|
My review of Liquid Rising:
Theme/Storyline
In any movie, Documentary, short film, there must be a directed goal and directed focus. In other words, the theme of the film must be presented to an audience in a directed focus, through out the film. Themes are categorized as Man vs Something. Whether it be Man vs Man, Man vs Self, Man vs Nature, Man vs Philosophy Etc. This is the basic and core of any movie and should be made first. If this is not done first, if this is not even put down before anything else, you have a failed film.
![[image loading]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg)
I got a great budget but the script was from Michael Bay
Now what is the goal of Liquid rising. Should I ask the director? Should I ask the Liquid Players? Nope not at all. A theme, if a movie has one, should be derived from the watcher itself. I watched Inception, a great movie, and derived that the theme was letting go of ones self. I believed that the main character was able to let go of his wife and safely return to his kids. My teacher, at the time, believed that the whole movie was the wife's dream as a part of 'dystopia.' He believed that the theme was a warning about how dreams can consume a person's life. These are two very different analysis of the same movie. But that is how it should be.
![[image loading]](http://yellowmagpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/2010_inception_003-e1281399149244.jpg)
"It was a Dream you idiot!"
"NO, He did escape! Leo DID ESCAPE!!"
No movie should put forward one theme, and only one theme. The world, or anything the human mind can create, is one dimensional. There is always double meanings, hidden messages and so on.
Now in Liquid Rising, what was the theme?
I believed it to be the beginnings of players who struggled. Players who had so many things holding them back, but they were fighting through it. But sadly, this theme is incorrect. As I finished the documentary, I realized there was no substance to actually put that as a viable theme. Because we had no 'directed focus' of a struggling player or a team, and their eventual fight through it, my initial theeme was incorrect.
So what was the theme I came up with? Unfortunately, I came with an incomplete one.
Team Liquid is a Group of players, who struggle through a lot of things, try and fight there way to success and
And that's it. I intentionally left the 'and' there because it is incomplete. There is no ending storyline. There is no final goal. I saw no conclusion, just affirmation that Liquid has the 'potential' to grow. This frustrated me as a reviewer because I have to tell you, “Yep, I just couldn't find a theme. No really, I couldn't find a theme, or at least a complete one.”
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SMakHRHjuow/TfuVP992HPI/AAAAAAAAAEk/JGC5TEM_gek/s1600/puzzle_incomplete-1.jpg)
OK! Who the hell took the last piece!?
Now let me explain to you, in fine detail, how bad that is.
Theme is the basis of which a storyline wraps around. Storyline is the characters and the actions they take in their lives. The accumulation of these actions is plot. Plot leads to pictures on the wall so you can enjoy. Without a complete theme, you have a movie that is wrapping around essentially half a brick and air. There is no ending substance, there is no pinnacle. You have an endless stream of 'beginnings', some middle ground, and no ending.
Imagine Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back, If Luke didn't fail every trail, instead he just started the trails and never completed them. It would break the story. Everything he did would be pointless, his trails would be pointless.
![[image loading]](http://georgesjournal.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/the_empire_strikes_back_luke_and_yoda.jpg?w=600)
"Go into the cave, you-"
![[image loading]](http://www.celebrity-sunglasses-finder.com/image-files/kanye_west.gif)
"Yo, Yoda imma let you finish. But I need to say: Star Wars III was the best movie of all times. Of all times"
And that is what happened in Liquid Rising. You have a bunch of amazing storyline that end up going No where.
Grade for theme/storyline: D+
Final thoughts on theme/storyline : I believed the director needed to wait a LOT longer. Get more footage, storyline, Something. Or understand that he must end it with a viable theme. There is a beginning of theme in this mass of footage but right now it is just a pile of interviews.
Footage Used/Editing
With a handy dandy photoshop and video editor, you can turn The Shining into a family film. Yes, I did just say that. Anyways, Editing and the selection of footage is extremely important in any film. That is why you have deleted scenes, that is why you have 'flashy text'. The Human mind is a curious thing. We, normally, are taught to associate things that are close together. For example: If I say White and Cow, you automatically think 'milk'. If I say Day9 and Bunny, you think Manfred. This same 'relationship' can be achieved through footage and proper editing. Editing can make or break a film, and Liquid rising used it … sometimes.
Now if anyone the intro part of the Liquid rising: the flashy text, the amazing transition, the seamless showing of the History of Team Liquid. That got me wide eyed, that got me smiling. That made me shit bricks on the floor and make my jaw drop. The amount of 'visual effects' didn't matter, what mattered was the message it got across. This was a fun, eccentric team that was hip and cool. You could 'feel' the atmosphere from it. And than, for the next hour or so, we have nothing but straight editing. Sure there were 'comics' but that is used so sparingly, it can be considered regular footage.
So what I am trying to say is, the editing lacked 'consistency.' What I mean is, if you used Spectacular editing in the beginning you expect it through out the film. I saw dull editing, no closure, little fade, no transition, and awful scene movement. The outro transition of Liquid Sheth made me cry tears of blood. But besides the point: The editting (putting it plainly) was lack luster due to the intro. The title scene set a stage and the rest of the film didn't make up for it.
I will not go into sound, because I am pretty sure everyone noticed that.
Grade for Editting: C
Final thoughts: The beginning was nice, should've had a lot more. Also More breaks between players. Like an ACTUAL pause and title screen for EACH player. It would have made it more 'Story book like'. The way the documentary is set up, is that you are doing a character analysis of each character as a separate unit (something that went against the beginning scenes of the movie btw). So by putting little pause between each one, you are smashing together storyline making it frustrating to watch. For example: Liquid Sheth explained his Handle. And you end it? WTF. That is not an outro, that is cliffhanger. In a documentary that means you have no ending, which shows the gaping fact that you have no storyline. The editing, or at least choice of order for scenes, were very 'questionable'.
Viewing experience:
I'll be brief as many other people will express their opinions on it:
It was like watching different interviews all together. Made me feel like I was watching half the movie instead of the full force.
Overall: I give this Film a C-. Its a good time to watch if you're a Starcraft 2 fan. But if I tried to put this in front of an outside audience, most of them may have left the movie theater.
 
|
United States9941 Posts
I think the question here is... was this film supposed to be shown to a larger audience than the current SC2/TL audience? It all depends on your audience. A math lecture is for a math class. You'd never see a historian in that class.
|
On June 23 2012 15:16 FlaShFTW wrote:
I think the question here is... was this film supposed to be shown to a larger audience than the current SC2/TL audience? It all depends on your audience. A math lecture is for a math class. You'd never see a historian in that class.
True but that doesn't mean you break the fundamentals. You Cant build a proper ship for children out of candy :D!
|
I partially agree with you. I'm debating whether I want to fully articulate my thoughts on the movie into a full review, but I just finished it, and the feeling I had was underwhelming.
At it's core, a lot of the documentary is serviceable, but I would have liked for more true direction and purpose. It seemed more like a slapped together grouping of each player; no story, no direction, no conclusions. Just kind of an odd feeling throughout. Lots of great footage and quips and what have you, just missing a lot.
The director, if he chooses to continue this type of work, would do well to watch other eSports documentaries already in existence for something to follow for the future.
|
You're right that it lacked focus, and I am not sure how the title 'Liquid Rising' fits the documentary. It should probably be called "Behind the Scenes with Team Liquid: A series of indepth interviews" or something.
I thought it was okay, but I wouldn't pay money for it unless to support the team. It was a good introduction to the team itself, but it was not really a good documentary.
|
I just think the audience that this would appeal to the greatest is really narrow. Most of us who have followed liquid.net since SC1 or even just since SC2, I think, found the info presented relatively boring ... or we already knew most of the players and history of TL/SC2. To those who have never watched SC1/2 ... our friends/family/parents/random mainstream ... this just simply didn't provide enough background info on what starcraft is, and why they should care about these players, what programing is, what tourneys they went to/won, Korea, etc.
The only people I can see that really would enjoy this would be those who have some knowledge of SC2, but not a lot, and slight knowledge of TL, but not a lot. That's not really a big audience, imo.
Edit: That's obviously not to say it wasn't enjoyable. It was, just not as much as it could have been, and certainly not as appealing to a broad audience as it could have been.
|
i disagree on some level with your ideas on theme and the uses of it (as such i disagree with inception being a great movie, but that's a different story):
a theme is almost always necessary, and i will agree that most movies/stories should have some sort of theme relevant to the human experience, which will usually be manifested as Man vs Something. however, there are some exceptions to this rule: one of my favorite movies is The Big Lebowski. one would be hard pressed to find any sort of theme in that movie. likewise, one of my favorite shows of all time was Seinfeld, a show that became famous for literally being a "show about nothing." neither of these stories can be said to be "bad" stories, in fact they were both extremely entertaining stories, and the execution was, in my opinion, on level with any other movie or story that exists. there are other examples of "stories about nothing" that succeeded, but i will agree that the vast majority of them fail.
(on a side note, there can also be the story of: "the theme is about there being no theme" i think Adaptation with Nick Cage was an awesome example of this)
furthermore, i think that a theme doesn't necessarily have to be Man vs. Anything. it could very well be a statement about the world, or a statement about some other perspective than mankind's. i can't think of any great examples of the top of my head, but i do think it is possible.
on the idea that no story should have one theme: i absolutely, 100%, without exception do not agree. i think this is the biggest problem with modern story-lines, and with modern storytelling. there is something to be said for leaving things up to interpretation, sure, but the fact is that most movies that "leave things up to interpretation" end up not saying anything at all. they don't make any definite statement, and instead require the viewer to add in his/her own statements, which is NOT a good thing to do. it is actually a symbol of one: laziness, and two, insecurity. i already know what i think about life, i know what i feel about struggle, what i want to see when i go see a story is what the writer/director/storyteller thinks and feels about life and struggle.
if the storyteller requires me to add in my own ideas and feelings into the movie, that almost always means that they did not do the work, but are instead expecting me to do the work. take Inception for example: you mention that you felt the theme was one thing, another person felt that it was something else. the problem i had with the movie is that it gives no deeper meaning, but instead asks me to put in the meaning (not completely but to a certain extent.) i might as well write the story myself if i'm not going to be given something and am going to have to make my own meaning. i feel like storytellers do this because 1) they believe that good stories have to be open ended thematically, and 2) they have been taught to instinctively shy away from giving me their own opinions and holding to their own opinions.
for example (spoiler alert) the movie The Royal Tenenbaums, there can be no confusion over what the movie is about, because it tells us what it is about throughout the entire movie, and then literally states the theme and meaning of the movie at the end. Gene Hackman plays a father and ex-husband named Royal Tenenbaum who is nearing the end of his life, and realizes that his family hates him. (im serious: mad spoilers ahead) + Show Spoiler +at the end they are at his funeral, and on his gravestone it reads (im paraphrasing) "Tragically died while saving his family from a sinking ship." now, this is a joke because we see that his character is a bit of a dramatic and he actually dies of a heart attack. but the fact is that the movie IS about him saving his family from a metaphorical "sinking ship". one of his sons (Ben Stiller) lost his wife in a plane crash and is overbearing to his own sons, whom Royal does not know, while trying to protect them, Royal's other son (Luke Wilson) is depressed and tries to commit suicide, his (adopted) daughter (Gwyneth Paltrow) is also depressed and loves her (not adopted) brother, and she never felt like a part of the family. even Eli Cash (Owen Wilson) is kind of a "proxy son" of Royal (Gene Hackman) and needs the Tenenbaums to be his proxy-family. Royal's wife has not forgiven him, and also carries with her some pain from their earlier life tpgether. Royal does save them from their lives and depressions, and at the end of the movie he dies with the son that always hated him the most (Ben Stiller) clutching his hand lovingly. Royal recaptures the love of his family and of his ex-wife, and gains the respect of her new husband.
there are some stories that leave us to decide what they are truly about that do succeed in being good stories. most stories that try to it end up being flat, emotionally shallow, and uncontroversial. they fall prey to the exact thing that they tried to avoid: they become one-dimensional in the truest sense of the word. they have no depth other than what i am willing to add into them, on their own they are without depth or inherent meaning. call me a lazy viewer, but i want the movie to have the depth, i don't want to have to use my own depth to help the movie.
im gonna have to watch Liquid Rising and make my own opinion on it, but i just wanted to put my view on that part of story-telling out there for consideration.
|
It was a documentary not a movie dude. Its basically a biography on the players not a movie with a plot. I'm still scratching my head wondering why you would expect anymore.
|
On June 23 2012 17:43 ReachTheSky wrote:
It was a documentary not a movie dude. Its basically a biography on the players not a movie with a plot. I'm still scratching my head wondering why you would expect anymore.
All documentaries need to have a sense of direction for them to be interesting. Plus, saying "you should not expect more" is silly. It's like people arguing that we should not expect a good story from Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 because "what were you expecting?"
|
United States24495 Posts
I'm surprised you are being so critical about the editing. Of all aspects of the movie, that probably stood out the least as possibly having a problem with it for me. The beginning I actually found a bit difficult to follow, and there were a few moments of blackness that I was unsure for a moment if they were intentional, but other than that I didn't notice anything regarding the editing.
|
At this point, I've tried writing a serious critique of your review four times; however, each attempt has ended in my disappointing failure to say anything consistently meaningful. I'm sorry you didn't like the movie.
|
On June 23 2012 21:59 micronesia wrote:
I'm surprised you are being so critical about the editing. Of all aspects of the movie, that probably stood out the least as possibly having a problem with it for me. The beginning I actually found a bit difficult to follow, and there were a few moments of blackness that I was unsure for a moment if they were intentional, but other than that I didn't notice anything regarding the editing.
I had a problem with the music editing. The intro sequences are so loud in comparison to the interview scenes that follow directly after them. It's like when they blast commercials in between segments of a tv program.
|
On June 23 2012 21:59 micronesia wrote:
I'm surprised you are being so critical about the editing. Of all aspects of the movie, that probably stood out the least as possibly having a problem with it for me. The beginning I actually found a bit difficult to follow, and there were a few moments of blackness that I was unsure for a moment if they were intentional, but other than that I didn't notice anything regarding the editing.
The reason I am so critical about editing is because i've seen the 'power' of editing. A friend made a picture by picture film. In other words, he made toys 'move' frame by frame.
For example, a Dinosaur on one side and than dinosaur moves two inches forward in the second scene. Now how he did this, without making it seem like the movie was choppy, was Music and Long scenes.
He had a beat that would slowly, quietly go along, until the 'picture' changed. At that picture change it would be a drum beat or a trumpet sound. And than the picture shifts. Now each 'cut' or scene change was after 2-3 sec after the first. This is a long time to be on a picture frame, but it worked for the movie. you got the sense of 'movement.' This is why i am very critical about the editing. Because when i SAW the beginning, it was like, "This is one of the best edits i've seen in special effects. Holy crap!"
And than for the rest of it, get low level regular cutting you can do of a school computer. It frustrated me to see the editing just show down. Also, Visual effects were lacking as well. If you have it in some parts, you have to have it in ALL parts. Look at Scott pilgrim vs the World. A movie that used visual effects to its fullest and MADE the visual effects more meaningful by constant editing.
Also, Intro and Outro are very important in movies. Intro is what starts the tone of the movie. Those were done 'ok.' Outro were bad because when you Fade to Black or do a Straight Cut, these have to have meaning to them. IT CANNOT, just be there to throw in.
Also, To the person saying this is just a documentary:
A documentary is a Film. A film is based on rules that 'should' not be broken. All editing techniques are part of film.
P.S: sc2superfan101 I'll get to ur point in a sec. Going to need to write a long essay for that one. :D
|
Bro, I liked it. ^_^ It was funny, interesting, and a good fundraiser.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 23 2012 16:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:i disagree on some level with your ideas on theme and the uses of it (as such i disagree with inception being a great movie, but that's a different story): a theme is almost always necessary, and i will agree that most movies/stories should have some sort of theme relevant to the human experience, which will usually be manifested as Man vs Something. however, there are some exceptions to this rule: one of my favorite movies is The Big Lebowski. one would be hard pressed to find any sort of theme in that movie. likewise, one of my favorite shows of all time was Seinfeld, a show that became famous for literally being a "show about nothing." neither of these stories can be said to be "bad" stories, in fact they were both extremely entertaining stories, and the execution was, in my opinion, on level with any other movie or story that exists. there are other examples of "stories about nothing" that succeeded, but i will agree that the vast majority of them fail. (on a side note, there can also be the story of: "the theme is about there being no theme" i think Adaptation with Nick Cage was an awesome example of this) furthermore, i think that a theme doesn't necessarily have to be Man vs. Anything. it could very well be a statement about the world, or a statement about some other perspective than mankind's. i can't think of any great examples of the top of my head, but i do think it is possible. on the idea that no story should have one theme: i absolutely, 100%, without exception do not agree. i think this is the biggest problem with modern story-lines, and with modern storytelling. there is something to be said for leaving things up to interpretation, sure, but the fact is that most movies that "leave things up to interpretation" end up not saying anything at all. they don't make any definite statement, and instead require the viewer to add in his/her own statements, which is NOT a good thing to do. it is actually a symbol of one: laziness, and two, insecurity. i already know what i think about life, i know what i feel about struggle, what i want to see when i go see a story is what the writer/director/storyteller thinks and feels about life and struggle. if the storyteller requires me to add in my own ideas and feelings into the movie, that almost always means that they did not do the work, but are instead expecting me to do the work. take Inception for example: you mention that you felt the theme was one thing, another person felt that it was something else. the problem i had with the movie is that it gives no deeper meaning, but instead asks me to put in the meaning (not completely but to a certain extent.) i might as well write the story myself if i'm not going to be given something and am going to have to make my own meaning. i feel like storytellers do this because 1) they believe that good stories have to be open ended thematically, and 2) they have been taught to instinctively shy away from giving me their own opinions and holding to their own opinions. for example (spoiler alert) the movie The Royal Tenenbaums, there can be no confusion over what the movie is about, because it tells us what it is about throughout the entire movie, and then literally states the theme and meaning of the movie at the end. Gene Hackman plays a father and ex-husband named Royal Tenenbaum who is nearing the end of his life, and realizes that his family hates him. (im serious: mad spoilers ahead) + Show Spoiler +at the end they are at his funeral, and on his gravestone it reads (im paraphrasing) "Tragically died while saving his family from a sinking ship." now, this is a joke because we see that his character is a bit of a dramatic and he actually dies of a heart attack. but the fact is that the movie IS about him saving his family from a metaphorical "sinking ship". one of his sons (Ben Stiller) lost his wife in a plane crash and is overbearing to his own sons, whom Royal does not know, while trying to protect them, Royal's other son (Luke Wilson) is depressed and tries to commit suicide, his (adopted) daughter (Gwyneth Paltrow) is also depressed and loves her (not adopted) brother, and she never felt like a part of the family. even Eli Cash (Owen Wilson) is kind of a "proxy son" of Royal (Gene Hackman) and needs the Tenenbaums to be his proxy-family. Royal's wife has not forgiven him, and also carries with her some pain from their earlier life tpgether. Royal does save them from their lives and depressions, and at the end of the movie he dies with the son that always hated him the most (Ben Stiller) clutching his hand lovingly. Royal recaptures the love of his family and of his ex-wife, and gains the respect of her new husband. this movie is simple, and there is no mystery whatsoever about the theme, and no real room for interpretation, but it is still an amazing story, an amazing movie, and furthermore is very emotionally moving. there are some stories that leave us to decide what they are truly about that do succeed in being good stories. most stories that try to it end up being flat, emotionally shallow, and uncontroversial. they fall prey to the exact thing that they tried to avoid: they become one-dimensional in the truest sense of the word. they have no depth other than what i am willing to add into them, on their own they are without depth or inherent meaning. call me a lazy viewer, but i want the movie to have the depth, i don't want to have to use my own depth to help the movie. im gonna have to watch Liquid Rising and make my own opinion on it, but i just wanted to put my view on that part of story-telling out there for consideration.
Ok. TIme to reply to this post in a very simple manner. I know all the movies u are talking about and im pretty sure each of them have theme. Yes you can break rules, only if you break them in a specifc way. Which is: Break the intentionally and make it blatantly obvious. Adaptation did this well, and another movie, though it escapes my memory also did this. I will counter ur arguement because Adaptation did have a theme. Theme is the idea the movie center arounds. If a movie doesnt have this, than it is a failure. Period. There is no arguement there.
U are qouting 'Shows about nothing'. Are you sure? Does these show have plot lines? Does these shows have characters growing through their daily lives. Than yes it does have a theme. I am saying Liquid rising has an incomplete theme. Now yes, it does not have to be Man vs something, but it should be Something vs something. Even if it is Self vs Self. But in this case, we ARE dealing with MAN vs something.
Also i am not sure about your description of modern storytelling. Just because an author wants it read a certain way doesnt mean that everyone will get it that way. themes always can be interpreted in different ways. Most authors accept this. An example: Song of Solomon, i had a chance to listen to the lecture. One of my teachers asked if the father's name was part of the theme. The author said the name was from her father. Bam. A theme created by a reader by the author unintentionally. These things always crop up or we would have uniform books that hit us with blandness.
And about the opinion thing. I think that is totally off, no offense to you, but the idea feels so awkward. It may be because i live in California but I love other's opinions and eat that stuff up. (I loved ur opinoin as well).
Ok here is my overall idea about liquid rising:
It was too short. Or it tried to do too much and ended up being short. Needed a lot more developed storylines. Therefore we could not see the theme fully develop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
