Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

I'm shocked, shocked to find that [Movies] are going on in here!

134689101

Posts

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    @emp123: That's the first Terminator, right? I thought I was one of the only people who prefer that one to Terminator 2. (I seem to lack a '90s action movie gene, since I don't have a special place in my heart for T2 nor for Jurassic Park; they're both fun but there are elements in both that I never liked and that these days I find either cheesy or dated.)



    Edit: I don't have a favourite movie, but if I did, it might just be Jules et Jim. I also have a big soft spot for Brazil, which is deeply flawed but I still haven't seen another film that does as well what Brazil does.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Both Terminator movies are a bit dated, but in a good way. It gives each movie a different flavor.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    @Thirith Yeah, Terminator 1. I love that movie, Im not even sure why I love it but I do. Terminator 2 is probably the better action movie, but Terminator 1 is the better overall movie in my opinion.

    camo_sig2.png
    Gnome-InterruptusHarry Dresden
  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    T2 is structured pretty similarly to T1. Also, T2 is a bit more explicit. Some of the things that T1 would only imply or hint at are stated in T2.

  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    I prefer T1 to T2 as well. The cop shop scene where Arnold just demolishes the entire station instantly drove home what a fucking impossible situation we were dealing with. And as much as I love Robert Patrick, my man crush on Michael Biehn is just stronger. Also, T1 had titties. That made an impression on young me that I can't shake.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Was Terminator 2 R-rated? I can't remember (also because we have different ratings), but the interaction between Arnie and John Connor felt very much like '90s PG humour to me, or at least that's how I remember it.

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    Die Hard. I forgot Die Hard on my favorite movie list.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Last time I watched them, I slightly preferred T2 to T1. Probably mostly because I was roughly the same age Furlong was in the movie, and there was a bit of...not wish fulfillment, but escapism maybe? going on there.

    Also, the first time I saw T1 was on TV and after I'd already seen T2, so it got the TBS 'cut out swearing and titties' treatment and there was no real suspense because I knew the outcome. And man...the CGI / modeling in that movie might have been groundbreaking at the time, but holy crap it didn't hold up well. The effects in T2 hold up much better, although I haven't seen it in 5+ years, I can't think of any effects that wouldn't be solid in a film today.

    It wasn't until much later that I even realized Arnold being the good guy was a surprise reveal in T2. T1 and T2 are kind of like Alien and Aliens. The first is more horror and suspense, and very little is revealed...the second is going to war.

    If I were to see the movies fresh, in order, in a theater today, I think I would prefer T1 by a bit of a margin even with the crappy exoskeleton effects. Both movies are fantastic though.

    redx
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    T2 was R-rated, mainly for the swears and the stabbings.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    see317 wrote: »
    What about movies you enjoy, but can't figure out why? Just those movies that when you see them on, you can easily just sit entranced even though they're so far out of the realm of what you normally watch that you just can't figure out why you even turned it on.

    For me, this movie is Bottle Shock. Alan Rickman plays a snobby english wine connoisseur with a taste for french wines and a failing wine shop in England because he stocks mainly french wine. In an effort to drum up some publicity, he sets out to organize a wine tasting pitting traditional French Wines against the wines coming out of California. Most of the movie is him traveling to various vineyards trying to convince them to participate, and the winemakers worrying that they're being set up to be humiliated on a global stage. It ends with the big wine tasting, and the Californian wines handily beating the French wines to the shock of everyone.

    I love watching this movie, but for the life of me, I don't know why. I don't drink wine, I know practically nothing about it or what makes a wine good or a wine bad. But for some reason, everytime I see this movie on, I watch it. It's got terrible reviews, a %49 on Rotten Tomatoes, a complete lack of space ships, explosions and exploding spaceships... and yet I always tune it in when it's on.

    I really enjoy Bottle Shock as well, but the love interest ending the way it did felt so unearned I am annoyed every time and makes it difficult to enjoy the movie as a whole.

    Some guilty pleasure movies of mine are Prince of Persia and National Treasure. Though I'm not sure if I like Prince of Persia simply because its like Disney's Aladdin without all the musical numbers or not.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    T1 and T2 are kind of like Alien and Aliens. The first is more horror and suspense, and very little is revealed...the second is going to war.
    That's a very apt description IMO, and it's the reason why I prefer both T1 and Alien to their direct sequels. I'm not anti-action (I'd consider Die Hard almost perfect), but Cameron's action doesn't do it for me beyond pure spectacle. The films are great fun, definitely, but spectacle isn't at the top of the list of what I look for in movies.

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • Kristmas KthulhuKristmas Kthulhu Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    There is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with you.

    I'm putting you on my list of "Forumers who I will not be shocked about when it comes out they kill hobos and eat their flesh".

    See, I don't think there is, though. I love Casablanca. I adore Dr. Strangelove. Was thrilled with Jaws, and have seen In Bruges four times since January and was enthralled every time. Also Die Hard is my favorite action movie ever.

    I'm no different than many of you in this very thread, excepting that I think Raiders is kind of shallow. If it weren't for the sentence immediately preceding this one, most of you would say that I can probably recognize a fantastic fucking movie when I see one. I just honestly don't think I saw one in Raiders.

  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Registered User regular
    It is pretty impotent, and so has rescinded to the dark abyss from whence it came.

    The think I love about Kubrick is how adept he is at manipulating the emotions of the people watching the movie. Like the roller coaster of sympathy you feel for Alex deLarge in A Clockwork Orange. You hate him, then you feel sympathy for him, then more sympathy, and then you end up completley hating him again in the end when
    he breaks the Ludivigo Treatment.

    My response was actually horror, mostly at myself for having ever sympathized with that monster. More amazing, I have the exact same response every time I watch A Clockwork Orange. I must have seen it at least ten times by now. That is a stunning accomplishment.

    // PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
    CaptainNemo
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    I saw Grey Skies last night. It was shit.

    Then I saw the Lego Movie trailer and was vera excited.

  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    wilting wrote: »
    Am I the only one who feels the words "movie" and "film" have very different connotations? Like Movie = Independence Day, Film = Amélie.

    Steven Soderbergh had a pretty interesting speech about the subject recently, of which I'm mostly inclined to agree with. I think it's perfectly acceptable, in terms of artistic critique, to differentiate the two. Especially as the medium is increasingly dominated by big-budget escapist entertainment which offers little in the way of artistic value.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    I think it's perfectly acceptable, in terms of artistic critique, to differentiate the two. Especially as the medium is increasingly dominated by big-budget escapist entertainment which offers little in the way of artistic value.
    The problem is that it turns the whole thing into a binary proposition, which is needlessly reductive. Is The Dark Knight a film or a movie? What about Looper? What about Hitchcock's Psycho, or Amélie (which would mostly be seen as a film-not-a-movie by US audiences, but not by arthouse mavens)? Added to which, just like the "Ah, but is it art?" discussion you then end up squabbling about whether exhibit A is a film or a movie, which is one of the most boring conversations you can have. You don't need reductive shorthand to discuss why Raiders is not like Last Year At Marienbad.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Oh man, you know what movie we've all forgotten?

    Beatlejuice.
    Beetlejuice-squarheadere.jpg

    Now that is a fantastic bit of film that can be watched by anyone, at any time.

    When I was a kid my mom would take my sister and me to a video rental store and she would let us each pick out a movie. I would always try to get something different (or a Ninja Turtles movie, or Temple of Doom. I think it was mostly Temple of Doom.), but not my sister. No, she always picked the same movie. Beetlejuice. Every. Fucking. Time. And it wasnt like she would watch it once and be done, oh no. Shed watch it once, twice a day until we had to return it. Its been at least 16 years since Ive seen Beetlejuice, and I just dont know if I could watch it again.

    Okay, its been 16 years I think Im finally close to being able to see Beetlejuice again.
    beetlejuice.jpg

    Shit, wrong one!



    As for my favorite movie? The Terminator. I will watch that movie any time, any where, all someone has to do is ask.

    Ha! With my sister, it was Tremors. Every weekend morning, I'd wake up wanting to play some SNES or something, only to find her sitting in front of the TV watching Tremors again. Every. Fucking. Morning.

    I love Tremors, but it took me a decade and a half to be able to look it in the eye again.

  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Registered User regular
    A John Grisham book is still a novel, even if it isn't on par with A Tale of Two Cities or Pride & Prejudice. A Michael Bay movie is still a film, even if it isn't on par with There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men.

    // PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    I think it's perfectly acceptable, in terms of artistic critique, to differentiate the two. Especially as the medium is increasingly dominated by big-budget escapist entertainment which offers little in the way of artistic value.
    The problem is that it turns the whole thing into a binary proposition, which is needlessly reductive. Is The Dark Knight a film or a movie? What about Looper? What about Hitchcock's Psycho, or Amélie (which would mostly be seen as a film-not-a-movie by US audiences, but not by arthouse mavens)? Added to which, just like the "Ah, but is it art?" discussion you then end up squabbling about whether exhibit A is a film or a movie, which is one of the most boring conversations you can have. You don't need reductive shorthand to discuss why Raiders is not like Last Year At Marienbad.

    I think the "is it art" is a conversation that is worth having. I don't see why that's irrelevant in the discussion and debate thread of movies. Art as a medium is entirely subjective, so I don't think we need to just throw our hands up and just ignore the fact that some movies are attempting to do something artistic, and some aren't. Some succeed and some don't. There's clearly a difference in what a film like Fast and Furious 6 is attempting and Frances Ha. Discussing that difference is not in and of itself elevate one over the other. You seem to be creating a false dilemma where only artistic films are worth anything, though. Not every film needs to aspire to be art. Sometimes you just want to see some amazing shit happen on screen for 2 hours. I don't think every movie needs to get a participation trophy in the art contest, some are obviously trying to do something and some aren't. It's a part of discussion and critique, not the only one.

    The counter answer to every question you posed in your post is "be a better critic". The reductive discussions that end in squabbling and boring conversations are from bad critics.

    The point of discussing the different types of cinema isn't that movies are different than films, but why they are different. I think that's a great and relevant discussion to have in the movie thread.

  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2013
    Thirith wrote: »
    You don't need reductive shorthand to discuss why Raiders is not like Last Year At Marienbad.

    You and I were lovers long ago, when your father was alive. He disapproved of me. He was like a father to me. I was educated but no better than a thief. I followed you around and you left. No, that wasn't it. It was M who took the amulet from you. Or was it I? I recall the museum had long halls with rows of doors, statues, artifacts, artworks, benches, ropes, glass cases. You were killed in an explosion in a truck. You were never in the truck. There are 15 snakes to a game, and M went first. Last year the Ark was lost. Last year the Ark was found. Once again I walked on alone through these same warehouses, past these same crates, picking my way as if at random through a maze of identical paths, traveling in the footsteps of top men.

    Astaereth on
    ACsTqqK.jpg
    Thirithknitdan
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    "Is it art" is one of the worst discussions this forum is capable of having. It only ever ends in a carebear stare with a group of loud people browbeating anyone and everyone into repeating their unholy mantra that everything is art.

    Including boogers under desks and explosive poops which are not fully contained by toilet bowls.

    Film and movie are a good way to indicate to the people you're speaking with the manner in which you are approaching a partiular work, but you'll always run the risk that they will disagree with your choice, sometimes violently.

    Magic PinkKetar
  • Mikey CTSMikey CTS Registered User regular
    I think the "is it art" is a conversation that is worth having. <snip>

    The conversation isn't "is it art"; the conversation is "is it good art or bad art."

    // PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
    Taranisshryke
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    I think the "is it art" is a conversation that is worth having. I don't see why that's irrelevant in the discussion and debate thread of movies. Art as a medium is entirely subjective, so I don't think we need to just throw our hands up and just ignore the fact that some movies are attempting to do something artistic, and some aren't. Some succeed and some don't. There's clearly a difference in what a film like Fast and Furious 6 is attempting and Frances Ha. Discussing that difference is not in and of itself elevate one over the other. You seem to be creating a false dilemma where only artistic films are worth anything, though. Not every film needs to aspire to be art. Sometimes you just want to see some amazing shit happen on screen for 2 hours. I don't think every movie needs to get a participation trophy in the art contest, some are obviously trying to do something and some aren't. It's a part of discussion and critique, not the only one... The point of discussing the different types of cinema isn't that movies are different than films, but why they are different. I think that's a great and relevant discussion to have in the movie thread.
    I seriously don't see where you'd get that from my post. If anything, my point is that any simple yes/no, art/no art, film/movie proposition will not bring about great and relevant discussion so much as fruitless semantics wankery. Those films that would clearly fall into one category or the other don't offer much to comparative discussion, and many interesting films will have a foot in both camps. The Dark Knight is a superhero flick, but it's got artistic ambitions, as does Looper - while something like Amélie, which some would see as clearly artsy/film, very definitely has the ambition of being entertaining more than artistic, yet that doesn't mean it is artless in any sense of the word.

    It definitely makes sense to discuss films in view of their artistic ambitions and how well they pull these off, but it's a continuum, not an either/or thing, which any hard-and-fast distinction of "This is a film, that is a movie." fails to provide. For anyone who's really interested in the discussion, the binary shorthand will fall short of what we're actually talking about.

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
    shryke
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    There is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with you.

    I'm putting you on my list of "Forumers who I will not be shocked about when it comes out they kill hobos and eat their flesh".

    These sorts of responses desperately need to stop. They are already long past the "not being amusing" stage.

    AstaerethMalReynoldsJoe Dizzyh3nduSmrtnik
  • MalReynoldsMalReynolds The Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicines Registered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    There is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with you.

    I'm putting you on my list of "Forumers who I will not be shocked about when it comes out they kill hobos and eat their flesh".

    These sorts of responses desperately need to stop. They are already long past the "not being amusing" stage.

    I'm putting you on my list of "Forumers who are not amused by posts like this."

    "A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
    "Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
    My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    shryke wrote: »
    There is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with you.

    I'm putting you on my list of "Forumers who I will not be shocked about when it comes out they kill hobos and eat their flesh".

    See, I don't think there is, though. I love Casablanca. I adore Dr. Strangelove. Was thrilled with Jaws, and have seen In Bruges four times since January and was enthralled every time. Also Die Hard is my favorite action movie ever.

    I'm no different than many of you in this very thread, excepting that I think Raiders is kind of shallow. If it weren't for the sentence immediately preceding this one, most of you would say that I can probably recognize a fantastic fucking movie when I see one. I just honestly don't think I saw one in Raiders.

    I'm pretty sure nobody is actually questioning your ability to analyze film. We're just fucking with you.

    Everyone's going to have a fringe opinion on some film, it's okay.

    I mean, granted, not many people will possess the sort reality-warping wrongness you do as regards Raiders, but it's okay, we can still be pals. Just, you know, stay on your own side of the internet. In case you're contagious. ;-)

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    Kristmas Kthulhushryke
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Only a couple of things have ever made me want to go watch all the Fast and Furious movies (none of which I've ever seen). First, an article I can sadly no longer seem to find that looked at the series as a whole (1-5 at the time), examining themes of masculinity, fatherhood, and identity, and how they were expressed through the dichotomy between classic muscle cars and new ones.

    Second, an interview I just watched with Vin Diesel. Relevant portion:
    Q: You've also been a producer on several films. What level of kind of creative input have you then had over the series as it's grown?

    A: A lot. A real lot. Like massive.

    There's a difference between the first three Fast and Furious movies and the last three. To the point where you can separate the two into two separate trilogies. The first three were done in the traditional Hollywood way, which kinda threw caution to the wind--or threw continuity to the wind, and didn't care whether one story connected to the other. Didn't care where they left off with the last movie. How could you do a sequel to Fast and Furious and not know where Dom went in Mexico? Or where Letty went, or any of the characters? We changed that when I came on to produce.

    For the fourth one, the one thing that I wanted to do would change our perception of the way we would look at this franchise, and the way that Hollywood would look at the franchise, and demand of them and of ourselves that we treat it as a continuing saga. So that there would never be a version of us making a movie that didn't directly pick up where we left off.

    Q: And now as you head into 7, with a new director, do you see that as the start of a new phase?

    A: Well, I try to think of these movies in trilogies. So, when I came on for Fast and the Furious, for the fourth chapter, I came into the studio talking about 4, 5 and 6. And after they laughed at me and kicked me off the lot, and said I ought to get my head examined, and we--4 finally came out. I went back to the studio again and said, "let's do 5 and 6 together." And the same thing happened.

    Finally with 6, we were really close to doing 6 and 7 simultaneously. And then the multiple locations made it impossible to capitalize on that economy of scale that you would get when doing two movies or three movies back to back.

    7 is the beginning of the next trilogy in the thought out story. and the three stories of 7 and 8 and 9 are mapped out in a structure, even if they're not signed off on, completed scripts. The direction of 7, 8 and 9 is clear.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    shryke
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I've used them to differentiate before, but it's really not a good concept. I feel like it fosters wrong thinking on both sides of the divide, allowing the "film" people to look down on movies as popular trash and the "movie" people to look down on films as snooty, impenetrable [forbidden word] art.

    And I think it lets "movies" off the hook for adhering to low expectations. Any movie should be judged more on whether it fulfills its intentions than what those intentions are; but too often the idea of, "it's just a movie, I'm not looking for Shakespeare here" means making allowances for shoddy execution. Independence Day is a fun movie, but it's also bloated, illogical, and cliched; to excuse it by saying "it's not a film, it's just a movie" is to forget that there are great fucking "movies" out there that deliver accessible fun through quality execution.

    We'd do better to not be so divided, and instead talk about what each individual movie is trying to do, and how, and to what purpose or effect. Because fundamentally, both Amelie and Independence Day are trying to thrill, amuse and entertain us; they just approach the task in vastly different ways.

    I think each of those things are actually equally important. There are a lot of really bad movies that "fulfill their intentions" pretty well. I think most Michael Bay films do so, for example. Transformers intended to be a big, loud movie where shit blows up and robots run around turning into vehicles. It wanted to have some easily-accessible humor based on low-hanging fruit. It didn't care if it was plausible or even internally consistent, it just want a bunch of action set pieces with some stereotypical characters bleating some one-liners. It did exactly what it wanted to do, it's just that what it wanted to do was crappy. If I want to take a dump on a piece of cardboard and use it disgust people, it doesn't make me a master artist when I succeed.

    If we look at Transformers vs Terminator 2, we see two very different films. They are both loud summer sci-fi blockbusters with lots of stuff exploding, they're basically the same genre and have largely the same target audience. (Admittedly, Transformers skews slightly younger, but the ways in which T2 succeeds over Transformers have nothing to do with the age gap.) But while Transformers just tries to move from set piece to set piece to justify more action scenes, T2 maintains a plot that is coherent and well-managed and mostly consistent, at least by the standards of time travel plots. Where Transformers just pencils in some broad character archetypes and fills in the gaps with almost-offensive stereotypes, T2 manages to flesh out its characters and give them some nuance. Compare Sam Witwicky, who is basically motivated by "I want to bang the hot chick and not die," to John Conner, who is motivated by a desire for survival, the conflict of whether he wants to - or even can - connect to his mother, his need for a father figure and the fact that the best man for the job is a robot designed to wipe out humanity.

    While both films are trying to be entertaining, and neither one strives to be high art, Cameron understands that a good movie needs to provide emotional resonance for the viewer to truly engage. It wants you to care about these people, because the awesome action scenes are made that much more awesome. In T2, you're rooting for Conner in a way that you never do for Witwicky. You care about the T-800 in a way you don't about Bumblebee. When the T-800 dies, you care. When Bumblebee gets torn apart (or maybe that was Transformers 2 or 3, whatever, they all suck), did anybody really give a shit? Outside of the "oh, hey, I guess I'm supposed to care now" sort of way? Doubtful.

    Transformers and T2 both succeed at what they set out to do, and yet Transformers is a shit movie. Because what it strove for was such low-hanging fruit that admiring it was like admiring someone for managing to tie their shoes. It's really only impressive if the guy tying his shoes has no hands, or is functionally retarded.

    I think it's fair, when judging a movie, to look at its intentions first and foremost. Ask yourself: given what this film tried to do, if it succeeded perfectly, would I enjoy it? If you're honest about Bay's intentions for most of his movies, he's going to fail every time, because even perfect success would make for sucky movies. He's the guy crapping on cardboard. I can tell you, right away, that I'm never going to admire any artwork that consists of cardboard and poop, and so you may as well just keep your pants on.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    HounzagdrobDizzy DMikey CTSValleoshrykeSmrtnik
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Only a couple of things have ever made me want to go watch all the Fast and Furious movies (none of which I've ever seen). First, an article I can sadly no longer seem to find that looked at the series as a whole (1-5 at the time), examining themes of masculinity, fatherhood, and identity, and how they were expressed through the dichotomy between classic muscle cars and new ones.

    Second, an interview I just watched with Vin Diesel. Relevant portion:
    Q: You've also been a producer on several films. What level of kind of creative input have you then had over the series as it's grown?

    A: A lot. A real lot. Like massive.

    There's a difference between the first three Fast and Furious movies and the last three. To the point where you can separate the two into two separate trilogies. The first three were done in the traditional Hollywood way, which kinda threw caution to the wind--or threw continuity to the wind, and didn't care whether one story connected to the other. Didn't care where they left off with the last movie. How could you do a sequel to Fast and Furious and not know where Dom went in Mexico? Or where Letty went, or any of the characters? We changed that when I came on to produce.

    For the fourth one, the one thing that I wanted to do would change our perception of the way we would look at this franchise, and the way that Hollywood would look at the franchise, and demand of them and of ourselves that we treat it as a continuing saga. So that there would never be a version of us making a movie that didn't directly pick up where we left off.

    Q: And now as you head into 7, with a new director, do you see that as the start of a new phase?

    A: Well, I try to think of these movies in trilogies. So, when I came on for Fast and the Furious, for the fourth chapter, I came into the studio talking about 4, 5 and 6. And after they laughed at me and kicked me off the lot, and said I ought to get my head examined, and we--4 finally came out. I went back to the studio again and said, "let's do 5 and 6 together." And the same thing happened.

    Finally with 6, we were really close to doing 6 and 7 simultaneously. And then the multiple locations made it impossible to capitalize on that economy of scale that you would get when doing two movies or three movies back to back.

    7 is the beginning of the next trilogy in the thought out story. and the three stories of 7 and 8 and 9 are mapped out in a structure, even if they're not signed off on, completed scripts. The direction of 7, 8 and 9 is clear.

    Also interesting:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/28/fast_and_furious_economics.html

    Like any reasonable person, I watch the Fast and the Furious film franchise primarily for its insights into moral philosophy and political economy. At a fundamental level, the franchise is about what Harvard philosopher Christine Korsgaard identifies in The Sources of Normativity as the "intractable conflicts" that arise from our conflicting practical identities. As moral actors we are, first and foremost, human and subject to impersonal moral obligations. But in this neo-Kantian, human-centered framework we face the unavoidable reality that as humans we are each beautiful unique snowflakes with our own particular lives and particular obligations to particular people. To simply ignore our concrete obligations to one another in the face of abstract obligations to humanity would, itself, be inhuman.

    The key idea of the films is a strong—and somewhat unusual—assertion that this conflict not only exists but should be uniformly resolved in favor of particularism. Dominic Toretto's overwhelming emphasis is on the importance of literal and metaphorical family ties.

    In the first film, Brian O'Conner heroically abandons abstract obligation to law and order to discharge a debt to Toretto. In the second, O'Conner is motivated not by the chance to put a halt to law-breaking but by the chance to discharge an unrelated debt to a childhood friend. The less said about Tokyo Drift the better. In Fast and Furious O'Conner and Toretto revisit their mutual obligations, and O'Conner literally and metaphorically joins the family. In Fast 5, new character Luke Hobbs starts down the O'Conner path and ultimately ends up violating his obligations to law and order to discharge a personal debt to Toretto et al. And while I don't want to reveal too much about the details of Fast & Furious 6, suffice it to say that Letty Ortiz shows an extreme form of loyalty turnabouts based on personal ties and eventually the entire NATO command structure is subverted for essentially personal reasons. At no point in the films is there any suggestion that one ought to put an abstract ideological or ethical commitment above a specific obligation to family.

    Sociologically speaking, this is a classic moral outlook of a low-trust society well-captured by the allegedly Bedouin phrase "I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers."


    ...

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    While both films are trying to be entertaining, and neither one strives to be high art, Cameron understands that a good movie needs to provide emotional resonance for the viewer to truly engage. It wants you to care about these people, because the awesome action scenes are made that much more awesome. In T2, you're rooting for Conner in a way that you never do for Witwicky. You care about the T-800 in a way you don't about Bumblebee. When the T-800 dies, you care. When Bumblebee gets torn apart (or maybe that was Transformers 2 or 3, whatever, they all suck), did anybody really give a shit? Outside of the "oh, hey, I guess I'm supposed to care now" sort of way? Doubtful.

    Transformers and T2 both succeed at what they set out to do, and yet Transformers is a shit movie. Because what it strove for was such low-hanging fruit that admiring it was like admiring someone for managing to tie their shoes. It's really only impressive if the guy tying his shoes has no hands, or is functionally retarded.
    I'm sure Bay wants Witwicky to be an engaging identification figure for the audience. He doesn't want him to be a boring, badly conceived cardbord cutout of a character - nor does he set out to film action that is messy and incoherent. As you say, when Bumblebee gets torn apart, we know we're supposed to care, while we also know that we couldn't care less if we tried really, really hard. In that respect, no, I don't think Transformers succeeds at what it sets out to do, unless Bay has even more of a tin ear for cinema than I give him credit for.

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I don't think he sets out to make "bad" films, no. I do think his thought process is something like, "We don't need to spend a lot of time fleshing out Sam's character, because he's just an archetype and everyone knows what his motivations are supposed to be like, and anyway characterization takes time away from explosions and one-liners." I think he creates his movies the way he does because of his priorities, and his sense that what he's done is good enough to get the point across.

    I mean, if he needed to trim his runtime down, and had the choice of culling a scene of emotional character development that would flesh out a character, or culling an action scene, which do you think he would do?

    I suspect Bay's thinking runs this way because I have met people whose thinking runs exactly this way. I could be wrong. But I think Bay knows exactly what he's doing, and his movies generate sales, and so he keeps getting money.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2013
    @ElJeffe I think the distinction you're missing, though, is between the movie's intentions, which can otherwise be expressed as "the emotional and intellectual reaction in the audience the filmmaker desires to achieve," and the filmmaker's intentions, which includes the former but also includes the instincts and decisions that guide his or her attempts to achieve the movie's intentions.

    I believe that both Cameron and Bay set out with their respective films (T2 and TF2) to achieve some of the same audience reactions--laughter, shock, awe, thrills, exultation. But Cameron and Bay had different ways of setting about to achieve those goals. As you put it, Cameron placed more relative importance on character development and the careful management of tension and release, whereas Bay relies on simplistic archetypes and a tonal mishmash. I would argue that Cameron's methods are more successful, and therefore his results of a higher quality, but not that Cameron has necessarily more artistic or higher-minded or even different intentions for his movie about robots what both rock 'em and sock 'em.

    Quick edit: in other words, what you're describing absolutely falls under the category of things we should judge TF2 for based on how well it achieves what it sets out to do (which is be a broad, crowd-pleasing exciting action/adventure/comedy film), not things we should judge it for based on what it wanted to achieve (which was not to be a shitty pile of shitty shit shit).

    Astaereth on
    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    On Man of Steel
    I was shocked, shocked that Superman killed Zod. I don't really read the comics, but on top of all the movies, I do watch all the animated stuff, ect. I remember pretty much the whole audience gasped when that happened. Because I was totally expecting him to just beat Zod senseless, then have him sent someone. Or something. Not break his neck.

    I was also expecting a 'Kneel before Zod' line or reference, but there wasn't one. Which is good they didn't really rely too much on the old Superman move. It was just something I was expecting with so many remakes being built upon references to past films.

    Mild Confusion on
    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    TaranisXenogear_0001h3ndu
  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2013
    One thing I loved from my Terminator DVDs was watching the Stan Winston special features. Like how for the "repair" scene in T1, they could go with make up on Arnold, or build a robot skull and put latex over it. They felt that it would work better if it was the robot skull under latex, even if the effects weren't as good or didn't match up correctly (pretty sure Stan actually said that he wished he did better on this scene so it didn't look so obvious), since that's part of what it was, a robot in a human shell.

    Then there was Arnold's walk in Cyberdyne (where he's shot at by the SWAT team in T2), and how they had to make sure Arnold's gait/stride matched the movements of the robot they were using.

    Nocren on
    newSig.jpg
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    I had the chance to see an early screening of Monsters University on Monday. It, like most Pixar movies, was pretty great.

    It's a fairly standard "guy goes to college" film, yet it has a lot of fun with its setup. I've always thought that Monsters, Inc was the most heartwarming of all the Pixar movies. Monsters University doesn't quite live up to that, but unlike a lot of the other Pixar films that are moving experiences (e.g. Up, Toy Story 3) it's relentlessly optimistic and doesn't stray into pessimism. There's something to be said for that.

    Also, the animated short the preceded it, The Blue Umbrella was spectacular. I loved Paperman last year (it was before Wreck it Ralph) and was quite excited when it won an Oscar, but The Blue Umbrella is BETTER.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    I'm REALLY looking forward to taking my daughter (3) to see Monsters U on Saturday.

    She's a huge Monsters Inc fan, and it'll be the first movie she's seen in a theater...she's so excited and asks every day about it. Last night, she was going through the trailers on Youtube and just laughing, playing them over and telling me about the details in each one.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Astaereth wrote: »
    @ElJeffe I think the distinction you're missing, though, is between the movie's intentions, which can otherwise be expressed as "the emotional and intellectual reaction in the audience the filmmaker desires to achieve," and the filmmaker's intentions, which includes the former but also includes the instincts and decisions that guide his or her attempts to achieve the movie's intentions.

    I believe that both Cameron and Bay set out with their respective films (T2 and TF2) to achieve some of the same audience reactions--laughter, shock, awe, thrills, exultation. But Cameron and Bay had different ways of setting about to achieve those goals. As you put it, Cameron placed more relative importance on character development and the careful management of tension and release, whereas Bay relies on simplistic archetypes and a tonal mishmash. I would argue that Cameron's methods are more successful, and therefore his results of a higher quality, but not that Cameron has necessarily more artistic or higher-minded or even different intentions for his movie about robots what both rock 'em and sock 'em.

    Quick edit: in other words, what you're describing absolutely falls under the category of things we should judge TF2 for based on how well it achieves what it sets out to do (which is be a broad, crowd-pleasing exciting action/adventure/comedy film), not things we should judge it for based on what it wanted to achieve (which was not to be a shitty pile of shitty shit shit).

    Fair points.

    I guess what I'm trying to get at is, at the end of the day, looking at the reactions to his movie and its box office proceeds and whatever aftermath you wish to consider, how does the filmmaker feel about what he produced? And I would wager that Bay looks at his proceeds, looks at the reviews that have come out, and thinks to himself: "Nailed iiiiiiit." I think he's completely satisfied with what he's accomplished; he pleased the people that he cared about pleasing, and didn't much care for the rest of us. That's what I mean when I refer to the movie (or the filmmaker) succeeding at what it (or he) intended. Much like when a porn director looks at his work and thinks, "Yep, I sure did put a lot of tits on that screen."

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I'm REALLY looking forward to taking my daughter (3) to see Monsters U on Saturday.

    She's a huge Monsters Inc fan, and it'll be the first movie she's seen in a theater...she's so excited and asks every day about it. Last night, she was going through the trailers on Youtube and just laughing, playing them over and telling me about the details in each one.

    Your daughter has good taste!

    There's a couple spots that I think might be scary for a 3-year old, but they're fairly short.

  • Xenogear_0001Xenogear_0001 Registered User regular
    edited June 2013
    see317 wrote: »
    What about movies you enjoy, but can't figure out why? Just those movies that when you see them on, you can easily just sit entranced even though they're so far out of the realm of what you normally watch that you just can't figure out why you even turned it on.

    For me, this movie is Bottle Shock. Alan Rickman plays a snobby english wine connoisseur with a taste for french wines and a failing wine shop in England because he stocks mainly french wine. In an effort to drum up some publicity, he sets out to organize a wine tasting pitting traditional French Wines against the wines coming out of California. Most of the movie is him traveling to various vineyards trying to convince them to participate, and the winemakers worrying that they're being set up to be humiliated on a global stage. It ends with the big wine tasting, and the Californian wines handily beating the French wines to the shock of everyone.

    I love watching this movie, but for the life of me, I don't know why. I don't drink wine, I know practically nothing about it or what makes a wine good or a wine bad. But for some reason, everytime I see this movie on, I watch it. It's got terrible reviews, a %49 on Rotten Tomatoes, a complete lack of space ships, explosions and exploding spaceships... and yet I always tune it in when it's on.

    I really enjoy Bottle Shock as well, but the love interest ending the way it did felt so unearned I am annoyed every time and makes it difficult to enjoy the movie as a whole.

    Some guilty pleasure movies of mine are Prince of Persia and National Treasure. Though I'm not sure if I like Prince of Persia simply because its like Disney's Aladdin without all the musical numbers or not.

    I think it's hilarious that the original Prince of Persia--which Disney completely ripped off for Aladdin; from the basic plot to the name of the villain (Disney: Jafar. PoP: Jaffar)--wound up getting rebooted to much fanfare, earned a reputation for solid game design, became a strong-ish series with regard to sales--strong enough for Disney and Bruckheimer to take notice--and then came full circle with Disney acquiring the rights to make a live action movie about it. It's like... head asplode.

    Xenogear_0001 on
    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    There is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with you.

    I'm putting you on my list of "Forumers who I will not be shocked about when it comes out they kill hobos and eat their flesh".

    See, I don't think there is, though. I love Casablanca. I adore Dr. Strangelove. Was thrilled with Jaws, and have seen In Bruges four times since January and was enthralled every time. Also Die Hard is my favorite action movie ever.

    I'm no different than many of you in this very thread, excepting that I think Raiders is kind of shallow. If it weren't for the sentence immediately preceding this one, most of you would say that I can probably recognize a fantastic fucking movie when I see one. I just honestly don't think I saw one in Raiders.

    And that difference is what makes you a cannibalistic serial killer.

    Also, what are your feelings re: Huey Lewis and the News?

This discussion has been closed.