les moonves
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Leslie_Moonves
michaelangelo
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Michelangelo
HTH
bill
Trying really hard but ... nope, need more words
--
Drew |
|
Re: Trying really hard but ... nope, need more words
les moonves
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Leslie_Moonves michaelangelo http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Michelangelo HTH bill |
|
Already looked up Moonves
Which words on there help me understand your comparison?
--
Drew |
|
comparing cameron vs burton thru their art using similes
avatar was a workman like product alice was sheer art
|
|
Now I know why I didn't get you
First, I didn't think "Alice" was all that good.
Second, you're putting Moonves on a level with Michaelangelo? Really? --
Drew |
|
moonvess is a slick producer/technician
michaelangelo was an artist. Both types can produce reasonable films. Avatar was slick, as in sitcom slick. Alice (to me taste differs) was a different look into another world with stunning effects, acting instead of staging and visually much more stunning.
|
|
Burton
is all about the visual, to the point that sometimes the film does suffer for it.
Cameron is all about the production. Bigger, Bigger biggest...like his ego. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
|
Alice had two main problems
First -- and this is a Hollywood studio problem, it's not fair to hang it on the film -- is that it seemed instantly derivative of several other recent retellings. Alice had just been redone, as had Wizard of Oz. Burton's Alice seemed far too similar. I know that's because of how a script will circulate for years before being made, then when it is it's made three times, but I couldn't help the feeling while watching it.
The second problem was with the visuals. Yes, it was seamless, but I got the feeling that he made the CGI look more "real" by making the real things look more fake. There was a persistent uncanny valley-ness to it. And not in the uncomfortable way Burton would have liked, but a low grade annoyance with the artifice of it. --
Drew |