hasbro ceo gets recognition from marketwatch

[Traycor]

I liked transformers too. The military angle in that film was well played.

 

[Mistwell]

Passion for the material is what defines a great movie.

The Empire Strikes Back is one of the best movies, and it was directed by someone who had little passion for the material. At the time all indications are that it was a paycheck for him.

Nobody thought Casablanca was going to be anything more than a mediocre fim while they were making that as well.

I do not think there is a simple formula for making a great film of "passion". Passion defines some great films, and isn't much of a factor in other great films. It varies from film to film, and sometimes plain dumb luck also is a factor.

As for the D&D movie, I think one important factor will be not using the name D&D in the title. They have burnt some bridges with the failed films of the last decade, and they are too fresh in people's minds I suspect.

 

[Scribble]

I do not think there is a simple formula for making a great film of "passion". Passion defines some great films, and isn't much of a factor in other great films. It varies from film to film, and sometimes plain dumb luck also is a factor.

I agree. There isn't a magic good movie button.

I think part of what makes a movie is the actors. If the actors take the roll seriously, and not as an "inside joke" between themselves and the audience- no matter how campy the script it can come across as a great movie.

As for film lighting and underground and stuff:

Film lighting isn't about just recreating the reality of a situation. A pitch black film that doesn't rely on the audience not being able to see anything (like horror movies) is a borring movie...

So you stylistically get the feel of a cave (High contrast, lots of shadows, "pools" of light, etc... ) without actually just making it have zero light.

 

[Traycor]

So you stylistically get the feel of a cave (High contrast, lots of shadows, "pools" of light, etc... ) without actually just making it have zero light.

Exactly. No Director of Photography would even wonder how to accomplish lighting in a "zero light" environment. They do that in movies all the time.

 

[Melba Toast]

I agree. There isn't a magic good movie button.

This is true. Ed Wood certainly had passion.

I never meant to imply that passion is the -only- thing necessary to make a good film. I was generalizing, which I consider a common and acceptable practice in online forums...

(Side-note: don't-cha just hate those forum a-holes who want you to support everything you write with empirical facts as if we all just walk around carrying stacks of peer-reviewed data!)

But I digress... I was saying... while there are many examples of happy accidents in the film world, by-and-large, the majority of good films were made by highly intelligent people who care deeply about the quality of their output.

Anyone who has ever tried to make a good film (as I have) knows that it is an incredibly difficult task to accomplish. Even the most seemingly lackadasical efforts require an enormous emotional, financial, mental and physical investment.

I have nothing bad to say about fan-fic films. By the standards of a discriminating audience accustomed to watching pro-grade films, fan-flicks certainly don't measure up, but as works of amateurs, many of them are quite remarkable.

Film lighting isn't about just recreating the reality of a situation. A pitch black film that doesn't rely on the audience not being able to see anything (like horror movies) is a borring movie...

This is utter nonsense. Lighting can certainly compliment or detract from a film, but it will never make or break a film. It's entirely possible to make a great film without a single exposed image, and it's entirely possible to make a terrible film with the most remarkable exposures ever captured.

(Pardon another divergence... aren't geeks a little bored with all these "dark" films? Why must every comic-book film be low-key? The presence of shadows does not automatically beget quality. My favourite thing about the Spiderman movies is that they willfully rejected that cliche', and yet it seems to be the thing most geeks hated about it.)

 

[The Little Raven]

yet it seems to be the thing most geeks hated about it

The thing I hated the most was emo-Spider Man and the underuse of Venom as a real story element. Otherwise, I thought they were pretty good.

 

[Scribble]

This is utter nonsense. Lighting can certainly compliment or detract from a film, but it will never make or break a film. It's entirely possible to make a great film without a single exposed image, and it's entirely possible to make a terrible film with the most remarkable exposures ever captured.

My comment was more directed towards the discussion that an underdark movie couldn't be made because we can't see in the dark. We don't need to, because just because caves are dark, doesn;t mean you have to have 0 lighting in a film.

BUT:

Notice I said "that doesn't rely on that element?" Sure, you can make a great film that has no exposed frames. But there had better be a reason you're doing that in the film. IE a point that the darkness emphasises, as opposed to simply being a "Why the hell can't I see anything?" moment.

Film, like any creative media, has rules. Not "do this or get in trouble" rules, but tried and true methods of interacting with an audience. When creating things it's important to know these rules, especially if you want to break them. If you break them you need to know how and why it will ipact your audience, and not just do it "because."

Breaking a rule just "because" is a surefire way to unintentionally break the 4th wall.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I don't think that D&D is good movie material. It is too generic and unfocused (which makes for a very good roleplaying experience, but not much of a screenplay). Maybe the Forgotten Realms could be made into a movie (or movie franchise), or Greyhawk could be made into a movie, or even Ravenloft could be made into a movie, but not just D&D.

I think that D&D would be much better off as a series. let it have a few years to build up a non-gamer fan base and develop the world and characters... Then start making movies.

 

[Scribble]

(Pardon another divergence... aren't geeks a little bored with all these "dark" films? Why must every comic-book film be low-key? The presence of shadows does not automatically beget quality. My favourite thing about the Spiderman movies is that they willfully rejected that cliche', and yet it seems to be the thing most geeks hated about it.)

Actually high key low fill.

I think a lot of the films are trying to emulate film noir more then anything.

 

[Melba Toast]

The thing I hated the most was emo-Spider Man.

I know this is off-subject, but...

I never got that whole "wah! emo-spiderman! wah!" thing.

I'm not sure what "emo" is, but if I understand correctly, you are referring to when Peter Parker gets a little selfish and develops a mischeivous sense of self-entitlement in part because he is infected by the alien suit and in part because he broke up with Mary Jane. Apparently something about the way they dramatized that struck you as inappropriate?

Having lived on my own in NYC and been something of a geek myself, I thought the way they portrayed his transformation was totally 100% spot on. That is EXACTLY the way selfish little pricks in NYC act. Maybe the scene plays different in Peoria, but Peter is a NYC kid.

Again, I'm not sure what "emo" means but I thought it was a derogatory term for morbidly-obsessed suburban teenagers, which was not what I saw at all. I saw "urban hipster poseur". And I thought it was hilarious.