The Problem With Adventure Movies Today
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 лип 2024
- Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/lsoo
Watch the exclusive companion video: nebula.app/videos/lsoo-the-ma...
Help me make more videos!
Support this channel: / likestoriesofold
Leave a One-Time Donation: www.paypal.me/TomvanderLinden
Facebook: / likestoriesofold
Instagram: / tom.vd.linden
Twitter: / tom_lsoo
About this video essay:
An analysis of what makes an adventure movie feel actually adventurous.
Chapters:
0:00 The Problem With Adventure Movies Today
2:14 A Case Study, and a Reappreciation
4:00 The Real Purpose of an Adventure
9:15 The Importance of Adventurous Characters
11:50 Creating Tangible New Worlds
15:27 Making it Feel Real
19:00 The Value of Great Action Scenes
23:06 From a Great Adventure, to a Great Movie
Listen to my podcast, Cinema of Meaning:
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4n6zZZQ...
Nebula: nebula.app/cinemaofmeaning
Further Reading:
Like Stories of Old - The Complete Reading List: kit.co/likestoriesofold/readi...
10 Books that changed my life: kit.co/likestoriesofold/10-bo...
10 More books that inspired my thinking: kit.co/likestoriesofold/10-mo...
My Camera Gear: kit.co/likestoriesofold/my-tr...
Media included:
Assassin’s Creed; Avatar; Burden of Dreams; Dune; Fitzcarraldo; Indiana Jones; Jungle Cruise; Jurassic Park; Jurassic Park 3; Jurassic World; Fallen Kingdom; Dominion; King Kong; Lawrence of Arabia; Lord of the Rings; Master and Commander; National Treasure; Pirates of the Caribbean; Red Notice; The Lost World (1925); The Lost World: Jurassic Park; The Mummy (1990); The Mummy (2017); Uncharted
Business inquiries: lsoo@standard.tv
Say hi: likestoriesofold@gmail.com
Music:
Dexter Britain - Midnight Sand
Dexter Britain - Your Own World
Dexter Britain - Raising
Dexter Britain - Stay With Me
Daniel Deuschle - Wild is Life
Take your films to the next level with music from Musicbed. Sign up for a free account to listen for yourself: fm.pxf.io/c/3532571/1347628/1...
Camera angles, too. In every single one of those shots of older movies, only time the perspective went beyond a regular human's was very specifically chosen moments. In the newer ones, it seems like the vast majority of the shots are ones we'd never actually see from in real life, on top of the overly perfect composition and ultra-vibrant colours. No wonder it comes off as annoying.
Very good point
That's why I enjoyed the final fight in Jurassic World more than anything else there. At least once Rexy joined. That shot of the protagonists scrambling through the shops as the three animals fight just felt grounded, and all the external shots were ground-to-human in height and it just helped the sense of scale.
I just wished more of the new trilogy retained that concept.
Camera angles and framing are so important and Dominion felt so... hollow. They talked about how Giganotosaurus was "the biggest carnivore to ever live" and at no point in the movie did that statement ever feel believable. I think it stood out the most when Ian Malcolm was reprising his "standing against the carnivore" moment and the framing/angles made him look just as Big on the screen as the dinosaur, in complete opposition to how it was framed in the original. In the original movie the people felt TINY compared to Rexy. Every shot of her made her seem overwhelmingly huge, terrifying in her mere presence. The dinosaurs in the World sequels just feel smaller because of the way the camera treats them, and they lack that critical Oomph and Majesty because of it.
Good point. The high shots and really long shots make you feel like a spectator instead of participant.
Just put the damn camera on the floor!!
I think this is one of the reasons why Pirates of The Caribbean was succesfull (at least the first entries in the franchise): It used CGI, but there was a quite vibrant natural world to explore, and also not to mention all the forts, villages, and ships there. It just felt more 'real' than other recent adventure movies.
Also the characters were actually interesting and had some depth, even if it wasn’t a ton.
and there was a griminess to the places and the people - you could tell they were at pirate ports or that the characters has spent significant time at sea. They're stringy and sweaty. And places like Tortuga and the ships definitely felt like if you could touch them and you're fingers would come back with something weird smelling and sticky - it really created an appropriate atmosphere.
@@owend4894 another issue with the later Pirates movies was that the main character became Jack Black. he's really good as a supporting character who steals the movie, but as a trickster archetype, he can't lead his own film because then the plot completely loses all sense of coherence. this is why the third film is so much messier than the first two but still holds together, while all the subsequent ones are just train wrecks.
I cannot even begin to articulate how horrendous the writing of Pirates 5 is.
Absolutely. Eventually it got stale because they started showing places that felt too similar. When everything was new each movie had such a coolness to them
“Dinosaurs aren’t tangible, they aren’t meant to be understood, they just need to be whatever the plot wants them to be”
that is exactly what is happening to this franchise
This is why I completely gave up on the franchise after the trailer for Jurassic World and saw that the dinosaurs didn't have feathers. Because I knew that meant the movies weren't going to be About the dinosaurs, they were going to be generic action movies that just happen to have dinosaurs in them.
That's... that's the original movies too
Also notice the difference in camera work. The cameras are always floating around in modern movies. They never take still shots long enough for us to feel the environment.
In the first Jurassic Park movies we can practically feel the cold, the rain, the dust, the wind and all the environments while the characters are walking through them.
We feel like we are on the ground with them. In the new movies we don't get that same experience. You feel more like a drone flying around in a video game.
They've downright depressed me. I've been willing to accept that it could just be that I'm old, but I think it's because their is no personality behind the camera. They're box ticking, soulless, corporate products designed to nostalgia bait without putting in any work to make something memorable themselves. It's like being addicted to the needle rather than the drug.
It isn't just because you're "old" (I don't know how old you are, anyway). I'm 29 and I feel the same way. It's all soulless. EDIT: "Top Gun: Maverick" is one of the only movies I can think of where you actually cared about anything going on in the story.
coincidentally, the volume of middle managers, administrators, and corporate executives is ballooning in Hollywood. This is their handywork
@@samueljennings4809 I want to see Top Gun but I haven’t watched the first one, all the way through. Do I need to watch it to get the sequel?
@@samueljennings4809 There are very few good mainstream movies being made nowadays. Blade Runner 2049 was great. Ex Machina was good. Passengers was good. There are a few others. But it feels like they're getting increasingly more rare.
Absolutely correct. Movies are just politics, cgi & no soul. 20/30 years from now I don’t think at all that we’ll be looking back at today’s movies in the same way we look back at 80s/90s films.
This sense of the sensual is really the secret to Spielberg's success; his imitators mistakenly assume it's all about special effects and action set pieces, but Spielberg never forgets the sensual impact that sitting in a dark theatre full of strangers being overwhelmed by sounds and shadows can have on his audience.
True! Its like you are really there in his films.
He's also a master at building and releasing tension. So many of his iconic scenes and setpieces are about waiting or avoiding danger, which lets the audience wonder about what could happen, what could be waiting around the corner. That mix of excitement and fear before taking the next step, that's the spirit of adventure.
@@matman000000 Jaws
I think the War of Worlds was a great example of this. After seeing the bridges collapse from Tom Cruise's viewpoint and just running running running for the whole movie I felt actually physically exhausted after the movie.
Peter Jackson used to know that. The LOTR trilogy has so much time when the characters get to breathe, interact, or just appreciate the world around them and then King Kong and The Hobbit are just NOISE, NOISE, NOISE
Many movies today are basically, “We have 9 crazy set pieces we need to get to! All other scenes should just be filler to get us to these set pieces, and of course we will use all 9 of these set pieces for our advertising and promotional material. We just need people to pay money to watch the filler on between all the set pieces we hooked them in with during our $100 million dollar marketing campaign!”
Movies are advertisements for companies to sell you what looks like a good time. We pay money to watch extended commercials. By the year 2030 the Oscar for best movie will go to a film about how Pepsi became a superior soda to Coca Cola.
Or a movie about how Ford beat Ferrari will be nominated.
Or a movie about how the pride month came to be (spoiler, was just about how poochie was created)
@@westrim That was actually a pretty good movie.
@@denisl2760 Sure, but the point stands.
I blame Bayformers
In terms of actually feeling the environment, I must say that “Rango” really made me feel like I was parched in a desert. Also, in terms of enthusiastic adventurous characters, Evelyn from “The Mummy” and Ben from “National Treasure” came to mind straight away. 😁 All of those rank very high on my adventure film list. 😜
Oh, Rango absolutely. Animation does not mean that it can't FEEL real. I recently binged the Bad Batch and while the animation style is very far from realism, the action on screen somehow felt more real to me than some of these movies with actual humans on camera.
Evelyn remains as one of my all-time favorite female characters thanks to that. No, she was no action girl, didn't know how to fight or use guns (I'm thoroughly ignoring that horrid sequel), but she was enthused about being there and she was responsive and observant of her surroundings, and she contributed to their survival in ways that correlated to her specializations, not being labelled useless or a liability for not dealing with their obstacles through brute force- cuz they couldn't rely on it all the time.
@@IMayOrMayHaveNot Rick and Evelyn make such a great pair honestly. Part of what makes movies feel soul-less to me is when the protagonist has to be everything. For some reason the lead is expected to be smart, strong, sexy, and all around competent, except when they need to not be for plot reasons. Take near every recent Chris Pratt vehicle, "look at this dude, isn't he amazing? Sure there are people who are better than him at some things but he's good at everything!" and it's kinda boring.
Contrast with Rick and Evelyn who are both the protagonists of the movie, they split those traits amongst themselves in a way where they both have realistic strengths and weaknesses consistent with their characters, they both have skills, goals and agency, they're both core to the story, and they make up a whole better than the sum of its parts due to the extra layers of chemistry that comes from being two separate characters. You can say the same thing with the ensemble cast of Jurassic Park. They're all individual people rather than being just a supporting cast to the headliner, only there to help the plot along. I wish more adventure movies could capture that...
Also pacing to soak in the environment and acting. The actors really need to act like they're in the environment filmed in as you don't always get the feeling that the actors SHOW they are struggling with weather, nourishment or exhaustion because we have really fast pacing to move the story along.
Since the context is *recent* adventure movies, for a split second I thought that was the first positive comment I'd ever seen about the Tom Cruise The Mummy...
The scene in the original movie when they rest their heads on top of the triceratops and hear it breath.... oh man that's what's all about, something suggestive, that can spark your imagination to go to places beyond what's possible. Not explosions or beefy guys running around, senseless violence, but the sense of absolute wonder, the idea that there is more there to feel, touch and experience. The original movie came out the year I was born, and I'll always keep it close to my heart, and forever mourn that lost sense of wonder that came with the movies after.
Bingo
@@ArtByEmilyHare Dino DNA!
I was born a year later. Still one of my top films and one of the reasons I'm in film school.
Can't agree more, i feel like the current generation has artistic talent down...they can make things looks amazing...but there is no soul
Same here. I was also born when the first movie came out.
That Jeff Goldblum line, "Look at her she has to touch. She can't not touch," is so relatable to me. I have often joked that it's a good thing I have never had an encounter with an arguably dangerous wild animal - because I would die trying to pet it lol Animals just leave me in such awe. It's the same with music too. When I hear lyrical music, as opposed to instrumentals, I can't not sing. I am just as awestruck bearing witness to sounds as I am to sights.
You sound like a fantastic human being - if only everyone were so amazed and fascinated by their surroundings ......
Yet this exact same scenario in Prometheus is criticized as weak writing for a xeno-biologist encountering his first xeno biological lifeform.
No self control 2 bad 2 sad
Probably because they did not set up the character the right way in prometheus. Sarah is already introduced as being impulsive and awesome long before we even meet her, first time we actually see her is on the island yet by then we already know and love her because the main characters do. Great story writing there.
One issue he kinda went to is they write it as one minute we should love/hate the dinosaurs then the next we must love/hate the humans
If they wanted to stay fresh they should of ALWAYS stuck with Steven Spielberg did in the first where the dinosaurs weren't the villains they are prisoners that were made only so they can make profits
You can show dinosaurs being vicious without making them the boogymen and trying to make every shady human get a redeem arc...that's lazy writing that's why the transformers failed in later films
I've been saying for a while now that proper adventure movies need a revival. Idk what's wrong with a lot of films today. Maybe it's because of how big and mainstream the industry/ corporations are, but nearly everything is just so sterile, corporate, and lacking now.
That inevitably happens when things grow too big.
There is less at stake in some sense as the pioneers paved the roads and now you just have to maintain them. And simultaneously there is more at stake as the non pioneers don't have the itch and thus also not the experience to change well trodden path's. But their income depends on it now. So the roads will get dug deeper and the mass audience also prefers mass quantity instead of sacrificing quantity for quality.
Just like a river digs itself deeper and deeper into the riverbed with every drip of water.
However you don't have to be a victim of that. You can become a pioneer yourself and find adventure movies that are unpopular. Find the gold in uncharted lands and find that adventure in seeking.
Or be pulled down by the weight of the masses and keep circling in familiar territory =)
Movies used to be entertainment, maybe with a moral lesson. Now they're just a vehicle to push a message, and any entertainment is coincidental. It's a bit like "sugar helps the medicine go down". Few people want to sit around and be lectured so it's more effective to frame the lecture as entertainment.
If you're wondering why disney or netflix was being more extremely woke to the point where it defeats the original message, it's probably because of a company known as black rock which basically gives movies a rating based on some factors, which probably promote certain messages and heavily discourage others. These ratings must really impact how much money disney can get, and disney did make a deal with them to get a trillion dollars or something lol. but I don't understand why companies can't make good movies while also pointing out the flaws in society or having representation and equality. They have all the talent in the world I don't understand.
@@iridescentsea3730 dude, Jurassic parks 1 -3 we're great, and they lectured the world as well about how unethical it is bringing back prehistoric creatures that have no place in our time. Huge lesson but hell of a ride to learn it.
@@iridescentsea3730 I mean every film SHOULD be a vehicle trying to push a message, that's the whole point of telling a story. The issue is that modern films do not try to "lecture" you at all and are just soulless slideshows made for pure entertainment
To me it seems to be a huge disconnect with the environment itself. Characters are barely affected by the environments they are in. Which lowers the stakes and really makes even on location scenes appear kinda fake.
The other take away from your scenes is the impactful music. Lord of the rings...lost world...Jurassic park. All have this grand orchestral scores that aren't just there in the background, they enhance every scene and really makes everything impactful. I can't remember a single tune from the new JW film except where they used hints of the original theme at the end.
😑
I can recall almost every detail of a scene in Jurassic Park just by hearing the music used for it. The same thing for Lord of the rings.
That is music that is a part of the scene and not just merely there to check a box.
Hm…disconnection between the evnrionment ?
Quite an interesting view, cant seem to remember others pointing this, might have to think about it.
I agree about the fact that they are disconnect from their surroundings. One example of this really shocked me. In the last movie, the woman who drives the plane and the male main character both fall into a frozen lake while wearing light clothes, but they look barely cold when they get out of the water. That's absurd
I just rewatched the original Conan movie and the soundtrack is still my favorite. It can tell a complete scene just from that and the characters' expressions and body language.
@@Laneous14I love that soundtrack. It really made that movie. Id argue that applies to most, but especially that one.
Yeah it's all green screen now, you don't get Jaws shot on an actual boat at sea or the Abyss set in a giant water tank created so everything could be shot underwater in the pitch black with actors having to become quality divers by the end of it.
The Lost World is underrated honestly. For all its faults there just hasn’t been that many films like it since. Hell, even JP3 had its moments, contrived as it was.
The whole Jurassic trilogy is underrated, the third movie has a poetic ending similar to the first
You just saying that because it was better than the Jurassic World trilogy. If these movies didn’t exist then everybody would still be loathing Lost World and JPIII
@@kyzendelaguia1063 I won’t lie that factors into it, but just look at the way The Lost World looks - the visual effects aren’t overwhelming and accent the story rather than replace it outright. It’s just much more considerate when it comes to filmmaking than any of the JW films.
@@SaberRexZealot ain’t that the truth. But I’m just saying people are suddenly lighting up to those prequel Star Wars, the JP trilogy, even those old Michael Bay films (pre transformers) like everyone realizing that corporate jargon writing new movies only backed by nostalgia is a bad idea
@@kyzendelaguia1063 It's similar to the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies, I remember everyone hating on those Spider-Man films with Toby McGuire then when No Way Home was coming out all I seen was love and appreciation for Toby's Spider-Man trilogy. I've noticed that society hates on something that is great in the moment then down the road slowly admits they actually liked it as if it was a guilty pleasure.
16:47 that point about "nothing feels real" was especially bad in the Hobbit movies. It wasn't just the occasional CGI that was off.... EVERYTHING felt fake; action scenes had zero weight to them and even just still scenes of people sitting around had this ugly artificial feel. Seems like there's some image editing software that's been going around, giving all these movies the same exact feeling of fakeness.
Dwarves were the fakest and I couldn't fell them as real people. Gimli in LOTR feels so alive and Hobbit dwarves are like dressed for kids birthday or something. So its kinda on planning and directing and small details I think. With faster pace of production and growing CGI usage a lot of details are missed. We dont get same detailed shots, dirty nails etc. Movies are going easier route and it shows. They all are like... glamourized. Like they are trying to recreate movie feeling and copying surface-level points but never go deep and explore what makes good movie feel so good.
The hobbit movies were such a let down. How is it that with so much better technology The Hobbit still felt faker and of far less quality than LOTR. Movies these days are just soulless cash grabs. Couldn't even make the dwarves look believable.
If you ever watch the behind the scenes of the hobbit movies you get an idea of why it feels so fake. CGI was extremely incorporated into the trilogy, with scenes where multiple characters were in a room but during filming it was actually just one person and the rest were added in later. So instead of filming them all together at once they film the same scene twice with different characters at different points and then mash it altogether on the computer. It’s this weird mesh of real and fake. It sucks considering how much Peter Jackson wore the cast ragged to perform perfect scenes and do spectacular stunts, only to then almost entirely cover it up with CGI.
Huh I never noticed it
I think the interesting thing about the Hobbit movies was that the book was very deliberately in a different tone. To me, the hobbit movies more cartoony aesthetic kinda reminded me how I felt re-reading that book. It was very deliberately a fable that had no memory of LOTR's in it, because that book wasn't written until much later. Thus actually the cgi nature really worked for me, largely because it was a very different tale, with a more fantastical, whimsical fairy tale tone to it and not the gritty, World War 1 simulator LOTR ended up being. Magic was still fertile in this land, Elves still walked among the men rather then reclusive folk looking to leave the land, Goblins were frankly silly creatures and Golumn was that weird creature defeated by riddles, endearing as much as he was disgusting.
The only thing that particularly annoyed me was, as someone who read the books, how proppant some of it's introduced characters were. I mean, I get that we would never see a story told from the perspective of Gandalf, so this was the only medium we would see the necromancers tower, yet it seemed worlds apart. Or much of the elves interactions felt weird; because I know in the books that they were never there. Though I feel it's biggest issue was it's pacing; I kinda felt 3 movies was a little much, and it no longer felt like the personal tale of Bilbo Baggins that it was, instead massive parts of content were given over to tying in the LOTR's and it's more gritty themes that bloated and diluviated the original more charming tale. Bilbo sitting with Gandalf sitting at the end summarised it all; it was an exhausting experience that was very remisent of Frodo's sundering, never again would the Hobbit smile as wild as he once did. That didn't remind me of the positive tale it once was.
There are a couple of things it did spectacularly well though. In comparison to the books it made the Dwarves feel like a real band of characters; which was largely absent in the book. Plus that opening to the third movie, the burning town, was specular. Quite frankly the world building put any of the recent blockbuster brands to shame. Sure it was indulgent, but I felt that indulgence was born of passion; which is something completely void in most reboot type brands. I will remember the Hobbit fondly as a movie that wore it's obsession on it's sleeve and while it weighed it down, it was entertaining for me.
Your talk of a lack of texture in modern movies had me realized a really great example.
Crait from Star Wars Episode 8.
They have a massive battle in which they're using these open cockpit zoomers.
And no-one is using eye-protection, on a salt desert.
And that's one of the only memorable environments from the entire sequel trilogy!
The rest are just Grass, Desert, and Slightly Extra Weather.
As a biker I think this every time I see someone riding a motorbike or any kind of open cockpit vehicle in a film without some form of eye protection, hell never mind the dust and bugs the force of the air hitting your eyes above a certain speed makes it impossible to see.
A true adventure movie that deeply moves me is "The Lost City of Z". I often get the impression that not many people have seen this film but it's a masterpiece for me personally. "Master and Commander" also captures the adventure spirit very well in my opinion.
A+ to both of these films
Haven't seen master and commander but I will agree on lost city of z. It made the idea of the city just sitting there in the forest waiting to be discovered, so hypnotising. That was one of the rare movies that made me empathise with a protagonist going on a fool's errand
Even the Godzilla movie that came out in 2014 feels more real than these last Jurassic World movies. At least you can actually feel the tension when Godzilla shows up in Hawaii. The problem with these later movies is that none of the characters are likable, they act in ways that don't make sense, and often times they create unnecessary drama around them. The movies have become more about the actors than about the dinosaurs.
Master and commander is great.
Its pretty good movie… I watch it until the end… Thats mean its interesting… I wanna know the movie ending… makes me curious until the end….
CGI animators seem to have no restraint now. Everything spins and jumps around with no sense of gravity or physics. No matter how real the CGI detail looks, if it doesn't move realistically it makes it look very fake.
King Kong vs. Godzilla on top of an aircraft carrier. Either one of them would easily crumple and sink the carrier just by standing on it. But they jump around on top of it and it still floats. There is no sense of weight or scale.
It's not the animators, it's the directors. If animators weren't treated as factory machines and if they're given the time, they are capable of creating amazing work.
@@SprinkledFox Arguably it's a bit of both. Directors restricting the animators freedom, but many animators as well animating in style closer to animation or videogame, rather than a realistic motion. Anything "chaotic" is left to the secondary simulation systems like cloth or muscle jiggle, but the motions theselves remain kind of calculated.
Especially when it's on screen with people or cgi people,
Well I'm saying it makes the cgi look much more fake
like in star wars prequels when clones take off their masks
I mean helmets
What makes it even worse is that the CGI scenes are often locked in and worked on independently of the writing process and with little input from the director, sometimes before the script is even finalized. It's called pre-vizualization (pre-vizzing) and is a cancer on the modern film industry.
Something I also feel like part of why adventure movies today feel so fabricated is that they no longer embrace the clumsy and the ungraceful, either. Being real means making miscalculations. When you're thrown into an unfamiliar environment, you gotta improvise to survive, and these improvisations may work, but the process may meet setbacks. That van rescue scene with Eddie is a perfect example of this. But now every move, every shot, every line feels so calculated nothing comes across as organic. The characters are treated like devices, not people.
One thing I'd like to add to this is the progression of how the characters' clothes and well being affect how real the movie feels too. Like in the first jurassic park all the characters are in clean clothes that you feel like they've worn on multiple occasions just another day kinda wear. But as the movie progresses their clothes are torn and muddied, their hair comes undone, and they get injured through out the movie you see their blood covering their faces.
Compare this to jurassic world. AR the beginning of the movie they also have the nice clean clothes but they're too nice, besides the aunt everyone should have clothes that feel lived in, but they don't, they sit too neatly, like the kids' clothes feel too orderly, it doesn't fit their characters, especially with Chris Pratt's character, his clothes should be more rumpled and loose, this is a guy who doesn't care about his appearance and yet his hair is short and his beard is trimmed and even I'd they are a little dirty his clothes don't feel dirty. And at the end of the movie sure their hair is kinda messy, their clothes are wreaked, and there's dirt smeared inside their cheeks, but there's not a spec of blood anywhere, no red bloody arm to contrast the aunts white suit, no cut eyebrows or scrapped knees. Just a bunch of people who look like maybe they rolled around in the mud a little bit.
Some reasons explained here is exactly why I love Castle in the Sky by Ghibli. It's my absolutely favorite animated adventure movie. You become so curious about the castle Laputa like the characters, and when you actually land there, you feel the environment like a real historical place. My most favorite moment is when the characters look into the water and find an underwater city. There are so many questions and so much to explore. Even the robots have personality. The characters have a good reason to find Laputa. It's so much fun to watch over and over again.
Mononoke is the better film, but something about Nausicaa's world is just so much more transporting. The hidden depths, of the forest, the windy open plains, the danger, the beauty... Just magical. Looking forward to reading the manga.
I had a hard time with the behaviors of the dinos. Carnivores living in a zoo acting like they all got injected with some hyper aggression formula , like them attacking humans with stupid aggression. Or herbivores not being grouchy like a hippo or an elephant if you barge into their territory.
I like to imagine that Ingen screwed with the animal's behavior in their genes to behave in a way the uneducated public would expect
@@SprinkledFox sure, and that would be acceptable if it were explained in a throwaway line or something, but since no such tinkering is mentioned it can be assumed they didn’t and their animal behaviors are just lazy writing.
@@SprinkledFox That's such a tired catch-all explanation for everything. "Oh InGen did it". I don't give a fuck about your in-canon explanations, it either is believable/interesting within the logic of the movie or it isn't. 100% docile passive herbivores with no personality and predators as 100% murderous monsters in constant rampage mode are both boring.
It would have been interesting if it came across as they didnt actually know how to take care of the dinos due to a lack of real life research so they didnt treat/feed the carnivores right which made them aggressive and the herbivores were in the wrong temperature so they were all subdued or something...
@@Slurptacular64 I mean, even if they used a throwaway line to argue that all you see is fabricated GMO stuff, it would still be lazy writing to not stick to it and instead for the reminder of the franchise just keep presenting your creatures as the real thing, only turning to your throwaway line whenever someone is showing clear signs of not being able to suspend his/her disbelief. Because it's obviously the audience's fault if they can't suspend their disbelief when watching mediocre at best movies.
I think Tintin might be one of the best modern adventure films and no one ever talks about it.
Kindred spirit! I've yet to met another fan of that film. The iOs Iphone game was incredible!! It starts off with you sneaking around the old Manor at night. I especially loved the part when you fly the plane in the storm and the glass would fog up so you had to keep wiping the screen to see. Im sure theres a gameplay video of it on YT.
Remember when the World Market started carrying Tintin items back in 2011. This movie didnt get much promotion, thats for sure.
This is a harsh one to judge for me. As an adventure movie, it is an absolute crowd-pleasure. As an animated movie, it treaded on Zemeckis territory and did not really disappoint. As an adaptation of Tintin... it was all over the place. I am saying this as a Francophile European who has been versed in Tintin lore since I could read.
Recommending this incredible essay from Breadsword if you're a fan of Tintin. ua-cam.com/video/CCIZ_jROYh4/v-deo.html
absolutely beautiful movies. it really lets you sit on the decisions the charachters made with its thematic pauses. and it doesnt let go of witholding the truth for a minute. it really leaves you at the edge of your seat
Cause its french
The first time I realized that movies had gone from trying to mimic reality to settling for virtual reality was when I saw 'Life of Pi' in theatres. It looked like a real man stuck in computer game. The tiger had no bald spots, no scars, no dirt on him, and its hair looked perfectly coiffured. There were no bits of rust on the boat, no flecks of paint had come off, the woodgrain looked like what it really was: designed by algorithm. The sea...well, you catch my drift, it looked fake too. Herzog may be an odd man, but his movies are great and more importantly: they look and feel real.
I've only watched the first JW movie, but hated it so I skipped the other 2. Not just because it looked fake, but because I despised the characters so much that I quickly started rooting for the dinos to eat those annoying kids, their loathesome aunt, and the Pratt.
Okay but Life of Pi is meant to look like that because it's not real even within the movie its a made up fantasy that the guy tells the people interviewing him because the real story the ugly story is so painful and dark he can't speak it.
@@trashbasket11
I'm not stupid, kid. The story he tells is made up but the people who made the movie intended to make it look real, as they all said over and over again in many interviews and press conferences after the movie's release.
@@Itcouldbebunnies No need to call anybody a kid, shows more about you tbh
It had the Humanity factor high through the roof... no Superman syndrome in Pi... amazing scenes.
Nonsense. The point is the story. I have filmed movies for 35 years. I am a cinematographer. I have never put the visual before the story. Let the story take you.
I always wonder whether the thing you call "texture" is something lost because people don't read a lot of books anymore. I know it sounds weird, but think about for a minute. As a written medium (good) books often delve into feelings of "materials or fabrics", sounds, smells, lights etc. Together with internal monologues (which is almost impossible to do) and other features this is something that new cinema doesn't "visualize" or lays its focus on anymore. And color grading has been a thorne in my eye for years now. It is just overused and really has started to alienate me what i'm seing on the screen.
Anime is chock-full of internal monologues. There is no reason it is "almost impossible" to do. It's actually really easy. Just comes off as weird since no one uses it so it seems out of place.
@@jimmyrusselluher1225 Yeah,...so,…THAT thing were it comes off as weird, and seems out of place sort of covers the "almost impossible" statement I made here.
I could make a snarky remark here, but to give you a fair response:
01. Anime isn't live action. The threshold for the "uncanny valley" effect (Or something similar to that...) is different.
Point and case: I find the animated version of "Grave of the Fireflies" more emotional than the live action version, and it has to do in great part with imagery and acting. Anime in general get's away with a lot more.
Hell, anime even has things like (off handed dialogue, which is meant as satire or comedy, were the characters make off-handed remarks to each other which is really meant for audience but always in reply to another character.
Being largely based on their Manga counterparts GN animations are a different beast all together.
02. A better comparison would be the internal monologue in Blade Runner or almost any Terrence Malick movie. Malick actually uses a lot (even when its long winded) of internal monologue, HOWEVER in Malick's and Blade Runners case, the only reason it works on a cinematic level is because they play it off more as a form of narration.
Narration (or the narrative form) CAN be used as a form of internal monologue in live action movies, but it doesn’t really cut it as such.
03. Nah can’t help myself with the snark here 🤪, why don’t you try and talk like an anime character in real life. Go and see what happens.😁
@@jimmyrusselluher1225 Notice how GHIBLI (the top of anime) doesn't use internal monologues at all! Personally, I really dislike narration. Show us don't tell us!
I don't know about texture being lost because of a lack of books but originality obviously is. If all you go with is a visual medium the only thing you'll get is at best a rehash ("""reimagining""") of the same exact thing and that is just tiresome. For example, picture Gandalf in your head. Listen to his voice. You either get Ian McKellen or if you're a boomer you get the voice of William Squire. This concept can be applied to anything and everything else. I've never seen any piece of Dune media other than the books so in my mind Leto is my picture of Leto, Baron Harkonnen is my own imagination of what someone as obese as they are malicious would be, etc. Ask me about Conan though, since the movies got to me before the books? Arnie pushing a wheel around and James Earl Jones saying "contemplate this on the tree of woe". Nothing wrong with that, they did a good job but that is Conan in my own view.
I agree with your book theory. My favorite books are the Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles. She understood that because she was transporting the reader to ancient lands and environments harboring the supernatural and preternatural...it would all feel so disconnected. She made sure to take moments to properly lay the setting: she described the colors, the textures, the smells, the atmosphere. She also had a way of describing a characters emotion without directly stating it, she described their body language and their actions in that moment that told a much more descriptive explanation of how they feel. This kind of thing is seen in really good movies, but no longer in modern adventure or action movies. The other awful thing is you might have noticed, nowadays its becoming more common for Directors to write their own screenplays/scripts, as opposed to finding a team of dedicated writers with experience. To paraphrase a quote from Ian Malcom of 'Jurassic Park', the directors of these movies "stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as [they] could." The art of movie making is lost on the silver screen, all that is left is the hollow shell of stereotypical character tropes and expanding profit margins. It seems all the artists have migrated to some of the streaming platforms, but even their numbers are dwindling.
What you said about the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, how the CGI in Dead Man's Chest somehow looks better than the 5th movie, I completely agree. It's the case with many movies these days. I'd really like some explanation tbh.
17:13 Yikes. I had no idea Pirates 5 looked so bad, I legit thought that cut was just a funny edit that Stories had made but nope. It's the actual film, just a Photoshopped face, post-edited with blue filter, on a CGI body. Who could possibly care about the story when characters look this bad? It's cringe.
Part of it is that VFX houses are forced to underbid and work ridiculous deadlines because studios want everything cheap and then they have to do constant last minute (often arbitrary and pointless) revisions for no extra money and with no extra time just to satisfy the execs in charge who neither know what they want nor have any artistic eye. If VFX artist were left alone to do their jobs and given the time and budget they need to do it well this would be much less of a problem.
see also this quote by Phil Tippet: _"In the olden days, producers knew what visual effects were. Now they’ve gotten into this methodology where they’ll hire a middleman - a visual effects supervisor, and this person works for the producing studio. They’re middle managers. And when you go into a review with one of them, there’s this weird sort of competition that happens. It’s a game called ‘Find What’s Wrong With This Shot’. And there’s always going to be something wrong, because everything’s subjective. And you can micromanage it down to a pixel, and that happens all the time. We’re doing it digitally, so there’s no pressure to save on film costs or whatever, so it’s not unusual to go through 500 revisions of the same shot, moving pixels around and scrutinizing this or that. That’s not how you manage artists. You encourage artists, and then you’ll get - you know - art. If your idea of managing artists is just pointing out what’s wrong and making them fix it over and over again, you end up with artists who just stand around asking “OK lady, where do you want this sofa? You want it over there? No? Fine. You want it over there? I don’t give a fuck. I’ll put it wherever you want it.” It’s creative mismanagement, it’s part of the whole corporate modality. The fish stinks from the head on down. Back on Star Wars, Robocop, we never thought about what was wrong with a shot. We just thought about how to make it better."_
Also though, you only notice 'bad' CG. You don't pay attention to all the seamless invisible CG that's everywhere but isn't obvious because it *could* be real. ua-cam.com/video/bL6hp8BKB24/v-deo.html
> I'd really like some explanation tbh.
Imagine...
Most adventure films today lack one key ingredient: a sense of adventure.
I think with a lot of movies, they’re trying to hard to explain it to avoid ending up in the Headscratchers page of Tv Tropes so they overexplain and robs the story of a lot of its mystery. We, as viewers, don’t get to experience any mystery or unknown because it’s all explained in a 10 min narrated info dump at the beginning
Using the film Stargate for example, we have a girl who is at a dig in Egypt where they uncover the titular Stargate. Years pass, no one knows what it does, they finally figure out the letters and are able to activate it. Ok, now what’s on the other side? They go in, come across a weird animal, a tribe of nomads and a pyramid. Ok, who are these people? What’s in the pyramid?
If it were made today, there would be 10 min narration explaining who Ra is and what the Gate network is so we would already know when they come across it in the desert. “Oh, that’s the Stargate thing.”
There's no adventure without a sense of danger. And when you have characters that are so unrelatable and unlikable you don't care when they die. There's no sense of danger. Stranger Things wants to make an adventure for their characters, but they are covered in plot armor. Only new, ironically more liked and interesting characters are on the chopping block.
@@treborkroy5280 "There's no adventure without a sense of danger." Fucking nailed it!
I don't feel as though modern adventure movies take their time. That's the biggest issue for me.
Whiner. there are great movies out there with sparkle and wonder. watch them and help them define the paradigm
m.
I enjoyed this. Some other great classic adventures like Jason and the Argonauts, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, King Kong, The Valley of Gwanji fit into these ideals of adventure too, along with a. great many others. The biggest points I believe are indeed that desire to rush, and that lack of awe from the characters. In Gwanji you have a scientist character who cannot believe what they are seeing in the valley. In 20,000 Leagues you have the professor stunned by the undersea ceremonies and farming/hunting. Now? >5mins set piece and quips.
King Kong (2005) is my favorite adventure movie. Everything you talked about here, I found in that movie. I especially loved skull island and the parts that involved it.
still remember that musicless bugs scene
@@BraveSpy One of the most terrifying scenes in cinematic history, at least outside of the horror genre.
For me it was already signalling the bad trends. Too much green screen, weightless action and filler. Even as a teenager I remember thinking "this is not a movie, this is a theme park ride".
@@ImVeryOriginal Maybe, but Peter Jackson succeeded in keeping a strong sense of adventure through the tribulations of the crew and a majority of the action sequences have aged relatively gracefully.
I always thought of it as of one of the greatest stories of love
I argue that part of the problem of the adventure movie genre is that to paraphrase Truman Burbank's teacher from the movie The Truman Show: there is nothing left (to explore). We have filmed nearly every possible location to death and at the same time made its utility limited by associating those with a specific idea. There isn't much magic to a desert or a rainforest or the high mountains anymore, they are just like tropes but of a location variety (Shot in a desert? You know the film's setting is Egypt; shot in the rainforest? The film most certainly revolves around the Amazon, etc.) This is why I look at videogames and actual historical accounts now for adventure these days. Sure the settings are not real or are no longer there or as it used to be, but the fact that it is actually very alien and unknown to me is what sells me that curiosity. Take a look at Monster Hunter World: beyond the settlement of Astera there lies an actual New World to explore and study the crazy fauna it contains. In the Periplus of Hanno the Explorer, we get to see as what Carthaginians saw in their travels (their account of "hairy people" may have been the first recorded sighting of gorillas in history).
I argue to resolve this issue is to broaden the utility of these locations. Deserts don't have to be associated with Egypt, there are many desert places that are not Egypt; rainforests and rivers don't have to be associated with the Amazons, you can make an entire film out in Southeast Asia for that. High mountain ranges is no longer the exclusive domain of the Himalayas, there are other high mountain ranges out there they can make films about. They need to be creative in using their settings...
I think this is a valid point. But there is infinite depth to our world that can be used as creative material for new stories, IMO the main problem is the lack of imagination and laziness of the storytellers.
I think you've nailed the fact the folks making the movies *think* there isnt a lot more they can show, and I think this stems from the problems the video is discussing about framing. The movie itself is so afraid of being boring that it forgets it should elicit awe in the viewer, and the only way to do that effectively is for the movie's pov to be curious about the world. These big budget films think they can't do that without action or destruction. It's a very Western, specifically American perspective of what exploring looks like. I really like your points, such an interesting discussion
@@wen1746 it's also about a lot of money and people depending on the movie to succeed to have an income. They will not risk anything more than necessary. Because that very risk is necessary to create something truly new... It needs to be able to fail completely, otherwise it can't stretch beyond the ordinary.
But the solid income you'll find in the ordinary.
@@sonkeschmidt2027 I agree! But I meant that this is because it's a very specific perspective that's framed as "ordinary" by these big budget films. I think they think they've shown every famous place through this (very specific) lens, and thus there's not a lot new to say about them. But if you shift the perspective, shift the framing, there might be something new to discover even in the most trodden places. Realistically these big action films never risk what has been proven to earn them money, but also if we discuss the issue of how the adventure is framed, I think this idea that "we've seen it all" comes from WHO and HOW they've seen it all.
Absolutely. Even if you watch BBC nature documentaries you see how many new wonders are left to be explored on this planet. Hollywood keeps coming back to the same places and tropes instead of making the effort of finding something new. But the Earth contains more than a human being can see in a lifetime and there's still plenty of inspiration for adventure filmmakers out there.
this issue of texture, or lack of texture and tactility in action and adventure movie is something ive been feeling for the last 9 or 10 years with marvel films and many many studio and producer driven films, but couldn't quite verbalize it until about a year or so ago. I dont personally agree with some little things in some of your other videos which are mostly matters of opinion, but im really glad to see this issue being talked about seriously. keep up the great work man!
also, as a little kid, the second jurrasic park was easily my favorite despite its many many flaws and shortcomings.
I've noticed the unrealness of modern movies too, and I think it has to do with resolution and focus. I noticed it especially when my family switched from our 20 year old Braun tube tv to a modern LCD a few years back. The difference in quality was night and day, of course. But now that everything was in focus and the high resolutions could be displayed properly, it felt artificial. It was too focused, the lines were too sharp. This also might have to do with movies being shot digitally now instead of on film, which eliminates a lot of the chemical effects we associate with older movies (See Movies with Mickey on Knives Out).
Additionally I've noticed how modern movies have just so much plot. As in things to do, places to go, everything moves so quickly from one plot point to the other. Remember how impressed people were at how little plot there was in Fury Road? Everything had room to breath. Modern action movies have the pace of a Laurel and Hardy movie in comparison, where how quick the plot moved was part of the joke.
I hate watching movies on Modern TVs that haven't been properly set up. The resolution is punched up to 11, motion blur is disabled, the colors are set to what I call "torch mode". The human eye doesn't see everything in sharp focus. Just the center of our vision is focused and everything else gradually blurs away. Motion isn't meant to be seen in crisp edges either. Too many things are now produced so that everything in scene is sharp all the time. Great cinematographers know that using focus as a tool is important for drawing attention. If everything is in focus all the time, then what are you supposed to be paying attention to?
It's very telling to me when ppl comment or talk about how clear and sharp EVERYTHING looks on their TV, screen, projector, monitor, etc. if their hyping up their new gadget. Their more focused on showing off what they have, rather than understanding its purpose.
I don't know I think watching Blue Planet in 4k felt fake or too sharp at any point. I think it is more related to the cinematography the CGI studios use while establishing shots and the lack of meaning in dialogue and story.
@@ericepperson8409 I know what you mean! I watched a familiar show on my friend's fancy new TV a few years back and I immediately felt uneasy. It was too sharp, felt so weird and I just couldn't tell what's the issue. My friend didn't understand what I mean and you described it perfectly. Thank you!
Yeah that's not it. If you've been fortunate enough to see real IMAX (not digital) or 70mm film it's sharp as anything can be but not at all artificial.
One other things , the adventures only feels real when the sound score lifts your spirits with that scene. Think of John Williams or Howard shore , without them the adventure wouldn’t have felt more real because music is a great part in playing that role to make us feel as an audience to appreciate the cinema as an experience rather just a timepass.
Yeah, 15 years ago I was always buying movie soundtracks on CD because I loved listening to them just on their own. But more recently, soundtracks just seem like generic orchestra. I don't find myself humming any of the themes now. They're forgettable.
Music is emotion, truly
The best way to capture that heart pounding feeling when you're present in an adventure is through music
Great video - I just wish you'd included some clips from Atlantis: the lost empire and Treasure Planet, I used to watch those adventure films on repeat for the very same reason we watch adventure films: that sense of the unexplored
I would imagine that since so many of these creatively sterile, soulless, repurposed cash-grabs, are mainly focused on ghoulishly exploiting the cinematic aspirations of a largely zombified audience; that there is little room for genuine enthusiasm or genuine engagement in these pre-packaged corporate-products -- just a shallow mimicry of the special relationship people used to have with the mysterious & the transcendent.
Marvel and DC fans.
Or, maybe they're just really hard to make and most creators suck at them.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy, King Kong (2005) and the Lost World Jurassic Park are the gold standard of adventure movies in my humble opinion.
And the first Mummy movie (1999)
Lawrence of Arabia is arguably the best. Also the original Indiana Jones trilogy, at least for kids.
@@vindolanda6974 LoA is amazing. So watchable despite being just ppl in a desert for 3 hrs
I was just talking to my mom about how I actually loved Lost World almost as much as the first Jurassic Park. Maybe because I was 7 when Lost World came out and it just resonated with me so much at that age. Very cool to see you make this essay right after having that conversation!
The movies we watched as kids will always hold a sense of wonder. I saw "The Lost World" when I was 22...and I was underwhelmed.
I've noticed the same thing with the "Star Wars" prequels. The people who first watched them as kids love them. As adults? Not so much.
For me, Bladerunner and Dune are 2 of the very few films nowadays that captivated me on the adventure. It's the ability to use CGI and SFX to make a point, rather than just chucking it in there, for the sake of chucking it in. It has to have meaning. I agree with the undiscovered land having to feel real. If you go too far with the CGI, it creates a disconnect and instantly throws the audience out of the movie. There's a fine line.
It's all about storytelling. Do the effects help illustrate the story, or are they the point, with the story developed after the fact to showcase the effects? Your two examples are both amazing and also two of the very few recent films that captivated me. Stories are no longer the main point, but just a tool to be used for other purposes.
Love that you had some Master and Commander scenes in here - such a great great movie, a worthy adaptation!
Hell yeah that was an adventure
Damn shame it never got a sequel.
You really hit the nail on the head with The Lost World's dino nerd, him excitedly talking about the headbutting dino has always stuck with me and gave me an appreciation of headbutting goats. It's all about the little things that add up to a texture.
Loved the use of Master and Commander as an example of an adventure movie, because it really is, the way it is able to convey it's adventure elements the way the ship almost like a microcosm of a floating nation moving across not that commonly chartered waters was not just emmersive. It really made you feel for the discoveries they made at the galapagos islands the wonder and intregue of it all. And Master and Commander is an action movie the adventure is really just a side piece, yet it does it so well.
the most important thing is to show why the place is important, what so special about the place and why the characters must be there.
That's why every time I see Cris Nolan's movies I remember that he uses the 50 - 50 rule (only 50% of the movie is fake and the other 50 must be real) nowadays it's great to see CGI, but that CGI must be used to highlight reality, not alter it. Although sometimes it is due, it should not detract from realism.
I may not like every single one of Nolan's movies, but you gotta respect him for making films with actual qualities, shooting a scene where a real plane is hitting an actual building just seems so surreal by today's Hollywood standards.
@@wzx6x6z6w, isn’t that what Nolan sort of relies on? The facade of his stunts and effects looking good in hope of tricking the audience to see his films as anything more than soulless blockbuster schlock?
@@Elias-no9fy well the entire point of any movie is to trick people. That's how magic works, I mean that literally.
What I can't understand is why you perceive his films as soulless.
@@sonkeschmidt2027 his films are all reliant on spectacle with little in the way of character depth. Tenet has a cool premise but the characters are paper thin. While his films are visually and technically impressive, in some areas they’re just as lifeless as the CG fests. It’s why Inception is his best film in my personal opinion. Interstellar would also be up there but its ending pissed me off so much.
@@danieldyson1660 why did the ending piss you off?
I think this is why I enjoy Journey to the Center of the Earth with Brendan Fraser and the guy who plays Peeta and its sequel with the Rock so much. They do it because they want to. The whole time there's this sense of wonder and amazement and discovery while they explore the center of the earth and the Mysterious Island that pulls you into the movie so much more than something like the new Jurassic movies.
I thought I was just getting old. Most movies just don’t have that magic they once had. The wonder, the way they would suck you out of your world for two hours & just blow your mind. Issa shame.
Honestly, a lot of Top Gear / The Grand Tour specials can serve as perfect examples for how to make an adventure movie.
Everything is, of course, actually real, so it is inherently grounded in reality and shows a world you could actually touch. But that's not all there's to it.
There's a general sense of discovery, getting to know landscapes and cultures for the first time, with the presenters serving as perfect vessels to capture these impressions, because they both want to be on the adventure but are also in many ways the least qualified people to go on an adventure, which relates to the viewers, because most of them have never been on such an adventure themselves.
And while the obstacles they face are, at least to some degree, scripted, they aren't purely there to drive a contrived plot forwards. The plot necessarily develops with the actual journey, and this is something that a good adventure movie needs to emulate, the goals and necessary actions changing based on what happened within the foreign environment.
Of course, you can have an overarching goal and the major arc will be that goal being reached, but ideally, the journey should be exciting enough and offer enough motivation in and of itself that by the end, when it comes to completing that overarching goal, you had almost forgotten about it.
This is, again, excellently showcased by the TG/TGT specials, where there is typically an overarching goal (like finding the source of the Nile or building a bridge over the river Kok), but so much happens on the way there that you hardly even care about it, mostly serving as a way to give both an initial motivation as well as a satisfying ending to the journey.
To me, it seems like all of those factors should be even more effective once you put them in a fantastical world where you can make anything happen and where you have the tools to raise the cinematography and everything related to it to a different level. But you need to make sure you emulate all the things that, in a car show special, happen naturally (to a degree) and turn the journey from a holiday report into a real adventure.
Hey congrats man, this is one of the best video essays on a movie I've ever watched. You followed a clear thread and didn't get lost in overly philosophical ideas or wishy-washy theories, but rather you focused on what could be actually done to alleviate the problems. And I was also impressed by how much you cared for actually picking out so many scenes and showing us what you mean instead of just telling us about it with no real backup. I haven't watched any of your other videos yet but I definitely will because I think you understand what a video essay should do: present information in a way that is engaging the viewer to maximize understanding and retention of what is being stated - instead of just some intelligent-sounding but forgettable talk over some flashy images.
Well done man, keep up your great work!
Oh and I also loved how you played with our expectations at around 2:20 - at first I thought "wow, yet another 30 minutes about how great the first JP is - how cliché" and then I burst out laughing and was really intrigued what you had to say
DUDE GO WATCH CRITICAL DRINKER, MUALER, MISANTHRO PONY
this is such a fantastic video. adventure (and fantasy) has always been my favorite genre since i was a kid, invoking a feeling that i really couldn't get anywhere else. nowadays i find it so hard to feel that sense of wonder and immersion when watching modern movies. what i think hit me the most from this video was what you said about characters in modern adventure films feeling like "no one wants to be there" and that their goal from the start is to go home. i never realized how true that was until i heard it in such simple terms. sometimes it feels like the human characters in such movies are just there so we can sympathize with their fear when they're in danger. and although that can be a powerful experience, empathizing with a character for their excitement is so much more fun
I like the fact that you showed the jump in the Assassin's creed movie as reference for how modern movies often fail to feel realistic even when something was shot for real.
When I watched the BTS and saw the effort they put into making the jump "for real" it honestly surprised me, given how it did not at all feel real. I think the issue was a combination of things: however mostly the camera angles and camera movements as well as the editing to sell the shot. The BTS talked about how the director Justin Kurzel prefers shooting real environments over green screens, which is why they opted into using an obscene amount of fog and (ironically) cg smoke to hide the surroundings and to create atmosphere. But then obviously when you shoot bird's pov showing the whole city you have to use cg. In post they then decide to give the audience 3 cuts from different top angle wide shots before cutting to the 3rd person view that you get in the game, but during the following of the protagonist the camera is like 90° rotated to the right and pans away from the subject, leaving him somewhere on the far left hand side of the frame, it's weird.. I'm guessing that this was a creative choice by the dop Adam Arkapaw to sell the effect of him disconnecting from the animus (desychronizing), but I can't help but feel that they were underselling this moment. They could have atleast done a vertigo which is something they did in the games as well, which really would have turned the audiences stomach, esp. when experienced on a large screen or done a POV to give the roller coaster effect you know from the early VR experiences or a close up of him, cutting to a shaky OTS which would have made the next cut to the real world almost like a jump scare (pun intended).
Overall the movie is a great example of the point you're making. It has all the ingredients, on paper, that you would think you wanted from this adaptation, yet the story, the characters, the dialogue were so disconnecting, that the incredible visuals just felt like make-up on a disfigured face.
With all that being said I have great empathy for the creators of the film, as I believe that it is incredibly hard, but, in my opinion, not impossible, to create a fresh and engaging story around the video game, while staying true to the source material.
Lastly there's the things the audiences don't see which is the politics behind the filmmaking, as it's entirely possible that Ubisoft or whoever else was pulling strings decided that the script should not emphasize the philosophical and mythical and adventure driven elements that made the game f****** great and instead make it a generic action movie for a wide audience. I have no idea why they would do that ( /sarcasm off).
Oh the politics and the agendas that are pushed into films nowadays is something that is also worsening the situation in my opinion. Here’s how I see it, and please be informed that I’m gay. But spilling out the sexuality of characters every time you have a second to spare is actually distracting from the story. Take Jurassic World Dominion, did we really need to know that the aviator lady likes redhead women? What did that add to the story? Did it push it forward? No. It’s the same with Thor Love and Thunder. Exposing the sexuality of characters, adding zero to the story. It feels like the studios are really trying to appeal to all masses by sacrificing the fluidity of the story, making it stumble over things that honestly are irrelevant.
Sure wish someone made an adventure movie like “The Man Who Would Be King” starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine!
23:32 fuck yeah national treasure
unironically one of my favorite adventure movies, cause it also has bits of the spy genre and the heist genre and really underrated comedic relief
even the sequel is loads better than anything current. Top Gun 2 is the only film Ive seen that feels like how movies used to be. Watching it, I feel like its 2007 again and National Treasure 2 is still in theaters.
@@mstrikesback168 hmm, I didn't like the national treasure sequel at all, maybe I need to watch it again
Thank you for giving Lost World love, cause it is very underrated. It felt like everyone gives it a bad rep because it doesnt live up to the crazy legacy of JP1. Rexy in jp1 definitely was scary but Buck and Doe terrified me as a kid cause of the cliffside scene. Seeing Eddie, a good guy, get crunched in the most brutal way possible as the first on screen death of the movie set the tone.
That's what is wrong with the latest Tomb Raider games as well. The joy of exploring the unknown was substituted with an unnecessary endless suffering of survival. As if the only time when we can empathize with the main character is when he or she suffers or in pain. Where is the joy, where is the thrill and excitement? In earlier games the main character was enjoying herself while going through adventures and she sought troubles and had fun overcoming them. I miss it. It feels like some important knowledge about life and human nature is currently being lost, replaced with tinsel.
A lot of people here don't understand that it's not the "Overuse of CGI" that is the problem, but Bad Use of CGI.
Or "only use CGI and don't make a good film around it"
@@GabrielHellborne The Screenplay is the most important part of a movie.
"Bad use of CGI"
Most films that hit theaters has pretty good CGI. The people complaining about CGI couldn't do better if they took courses for computer and software engineering.
Probably is the case for 90% of the movies that use cgi.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Almost all movies use CGI to some extend, even some that might surprise you. Good CGI is after all invisible.
A few years ago I was having the same internal discussion. And I think I managed to distill the missing bit as... "Showmanship"
Very few movies are made with showmanship in mind nowadays.
Showmanship cuts the bill... Superman syndrome ate thee bill....
You hit the nail on the head. I like your thoughts on character motivation, realism in texture, and pace. Another huge part that makes a difference that many people don’t notice is clarity, space, and pace in the soundstage. Much like the shortcomings in cinematography and visual effects in the newer movies - the soundstage is too crowded and gives the audience too much information all the time. The older great adventure movies such as OG Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and Dollars Trilogy leave room for sound effects, musical themes, and silence in balance to perfectly serve the story. This also makes those moments when the music swells SO much more impactful and memorable. Can you sing a theme from one of the new Jurassic World movies or Star Wars sequels? Probably not. OG Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or Dollars? Yes…most people who have seen those movies remember the musical themes. It is a huge emotional impact that is almost completely abused/misused in these modern production disasters.
In the first and third movie, all the "telling" exposition has a purpose. The nerdy guy in lost world talking about a 9inch skull tells us about the rules and parameters of the Dinosaur in question. Later on we then learn what having a 9inch thick skull means through the context of the story.
In the Jurassic world instalments, we learn nothing about the Dinosaurs. Anything that is told to us is old news.
And what new things we do learn is about made up supermutant dinosaurs. Lame.
"Visual noise" is a very good description of much of what makes up modern blockbuster movies.
Junk food would also fit.
I always thought the texture and the looking real was lost because instead of films being shot on film they're now shot digitally and can be edited and changed far more in post production. This was what I thought was missing from todays films but I'm not sure if it is that. The care isn't put in to capture these moments and sequences perfectly first time, for instance I heard there was a shot in a Marvel film where there's an explosion and Black Widow doesn't have any dirt or dust on her face when she should and they just added it in afterwards digitally. Not meaning to pick on a certain film in particular but I get the impression it's common to change things all over the place digitally thinking the audience wouldn't notice.
One key take away I got was to SLOW DOWN.
Sit in the tension and moment for a while. Sometimes less is more. Rather than so much noise that it becomes the baseline and makes it more difficult to stand out from.
Also focusing on the humanity of the characters.
(of course the highlighted points, the curiosity of adventure etc)
6:25 Literally goosebumps from this quote, almost cried. I've been writing for a hobby for close to 3 years and just that sheds so much light on what I don't know about human motivation. This video is amazingly well put together and really really makes you ask the important questions
I feel like a lot of films(Not All) today are suffering the same issues, especially since our real world is slowly falling apart and growing more narcissistic.
It's the nature of life. After growth comes decline, the sun goes up and it goes down, after winter comes spring.
You can choose to some degree whether you go with the growth or let things decline but ultimately everything is going to decline so your choices will always be limited. We all are going to die. But that's ok because something new is always getting born. =)
@@sonkeschmidt2027 I agree with a lot of what you said except in terms of global political economic and environment the world is headed down a very real and dark path.
@@aprilk141 and it is heading down that path until something new will spring from it.
As long as you ride that wave you'll be fine. If you tense up too much then you will fall and the wave will drown you in it but keep your cool and your head high, aware of your senses and your wit sharp and you will be fine. That's evolution.
@@sonkeschmidt2027 that is just so condescending. Having a realistic outlook of the near future is enabling, it allows folks to make better decisions.
This things are going to get better stuff is basically true but not until we are long gone, which is not a reason to disengage or despair, it is simply how things are.
@@aprilk141 why condescending?
Thanks for putting out good content out here in the ether
I think for me, this became apparent when I rewatched the original pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, and I was thinking “wow what happened to movies like this”?
Your content is always priceless. It always leaves one feeling good. It is never mean-hearted and always makes you feel like you learned something meaningful, even beautiful.
I honestly think you hit the nail on the head with this one, especially in analyzing the real purpose of an adventure. The whole reason I want to watch these movies is because I wish I was within them, going on these adventures, regardless of logic, because they call to me, they're amazing and wondrous. And I just feel like movies and their characters more recently have completely lost that.
Thank you so much for finding the words to describe exactly how I experience pretty up all modern action films. “Texture” is absolutely the best way to put it. For instance, watching Dune, on Salusa Secundus I could feel the weight of the rain I could hear the power in the Sardaukar chant. Tangibility is everything in film.
Thank you for this! I've been having the same thoughts for a while. Adventure movies are amongst my favourite but it seems they can't capture the magic anymore. Recently re-wateched Romancing the Stone, Conan the Barbarian and Big Trouble in Little China and I couldn't stop wondering why today's movies with better technology, more money and cinematic experience can't capture that sense of adventure and discovery? I've notice the pacing is a big problem and also presentation. It's like in today's stuff they are scared of moments of inaction and there must be movement and distraction all the time - we don't have time to take-in the setting. Then when presented a new location of sorts they don't spend enough time to show us how interesting it is - our imagination must be solicited ( often by showing a few things it's more what you don't see, but what you imagine). Just see the scene in Conan the Barbarian when they go to the city! They spend many minutes showing what's going on on the city and that makes it "real", what we get from that is "world building". Yeah world building is another problem of today's movies.
I stopped watching these movies long ago because I stopped feeling like "I want to be there" to feeling "yawn-- been there, seen that". Usually, this would be the feeling upon viewing the first movie of a franchise (ALIEN, STAR WARS) where everything is new and the movie has to explain its world by showing it to you, taking you through it. Every now and then, the sequel will show you something totally new (ALIENS, EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) and you're hooked again. But more often than not, a "committee" of wannabe movie makers are trying to capitalize further on something already created by talented visionaries and the moviegoer can feel it. It's in the rehashing of a iconic line ("I've got a bad feeling about this"), improved FX or a stunt you think you've seen before but you can't quite place... or, worse, you CAN place it exactly... and obvious product placement. To me, it advertises that this is being done for the money... it's following a "formula" determined by audience survey, designed to hook you back in.
Too many movies are all about the spectacle and the characters are just there to drive the story. You don't really get to know them, to relate to them or care about them. More often than not, the characters do something that utterly annoys me, thus taking me "out" of the film and breaking the spell. Stories feel contrived rather than following a natural progression. Characters feel too perfect. Too lucky. Inhuman in the way that they always evade danger and that you know who's going to die and who's going to live, as long as you've been noticing the planted hints.
Also, I think there is an addictive quality to movies as well. ALIEN is one of my absolute favorite movies of all time. As a budding graphic artist, ALIEN appealed to my sense of design and storytelling. It evoked an emotional response from me, seeing it in the theater for the first time, in a seat near the lobby doors so I could "escape" if the movie got too intense. Aside from ALIENS, none of the other iterations have evoked any enduring response approaching the first two movies. Once the xenomorph has been let out of the box, you cannot stuff it back in to see it anew. It will never be as scary as it was the first time. I find that I still will watch new releases even though I refuse to pay to see them in a theater. It's the same with STAR WARS (I don't even bother watching any of the series). I'll either rent at a reduced price as a download or borrow someone's DVD copy. I will not keep a personal copy of it or collect the merch. But I hate that I feel rather stupid for still showing interest in something that has long ago lost the creative spark of the original story.
Generally, I don't watch many movies anymore. I go to the theater maybe a handful of times a year to see something that I feel I must see on a big screen, like just about anything by Denis "DUNE" Villenueve or a scant few other moviemakers. My imagination is not someone's plaything or money pit. I'd much rather create my own stories that appeal to my values and my sense of adventure and creativity. I think more of us would be better off doing the same thing, with what talents we can nurture, rather than relying on someone else's.
As you can tell, I have a LOT to say about movies...
If you can, go see _Everything Everywhere All at Once_ in theaters. I promise you won't feel like you've seen it before.
Very relatable. In the past 10 years I went from huge Star Wars nerd to someone who is so tired of Star Wars I kinda despise it now. It's become part of the cultural cancer of nostalgia-baiting forever franchises that just rehash the same elements over and over. The only Star Wars product (not film or story, product!) I enjoyed recently was The Mandalorian and I believe that's because iit doesn't just take inspiration from Star Wars, but from things that inspired Star Wars (spaghetti westerns, samurai films, World War 2 movies). It's not completely new, but at least it's an intelligent tribute.
All of these franchises that were once beloved turned into grotesque, shambling, undead caricatures of themselves and should just be put out of their misery. There's a couple exceptions here and there which actually continue telling new solid stories (Toy Story, Mad Max) but all the Aliens, Terminators, India Joneses and Ghostbusters really need to retire.
@@ImVeryOriginal I thought the latest Ghostbusters movie was pretty darn good. Then again, I also enjoyed Dominion.
"A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - Rick Berman
Love this quote.
George Lucas said that. Wonder if he stole it from Rick or visa versa.
The wordy, bearded guy in the straw cowboy hat was a parody of the paleontologist Robert T. Bakker. If I recall correctly, that character met a bad end.
Bakker was also an advisor on the films and is namedropped by Timmy in the first film. I love that he's in the second film - a shining ray of innocent childlike delight at seeing actual dinosaurs among all the gruff and cynical mercenaries. I was always sad he gets killed like that.
@@ImVeryOriginal Bakker himself apparently wasn't sad about it. The concept of him being eaten by a T. rex in a movie where he gets basically parodied was very amusing to him, which I can definitely understand.
@@robinliesens7983 Oh it's definitely fun on a meta level, I'm just saying within the story it feels bad.
@@ImVeryOriginal Ah ok, I wasn't really sure what you were going for in your previous comment.
This video made me realize that I actually LOVE adventure movies... but I've only thought if the genre as the recent "adventure" blockbusters.
Roland is the best part of The Lost World and that line about going up the mountain to live is great.
Wow, I adored this essay. You have such a calming voice, and I found your points incredibly well-put and compelling. Thank you for a lovely, educational half-hour. I've never heeded a "call to action" on a video before, but this time I was happy to click the link and sign up for Nebula. Excited to watch your "Fallen Franchise" video on there, as well as check out the available documentaries.
FINALLY I see some appreciation for The Lost World. Almost every video I've seen covering the film has called it disappointing or bad. Wonderful video man!
I know Nope isn’t an adventure movie, but it honestly kind of felt like one. There was wonder and magic in finding out what was around the next corner.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park deserves more recognition. It has the best action set pieces and animatronic close-ups in the franchise. The RV on the cliff, the arrival of Tembo's party, the Raptors in the grass scenes are all iconic. For all its flaws and the cartoony, nonsensical last act, it's a great adventure film. I also really like the score. It reminds you of the original JP soundtrack but different: more wild and primal, like the island they are on. It's honestly my most rewatched film of the original trilogy.
I know this is about movies, but I recently watched an anime called "A Place Further Than The Universe", and I was invested the whole time, and actually felt like I was going on an adventure with the characters. It's amazing, and even if you don't watch anime, I would reccomend anyone to watch it. It's very short, only 12 episodes and 20 minutes each episode.
I don't want to spoil much but it's an adventure anime about trying to go to Antactica. Each character has a reason for going, but that would be getting into spoilers.
It sounds crazy, goig to Antactica? But the anime actually goes to great lengths to ground this journey, since getting to Antactica is no easy or simple task. And it being hard, is kind of the point, the story has to do with doing what other people say is impossible.
It's a very inspirational anime, and if you have some dreams you want to achieve, it will impact you even more. and stick with you.
That was such a good anime.
Thank you! I've been trying to put this into words for a while now. Everything in these movies feels so over processed and soulless, too "perfect," and very very plastic. I like to call it Disney-fication™ because nearly every live action adventure movie that they put out has the vibe. I think I notice it most in some of their big francises, the newest Pirates of the Caribbean, StarWars movies and shows, Jurassic Park, and the Marvel shows on Disney+. It shows up in other places but all those examples stand out due to the beloved originals that Disney bought the rights to being so starkly different from what they become. I think the movies and shows with less direct studio involvement can escape this, usually when a director is allowed to do their thing.
You know, I didn’t expect this video to be MOVING. Well done. I love the journey of pondering what we respond to in adventure films. I’ve seen so many lately that are, what I call, disposable. Thanks for the reminder of what a great adventure story can inspire.
The Lost World was a gem honestly. That cliff scene still has me sitting on the edge of my seat whenever I watch it. It really draws you in and you put it perfectly about why/how it does that
I can’t believe laser guided Velociraptors broke the suspension of disbelief for people.
I put in my favorite to least list of Jurassic movies in the series
- Jurassic Park
- Jurassic Park: Lost world
- Jurassic Park 3
And the Jurassic world movies aren't sequels to me so yeah these are my favorite
First video of yours i've seen. Genuinely enjoy your content, Straight to the point and very clean
You are arguably my most favourite channel! Please keep going
The problem is, the movie isn't actually being shot on location, CGI has overloaded the market and the human mind sees it and knows the story can't be real.
The real problem is profit, CGI is "easier" to do so it'll be done quickly. And money is at the end.
I mean, it's not all that. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a great adventure film, and all of it is CGI and are shot exclusively in Green screen...
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 I mean that movie and certain others work as adventures with CGI but movies that rely on real world locations to tell a story and use CGI to a heavy degree to bring someone to that location fail to capture the magic of adventure movies.
And another great video. Although one always has to be cautious with the "good old days"/"everything was better yesterday" kind of argumentation, I really think that this actually fits for today's movies. All of these things can be fixed, as done in "Dune", "The King" or "The Martian". But I think that their is also some interest in the lobby that calls for "more explosions". I don't know why this trend is growing.
Maybe some directors are being carried away by the comfort of this evolution, like Jackson's got with the Hobbit trilogy (compared to LOTR), but I think that pitches for movies these days, must call for a specific amount of CGI/Explosion rate in order to be sexy enough. (If you have no CGI budget, your movie might be turned down as being to "lame".)
I personally think Jackson always had this issue - Fellowship of the Ring strikes a perfect balance, but by the end of Return of the King, I was tired of the virtual battlefields and Legolas surfing on elephants. It all started looking and feeling fake back then, but the storytelling was strong enough to carry it anyway. With King Kong, he went off the rails and never looked back.
I guess this is what happens often to technically brilliant filmmakers who are ultimately more interested in the film technology side of things than the actual art and storytelling. Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, George Lucas, James Cameron - all suffered from the same syndrome.
A good quote for this is from AVP, when 2 characters are talking about a dad dying due to climbing everest and drinking champagne with his daughter at the top, which killed him, where the daughter is asked if she thinks he remembered the pain of a stroke, or drinking champagne with his daughter at the top of the world
You put into words so well what I am sorely missing from adventure movies. I want to be swept away and filled with wonder and *feel* things. It's been a while since we had a good solid adventure story in film.
In the movie The Fall the adventure parts are stories told within the film so we know they're made up, but I recall the vibrantly colored parts are pretty effective adventure. As was The Princess Bride that used a similar framing device.
I adore The Fall, such a good looking, creative and heartfelt movie.
It can very well be color grading. One big thing for me is the fps the movie is filmed in.
Perfect example is LotR and Bilbo.
All of the movies that were shown in this, literally all of them, were shot in 24 frames per second. The frame rate used had nothing to do with the problems put forward here.
Besides the Hobbit films, almost all movies are still shot in 24fps. It's very much more a problem of a multitude of factors coming together such as using virtual camera angles, CGI elements not being properly planned and integrated with practicals, clean high resolution images, etc.
17:56
The indominus's ability to camouflage wasnt "made up on the spot" tho, it was very clearly established at the beginning of the film both through dialogue and in action. In fact, its ability to camouflage was literally what allowed it to escape, as it tricked the surveillance systems into thinking it was out of the cage by lowering it's body temperature
Yeah, I'm kinda getting the feeling that there was a bit of bias in this analysis.
Yeah, I'm kinda getting the feeling that there was a bit of bias in this analysis.
So refreshing to find a film channel offering carefully researched and well thought through, insightful discussion. A rarity. And such a pleasure - thank you!!!! keep it up
Instant sub - I wonder for a while why I don’t like Star Wars much anymore, and I hit on that they aren’t adventure films anymore. This is nicely complentary to my findings.
When you observe how Star Wars in the original trilogy works, you’ll see strict rules on what the camera can show you. From the opening scene, we are introduced to a few characters and we can only follow them, and whoever they meet and know. That way we literally explore the setting with these characters. The droids eventually meet Luke, and then we get to follow him.
Notice how each scenario has a sequence of places with a purpose. We get an idea of Mos Eisley and its back alleys. This leads to the cantina with more sub-spaces with functionality: an entrance with droid detectors, a bar, and tables deeper down, and quiter corners, and behind landing bays to park ships nearby. The ‘social’ rules and other universe rules are laid out as well. Within a few minutes, we see an Empire with different jobs, a chain of command, different types of troopers even, and even learn of spies etcetera. Not much later, the death star is explored: there are hangars and technicians, turbolifts, command centres, trash compactors etc. Everything is done like this. Even the Sandcrawler is shown with an interior space.
Compare this with new Star Wars, including the stuff Dave Filoni has created: these are mostly just backdrops, Potemkin Villages. Even when they copy something, they manage to make it less interesting. Take the walker assaults: the rich detail of Hoth, compared to the empty stage that is Crait.
I agreed with every single point😅 seriously nowadays all the movies feel so texture-less, despite the most realistic VFX. That sense of tangibility and awe is lost in adventure movies today 💔💔
That's why movies like Mission Impossible, Top Gun, and Mad Max: Fury Road stand out amongst the crowd as shining examples of awe-inspiring filmmaking 🤩🔥
But even they don’t match up to the likes of Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park.
12:15 Small correction: Fitzcarraldo is not obsessed with dragging a boat over that hill, he's obsessed with building an opera house in the jungle. He dragged the ship over that hill out of necessity, to reach another arm of the river so the journey could continue.
Very nice video essay, thanks! :) ❤
Always wonderful work!
the lost world doesnt get nearly enough credit!
i feel like the colour-grading also makes a big difference for me. a lot of new movies are so bright, perfectly lit, colourful, that it just feels like a movie. using raiders of the lost ark as an example, when i watch that, everything feels so much more real... idk it's hard to put a finger on 🤷♀️
I think it's a contrast difference. Modern movies either seems to glow or be very dark gray brown all the way through. I love the old technicolor movies, the colors they really popped, but didn't glow. I agree it's hard to explain.
Master and Commander is the last film that I can remember that really captures the spirit of being on an Adventure.
16:48 Thank you LSOO for finally putting into words what I've felt about modern movies ever since I started paying more attention to the movies I watched a few years ago. Ever since then, I've always felt that something just doesn't seem real about CGI in modern movies, but it does in older ones, which makes no sense to anyone I've tried to explain it to. So, thank you for confirming that it's not just me that feels this way and for putting into words. I genuinely feel so relieved.