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

1919294969799

Posts

  • 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.

    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.

    Harrison Ford isn't "portraying." He is Indiana Jones. Indy's repertoire of wry glances and side-grins are also in Han Solo because they're not characters, they're Ford.
    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.

    So, in other words, "I want more Indiana Jones instead of something like Indy but having a different name because I can't move on."
    I'd also like other talented directors to direct them like Joe Johnson.

    Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    And if you're really wanting some of that Joe Johnston nostalgia porn, you are free to check out any of the four or five movies he's made within that genre already.

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    It's probably a combination of limited exposure (in the US, if you want to watch foreign films not called Harry Potter, you have do some digging) and simply a lot of it not being my interest. I've talked about it here before, but I feel that there's a good deal of nuance that's lost between cultures any time you observe a foreign product, and the greater your cultural gap from that product, the more likely you are to fail to fully comprehend what the project is trying to say.

    As an American, the drift on my scope of assured reference goes: America, Canada, the Caribbean, the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, South America, Middle East, Far East.

    Each next step takes my understanding more and more away, so I feel less assured in my criticisms and understanding of films from those areas.

    I love your hierarchy. As a middle easterner I despised most of American film, and when I wasn't watching Arabic classics it was to India and Hong Kong that I turned. My favorite American film was Mortal Kombat.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    It's probably a combination of limited exposure (in the US, if you want to watch foreign films not called Harry Potter, you have do some digging) and simply a lot of it not being my interest. I've talked about it here before, but I feel that there's a good deal of nuance that's lost between cultures any time you observe a foreign product, and the greater your cultural gap from that product, the more likely you are to fail to fully comprehend what the project is trying to say.

    As an American, the drift on my scope of assured reference goes: America, Canada, the Caribbean, the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, South America, Middle East, Far East.

    Each next step takes my understanding more and more away, so I feel less assured in my criticisms and understanding of films from those areas.

    I love your hierarchy. As a middle easterner I despised most of American film, and when I wasn't watching Arabic classics it was to India and Hong Kong that I turned. My favorite American film was Mortal Kombat.

    See? It's a thing. It's all about what you feel comfortable with.

  • Joe DizzyJoe Dizzy Registered User regular
    I just watched The Good The Bad The Weird and whilw I was kind of entertained, I feel like I missed half of what the point of the movie was. I could follow the plot well enough, but it did seem like there was something going on there, that I wasnt really clued in on.

  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    noir_blood wrote: »
    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.
    haha, you fool with your logic! you forgot the mural of the alien in the giant head room! I forgive you for that because you probably missed it if you saw the film in 3D due to the darkness of the glasses. There's also the scene with the engineer corpses and one had his chest burst open so it suggests the xenos already exist. But who knows, right?! The film tells us nothing. Hell, maybe it's Reapers.

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    *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... :?

    An interesting one. Communal best of lists suffer from a feedback loop that quickly renders them stale. They serve a purpose, but I'm always interested on people's personal lists more. They have flavor. It's always fun to find different patterns.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Harrison Ford isn't "portraying." He is Indiana Jones. Indy's repertoire of wry glances and side-grins are also in Han Solo because they're not characters, they're Ford.

    Those characters having mannerisms from Ford don't make him Ford. They're added because he's the actor doing it. Of course it's natural for his own personality to bleed into characters, Ford's not the first to do that and he won't be the last. That doesn't mean he's actually those characters, he's acting not doing those things for real. Nor is he doing it alone he didn't create those characters. Nor is Ford the only actor whose portrayed Indy George Hall & Sean Patrick Flanery have done that.
    So, in other words, "I want more Indiana Jones instead of something like Indy but having a different name because I can't move on."

    Yeah. I'd hardly say " not moving on" is a bad thing. It's not like Indy hasn't been done by other people before, including other media. Not to mention Spielberg, Ford and Lucas haven't "moved on" either. Only I'd prefer actual good movies not bad sequels.
    Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

    Johnson has talent. His Rocketeer & The Last Avenger were fantastic. Though I'd be fine with someone like Ridley Scott directing as well.
    And if you're really wanting some of that Joe Johnston nostalgia porn, you are free to check out any of the four or five movies he's made within that genre already.

    You think he's not worthy enough to actually contribute to the franchise but you're fine with Spielberg and Lucas in their creative zenith's making Indy look foolish? o_O Said "nostalgia porn" proves he can actually do Indy justice IMO. He can't do worse than Crystal Skull.

    Harry Dresden on
  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    *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... :?

    An interesting one. Communal best of lists suffer from a feedback loop that quickly renders them stale. They serve a purpose, but I'm always interested on people's personal lists more. They have flavor. It's always fun to find different patterns.

    I think the discussion of "perfect" films is a good one to have, because my list of perfect films isn't exactly my list of favorite films or even the films I find myself watching compulsively.


    Of all the personal lists, I wish Tarantino would embellish upon why certain films make the cut for his list ever year. He always champions some really weird (and bad) choices while shitting on some decent films or at least experimental films, so it's the kind of thing that I'd love to hear more about from him.

    Instead he's more, "Nope, there it is. Deal with it."

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    So, in other words, "I want more Indiana Jones instead of something like Indy but having a different name because I can't move on."

    Yeah. I'd hardly say " not moving on" is a bad thing. It's not like Indy hasn't been done by other people before, including other media. Not to mention Spielberg, Ford and Lucas haven't "moved on" either. Only I'd prefer actual good movies not bad sequels.

    This argument of Indy being depicted in other media might have weight if he wasn't always depicted as Harrison Ford.
    Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

    Johnson has talent. His Rocketeer & The Last Avenger were fantastic. Though I'd be fine with someone like Ridley Scott directing as well.

    Johnson is a homeless man's Spielberg. There's a reason why Raiders is a classic of cinema and Rocketeer is a cult film at best.



  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Both Ford and Lucas have said that they'd be interested in farming Indy out ala an American James Bond.

    I'd give a new film a shot at the very least.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Elki wrote: »
    *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... :?

    An interesting one. Communal best of lists suffer from a feedback loop that quickly renders them stale. They serve a purpose, but I'm always interested on people's personal lists more. They have flavor. It's always fun to find different patterns.

    I think the discussion of "perfect" films is a good one to have, because my list of perfect films isn't exactly my list of favorite films or even the films I find myself watching compulsively.


    Of all the personal lists, I wish Tarantino would embellish upon why certain films make the cut for his list ever year. He always champions some really weird (and bad) choices while shitting on some decent films or at least experimental films, so it's the kind of thing that I'd love to hear more about from him.

    Instead he's more, "Nope, there it is. Deal with it."

    I think your definition would probably be better attached to the phrase "most fully extracted" or somesuch. The thing you seem to be looking for is a film doing what it intends with the fewest hindrances.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    *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... :?

    An interesting one. Communal best of lists suffer from a feedback loop that quickly renders them stale. They serve a purpose, but I'm always interested on people's personal lists more. They have flavor. It's always fun to find different patterns.

    I think the discussion of "perfect" films is a good one to have, because my list of perfect films isn't exactly my list of favorite films or even the films I find myself watching compulsively.


    Of all the personal lists, I wish Tarantino would embellish upon why certain films make the cut for his list ever year. He always champions some really weird (and bad) choices while shitting on some decent films or at least experimental films, so it's the kind of thing that I'd love to hear more about from him.

    Instead he's more, "Nope, there it is. Deal with it."

    Why do you feel E.T. is perfect? I already brought up problems like the inconsistent nature of the titular character.


    With Tarantino I think some of it is razzing the critical press, some of it is because he did work in a video store and so has developed a love of sometimes off-quality films, and some of it is "This dude I worked with was in this! Hell yeah!" which is the only explanation I have for him liking Paul W.S. Anderson's Three Musketeers.

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    For what it's worth, the Indiana Jones "franchise" was already tested on a humbler medium, on television in the early 90s, with a younger/different leading man in "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles."

    The results were great. The show won 10 Emmies, and I recall enjoying it a lot and being sad when they took it off the air.

    Form of Monkey! on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    This argument of Indy being depicted in other media might have weight if he wasn't always depicted as Harrison Ford.

    My point is Indy doesn't need Ford to continue having new adventures. Being a character in a franchise allows for many interpretations. Nor is Ford the only actor whose done the role. If a reboot occurs Ford won't be the only actor in the films to be Indiana Jones.
    Johnson is a homeless man's Spielberg. There's a reason why Raiders is a classic of cinema and Rocketeer is a cult film at best.

    Unfortunately Spielberg isn't Raiders Spielberg anymore. When it comes to Indy, anyway. Rocketeer being a cult classic doesn't mean it wasn't good or that he is unable to direct a terrific Indy film. IIRC Captain America was a critical success. It's not a classic but films don't get that status when they're very recently made.

    Harry Dresden on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    Elki wrote: »
    It's probably a combination of limited exposure (in the US, if you want to watch foreign films not called Harry Potter, you have do some digging) and simply a lot of it not being my interest. I've talked about it here before, but I feel that there's a good deal of nuance that's lost between cultures any time you observe a foreign product, and the greater your cultural gap from that product, the more likely you are to fail to fully comprehend what the project is trying to say.

    As an American, the drift on my scope of assured reference goes: America, Canada, the Caribbean, the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, South America, Middle East, Far East.

    Each next step takes my understanding more and more away, so I feel less assured in my criticisms and understanding of films from those areas.

    I love your hierarchy. As a middle easterner I despised most of American film, and when I wasn't watching Arabic classics it was to India and Hong Kong that I turned. My favorite American film was Mortal Kombat.

    hahaha we have ruined you, Elki!

    ruined you!

    TcoBE.gif
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    So, anyone know how to get my hands on a Nollywood film? I'd try the internet, but I think even a google search would give my comp viruses.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    This argument of Indy being depicted in other media might have weight if he wasn't always depicted as Harrison Ford.

    My point is Indy doesn't need Ford to continue having new adventures. Being a character in a franchise allows for many interpretations. Nor is Ford the only actor whose done the role. If a reboot occurs Ford won't be the only actor in the films to be Indiana Jones.
    Johnson is a homeless man's Spielberg. There's a reason why Raiders is a classic of cinema and Rocketeer is a cult film at best.

    Unfortunately Spielberg isn't Raiders Spielberg anymore. When it comes to Indy, anyway. Rocketeer being a cult classic doesn't mean it wasn't good or that he is unable to direct a terrific Indy film. IIRC Captain America was a critical success. It's not a classic but films don't get that status when they're very recently made.


    Bluntly put, we're never gonna see eye to eye because your argument is "Moar!" and mine is that I'm happy with the trilogy and can move on.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Why do you feel E.T. is perfect? I already brought up problems like the inconsistent nature of the titular character.

    I disagree with your assessment of E.T.'s inconsistency. There's nothing about his savant-like nature that can't be readily explained by the facts that he's both magic (or may as well be) and a being completely out of his element that understands little about the environment he's stuck in.

    It's that fish-really-way-far-out-of-water element that allows the character to connect with children on a very innate level, and in doing so frees the script from having to come up with too many explanations as to his agenda or his history. That's part of what makes the story great: the story establishes ET's defining characteristics as being utterly lost and aggressively benevolent, and it's that reciprocal kindness from the children that's really the backbone of the film. One good party understands the goodness of the other, and they try to help each other out of the kindness of each other's hearts.

    Bluntly put, we're never gonna see eye to eye because your argument is "Moar!" and mine is that I'm happy with the trilogy and can move on.

    Totally agree here. "Because we can," is a miserable reason to go back to the well.

    There's also a long and terrible history of going back to the well when there were no organic stories left to be told that resulted in utterly awful films with little precedent to the contrary.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Oh come on guys, get over yourselves. It's Indiana Jones. I love the films and have fond memories of watching the series and I'm perfectly happy to let that be that, but if a new movie was made it wouldn't bother me and I'd give it a shot.

    Could be good.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Was the 3D in Prometheus worth paying an extra $4 for?

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:

    - Back to the Future
    - The Empire Strikes Back
    - E.T.
    - Raiders of the Lost Ark
    - Jaws
    - The Godfather
    - No Country for Old Men
    - Chinatown
    - Casablanca
    - Blade Runner
    - Alien
    - Pulp Fiction
    - Blue Velvet
    - Taxi Driver
    - The Big Lebowski
    - Ghostbusters
    - Goodfellas
    - L.A. Confidential


    Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.

    There is a distinct lack of Blues Brothers on this list.

    Otherwise that's a damn good list.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Speaking of going back to the well, it looks like the sequel to Eastern Promises is set to be Cronenberg's next film, bringing back both Viggo Mortensen and Vincent Cassel, and again shooting in London from a script by the first film's writer. No word if Naomi Watts will be in this film.


    Rumor has it the film is set almost immediately after the end of the first, which I think will be really interesting. This could be a Godfather -> Godfather II scenario brewing up.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Again, for those playing at home, The Atomic Ross List of Perfect Films:

    - Back to the Future
    - The Empire Strikes Back
    - E.T.
    - Raiders of the Lost Ark
    - Jaws
    - The Godfather
    - No Country for Old Men
    - Chinatown
    - Casablanca
    - Blade Runner
    - Alien
    - Pulp Fiction
    - Blue Velvet
    - Taxi Driver
    - The Big Lebowski
    - Ghostbusters
    - Goodfellas
    - L.A. Confidential


    Though I'm giving serious thought to adding Drive to that list.

    There is a distinct lack of Blues Brothers on this list.

    Otherwise that's a damn good list.

    Hate to break it to ya, but I'm not a Blues Brothers fan.

    I know, I know . . .

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Totally agree here. "Because we can," is a miserable reason to go back to the well.

    There's also a long and terrible history of going back to the well when there were no organic stories left to be told that resulted in utterly awful films with little precedent to the contrary.

    And sometimes they're a success. Batman, Sherlock Holmes* & James Bond have produced many great stories by "going back to the well". All it takes is the right people with the right story to tell. Why do you assume the reboot has no organic stories to tell when the trilogy never went into how Indy met his friends, why he became an archeologist in depth, how he became who he is and have him find fascinating artifacts beyond what we've seen so far? They can definitely branch out from the Christian artifacts which dominate the trilogy. That's plenty to work with IMO.

    * have you seen Moffatt's Sherlock? It's brilliant. So is his Jekyll.

    Harry Dresden on
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    Blues Brothers is not a movie that ages well. Gets less funny every time I get around to seeing it.

  • AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Totally agree here. "Because we can," is a miserable reason to go back to the well.

    There's also a long and terrible history of going back to the well when there were no organic stories left to be told that resulted in utterly awful films with little precedent to the contrary.

    And sometimes they're a success. Batman, Sherlock Holmes* & James Bond have produced many great stories by "going back to the well". All it takes is the right people with the right story to tell. Why do you assume the reboot has no organic stories to tell when the trilogy never went into how Indy met his friends, why he became an archeologist in depth, how he became who he is and have him find fascinating artifacts beyond what we've seen so far? They can definitely branch out from the Christian artifacts which dominate the trilogy. That's plenty to work with IMO.

    * have you seen Moffatt's Sherlock? It's brilliant. So is his Jekyll.

    Again, all of your examples are adaptations of existing sources.

    Indiana Jones is the only source for Indiana Jones-related Indiana Jonesery.

    Those movies are more than just a collection of assembled data. To me, at least.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    Why do you assume the reboot has no organic stories to tell when the trilogy never went into how Indy met his friends, why he became an archeologist in depth, how he became who he is and have him find fascinating artifacts beyond what we've seen so far? They can definitely branch out from the Christian artifacts which dominate the trilogy. That's plenty to work with IMO.

  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    Was the 3D in Prometheus worth paying an extra $4 for?

    The only film I've intentionally seen in 3D was Tron because I'm a fanboy. The other two times was Up and Avengers and that's only because I had time to kill but couldn't wait an extra 45 minutes for the 2D showing. In all my cases, I've never seen the reason for the 3D.

    newSig.jpg
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Again, all your examples are adaptions of existing sources.

    Ford's films would be the original source for the reboot, like all original sources are to their adaptions. Just because Jones started in film doesn't mean it has end with Ford's portrayal.
    Indiana Jones is the only source for Indiana Jones-related Indiana Jonesery.

    I love this sentence. :mrgreen: That said, the movies aren't the only source for Indiana Jones stories nor do the have to end with Ford.
    Those movies are more than just a collection of assembled data. To me, at least.

    Fair enough.

    Harry Dresden on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Nocren wrote: »
    Was the 3D in Prometheus worth paying an extra $4 for?

    The only film I've intentionally seen in 3D was Tron because I'm a fanboy. The other two times was Up and Avengers and that's only because I had time to kill but couldn't wait an extra 45 minutes for the 2D showing. In all my cases, I've never seen the reason for the 3D.

    I typically agree, because I don't like wearing glasses over glasses if nothing else. But I've heard both really good and really bad things about the 3D in Prometheus, so.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    It's probably a combination of limited exposure (in the US, if you want to watch foreign films not called Harry Potter, you have do some digging) and simply a lot of it not being my interest. I've talked about it here before, but I feel that there's a good deal of nuance that's lost between cultures any time you observe a foreign product, and the greater your cultural gap from that product, the more likely you are to fail to fully comprehend what the project is trying to say.

    Criterion has a lot of great foreign films, which don't exactly require extensive effort to obtain. I'm not sure where you're coming from in regards to the notion that a cultural gap is preventative in understanding. Most foreign made films I've viewed deal with many almost universal aspects of humanity. Take Kurosawa's Ikiru, there's not a whole lot about that film that necessitates being Japanese to get. It's certainly additionally intriguing to understand something of the culture of the films origin, but I'd hardly say it would lead to a failure of comprehension if you don't quite know about postwar Japan when watching Ikiru.

    Lucid on
  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    Isn't that characteristic of Kurosawa's films though is that they're more western in style and more easily understandable to someone not familiar with Japanese culture/history?

    newSig.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Didn't Kurosawa just steal all his stuff from Star Wars?
    : D

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    Yes. He caught a lot of flak from the homefront for being such a 'westernized' director. I mean, of course you'll probably get a bit more out of his films if you know and can identify better with the cultural backgrounds, but it's totally non-essential.

    Can we talk more about Kurosawa please? He was just absurdly good at what he did, I'm in love with so many of his films.

  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    No, just Shakespeare ;P

    newSig.jpg
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Nocren wrote: »
    Isn't that characteristic of Kurosawa's films though is that they're more western in style and more easily understandable to someone not familiar with Japanese culture/history?

    Well, Ikiru was inspired by a Tolstoy story, so not exactly based on western origins.

    Regardless, just a name I thought of while posting as I'd just watched it again recently. Exchange it for like, Almodovar, Fassbinder, Kiarostami, or various french new wave film makers, or whatever.

    Lucid on
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    Nocren wrote: »
    Isn't that characteristic of Kurosawa's films though is that they're more western in style and more easily understandable to someone not familiar with Japanese culture/history?

    Well, Ikiru was inspired by a Tolstoy story, so not exactly based on western origins.

    Regardless, just a name I thought of while posting as I'd just watched it again recently. Exchange it for like, Almodovar, Fassbinder, Kiarostami, or various french new wave film makers, or whatever.

    Was Tolstoy Siberian?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    Nocren wrote: »
    Isn't that characteristic of Kurosawa's films though is that they're more western in style and more easily understandable to someone not familiar with Japanese culture/history?

    Well, Ikiru was inspired by a Tolstoy story, so not exactly based on western origins.

    Regardless, just a name I thought of while posting as I'd just watched it again recently. Exchange it for like, Almodovar, Fassbinder, Kiarostami, or various french new wave film makers, or whatever.

    Was Tolstoy Siberian?

    No, but Russia isn't usually considered "western".

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Kasyn wrote: »
    Yes. He caught a lot of flak from the homefront for being such a 'westernized' director. I mean, of course you'll probably get a bit more out of his films if you know and can identify better with the cultural backgrounds, but it's totally non-essential.

    Can we talk more about Kurosawa please? He was just absurdly good at what he did, I'm in love with so many of his films.

    Sure!

    One of my favorite Kurosawa movies is Throne of Blood. An adaptation of Macbeth that transplants it perfectly to medieval Japan, cuts the subplot fat, and actually improves the twist at the end.
    The "trees rising up" is a lot easier to grasp and makes more sense than not being "of woman born" because of a cesarean section. It comes off less as rules-lawyering a prophecy and more as a genuine prophecy misinterpreted by the villain.

    Also, apparently at the end, it was real archers shooting real arrows at Mifune. That's why he was so freaked out.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
This discussion has been closed.