It seems Peter Lenkov can't take the heat

[Steve]

I was asked to weigh in on this thread by a very good friend whom has been very respectful and tolerant of my trying to enjoy the reboot or in the very least, give it a chance...
All I came up with was, besides loving all of the passion in all of you, and being able to walk back any perceived criticism is; dog gone it, I am having a hard time getting beyond the posted Farrah Fawcett picture and I can't help but think of Patton Oswald and his hilarious bits about George Lucas and the Star Wars movies including the hilarious filibuster scenes in Parks and Recreation..... Carry on folks.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BBhNkywMJY

[Stelth]

https://mobile.twitter.com/FLStelth/sta ... 52/photo/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/FLStelth/sta ... 96/photo/1

[Rands]

Hi all; I just stumbled onto this particular thread. Spending some time reading the posts, I find my original premise of Conch being blocked by Peter Lenkov to be humorous. Maybe it's just my life experience or upbringing, but I do find it funny.

As to the reboot of Magnum, the writing is getting better. In most cases the acting is getting better, but the cinematography still isn't up to the 1980s standards. Let me explain my thoughts. While the technology of filming is much more advanced than forty years ago, the art of transferring the image portrayed to medium isn't. If you take a few moments while watching your favorite contemporary program, look just above the upper frame of the screen and you will see how often the captured image moves about the screen. Knowing how the human body works, especially the human eye, the eye "sees" movement much more than a still image. Humans are not unique to this ability, as most of the mammal kingdom is.

It is my belief that television and film producers/directors have this knowledge too, as the constant 'in frame" motion appears on both large screen and small. I'm a fan of Law and Order, and even watching the earliest episodes, this in screen movement is prevalent. This is something that Hitchcock, DeMille and others simply wouldn't do. The classic producers/directors used superior skills when setting the scene, and filming the product.

Several months ago, I was watching a rebroadcast of the reboot, and watched an episode of Magnum on COZI thereafter. The difference in the cinematography was quite apparent. I say this as a lay person, not a professional, just a mere consumer of the product. I do understand that filming styles do change as well, but my truly humble opinion, development of better cinematography would help the reboot product. Of course my opinion and five dollars will still get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[Amian]

As to the reboot of Magnum, the writing is getting better. In most cases the acting is getting better, but the cinematography still isn't up to the 1980s standards. ... Several months ago, I was watching a rebroadcast of the reboot, and watched an episode of Magnum on COZI thereafter. The difference in the cinematography was quite apparent. I say this as a lay person, not a professional, just a mere consumer of the product.

Interesting insight! I often chalk this up simply to pacing, (expected) attention spans of the audience, and how those have changed over the years. There is far more breathing space in the original Magnum, which I attributed to the editing. Motion on the screen (even when quick-cut edits aren't being used) like you describe would make the pacing feel faster, and could distract the eye (or our attention) away from other things (both good and bad).

I agree that the writing and acting are getting better. I hope it keeps in that direction.

I'd also like to see the heavy-handed music kept to a minimum, but what can you do?

[Pahonu]

As to the reboot of Magnum, the writing is getting better. In most cases the acting is getting better, but the cinematography still isn't up to the 1980s standards. ... Several months ago, I was watching a rebroadcast of the reboot, and watched an episode of Magnum on COZI thereafter. The difference in the cinematography was quite apparent. I say this as a lay person, not a professional, just a mere consumer of the product.

Interesting insight! I often chalk this up simply to pacing, (expected) attention spans of the audience, and how those have changed over the years. There is far more breathing space in the original Magnum, which I attributed to the editing. Motion on the screen (even when quick-cut edits aren't being used) like you describe would make the pacing feel faster, and could distract the eye (or our attention) away from other things (both good and bad).

I agree that the writing and acting are getting better. I hope it keeps in that direction.

I'd also like to see the heavy-handed music kept to a minimum, but what can you do?

Very good points, from both of you. Pacing of TV shows by the 80's was already much quicker than it had been in previous decades, and the trend continues. TV critics have commented on this trend over many decades. I have the DVD collection of The Wild, Wild, West and every time I watch an episode, I notice the slower pacing... and I enjoy the "breathing space" as you call it, Amain. I remember film critics commenting on the pacing and quick cut rate of Natural Born Killers from the 90's. Most of their comments were not kind, but he trend continues in film as well. I actually got a headache when I went with my son to see Aquaman in the theater, and not in 3-D. I don't typically go to see superhero movies, but I'll occasionally see parts if my son is watching one on TV. They're cut so fast! He doesn't seem to notice. As the generations pass, the norm changes it seems.

[Amian]

As to the reboot of Magnum, the writing is getting better. In most cases the acting is getting better, but the cinematography still isn't up to the 1980s standards. ... Several months ago, I was watching a rebroadcast of the reboot, and watched an episode of Magnum on COZI thereafter. The difference in the cinematography was quite apparent. I say this as a lay person, not a professional, just a mere consumer of the product.

Interesting insight! I often chalk this up simply to pacing, (expected) attention spans of the audience, and how those have changed over the years. There is far more breathing space in the original Magnum, which I attributed to the editing. Motion on the screen (even when quick-cut edits aren't being used) like you describe would make the pacing feel faster, and could distract the eye (or our attention) away from other things (both good and bad).

I agree that the writing and acting are getting better. I hope it keeps in that direction.

I'd also like to see the heavy-handed music kept to a minimum, but what can you do?

Very good points, from both of you. Pacing of TV shows by the 80's was already much quicker than it had been in previous decades, and the trend continues. TV critics have commented on this trend over many decades. I have the DVD collection of The Wild, Wild, West and every time I watch an episode, I notice the slower pacing... and I enjoy the "breathing space" as you call it, Amain. I remember film critics commenting on the pacing and quick cut rate of Natural Born Killers from the 90's. Most of their comments were not kind, but he trend continues in film as well. I actually got a headache when I went with my son to see Aquaman in the theater, and not in 3-D. I don't typically go to see superhero movies, but I'll occasionally see parts if my son is watching one on TV. They're cut so fast! He doesn't seem to notice. As the generations pass, the norm changes it seems.

In the early 1900s people were being frequently diagnosed with neurasthenia and it was thought that the pace of life, what with all the trains and industrialization and growth of cities, was fraying people nerves. There's a Mark Twain quotation about baseball being a fast-moving sport that symbolized the progressive spirit of the times. Clearly our perceptions have changed over time. I love baseball, but fast-moving it is not. When I was a kid I remember people saying that MTV and music videos were fraying attention spans.

You're right, Natural Born Killers really got panned for its style by a number of critics. Nowadays we can complain about tablets and the desire for instant gratification (or at least acknowledgment) on social media. I've got two kids (6 and 4) who are starting to be interested in super hero stuff... Maybe we'll start with Superman (Christopher Reeve vintage, of course).

[Chris109]

I've got two kids (6 and 4) who are starting to be interested in super hero stuff... Maybe we'll start with Superman (Christopher Reeve vintage, of course).

Just make sure you cut out all of the scenes with the late ( )Margot Kidder. You don't want to scar them for life.