Saw a Takashi Miike picture called The Great Yokai War. "Yokai" is a Japanese term for monsters from folklore, as opposed to the more familiar kaiju. It's a kids' picture, about a young boy from Tokyo sent out to live in the countryside with his older sister and his intermittently senile grandfather. When a vengeful spirit appears, the boy gets caught up in a war between warring groups of yokai and must find his courage to become the "Kirin Rider", the hero who will set everything to rights. It's not a bad picture - nothing deep, but an amusing story. Some of the yokai are really trippy, Japanese folklore can get pretty "out there", apparently.

Views: 31088

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think they acknowledged back in the day that sound effects in space are inaccurate but needed for audience excitement. Huge things blowing up silently would turn off the viewers.

Richard Willis said:

I think they acknowledged back in the day that sound effects in space are inaccurate but needed for audience excitement. Huge things blowing up silently would turn off the viewers.

Right. People are watching movies set in the future, featuring aliens, spaceships, faster-than-light travel ... and noise in space is that 11th impossible thing? 

Not immeasurably, no, but I wouldn't have that little voice saying, "why do they have to aggressively ignore physics?" Would anyone enjoy the movie less if the ships functioned like they were in space?

That said, I pretty much ignore it in Star Wars, since the series started as a tribute to cheesy adventure movies and serials, and the rules of cheesy adventure movies and serials apply.

Jeff of Earth-J said:

I don't get that complaint. Would people really enjoy these movies better if they were silent?

I have read the book! One of the best things I read last year. Haven't seen the movie, as I didn't know it was a thing at the time. Normally, I like to read the book after I've seen the movie (that way I get more out of the story the second time around, instead of vice versa).

JD DeLuzio said:

A Man Called Ove (2015)

The Swedish film, about a cantankerous late middle-aged man who is really bad at dying, is (some obvious tropes notwithstanding) one of the most  enjoyable and touching films I have seen this year.

I have not read the novel, and I do anticipate with too much hope a proposed American adaptation. The novel's probably quite good. I fear the proposed Tom Hanks version will veer too far into schmaltz and sentimentality.

Too true, just like for kung fu or other action movies they enhance the sound of flesh hitting flesh to an unrealistic degree just as comics use sound effects lettering for the same effect, just dialing up the volume to 11. 

Richard Willis said:

I think they acknowledged back in the day that sound effects in space are inaccurate but needed for audience excitement. Huge things blowing up silently would turn off the viewers.

ClarkKent_DC said:

I don't get that complaint. Would people really enjoy these movies better if they were silent?

JD DeLuzio said:

Not immeasurably, no, but I wouldn't have that little voice saying, "why do they have to aggressively ignore physics?" Would anyone enjoy the movie less if the ships functioned like they were in space?

That said, I pretty much ignore it in Star Wars, since the series started as a tribute to cheesy adventure movies and serials, and the rules of cheesy adventure movies and serials apply.

Does that little voice saying "why do they have to aggressively ignore physics?" pipe up when you watch such physical impossibilities as light sabers, "subspace radios," teleporters, photon torpedos -- or, for that matter, spaceships that can reach escape velocity and get from over here to over there before the crew gets too old to remember why they even made the trip? 

There was a movie (don't remember the name) that had 40mm grenade launchers, which also are used for tear gas projectiles, make a loud boom when fired. They actually make a "plink" sound, unless they are firing a shotgun shell. If firing a grenade, the grenade makes a big noise when it explodes, of course.

Sometimes. But most of those things get filed under "necessary for the story" and/or "handwavium tech that we can pretend maybe could exist somehow."

ClarkKent_DC said:

ClarkKent_DC said:

I don't get that complaint. Would people really enjoy these movies better if they were silent?

JD DeLuzio said:

Not immeasurably, no, but I wouldn't have that little voice saying, "why do they have to aggressively ignore physics?" Would anyone enjoy the movie less if the ships functioned like they were in space?

That said, I pretty much ignore it in Star Wars, since the series started as a tribute to cheesy adventure movies and serials, and the rules of cheesy adventure movies and serials apply.

Does that little voice saying "why do they have to aggressively ignore physics?" pipe up when you watch such physical impossibilities as light sabers, "subspace radios," teleporters, photon torpedos -- or, for that matter, spaceships that can reach escape velocity and get from over here to over there before the crew gets too old to remember why they even made the trip? 

Let me clarify that I don't mind that spaceships make sounds and bank against non-existent air in Star Wars movies. I rather enjoy that they do. It's just one of the many things that tell me not to take this too seriously. And I don't. I just enjoy it for the escapist, updated-1940s-movie-serial fare that it is.

Which is why I think it's silly to take these movies too seriously, which obviously some Star Wars fans do. My reaction to virtually every argument I have heard about how awful The Last Jedi was is: "Dude, you're taking these live-action cartoons a little too seriously. Just turn your brain off and enjoy it."

"Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader!"

This is what bugs me about post-trilogy Star Wars. The entire fandom and industry started taking seriously what were, in essence, tributes to pop culture. What people liked about Star Wars, liked a LOT, back in '77, was the black-and-white hero/villain storyline that was fun to watch.

Captain Comics said:

Let me clarify that I don't mind that spaceships make sounds and bank against non-existent air in Star Wars movies. I rather enjoy that they do. It's just one of the many things that tell me not to take this too seriously. And I don't. I just enjoy it for the escapist, updated-1940s-movie-serial fare that it is.

Which is why I think it's silly to take these movies too seriously, which obviously some Star Wars fans do. My reaction to virtually every argument I have heard about how awful The Last Jedi was is: "Dude, you're taking these live-action cartoons a little too seriously. Just turn your brain off and enjoy it."

Star Wars was a movie serial, with a lot of scenes lifted straight from 1940s or '50s Westerns. The Cantina scene was a saloon scene, and I'm a little surprised a barroom fight didn't break out. Luke and Leia swung across the canyon -- I'm sorry, a big ditch in the middle of a space station. Because the bridge was out! Scene changes used the old serial method or irising in and out. And so forth.

They lifted from newsreels, too, with World War II dogfight footage used as the basis for the outer-space dogfights.

There wasn't a single unique thing about Star Wars to me in 1977 -- I thought it a little juvenile, to tell you the truth, and I was all of 19. But I enjoyed it anyway, as the sappy popcorn fare it was. And, God, I was so starved for SF/fantasy. I didn't care if it was a puppet show, if it brought science fiction back to TV and movies.There hadn't been anything to feed my inner geek except comic books since Star Trek went off the air in 1969. There was nothing but Westerns and private eyes on TV, and damn few movies I had any interest in watching. So glad to see Star Wars, and gladder still to see it become popular.

The mistake the prequels made -- well, one of them, anyway -- was trying to turn it into something serious. It's not. Economic arguments in the Senate have no place in a movie serial.

The new Netflix Lost in Space series has inspired me to re-watch the original Irwin Allen series. I recently re-watched the 1998 movie, too, for the third time. I saw it first in the theater, and I was so pleased to see a childhood favorite on the big screen that I didn’t see its flaws. I watched it a second time on VHS and, again, I saw only the good in it. Re-watching it recently, though… I can see why it never got a sequel.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2018   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service