solemn ambient sounds, as the cameras pan over that blight of the suburban hinterland, McMansions on acreage.
However, it delivers all the scares that "Funny Games" promised. In spite of some clumsy hopping, a commando crawl that somehow reminds me of Dr Dakota Block from Planet Terror, and occasional which-leg-is-injured syndrome, Liv Taylor does very well. The three tormentors are given no back story (except, if you are desperate, what can be gathered from their choice of Merle Haggard's "Mumma Tried" as the soundtrack of terror). The violence is off screen, but terrifying.
There are holes in the plot, like why all the time cues, when they conflict so blatantly? And isn't "Sprout and the Bean" the second track on Milk-Eyed Mender? (something we would never know if they had CDs, like everyone else). But these things are irrelevant. This film is scary. It is like being strapped into an electric chair and being delivered shocks of random intensity by a crazy person who is trying to work out which dial to twist to make it lethal.
Even though it ends with a reminder that "Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental", don't watch it late at night on your own.
Last edited:
R
Ravenau1
Guest
We went and saw the new animated Star Wars flick - The Clone Wars last night.
Ok, the grumbles first (which probably won't mean anything to anyone else lol).
Firstly, the big one. No Hutt, ever, would speak anything but Huttese. End of story. Hutts view themselves to be the most superior beings that exist, everyone else is basically as low as a bug to them, they wouldn't lower themselves to speak an inferior beings language (even though they understand many languages). It may seem like a little thing, but it really sticks out as a glaring error to serious fans. The whole time Ziro was talking I was thinking WTF?!.
Secondly, Asajj Ventress, the Dark Jedi who wants to be a Sith. I can live with the fact that her clothes were the wrong colour, but I just don't understand why they keep portraying her looking like some sort of cartoon witch. Asajj is supposed (in the books anyway) to be stunningly beautiful, even with no hair. It's part of what makes her so effective.
Ok, so those things aside it was pretty good. Kiddie-fied, obviously, but I (and Mr Raven who is the REAL Star Wars nut) really enjoyed it.
There is a new 5 book series that starts with the film and goes on, written by Karen Traviss but written for adults where the movie was for kids. I had been waiting to start it until after the movie and now will get stuck into it for a bit more detail.
Useless Trivia: It was interesting for me to see Commander Rex among the Clone Troopers there. Eventually Commander Rex and a few others stay with Anakin and become The 501st Legion, known as 'Vader's Fist'. It's an interesting side to Vader, and part of his humanity he never loses, his closeness to the Clone Troopers. In fact, Anakin is one of the few Jedi (really one of the few members of the whole Republic) that treats the Clone Troopers with respect, and acknowledges that they are Human beings, not just "wet droids" as they are commonly viewed. And because Clone Troopers are my favourite part of the Star Wars universe (specifically Republic Commandos) I'll always be fond of the Anakin character because of that, along with a handful of other Jedi (even though as a rule I don't like Jedi or what they stand for).
Ok, the grumbles first (which probably won't mean anything to anyone else lol).
Firstly, the big one. No Hutt, ever, would speak anything but Huttese. End of story. Hutts view themselves to be the most superior beings that exist, everyone else is basically as low as a bug to them, they wouldn't lower themselves to speak an inferior beings language (even though they understand many languages). It may seem like a little thing, but it really sticks out as a glaring error to serious fans. The whole time Ziro was talking I was thinking WTF?!.
Secondly, Asajj Ventress, the Dark Jedi who wants to be a Sith. I can live with the fact that her clothes were the wrong colour, but I just don't understand why they keep portraying her looking like some sort of cartoon witch. Asajj is supposed (in the books anyway) to be stunningly beautiful, even with no hair. It's part of what makes her so effective.
Ok, so those things aside it was pretty good. Kiddie-fied, obviously, but I (and Mr Raven who is the REAL Star Wars nut) really enjoyed it.
There is a new 5 book series that starts with the film and goes on, written by Karen Traviss but written for adults where the movie was for kids. I had been waiting to start it until after the movie and now will get stuck into it for a bit more detail.
Useless Trivia: It was interesting for me to see Commander Rex among the Clone Troopers there. Eventually Commander Rex and a few others stay with Anakin and become The 501st Legion, known as 'Vader's Fist'. It's an interesting side to Vader, and part of his humanity he never loses, his closeness to the Clone Troopers. In fact, Anakin is one of the few Jedi (really one of the few members of the whole Republic) that treats the Clone Troopers with respect, and acknowledges that they are Human beings, not just "wet droids" as they are commonly viewed. And because Clone Troopers are my favourite part of the Star Wars universe (specifically Republic Commandos) I'll always be fond of the Anakin character because of that, along with a handful of other Jedi (even though as a rule I don't like Jedi or what they stand for).
Ravenau1: how was the opening sequence? I heard the music isn't the same, but do they still have the scrolling text and the classic pan away into a spaceship scene?
I wonder if we're still getting a live action TV series... Either way, the Star Wars universe is a rich genre, that is just begging for new movies. I'd even like to see Star Wars reinvented, much like Batman has been, but that is not likely with Lucas still in control.
I wonder if we're still getting a live action TV series... Either way, the Star Wars universe is a rich genre, that is just begging for new movies. I'd even like to see Star Wars reinvented, much like Batman has been, but that is not likely with Lucas still in control.
T
ThePartyPooper
Guest
No scrolling text.
The opening music is the same theme , but not the same as in other movies.
Music throughout is more.... modern.
I dont mind the animated series, more action , less BS.