Red Mosquito

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

See: The films of Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and Brett Ratner

...I love Peter Jackson and Michael Bay. Usually.

tommymctom wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

See: The films of Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and Brett Ratner

...I love Peter Jackson and Michael Bay. Usually.

Come on, man. Nobody loves Michael Bay.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Hmm, this a rough top 10: Roman Polanski (definitely number one), Anthony Mann, Stanley Kubrick, Nicolas Winding Refn, Paul Thomas Anderson, Michael Powell, Jean Rollin, Federico Fellini, Elia Kazan, and…maybe Ingmar Bergman. Or Paul Verhoeven. Or the Coens.

You?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

See: The films of Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and Brett Ratner

...I love Peter Jackson and Michael Bay. Usually.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

See: The films of Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and Brett Ratner

...I love Peter Jackson and Michael Bay. Usually.

Not surprised at all to hear that.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Hmm, this a rough top 10: Roman Polanski (definitely number one), Anthony Mann, Stanley Kubrick, Nicolas Winding Refn, Paul Thomas Anderson, Michael Powell, Jean Rollin, Federico Fellini, Elia Kazan, and…maybe Ingmar Bergman. Or Paul Verhoeven. Or the Coens.

You?

In no particular order I'd say...

David Lynch, Kubrick, Coens, David Fincher, Pedro Almodovar, Hitchcock, Alfonso Cuaron, PT Anderson, Darren Aronofsky and Sarah Polley.

Those off the top of my head. And my exposure to foreign film directors is woefully lacking. It's kinda gross, actually.

But, again, I tend to go to movies because of authors and/or actors and/or premise more than the director. Unless it's those first five guys. I'll basically see anything those dudes make.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I think the issue here is that you are looking for something entirely different in television than everyone else LV. Television isn't the cinema. The advantage of the long form story telling IS the narrative and character development, and this golden age is about the mastery of that we've seen over the past 10-15 years. If you are only interested in the visual elements, then I guess I can see your point. But your perspective is entirely different than everyone else in the thread, so there really is no point in engaging in that discussion with you. We're talking about pizza, and you're saying the pizza isn't very good because it's not ice cream.

I think that's a silly argument. Cinema and television on a fundamental level are the same thing: audiovisual art. The only difference is that TV shows are longer and broken into episodes. That's it. What I don't like about TV is that it is merely settling for narrative and characters and ignoring the finer aesthetic elements. That doesn't HAVE to be all it is.

To clarify, I think the TV medium has the potential to be amazing...if used properly. So far, no one is really doing it. However, stuff like True Detective and Soderbergh's upcoming show give me hope that we might be moving in the right direction. There's no reason we can't have interesting narrative, character, AND aesthetic. Why just stop at the first two?

My argument is that we're in a golden age precisely because people AREN'T stopping at the first two.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tommymctom wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

See: The films of Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and Brett Ratner

...I love Peter Jackson and Michael Bay. Usually.

Come on, man. Nobody loves Michael Bay.

He's made his share of shit (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, the Transformers series), but I think Bad Boys, The Rock, and Pain & Gain are great, and I think Bad Boys II is a gonzo masterpiece.

Malloy wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tommymctom wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

See: The films of Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and Brett Ratner

...I love Peter Jackson and Michael Bay. Usually.

Come on, man. Nobody loves Michael Bay.

He's made his share of shit (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, the Transformers series), but I think Bad Boys, The Rock, and Pain & Gain are great, and I think Bad Boys II is a gonzo masterpiece.

agreed, especially Bad Boys II. also, i think this piece, http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/th ... y-20140711, totally understands bay and correctly argues that the only way to read him is as an auteur

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Malloy wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tommymctom wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

See: The films of Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and Brett Ratner

...I love Peter Jackson and Michael Bay. Usually.

Come on, man. Nobody loves Michael Bay.

He's made his share of shit (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, the Transformers series), but I think Bad Boys, The Rock, and Pain & Gain are great, and I think Bad Boys II is a gonzo masterpiece.

agreed, especially Bad Boys II. also, i think this piece, http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/th ... y-20140711, totally understands bay and correctly argues that the only way to read him is as an auteur

Damn straight; glad there's another fan here. Love him or hate him, Bay is perhaps the most distinct auteur in Hollywood right now. There’s no mistaking a Bay frame.

BurtReynolds wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Malloy wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tommymctom wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

See: The films of Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and Brett Ratner

...I love Peter Jackson and Michael Bay. Usually.

Come on, man. Nobody loves Michael Bay.

He's made his share of shit (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, the Transformers series), but I think Bad Boys, The Rock, and Pain & Gain are great, and I think Bad Boys II is a gonzo masterpiece.

agreed, especially Bad Boys II. also, i think this piece, http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/th ... y-20140711, totally understands bay and correctly argues that the only way to read him is as an auteur

Damn straight; glad there's another fan here. Love him or hate him, Bay is perhaps the most distinct auteur in Hollywood right now. There’s no mistaking a Bay frame.

He's lazy as shit now though. He reuses the same tired shot over and over, even when it doesnt fit.

BurtReynolds wrote:I heard that if you talk to him you have to mention sports cars in the first five minutes or he just leaves.