As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

A Thread About Movies

1909193959699

Posts

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    But no silent films? The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari cries out for justice.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.

    On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.


    *I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.

    It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.

    This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?

    My list has Casablanca on it . . . :(
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.

    On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.


    *I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.

    It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.

    This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?
    Are we still talking about Atomic Ross's list? 'cus... it does have Casablanca. Not that it isn't heavily weighed towards relatively recent Hollywood products.

    I'm talking in general; his list just spurred the idea because Casablanca stands out sorely amongst that reads a lot like a gen-X Harry Knowles marathon.

    Where's The African Queen? Or Lawrence of Arabia? Or anything by Wilder, Huston, Lean, Ford, etc.?

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    But no silent films? The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari cries out for justice.

    I recall being "taught" this film in a college film class by a 30-something with a beard who insisted on calling all movies films.

    Can this film be legitimately enjoyed if there is no test on it later?

  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Heisenberg wrote: »
    Kasyn wrote: »
    stop putting Hurt Locker on greatest all time lists hnnnnggghhhh

    No thanks, since in entitled to like what I want and you're entitled to have a wrong opinion. ;)

    I mean, your taste in war films isn't totally off the mark, because you list two very good ones. But Hurt Locker probably doesn't deserve a spot in top 10 war flicks of all time, let alone anything ever. It's certainly no better than Platoon, or Waltz with Bashir, or either of Eastwood's WW2 films, or even Jarhead, and that's just recent stuff!

    It wasn't even a better movie than like three or four other things from that year!
    Up, A Serious Man, the opening scene from Inglorious Basterds alone is more interesting than anything about Hurt Locker.

    Guuuuhhhhh. I don't even think it's a bad movie by any stretch, just a criminally overrated one.

    I know, I know, opinions.

    Kasyn on
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Bogart wrote: »
    So good.


    Sam Neill version is better

    DanHibiki on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Thirith wrote: »
    *I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.

    They probably did, but as I argued earlier, franchises like James Bond and whathaveyou are being adapted from a source material anyway, so there's no true one interpretation.

    I'd count the originals to be the one true interpretation. Fleming's Bond novels, Bob Kane & Bill Finger's Batman, Jack Kirby &
    Joe Simon's Captain America, Doyle's Sherlock Holmes etc.
    Indiana Jones is whole-cloth, and that whole-cloth is made of Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg.

    Indy by Ford & Spielberg did make the source material, but it's still only one interpretation of the property. I've already listed other versions.
    Thirith wrote: »
    It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.

    On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.


    *I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.

    A reboot doesn't have to the exact same thing with Indy. They can reveal his origins, how he met his friends, go after different artifacts and even go in their own direction to distinguish them from Ford's films. It being a reboot doesn't mean it can't have a critical take on the genre or style.

    Harry Dresden on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Bob Kane's original Batman was... pretty weird. And a bit gun-happy.

  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    The best Adam Sandler movie was Happy Gilmore. Billy Madison is a distant second, and the rest are pretty much unwatchable. He struck gold twice, and almost recapped it with The Longest Yard, but that's because it wasn't his movie, it was a remake.

    None of these compare to the best Adam Sandler production, which was Grandma's Boy, which ranks light years beyond all the rest.

    Everything else Sandler or Schneider has ever done is pretty horrible.

  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    I enjoyed Postal more than I enjoyed Zohan.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.

    On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.


    *I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.

    It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.

    This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?

    My list has Casablanca on it . . . :(
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.

    On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.


    *I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.

    It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.

    This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?
    Are we still talking about Atomic Ross's list? 'cus... it does have Casablanca. Not that it isn't heavily weighed towards relatively recent Hollywood products.

    I'm talking in general; his list just spurred the idea because Casablanca stands out sorely amongst that reads a lot like a gen-X Harry Knowles marathon.

    Where's The African Queen? Or Lawrence of Arabia? Or anything by Wilder, Huston, Lean, Ford, etc.?

    Like I said, it's a growing work.

    Lawrence of Arabia should definitely be on there. The Searchers should be, too. My list probably doesn't have enough Robert Altman, either. I'm not a huge Wilder fan, to tell the truth. A little light for my tastes, but of course YMMV.

  • EvigilantEvigilant VARegistered User regular
    This is probably mine, not that anyone gives a damn:

    Groundhog Day
    Blazing Saddles
    Casablanca
    The Searchers
    Seven Samurai
    The Good, the bad and the ugly
    Shane
    The man who shot Liberty Valance
    13 Assassins
    The Usual Suspects

    I've always thought about replacing The Usual Suspects with either Unforgiven, LA Confidential, Blade Runner, Chinatown, or Nosferatu. I have not seen Citizen Kane and I saw The Godfather trilogy the only time when I was a kid so I can't really remember what I thought of it.

    XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    I just don't get people who like Seven Samurai more than the Magnificent Seven, especially people named Evigilant who also have The Good, the bad and the ugly on their list.

  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    My list could probably be just the list of movies I've chosen to keep, but based on my personal viewing habits and tastes, Miller's Crossing might be the finest movie yet made.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I prefer Last Man Standing to Fistfull of dollars and Yojimbo...

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    I am half convinced Adam Sandler movies are just an elaborate way of paying back favours for old friends.

    Not even that elaborate, and its more that he can keep his failed actor friends employed (though I'm still mystified as fuck as to how Rob Schnieder got a network sitcom). Red Letter media hit on this in their jack and jill annhilation, but its pretty damn true that there is no other explination as to why his movies cost so much and have so little to justify their expenses.

    Yeah it's obvious. But I can't really fault him for it.

  • EvigilantEvigilant VARegistered User regular
    I just don't get people who like Seven Samurai more than the Magnificent Seven, especially people named Evigilant who also have The Good, the bad and the ugly on their list.
    I've honestly just have never seen Magnificent Seven and so I'm unable to formulate an opinion on the film.

    XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    I am half convinced Adam Sandler movies are just an elaborate way of paying back favours for old friends.

    Not even that elaborate, and its more that he can keep his failed actor friends employed (though I'm still mystified as fuck as to how Rob Schnieder got a network sitcom). Red Letter media hit on this in their jack and jill annhilation, but its pretty damn true that there is no other explination as to why his movies cost so much and have so little to justify their expenses.

    Yeah it's obvious. But I can't really fault him for it.

    I can! He produces shit movies that should never see the light of damn day. If he wants to indugle his shit actor friends into being in awful movies, he should be like Prince and make the damn things and stick them in a vault!

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    Last Man Standing is really, really underrated, mostly for the fact that it's very accurate as far as getting rid of the "infinite bullet" dynamic of most action movies.

    I honestly think that's just a thing that Bruce Willis decided early on he was going to put his foot down on. I mean there's specifically a scene in LMS where he spends like 30 seconds of screen time putting together a collection of over 20 full magazines before the big shootout at the end.

  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    Seven Samurai is incredible, start to finish. None of the remakes really hold a candle.

    The performances are brilliant, it handles so many characters so deftly, the action holds up really well over time, and like many of Kurosawa's films it's just a master class in cinematography. There isn't an errant frame in the whole goddamn thing, it's just breathtaking in it's visuals and execution.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Bob Kane's original Batman was... pretty weird. And a bit gun-happy.

    Batman's changed a lot over the decades. Their version is still the original.
    The best Adam Sandler movie was Happy Gilmore. Billy Madison is a distant second, and the rest are pretty much unwatchable. He struck gold twice, and almost recapped it with The Longest Yard, but that's because it wasn't his movie, it was a remake.

    None of these compare to the best Adam Sandler production, which was Grandma's Boy, which ranks light years beyond all the rest.

    Everything else Sandler or Schneider has ever done is pretty horrible.

    Spanglish is under-rated. He was pretty good in that and the movie was superior to his usual comedies.

    Harry Dresden on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Last Man Standing is really, really underrated, mostly for the fact that it's very accurate as far as getting rid of the "infinite bullet" dynamic of most action movies.

    I honestly think that's just a thing that Bruce Willis decided early on he was going to put his foot down on. I mean there's specifically a scene in LMS where he spends like 30 seconds of screen time putting together a collection of over 20 full magazines before the big shootout at the end.

    Uhh he fires like twenty times out of guns that hold at most 7 in each magazine AH... I mean he reloads but its very rarely and only for awesome effect.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Preacher wrote: »
    Last Man Standing is really, really underrated, mostly for the fact that it's very accurate as far as getting rid of the "infinite bullet" dynamic of most action movies.

    I honestly think that's just a thing that Bruce Willis decided early on he was going to put his foot down on. I mean there's specifically a scene in LMS where he spends like 30 seconds of screen time putting together a collection of over 20 full magazines before the big shootout at the end.

    Uhh he fires like twenty times out of guns that hold at most 7 in each magazine AH... I mean he reloads but its very rarely and only for awesome effect.

    I remember it differently. I know specifically at the end he pretty much empties both guns into each guy, and reloads each time.

    edit: Unlike the El Mariachi series, where they just say fuck it and might as well be shooting with no guns and their fingers pointed instead.

    amateurhour on
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Preacher wrote: »
    I prefer Last Man Standing to Fistfull of dollars and Yojimbo...

    Which are all variants on Dashiell Hammett's novel Red Harvest, best changed into Miller's Crossing.

    Mad King George on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Bob Kane's original Batman was... pretty weird. And a bit gun-happy.

    Batman's changed a lot over the decades. Their version is still the original.

    Obviously it's the original. I thought the whole discussion was between whether "original conception" and "one true interpretation" are always the same. I'd say they can be but not always. Sir ACD's Holmes is, but I wouldn't put Batman or Superman on that list. IIRC the original Superman couldn't even fly, which today is as integral to the character as Batman's aversion to guns and killing people.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    I was actually pretty underwhelmed by Yojimbo.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I was actually pretty underwhelmed by Yojimbo.

    I saw it kind of drunk starting around 1am on a movie night, so taking that in mind I fell asleep within the first ten minutes.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • HeisenbergHeisenberg Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Kasyn wrote: »
    Heisenberg wrote: »
    Kasyn wrote: »
    stop putting Hurt Locker on greatest all time lists hnnnnggghhhh

    No thanks, since in entitled to like what I want and you're entitled to have a wrong opinion. ;)

    I mean, your taste in war films isn't totally off the mark, because you list two very good ones. But Hurt Locker probably doesn't deserve a spot in top 10 war flicks of all time, let alone anything ever. It's certainly no better than Platoon, or Waltz with Bashir, or either of Eastwood's WW2 films, or even Jarhead, and that's just recent stuff!

    It wasn't even a better movie than like three or four other things from that year!
    Up, A Serious Man, the opening scene from Inglorious Basterds alone is more interesting than anything about Hurt Locker.

    Guuuuhhhhh. I don't even think it's a bad movie by any stretch, just a criminally overrated one.

    I know, I know, opinions.

    Im sorry you see it that way. I honestly thought it was brilliant, and I saw it long before it got all the praise and awards. It's thrilling, thought provoking, a perfect character piece, unpretentious, and has a lot of things to say about the current war.

    Heisenberg on
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    I actually kind of hated Jarhead. I got the meaning of it, it made sense, and I followed the story, but in the end it just pissed me off.

    I kind of think that was the point though. It was kind of this "Kids who's dads were in Nam and grandads were in WW2 trying to live the Full Metal Jacket dream and realizing the realness of it, etc." and it just bummed me out more than anything, but more so than I feel like it intended to do, to the point where I didn't really enjoy it.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I actually kind of hated Jarhead. I got the meaning of it, it made sense, and I followed the story, but in the end it just pissed me off.

    I kind of think that was the point though. It was kind of this "Kids who's dads were in Nam and grandads were in WW2 trying to live the Full Metal Jacket dream and realizing the realness of it, etc." and it just bummed me out more than anything, but more so than I feel like it intended to do, to the point where I didn't really enjoy it.

    I think some filmmakers are so in love with the idea of a movie, they forget to make an actual good movie. Like they think their idea alone makes it worthwhile if that makes any sense.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    Hurt Locker had almost nothing to say about that war. I've said it before, the only real scene with meat to it was in the grocery near the very end. It has less to say about war than half an episode of Generation Kill. It functions well as a seriously treated action film, but provides little more than that.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    KalTorak wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Bob Kane's original Batman was... pretty weird. And a bit gun-happy.

    Batman's changed a lot over the decades. Their version is still the original.

    Obviously it's the original. I thought the whole discussion was between whether "original conception" and "one true interpretation" are always the same. I'd say they can be but not always. Sir ACD's Holmes is, but I wouldn't put Batman or Superman on that list. IIRC the original Superman couldn't even fly, which today is as integral to the character as Batman's aversion to guns and killing people.

    Ross point about being "whole cloth" meant the originals IMO. Today's Superman and Batman aren't the original versions. In fact they're very different from what the originals were. That's why I'm not considering the current versions "one true interpretation". Many people over the years and different mediums evolved the concepts into what the current versions are today not the original creators. The "one true interpretation" would be the originals.

    Harry Dresden on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Bob Kane's original Batman was... pretty weird. And a bit gun-happy.

    Batman's changed a lot over the decades. Their version is still the original.

    Obviously it's the original. I thought the whole discussion was between whether "original conception" and "one true interpretation" are always the same. I'd say they can be but not always. Sir ACD's Holmes is, but I wouldn't put Batman or Superman on that list. IIRC the original Superman couldn't even fly, which today is as integral to the character as Batman's aversion to guns and killing people.

    Ross point about being "whole cloth" meant the originals IMO. Today's Superman and Batman aren't the original versions. In fact they're very different from what the originals were. That's why I'm not considering the current versions "one true interpretation". Many people over the years and different mediums evolved the concepts into what the current versions are today not the original creators. The "one true interpretation" would be the originals.

    No, his point about "whole cloth" is that Indy is a singular creation. He has only 1 interpretation.

    Batman/Superman/Spiderman/etc are cultural things now, with a dozen interpretations, none of which are really the "right one".

  • Mmmm... Cocks...Mmmm... Cocks... Registered User regular
    jdarksun wrote: »
    Is this a good place totally about Prometheus?
    Because what the fuck was that shit?
    I'm not sure how I feel about it. Some things just didn't seem right. The plot seemed a little... jerky? I dunno.
    I did enjoy watching it at least.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Bob Kane's original Batman was... pretty weird. And a bit gun-happy.

    Batman's changed a lot over the decades. Their version is still the original.

    Obviously it's the original. I thought the whole discussion was between whether "original conception" and "one true interpretation" are always the same. I'd say they can be but not always. Sir ACD's Holmes is, but I wouldn't put Batman or Superman on that list. IIRC the original Superman couldn't even fly, which today is as integral to the character as Batman's aversion to guns and killing people.

    Ross point about being "whole cloth" meant the originals IMO. Today's Superman and Batman aren't the original versions. In fact they're very different from what the originals were. That's why I'm not considering the current versions "one true interpretation". Many people over the years and different mediums evolved the concepts into what the current versions are today not the original creators. The "one true interpretation" would be the originals.

    I'm with Ross in that Harrison is Indiana. He's not a "character" so much as he's basically Harrison Ford in some now iconic clothing.

    So I don't get why you'd want to see a new version of Indy instead of a new Indy-like character. It speaks to this inability to move on that's fairly large in the fan community.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag/jack-and-jill/

    Since it was brought up earlier and its hilarious.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Bob Kane's original Batman was... pretty weird. And a bit gun-happy.

    Batman's changed a lot over the decades. Their version is still the original.

    Obviously it's the original. I thought the whole discussion was between whether "original conception" and "one true interpretation" are always the same. I'd say they can be but not always. Sir ACD's Holmes is, but I wouldn't put Batman or Superman on that list. IIRC the original Superman couldn't even fly, which today is as integral to the character as Batman's aversion to guns and killing people.

    Ross point about being "whole cloth" meant the originals IMO. Today's Superman and Batman aren't the original versions. In fact they're very different from what the originals were. That's why I'm not considering the current versions "one true interpretation". Many people over the years and different mediums evolved the concepts into what the current versions are today not the original creators. The "one true interpretation" would be the originals.

    I'm with Ross in that Harrison is Indiana. He's not a "character" so much as he's basically Harrison Ford in some now iconic clothing.

    How would a reboot change that exactly? I'm doubtful the new version would replace Harrison Ford's portrayal into being instantly iconic over night.
    So I don't get why you'd want to see a new version of Indy instead of a new Indy-like character. It speaks to this inability to move on that's fairly large in the fan community.

    Because I'm interested in seeing new stories and a new take on the franchise. I'd also like other talented directors to direct them like Joe Johnson.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Kasyn wrote: »
    Hurt Locker had almost nothing to say about that war. I've said it before, the only real scene with meat to it was in the grocery near the very end. It has less to say about war than half an episode of Generation Kill. It functions well as a seriously treated action film, but provides little more than that.

    I'm not sure that Hurt Locker was meant to be about "The War" as much as it was meant to be about war in general. Black Hawk Down is pretty much the same way; there's a gigantic and troublesome geopolitical landscape and a strategic mission contextualizing the story, but like Eric Bana's character points out, once the first bullet goes past your head, the politics goes right out the window.

  • noir_bloodnoir_blood Registered User regular
    jdarksun wrote: »
    Is this a good place totally about Prometheus?
    Because what the fuck was that shit?
    I'm not sure how I feel about it. Some things just didn't seem right. The plot seemed a little... jerky? I dunno.
    I did enjoy watching it at least.
    Just got done watching it. I enjoyed it, but at the same time there's a couple of plot holes and just sorta of weird stuff.
    Did we ever find out what happened to the dude with glasses that the was attached by one of the snake things?

    I understand that this isn't the same planet as that from Alien, but is the xenomorph that comes out of the Engineer the first of its kind? If so, how the hell would it reproduce?

    Also, it bugs me that the leave it open ended for the sequel-the whole "they created us and now want to kill us" thing is just fucking lazy considering they don't bother going into detail.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    Kasyn wrote: »
    Hurt Locker had almost nothing to say about that war. I've said it before, the only real scene with meat to it was in the grocery near the very end. It has less to say about war than half an episode of Generation Kill. It functions well as a seriously treated action film, but provides little more than that.

    I'm not sure that Hurt Locker was meant to be about "The War" as much as it was meant to be about war in general. Black Hawk Down is pretty much the same way; there's a gigantic and troublesome geopolitical landscape and a strategic mission contextualizing the story, but like Eric Bana's character points out, once the first bullet goes past your head, the politics goes right out the window.

    Yeah, Hurt Locker wasn't about The War it was about how this guy functions with/without war.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    I'm with Ross in that Harrison is Indiana. He's not a "character" so much as he's basically Harrison Ford in some now iconic clothing.

    How would a reboot change that exactly? I'm doubtful the new version would replace Harrison Ford's portrayal into being instantly iconic over night.

    Because you just need to move on. There's nothing particularly inherent about the world Indiana Jones lives in that is beholden to only that one character doing it, so Joe Johnston directing Ryan Gosling as the character is so far removed from the spirit of the original you might as well just change his name and have a whole new franchise.

    There's no point other than selfish desires to see the same old familiar crap spoon-fed, wrapped in our cocoons of cold comfort.
    So I don't get why you'd want to see a new version of Indy instead of a new Indy-like character. It speaks to this inability to move on that's fairly large in the fan community.

    Because I'm interested in seeing new stories and a new take on the franchise. I'd also like other talented directors to direct them like Joe Johnson.

    New stories. New actor. New director.


    You almost got a whole new franchise on your hands there, chief.

    Atomika on
This discussion has been closed.