Super 8 Movie Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Supa troop
- Start date
Larry Young
Master Member
Could somebody articulate the problem with lens flares? I think it's a nice distinctive style choice.
But I wear hard contacts, so I see that **** every time I look at a streetlamp. I'm pretty used to it. :lol
But I wear hard contacts, so I see that **** every time I look at a streetlamp. I'm pretty used to it. :lol
nickytea
Master Member
Answer: the internet told them they were bad because it had nothing else to say.
JD
Master Member
My biggest problem with the lens flares was the scene I first noticed them in.
I think it was a scene that was mostly shadowed landscape and the flares caused significant vertical blue lines along the top and bottom of the frame. At first, I squinted to try and see what this was supposed to be as it wasn't very clear being all shadow-y... it wasn't clear at first that this was lens flare and I struggled putting it all into visual context.
That was the scene I first noticed the lens flare (and I really don't remember much about the exact scene) and then I pretty much noticed the lens flare throughout the rest of the film... sometimes with a chuckle, thinking 'wow, Abrams really has his schtick, doesn't he?'
garybarth
Sr Member
Overall, I really enjoyed the flick for the nostalgia. From the monster toys to the models kits that were meant to be blown up with m-80s, to the C- report card, that could have been my room (I was 12 in '79). I enjoyed the movie making elements and the relationships between the kids (very Stand by Me). Spoilers...
Where I thought the movie went off the rails a bit (no pun intended) was how the creature became this rampaging, blood-thirsty monster, crushing people to death (was that a leg I saw it chewing on?). Also, they never explained why he stole certain townspeople and cocooned them...was he going to eat them too? That's when it became less "ET" and more "Aliens" for me.
Gary
Where I thought the movie went off the rails a bit (no pun intended) was how the creature became this rampaging, blood-thirsty monster, crushing people to death (was that a leg I saw it chewing on?). Also, they never explained why he stole certain townspeople and cocooned them...was he going to eat them too? That's when it became less "ET" and more "Aliens" for me.
Gary
Last edited:
rocketeer25
Sr Member
Saw this last night and loved it! As a jaded old man in his 40's, it's hard to make me jump at the movies. I freely admiting to jumping at least 2-3 times during the show. Anyone who can get an honest jump out of me has earned my $10. :lol
The kids were great... the Air Force guys were cardboard cutout villians, but they got their due. Loved the contrast between Joe and his dad, and Alice and hers... Loved the craziness of the one house with all the kids... Loved the Cloverfield monster showing up in this flick (joking!).
I have to agree with the sentiment that this movie is not for young kids. There were several in the theater last night when I saw the movie, and one kid had to be taken out because she was crying. I'm also not crazy about all the swearing that the kids did...
Hope everyone stayed during the credits to see the movie that the kids made!!
Overall, I'd give this movie a 8 out of 10.
The kids were great... the Air Force guys were cardboard cutout villians, but they got their due. Loved the contrast between Joe and his dad, and Alice and hers... Loved the craziness of the one house with all the kids... Loved the Cloverfield monster showing up in this flick (joking!).
I have to agree with the sentiment that this movie is not for young kids. There were several in the theater last night when I saw the movie, and one kid had to be taken out because she was crying. I'm also not crazy about all the swearing that the kids did...
Hope everyone stayed during the credits to see the movie that the kids made!!
Overall, I'd give this movie a 8 out of 10.
JD
Master Member
Agreed, not for little kids - I'd love to let my 6 y/o nephew see this but it's just a little too much for him right now.
The kids swearing bugged me a bit, too - but, it is the way kids talked when they're not around their authority figures. It seemed excessive, but I'm sure when I was at that age and around my friends, I wasn't too far off that mark... but, yeah - it seems so much harsher to these older ears. The inclusion of the one f-bomb seemed a bit unnecessary for this movie, too.
blip
Sr Member
Two things, fistly, I love lens flare, to me it's just another tool to add mood or give depth, similar to panning through foreground objects.
I can see how it looks bad to traditional cinematographers, similar to how degraded fonts look bad to traditional typographers.
Second, I know this thing was shot on 35mm film, so I wonder if they made a digital workprint and edited it using a non linear system, or did they do it the old school way. Would the quality of the cuts be affected by the system they used?
I liked the film as well although I was a little disappointed with the alien
design. Kinda looked like the creature from the Fly 2.
Only things that really left me in disbelief is that I doubt a head on crash
with a pick up truck would cause that amount of devistation to a train.
I've seen trains take out Semi's and what not and keep right on going.
That scene seems a bit far fetched for me........ But, I know. It's a movie.
I was surprised they left the scene out where the boxcar door was being
banged out from the inside with the little wheel turning. It was in all the
trailers but not in the film itself.... Odd.
design. Kinda looked like the creature from the Fly 2.
Only things that really left me in disbelief is that I doubt a head on crash
with a pick up truck would cause that amount of devistation to a train.
I've seen trains take out Semi's and what not and keep right on going.
That scene seems a bit far fetched for me........ But, I know. It's a movie.
I was surprised they left the scene out where the boxcar door was being
banged out from the inside with the little wheel turning. It was in all the
trailers but not in the film itself.... Odd.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
Maybe the alien cubes helped with the crash, knowing what was going on? Maybe the train engineer (which the kids seem to completely forget about) slammed on brakes when he saw the car coming causing the jack knife effect?
Anyway, I really liked the movie. It wasn't perfect, but it captures the feel and texture of the 80's Spielberg films. The pacing seemed slow at times, but it really didn't pull any punches. I really expected them to kill the kid at the house after the wall was blown in though. A little disappointed they didn't there.
In any case, reading some comments reminds me of the mid season "South Park" finale. It really seems some people can be diagnosed as being "cynical ********."
cinematical
New Member
Lens flares can be great, another tool in the cinematographer's belt to add a distinctive touch to the film. But Super 8 went too far -- there were several times during the film that I thought the (IMAX) projector was malfunctioning. I've talked to several non-filmmakers who've said the same thing. If your artistic choice is making people think the projector is broken and is taking them out of the experience of the film, it's gone too far.
Great movie otherwise.
Great movie otherwise.
blip
Sr Member
lol, you will probably be proven right in time. In twenty years when they are trying to give films that" 2011 look" ,they will add lens flare.
Tell you what, that scene where the boys are viewing the Super 8 processed footage of the train crash, when thethe projector is pointing directly at the camera , and the lower half of the frame was taken up by a soft flare, I was so impressed, how did they get away with that?
Tell you what, that scene where the boys are viewing the Super 8 processed footage of the train crash, when thethe projector is pointing directly at the camera , and the lower half of the frame was taken up by a soft flare, I was so impressed, how did they get away with that?
NWJEDIDAVE--
Can you give the context of the Easter Eggs? Was there a Kelvin gas station in ET, for example?
Just curious....great, great movie..
James Locke....not "John Locke" from LOST?
Can you give the context of the Easter Eggs? Was there a Kelvin gas station in ET, for example?
Just curious....great, great movie..
James Locke....not "John Locke" from LOST?
blip
Sr Member
A few things are settling in my memory about the film now. One has to do with this.
"Foreshadowing is a literary device in which an author suggests certain plot developments that might come later in the story." (Wiki)
The scene where the Military pick up an empty film box from the crash site seemed to foreshadow a plot line where:
The kids are trying to show the film to the media or townsfolk while the Military are trying to hunt them down, kill them and take the film.
The name "super 8" also suggests more weight was initially given to this aspect of the story.
I would really have liked to see a scene where an officer reports to the commander that the film has been tracked down and could he get the order to "remove the problem", with the commander pointing out that they have bigger problems to worry about... some sort of way to wrap up that plot line.
Last edited:
nwjedidave
Sr Member
a few days ago over on slashfilm they listed some of the easter eggs:
http://www.slashfilm.com/super-8-easter-eggs/#more-105614
CaptCBoard
Well-Known Member
Sometimes bad things just happen. Like this film.
Someone will have to explain to me exactly why this film is called 'Super 8'. The title has nothing to do with what happens.
Actually, don't explain it to me. I don't care. This is one of the best made horrible films I've ever seen. Only 'Skyline' is worse.
To show you how stupid this film is, I will point out that the entire thing hangs on the idea that the military has had this alien in 'custody', safely, for 22 years. Then they decide to transport it somewhere else, by TRAIN. Question: Why does the train have to wreck in order for the alien to get loose. Can't it just bang its way out of the flimsy boxcar without the train wreck? Or perhaps the restraints used in the boxcar were weakened by the wreck. Well, if it can get out of the locked boxcar by knocking the door off, it probably could have gotten out of the restraints in the first place.
And then there is the idea that a single pickup truck colliding head on with a 170 ton locomotive would cause a massive train wreck. The locomotive would not have even shuddered in that impact. Even if the engineer had used emergency breaking, there would have been no wreck because the breaks would have been applied on all the cars in the train. Okay, I know more about trains than most people. But, I like my films to make sense. I could go on as to why this one does not, but I won't .
I'm sorry, I just have higher standards when it comes to film. Spectacle is not enough, story matters. But not to Spielberg and Abrams. I'll leave this with a simple observation. When you have a film like this, with kids as the main characters, you know none of the kids will be seriously injured or killed. So, there's no real tension, just contrivance, to drive the narrative.
Scott
Someone will have to explain to me exactly why this film is called 'Super 8'. The title has nothing to do with what happens.
Actually, don't explain it to me. I don't care. This is one of the best made horrible films I've ever seen. Only 'Skyline' is worse.
To show you how stupid this film is, I will point out that the entire thing hangs on the idea that the military has had this alien in 'custody', safely, for 22 years. Then they decide to transport it somewhere else, by TRAIN. Question: Why does the train have to wreck in order for the alien to get loose. Can't it just bang its way out of the flimsy boxcar without the train wreck? Or perhaps the restraints used in the boxcar were weakened by the wreck. Well, if it can get out of the locked boxcar by knocking the door off, it probably could have gotten out of the restraints in the first place.
And then there is the idea that a single pickup truck colliding head on with a 170 ton locomotive would cause a massive train wreck. The locomotive would not have even shuddered in that impact. Even if the engineer had used emergency breaking, there would have been no wreck because the breaks would have been applied on all the cars in the train. Okay, I know more about trains than most people. But, I like my films to make sense. I could go on as to why this one does not, but I won't .
I'm sorry, I just have higher standards when it comes to film. Spectacle is not enough, story matters. But not to Spielberg and Abrams. I'll leave this with a simple observation. When you have a film like this, with kids as the main characters, you know none of the kids will be seriously injured or killed. So, there's no real tension, just contrivance, to drive the narrative.
Scott
Super 8 is the film format the kids were shooting in.
I agree with the train wreck thing too. a bit far fetched to actually have
occured like that. Since when do MIlitray trains have 100+ cars in tow?
GrenadeKing
Sr Member
I think some of you guys take things way too seriously. :unsure
blip
Sr Member
Scott, of course you are right about those things. When I go to see a typical Hollywood type adventure film I expect nothing less than a collection of spectacle type events all loosely connected by a weak story.
A themed rollercoaster ride if you will.
This film delivers that and a whole lot more.
Here's a way to nail it all togeather for you conceptually.
It's a kid's abstraction. It's what a kid's super 8 film would look like if they had a huge budget.
Similar threads
