|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Apr 24, 2011 8:10:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dyscrasia on Apr 28, 2011 13:43:22 GMT
From wikipedia......
In a March 2011 interview, the visual effects supervisor, Dan Glass, stated that the film would feature microbial and astronomical imagery, along with dinosaurs. He summarized the film as "a very powerful movie about memories, emotions, and our place in the world
|
|
|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Oct 11, 2011 15:36:58 GMT
Great film. The dino special effects probably could have been better, but their appearance was still unforgettable. Screens:   |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 11, 2011 17:28:51 GMT
Pretty, but inaccurate (as expected)...what is that second one supposed to be, anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Oct 11, 2011 18:27:39 GMT
The second still reminds me a little of the ravine in WWD, when the Allosaurus pair picked off the Diplodocus sauropodlets and one of them was seen off by a Stegosaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Oct 11, 2011 23:15:05 GMT
The second still reminds me a little of the ravine in WWD, when the Allosaurus pair picked off the Diplodocus sauropodlets and one of them was seen off by a Stegosaurus. The small one is a baby parasaurolophus I believe. I can't tell what the bigger one is supposed to be, though. Troodon? |
|
|
|
Post by dinodinkies on Oct 13, 2011 21:37:40 GMT
I am curious, what it will be. Maybe it isnt THE tree of life movie but ànew show? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 30, 2011 16:22:52 GMT
I rented this movie yesterday (mainly for the birth of the universe scene, dinosaurs included) and, after roughly 1 hour, well, i ejected the dvd from the player  Granted, the cinematography was truly gorgeous, especially in the "non-human scenes"... The combination of the music and the images, especially in the shots of the galaxies and when the main theme kicks in as you see the family living their lives was moving to say the least but, aside for that and the meaning of the story which was very positive, i didn't find other motives to follow the movie 'til the end. Just 3 words: TOO. FRIGGIN'. SLOW. And to think that someone said this was the "2001" of this century... Geez, what blasphemy!  |
|
|
|
Post by roselaar on Oct 30, 2011 20:16:41 GMT
2001 is too friggin slow too. Doesn't mean nuts. Not every movie needs explosions every ten seconds. Dinosaurs, yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 1, 2011 9:18:50 GMT
What?! "2001" is absolutely NOT slow at all... It has some long scenes, granted, but i wouldn't call it a slow movie; i saw it for the first time when i was 4 or 5 years old, loved it and NEVER found it slow or boring. "The Tree of Life" on the other hand, was sometimes too much painfully slooooooooow and uninteresting to follow... If it would have been ONLY about the birth of the universe and such, even if 6 hours long, i would have gladly enjoyed, or at least the human characters (well, except for the mother) would have been interesting, heck, i wouldn't had a problem at all... There was basically no interest in their lives, as Malick wanted us to not empathize with 'em |
|
|
|
Post by roselaar on Nov 1, 2011 20:35:19 GMT
Oh yes, that dazzling pointless array of colours near the end of 2001 was not at all slow and overdone, nor was the old guy in the bed... |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Nov 1, 2011 20:44:13 GMT
2001 is a fantastic film.
Erm, but I haven't seen Tree of Life yet. I'd probably like it too, from what I've heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 2, 2011 8:21:12 GMT
Oh yes, that dazzling pointless array of colours near the end of 2001 was not at all slow and overdone, nor was the old guy in the bed... Those scenes are ABSOLUTELY not slow or overdone, IMHO... Actually that is probably the best part of "2001"  |
|
|
|
Post by sepp on Nov 2, 2011 8:57:54 GMT
The room with the old man, and the barrage of colours at the end of 2001 for me were two of the most intense parts of the film for me - I simply cannot understand how you think they were slow, or overdone! o_0 To each their own I guess, but I very strongly disagree.
Besides, have you read about how they made those splashes of colour for that scene? The entire film is nothing short of a work of art.
|
|
|
|
Post by roselaar on Nov 2, 2011 13:46:51 GMT
Kubrick is way overrated, IMO. His movies are good, but not phenomenally super. 2001 is good, but pretentious. And there's no dinosaurs. Tree of Life at least tries to make itself just that little bit better...  |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Nov 2, 2011 23:21:45 GMT
I just saw 'the Tree of Life'. I haven't been so deeply affected by a film in years, in fact, I'd almost forgotten films could do that. And a plesiosaur appearance to boot. Lovely.
|
|
|
|
Post by roselaar on Nov 3, 2011 20:11:33 GMT
I just saw 'the Tree of Life'. I haven't been so deeply affected by a film in years, in fact, I'd almost forgotten films could do that. And a plesiosaur appearance to boot. Lovely. See? That's the same kind of reaction many people get when watching 2001 too. Tree of Life is just a very divisive movie. Gotta love them for existing, not necessarily for actually liking them. |
|
|
|
Post by sepp on Nov 3, 2011 22:36:49 GMT
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Kubrick as a film maker He's not some untouchable movie deity and I'm not about to jump around claiming all his movies are good just because I loved 2001 ;D I do like other movies he's done, but I also dislike some. I just really did love 2001 |
|
|
|
Post by roselaar on Nov 4, 2011 20:46:58 GMT
I just really did love 2001 It was the monkeys, wasn't it? ;D No shame in admitting it, I'm only interested in Tree of Life because of the dinosaurs.  |
|
|
|
Post by gfxtwin on Nov 18, 2011 4:38:33 GMT
I wrote an extensive review that touches on what the film is about and what goals the director had. Link: nickataylor.net/unt/Here's a summary: "The Tree of Life is a movie written by a modern poet/philosopher that attempts pondering big questions. These questions are mostly personal, are filtered through the prism of his identity, and attempt to identify where he belongs in the scope of all existence. This may sound like the work of someone with too much time on his hands, but keep in mind that Terrence Malick is a true philosopher – a harvard graduate and professor at MIT. His method of coping with these questions came about through heavy observation, and what he observed and settled on is that everything in existence is formed by the paths of nature and grace. Nature is movement that everything in the observable universe has towards self preservation, and grace is the love and compassion and spiritual “something” that exists along side it. To prove that they shape everything, he really didn’t skip out on much. That is to say, his example begins with the creation of the universe and ends with the universe’s demise. Why go through so much trouble? Because, like any great philosopher, his goal is to back up his metaphysical thesis with evidence. And since Tree is a film, he uses appropriately poetic visuals the vast majority of the time to present it. So when you know what his definitions of grace and nature are, and observe where they fit into the images being shown, you start to notice juxtapositions like, “wow, the violent and awesome way the cosmos were constructed shows the true power of nature, yet the occasional compassion of prehistoric biology shows some proof of grace” all the way to, “the violence and power our parents may have shows nature in action, yet the love they also give might be an example of grace” The more one observes the film, the more it becomes clear that malick’s thematic observations carry weight in how they are consistently repeated on a macrocosmic and microcosmic level. What one takes away, in the end, is that life is all connected and even though self-preservation is written in our souls, we have the capability of choosing the path of love and compassion and it is this path that will be the most beneficial for mankind due to the fact that the path of nature is inherently more destructive." |
|
