Saving Private Ryan is a better war film. The battle scenes are choreographed and executed much better. The journey of the characters is more clear. The narrative is tighter and more concise. And it rings more true to the experience of actual soldiers. The Thin Red Line is slightly self-important, and all the cameos are just silly. Its a great film. I love Malik, but its just overly indulgent sometimes. I am not interested in comparing Malik to Spielberg. i like Malik better as a filmmaker, but when talking about translating the visceral experience of war to the screen, I pick Saving Private Ryan hands down.
I agree with this, DADA: “Malick is foremost concerned with conflict in nature, and he logically sees human war as an archetypal embodiment of this. And what’s a more archetypal war than World War Two? Malick’s exploration is outside of time. For its intentions, Spielberg’s exploration must be entrenched within the time and place.”
This is why I prefer SPR as a war film. TLR feels like a movie about what war is, while SPR actually feels like war. I realize that SPR has problems. Its overly patriotic and the Germans are too archetypal, but the film succeeds where TRL fails by delivering a more realistic, visceral experience. I know that I’m in the minority here, but C’est la vie!
So earlier this week, Peter Jackson announced that he is shooting (and plans on projecting) at 48 frames per second. Have we ever seen 48fps before? I’ve seen 60 and I’ve seen 30 and I’ve seen higher frame rates played back at 24p in slow motion, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen 48fps. Does it look like 24p? Or does it feel like a soap opera? I am very concerned about what seems to be a movement among some filmmakers to shoot at higher frames rates. From what I’ve seen, I much prefer the look of 24p. Does anyone out there have any helpful information about this? Thanks!
Yeah, I watched this the other day. I think it looks horrible. I honestly don’t know what all the hype is about. It looks like really crisp home video. I really can’t imagine movies going in this direction. If someone out there can articulate why this is better, I am all ears.
I think the average movie goer will recognize that it looks like home video, like a BBC production, or like live TV, and feel like something is off without being able tio articulate it.
Malick vs. Spielberg over 1 year ago
Saving Private Ryan is a better war film. The battle scenes are choreographed and executed much better. The journey of the characters is more clear. The narrative is tighter and more concise. And it rings more true to the experience of actual soldiers. The Thin Red Line is slightly self-important, and all the cameos are just silly. Its a great film. I love Malik, but its just overly indulgent sometimes. I am not interested in comparing Malik to Spielberg. i like Malik better as a filmmaker, but when talking about translating the visceral experience of war to the screen, I pick Saving Private Ryan hands down.
I agree with this, DADA: “Malick is foremost concerned with conflict in nature, and he logically sees human war as an archetypal embodiment of this. And what’s a more archetypal war than World War Two? Malick’s exploration is outside of time. For its intentions, Spielberg’s exploration must be entrenched within the time and place.”
This is why I prefer SPR as a war film. TLR feels like a movie about what war is, while SPR actually feels like war. I realize that SPR has problems. Its overly patriotic and the Germans are too archetypal, but the film succeeds where TRL fails by delivering a more realistic, visceral experience. I know that I’m in the minority here, but C’est la vie!
Go to Comment
48 Frames Per Second over 1 year ago
So earlier this week, Peter Jackson announced that he is shooting (and plans on projecting) at 48 frames per second. Have we ever seen 48fps before? I’ve seen 60 and I’ve seen 30 and I’ve seen higher frame rates played back at 24p in slow motion, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen 48fps. Does it look like 24p? Or does it feel like a soap opera? I am very concerned about what seems to be a movement among some filmmakers to shoot at higher frames rates. From what I’ve seen, I much prefer the look of 24p. Does anyone out there have any helpful information about this? Thanks!
Go to Comment
48 Frames Per Second over 1 year ago
Yeah, I watched this the other day. I think it looks horrible. I honestly don’t know what all the hype is about. It looks like really crisp home video. I really can’t imagine movies going in this direction. If someone out there can articulate why this is better, I am all ears.
Go to Comment
48 Frames Per Second about 1 year ago
Here we have reactions to an early screening of some footage at 48fps. Check it out it. They were none too pleased.
http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html
Go to Comment
48 Frames Per Second about 1 year ago
I think the average movie goer will recognize that it looks like home video, like a BBC production, or like live TV, and feel like something is off without being able tio articulate it.
Go to Comment
48 Frames Per Second about 1 year ago
People are accustomed to movies looking a certain way (24fps) and will notice a difference at 48fps even if they can’t articulate why.
Go to Comment