World Buildin' - Page 2

Strongly disagree.


VERY strongly agree.

Exact same sentiment. I had more fun watching the show about crafting of the clothes, weapons, masks etc. for LOTR - and imagining what could've been done with all that.

Somehow I don't 'get' LOTR movies as a real, living world. I get the idea of an empty world in which only the adventure the viewer follows is taking place.

Gladiator had some small touches which brought its world to life. I didn't like the movie, but the nice little touches, like legions waiting for a fight during a bleak winter, Germanic tribesmen speaking in some Germanic language, the scenes in Morocco. Then, the second half of Gladiator felt as dead to me
as LOTR... the artificial CGI look of Rome nailed it in. ( I know why Scott did that, but I disagree with it ).

This is actually the reason why Rome deserves to be on this list (as it's been brought up already). It's one of the only recent examples of media that eschews the Holly-Rome motif that most stories set in that time period tend to favor, showing a much more palatable vision of the city. Never really got into the show that much but I really appreciated that particular take on Rome.

Is it really "world building" if fictional events are being portrayed in what is pretty much the "real" world? That goes for Rome, Deadwood, , Gladiator, The Wire, etc, and maybe even Carnivale (which has supernatural elements, but takes place within what appears to be our acknowledged history). There's some great production design on display, but they aren't creating an entirely new world with fabricated history, technology, races, or rules of conduct the way even an otherwise flawed work like Waterworld does. Sky Captain builds a fictional world. The Wire shows fictional events occuring in the real world.

But anyway, I can't believe the Harry Potter films haven't been mentioned. This is one thing that every entry consistently nails.

I think it is. Check out Robert Altman's films, with their overlapping incidental details and dialogue, or movies like Paul Greengrass's Bloody Sunday and United 93 with their fastidious historical recreation. It can take a lot of work to make artifice look natural.

I'm obsessed right now with a low budget sci fi action B flick from 94 called Automatic, and I might be going against the intent of this thread (never happens in a Phil thread), but it manages to convey a complete world with more suggestion than anything, but it's no fault of the filmmakers, if they would have had the money, we probably would've got something much bigger, and something much emptier feeling.

It's sort of a cyberpunk Die Hard, in that the action mostly takes place in one high tech building, but, if you're like me and can give yourself over to no budget approximations of the future, then it's a blast.

Alright, this post was just another excuse to talk about what I feel is an unfairly forgotten work, but what are you going to do.

How about Tale Spin?

I would kill to live in Cape Suzette, the whole Aviation is a necessity thing due to the world being a group of small Island and air pirates living on hovering aircraft carrier. All set in the 30's, heck I think it does this better than Skycaptain.


The Life Aquatic

The first film setting since Hoth in Empire that completely bowled me over on all levels, we can argue about the merits of the film is Wes filmography, but to me its his most expansive, surreal, and yet realistic all at once. The whole Lord Mandrake background, the Island, and the Boat just all gel.

If you agree, I suggest you watch the new Fantastic Mr Fox making of on the official site, he lived in Dahls house for a month while writing and had everything made in miniature for the film!



I'll strongly second HP, Stuart Craig is a genius, particularly in the last two films. His world building I think has actually made the books stronger because it is layered pitch perfectly with the British past. I just wish me we got the full Ministry set piece from the book, because that set was gorgeous, can not wait to see what he does with Luna's house and the Ravenclaw common room.

Yeah, but that's verisimilitude and production design, and every movie and show ever has had to do that. World building is something more expansive, where in addition to introducing the characters and plot, you have to introduce an entire setting that is completely foreign to the audience. Its about backdrops, and suggesting an expansive world beyond the margins of the frame that is different from the one we know, but completely understood nonetheless.

That's a whole different ballgame than realism and attention to detail. But let's ask Phil what he meant by it, since he started the thread.

Probably a wise idea. I would argue that world building is just as important to a movie that is meant to portray a real-world location as it is to a movie portraying something completely made up, but that in both cases you're talking about two different tasks. If that makes sense. I mean, if I'm watching something like Deadwood, I expect that world to be built in such fashion as to draw me into it, even if it's meant to depict a specific time in history.

But like I said it's a different beast than building a completely new and imaginary world. Phil, care to clarify?

'Greystoke: the Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the apes'. The film creates two very real worlds: The African jungle and turn-of-the-century England.

I don't post often, but I read a bunch. The background and world of "The Wire" meets this description for me. I'm not saying that urban life is completely foriegn (that's silly) but to the extent that is present in "The Wire" it certainly seemed foriegn enough.

But of course, a series has a whole heck of alot more time to build a world that the audience my not be familiar with at all. Movies are different in the time constraints. Particularly if it is a story thats not based on books that a crap load of people have read. Harry Potter versus The Road for example. I agree with Harry Potter by the way.

I still get kinda nervous when I post. How silly is that?

Good point and well said. Thanks for the clarification.

Well, it's not a bright line categorization, and historical fiction straddles the line, depending on how much a piece tries to go beyond or challenge the general pop culture conception of a period (which Deadwood and Rome do in ways that Tombstone or Gladiator do not, imo).

The finer a point you put on it, the more it becomes semantic wankery, but I'd draw the line well before The Wire. Its creators would probably be offended by the term, and say they were not building a world, but exposing one that already existed.

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but the world building in GATTACA is I think one of the primary reasons why I enjoyed and connected with that movie in such a big way. There are a few things that don't feel right, but for the most part I can totally imagine our world getting to that point where genetics becomes the new discrimination. Loved the art design of that film too.

Zaniest

Julie Taymors Titus - The symbolism of Fascism colliding with the decadent period of the Empire is a bit over obvious, but it work and feels entirely right for the bloody and deceitful world the bard created. And to me it works way better than MacKellans Richard III, i think it lies in that Britain at that period was painted as first so appeasement oriented and then heroic, that when he changes it up it rings as too false.

I see you Delicatessen and raise you a movie that doesn;t get nearly enough love around here:


Now that's a fucking vivedly drawn world.

Kinda shocked no ones mentioned any Guillermo yet either...





The reason I named Rome over the rest of the shows you mentioned was precisely because it was giving us an Ancient Rome that was flawlessly accurate as to how the city looked at the time while simultaniously being a lived-in city of Rome that had never actually been portrayed in either film or TV before. The vividness yet accuracy of it's creation - while drawing directly from history rather than the imagination - I would argue is just as much of a feet and just as immersive for the viewer as anything mentioned here.

It's a semantic distinction, I just think that "world building" is defined not so much by intricate art direction or attention to detail, but by using that to create in the viewer an understanding and appreciation of a world that is totally foreign to the viewer (as all fantasy settings are, while historical ones are to lesser, varying degrees).

Rome's production design is inarguably impressive, but what makes it "world building" is the way those insanely detailed costumes and sets and props combine with the writing such that the viewer comes away with an understanding of how the various social strata of Rome do and don't interact, how the collegia operate, how religion is treated completely differently, and things like slavery and murder and spousal abuse occur within a totally different social context than we're familiar with. That, and the impression that there's an entire city bustling beyond the margins of the story at any given time, is something that I didn't take away from Gladiator.

But that's just me.

So now Im confused Schwartz - are you saying Rome is good world building or not?

I'm saying it is, although I would hesitate to apply the term to historical fiction generally.

Haven't seen VG. I just think it's a much more specific, and therefore useful, term if it doesn't apply to every non-documentary film ever made. Once presents a fictional portrait of the busking scene in Dublin, but I wouldn't say it exactly "built" that world.

Maybe I skimmed over it but have we gone this far without mentioning "O' Brother Where Art Thou"? Because that movie was amazing in transporting the viewer to the Depression Era South. Maybe it's not an entirely accurate view but so many details both political and religious give the movie such a sense of time and place not only physically but sociologically as well.

An interesting case study in world building can be found in the Batman franchise from incredible to absolutely horrid......

One of the best from that series: The Dark Knight.

Imagine the challenge of creating a world that felt like the real world but could have superheroes and supervillains running around it without feeling weird. I will state that this was amazing world building on a truly subtle level.

And the worst: Batman and Robin.

Nothing fucking works in this movie, least of all building an even semi plausible world. This might even be worse than Logan's Run.

Maybe because Ledgers Joker was that much harder to believe as a character in such a realistic setting as Murphys Scarecrow was?

I felt something similair.

The un-named city in Seven. Grimy, always raining, it feels like the ultimate slum, where sin goes to play. Makes you feel dirty and sad.

If we're doing comics: The City in Transmetropolitian. It feels like all the best parts of the big metropolis's in America. Beautiful, dirty, huge, and a wonder on every corner. And you can eat human at the Long Pig Franchise restaurants.

The 5th Element: Love it or hate it, the scenes in the future are absolutely amazing.

Both Burton's and Nolan's Batman films seemingly took inspiration from Bladerunner in their world building. Burton's Gotham City hardly seems functional, with its gothic towers, pipes, barber shop spirals and circus tents everywhere.

The Crow takes Detroit and turns it into an industrial fantasyland.

Does Lost's backstory count? Back me up on this Jesse Custer. With the Dharma Initiative, the Others, the crisscrossing of the 815's flashbacks pre-island, and the references to legends and mythologies, Lost feels like a very familiar alternate reality.

Heroes, on the other hand is Lost+Watchmen=doesn't work.

Ooooh another goodie we've forgotten:

I think Mad Men counts as this, because the production design is such an essential part of what the show is.
But, getting away from period stuff, I would argue The Big Lebowski counts. It really does exist within its own bizarre reality, a land of trashy hovels, bowling alleys, exquisite mansions, and trapeze painting studios.

I think that's called Los Angeles.

Babylon AD is a strong recent example.

Gilliam's forgotten JABBERWOCKY. That flick's brimming with filth, and detail, and throwaway humor happening just left of center of frame. I love how textured his movies are. It's not just production design, but it's also how his movies are populated, and what the characters (and even nameless extras) do in those environments. Stuff that you might not even catch the first viewing.

Carnivale, in a nutshell. Minority Report has a attention to detail that gives you a really immersive experience.

erm...

Yeah this thread is his digs no doubt. The man can do dystopian future (Brazil, 12 Monkeys) but is just as at home in a fantasy world that looks like you've stepped into an oil painting like Baron Munchausen

In almost every Coen bros. film, they create a seamless world. Plus, they're inhabitable. Tons of people want to live in the worlds of O' BROTHER and MILLER'S CROSSING and BIG LEBOWSKI. I don't know many people who want to live in a Phillip K. Dick world.

I would argue that, yes, every non-documentary movie (and maybe even some of those) features "world-building", but it's a much bigger part of certain movies than of others. The worlds of United 93 or The Wire are very carefully recreated versions of our own; that's a feat of world-building in and of itself. A movie like, I don't know, "She's All That" or "Firewall" would seem to feature little consistent world-building, but it's still there.

Aykroyd, Ramis and Reitman, I salute you. A world with proton packs, PKE meters, ghost traps, free roaming vapors, terror dogs, symmetrical book stackings and 100 ft tall marshmallow men is a world I want to live in. It's why I've revisited the film so many times and plan to keep doing so. It's a world that never gets old to me.



Secondly, even though there was a debate about how recreations of historical settings should be dealt with in this thread, I'd still like to mention MASTER AND COMMANDER as a film that goes so far beyond the call of duty to immerse you into its world that it would be a shame for it to go unmentioned. I think you could build the most detailed and historically accurate sets ever created but there would still be so much more that goes into creating a believable reality out of any setting than just sitting the camera down and making sure the backdrops, costumes and props are showcased as much as the actors.



ETA: I realize with that last bit that I'm going over things that have already been discussed, and probably far more poorly so, as to not derail or anything, you can disregard the MASTER AND COMMANDER nom.

Battlestar Galactica Bitches!

As much as some people deride it for using 20th-21st century, clothes, cars etc, I found it to be a very credible World. The hints, repeated themes of people expressions, styles of clothing etc simply re-enforced the themes of the whole series.

Also, 2001, a future that recedes into the past each year. And each year around new Year's I watch the DVD and feel bitter that we don't even have a Moon base yet....

Anyone else see The Invention of Lying? The presentation of a society incapable of falsehood is subtle, and a bit inconsistent, but it's provocative that there is no fiction and no art (religion is a big plot point). I noted one scene in which there was a framed photograph on a wall but that was it.

No idea - I tried PMing him and haven't heard anything back. Hope he's doing well, he seemed like a solid dude and I liked what he had to say.

While over all not the best at world building one of the Early shots it Star Trek III actually does more to make the Star Trek universe a place that exists beyond the Enterprise, and that;s the shot where the battered ship is heading towards the enormous Starbase. We'd seen other ships and space stations before but they were always kinda small. Just having that one gigantic space station made it seem like The federation must have a shit ton of ships to warrent such a structure, and had the engineering capability to actually build them, which you need when you're colonising hundreds of planets.

Also added 2 ships that became staples in the franchise from that point on.

Such a geek.

Also elephant in the room your name is Avatar

I was talking the Excelsior and the Klingon Bird of Prey

Also Lt Kyle the useless trasporter chief from the opriginal series is on The Grissom when it blows up, and nobody cares, so it get's points for that.

It did pop up in an early TNG episode. "The Naked Now", I think.

Search For Spock also gives us more time than usual with the lead characters in civilian clothes and environments, suggesting they have lives outside the main narrative.