Sky Captian and the World of Tomorrow

[Lieutenant Kije]

Okay, Tomatometer doesn't have enough info yet for a rating, but I have to say that this movie - from a purely visual standpoint - looks awesome.  It could very well stink plot-wise or acting-wise, but I hope at least that the visual coolness lives up to the promise of the trailers.  If it does it could be up there on the level with 5th Element for audiovisual impact.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

the plot and acting and characterization, in fact, appear to outweigh the coolness in my mind. I am avoiding this film, as was stated long ago.

[Lieutenant Kije]

Sorry - I must have missed the earlier discussion.  What are your qualms?

[42]

Don't worry, SE's appreciation for cool post-modern visuals is lacking.
I'm still reserving judgement on the picture as a whole until I see more reviews or see it myself. The visuals seem very edgy, but the plot and characters are quite ambiguous at the moment.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Perhaps my appreciation for post-modern visuals would be enhanced if they weren't used for a movie that appears to be destroying all that is good and holy about pulp-fiction era storytelling.

[42]

If it didn't mock it's predescessor's then it wouldn't be very post-modern.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

see, this may be why I can't appreciate it then.

My real question is why something can't be retro without being... well, retarded. I mean, if the genre is good enough to adopt for a film, why can't it use the genre? Why does it have to make retarded exaggerations of if?

[House of Mustard]

If it does it could be up there on the level with 5th Element for audiovisual impact.

I know we've discussed this before, but what is wrong with you people?

[EUOL]

We can appreciate a movie for achieving what it tries to do, rather than forcing each film to fit into the same mold.  I guess that's what's wrong with us.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

appreciate it for misunderstanding a fun genre and hashing it badly?
Ok, I know I haven't seen it and that's probably not the most equanimous way of  treating a film I haven't seen. However, that's what they've presented to me. THEY chose how to present the ads to me, and that's the impression I got. I'm not just hearing the title and going out on a limb. I can't see every movie out there. Nor do I want to, and it's perfectly legitimate to make judgements based on the impression their presentation (through teasers and ads) gives to me.

Plus, I don't think that just because a movie looks pretty that the filmmakers intended it to be pretty and not do anything else. They're very clearly trying, at the very least to borrow from the pulp-fiction era sci-fi to tell some kind of story. The appear to have forgotten that while pulp-fiction stories are typically shallow and a little stretched, only the bad ones were out-an-out ridiculous even with a little judicious disbelief suspension.

If a movie is obviously tries to pull something off and fails at it, it seems only fair to dislike it for failing that attempt. I have to side with HoM on this one (because y'know, I hadn't already).

Well, except for the fact that I like Fifth Element. THAT didn't try to be anything but a comical adventure romp. In a couple places it was still weak, but it was fun and action-filled. And interesting. So it was worthy despite a couple over-the-top moments (the overly-simplified resolution being forgiveable due to the genre, but I mean, c'mon, sex makes war and violence and hatred worth the cost?)

[EUOL]

Pulp movies don't HAVE to look bad or have bad characters.  Indiana Jones is a pulp movie--and was always intended to be.  

I've never gotten the same feeling that you have from the ads.  I see a pure-blooded pulp move made with modern special effects, and I think that is amazingly cool.  I love seeing the old-style coloring mixed with modern digital space-ships designed with a retro-look.  That scene was enough to make me want to see the movie.  

Knowing that it was essentially an indy film, made by a guy who wanted to do something original and different, only enhances my optimism regarding it.

[House of Mustard]

I have to side with HoM on this one (because y'know, I hadn't already).

Well, except for the fact that I like Fifth Element.

I appreciate the agreement, SE, but I think I was misunderstood.  I wasn't trying to make any commentary on Sky Captain -- only saying that 5th Element is over rated.  So, really, you can't side with me and like 5th Element, since that was all I was saying.

However, while we're on the subject: I don't hate the movie--on the contrary I enjoyed it.  But I view it as mindless escapism--something to be viewed and quickly forgotten.  My complaint is just that people seem to be holding it up as more than that--as some grand acheivement of something-or-other.

[EUOL]

A great achievement in space opera.  If you find space opera unengaging, then so be it.  However, that movie was a paradigm of the field.  

Many people refer to fantasy as mindless escapism.  I would disagree with them too.  A thing of beauty is of its own worth.  You can ignore the beautiful cinematography and call it 'eye' candy.'  You can ignore the masterful use of score and music, and you can ignore the brilliant way that the movie mixed fantastical and science-fiction themes--all because you think of space opera as 'escapism.'  I will reserve the right to disagree with you.

As I was saying to SE in the Matrix discussion, for some reason we've decided that movies aren't a visual medium.  We can look at a great painting and call it a masterpiece because of its composition, but we're somehow unable to do the same for a movie.  A movie can do everything with cinematic excellence, but if it doesn't deal with a topic we consider 'weighty' or important, we dismiss it.

[Fellfrosch]

42's praise of Fifth Element was specifically directed at the movie's art direction, which is inarguably (in  my opinion) some of the best and most imaginative art direction in recent memory. To me Fifth Element is a visual treat, regardless of other qualms I may have about the movie.

My position on Sky Captain is more one of pessimism than anything else--I think the concept sounds very cool, and I'm glad somebody did it, but I have fears (however baseless) that it's going to suck. I hope it doesn't, though, because if done right it could be awesome.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

That's because it's only PARTLY a visual medium. A painting is not expected to have story, though story and reference enhance it.
ANd if that enhance a static image, than an image in motion has an even greater involvement with story and reference. The story, the events, the characters, these are at least half of a film production. Discounting them disregards vital portions of the film.
I admit that to me, the story and the writing is much more important. IF the special effects and/or visuals are bad, I'll get over it, though I'll think a movie with solid visuals makes a more effective piece. But even if the visuals ARE more important, then you have to admit that weak story, bad writing, and poor characterization, esp. when backed up by amateur acting, weaken even a movie focusing on the visual aspects.

Spectacle is important yes, but not so important that it can safely ignore the many other elements that go into a film.