Barry Sheene the Movie

557953 said:

Look forward to seeing this, I hope they do a good job on it..... Wonder which of the Hemsworths will be playing Barry?

Click to expand...

AntG said:

If it's anything like Rush it's going to be a visually brilliant, cliche ridden mess.

Click to expand...

JPSLotus said:

I wouldn't even call Rush visually brilliant.

It's utter .... visually as Ron Howard took the easy way out with the ........ CG.

The two greatest racing movies ever made are Grand Prix and Le Mans. They all use practical effects. No surprise they .... on Rush. Kind of a shame since Rush could have been good had Howard bothered to try and emulate those movies properly. Instead he took the ..... way out.

Click to expand...

JPSLotus said:

It's utter .... visually as Ron Howard took the easy way out with the ........ CG.

Click to expand...

Arrabbiata1 said:

And as for that Apollo 13...should have assembled a Saturn V, filmed it in orbit and circled the moon.

Click to expand...

JPSLotus said:

I wouldn't even call Rush visually brilliant.

It's utter .... visually as Ron Howard took the easy way out with the ........ CG.

The two greatest racing movies ever made are Grand Prix and Le Mans. They all use practical effects. No surprise they .... on Rush. Kind of a shame since Rush could have been good had Howard bothered to try and emulate those movies properly. Instead he took the ..... way out.

Click to expand...

Arrabbiata1 said:

And as for that Apollo 13...should have assembled a Saturn V, filmed it in orbit and circled the moon.

Click to expand...

JPSLotus said:

Arrab, have you ever watched either Grand Prix or Le Mans?

Le Mans uses a ton footage that was filmed from an onboard camera mounted to a Porsche 908 at the 1970 24 Hours of Le Mans. The camera car finished in 9th position.

I get what you are trying to go for with your quip. But as Stanley Kubrick proved with 2001, practical FX will always be far superior to most CG. It's interesting you should mention Apollo 13 since it's a space film, and the contrast in quality between the original Star Wars trilogy and the prequel films has always been in the heavy use of CG in the prequels. It actually managed to take away the possibility of creating a natural look.

CG has a time and a place, but Ron Howard had a real chance to try and match either of the two aforementioned race films, and .... the bed with his heavy use of CG. It's about trying to create a natural look, not an unnatural one.

Click to expand...

JPSLotus said:

Arrab, have you ever watched either Grand Prix or Le Mans?

Le Mans uses a ton footage that was filmed from an onboard camera mounted to a Porsche 908 at the 1970 24 Hours of Le Mans. The camera car finished in 9th position.

I get what you are trying to go for with your quip. But as Stanley Kubrick proved with 2001, practical FX will always be far superior to most CG. It's interesting you should mention Apollo 13 since it's a space film, and the contrast in quality between the original Star Wars trilogy and the prequel films has always been in the heavy use of CG in the prequels. It actually managed to take away the possibility of creating a natural look.

CG has a time and a place, but Ron Howard had a real chance to try and match either of the two aforementioned race films, and .... the bed with his heavy use of CG. It's about trying to create a natural look, not an unnatural one.

Click to expand...

Arrabbiata1 said:

Sorry, it was meant to be a joke. - I was being a facetious troll. If inserted a 'wink' emoji to indicate that I was being a ..., I'd come across as patronising like J8rn0 and that'd be even worse.

Actually, I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's a bit like putting photoshop in the hands of the general public - instead of effecting subtle barely discernible enhancement, the results are often a garish farrago. Aside from the fact that I do like something vaguely resembling dialogue in a film, I find modern Hollywood blockbusters unwatchable with the excessive reliance on CGI which apart from being wholly unconvincing, robs the film of depth, dynamic and all verisimilitude - much like much of the music in the post analogue age. Hollywood being so obsessed with remakes, then it should rediscover some of its pioneering production techniques. No one is about to become the next Cecil B De Mille, as you say, largely due to expense, but it would be nice to see a return to real life action.

As a kid, I loved both Le Mans and Grand Prix (-that was James Garner right?). The makers similarly incorporated real footage of the '79 GP at Silverstone during 'Silver Dream Racer' - problem was, it was ..... If Richie Cunningham had wanted to do the same thing, he would have needed to find a vintage club race, but then nothing stopping them filming on boards from some race reps and employing some racers to swap paint I guess.

Click to expand...

michaelm said:

James Hunt is dead, and any of the cars from 1976 which are still around are probably in museums, worth millions of dollars, and wouldn't be covered by insurance if you tried to drive them at racing speeds now.

Reproducing Le Mans would be even harder, God knows what even a small number of those cars would be worth if still extant now, probably more than even a modern movie budget. They don't make actors like Steve McQueen (or Paul Newman) any more either.

Click to expand...

JPSLotus said:

A man after my own heart.

I know you were joking with it, but Rush is a sore point with me in particular because of all the ........ Ron Howard spewed prior to the film being released about filming with THE REAL CARS on REAL RACE TRACKS. I genuinely thought we were going to get a gritty racing movie shot on grainy film stock to really simulate the era for all it's glory. Instead he released a highly processed film that was missing all of the grittiness that it should have had...and in spite of that, the public lapped up the movie like it was the pinnacle of race films. All I could think was, that it's been nearly 50 years since Grand Prix (James Garner ) was released, and for all of the money Hollywood spends on a budget, they can't even use the techniques John Frankenheimer perfected in the 1960s?

The thing is, Howard had access to all of the original GP cars from the era since most of them are used in the FIA Historic F1 series. That's what makes it head-scratching. He literally had the ability to do what he wanted, and instead wound up with a film that was short on the actual racing, and high on the ........ drama.

We as diehard race fans know that racing brings it's own drama for better or worse, and you don't need to write much of a script for the story itself. The on-track product is an intrinsic part of the story. For all the talk we've spent on Sepang 2015, from a storytelling point of view, it was incredible. You could not script an event like that. 1976 F1 season was just that, and all the wasted time in that movie managed to take the edge off of it. Bruhl did a great job with Lauda yes. But Hunt was infinitely more difficult to capture because he had that natural charisma like Barry Sheene, and both were wild as could be. Biggest difference was Hunt lost the will to drive after Ronnie Peterson was killed on Monza in 1978 and retired in the middle of 1979. Sheene wasn't deterred by the danger when most would have retired after the Daytona crash.

Click to expand...

JPSLotus said:

Biggest difference was Hunt lost the will to drive after Ronnie Peterson was killed on Monza in 1978 and retired in the middle of 1979. Sheene wasn't deterred by the danger when most would have retired after the Daytona crash.

Click to expand...