# Daenerys Targaryen to face the Terminator



## Kramodlog (Dec 14, 2013)

Emilia Clarke will play Sarah Connor in the Terminator reboot. 

The first film isn't great, so I am curious to see a remark/reboot, but the second will be almost impossible to beat.


----------



## Craddoke (Dec 14, 2013)

goldomark said:


> The first film isn't great




Really? I find that ... a surprising opinion.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 14, 2013)

Craddoke said:


> Really? I find that ... a surprising opinion.



It did not age well. Like, aged terribadly. Bad FXs, bad photography, bad acting, bad script, horrible dialogues. Cameron can't film or write. Check out Aliens, Titanic or Avatar. T-2 is an accident. 

Ok. I need to see Abyss beofre making it a define judgement. I will see it this week. Satisfied?


----------



## Craddoke (Dec 14, 2013)

goldomark said:


> It did not age well. Like, aged terribadly. Bad FXs, bad photography, bad acting, bad script, horrible dialogues. Cameron can't film or write. Check out Aliens, Titanic or Avatar. T-2 is an accident.
> 
> Ok. I need to see Abyss beofre making it a define judgement. I will see it this week. Satisfied?




Hmmm... The only clunker in that list is Avatar. I would also look into some FX history -- particularly who Stan Winston is.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 14, 2013)

Craddoke said:


> Hmmm... The only clunker in that list is Avatar.



Lulz, bait! Nice try, they are all horrible films. 



> I would also look into some FX history -- particularly who Stan Winston is.



Who did it is less important than how it looks. That naked Terminator "walking" at the end? Fail. Arny's hair after he get's burn? Fail. 

And I see you did not challenge script, photo, acting, dialogues, etc. So what is left? The plot? (John, I am your father... From the future and you sent me... Yeah, your mom was hot. /snikers)


----------



## Craddoke (Dec 14, 2013)

I don't hold much hope, but if you want to educate yourself check out the Stan Winston article on Wikipedia.

(BTW I'm focusing on your FX complaint because, while I disagree with your other opinions, there's no accounting for taste. Saying that the FX is bad, though, is objectively wrong)

Please do not hint at other people being uneducated or otherwise less than you. Thanks. - Lwaxy


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 14, 2013)

FWIW, Terminator's stop-motion animated sequences were actually fairly state-of-the-art for the time, especially for a low-budget film.  CGI was still in its infancy- there was some used in Westworld and Futureworld in the 1970s, but only a little.  Even in the 1980s, it was Used sparingly because of its expense.  It wasn't until Toy Story in the 1990s that you had an all-CGI film.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 14, 2013)

Leny Heady is the only true Sarah Connor, all others are just pale imitations of the real deal. 


Could be interesting, could be just a poor remake.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 14, 2013)

So no more Christian Bale Terminator!? That sucks, I thought he made a pretty good John Connors.


----------



## Asmo (Dec 14, 2013)

http://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/5/59/htf_imgcache_33690.jpeg

The Sarah Connor I prefer.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 14, 2013)

Craddoke said:


> Saying that the FX is bad, though, is objectively wrong



They did not age well and made me laugh and roll my eyes when I saw the film. Do you think films today should use the same FX?

[video=youtube;BoRY8lKTv3o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoRY8lKTv3o[/video]



Dannyalcatraz said:


> FWIW, Terminator's stop-motion animated sequences were actually fairly state-of-the-art for the time, especially for a low-budget film.



Like I said, it did not age well. The film is not very watchable and not just because of the FX. 

I saw T-2 first and was curious about the first film. When I saw it I was flabergasted. I did not understand why it was successful or a sequel managed to be made.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 14, 2013)

> They did not age well and made me laugh and roll my eyes when I saw the film. Do you think films today should use the same FX?
> 
> (Edit)
> 
> Like I said, it did not age well.




Hm.  Different strokes, then.

Personally, I can appreciate Terminator's SFX on its own terms, in  its own context without comparing them to the stuff made possible by improvements in computing power that came years later, just like I can appreciate a '67 Mustang even though it isn't a Pagani Zonda.

Side note: I should also point out that sequence used not only stop-action animation for the wide angle shots, but also a full-sized robot puppet activated with hydraulics and pneumatics...the latter of which _was_ used in the sequels.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 15, 2013)

It has historic value, but I am not sure it has more than that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 15, 2013)

It's my favorite of the entire bunch.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 15, 2013)

Personally I think The Terminator is a nifty small budget film. I recently watched it again and I thought the story held up well. Maybe I am not as judgmental because when I watch an older film I take in consideration the time it was made. I think putting aside the very 80s special effects the story is as compelling today as it was when i saw it the first time in theater back when it first aired. 

If they write Sarah as she was in the first movie I think the casting is spot on. She was not a bad ass in that movie she was just a normal young woman thrust into this situation. She basically has to learn how to become a badass. I don't think they should cast Arnold as the The Terminator they should go with a younger actor. If they are doing a reboot then do a complete reboot.


----------



## Dog Moon (Dec 15, 2013)

Yeah, Arnold should retire.  He's a little too old.

I also think Harrison Ford should retire too.  I've liked the actor, but now he just seems too old.

Nicolas Cage should retire too.  He's not quite too old but I don't remember the last movie I saw with him in it that I actually thought was a great movie.

Edit: I did like the movie Kick-Ass.  But he wasn't the star of that film.


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 16, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Cameron can't film or write. Check out Aliens 98%, Titanic 88% or Avatar 83%.I need to see Abyss 88% before making it a define judgement.




Pretty much everyone disagrees with you, but I guess you already knew that. I suspect your judgement is flawed. Seriously you had problems with Aliens? Did you think it failed as a romantic comedy or something?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 16, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> Pretty much everyone disagrees with you.



Argumentum ad populum. 



> Seriously you had problems with Aliens?



Yes. It has been a while, but plot holes and bad filming. I do not understand why it was popular. Watch it again to be disappointed. I could watch it next weekend to refreshm memory. Yes, I am a masochist.

Honestly, I do not understad why Cameron's films are popular. Aside from T-2, which is surprisingly great considering he made it, all (didn't see Abyss though) of his films are terrible.


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 16, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Argumentum ad populum.




When you are judging film where much of it's merits are based on opinion and popularity, then "Argumentun ad poplum" is valid to some extent. There are very few subjective judgments that can be made, it isn't like we are talking about the health risks of smoking.

I'm curious are you talking about the original or the directors cut? In my opinion the director's cut is a worse film in my opinion, I felt the pacing of the original is ruined for very little gain. However some people might prefer it as it explains Ripley's attachment to Newt better, and explains the sentry gun business.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 16, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> When you are judging film where much of it's merits are based on opinion and popularity, then "Argumentun ad poplum" is valid to some extent.



Not really. The merites of a film come from its intrinsic qualities and their chemistry together. Is the script good? Dialogues? The actors? Photograhy? Plot? Etc. Popularity doesn't mean these elements or the sum total are good, as Michael Bay as demontrated time and time again.



> There are very few subjective judgments that can be made, it isn't like we are talking about the health risks of smoking.



Umm... Do you mean objective? Cause they are, I named a few above. Although I'll grant you that after a certain threshold they become more subjective. 



> I'm curious are you talking about the original or the directors cut? In my opinion the director's cut is a worse film in my opinion, I felt the pacing of the original is ruined for very little gain. However some people might prefer it as it explains Ripley's attachment to Newt better, and explains the sentry gun business.



I'm not sure, it has a been a while. Guess I'll find out this weekend. /shudders


----------



## Ragnar_Lodbrok (Dec 17, 2013)

Eh. I like T1 and Aliens a lot, though I too dislike Titanic and find Avatar interesting only because it's a pretty film. I don't know film well enough on a technical level to criticize it effectively beyond that. I found the story in both T1 and Aliens to be better than simply acceptable, however.
And the means of filming are hardly relevant to its quality. T1 may not hold up visually in comparison to modern CGI and such, but that wasn't available, so why view it as though it was?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 17, 2013)

Perennity. What makes the film relevant today if the plot, acting, dialogues, action and FX are terrible?


----------



## Dungeoneer (Dec 17, 2013)

I watched Terminator for the first time just a couple years ago. I really enjoyed it. And the truth is, except for the ending it's not an especially FX-reliant film. Yeah, the stop-motion terminator in the factory looked cheesy, but that bit was brief. I would rather see a Lucas-style CGI enhancement then a reboot.

Also, Arnie is now 30 years older than he was in the first film. Does anybody really need to see Grandpa Terminator?!?

Also also, remaking T1 inevitably means they will remake T2. Does anybody really think that THAT is a good idea??


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 17, 2013)

Dungeoneer said:


> Also, Arnie is now 30 years older than he was in the first film. Does anybody really need to see Grandpa Terminator?!?



Maybe he'll play the human who's appearance was used to make the Terminator. A deleted scene from T-3

[video=youtube;kayFrIR-Qfw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kayFrIR-Qfw[/video]

(It is Samuel L. Jackson's voice)



> Also also, remaking T1 inevitably means they will remake T2. Does anybody really think that THAT is a good idea??



They plan on a whole new/reboot trilogy, so yeah, T-2 and T-3... If the first film is profitable.


----------



## Ragnar_Lodbrok (Dec 18, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Perennity. What makes the film relevant today if the plot, acting, dialogues, action and FX are terrible?



To your opinion. I found the plot enjoyable, the acting and dialogue okay, the action good, and the FX as good as it was getting at the time. Aliens was, from my viewing of it, even better in all of those categories. So, my opinion is at odds with yours. Firmly, at that.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 18, 2013)

Ragnar_Lodbrok said:


> To your opinion.



Ain't the majority of comment we make our opinion?



> I found the plot enjoyable, the acting and dialogue okay, the action good, and the FX *as good as it was getting at the time*. Aliens was, from my viewing of it, even better in all of those categories. So, my opinion is at odds with yours. Firmly, at that.



Key phrase. Look at T-2 and you'll see a film that could be showed today and people would think it was made this year.


----------



## Dioltach (Dec 18, 2013)

For what it's worth, I disliked T2 when it was released. It's little more than a remake of T1 but with special effects. T1 is grittier, edgier, more novel. It doesn't have an annoying adolescent. Personally I watch movies for more than the special effects.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 18, 2013)

*sigh*

Everyone keeps telling goldo 'bro, the effects were state of the art at the time' which in no way, shape or form rebuts his criticism that the movie _did not age well_.  

And Avatar?  Really?  People thought it had a good _plot_?  I'm amazed.  Avatar totally nailed the passive 3d effect, though, and nothing has come close to doing it as well since.  The plot, though, was 'white cripple saves noble savages' which is most certainly not something anyone should think is even remotely ok.  And the political statement - especially at the beginning - was so obvious that it took me right out of all those fancy effects.  We get it Cameron, you think Bush is an environment hating warmonger.  Jeebus ...


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 18, 2013)

Dioltach said:


> For what it's worth, I disliked T2 when it was released. It's little more than a remake of T1 but with special effects. T1 is grittier, edgier, more novel. It doesn't have an annoying adolescent. Personally I watch movies for more than the special effects.



It is so the opposite. Everything is better with T-2, not just the FX. Better acting, better dialogues, better plot, better photography, better pacing, better choreographed action scenes, actually gritty, edgy, superior end...

Damn, I soiled my pants.


----------



## Dioltach (Dec 18, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Damn, I soiled my pants.




Yes, we get the picture. You like Terminator 2. Almost every other post in this thread is you arguing that T2 is better than T1. Other people don't agree. That doesn't mean you have to keep repeating your opinion: people's preferences are subjective, and being told again and again that their tastes are wrong isn't going to make them change their mind.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 18, 2013)

> Everyone keeps telling goldo 'bro, the effects were state of the art at the time' which in no way, shape or form rebuts his criticism that the movie did not age well.




Again, I personally like most of the movie contra to his pointed dislikes- acting, plot, etc.  'Bout the only way in which the movie can be said to "not age well" would be in SFX, and, again, I disagree.  In that area, the critique misses the nature of SFX- he's criticizing the film on the basis of something that could hardly have been better at the time, INCLUDING some props that were actually used in the subsequent movies he does not judge likewise.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 18, 2013)

Dioltach said:


> Yes, we get the picture. You like Terminator 2. Almost every other post in this thread is you arguing that T2 is better than T1. Other people don't agree. That doesn't mean you have to keep repeating your opinion: people's preferences are subjective, and being told again and again that their tastes are wrong isn't going to make them change their mind.



You mean like people who keep saying T-1 is awesome?


----------



## Ragnar_Lodbrok (Dec 18, 2013)

goldomark said:


> You mean like people who keep saying T-1 is awesome?



No, I'm saying _I_ liked it, and feel it aged okay. T2 is undeniably better. I just don't have a good enough grasp of film technicalities to judge them to any real level. Music's similar. The best explanation for that which comes to mind is that I have no interest in or ability to make films (or songs).


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 18, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, I personally like most of the movie contra to his pointed dislikes- acting, plot, etc.  'Bout the only way in which the movie can be said to "not age well" would be in SFX, and, again, I disagree.  In that area, the critique misses the nature of SFX- he's criticizing the film on the basis of something that could hardly have been better at the time, INCLUDING some props that were actually used in the subsequent movies he does not judge likewise.




I don't think you're understanding the point.  Back then the effects could have been the bee's knees.  That's got poo all to do with today, though.  Hell man, that's the _point_.  The time it was made has nothing to do with how it looks _today_.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 18, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I don't think you're understanding the point.  Back then the effects could have been the bee's knees.  That's got poo all to do with today, though.  Hell man, that's the _point_.  The time it was made has nothing to do with how it looks _today_.




I haven't missed the point at all.  I said previously that's like criticizing a classic Ford Mustang from the 60s for not being a Pagani Zonda. 

If you look at modern music, there were some electric guitar and bass techniques pioneered in the 1960s and 1970s.  Some of those pioneering techniques have become the hallmarks of _mere competence_ for guitarists and bass players of this era.

Criticizing those pioneers as being less technically accomplished as those who built upon their work over the subsequent decades is simply unfair.

A cave painting at Lasceaux is not any less amazing because it isn't a photorealistic composition.

If someone were to remake Terminator using the techniques of the 1980's, criticizing the nature of the project's SFX as being dated would be a valid critique.

But looking at the original as it stands, though, and judging it as flawed because a 30 year old film's SFX don't look as good as CGI SFX of the films of the current era...that's just as unfair.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 18, 2013)

I think T2 has aged worse. The CGI is really ropey by today's standards. It continues to age every year. The model work in T1 aged for a while, but it kinda stopped aging 15 years ago.

T1 is more visceral than T2. And less kiddy - nobody guns down a nightclub full of people in cold blood in T2. And Hamilton's performance is better. I agree T2 is a better movie, but T1 has strengths T2 doesn't. And doesn't have that dodgy CGI.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 18, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I think T2 has aged worse. The CGI is really ropey by today's standards. It continues to age every year. The model work in T1 aged for a while, but it kinda stopped aging 15 years ago.



The CGI aged rather well and could compete with some films today.



> T1 is more visceral than T2. And less kiddy - nobody guns down a nightclub full of people in cold blood in T2. And Hamilton's performance is better. I agree T2 is a better movie, but T1 has strengths T2 doesn't. And doesn't have that dodgy CGI.



Whoa! You're kidding, right? The shootings in T-1 are rather comical and Hamilton's acting was also comical. T-2 is very adult, dark and violent. Hamilton is a tranformed woman. The atmosphere is more oppressive, the sense of being a tracked beast is actually achieved.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 18, 2013)

goldomark said:


> The CGI aged rather well and could compete with some films today.




I don't think so. That bit where the T1000 walks out of the flames of the truck looked awful 10 years ago, let alone now. It's pretty dire.



> Whoa! You're kidding, right? The shootings in T-1 are rather comical and Hamilton's acting was also comical. T-2 is very adult, dark and violent. Hamilton is a tranformed woman. The atmosphere is more oppressive, the sense of being a tracked beast is actually achieved.




T2 feels like a sterilized Disney flick in comparison. It's far more kiddy.

It's still a better movie, but *that's* not why!


----------



## Scorpio616 (Dec 19, 2013)

Morrus said:


> T2 feels like a sterilized Disney flick in comparison. It's far more kiddy.



Agreed, had it been made today, the studio would forced a PG-13 onto it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 19, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I don't think so. That bit where the T1000 walks out of the flames of the truck looked awful 10 years ago, let alone now. It's pretty dire.



Not has a bad as the Hobbit film when the crew get off the eagles. That was pretty bad CGI.



> T2 feels like a sterilized Disney flick in comparison. It's far more kiddy.



Really? I just watched the shooting in the police station. It is pretty tame. No blood or gore, just cops getting shot (jumping back). Nothing special. No tension, no sense of aesthetics, no blood and rather comical. Disposable cops. Having a lot of people getting shot doesn't mean it is more gritty. How it is done is important too.  

When the T-1000 kills John's dad with a blade though the head, it is not "kiddy". There is an effort to create an emotional impact on the viewer by surprising him with a rather graphic image that is unveiled gradually. There is a sense of aesthetic and actual blood! There is an emotional impact with just one death.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 19, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I haven't missed the point at all.  I said previously that's like criticizing a classic Ford Mustang from the 60s for not being a Pagani Zonda.




I'm not trying to be a rooster about it, I really do think you're missing the point.  This example leads me to believe I'm right.  This appears to be some sort of misunderstanding.

Lemme try and explain: We wouldn't be criticizing the '60s Mustang because it _did _age well.  So well, in fact, that current styling uses it as a sort of rough template.  This is the _opposite _of what goldo is saying.  Had the Mustang aged poorly, comparing it negatively to a Zonda (which, by the way, I still prefer to the Huayra - though just) would be just fine.  Thing is, it didn't.  Its image is classic.  The SFX in whichever Terminator movie he doesn't like aren't.  Cuz they failed to age well.

Basically it's like this: Can you negatively compare a '60s Mustang to a Zonda?  No.  They're both beautiful _today_.  Can you negatively compare the SFX in T? to those done in some action blockbuster today?  Yes.  The SFX in T? look silly nowdays.

RE: Terribad CGI:

The worst CGI I've ever seen was in The Day After Tomorrow (and no, I didn't want to see that movie ... d-bag friends ...).  There's these wolves and ... wow.  That's all I can say.  And that's a relatively modern movie.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 19, 2013)

> 60s Mustang because it did age well




Only if you look at it aesthetically...and on no other basis.  As a whole, though, those Mustangs are more dangerous in a crash, are more difficult to handle in both normal and emergency conditions, pollute more, are less aerodynamic, are less fuel efficient, have worse power/weight ratios...and had their HP calculated by methods that inflated the numbers compared to today's standards (IOW, they were not as powerful as Ford claimed them to be).  I could go on.

But on several of those engineering criteria I just mentioned, the Mustangs were state of the art when created, so criticizing them for not being as good as a Zonda in those aspects is an unfair comparison.

We appreciate those Mustangs more for what they were than how they stack up today.  Outside of their context, they're terrible.  Their timeless element is their aesthetics...and nothing else.

With movie SFX, the same standard applies.  It is a technology-driven field, and it simply isn't fair to compare the SFX tech of the 1980s to the CGI of the movies that followed.  It has aesthetic consequences, but it is, essentially, technology & engineering.

The timeless elements of films are their writing & acting.  _That_ is fair game to compare over the ages.

IMHO, while the acting in _Terminator_ was hardly Shakespearean, I'd be hard pressed to name a better depiction of a truly soulless killing machine in human form than Arnold's.  The writing made for a tight Sci-Fi thriller.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 19, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Only if you look at it aesthetically...and on no other basis.



Ain't that was is important with FXs?



> Their timeless element is their aesthetics...and nothing else.



T-1's FX do not even have that.



> With movie SFX, the same standard applies.  It is a technology-driven field, and it simply isn't fair to compare the SFX tech of the 1980s to the CGI of the movies that followed.  It has aesthetic consequences, but it is, essentially, technology & engineering.



FXs, for viewers, are all about aesthetics. 

The tech aspect is more of a curiosity for FX aficionados, but they are a minority. I do not think we were talking about the appeal films can have to a minority. 



> The timeless elements of films are their writing & acting.  _That_ is fair game to compare over the ages.



And the premise of the film, a robot from the future searching for the mother of bla bla bla..., is really what is interesting about the film. T-1 has historical value for films and sci-fi fans.



> IMHO, while the acting in _Terminator_ was hardly Shakespearean, I'd be hard pressed to name a better depiction of a truly soulless killing machine in human form than Arnold's.  The writing made for a tight Sci-Fi thriller.



Arny was the better actor here. Hamilton wasn't very convincing (badly written part?) and the guy was meh too. 

The idea was interesting (althought inspired from another source), that I agree, but good ideas do not make great films when they are badly executed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 19, 2013)

> Ain't that was is important with FXs?




Yes & no.

SFX are technology & engineering with aesthetic repercussions.  Sure, modern CGI may look better- though there ain't no guarantee (I always thought the _American Werewolf in London _ werewolf looked better than the one in the sequel)- but criticizing SFX that couldn't be any technically better on their aesthetics alone is, at best underinformed critique, if not outright unfair.

Are the space battles in nBSG or Bab5 more realistic than in the old Flash Gorden serials?  Without question.  Is it fair to criticize the serials' SFX for not looking as good as BSG? Absolutely not.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 19, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Only if you look at it aesthetically...and on no other basis.  As a whole, though, those Mustangs are more dangerous in a crash, are more difficult to handle in both normal and emergency conditions, pollute more, are less aerodynamic, are less fuel efficient, have worse power/weight ratios...and had their HP calculated by methods that inflated the numbers compared to today's standards (IOW, they were not as powerful as Ford claimed them to be).  I could go on.
> 
> But on several of those engineering criteria I just mentioned, the Mustangs were state of the art when created, so criticizing them for not being as good as a Zonda in those aspects is an unfair comparison.
> 
> ...




dood, we're talking about aesthetics.  That's what the whole thing is about.  Aesthetically speaking the SFX do not hold up.  It doesn't matter how they were made, it only matters how they look - which is, compared to today, bad.  We're talking about what you can actually _see_ and that's it.

For the record, some auto makers in the '60s _reduced _the HP ratings on their cars for insurance purposes.  They've actually tested motors like the 426 Hemi and found that the actual power produced was more than what Chrysler said it was back in the day.

The reason some seem to be 'overrated' is because the standard of measurement changed.  Back then, the motor was tested on a stand and without certain accessories that could rob performance.  The standard was changed because emissions became a big deal so the engines in the '70s and later were tested with performance robbing accessories on.  Same motor, same potential but tested at different stages of installation, so to speak.  And then some test for rear wheel HP rather than at the crank.  You wanna see numbers drop, that's one surefire way to make it happen - about 30%.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 20, 2013)

> dood, we're talking about aesthetics. That's what the whole thing is about. Aesthetically speaking the SFX do not hold up. It doesn't matter how they were made, it only matters how they look - which is, compared to today, bad. We're talking about what you can actually see and that's it.



I know what we're discussing.  I understand aesthetics not only as a consumer, but also as a degreed student of he arts, and as an ongoing producer in several mediums.

In post#35, I brought up guitarists, bass-players, and the comparison of Lasceaux to photorealism, and later, he Flash Gordon Serials, all for a reason: *all art, regardless of its medium, is inextricably tied to the technologies used to create it.*.   Or, in simpler terms, available tech affects aesthetics.

To say that an artwork "does not hold up" aesthetically when it was produced at or near the pinnacle of the technology used to create it is an injustice to both the artist and his creations.

Despite there being no appreciable difference between perceptive and motor capabilities of their creators, no resident of the caves of Lasceaux tens of thousands of years ago could possibly have created a photorealistic portrait because he lacked the tech to do so.  Criticizing such a cave painting as "not holding up" to a photorealistic portrayal of the same subject would be simply wrong.

Certain colors only became available to artists after a certain point in time.  And some have even been lost to those who only create certain kinds of physical art- the materials & processes used to create those colors are too rare or hazardous to use anymore.

Criticizing Jimi Hedrix for not using AutoTune would likewise be wrong (and for other reasons besides)- that tech was not available to him.  And Beethoven or Shostakovich might have loved to have composed using the sounds of an overdriven Orange amp, but that is an impossibility.

Ditto the work of SFX makers.  Tech affects aesthetics.

If you only look at the surface of what is created, you're missing out on so much of WHY it is what it is.  You're only looking at the pictures on the menu, not eating the meal.

To be fair, all art has the sujective component of what the mind of the perceiver: what he or she brings to the experiences frets what he takes away.  Not all artistic expressions resonate with all persons.  I can respect the artistry of the writings of James Joyce or T.S Elliott without actually liking them.

But again, I don't criticize works on the basis of what they cannot possibly be.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 20, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I know what we're discussing.  I understand aesthetics not only as a consumer, but also as a degreed student of he arts, and as an ongoing producer in several mediums.
> 
> In post#35, I brought up guitarists, bass-players, and the comparison of Lasceaux to photorealism, and later, he Flash Gordon Serials, all for a reason: *all art, regardless of its medium, is inextricably tied to the technologies used to create it.*.   Or, in simpler terms, available tech affects aesthetics.
> 
> ...





Meh, I still don't think you're seeing this correctly - you're adding weight where you shouldn't.  It doesn't matter what tech they did or didn't have - most people watching don't care.  What they _do _care about is how it looks and today it happens to look bad.  That's not taking a shot at the folks that made the effects or disrespecting what they did, it's simply acknowledging that the improvements in tech have most certainly made earlier work appear worse because, comparatively, it is.  That's no indictment of any artist, it's just a simple fact.  The effects really don't hold up ... and you've done a really nice job of explaining why.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 20, 2013)

> ...most people watching don't care.




Which is a pity.

But if _we're_ going to engage in an honest critique of an artistic expression, we should do so like the actual critics do.  You don't hear pros saying a movie sucks because its SFX have been outdone by the march of technology.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 20, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Are the space battles in nBSG or Bab5 more realistic than in the old Flash Gorden serials?



Heck, let's compare the space battles in B5 to nBSG. The latter's technical sophistication eclipses the formers, despite being just under a decade apart. I think both look great. 

B5 has some marvelous design work and brilliantly composed/constructed effects sequences. They're not as technically complex as nBGS's --which is no slouch in the artist effects department -- but it doesn't matter. They're still good art, and lightyears ahead of a lot of more modern affects work, which often disregards many time-honored principles of visual art in favor of being able to model a zillion particles/shaded textured objects at once. Oh locus of interest, how I miss you sometimes.  

As for the original Terminator, it's got a few standout effects that hold up, like the robot-tank rolling over the pile of skulls in the flash-forward, and the scrolling-response Terminator-vision, which has held up to the point of being an oft-parodied mainstream cultural reference.

Full disclosure: I _like_ the stop-motion Terminator skeleton, and stop-motion animation in general. Old-school practical effects like that have their charm, and even outright advantages --like a palpable sense of weigh.   [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] - FYI, there's a good documentary about Ray Harryhausen on Netflix, which showcases some really terrific effects work, stuff whose artistry will always keep them "relevant".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 20, 2013)

One thing I prefer about B5's space battles to this day is that the human fighters had all kinds of maneuvering thrusters, as opposed to just being fighter planes in space.  You got a little bit of that in nBSG, but not as much- usually only when the aces pulled off a nifty stunt.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 20, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which is a pity.
> 
> But if _we're_ going to engage in an honest critique of an artistic expression, we should do so like the actual critics do.  You don't hear pros saying a movie sucks because its SFX have been outdone by the march of technology.




That's not what went down.  One guy said he didn't like the movie for multiple reasons - one of which was the FX.  It wasn't some treatise on SFX of the time, it was a simple explanation.  It developed into some oddball uber exploration of what SFX were and are cuz some people simply couldn't accept what was said for some reason.

Basically it was an offhand comment.  It was presented as a regular viewer would present it and not some critic.  Going past that is delving into a wholly different discussion that has little if anything to do with what was being discussed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 20, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes & no.
> 
> SFX are technology & engineering with aesthetic repercussions.  Sure, modern CGI may look better- though there ain't no guarantee (I always thought the _American Werewolf in London _ werewolf looked better than the one in the sequel)- but criticizing SFX that couldn't be any technically better on their aesthetics alone is, at best underinformed critique, if not outright unfair.
> 
> Are the space battles in nBSG or Bab5 more realistic than in the old Flash Gorden serials?  Without question.  Is it fair to criticize the serials' SFX for not looking as good as BSG? Absolutely not.



It is as fair as saying that some books or stories have not aged well. _Rossum's Universal Robots_ did not age well compared to say _A Brave New World_, even if R.U.R. was very popular at the time. Now it is a curiosity because of what it brought to sci-fi.

Some films have aged well, some have not. It is not a question of fairness, just simple fact. Saying technology wasn't great explains why the film didn't age well, but it does not contradict the fact that it did, and it certainly does not adress all the other critiques I adressed the film.


----------

