Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Monkey,

I'll be very interested in your thoughts once you see the film - storywise, it's very stripped down. It doesn't have the traditional early character-development scenes (like the Williams/Arkin scenes in Rocketeer). I prefer Sky Captain to Rocketeer if for no other reason than I prefer Jude Law to Williams.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Luckylighter said:
. . .But, as it's been said ad nauseum here and elsewhere, the film had an amazing visual style that is sorely lacking in what is passing for blockbuster entertainment today--"Fast and the Furious", I'm looking in your direction.

People say today's youth market is more sophisticated than ever. [. . . ]

If anything, I think today's youth market is more childish. I think they are less sophisticated than ever. Our parents grew up with the B Movies that we admire today. And they loved those movies despite and because of the low tech special effects. Because they relied on their imaginations to make the FX into something grander. Kids nowadays don't have to imagine anything because the work is already done for them.

Lucky,

Part of me really agrees with you (there's something wrong with a movie like 2 Fast 2 Furious where they start shooting before they have a script), but I gotta say that I'm conflicted on this point. I like both Fast And The Furious movies (heck, I even liked Torque). So I can't outright condemn the styling in these films or the preferences of younger people because I get the appeal of these movies: the comaraderie is sincere, the stars (Monet Mazur, Jordana Brewster, Michelle Rodriguez, and Eva Mendes) have a visual style all their own, and the action is kickin. Plus, having the action unfold in today's sprawling ex-urbs is relevant because it has to make the action seem more real to young viewers than a film featuring some guy in a fedora skulking around some set made to look like an ancient ruin. And lastly, one could even argue that the rebel amibiguity in Paul Walker's character is just as compelling that the ambiguity seen in Indiana Jones in Raiders.

That said, I still prefer the period film because it has history, requires more creativity and it's just plain more thought-provoking.

As for sophistication, I agree with you but it's not so clear cut. Which movie has more sophisticated humor: the original Freaky Friday or the remake with Lindsay Lohan?
 

Raffey

Member
Just because Sky Captain wasn't well receipted by moviegoers alike.

I don't think it means that it'll be the end of this genre of film like many seem to think. Really, the end of 30's period pieces?

What makes this altered fake-looking version of the 30's a period piece?

Road to Perdition is a period piece.

Personally, I thought Sky Captain was a too videogame/cartoonishly looking when I first saw the trailer. It has all the elements of a movie that should appeal to me but it didn't.


After viewing the trailer at the theatre and all I can think of was watching that backlight effect for two hours will give me a headache.

When is comes out of DVD, then I'll watch it. At least then I can change the color settings on my TV. :D :D
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Raffey said:
Just because Sky Captain wasn't well receipted by moviegoers alike.

I don't think it means that it'll be the end of this genre of film like many seem to think. Really, the end of 30's period pieces?

What makes this altered fake-looking version of the 30's a period piece?

Road to Perdition is a period piece.


I agree that drama and other films will continue to be set in the '30's (like The Aviator). I was obsessing on action/adventure films. Road to Perdition was a Period Crime Drama, not action/adventure.
 
Just got back from seeing the movie. I think it's one of the best I've seen this year, along with The Day After Tommorow which I liked.
Kinda funny how they both have the word 'Tommorow' in the titles...
 

Canyon

Well-known member
I saw this movie on Monday, and I have to say, I was quite impressed.

It was highly enjoyable and visually stunning to look at as well, and as Relic Raider pointed out, Polly's line was very similar to the one Indy used in Raiders. I believe that along the way the term 'very dangerous' was used.

Another reference to Lucas was the door that they broke the window to which had the number 1138 on it.

Here's a review of the soundtrack from Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...7022747-0749462?v=glance&s=classical&n=507846

Director Kerry Conran's retro-themed action adventure is imbued with a singular visual sense, an ambitious marriage of Indiana Jones' serial sensibilities and the neo-Deco sci-fi trappings of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. Young composer Edward Shearmur is charged with bringing that pulp-visionary, past-that-never-was to musical life, a task he accomplishes with expected orchestral verve. Its music that's as unabashedly derivative as the film's grab-bag of 1930s/40s influences, yet arranged and executed with a rich orchestral palate and an endlessly energetic dynamic sense. While he deftly avoids walking too closely in the familiar musical footsteps of John Williams---and there are admittedly no themes here as instantly memorable as Raiders of the Lost Ark's signature march---Shearmur manages a few smart new themes of his own, breathing compelling new life into one of filmdom's most cliched genres---and trumping previous similar back-to-the-future adventure scores like James Horner's The Rocketeer the bargain.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
If you're in the New York City area and can't get enough of Sky Captain, this Saturday (November 6th.) Sarah Lawrence College will be having a screening of the film at 3 p.m. as part of the kick-off for the school's new Visual Arts Center. It seems that one of the producers was a Sarah Lawrence grad, Jon Avnet SLC '71.


For information, go to www.sarahlawrence.edu or call 914-395-2412. I live in the neighborhood of Sarah Lawrence and got a mailer about the event, so I assume it's open to the public and free. I don't know if there's a panel to discuss the film -- but I assume that it's a neat way to learn more about the film. Sarah Lawrence is also pretty cool place to visit.
 

McSeem

Member
I'm only seen a theatrical trailer and I'm gonna watch this movie very soon. BTW, lots of airplanes reminds me not only Crimson Skies video games, but else a Disney's animated series "TaleSpin" (well, some ideas of this series and SC&NW are very similar).
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Watched Sky Captain again yesterday with an open mind. It's a film that I've always wanted to like, since unlike The Rocketeer, it actually does capture a lot of 1930s atmosphere without merely alluding to it.

However, there has always been one major barrier to enjoyment: the horrible blurry soft focus that had no place in the movie. If they were trying to give the impression of a '30s Republic serial, then they failed. The serials would have been sharp when first shown in cinemas, and from what I've seen so far many are still sharper than Sky Captain.

Secondly there's the colourization issue. Sky Captain probably looks better if you watch it in black and white, and that's the case with the original six minute short that Kerry Conran presented in 1998. Caught between the demands of an audience that prefers colour, and the intention to produce a black and white period piece, the movie sells itself short.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
I did enjoy Sky Captain and thought it was something completely out of the ordinary (in recent times at least). I like the concept of the sci-fi b-movie and I enjoyed the period in which they set it, but I'm of the mind that maybe they should of used real sets along with the CGI.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
AndyLGR said:
I did enjoy Sky Captain...but I'm of the mind that maybe they should of used real sets along with the CGI.

I agree with that. Watching the behind the scenes documentaries shows that there were only a few props used through the film. The soft focus CGI gave it an ethereal quality as opposed to the hands-on practical effects of the style they were mimicking.

At one stage they were going to break up the film into cliffhanging chapters, which I think would have been a good idea.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
I watched this again on Netflix yesterday, and I gotta say it still works for me, just like it did on the big screen back in 04.

I love the chemistry between Law and Paltrow, the story is solid enough and I dig the visual world Conran created, as well as the references to classics like Superman, King Kong, Godzilla, Titanic and of course Indy.

Long live Sky Captain! (y)
 

Salzmank

New member
Z dweller said:
I watched this again on Netflix yesterday, and I gotta say it still works for me, just like it did on the big screen back in 04.

I love the chemistry between Law and Paltrow, the story is solid enough and I dig the visual world Conran created, as well as the references to classics like Superman, King Kong, Godzilla, Titanic and of course Indy.

Long live Sky Captain! (y)
Two years or so after you posted, but I love it as well. Reading all these comments makes it even sadder and more unfortunate what Hollywood did to Conran after the movie didn?t do well at the box office. The studios are truly more unforgiving than Toyland. (?Once your film doesn?t make money?you can never return again.?)

I think it?s a superb throwback, and it?s always tons of fun. Oh, well, that kind of storytelling just isn?t in vogue nowadays? Another sigh from this young fogey? :)
 

British Raider

Well-known member
For a movie that’s allegedly become a cult classic I can’t find much of a cult for it online. It’s like it’s been almost forgotten. I say almost as there’s been an art book released in the last few years on the movie and it looks gorgeous. On a recent rewatch, my first in probably 18-19 years, I find it rather effective in places and don’t really mind the obvious CGI of it all. I think Kerry Conran has a real visual eye and it’s a shame he hasn’t continued making features. What let’s the movie down is the lack of world building, there’s so many unanswered questions like where are all the worlds military? And the villains plan makes little sense. I think with a script that was more fully fleshed out I could give this one a higher recommendation. Some have said how this movie shows how hard it is to catch the magic that Spielberg and Lucas bottled, but I’ll give it to the filmmakers on this one, they were pioneering new technology to build an entire world. It was just at the expense of the writing.

So with its 20th anniversary coming next year (wow! It’s been that long?) anyone open to giving any reappraisals? Thoughts? Etc
 
Top