You're viewing part of a thread.
That's fair. But it's worth watching even just for the effects and set work.
I guess I'm one of those people who would rather watch a low-budget movie with a good story than a big-budget movie with a lot of spectacle but a bad story. But I do understand people going to see a movie just for the spectacle. I've done it before. I just usually regret it.
I think it is a kind of spectacle that just doesn't exist anymore. For example, going to a Marvel movie for the effects is sort of like watching a video game. When everything is pure CGI, it loses the appeal (for me).
But Titanic was right at the cusp of that. There is CGI, but there's also bigatures and miniature work and practical effects, etc etc etc. In many ways it is James Cameron at his peak.
But totally agree that the plot is pretty corny and it could have been much better as a more historically-focused film which didn't spend most of the time on a relatively generic love story.
The last movie I went to purely for the spectacle was Dunkirk and I was pleasantly surprised that it was an enjoyable film as well, so I guess sometimes it's worth it even in more recent times.
Christopher Nolan is one of the few that can nail big spectacle as well as story telling.
I guess I’m one of those people who would rather watch a low-budget movie with a good story than a big-budget movie with a lot of spectacle but a bad story.
Might I make a suggestion?
Thank you, I have seen it and I really love it! I hear there is a sequel, which seems needless so I never watched it. But I've seen that one twice.
I watched the sequel. It wasn't as special as the first one, had probably twice the sets as the first one. (:O) Worth a watch, I'd say.
It was available for free for a while some years ago, iirc. Don't know about now though.
First one great, second one still good, although it's been a while since I saw it.
Good to hear it doesn't suck, but eh. I don't need to know any more of his story.
I'd like to see the movie done as a play.
I'd like to see the movie done as a play.
Ooooh, I've never thought about that. Yes, that would be great. Who would you cast? I just started thinking of British actors and the first ones to pop into my mind, Ian McKellen — but he's obviously too old to play John Oldman (but perhaps the skeptic Doctor?) — and Tom Hiddleston. On second thought, I don't know if David Tennant could be good as well. He's definitely played a young-ish looking ageless man before... He's better in roles that require high energy, whereas Hiddleston has a sort of cool about him that might be fitting.
I wouldn't care about big names unless it was remade as a movie. Honestly, I'd be happy to see it done by the local repertory theater company. Unless the play was filmed while it was on Broadway or at the Old Vic or whatever, I probably wouldn't see it with someone like Tom Hiddleston. I think David Tennant might be just about the right though. John was played by David Lee Smith, who was 44 at the time. Tennant is 53, but looks younger. Basically the guy needs to look old enough to be an established professor but young enough to still be attractive to grad students.
Incidentally, it was written by Jerome Bixby, who also wrote four TOS Star Trek episodes, including the famous mirror universe episode. That was the initial draw to me. That and John Billingsley from Star Trek: Enterprise. What can I say, I'm a sucker for Trekkie bait.
True enough.
I just haven't any local theaters that could be capable of doing that so I'm imagining like a play in London. Something like this
Yeah I saw the other credits of the writer to see if there's any other works I haven't seen. I was sad to see his passed in the late 90's.
Oh yeah Billingsley is great. Although I only started properly watching ST several years after having seen The Man From Earth.
I'm a sucker for Trekkie bait.
Me too.