Dawn re-make. A homage to Romero's film ?

**Trin** · 23-Jul-2009

I think what bassman is saying is that the quality of the nutsack acting has a role in determining whether the movie is good just as much as the lighting or camera work or amount of sweat.

It's not really an apples to apples comparison. The nutsack genre is mostly about action and special effects. It's not really a character study like Dawn.

**AcesandEights** · 23-Jul-2009

I'd just like to go on record as stating that I am unsure why nutsacks are getting the short end of the metaphorical stick here. My nutsack is beautiful to behold and I don't appreciate assertions or even the possibility of idle contemplation to the contrary.

Now, maybe you all have horrid nutsacks, I don't know and I don't care a wit, but casting aspersions on the whole of nutsackdom and dragging my nutsack down in the metaphorical sludge alongside yours is not appreciated. So please, keep your nutsack negativity to yourselves.

I say good day to you, gentlemen.

Good day!

**MinionZombie** · 23-Jul-2009

That may be the greatest quote I've ever read.

I was also quite chuffed with:

chucked at it like a wet sponge at a grubby whore

**bassman** · 23-Jul-2009

Originally Posted by SRP76

It should be obvious: the technical details don't alter the story. You can show a nutsack perfectly, but it's still just a nutsack.

I don't consider acting and dialogue as minor technical details that don't alter the story. They are very major parts of the story...

**Trin** · 23-Jul-2009

Originally Posted by bassman

I don't consider acting and dialogue as minor technical details that don't alter the story. They are very major parts of the story...

Yeah, bassman is right on this.

@srp - I'm reading and re-reading your posts and I'm not sure your point is coming across clearly, nutsacks aside. Maybe you could clarify a bit.

@aces - I think it's obvious whenever nutsack commentary turns negative that it is not your nutsack in the discussion.

**SRP76** · 23-Jul-2009

Originally Posted by bassman

I don't consider acting and dialogue as minor technical details that don't alter the story. They are very major parts of the story...

I don't even notice acting. Exactly how do you spot an acting "error", anyway? What, something like "Peter's not supposed to shoot that zombie"? Or, "Fran's screaming would have a different pitch in real life"? Just how in hell would I know differently? Not like any zombies invaded the mall in my town; where's the basis for how they're "supposed to" be acting?

Books don't have acting at all. And a lot of them are still great. So it can't be that big a part of the story, or you'd have nothing but blank pages.

Same with the dialogue. Just what are the characters "supposed to be" saying in this situation? And just which of us has had the experience to know what a person says in that situation, in the first place?

**bassman** · 23-Jul-2009

The difference with books is that you aren't looking at the characters. And no....I'm not talking about how he should shoot zombies. It's the facial reactions, the tone of the voice, the body language, etc.

I could say FUCK YOU to one of my friends, but depending on how I deliver the line, he could take it as joking around or as i'm really angry with him.

And I don't think comparing books to films is really fair. With books you're reading the story and interpreting how YOU want see it. You can make it whatever you want. But with films you're seeing how someone else(director) wants it to be seen...

**Trin** · 23-Jul-2009

I suppose if we're getting to nit-picky details I'd separate dialog into what is said and how it is said.

What is said is a reflection of the plot and storyline and is in the control of the writers/director. That can have a huge effect on the quality of the movie.

How it is said is in the control of the director/actor. As bassman says, it can substantively change the meaning of the line. It can have an effect on the mood and understanding of the viewer.

Books don't require acting because they have narrative. If the descriptions and narrative in books are bad that is the equivalent of bad acting and has a definite reflection on the quality of the book.

**darth los** · 23-Jul-2009

I don't even get the problem here. If the acting is bad then how are we supposed to become engrossed in the story?

If the people on screen don't even buy into what they're doing how can we?

**clanglee** · 28-Jul-2009

Originally Posted by shootemindehead

But they're connected with the Franchise.

They ARE the franchise.

But the creators on the new Star Trek were unconnected with the franchise. The actors were all (with the exception of Nemoy) new, the characters were all a little different, the plotline was changed. etc etc

The new ST movie fits with your entire statement really. . unless I misunderstand.. . . . . which could happen. . . . I have been known to completely distract myself and lose my train of. . . . . . wait. . . is that a turtle? Nope just a rock. . . what was I talking about again?

Originally Posted by darth los

I don't even get the problem here. If the acting is bad then how are we supposed to become engrossed in the story?

If the people on screen don't even buy into what they're doing how can we?

:

Exactly!!

Originally Posted by AcesandEights

dragging my nutsack down in the metaphorical sludge alongside yours !

Nutsack sludge. . . . .It's what's for breakfast!!!

**shootemindehead** · 28-Jul-2009

Originally Posted by clanglee

But the creators on the new Star Trek were unconnected with the franchise. The actors were all (with the exception of Nemoy) new, the characters were all a little different, the plotline was changed. etc etc

The new ST movie fits with your entire statement really. . unless I misunderstand.. . . . . which could happen. . . . I have been known to completely distract myself and lose my train of. . . . . . wait. . . is that a turtle? Nope just a rock. . . what was I talking about again?

Yep, you've misunderstood.

The new 'Star Trek' film is very much a continuation of the franchise made by francshise people... It isn't totally "Desilu / Paramount" anymore but it's still Rodenberry's legacy if you will. You just don't get to make a 'Star Trek' movie without the blessing of people involved previously.

'Dawn of the Dead (2004)' was made by people without ANY connection whatsoever to the creator (or people conncted with him, if we discount moneyman Rubinstein). It simply nicked the cool title and the cool setting and went from there....

...That turtle is cool.........

**darth los** · 28-Jul-2009

Originally Posted by shootemindehead

The new 'Star Trek' film is very much a continuation of the franchise made by francshise people... It isn't totally "Desilu / Paramount" anymore but it's still Rodenberry's legacy if you will. You just don't get to make a 'Star Trek' movie without the blessing of people involved previously.

Well, just because "franchise people" are involved doesn't mean it's going to be a quality product. Look at what Russo and Streiner did to NOTLD. Need I say more?

Furthermore, look at the way Lucas completely screwed up The star Wars franchise with those shitty sequels. So having company people so to speak at the helm is not a lock.