Why Ratner deserves respect…
-
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 08, 2008 05:23 PM)
No, Following is the first full length film he made. Doodlebug is the one I am talking about, and it was 3 minutes long. All his movies were short, very short before Following. Plus, he got a leg up from having a perma-producer, which is his wife. I have nothing but respect for Nolan. He did what any movie maker would do to get noticed. I just graduated myself and I am in the process of trying to do the same thing. Any director working today got lucky. So I respect them all in some way (except Tim Burton lol)
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 12, 2008 03:30 PM)
That was not Ratner. That was Fox. You better believe that Fox will end a franchise thru a story before they let someone trump their work. Besides, the prequel was in the works before X3.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 13, 2008 03:13 PM)
The costumes were chosen and made in Xmen 1! What are you talking about?
Besides, if he had Beast in a speedo like the comic that would have been gay. Try again, jwoehr.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 13, 2008 04:14 PM)
Of course they had no characterization. They were the Murlocks. They were exactly the way they were portrayed. Punk rebels with mutant powers that hid from society. They had stupid tattoos and cliche punk clothes that I am sure a Brit like yourself has seen a fair share of in the past.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 14, 2008 03:38 PM)
Don't bother, he's just a troll that twists around what people say.
I am not twisting anything anyone is saying. I did not realize what you were discussing with the Murlocs. The Murlocs do not have much of a character basis. They are simply a social order of rebels.
Besides, giving simple facts like movie scores and pointing out they way a group of characters are is not twisting anything. It is normal discussion.
Just what the h5b4ell is "troll" anyway?
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
KyleKyleB
5b4
ensen — 17 years ago(October 14, 2008 03:47 PM)I was referring to the punk scene created by The Clash, Sex Pistols, etc. I am well aware of such the scene that started in England in the late 70s and early 80s before it came to New York and America with groups like The Ramones. This is when the Murlocs (maybe its Morlocks now that I think about it) made thier debut. They keep that idea by making them up to date with gothic and punk designs of today.
I can agree that the movie sucked with the whole "Brotherhood" meeting in the forest rather than the well known Asteroid M. I have always wondered why Singer did not use Asteroid M as the location in the orginal since he is such a Sci Fi buff.
Regardleb68ss, I am sorry, but I do not think the Xmen should have ever been treated as a SciFi product. It should have been a bit more action packed and well written from the beginning.
"You know what happens when lightning hits a Toad? The same as everything else!" -Storm (Xmen)
..wtf!?!?
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 14, 2008 04:31 PM)
I'm sick and tired of the arguments that certain characters in a comic book or franchise has to be "respected". If it makes sense to kill of three characters in one film, I say do it. They are FICTIONAL creation, and do not deserve "respect". They are there to serve entertainment and story telling. The respect belongs in the story telling, the themes, the genres, NOT the characters. They can kill off the entire Xmen cast, but if 2000it makes sense and serves the themes and story, then by ALL Means do it. The moment you start getting attached to a character is the moment you start to write him or her with a reverence that add insurmountable bias to your writing. You are no longer writing a story, you are writing a fan fiction, a fanboy wetdream that will result in nothing. ASK any WORKING self respecting comic book artists, and not One of them will hesitate killing off characters if it serves the story and theme.
Every single death in X3 served the story and the theme. Scott's death doesn't count because it was a scheduling conflict with Marsden going to SR. It was intentionally kept ambiguous in case he is to be brought back in later installments. Prof X dying helps fuel Jean's motivation to overcome the Phoenix, and to add dramatic tension to all the character. His loss permeates Xmen, and bring out the hero inside them. The grief over the loss of such a mentor drove them out of their dependence on him, and they have to mature quickly to meet the rising crisis. Jean's Death was the only way to kill the Phoenix, which IN THE FILM was a parasite thriving off her energy, but using her as a host to exert its dominance. It also serves the theme that Wolverine loved her enough to sacrifice her. He no longer wants her to suffer. Every single death makes sense.
I got more to say, but I gotta run. Be back for more.
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 14, 2008 05:04 PM)
Thank you. Respect the story and media, and the characters are along for the ride. Marvel kills people off left and right. They bring half of them back sure. There is no reason why they would not do the same thing in a new medium. Xavier has died I know once if not more. Magneto, Spiderman, Aunt May, Green Goblin, The Avengers and Fantastic Four have died. All at once! Xavier (as Onslaught) killed them all. It brought in readers and pissed others off. They right the wrongs and bring people back. They died for the story pull, and it worked. They came back in the end too. Phoenix was killed in the comic by Wolverine's hand also. Technically, they died together. Marvel decided to make Wolverine invincible tho. Sabretooth will be back soon enough (Wolverine recently cut his head off with Muramasa which stops the healing factor).
I swear everyone better die in "Dragonball" and get wished back before the credits role!
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 14, 2008 06:16 PM)
More so, all the mutants that lost their powers in the film eventually gets it back. Prof X is brought back to life. Jean DIED in the last film and was brought back here, what's to say her death is permanent. Xmen are persistent little suckers, and they never stay dead.
As for Ratner, I simply don't understand the hate for the guy. People say he's bland, and has no style. He doesn't Oozes style like some of the genres director working today, but to say he has no style is simply uninformed. Why does every director that inserts slowmotion and exotic vocals in his films are considered stylish? There are more than one style of film making. It's lazy film making. Singer, for all the "style" that he has, is a lazy film maker. He has talent, but he doesn't really want to progress his style forward. I'm not saying Ratner is a terribly progressive film maker, but his style has evolved over the many films that he makes, and it is appropriate to each of the film he makes.
First of all, the guy has exudes energy in the way he directs. He doesn't linger and force the emotions that simply isn't there. He directs with a certain maturity that isn't seen from a new guy like him. Every scene in his film has an impeccable sense of urgency that just moves the film forward. He doesn't rush emotions, but he doesn't overstay on them either. Watch any of his ac238tion scenes, from Rush Hour to X3, they are well directed, and has a momentum that will not quit. It's more than i can say for Singer. They are incredibly hard hitting, and they are expertedly edited. It's what happens when a director knows his place, and gives the editor what he needs.
Second, his shots selection are great. His coverage of a scene is very decent as well. He allows the DP enough room to actually properly light a scene. Judging from how his films look, he understands perfectly the role of each person on the set, and he gives them room t5b4o work. The look of every single one of his film is a happy marriage of all the talent working on set. judging from Singer's film, his ego overwhelms the set, and that results in shots that are poorly lit, scenes that are poorly covered, and incredibly lethargic and bloated editing choices. It doesn't happen in every scene, but it happens enough in his film that they feel inconsistent. Watch X2 again. The film is incredibly uneven, there are moments that are completely awesome (the Wolvie Vs Deathstrike, the opening) and there are scenes that feels completely unenergetic and boring (the entire scene with the Jets and the X plane). Every action scene in X3 is well directed, and just has so much energy and momentum, and the tension is kept up and never let go. Save for a few shots involving Beast (budget reasons) every fight packed a punch. Watch any of his action scenes in the Rush Hour films. They are brilliant in the way it is shot and edited. (a part of it is because of Jackie Chan, but Ratner played an intergral part).
Thirdly, his cooperation with Lalo Schiffin has given him a very cool kinda style, a relaxed but consistent pacing that moves the story forward. It's never overbearing, and is absolutely invisible. Only the EFFECTS of the directing is present, the the filmmaking itself. That's the difference between John Woo and John Ford. Singer has excellent sensibilities, and the universe he created for the Xmen films are b68to be commended. But his directing ability is not one of his greatest suite.
I'm not saying Ratner has no flaws. His sensibilities can be a bit off sometimes, and he does tend to just let his writers go wild. But the man is a decent director, much better than some of the directors that fanboys go wild for. But that's all he is, he's a good director. He'll make the most of the materials, but he doesn't care to change it. Give him a bad script, he'll make a passable film. Give him a great script, he'll make an awesome film. Family Man, Money Talks, The original Rush Hour, and Red Dragon are good examples of when he's just "on". Rush Hour is just a great buddy cop film, and is an incredibly fresh take on a dying genre. The humor in that film works, and the two have great chemistry. the film is tightly shot and edited, and is just a great film. It is as timeless as the first Beverly Hills Cop or 48 Hours. To deny that is just bias talk.
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 14, 2008 08:57 PM)
First of all, the guy has exudes energy in the way he directs. He doesn't linger and force the emotions that simply isn't there. He directs with a certain maturity that isn't seen from a new guy like him. Every scene in his film has an impeccable sense of urgency that just moves the film forward. He doesn't rush emotions, but he doesn't overstay on them either. Watch any of his action scenes, from Rush Hour to X3, they are well directed, and has a momentum that will not quit. It's more than i can say for Singer. They are incredibly hard hitting, and they are expertedly edited. It's what happens when a director knows his place, and gives the editor what he needs.
Oh my god. An actual response from someone that understands what a directors role is. I have a degree in film and since I am educated in it, I suppose that is why I have respect for the director. Time warp, audio style, etc those are the editor and his style, not the director. It is the director's job to supply coverage and options for the editor. The director is not allowed to be part of the editing process and when they are nothing gets done. Directors want ever shot they made to be used!
Regardless, this is a well written and decisive response for once. Thank you. I am glad there are people on this site that understand the role a director plays in production. The little role they play in "pre" and the absence they have during "post".
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
evil-pineapples — 12 years ago(December 19, 2013 06:28 PM)
It is the director's job to supply coverage and options for the editor.
That's a recent phenomenon. Directors did not focus on providing coverage for the editors back in the golden age of film. They actually had to make artistic decisions and plan their shots out well before the editing process began. They weren't cogs in the machine. They were the
operators
of the machine.
EVIL PINEAPPLES
Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway. -
bamboopandacat — 17 years ago(November 29, 2008 07:13 PM)
Just so you know, Uwe Boll and Brett Ratner chose the same choices.
The only reason RH1 and 2 were good were for the fact the actors had more hand in the directing process.
Brett Ratners work was seen in Rush Hour 3.
He stopped Jacky Chan from doing all the coreography. He made Tucker pretend he knew kung fu.
He f'd up all the bad parts.
All he did was stand behind a camera.
He is going to make God of War about his family, not about the war.
Like the duesch that made Max Payne.
Max Payne was a game about guns and explosions and body parts. The director for that movie decides guns were a bad focus.
A movie that should have 20 billion bullets fired off. Has like 200.
He will take weapons out of God of War. He will make the whole f'n thing in the clouds.
He will take blood out of it and make it PG.
I hope he disappears before it gets made.