Messages

I just want something to fill to void left by Family Guy and Futurama.

I think LucasArts is becoming the Disney of the computer gaming industry.

Even if he has a semi-gay accent, he's been laid more times than you and me combined.

And that's what I call REAL BRITISH POWER!!!

Also, I'm guessing you've never seen Get Carter or Mona Lisa?

But it's Michael Caine playing Alfred -- He's so British he practically invented British people.

remixor: What did Chris Nolan do to deserve a strike?

I laughed my arse off when I saw the trailer -- the Patrick Walburton character gets beaten-up by a character from GTA: Vice City.

Do man like film? *grunt* *grunt*

This new show looks awesome:

http://www.gameover.tv/

I hope it comes to Australia.

DG I pretty much agree with your observations.  However, I would attribute this, as I said, to the collective interests of one demographic group vs another rather than this therory that men aren't as intellectually involved (or capable of it) in movies as women are.

But the interests of the male demographic might be separated from the female demographic due to male not being intellectually involved.

But I'll leave the debate on male versus female psychology for another day, cause we're mainly talking on film enjoyment.

Yeah, I realised that -- I kinda tore apart his joke too.

I guess I'm just a party-pooper.  

RE: Whoa! Harsh, dude!  

Anyway, I'm wondering if Tim Burton's had too many Happy Meals lately -- It seems like he's doing more happy, family-oriented stuff, like Big Fish and Willy Wonka.

He seems to be moving away from his Batman/Edward Scissorhands/Sleepy Hollow style.

And yes, Johnny Depp as Wonka should be interesting, but Gene Wilder rocks my boat.

Plus, they'll lose the musical numbers, I'm guessing -- That's one of the things I loved about the original.

By the way, did you notice in the original that Grandpa Joe was bed-ridden one minute, but as soon as Charlie pulls out the Golden Ticket, Joe can not only walk but sing and dance!

The lazy old fart should have gotten out of bed and gotten a job -- then they wouldn't be eating boiled cabbage for dinner every night.

I saw it too, Las -- was going to tell you too.

Uni also has a copy but they won't let people take out videos overnight -- We can only watch them in the library, which sucks.

The leading contenders were Disney's Destino and Boundin' from Pixar.

Destine was tipped to win because it started as a collaborative project between Walt Disney and Dali.

The project fizzed, but it was brought back to life by Roy E. Disney.

Plus, if you've been following the recent Michael Eisner vs Roy Disney debacle, you'll see why people were rooting for Destino.

I just saw Harvey Krumpet too -- And I think it won just for the Kamahl cameo.

Why in the world would any company want an original game? Original games have to be, like. good in order to sell. A sequel/prequel/spin off simply has to have the name to sell. And that takes a lot less work. It's amazing that any original games get published.

Yes, it's amazing that Doom got published.

Or Quake...

Or Deux Ex...

Or Monkey Island...

Or Myst...

Or X-Com...

Or Syndicate...

Also, isn't ironic that you say you're surprised that original games get published yet you also say sequels just need a name to be successful?

Don't original games provide the name first?

And shoudn't game companies focus upon making good original games in order to provide a good name for planned sequels?

That seems more logical to me than being "amazed that any original games get published."

True but, most of the time, sequels suck compared to the original.

EMI comes to mind; so do a lot of Sierra's numerous releases.

Sure, you get the odd bright-spark, like DOTT, but those are rare.

Even non-adventure sequels don't compare to an original game: take Deus Ex -- the fans shitcanned the sequel's demo.

Then again, maybe it's just the hardcore fans and their perceptions that are the problem.

Maybe I'm just nostalgic.

Problem is, all of the famous ex-lucas project leaders are not there/think ROngilbert, Tim Shcaffer(I misspelled it by intent, Yufster!)/.

That's not a logical point at all.

You're saying that because guys like Ron and Tim aren't there, LucasArts don't have the capacity to make an original game (i.e. a game not based on any of their previous releases).

That's ridiculous, because any game company has the ability to create new ideas.

The next Schafer or the next Gilbert could be right around the corner.

I say they should move on from Sam n Max, Full Throttle, and Star Wars and try for a new adventure.

One simple question:  Who buy games?  Players or salemen?

They both do.

Doesn't he say that in all of them?

Only in the one, where someone spelled appreciate (among other things) wrong.

Your sarcasm-detector must be switched off.

Instead, they should try something like, I don't know, making a whole new game with originality.

Something like Grim Fandango -- Just not another Grim Fandango game.

Gemmalah:  This sounds just as silly to me as your friend's theory.  Do you have an example of such an intellectually deep movie?   Just use some common sense eh!

Different people have different interests at different times in their lives.   Some things inerest me more than they do other people.  I think I can safely assume the same is pretty much true for everyone else.  It's just that the things in which I am interested may not appeal to everyone else as much (and vise versa of course).  I  think people don't enjoy movies about things in which they have no or little interest.

To the extent that it's possible to make generalizations about the difference between men's and women's interests   one could extrapolate (sp?) that to movies to predict which  ones are likely to be percieved as "male", "female", or "both".  

I think Gemmalah example of the "male gaze" is more of a psyhcologial perception that men have -- Like I said, it's just a theory (though, a well-documented theory).

And even though different movies can appeal to certain individuals, one cannot ignore the collective genders of movie-goers to certain movies -- Sure, it's a generalisation, but generalisations do prove true most of the time.

For example, the amount of males going at their own accord (i.e. not being dragged along by their girlfriends) to Mona Lisa Smile would be low compared to the number of females seeing the films.

Or as another example, the number of people above 60 going to something like Jackass would also be low.

Yes, they're generalisations -- But they're generalisation because in most cases it's true.

he male gaze: man get turned on manly by sound and sight whilst in women many more factors are involved such as what the person says and their actions (non sexual). Therefore men respond better than women to movies because they respond generally better to sight and sound because women think of many other things.

not sure of this

Yes, this is a well-known theory.

But it's just a theory.

Keep in mind that films are not just sight and sound -- they are also dialogue, plot, constructed meaning, relationships, etc.

So, if we take such a theory on-board, then films do have appeal to women.

another theory is that because most movie makers are male (true, can you name a female director?) so they makeit for male audiences.

Here are a few female directors, and their films are appreciated by both audiences:
Jane Campion
Julie Taymor
Nancy Meyers
Penny Marshall
Audrey Wells
Sofia Coppola
Patty Jenkins
Niki Caro
Catherine Hardwicke
Shari Springer Berman
(a lot of the above names had films that were nominated for several oscars in the last two ceremonies)

Also, several well-known male directors make female-oriented films:

Mike Newell - Mona Lisa Smile
Stephen Daldry - The Hours
Richard Eyre - Iris
Anthony Minghella -- Jeez, take your pick...
Baz Luhrmann -- Likewise...

Even martin Scorsese, probably the most masculine of filmmakers, made a very feminist film "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore".

So, who knows? It's all mixed-up together in a big gender soupbowl.

All I know is, your friend is full of shit.