Mr. Shyamalan is a genius. I respect that he takes risks to tell original story. How will you know something will work unless you actually put it out there. He's creative and love his movies. BTW...The Happening was done in early 2000s to bring awareness to what was then known as "Global War.ming". There were articles written by scientists saying Bees were dying and this is going to impact the entire world. Shyamalan was doing his part to bring attention to Bees dying and its impact on global warming
DO YOU BELIEVE : ( 2015 ) ____ Christian Movie / God Gives Second Chances / Faith to Believe.... About one of the best Christian movies out there, love them, anything that get my emotions going and in tears and wanting to you know.... anyway.... :).. Blessings all... of course of late i alternate watching them with a good old dose of Randy Kay's Near Death Experiences... :).
In reality ALL televised entertainment is fake and a waste of time. I found its more profitable to go outside and work on a craft and soend time with people you love.
Fun fact: in Lucas' original rough scripts of the entire saga, the Phantom Menace was a "Prelude" standalone movie, and the actual trilogy is the one you actually propose :) Would have been much better this way. Then we could have gotten TPM as a cool spinoff story AFTER the trilogy was done, similar to Rogue One.
Is anyone gonna mention how film companies are just getting greedier and know that they can get away with cheap effects and low pay for CGI workers because people will still watch it anyway?
How to train your dragon is based off a book series?!?!?! And the audiobooks are narrated by David Tenant?!?!?! OMG PARDON ME WHILE I RELEASE MY INNER CHILD
Damn… and this was 5 years ago.. it’s only gotten worse, lion king was just as ugly as you predicted, I think it’s more because we know more about cgi than they used to, so they use shortcuts and algorithms and whatever to make it quicker and easier and not carefully thought out in every little detail on every single frame making sure it’s perfect
As someone who grew up with movies that relied heavily on cgi, Ive always felt like an outsider when people say that cgi looks bad. In my opinion most (if not all) the cgi shots in more modern movies look good. I can understand them not looking realistic, but to me you have to look really closely to notice
This problem as only gotten worse in the last 4 years I’m afraid. Like Netflix is the worst at this. I don’t mind swearing or nudity at all. Practically grew up with it. But when it’s forced it can be so obvious it’s corny and distracting. Like when everyone including children has to swear every sentence. Especially when adults try to write teenagers.
I think that the CGI is not betting worse. What happens is that more movies are using CGI. And then we will have more good CGI movies, but much more bad CGI movies.
You got me with Phantom Menace,but lost me after the Clone wars. Like really badly lost it. 1.AOTC Story should start with AOTC. Makem sure Anakin having flashbacks of Qui-gon. Because he is to important for the plot. Make Padme and Anakin already a secret couple. Explain it with Anakin beign his guard for years(due to do missions. Palpatine). So it would make sense. I adding this,so all of the flirt scenes in AOTC can be removed. They will marry at the end of the movie. İncrease the screen time of Palpatine and Obiwan. 2.Clone wars movie. Anakin's Mother dies here. Not in AOTC. Here. And instead of getting killed by random Tusken's,she will be killed by Pro-Seperatist Tuskens. This will became important. Because the other main character will be Darth Kryat. A Tusken Jedi. This movie will be based on the comic book where both tries to escape from seperatists. Both ended up manage to escape. But during that,so many Jedi died. 3.Second Clone Wars movie. This one is based on reall life Clone wars movie. Where Ahsoka gets introduced. This time Ahsoka's presence actually helps Anakin a bit. The plot is slightly diffrent from the movie. This time Dooku try to aligned with Hutts and Pykes. İn the movie Anakin and Ahsoka will visit Shmi's grave. Around the climax,Anakin will lost his left arm and got the scar in his face. Ahsoka meanwhile lost one of her leg. The purpose of this movie to start Clone Wars (2008) show. This and the first clone wars movie establishes the hatred of Anskin against the Dooku and Seperatists. 4.Clone Wars is Clone Wars. No need to change much. The first 3 arc is will be about Anakin and Ahsoka getting recovered from their injuries,and try to live with their new limbs. Anakin will get used to it preety quickly. But Ahsoka will have much harder time with her new leg than Anakin with his new arm. She eventually manage to overcame this during the season 2. Other thsn that,rest will be same. But with 2003 Grevious and Ventress instead of their 2008 counter parts. 5.The movie adds Ahsoka at the start. Same scene with her last talk with Anakin at s7. Rest is same.
The prequels were absolute trash especially the second movie Anakin had the emotional lore of a rock his acting was trash not to mention he has no chemistry with Padme and its kinda hard to feel bad about their relationship when we don’t even know anything about Padme and don’t get me started on Grievous they turned him from an actual threat to a coughing coward if anything jar jar binks was more of a fleshed out character at least we know his likes dislikes and wants unlike every other character in the prequels but thankfully the first and third movie weren’t nearly as bad as the second movie the plot in the second movie was horrible so you’re telling me Palpatine wanted to go kill padme so he sent Count Duku to go kill her and then Count Duku sends Jango Fett then Jango Fett sends Zam Wesell but then Zam wesell Sends a droid that sends bugs to go kill Padme and when Jango Fett could’ve killed padme he decides to kill Zam wesell instead and yet the preqauls are still considered good movies sure
Honestly Monsters University could've been so much better if Sully was actually likeable and Randall wasn't turned into a joke. Now whenever I see Monster's Inc with my cousin, I see Sully as a manipulative opportunist just uses Mike, and I see Randall as an incompetent fool who got lucky in life. I still liked the movie, but it really does a disservice to 2 of the main characters.
Just like everything else with this generation: they are lazy, incompetent, and arrogant enough to think what they put out is good and doesn't need improvement.
I was SO depressed with Lana Kent in Smallville. Far as I remember, she went herself into the Phantom Zone to separate her from Clark. We never see her again after that, after all the trials and separations they have gone through since season 1, Clark was supposed to accept it. Although we all know he never deserved this, and they should've went with an altered timeline, complete with a Kryptonian(hybrid?) Lana and Clark. Just up the stakes with the villains, throw the anti-monitor's schemes in, even put Clark in a situation where The Presence (DC's god, basically) does the role of Mentor to him (DC's version of Spiderman being mentored by The One Above All would be priceless, nevertheless). Now he's stuck with the Lois that i'm not familiar compared to Teri Hatcher's iteration. This is just one of the reasons why Prequels, even on TV, suck @$$.
My number one problem with Prequels is when they add new characters That have a major role in the story, but are never seen or Mentioned in the original Good example is Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2
I like castlevania, I like Medieval vibes and shows about Knights, Castles, Monarchy etc… but it really does feel like. Especially in season 3. That the entire show absolutely hates religion. It makes every religious character some violent monster or some blood thirsty psychopath. Whether it’s the monks, the weird monk leader Sala, or even the entire 1st season. I get Christianity has some dark moments in the Middle Ages. But not every church and Monk or priest was a blood thirsty freak.
I have also been a voracious reader as soon as I had learned the art of reading. And I can understand the despair of true book lovers, while I also have difficulties to understand why directors frequently insist on changing so much for their movies . You are absolutely right, though: movies are products of many people, who are all different. This increases the chance that somewhere along the road something goes wrong. It's actually a miracle when really great movies emerge. That said, I am not a book lover but also a great movie fan, and therefore I can appreciate a great movie - even if it isn't necessarily a faithful adaptation of a book. My sister however who loves Tolkien's novels as much as I do, could never accept the LOTR movies because they weren't completely faithful to the books. Additional thought: did you during your reading sprees ever stray from fantasy novels? There are so many more books, and many of them have been eventually turned into movies! Have you ever seen 'Death In Venice " by Lucino Visconti? It might be one of the best adaptations of a literary work ever. Thomas Mann's main character Gustav Aschenbach is a successful writer who suffers from burn-out syndrome, while Visconti's main character is a burnt-out composer whose was inspired by the Viennese composer Gustav Mahler whose music is famously used for the soundtrack of the movie. This was a substantial but very clever move because in a movie the creativity of a composer can be presented easier than the works of a writer. But it also changes a very important aspect of the book: in the novel Gustav Aschenbach is Thomas Mann's alter ego, while Visconti's Gustav Aschenbach is modeled to a certain extent after Gustav Mahler. But while the result is a great movie, this change detracts from the book, because Thomas Mann was completely different from Gustav Mahler. Thomas Mann was bisexual, and although he never actually had homosexual relationships, it shines through in his works. Gustav Mahler however was heterosexual and married to one of the most voracious men-consuming women ever - Alma Mahler-Gropius-Werfel, who collected famous men like trophies 😉
Watchers/readerscan predict from the scene that there's sex incoming. We as an audience don't need to see the details. It's just dumb, annoying, uncomfortable and disgusting.
A big problem is the sheer number of CGI shots in films is much more now than 20 years ago. They don't have the time or budget to put as much time into every single shot as they should. We have to remember that CGI takes artists with expertise which costs money, and they need the time to do the work, which also costs money. So the same quality of CGI shots doesn't go as far anymore these days just because they have such a larger burden on them. Avatar was able to do this because it had a massive budget.
CGI was once used when something either couldn't be done practically or, if it could, it would've been difficult and expensive. So, for a time, filmmakers made sure that in the events CGI was used it looked just as good as the practical effects. Of course, it wasn't perfect, especially in the early years, but as everyone knows it eventually got to a certain awe inspiring point and that was Davey Jones from Pirates of The Caribbean, which is to this day the best and most realistic CGI character over a decade later. So, what happened? Corporate studios. Let's rewind, CGI was once used if practical was too expensive, and the studios rolled with that. Use as much CGI as possible, forcing insane labor hours on the VFX artists, with little care for the final product. They'll get their money back anyway, so why spend more for practical budgets? Spend less money whenever possible, and get paid even more. Classic capitalistic corner cutting, yet another example of the scummy influence of greed.
You can make a compelling prequel. Movies about real historical events do it all the time. 300 was a great movie and everyone knew they all died in the end.
