roycelerwick
A rejoint le mai 2015
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis2
Note de roycelerwick
Invented a decimal computer system (as opposed to binary) and taught me all about "cinema verity" and that all the old newsreels with dumb-asses who strapped rockets to their backs and tried to ice skate or jumped off barns with paper wings were faked for comedic value--since he did most of them. Started in the business playing the mighty Wurlitzer theater organ. RIP. Great guy. Great teacher.
First met John in 1976 where he was teaching at a St Paul Minnesota film school called "Film in the Cities." He was my first introduction to the concept of documentary film and its ethics and purpose, even though he openly admitted that as a newsreel "journalist" in the 30's or whatnot, his own start was far less than ethical. But that taught me about even modern "fake news" and instilled a healthy cynicism toward those, like Michael Moore, who, however much you may believe in his point of view, is in fact propagandizing a point of view.
John taught that basically, you go shoot some footage, good, bad, whatever, and then you see what you've captured. You edit that into a story, add narration, connective footage or documentation, but you do not go out with a "script" or any intention of the story coming out one way or another. It's harder, it doesn't assure an audience, it doesn't assure funding or box office or awards.
But it's honest. It's "journalism."
It's "film truth."
First met John in 1976 where he was teaching at a St Paul Minnesota film school called "Film in the Cities." He was my first introduction to the concept of documentary film and its ethics and purpose, even though he openly admitted that as a newsreel "journalist" in the 30's or whatnot, his own start was far less than ethical. But that taught me about even modern "fake news" and instilled a healthy cynicism toward those, like Michael Moore, who, however much you may believe in his point of view, is in fact propagandizing a point of view.
John taught that basically, you go shoot some footage, good, bad, whatever, and then you see what you've captured. You edit that into a story, add narration, connective footage or documentation, but you do not go out with a "script" or any intention of the story coming out one way or another. It's harder, it doesn't assure an audience, it doesn't assure funding or box office or awards.
But it's honest. It's "journalism."
It's "film truth."
The reviewers who claim this is boring and not at all funny apparently don't understand that its sort of the point. This is farce. It is not belly-laughing, joke-telling, and gag pulling. It's a crappy SciFi series. That's the joke. Having said that, the ensemble doesn't really kick in until towards the end of the second episode, and of course, when Joel Hodgson and Trace Beaulieu start having scenes together, that's instant ensemble and instant comedy--some serious laughs are in there, trust me. And some good character development and quirky plot twists. I can't give examples or I'll be banned and heavily fined. When I rated this, I penalized the first episode which was a rather perfunctory exposition on the characters and premise. It's the part of the disaster movie where you're forced to welcome and identify with a bunch of characters who are going to get blown up later on, so you really want to hit FF and get to the explosions. But it serves a purpose, so I guess it had to be there.