Seems like the big guy is into sidescrolling and old school non-first-person games. Cool :)
"For those who didn't know, Smith is a huge gamer. In fact, he had to tear himself away from his Nintendo DS and the New Super Mario Bros. game to do this phone interview. He already went through the game once as Mario and then returned as Luigi for another go-round. I'm a big fan of scrolling games," said Smith. "I'm not into first-person games. My theory is you're a game fan of the games you came up with and I came up in the scrolling world. So I still love to this day scrolling games. That's why I'm so entranced with that Mario game on Nintendo DS. It's just a total scrolling game with great graphics."
"When it comes to the convergence of Hollywood and games, Smith believes there's a way to bring Jay and Silent Bob to the interactive realm, but he needs some help.
"I'm really not good enough to pull it off," said Smith. "Games is one field that I like to be entertained, rather than try to be entertaining. For years, people have been telling me to do a Jay and Silent Bob game. I'd be all for it, but I'm just not the guy to do it. I'd be happy to write the back story for the game, but when it comes to what are the levels and challenges and bosses and things like that, I'm so not good at coming up with that kind of stuff. It'd be nice if someone came out with a Jay and Silent Bob game. I'd play it in a heartbeat."
Check out the full interview here -> http://videogames.yahoo.com/ongoingfeature?eid=496569&page=0
Anyone ever thought of making a Jay and Bob fan-game?
Ooooh a Jay & Silent Bob game would be interesting but I doubt any animated version of them, even in 3D, would work. They just have this presence. For Instance, the Bill & Ted game.
I hope they at least get the Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith to do the voices or it would just be a failure.
Yea it's good that no one ever tried to make a cartoon version of Jay and Silent Bob or any of the cast from Clerks. Thank God.
Bluntman and Chronic, what?
Quote from: big brother on Thu 14/12/2006 16:36:23
Yea it's good that no one ever tried to make a cartoon version of Jay and Silent Bob or any of the cast from Clerks. Thank God.
Bluntman and Chronic, what?
Is that sarcasm or do you just not know about this:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0210413/
I think that was a smorgasbord of sarcasm.
Geeze Clerks 2 was so unremarkable. You think 3 years from now anybody will care about Smith's opinions of LOTR or Star Wars? That's all that movie was.
à  liked Clerks 2. His fans obviously liked it... even a fair few critics have good things to say.
"Smith is finally maturing into the modern voice of a disaffected generation, a label he earned rather haphazardly a decade before. Clerks II takes a stand against the notion that personal happiness is a hindrance to social advancement, as if the two concepts were so mutually exclusive that they could never live happily in the same sentiment. As his own career has proved, one can stay true to his talents and still become bigger than his own individual ideology. Clerks II should be the movie that makes Kevin Smith more than just a known name in certain households. It's a wonderful work of jokey genius."
If all you got from the movie was the star wars vs. lotr gags Smith isn't for you my friend.
evenwolf:
pff, I never cared what his opinions on various movies was... Ya'll are just trying to bite my style!
"Smith is finally maturing into the modern voice of a disaffected generation, a label he earned rather haphazardly a decade before."
That wordy piece of pie just says "Kevin Smith is maturing as a filmmaker." My point was not that "Kevin Smith's Clerks 2 was forgettable." My point was "the movie Clerks 2 was forgettable." Secondly, have you seen Clerks? How could anybody NOT mature as a filmmaker after that? Its like watching a play thats been recorded.
Don't go and try to dismember my opinion because "you get" Smith. Do you "get" his visual style? Because he doesn't have one. There's nothing to get. Even his cinematographers will admit that. The guy loves his dialogue and sure enough it's funny. But when all you can say about a movie is "the filmmaker's dialogue is improving" well maybe the guy has other things to focus on. Words are forgettable! Time to make it a little more cinematic!
Wes Anderson, now there's a guy who makes memorable films.
Am I the only one who thinks Kevin smith could be just a name for any John Doe out there and has not the slightest idea who on earth people are talking about here?
QuoteSecondly, have you seen Clerks? How could anybody NOT mature as a filmmaker after that? Its like watching a play thats been recorded.
I have seen Clerks .. and sure its rough, but to the people who enjoy it .. we do *because* it's rough, had a small budget, and the entire movie is all about dialogue. Kevin Smith films are all about the dialogue.
QuoteDon't go and try to dismember my opinion because "you get" Smith. Do you "get" his visual style? Because he doesn't have one.
I know he doesn't have a perticurlar visual style .. he (smith) is the first person who'll admit that.
QuoteBut when all you can say about a movie is "the filmmaker's dialogue is improving" well maybe the guy has other things to focus on.
What do you mean his dialogue is improving? As a fan, i can say that his dialogue is as great as ever .. not perticularly better than any of his other film and certainly not worse. I'd say thats the way he ordinary writes ...
But look at the movie. For you that movie must be 10x better visually than Clerks. Obviously the visuals have improved... it doesn't have the visuals of 'Pearl Harbour' but it's not bad?
QuoteWords are forgettable! Time to make it a little more cinematic!
Now thats just lame ... sure you go to the summer blockbusters for the cool visuals, but for a movie that centers around the dialogue and characters .. hello?! It's not an action movie.. it's all about the clerks standing around talking
QuoteWes Anderson, now there's a guy who makes memorable films.
I really don't know the guy so I can't take up that argument ... all I know is I didn't like 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou' but it had nothing to do with the visuals. And all I remember from 'The Royal Tenenbaums' is tennis and Ben Stiller cutting his wrist. So I don't know ... anybody else have an oppinion on this?
Hmm, I think I just realized where your and my difference of opinions of Clerks 2 stem from.
For me, Smith's rough style has always been unnecessary. I love the dialogue, don't get me wrong but that should never carry the movie completely. Look at Tarantino. His dialogue has always been the most talked about thing. Reservoir Dogs was all dialogue but it carried so well. Pulp Fiction is one of the most qoutable movies ever. But he enjoys the cinematic so much that he creates this entire visual style for his movies. He's got the dialogue AND the style.
Now Kevin Smith on the other hand, broke out with Clerks. Understandably, it looked rough. Its just "set up the camera here because this person is talking. Now move the camera here for the reverse shot. Now here because we see this guy's reaction" real typical stuff. The focus is on the dialogue.
But several movies down the line, he's still doing that. Nothing much cinematic. You know, dolly shots, crane shots, aerial photography? He keeps it so simple all you really see is talking heads. And it wouldn't be a big deal except he hires on an entire department of people to be his "eyes". The cinematographer and the camera department surely have ideas for cinematic shots and angles, but it always comes down to Kevin keeping it simple.
But all the shots look the same and the photography is boring. You said Clerks 2 is 10x better and I wholeheartedly disagree. With his pull and number of resources... all he chooses to do is add color?
Chasing Amy is his best. But his most memorable (because of the visuals!) is Dogma. I even liked Jersey Girl which he calls his biggest sellout movie. Clerks 2 had nothing going on. He made the conscious decision to cut back on cinematics & make it a true sequel to what was essentially a student film.
And that's exactly what it feels like.
What, an awesome movie sequel to an awesome movie?
How dare he!
(I immensely enjoyed both Clerks movies and I know I'm not the only one. Opinions differ ;D)
QuoteOpinions differ
Roughly 60% - 40% I'm afraid.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/clerks_2/
evenwolf:
Clerks 2 had at least two craneshots and a 360' .. thats gotto count for something ;D
Quotebut it always comes down to Kevin keeping it simple
I've allways read that he keeps most of the visuals up to the visual director thingy guy.
But sure on some level I get what you are saying ... but you either love the film or you don't ..
If you love a film or a book or etc. you tend not to critisize it. You just love it ;D
Those who don't like other stuff ;)
To end with a question for everybody.. what is worse - a great looking film with crap story and dialogue or great story and dialoge with less quality visuals?
I think Kevin Smith movies are really bad mostly. I enjoyed Chasing Amy to a degree. The rest - and I've seen sadly, 4 more films of his - were very bad in most respects. I wonder why he has a following.
QuoteI wonder why he has a following.
Because some people like to revel in all things awful!
Jay and Silent Bob? Weren't those guys the "prophets" in Dogma?
Quote from: Helm on Sat 16/12/2006 00:01:47
I wonder why he has a following.
Because he communicates with his audience. He toured through the usa as a guest speaker at universities. He's a fan pleaser.
He isn't a very good director, he can't do much except conversations (and lately even those are bad donkey sex jokes).
Anyway, if you're famous and give normal people attention, they'll become fans, no matter if your latest movies suck.
Trovatore: Yes they where ... they are featured in allmost every Smith movie from the Askewniverse.
QuoteHe isn't a very good director, he can't do much except conversations (and lately even those are bad donkey sex jokes).
Anyway, if you're famous and give normal people attention, they'll become fans, no matter if your latest movies suck.
Oh come on .. thats a personal oppinion. You can't discredit a director simply because you don't like his films.
I'm not much of a Tarantino fan, the rape in Pulp I thought was too much. But I apprechiate the guy as a good director even though I'm not a fan. I'll give you the donkey thing in Clerks 2 was over the top, but it was hillarious and had another director (say Tarantino) tried the same it would probably be more discusting then it was in Smith's movie.
Quote from: Jaws on Sat 16/12/2006 23:14:23
Oh come on .. thats a personal oppinion.
Yup. Sure is. Is there any other sort of oppinion?
QuoteYou can't discredit a director simply because you don't like his films.
Why is that? I'd say that's the best reason to discredit a director. What am I supposed to do, give him credit because other people like him? A lot of people buy Pussycat Dolls cds, am I supposed to see the merit in their work too?
QuoteI'm not much of a Tarantino fan, the rape in Pulp I thought was too much. But I apprechiate the guy as a good director even though I'm not a fan. I'll give you the donkey thing in Clerks 2 was over the top, but it was hillarious and had another director (say Tarantino) tried the same it would probably be more discusting then it was in Smith's movie.
You're putting Tarantino and Smith in two corners here but I find both to not be very appealing. At least Tarantino knows his cinematography, he can do good timing, inventive angles and use the relative strengths of the medium, unlike Smith, I guess. But still, it goes to show what kind of level we're talking about when there's people like Darren Aronofsky, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Chan-wook Park making movies and we're comparing Kevin Smith and Tarantino.
Ok you win.
I'm not really good at discussing movies or directors ;)
I like what I like and ignore what I don't like.
Of course you don't give anyone credit for other peoples affection ... but I've never disliked a director for a film I don't like.... the experience goes further for me. The actors, the topic of the film, the actors, that to me is more important than the look of the film.
But sure Smith isn't a top director ... he makes the movies he wants to and has made a living out of it, and with his own words not sold out except for 'jersey girl' (which the calls the total sell-out movie).
Sure it's all based on personal oppinions and feelings in the end. But I feel it's wrong to rag on something simply because you don't have a taste for it. Accept it for what it is, and the people who like it. (Except for mainstream punk and rap.)
Man I suck at argumenting.
yeah you're contradicting yourself a lot
QuoteBut I feel it's wrong to rag on something simply because you don't have a taste for it.
What would be a better reason to "rag" on it? Not having a taste for something is simple a matter of degrees from vehemently hating something, is it not? Is there a line, somewhere along there, where it stops being okay to criticize? You can say rap is bad, but not rock? (I know that was a joke, but your tone suggests the joke was "haha, those morons who like rap" and not "haha, and of course there would be a hypocritical exception that everyone is expected to agree with it". Don't get me wrong; I don't like rap. But that comment makes what comes before it seem exceedingly hollow and, well, hypocritical -- though perhaps I've simply misjudged your intent.)
Um ... What I'm trying to say is that ... well first of all ... I'm not saying that all rap is bad and all rock is good ..
I specified mainstream rap and punk wich I find to be watered down and commerical and way too based on trends.
All music styles have good elements and bad .. unfortunately the bad elements (in my mind) are liked by other peple.
I try to keep everyone happy and try to find good elements in everything... and not critisize people for their taste and or dislikes of my music\movies\books. I might not like everything but hey .. A movie with a plot that sucks and actors that can't act can still be enjoyed for the music and lighting.
Yet again I don't know where I'm going with this ... I can't even remember what I am debating for.
Hey Jaws, its cool man. Don't worry about all this because ultimately you like what you like and you shouldn't bring in higher elements like other people's opinions or whatever.
Sorry I hijacked the thread. I just wanted to express distaste for his latest movie because it was, IMO, unremarkable. The focus on other movies was novel but will quickly be nothing more than a meaningless anachronism.
Like I said, I enjoy most of his movies: Clerks, Dogman, Chasing Amy, and probably one other.. maybe.
Hey, no worries man :) If a thread originally started with the info that a filmmaker enjoys video games can't morf into a discussion of movies vs. general oppinions what has the world come to.
I had to start arguing ;D I take the blame.
I actually like Dogma better than Jay and Bob and Clerks 2. It's all good.
Anyone want to set up a thread remarking the recent thinness of Kirk Hammet's hair that can morf into a discussion of mainstream music's inpact on the worlds youth?
I'd rather start a thread about a famous guy becoming a racist and then actually identify myself to the world that I, indeed, am a racist. (sarcastic smiley)
Eh, what?
A famous guy becoming racist ... then you revealing to the world that you are a racist? ???
QuoteI try to keep everyone happy
First mistake.
Hehe .. yeah I'm sure it is.
But what I mean with that is I rarely critisize someone for their music taste ... I try to find the good things in that genre or with that band, even if I don't like it.
As a musician I know that there is allways things in every genre that can be interpolated into my own preferred genres.
Get insiration from everything. Never disregard anything simply because you don't like it.
The same goes for movies, as i've tried but failed to express :)
I'm going to study the practical side of filmmaking next year, and i'm sure we'll have to watch a fair few movies during the year and I'm sure I won't like all of them ... but there are without question things that can be apprechiated and things to draw inspiration from none the less.
Quotebut there are without question things that can be apprechiated and things to draw inspiration from none the less.
There are Jaws. For sure.
With music listening to everything never hurts. But usually you know after a couple songs (6-9 minutes). A person buys an $8 movie ticket and doesn't like it.... that's two hours of discomfort. However, I usually see bad movies as lessons just like you.
Bloodrayne is the best lesson of them all!
QuoteGet inspiration from everything. Never disregard anything simply because you don't like it.
I agree. But there's a difference between disregarding something and criticizing it.
Which would mean what?
evenwolf:
Sure but that wouldn't work on me ... I've never seen a movie in the cinema that I didn't at least mildly enjoy.
If i'm unsure about a movie, I wait and loan the dvd. For 'the movies' I only go to see movies i know I will enjoy.
And it's more expensive here in norway. One ticket is allmost 16$ here.
You seem to have this idea that we should be nice to everything and everyone, and that criticisms are inherently a questioning of the worth of something. There is a tendency in today's world -- and perhaps there always has been, but I haven't been in any other world so I wouldn't really know -- to preach conflict-avoidance and appeasement and "everyone is special" and "all opinions are equal". This is what I see in your posts -- perhaps not directly or intentionally, but even the specter of that is enough to scare me, because I think that is some of the most dangerous thinking in the world: a celebration of stagnation and degradation.
You shouldn't be afraid of conflict -- besides the physical kind, anyway.
So, yes, one should consider all aspects of something and not dismiss it out of hand; but having considered, one has to be prepared to say it's crap when it is.
Or something. I realize this is worded about as well as your previous posts (which is to say, not very.)
Personal attacks now eh? ;D
Sure if you haven't dismissed something outright in the end you can call everything you want crap.
And conflict shouldn't be avoided .. diversity and induvidualism should be encouraged ;)
Question everything but don't critisize just to critisize.
Optimism is still a pretty cool thing. It doesn't apply much to media when there are obvious examples of crap: Uwe Boll's movies and William Hung songs.....
but there are times when people witness an exciting marketing campaign and then experience a disappointing product. (For instance, they see a cool trailer or hear good word of mouth.) And then the movie just sucks.
But there is a trend on and off the internet to criticize everything. To sit above the subject and look down on it. And then preach about how bad it is. I would cite Harry Knowles as one of the first to throw his opinion around the internet and actually get a following.... AND furthermore encourage other people to spread their opinions around. And its sort of sad, and I'm guilty of the cynicism myself. But its good.
Its good because it opens a dialogue. And as long as the dialogue stays above the petty disputes of the individuals- its as close to anythign democratic that you'll ever get. Arguments form, people find people to like or hate. Special interest groups form..... there's a whole lot that stems from opinions, good or bad.
Quote from: evenwolf on Sun 17/12/2006 02:14:23A person buys an $8 movie ticket and doesn't like it.... that's two hours of discomfort.
Unless you walk out. Anyone ever done that? I don't know, after paying $8+ for my ticket, plus popcorn and soda, I kind of feel determined to "enjoy" the movie come hell or high water.
Although I remember reading somewhere that, in more cases than not, if you walk out and complain to the theater, you'll actually get a refund or a credit to see another movie. I find it kind of hard to believe. But I guess you never know until you try.
Quoteget a refund or a credit to see another movie. I find it kind of hard to believe.
Eager, definitely. Altho Ive never said that the movie's content was bad. The theatre is hardly responsible for that. Theaters have a responsibility for image quality and sound quality. They'll ask you for a reason in most cases. I watched "Walked the Line" and the screen went blurry a couple times. We told management afterward and got gift cards for another movie. It's pretty easy but you don't want to act like an ass to some poor employee who's getting minimum wage.
Ive gotten "money back" for bad reel changes, blurry image quality, bad audio.. and once every often - the movie stopping and never coming back on. One time I got to see three movies for free because a movie was late to arrive. I saw two Kurosawa and another one (May?) and I wasn't even there for Kurosawa. I had just overheard people were getting in for free. It was such a wonderful coincidence because I was introduced to Kurosawa who is still one of my favorite filmmakers.
So yes, theaters want you to enjoy yourself but only complain if they screw up technically. If people complain because the movie was "bad" there will be limits put on refunds.
I've never walked out of a cinema. There's little reason to do that.
But I have walked out a couple of times in concerts (especially classical ones, where people get completly stunned! In the middlde of a piece. I have decided a couple of time that my times was much more precious than even waiting for a piece to finish, and I do pass over the message.), and a few more times in the theater, again not in a break, or interval, but in the middle of the show.
It's my way of saying that the concert/play/artists sucked soooo much that I HAD to leave right then!
I don't mind clerks (the first one), as it was quite witty, and it did reach some cult dimensions (which I usually don't enjoy...). All other films I've seen from Kevin, are really worst.
Quote from: Redwall on Sun 17/12/2006 02:38:11
You seem to have this idea that we should be nice to everything and everyone, and that criticisms are inherently a questioning of the worth of something. There is a tendency in today's world -- and perhaps there always has been, but I haven't been in any other world so I wouldn't really know -- to preach conflict-avoidance and appeasement and "everyone is special" and "all opinions are equal".
I'm actually with Jaws here. There seems (to me) to be a trend in the exact opposite direction, that if something is crap, don't spare it's feelings. Crap. Bullshit. In your face.
There is always SOMETHING, something that redeems the...artpiece(?) somewhat. If it was so bad it shouldn't exist, it wouldn't exist. Someone obviously saw something in it, otherwise it wouldn't be there. I had a roommate who was very insistant in playing Heavy Metal. Previously I had thought that there was little to metal from people with leather tights and chains who went on long guitar solos interspaced with fake creepy voices. Most of that has still proven true ;D , but I've also learnt to appreciate some of it (or some parts of it, at least).
It's not a evilness to be below standard. It's just a mistake. People don't wish to be crap on purpose. While it should be everyones goal to get better, there is a certain type of "criticism" that just puts you down, and doesn't help at all. Sure, it may be "cool" to dismiss everything out of hand and say it's sucks except for that small, narrow, singular field that you happen to be interested in, but that's just wishful thinking. I don't see how:
Important Cool Person: XYZ sucks!
Not so important person: But it doesn't, really
Important Cool Person being clever: It does, because d/dx( x^e23/17^(blah))
Not so important person who is unfortunately does not get it: Well, I like it!
*Everyone points and laughs at not so important person*
helps opening dialogs.
Nah. There is a tendency to default to criticism, but it's primarily from people in a comfort zone (relative anonymity of the internet, being with a group of friends, or in a particularly critical crowd). It's easy when it's safe - find a greasy spoon mom & pop restaurant filled with old-timers and complain about teenagers driving too fast and it'll be hard to find a dissenter.
I've only walked out of a movie once, primarily because I tend to enjoy most movies at least to some extent. It seems to be a rare occurrence though. People will gripe about how awful a movie is, but avoid making a fuss because they seem to feel they'd have to have a legally-sound reason for requesting their money back (technical difficulties, etc.). If a movie was poorly advertised or the previews showed it as a comedy but it turns out a dull drama with some comic relief, people don't feel they've got a leg to stand on. I'd highly encourage them to do so, provided they don't turn themselves into the type that feels they're owed payback in every situation and complain about everything attempting to get compensation for perceived wrongs.
Kevin is a very amiable guy.
I went to Vulgarthon, his film festival, in Red Bank NJ this summer, where he debuted Clerks II before it was publicly released. He hung out with the fans all day (As well as Jason Mewes, Jen Schwalbach and Brian O'Halloran from Clerks 2) and was very accesible. I had a great time, and his films make me laugh, and occasionally, think.
Bt
evenwolf: Yeah, now that you mention it, I seem to remember that this is what I read. From my experience, it seems like I could make an argument for a refund for almost every movie I see. :P
I haven't walked out of any movies yet. But I have become a lot more selective in what movies I'll go see. If it's doesn't have at least an 80% or even 90% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, I'll seriously start to consider whether I want to pay to see it in a theater or just wait to rent it.
Movies I wish I had walked out of: Lawnmower Man, Alien Resurrection (speaking of Jean-Pierre Jeunet), Highlander II. I seriously challenge anybody to find anything constructive to say about any of these! :)
As for Kevin Smith: I don't think anyone's trying to make the argument that he's some sort of ground-breaking director or that his movies will be forever remembered as classics in the annals of film history. But I do think he makes films that are true to himself (haven't seen his "sell-out" flick) and that he invests a lot of himself into. If you start picking at his films to see what's underneath the surface, you're probably not gonna find much. But that doesn't mean they're not entertaining to watch, and I think that's a reasonable expectation for a couple hours of entertainment.
"I seriously challenge anybody to find anything constructive to say about any of these!"
Alien Resurrection helped fund Amelie.
That's all I got!
QuoteHighlander II
Whatever happened to "there can be only one?"