El Sitherino Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 sithy, calm down.... It is not unusual at all to describe directors according to their style...as opposed to their place of birth.. British is a nationality, not a cinematic style. Originally posted by Astrotoy7 Scott simply has done most of his work in Hollywood.. That still doesn't automatically change his nationality to "hollywood". Lucas does most of his work in England and Australia, yet noones called him a "British" or "Australian" director. Originally posted by Astrotoy7 how about this description, your majesty : "British Born Hollywood Director" Ridley Scott How about just, "British Born Director" Ridley Scott. Originally posted by Astrotoy7 Go watch a film called "Naked" by Mike Leigh .... even Trainspotting or anything by Guy Ritchie.... they are British Films I already have. I have seen many "British" films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 jeezalu....forgotten to take your tablets sithy?? I am looking forward to KoH tho, coz Orlando = HUNK mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith A japanese girl may be more subdued when speaking english, but she's not speaking "Japanese english". It's not a different kind of english. It's just cultural upbringing. English is quite a uniform language, with only very minor variations from one place to another. But that is not the case with a lot of other languages. French for example, differs from Quebec to France. The core is the same, but it more then a matter of regional terms and such. In spanish, there's also Latin America spanish and the one spoken in Spain. Again, at the core, they're the same, but many differences exist, enough to differenciate them. Even vietnamese is different from region to region. The people of the North speak a VERY different vietnamese then the people of the South. Furthermore, during WWI, commanders had the hard task to translate their orders in different french dialects, yet all where considered french. Originally posted by InsaneSith That still doesn't automatically change his nationality to "hollywood". Lucas does most of his work in England and Australia, yet noones called him a "British" or "Australian" director. Of course not. He makes movies for Hollywood. If you film a movie in Lybia, it doesn't make it a Lybian movie if your studio is a Hollywood one, your director's from Hollywood and the movie is made for the American market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Of course not. He makes movies for Hollywood. If you film a movie in Lybia, it doesn't make it a Lybian movie if your studio is a Hollywood one, your director's from Hollywood and the movie is made for the American market. I fail to see how this makes something a cinematic style though. Scott makes movies for himself with no specific audience in mind. The only thing I'll grant you is the hollywood studio. But that's just a hazard. It doesn't make him a "hollywood" director. It doesn't change his nationality, which was the original discussion. Cinematic style isn't nationally specific. Someone could be pushed into a style though by their cultural uprbringing. Someone raised in a culture where you're to be more sublte, will make more sublte style movies. Someone raised in an outspoken culture will make movies with an outspoken style, no subtilty. These aren't nationally specific styles. That's my arguement. Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad English is quite a uniform language, with only very minor variations from one place to another. That's not my point though. I'm saying because she's more subtle (because of her cultural upbringing) with the way she speaks, doesn't mean she's speaking a different type of english. Let's say she's speaking the type of english commonly spoken in area A. Just because she doesn't say it in a more outspoken manner, doesn't mean she isn't speaking the type of english spoken commonly in area A. She is, she just says it more subtilty. Anyway, this is a pointless debate as it has nothing to do with the original meaning of the post that started the whole ordeal. CapN was commenting on a post made by another member talking about american bias, Capn commented that Scott is infact british and therefore can't have "American" bias. "British" bias perhaps, but not "American". And on top of that I'm having a hard time properly explaining myself and therefore any attempts to continue would only make myself look like a fool. My apologies for dragging this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith ...And on top of that I'm having a hard time properly explaining myself and therefore any attempts to continue would only make myself look like a fool. sithy, dont worry about it...we all have those days... I remember I had one back in 1987 ... JK ! in the meantime, dont forget Orlando = HUNK mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 sithy, dont worry about it...we all have those days... I remember I had one back in 1987 ... JK ! Evil. <3 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 (I)n the meantime, dont forget Orlando = HUNK mtfbwya Definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 One thing I am cringing though is the portrayal of Saladin and his forces.... I am hoping it is not a stereotypical "Hollywood Muslim" but I am sure It wont be otherwise mtfbwya Saladin was a cool guy. I've read of some of his battles, and even played through some of them in Medieval TW scenarios. An interesting person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Yeah... he basically kicked Richard's butt most of the time too... but then just as he was about to win he pretty much got voted out of power by his own generals. Sucks to be a military leader... -------- Many, if not the majority of, hollywood films are filmed in canada and australia... but they are still clearly "hollywood films". Personally I wouldn't describe Scott as a british director but a hollywood one. His first film was a big budget hollywood film, and all his films since have beent he same. I very much doubt he has lived in the UK since the 70s. That isn't to say he has sold out, or that hollywood is somehow worse (though its definately less innovative). But there is a definate "hollywood style" and it is closely associated with the world's view of the US. Scott's films are much more associated with that view and style than british viewpoints or styles. Many "hollywood directors" aren't american, but their nationality isn't really important to viewers, only their style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by toms Personally I wouldn't describe Scott as a british director but a hollywood one. His first film was a big budget hollywood film, and all his films since have beent he same. I very much doubt he has lived in the UK since the 70s. That isn't to say he has sold out, or that hollywood is somehow worse (though its definately less innovative). But there is a definate "hollywood style" and it is closely associated with the world's view of the US. Scott's films are much more associated with that view and style than british viewpoints or styles. Many "hollywood directors" aren't american, but their nationality isn't really important to viewers, only their style. Originally posted by InsaneSith CapN was commenting on a post made by another member talking about american bias, Capn commented that Scott is infact british and therefore can't have "American" bias. "British" bias perhaps, but not "American". We've already settled it. No need to drag it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by toms Yeah... he basically kicked Richard's butt most of the time too... but then just as he was about to win he pretty much got voted out of power by his own generals. Sucks to be a military leader... Uh, where did you get that? Saladin made a treaty with Richard allowing christian pilgrims to go to Jerusalem unharmed after the war ended in a draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Yeah, but at the time saladin was basically about to win with one final push, but the other military and civil leaders had had enough of the war and wouldn't let him finish it. So he basically became a weakened leader who had little real power. Its probable, though not certain, that if he had been allowed one final push he'd have beaten Richard (who was out of men, and worried about losing his throne back home), and might well have expanded into a lot of europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 He couldn't have. He died one year later after the Ramla peace treaty...and nobody could've replaced him as a military leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 I've seen Kingdom of Heaven and I must say, I liked it. I didn't find the movie bias towards Muslims or Christians at all. They were depicted as people who are more about the sanctity of life rather than Muslims are better than Christains, or vise versa. Of course the movie does have its villians and heros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 I just saw it tonight. There isn't anything wrong with it, and the battles are quite good, but it just wasn't very memorable for some reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I finally saw it last night, so i can give an informed ( ) opinion at last It seemed pretty even handed to me as well. Bascially more anti-organised-religion rather than anything else. I still think that the trailers gave a different impression though. As a film though i thought it sucked. Probably one of the worst films i've seen in the last year or so. Disjointed, cliche ridden plot, lines and characters. Every scene was predictable from the very start. ("Dad makes him an offer, he turns him down, then rides after him later", the horse int he desert, the "spares enemy, enemy spares him", the "love story", "finds water in the desert and turns it into a green parand on and on...) If they had made him an ex-navu seal then they might have managed to get a few more predictable cliches in there, but not many Several scenes seemed like complete rip-offs of gladiator (from the opening snow setting to the "guys come to execute him, he kills them" scene). Orlando bloom was ok, but i never had much sympathy for his character. His ability to have a 2 minute sword-fighting lesson and then suddenly be able to defeat multiple armed knights at once was impressive though Even the battle scenes, which i had hoped might save it, were disappointing and unmemorable. In gladiator they had energy and rythmn and you knew what was going on, in Kingdom they just seemed like lots of repeated random quick cuts of "forces crashign into each other" and "random close ups of impacts". All in all i spent most of the film wishing i'd gone to watch ong-bak instead, and i saw three seperate groups of people get up and leave during the film, something i've never seen before. Not recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.