Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Discussing Published Hooks & Books » Riding a High

   
Author Topic: Riding a High
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post 
I just got home after seeing the movie Captain America. WOW! Don't get me wrong. There were several places that were a bit hokey, and at least three spots that Cap should've been killed, but the movie as a whole was far superior to what I was expecting for a super hero movie.

Kathleen, you kept saying how the actor who played Jake in Avatar had emaciated legs blew you away. Try the whole body. The actor who played Steve Rogers was that way.

I might change my opinion after I have time to let the movie register more, I definitely liked this one.


Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattLeo
Member
Member # 9331

 - posted      Profile for MattLeo   Email MattLeo         Edit/Delete Post 
This is the corollary to the well known axiom that your parents are the lamest people in the world: grandma and grandpa must have been pretty cool when they were young.

Aside from the ironic contrast, there's the fact that your parents thing your cool grandparents are lame.


Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
Went to see THOR finally today, and saw the trailer for CAPTAIN AMERICA. I'd heard that they took the guy from a 98-pound weakling to a super-hunkish super-hero, and I could certainly see that in the trailer.

What I want to know is which way does the actor really look? And would it be easier to CGI someone weaker or stronger?

By the way, THOR is really cool, too. And of all the other comic-book movies this summer, only X-MEN FIRST CLASS and CAPTAIN AMERICA appeal to me so far. The others--meh.


Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philocinemas
Member
Member # 8108

 - posted      Profile for philocinemas   Email philocinemas         Edit/Delete Post 
The actor looks closer to the super Steve Rogers, but I suspect the scene with his shirt off may have been slightly enhanced - not certain. He is the same actor who played the Human Torch in the Fantastic Four movies.

X-Men: First Class was very good, but don't take kids to go see it - there are a couple of executions and some sexual situations that would not be appropriate.

Captain America is also very good - liked it slightly more than X-Men, but not by much. Some of the parts were a bit hokey, but overall very well done and mostly true to the comic.

I also like Thor - it rose above my expectations.

My big disappointment was Green Lantern. I thought the back story was a choppy presentation, and to be honest, kind of boring. It should have spent more time focusing on the Green Lantern Corps, which were the most interesting characters in whole movie (many of them CGI creations). However, it was not to be. GL's power comes from his imagination, and unfortunately, the movie's creators seemed to have very little. At least he didn't fight a giant poodle.


Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LDWriter2
Member
Member # 9148

 - posted      Profile for LDWriter2   Email LDWriter2         Edit/Delete Post 
I must add that I have only seen Green Lantern --- I'm still mad at them for taking Thor off three days too early. I hope to see Cap. When I was a kid he was my favorite even above Superman. Even though until they changed him Supes was second.

However from the trailers I see two things I think they did wrong. One is the uniform. Right colors, wrong fit and material. Second he used a gun at least once if not on a regular bases. However, I will still go see if I can.

But I loved Green Lantern. They did everything almost right. Including the time spent on the corp-- most of his adventures had nothing to do with the GL corp. But I wouldn't mind if they did more with it in the next movie. Especially since the one guy has to turn. But they did completely change one huge thing. So far no one I've talked to seems to know what that one thing is or here is willing to say.


Posts: 5289 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
Most of the superhero movies don't appeal to me much...I was never "into" the comics versions, and some of the movies I've seen [bits and pieces of] didn't strike me as worth watching.

But some of the reviews have been positive, and I might take a look when it's out on video...

*****

Somebody somewhere wrote that the images of the actor playing Captain America were manipulated to make him look smaller before and larger after. Sometimes I think the modern action movies are as "animated" as Fantasia...


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post 
Green Lantern didn't sway me much. I thought they spent too much time with him becoming Green Lantern and then, boom!, he fought the villian for a short time at the end and the movie was over. Big let down, at least to me.

It's been awhile since I've seen Thor, but I liked it better than I thought I would. I thought it was done quite well.

And now they're releasing a new version of Spider-man calling it this time around, "The Amazing Spider-man" like the original comic book. I haven't check around much of late, but I thought there was going to be a "Spider-man 4" coming out next year? The last time I checked Spidey was going to be fighting the Lizard. About time since Dr. Connors has been in the first three. But since "The Amazing Spider-man is coming out, I think, early next year, are they ditching "Spider-man 4"? Anyone know?


Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattLeo
Member
Member # 9331

 - posted      Profile for MattLeo   Email MattLeo         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's something to chew on. _Thor_ was a science fiction story, and _Captain_America_ is a fantasy story. I'm not talking about the worldbuilding trappings of the story, but the logic of how the story operates on its audience's emotions.

Of course, _Thor_'s script tossed in a number of science-fictiony details about how Asgardian magic is just super-science. This puzzled a lot of people, but it makes perfect sense to me. _Thor_ is a palace intrigue about foreign powers meddling in dynastic succession. There a mythic themes involved in Thor's personal journey (there always are), but ultimately we're supposed to perceive the changes in him as psychologically plausible given what he experiences.

_Captain_America_, on the other hand, despite it's retro-tech superscience doubletalk, works mainly on a mythic level. The journey of Thor in the movie is one of internal transformation; that of Steve Rogers in the Captain America is purely external. Therefore, psychological plausibility doesn't play a role in the story. Does that mean that the story is less powerful? Absolutely not.

In the real world, we all know people who embody a kind of internal greatness; who are loving and loyal, brave and honest. _Captain_America_ asks a question that only makes sense in fantasy: what if that internal greatness was reflected on the outside?

And of course we have to have the enemy who represents our selfish impulses, which we all know are very strong, and therein lies fantasy's unique power to move us emotionally. For fantasy depicts not struggle between actual people in the real world, but (on some level at least) the struggle inside each of those persons' psyche between conflicting impulses.

Of course fantasies have to have a certain amount of realism in order to find an audience, but psychologically unrealistic is not the same as psychologically unsophisticated. What's important to remember is that this is merely a different set of storytelling conventions. Failing to realize this leads to some pretty misguided interpretations. For example some have complained that the automatically corrupt orcs represent a kind of moral determinism in Tolkien's universe, whereas in fact they represent corruption itself, in some cases in a way that is nonetheless psychologically insightful.

Likewise some have seen a kind of moral equivalency in _Captain_America_ between the Nazis and the Americans; after all the Nazis have their supersoldier program and we have ours. Equivalency of a kind is important, but not *moral* equivalency. The fantasy world provides a level playing field on which good impulses can compete against evil ones (not at all like the real world). That is why we can be so strongly emotionally convinced.

I would go out on a limb and conjecture that any truly inspiring story has an element of fantasy in it, even though it may not itself be a fantasy story, because any story that makes you feel differently about the world represents the vindication of an idea. That's the stuff of myth, not history. We may mythologize our history, but in truth there's are many irrelevant factors involved in historical "vindication". We may feel our victory in the American Revolution was a vindication of political rights, but the fact that the even less democratic French were at war with Britain and gave us decisive help at Yorktown doesn't logically support that feeling.


Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MartinV
Member
Member # 5512

 - posted      Profile for MartinV   Email MartinV         Edit/Delete Post 
I read somewhere that the lead actor is indeed the buffed up version of the character. When they were filming the skinny type scenes, they wanted to use a body double and just glue the other guy's head on it later. But then they realized the body language of those two actors is just too different to make it work. So they graphically shrinked the buffed up dude and then had to record more of the background to fill in the empty place behind the actor. All in all it was a very demanding way of filming.

After seeing the trailer I decided not to watch this movie. No disrespect intended but the 'America über alles' theme is getting a bit annoying.


Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattLeo
Member
Member # 9331

 - posted      Profile for MattLeo   Email MattLeo         Edit/Delete Post 
I think the modern day frame story really detracted from the impact of the movie. It's an storytelling issue; I found myself wondering how each development fit into the frame rather than immersing myself in the action.

They could have removed the frame story entirely and the movie's emotional impact would have been a lot stronger, and still have dovetailed with the Avengers movie next year. The script alternates between extremely dumb (the magic cube business) to extremely clever (the subtle intimation that we used to be too good to used "enhanced interrogation"), but the frame robs the story of suspense and the finale of closure.

I left feeling like I hadn't seen a whole movie.

As far as 'America über alles', the movie bends over backwards to avoid this. A Hollywood blockbuster has to make a lot of its profit overseas these days. It even avoids rubbing Germany's nose by giving us a sympathetic German mentor and then taking Germany's historical participation in WW2 off the table. The mentor is OK, but he whitewashing of history almost suggests that Hitler maybe wasn't so bad; at least he wasn't the worst villain according to this piece. I had a slightly queasy feeling about that.

[This message has been edited by MattLeo (edited July 25, 2011).]


Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LDWriter2
Member
Member # 9148

 - posted      Profile for LDWriter2   Email LDWriter2         Edit/Delete Post 

For those deeply involved with the Green Lantern discussion, on either side even though I may be the only one who really liked it. Except for that one thing,


http://www.gocomics.com/adamathome/2011/07/30/


Posts: 5289 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
redux
Member
Member # 9277

 - posted      Profile for redux   Email redux         Edit/Delete Post 
I saw Captain America yesterday and enjoyed it. I thought it was a fairly decent adaptation of a comic book. I didn't like how washed out it looked and blame 3D for this - this technology is making both the 2D and 3D versions look lifeless on the screen.

quote:
I left feeling like I hadn't seen a whole movie.

I sympathize with this comment. It is a problem inherent in comic book movies and particularly with their origin stories. Comic books are never ending soap operas - serial stories with no ending in sight or just get rebooted into an alternate timeline. Hollywood seems obsessed with only showing how these heroes get their start, but they never seem to successfully follow through. If they do, then for the sequel they just end up multiplying whatever was in the first movie by two (i.e. twice the villains, twice the explosions, etc. etc.).

Personally, I don't understand why they don't ever make comic book movies just start when the protagonist is already a hero. Flashbacks and good dialog should more than fill in the blanks. For instance, I enjoyed Bourne Identity without having first sat through a movie of Bourne growing up, getting recruited, and getting trained.

Anyway - that's just my 2 cents


Posts: 525 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post 
But Redux, that's exactly how "Batman" was done with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson. They went straight to the action and then flashbacked to how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Of course that's been awhile back compared to the explosion of these types of movies of late .
Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I've heard the next Spider-Man movie is another reboot and origin story---the third one, I gather. Is the Spider-Man backstory something that has to be reintroduced to every movie-going generation?
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
redux
Member
Member # 9277

 - posted      Profile for redux   Email redux         Edit/Delete Post 
Crystal - very true! I had forgotten about the 1989 Batman which is an excellent movie. (I did find that the reboot in 2005, Batman Begins, is a better adaptation of the mythos, however, not as campy.)


Robert - yes, DISNEY/MARVEL is "treating" audiences to another reboot and origin story of Spider-Man. It seems there's a 10 year expiration date on these movies and everyone needs to be reminded of how that spider bit Peter Parker.


Posts: 525 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
Saw the latest X-Men movie and I realized that I really, really like the X-men. I had seen the new JANE EYRE the day before, and it was weird to see Mr. Rochester as Magneto--weird, but fun.

Still debating whether to go see CAPTAIN AMERICA, though. I think I'd rather go see THOR again.


Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
Short of something remarkable, I think I'll pass on movie-going until either the next Pixar or the new Hobbit is in theaters.

It's not a regular experience with me, theater-going; I never got in the habit of going when I was younger, and also I found the experience less than enjoyable on several occasions. (I remember having to wait, and wait, and wait, to get in to see both The Towering Inferno and Jaws with my parents, on hot and buggy summer nights. It was less than thrilling.)


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LDWriter2
Member
Member # 9148

 - posted      Profile for LDWriter2   Email LDWriter2         Edit/Delete Post 
Kathleen.


Where??? Can I come? They took Thor off here weeks ago. Just before I could see it too.


Posts: 5289 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
THOR is still playing in Salt Lake City, though whether it will stay past Thursday is anyone's guess.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post 
My husband and I don't go to the theatre very often either, but we've been having one massive heat wave here in the Midwest, and we don't have AC at home. Not saying we wouldn't have gone seen these movies at the theatre anyway, but it sure was a pleasant way to beat the heat.

BTW: The only reason we don't have AC at home is because our 100+ year old farmhouse is usually comfy without it. It's only when it gets like it's been lately that we start seeking places to enjoy AC during the heat of the day .

Of late we have seen these movies at the theatre:

Thor
Green Lantern
Deathly Hallows 2
Captain America
Cowboys & Aliens


Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattLeo
Member
Member # 9331

 - posted      Profile for MattLeo   Email MattLeo         Edit/Delete Post 
Along the lines of Mr. Rochester appearing as Magneto, I highly recommend renting Ang Lee's 1995 "Sense and Sensiblity", which has an A-list Brit cast: Emma Thomson,Hugh Grant, Kate Winslet, Hugh Laurie and especially a young and handsome Alan Rickman playing the chivalrous but tongue-tied Colonel Brandon. If you step back from the performance you start to feel like the shrewd and cagey professor Snape was playing the part.

I keep telling my romance writer friends they *have* to read the whole Austen oeuvre, but they keep tripping over the Regency era prose. The movie streamlines the story a bit, but Emma Thomson's script and Ang Lee's direction do a great job capturing the essence of it.


Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crystal Stevens
Member
Member # 8006

 - posted      Profile for Crystal Stevens   Email Crystal Stevens         Edit/Delete Post 
Speaking of Alan Rickman:
My husband and I were watching "Quigly Down Under" not long ago, and he mentioned that the rancher who hired Quigly reminded him very much of Snape. So I did an online search. My husband was right. It was Alan Rickman. A much younger version of the man but still him .

Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
Rickman was also the Sheriff of Nottingham in Kevin Costner's version of Robin Hood.

MattLeo, you know romance writers who HAVEN'T read Austen's books?

That's almost as bad as science fiction writers who haven't read at least some of Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, and Bradbury.


Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattLeo
Member
Member # 9331

 - posted      Profile for MattLeo   Email MattLeo         Edit/Delete Post 
@Kathleen -- I have two friends who are published in the Urban Fantasy market, who think of themselves of romance authors, and have not read Austen -- at least not more than necessary to conclude Austen isn't their cup of tea. Now I was quite flabbergasted by this. I'm an Austen freak myself. They're not dummies. One of them has a degree in English and is a magazine editor in her day job.

I think that what's going on here is that Austen's novels, while romantic, aren't about Romance in the romance novel sense. Romance capital R is the myth of finding your soulmate -- as outlined by Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium. Without your soulmate you are incomplete and nothing else can satisfy.

Austen's novels are about the female protagonists securing a place in the world, which for Regency women meant finding a mate of course, but it's never suggested there is only one true soulmate. Austen's quite hard-nosed in this regard; it's clear what the women *should* do is make a sensible choices in a mate, considering compatibility of character, upbringing, economic situation and social standing.

In Sense and Sensibility Willoughby is a selfish twit with shaky finances who charms women into doing stupid things. In an Austen novel that can only mean he's pure poison; a total zero: no breeding, no character and no money. In a capital R Romance those things wouldn't necessary disbar him from being Marianne's soulmate. He might be a fixer-upper who just needs his soulmate and a coat of fresh paint.

Austen's whole point in S&S is that this soulmate business ain't necessarily so. Romantic Marianne ends up marrying rich, well-bred, middle-aged Colonel Brandon, and she ends up happy with this sensible choice. On the other hand disciplined, practical Elinor marries her true love even though Edward's been disinherited by his mother and has to eke out a living as a vicar in a small parish. And she ends happy too.

Of course there's a soul-mate thing going on here too because flighty but vivacious Marianne and stolid reliable Colonel Brandon need each other. Loyal but slightly dim minister-to-be Edward is in sore need of Elinor's brains and competency. We get a happy ending, but at the same time we can stand back from the characters and laugh at how wrong they were. I don't know the Romance genre that well, but somehow I don't think ironic detachment is a winning formula.

Anyhow, Austen deeply influences what I write. My stories always ending being about people trying to find their place in the world while hampered by misunderstanding.


Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kathleen Dalton Woodbury
Administrator
Member # 59

 - posted      Profile for Kathleen Dalton Woodbury   Email Kathleen Dalton Woodbury         Edit/Delete Post 
Good point, MattLeo. But still....

Have they read Emily and Charlotte Bronte, at least? WUTHERING HEIGHTS is certainly a "soulmate" romance, and so is JANE EYRE.


Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LDWriter2
Member
Member # 9148

 - posted      Profile for LDWriter2   Email LDWriter2         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm, interesting discussion on Romance. Especially since I came up with a Romance idea a few years ago. Sound like it could be a "soulmate" Romance even though I never thought of it in that way. At least for the guy. He ends up having to re-win her heart. And not because there's another guy but because of an unfortunate series of events.


But I've looked over a few romance books and never noticed that.


Posts: 5289 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2