False Profit, I think the point being made is that you're down-talking Burton's lens use, and yet, seeming almost ignorant to other people's opinions of it, and lacking evidence to go against their statements. Like how it was mentioned about the consistancies in artistic styles, yet you're not presenting examples of a film-maker, or artist, whose work widely varies. If you had that kind of evidence, your argument would seem more valid.

But on-topic, I'm hoping to see this movie not this weekend, but next. Are the songs catchy?
[s]Secretly[/s] Not-so-Secretly, I Love Musicals!
I've sang along to Mamma Mia! Hehee.
Because if so, I might find myself randomly belting some tunes, walking out of the cinema, if the songs in the movie happen to be as awesome as they seem.

Don't waste your time, ArcAngel.

Falsie desperately needs to be controversial in order to justify himself.  He'll always pick a perspective designed to be abrasive, and then will cry prejudice and discount if anyone bothers to disagree with him.

Basically, he has a small penis complex, intellectually speaking.  Pay him no mind, and he will go away.

~Nachty, who can't wait for Falsie's argument about how the sky is green~

One is blue and the other is yellow - everything in any of his major commercial releases is saturated in one or the other.  It's something that would be obvious to anyone with any experience shooting in color or even experience with an elementary film studies course.  This isn't insider rocket science, it's something covered even in basic texts like whatever edition of Gianetti's book is in these days.  Is it literally the same filter?  Probably not, given that its unlikely he's shot on the same cameras or filmstock his whole career.  But is he obviously trying to duplicate an aesthetic effect from film to film?  Of course he is.  That's pretty much indisputable at this point.

The only 'opinion' I shared was my view that this is getting bland after 20+ years, so the response - attributing 'willful ignorance' and ulterior motives - is certainly dismissive, and with no cause.  To pretend otherwise is mendacious.

Really.  I didn't see "willful ignorance" mentioned in anyone's reply, but perhaps I missed that bit.  I like that you reference your thesaurus though, in attempts to seem smart.  I didn't see 'ulterior motives' either, except in jest.  Again, you're taking those comments way too personally.  Nacht's posts, however, I would take seriously.

Are you suggesting that everyone who goes to see films should have read this book you've referenced and have some level of film study before being allowed to comment on films?  Because one could argue THAT as dismissive of other's opinions on the matter.  

Lilith already pointed out that many MANY artists have a running theme between their works, and it would seem for Burton it is the one's you mentioned.  So what?  You want discussion to end since you've put your two cents in?  All hail, False Profit has said his piece.  Might as well pack it up.  Don't want to hurt his precious feelings by disagreeing or anything.

I stated my opinion of his work, how does that make me 'ignorant' of other opinions?  Everyone else has shared their thoughts, so why begrudge me mine?  I haven't insulted or disparaged anyone for liking Tim Burton, so why accusatory responses, the ascribing of nefarious motives and what basically amount to thinly disguised or (in Nachty's case) blatant ad hominems.  What part of 'He's been using the same two filters for twenty years...bland" justifies any of that?



Uh, read back a little further:

 

On the subject of songs, they're about as catchy as Sondheim gets, if that helps any.

Oh, my God!

Falsie, I finally see it:


YOU ARE THE SMARTEST BEING ALIVE!!!



. . . does that make you happy?



~Nachty, sure that Falsie is clearly Martin Scorsese in disguise, what with his incredible insights~

Not at all.  My point was that there is nothing complicated or difficult to grasp about lens filters: it doesn't take an expert to spot and recognize color saturation (which is precisely why so many completely untutored filmgoers can spot a Tim Burton trailer long before they're told Tim Burton is the man behind it).  There's no need to be in on the intricacies of camera type or filmstock or editing equipment.  You don't have to know the serial number of the filter to see that the same basic color effects are being applied consistently throughout Burton's filmography.  



I would argue there's a difference between dealing with similar themes from film to film and recycling the same narrative arc over and over again, but that's really neither here nor there at this point.



Not at all.  But I would appreciate not being deliberately insulted for putting that two cents, ya dig?

Well, see, then you need to direct your anger toward the person insulting you, not every person who disagrees with you.  Just so you get my point:



Since I hadn't commented previously in this thread, that was way out of line, and could be argued that you were attacking an administrator.  By rights I should have just gagged you and been done with it.

Also, I believe that people were simply disagreeing with your comment that it was "bland" not that it was two different filters.  "He uses two filters" is a statement of fact.  "Bland" is a an opinion.  If you can't handle your opinion being challenged, well, that's a tough one.

Now, how about everyone steps away from this thread for a day and cools off, yeah?  Because I think some people are looking like they need their nap time.

And yet, you fail to mention consistancies widely known in films by Scorsese, Tarantino, Lucas, Spielberg, etc. and they are well-known ALL OVER.
Consistancy in storylines, effects, characters, roles, or whatever is what makes some artists/directors/actors famous. Why change what one does so well?
If famous artists in time had changed their styles constantly, they probably wouldn't be nearly as respected in the Art World as they are. If musicians changed their sound, the fanbase would change, and probably diminish.
Maybe consistancy isn't always a bad thing. Look OUTSIDE the lens, False Profit.

I don't have a problem with disagreement: I have a problem with people who respond to my opinions with personal insults.

And see, you're arguing with what amounts to a moderation call now.

I'm sorry, but between that and the rest, I'm making the decision to cut off your posting ability.  For one week, you are gagged.  I told you to step away from this thread, and you didn't.

I'm just going to ignore the last page of rambles, arguements of filters and one annoying troll, and concentrate instead on my review of said film which I saw lastttt....Saturday!!!

I wasn't really sure what to expect with Sweeney Todd to be honest, having never seen the proper musical. Mostly, I just went on: 'Johnny Depp in epic gothy character with a gory storyline - I'm in.'  I'm also not that keen on musicals, but that aspect of it was bearable at least.  

As an A2 Media and an AS Film student, I can say the visuals of this are what really brought the film to life and really envisaged the audience in Victorian London. The costumes, the set, the lighting - absolutely stunning. Put with good acting and Johnny Depp and you have a perfect set up. I agree it could of used a little more of Burton's classic use of contrasting bold brightness and gloomy darkness...but other than that...*shrugs* perfect.
I do however think they need to sack whoever was in charge of the fake blood, I wasn't too impressed with that. Good humour as well, we giggled at Todd on the beach


Even with the musical aspect (which was pretty good considering) I thoroughly loved Sweeney Todd, - epic black comedy gore filled fest for all the family (well, maybe only goth families!)

~Kitty

Wow. This has become so childish. What I understood from False Profit's posts is that Tim Burton is using the same visual formula over and over again, and that he's not evolving, which is something that bothers Profit. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

If Godard had made all his movies the same way he filmed A bout de souffle, I'm sure some people would've disliked it, as he was repeating the same thing, not evolving, as I mentioned above. To further this comparison, Godard then made Le Mepris, which is abysmally different from his first features. I agree with Profit somewhat, Burton's just repeating the same thing over and over again. He has yet to reach his Le Mepris.

Ah, what a dull place this world would be if we all liked the same thing.

Wow.  What a topic.  Lol.  Since I don't know anyone yet I'm going to disregard the previous debate and banter and say that I loved the movie.

I never knew it was a musical before I watched stuff on youtube.  Though I have to say that I usually LOVE the theatrical performances of musicals better, I think that I'm biased towards the movie version.  Not just because it has Johnny or Helena and was directed by Tim, but there was just a certain atmosphere in which I loved because I felt like I was in the movie as silly as it sounds.

And I was very surprised to see that Danny Elfman did not do the music.