Discuss theme parks, roller coasters, and mules!
Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:46 pm
More land? Who needs it! They should start building upwards!
Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:04 pm
Sexy No Jutsu wrote:
More land? Who needs it! They should start building upwards!
Because the GODZILLAscalator is just not long enough?
Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:21 pm
And this is really bizarre news. Downsizing a world-famous movie studio lot for...lofts, homes, and hiking trails? In Hollywood? WHAT? Why!? That 351-acres could've been the Islands of Adventure West. UGH! [sarcasm] Rather, let's build more homes, 'cause Los Angeles isn't already dotted with homes and countless housing projects. [/sarcasm]
1. 351 acres?!?! The entire property is only 415...
2. Downsizing? They will actually be expanding the lot...and the theme park by at least 80,000sqft (which as screamscape is pointing out...is not very much, but it's something), noted in the plans that the Amplitheater may be removed to accomodate further growth of the "entertainment (read: theme park) area," and the studio tour would be revitalized again...
3. Los Angeles may have plenty of houses (and plenty more under construction), but there are not very many developments that are positioned in the heart of a key employment area (Universal/Burbank/etc=production central!) next to a transit hub (the metro station). Just look at how Downtown LA is being revitalized. Better public transportation+jobs=booming condo/loft market for an area that previously no one really wanted to live in...
I suggest everyone freaking out take a visit to www.ucvision.com
and realize that this plan is far from final. They have to present it now to be ready for the expansion over the next 25 years, instead of waiting till it is too late to get the permits/fights with public/etc. out of the way.
So relax. Wait until they actually start bulldozing those sets before you freak out.
Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:13 pm
BTW, I seriously doubt they are going to completely remove the Psycho House. They've moved it once, and I'm sure they will move it again.
Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:25 pm
Besides, Psycho really isn't that great of a movie anyways. I hate it when people OMFG over "the classics" just becuase they are "classic". I mean, come on, it's JUST a movie set, not the end of the world. Besides, movie sets are torn down all the time, right after the movie is over. Personally, the Batman Begins city set would've been much more amazing than some old hose from a movie that is outdated and not very good at all. The "classic" movie sets are all gone anyway, so why bother caring at all... It's just a movie set, which, if you own the damn movie (which I doubt you watch enough to merit such dissapointment over a silly house), it will still live on. If they demolish the set, deal. If they don't, throw a freaking party for an empty shell of a house that stands for an outdated movie that doesn't do anything worthwhile for its audiences anymore.
Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:26 am
Psycho Set Timeline
There are hardly any sets on the entire property that haven't been moved/rebuilt in their existence.
After all, approximately 1/5 of the standing sets burned down in 1990, thanks to an arsonist security guard.
Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:31 am
DATman wrote:If they don't, throw a freaking party for an empty shell of a house that stands for an outdated movie that doesn't do anything worthwhile for its audiences anymore.
Yeah and all that art is museums...get rid of it! It's OLD and stupid. History museums, we can get rid of those too, who wants to look at ancient junk? LAME. I can just watch a show about it on TV! Same thing! Hey what about those pyramids, they don't do anything. Pretty dumb, get rid of it.
Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:34 pm
^I was thinking more along the lines of, "It's just a film that isn't very great, so why care?" I mean, you can like it or you can hate it, but in the end it is just a building. Art is meant to invoke emotion, and, while I'm sure it freaked the hell out of tons of people in its day, its day has passed. Then, there is art that is timeless, like DaVinci or Van Gough. There's a HUGE difference, as a painting cannout be improved graphically, there can't be better sound, there has always been color, there is a lack of actors, and they still compare to modern art. Films, however, don't really (not that films are very old anyway, but there is so much room for improvement in film, and not so much in art). History, well, personally I don't care for history, because I would hope that I'm not stupid enough to do some of the things people have done in the past. But if I am, do you think I'd listen to history anyway??
Wes, I sad an outdated movie which does nothing for its audiences (in otherwords, it was a generational thing). Some art is timeless, and does not have a fixed generation.
Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:26 pm
There's a HUGE difference, as a painting cannout be improved graphically, there can't be better sound, there has always been color, there is a lack of actors, and they still compare to modern art. Films, however, don't really (not that films are very old anyway, but there is so much room for improvement in film, and not so much in art).
Just because you
can't appreciate older films doesn't make them inferior to newer crap (a word which sums up modern horror films perfectly.) I bet you're one of the people who thought Lucas fiddling with the original Star Wars trilogy was a good thing.
Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:49 pm
DATman wrote:Wes, I sad an outdated movie which does nothing for its audiences (in otherwords, it was a generational thing). Some art is timeless, and does not have a fixed generation.
Film is art. Art is timeless. Should we stop showing important movies because they're dated? Throw out Citizen Kane and Casablanca because they have old clothes and antiquated dialogue?
Psycho was a very important film in cinematic history, from numerous perspectives. It's also Hitchcock's most know work (though it's probably not his absolute best). It served as a template for many modern horror movies, and I guarantee you any good horror/suspense/thriller director will cite Hitchcock and Psycho as inspiration.
I think you're letting your personal opinion of the movie cloud your judgment on this one. I usually try to say that an opinion isn't necessarily bad, but I can honestly say you're view on this is shit.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.