Middle Earth, Bagdad and Tibet

Comment by ThatGirl on February 6, 2013 at 9:22am

I like listening to people describe how they view art and film.  You also have a very soothing voice...I always notice you are drawn to old films for your editing romps...this was interesting.thanks for posting it for us.

Comment by Geoff on February 6, 2013 at 12:24pm

Thank you for watching and I'm glad you got something out of this vlog.

I do like a lot of older movies and it is so easy to find stuff these days. I can remember when your only options were television and a couple repertory-style movie houses if you wanted to watch an older movie. One reason why I use older movies for my editing experiments is that the few tricks I've developed work better with black and white movies.

Comment by ThatGirl on February 6, 2013 at 4:46pm

Forgot to say what i was thinking just as i was watching..studying films of certain decades while understanding the state of filmmaking technology during those periods is so exciting. Older Films definitely have a timestamp and charm that can't be tranmitted through other art media. I do imagine contemporary films will be consumed by audiences of the future with the same type of appeal... I adored the LOTR films..I know there are harsh critics out there abound but my kids who also read the books were not disappointed, but very excitedly anticipating them and boy am I a Legolas fan, so that scene you posted was impressive. there  HAD to be a little tongue-in-cheek intent however, in Two Towers where he has Legolas "skateboarding" on a shield at Helms Deep! I enjoyed..

Comment by Geoff on February 7, 2013 at 4:16pm

It's interesting that you reference the skateboarding business because I think that was the scene that stimulated this train of thought. I used the elephant scene to illustrate because I think it is more spectacular. If the LOTR movies begin to feel increasingly inadequate as representations of the books to future audiences (and I'm guessing that will be the case) people can still enjoy them for themselves. I like that expression "timestamp charm". I wish I'd thought of it.

Comment by LtAdams2247 on February 14, 2013 at 2:44am

I remember the jaw dropping ride that was ID4 back in '96. These were ground breaking VFX at the time. Now look at it, has not aged well. At some point those flicks become nothing more than a curiosity to be marveled at by people with interest in the subject matter. "Oh, that's what people used at some point?" Like a telegraph machine at a museum for communication technology.

Or this:

Yeah, those are cell phones people were really excited about at some point ;-)

Comment by NatureJunkie on February 15, 2013 at 3:43pm

It's really hard to know which of the current or recent films will be found a charming piece of its time by future generations. Ray Harryhausen movies seemed a teensy bit silly looking to me when I watched them as a kid. Now film historians find in them that very same "charm" of which you speak. Who knew?

Comment by Geoff on February 22, 2013 at 12:34pm

Ray Harryhausen movies do look a little silly but some of his sequences are just great. He created his effects pretty much single-handed. There is a fun Ray Bradbury short story (the two Rays are friends) about a Harryhausen-style animator who caricatures the blowhard studio boss in the design of one of his monsters. The boss turns out to be flattered.

Adams, I can overlook some weak or dated effects if the story is good. When the effects artist almost takes over a sequence, when he calls too much attention to his skills, that's when I most notice that the FX are no longer state of the art. According to Orson Welles, Greg Toland taught him everything he needed to know about cinematography in a few days. I think the arcane and specialized skills a modern film requires makes it harder for a director to communicate with some of the artists, much less impose a personal vision that might maintain the movie's freshness and interest after the technology has moved on ahead.

Comment