Son Of General Retro Discussion

megaten

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kc2gGycBXc

James Howlett

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There was nothing cool about getting Tomb Raider for christmas and realising you had to fork out another 25 euros when ever the next time you were in town was just to make the game playable

Tell me about it. It was like a children's memory game;
Day 1: Play "The Caves."
Day 2: Play "The Caves" and "City of Vilcabamba."
Day 3: Play "The Caves" and "City of Vilcabamba" and "Lost Valley."
Day 4: Play "The Caves" and "City of Vilcabamba" and "Lost Valley" and "Tomb of Qualopec."
Day 5: Do whatever it takes to find a memory card!

Dr Bob

megaten wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kc2gGycBXc

Didnt know that he did that , (says the man currently wearing a Police tour t-shirt)

o1s1n

Terminator 2 is on in The Screen cinema on September the 5th! Finally get to see my favourite film on the big screen! Ahhh!!!!!

I'm tempted to book a ticket for that Terminator replica head too

johnny_ultimate

One thing I don't like about the Screen classic screenings is that they don't tell you whether its a print of just a DVD blown up on a projector. There's been a few I'd have liked to have gone to, but having heard mixed reports about the quality of the projection I have yet to bother. They should follow the IFI's trend of telling exactly what projection you're dealing with - digital restoration, 35mm, Blu-Ray etc... The original print of the Thin Red Line they had a few weeks ago? *swoonage*

Also: yes I am over-nerdy when it comes to these things :pac:

DinoRex

o1s1n wrote: »

Terminator 2 is on in The Screen cinema on September the 5th! Finally get to see my favourite film on the big screen! Ahhh!!!!!

I'm tempted to book a ticket for that Terminator replica head too

They have the original Conan on tomorrow... I am tempted to go to that one.

SirLemonhead

Can you just show up and buy a ticket? I think I saw some mention of having to be a member of a film club or something about a year ago?

Retr0gamer

This is fantastic, news story about the day Dragon Quest 3 was released in Japan:

http://famicomblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/famicom-history-when-dragon-quest-iii.html

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The original print of the Thin Red Line they had a few weeks ago? *swoonage*

God I hated that film. Way too knowingly arty farty.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

God I hated that film. Way too knowingly arty farty.

It's one of those films where I don't give a crap how pretentious it is (and pretentious it most certainly is). It's just ****ing amazing. I have no problems with directors with delusions of grandeur when said delusions create such hypnotic cinema.

Retr0gamer

It was pretty I'll give it that but the rest of it was terrence Malick trying to convince the audience how clever he was. I found the second half of the movie incredibly boring as a result and some of the monologues were too pretentious to be believable at times.

johnny_ultimate

Malick's fondness for running times that drift into third hours is probably his downfall alright - especially with the Tree of Life (which is still spectacular cinema). And I'm also not best fond of the Christian subtexts he's so insistent upon. But as a director he's a true visionary. His films are poems, and on a purely sensory level no-one out there is making movies like his. I've only got around to watching his early films since the Tree of Life, but I already very much forgive his pretensions given the rewards that are to be found in every frame of his work.

Way too many directors just pump out films without an inch of character these days. Malick is one of the few who actually has a very distinct vision, and that's more important than any excess amount of wavy grass.

Retr0gamer

I think the films I've seen of his have been ****e (although not seen anything earlier than Thin Red Line). I think if you are going to be pretentious then you have to be subtle about it because if you over do it like he seems to do your film just ends up being an ego trip.

johnny_ultimate

I dunno, sometimes I think a director really just has to go for broke if they're confident enough. It's not an approach that suits everyone (coughsouthlandtalescough) but some of the most distinctive films (and games at that) are the ones from directors who just follow their own vision without a care for tradition, standards or even audience. Enter the Void was absolute crap in terms of story, but the sheer ballsiness and uniqueness of the approach made it far more worth watching than any number of merely 'ok' blockbusters. And I'd say a vast amount of classics - all subjective, but stuff from people like Kubrick, Charlie Kaufman, Bergman, David Lynch, all those mad New Wave bastards - are great because of directors willing to break rules in favour of individuality. It's a fine line, but pretentious is often misinterpreted as a bad word when it should often be celebrated.

DinoRex

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think the films I've seen of his have been ****e (although not seen anything earlier than Thin Red Line). I think if you are going to be pretentious then you have to be subtle about it because if you over do it like he seems to do your film just ends up being an ego trip.

Bad Lands is fantastic. Best thing he's ever done...

johnny_ultimate

I still have to watch Badlands, missed the screening in the IFI during the retrospective (managed to catch TTRL and the New World - both great to see on the big screen). They're showing Days of Heaven in September so looking forward to that too. Luckily his small filmography means it really isnt that hard to track down all his films, unlike those prolific bastards Kurosawa and Bergman.

Retr0gamer

Well I really don't mind pretention as long as it's done right. As I said if it's overblown it's an egotrip. I find Malicks films the equivalent of the tosser that thinks you like him telling you about how awesome he is because of how drunk he got or how many girls he's been with except it lasts for more than 3 hours. I think some directors and artists can get away with some awful stuff due to the virtue of it being pretentious. It's definitely not a bad thing being pretentious but I think it's a hard thing to pull off and some artists really get let off too easily. I also don't mind an artist being ballsy and not being totally successful either, for example I love how Suda 51's reason for making the open world sections in no more heroes purposefully awful.

I don't think that the pretention in Thin Red Line was really needed. In the 4 hour running time the films message was really basic and it didn't really say an awful lot. 2001 on the other hand I feel couldn't have been done in an unpretentious manner.

Also I feel that Malick wouldn't get away with it as much if he wasn't working with proably the finest cinematographer working in cinema.

Retr0gamer

DinoRex wrote: »

Bad Lands is fantastic. Best thing he's ever done...

That's one I definitely have to watch. I have a feeling he'll be a little less over the top in his first low budget feature and it will work a lot better for it.

johnny_ultimate

It depends on my mood with Malick. I thought Tree of Life was simple to the point of simplistic at times. Thin Red Line I thought was much more endearing in its tight focus. Yeah, it's pretty much just "war vs nature" throughout but the situations presented were IMO rewarding enough to justify the three hour + running time - I really didn't feel like it was that long, except maybe during the river sequence. TOL on the other hand I felt every second of the last half hour. New World was somewhere in between the two, although overall less rewarding than either. I do agree the collaboration helps - cinematographers and composers especially - but the tone, pace and atmosphere are all Malick.

Then again, one man's gold is another man's crap. Few if any great directors are free of flaws. Christopher Nolan can't shoot a straight action scene to save his life. David Lynch can either be wildly successful or hilariously awful in his attempts at ambiguity. They all have character though, which IMO is more important. Suda rarely if ever makes games that actually play well (the bosses in No More Heroes are sometimes more of a chore than the actual chores!) but his bizarre vision makes them worth playing. Braid certainly was up itself in some regards (the pre level 'books' for example) but also had a confidence and individuality that made it compelling. Mikami can't write for ****, but it's the gameplay that endears.

It's easy to make a moderately successful game or film that takes no risks - there's tonnes out there. But it's the unusual ones that usually truly linger, flaws and all.

Retr0gamer

Yeah I suppose it's better and more preferible than generic Michael Bay ****e. At least Malick generates discussion while the last Michael Bay film has everyone agreeing it was horrible.

DinoRex

Retr0gamer wrote: »

That's one I definitely have to watch. I have a feeling he'll be a little less over the top in his first low budget feature and it will work a lot better for it.

It was the first film of his I saw... everything else is a massive disappointment after it.

Tarantino ripped it off with True Romance though.

CiDeRmAn

Hmm, A&R&Cinephiles, new name for the forum?
Me, I think cinema got far too pretentious with Ernest Saves Christmas.

DinoRex

Retr0gamer

I read an article on the videogames in the simpsons before. Wish I could find it again.

johnny_ultimate

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Hmm, A&R&Cinephiles, new name for the forum?
Me, I think cinema got far too pretentious with Ernest Saves Christmas.

I actually stumpled upon the wikipedia pages for the Ernest films yesterday after rewatching the Varney-less Toy Story 3. What an odd bunch of films they were.

Myrddin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

One thing I don't like about the Screen classic screenings is that they don't tell you whether its a print of just a DVD blown up on a projector. There's been a few I'd have liked to have gone to, but having heard mixed reports about the quality of the projection I have yet to bother. They should follow the IFI's trend of telling exactly what projection you're dealing with - digital restoration, 35mm, Blu-Ray etc... The original print of the Thin Red Line they had a few weeks ago? *swoonage*

Also: yes I am over-nerdy when it comes to these things :pac:

None of that matters when its Terminator 2.

CiDeRmAn

Very very odd, I was too old for them when they were new.
I think he was an advertising creation and then turned into a movie star.

I used to hang around with a guy who used to illuminate me in the merits of Russian and European science fiction, so I got to hear all about Solaris and the rest.
Unfortunately we were invariably very very drunk at these occasions so any and all insights were lost in a haze of cider and a heavy fog of whiskey.

DinoRex

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I read an article on the videogames in the simpsons before. Wish I could find it again.

Oh yes. There's been some great ones...

Remember the official Waterworld game:

johnny_ultimate

EnterNow wrote: »

None of that matters when its Terminator 2.

Enjoy your dodgy, blurry big-screen T2 then you could have just watched at home

You should check out Stalker ciderdude, much better than the game of the same name! And the game was pretty good!

Myrddin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Enjoy your dodgy, blurry big-screen T2 then you could have just watched at home

Still doesn't matter, its T2 ffs

Dr Bob

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I read an article on the videogames in the simpsons before. Wish I could find it again.

Bonestorm , Lee Carvallo's Putting Challange and larry the looter are the 3 that come to mind.Oh and the MMO one :Earthland Realms(South Park did it better).