TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Finding Dory is doing swimmingly at the BO, with a big opening weekend and a stronger second week that's making ID42 be more of a disappointment than Liam Hemsworth's acting (boof liquid football eat my goal).
But...I have heard nothing about it from anyone, not family or friends or coworkers with kids who would normally have to go see it or talk about it. I think there's only been a few posts about it here. It's been a while since I've experienced that kind of feeling with a movie. I know I've experienced the opposite (watching Scott Pilgrim in the theater I thought it would make decent money but then find out nope it was a wet fart).
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Finding Dory is doing swimmingly at the BO, with a big opening weekend and a stronger second week that's making ID42 be more of a disappointment than Liam Hemsworth's acting (boof liquid football eat my goal).
But...I have heard nothing about it from anyone, not family or friends or coworkers with kids who would normally have to go see it or talk about it. I think there's only been a few posts about it here. It's been a while since I've experienced that kind of feeling with a movie. I know I've experienced the opposite (watching Scott Pilgrim in the theater I thought it would make decent money but then find out nope it was a wet fart).
I've heard it starts out kind of "sequelly" but ends up really finding its own voice about 10 minutes in and it's a great movie.
"Regina Fong" I don't really care how Hero played with neo-confederates. The war was shitty and never should have been fought but we're still better off that the north won.
lol
wow
You keep having this conversation with yourself, I'll go grab some popcorn.
Well ok then:
You don't see any parallels between the two? Should I have thrown in a Lincoln or JFK quote to hammer the point home?
Cause as far as I can tell there isnt much difference between hero and an apocryphal story about how booth didn't shoot Lincoln.
Sure then we're talking about the founding myths of China rather than the founding myths of the US. But I am not sure why their myths get any less reverence than ours. Or why the message, that sacrifices are valuable to the public good, a message that we propagandize when it suits us, is particularly bad.
Now I am not going to say that Hero isn't propaganda. But it's not bad or plotless. Even if it is just another take on the heros journey
Abraham Lincoln was a good man who passed legislation ending slavery, respected the limitations of his office, and tried his best to balance the needs of the nation with his moral obligations.
Qin Shi Huang was a tyrant who attempted to annihilate any school of thought that didn't obey his systems, crushed independent nations to enshrine his own power, murdered hundreds for failing to make him immortal, and set up a shitty-ass government that didn't even survive to see his grandson on the throne.
If you can't tell the difference between a legitimately elected official fulfilling his oath of office and a murderous tyrant trying to get more people under his boothill, Fong's right. There's no point in having a discussion with you.
And yet his reign was less violent than the one prior. And the Han dynasty lasted for 400 years
Any reign would have been less violent. It was called the Warring States Era for a reason.
As for the Han dynasty they arose from the rebels against the Qin and derived their legitimacy from said rebellion.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of Qin Shi Huang.
I do like Hero though, since its a pretty good Rashomon derivative that works if you don't know the real history of China. Which I didn't when I saw it.
Kind of. Kind of not. And the "any reign" was kind of the theme.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
"Regina Fong" I don't really care how Hero played with neo-confederates. The war was shitty and never should have been fought but we're still better off that the north won.
lol
wow
You keep having this conversation with yourself, I'll go grab some popcorn.
Well ok then:
You don't see any parallels between the two? Should I have thrown in a Lincoln or JFK quote to hammer the point home?
Cause as far as I can tell there isnt much difference between hero and an apocryphal story about how booth didn't shoot Lincoln.
Sure then we're talking about the founding myths of China rather than the founding myths of the US. But I am not sure why their myths get any less reverence than ours. Or why the message, that sacrifices are valuable to the public good, a message that we propagandize when it suits us, is particularly bad.
Now I am not going to say that Hero isn't propaganda. But it's not bad or plotless. Even if it is just another take on the heros journey
Abraham Lincoln was a good man who passed legislation ending slavery, respected the limitations of his office, and tried his best to balance the needs of the nation with his moral obligations.
Qin Shi Huang was a tyrant who attempted to annihilate any school of thought that didn't obey his systems, crushed independent nations to enshrine his own power, murdered hundreds for failing to make him immortal, and set up a shitty-ass government that didn't even survive to see his grandson on the throne.
If you can't tell the difference between a legitimately elected official fulfilling his oath of office and a murderous tyrant trying to get more people under his boothill, Fong's right. There's no point in having a discussion with you.
And yet his reign was less violent than the one prior. And the Han dynasty lasted for 400 years
Everything he built crumbled within his son's lifetime.
If you're going to defend a murderous tyrant based on efficiency, try to pick one who managed to pick a fucking successor. Say what you will about Genghis Khan, at least he realized that the world wouldn't end when he did.
everyone sooner or later realizes that simple inheritance is a bad way to deal with political power, but any good founding father should at least be responsible for murdering a lot of people.
Keep in mind that China isn't a mere 240 years old. so their founding myths go back to bloodier times. hero worshipping of first kings is a well known tradition everywhere, the guy who united the country is always the best.
There was a difference in the before time, the long long ago.
Shaolin soccer was released in 2001 a whole year before Hero. So not it was not Hong Kong then if it wasn't for Hero.
Well I mean, Shaolin Soccer was banned in mainland China. While Hero was made by mainland China. Banned I'll add because they didn't apply for a bunch of Chinese screening permits/permission to show the movie in Hong Kong.
there is not a :roll: large enough for the idea that Chows snubbing over procedure negates the massive propaganda the film was. It set the structure of the majority of of future Chinese propaganda movies that have come afterwards.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
It didn't talk about the need of the state or the people to unite and the usual Chinese propaganda embedded in their (and Hong Kong) movies right now, it was the usual Caddyshack underdog story with the bad guy being the rich team. Yeah those steroids were American but they only used us because China didn't make the knock off yet a boom truth bomb.
Shaolin Soccer's biggest flaw was the soccer chick shaving her head and that's all ewww. No. stop that.
It didn't talk about the need of the state or the people to unite and the usual Chinese propaganda embedded in their (and Hong Kong) movies right now, it was the usual Caddyshack underdog story with the bad guy being the rich team. Yeah those steroids were American but they only used us because China didn't make the knock off yet a boom truth bomb.
Shaolin Soccer's biggest flaw was the soccer chick shaving her head and that's all ewww. No. stop that.
Also, while Shaolin Soccer was fun and cool, Kung Fu Hustle blew it out of the water for me
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
It didn't talk about the need of the state or the people to unite and the usual Chinese propaganda embedded in their (and Hong Kong) movies right now, it was the usual Caddyshack underdog story with the bad guy being the rich team. Yeah those steroids were American but they only used us because China didn't make the knock off yet a boom truth bomb.
Shaolin Soccer's biggest flaw was the soccer chick shaving her head and that's all ewww. No. stop that.
You missed the entire "Kung fu saves the nation" where Kung Fu amd its applications is one of the founding myths of China.
It would be like if apple pie were the secret to being good at cricket and beating the evil British team and that is why we play baseball and why out moms are the best.
So apparently I missed the rest of the Hero discussion and somehow disagree with almost everyone!
The core theme of the movie, presented through the variations on the story, is that violence and revenge just beget more violence and that the true hero is the one who breaks the cycle. It glorifies the idea of putting yourself aside for others - a noble sentiment.
It just gets confused at the end about which side is the one that should be sacrificed for. This is mostly dependent on the historical context of the movie, rather than the actual text. The movie suggests that the Qin Emperor ultimately comes to understand Nameless and accept his philosophy of serving others. It would be a spectacular ending - if it weren't for the actual historical reality showing it to be complete fantasy.
Simplified, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter (mostly) worked because the reality of the man doesn't have to be set aside. Pol Pot Vampire Hunter would not.
And actually, Independence Day 2 feels far LESS international than the first.
Yep, I thought the exact same thing myself. I'm not sure it's actually worse, but the contrast between the opening narration and the reality is jarring.
"Regina Fong" I don't really care how Hero played with neo-confederates. The war was shitty and never should have been fought but we're still better off that the north won.
lol
wow
You keep having this conversation with yourself, I'll go grab some popcorn.
Well ok then:
You don't see any parallels between the two? Should I have thrown in a Lincoln or JFK quote to hammer the point home?
Cause as far as I can tell there isnt much difference between hero and an apocryphal story about how booth didn't shoot Lincoln.
Sure then we're talking about the founding myths of China rather than the founding myths of the US. But I am not sure why their myths get any less reverence than ours. Or why the message, that sacrifices are valuable to the public good, a message that we propagandize when it suits us, is particularly bad.
Now I am not going to say that Hero isn't propaganda. But it's not bad or plotless. Even if it is just another take on the heros journey
Abraham Lincoln was a good man who passed legislation ending slavery, respected the limitations of his office, and tried his best to balance the needs of the nation with his moral obligations.
Qin Shi Huang was a tyrant who attempted to annihilate any school of thought that didn't obey his systems, crushed independent nations to enshrine his own power, murdered hundreds for failing to make him immortal, and set up a shitty-ass government that didn't even survive to see his grandson on the throne.
If you can't tell the difference between a legitimately elected official fulfilling his oath of office and a murderous tyrant trying to get more people under his boothill, Fong's right. There's no point in having a discussion with you.
And yet his reign was less violent than the one prior. And the Han dynasty lasted for 400 years
Everything he built crumbled within his son's lifetime.
If you're going to defend a murderous tyrant based on efficiency, try to pick one who managed to pick a fucking successor. Say what you will about Genghis Khan, at least he realized that the world wouldn't end when he did.
As an east asian history major
This really isn't very true
His dynasty collapsed, it's true, but the Han government took a great deal of the forms of government built by the Qin. Much as how the Sui dynasty cleaned the slate of previous independent political institutions for the Tang, the Qin destroyed much of the old order to the benefit of the Han.
Interpretations of Qin rule have disagreed for a long time* over whether or not the Han could have existed stably without the benefit of the Qin, and of course much of what we know about Qin rule are based on later Han sources, this isn't some sort of newfangled PRC invention to redeem dictatorship. Indeed, for most of its existence the PRC has been more on the "ruthless dictator without any redeeming qualities" end of the interpretations, they wouldn't have welcomed comparisons of PRC leadership with that of Qin Shi Huang at all, they're Communists after all.
There seems to be a regular conflation of the Chinese people with the current Chinese government, and that any sort of moral complexity or cultural specificity in a Chinese story, no matter how well-trod that story already is, is just bowing to the whims of a dictatorial Communist central committee.
*and by long time I mean CHINESE long time
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Finding Dory was great. I liked Zootopia and i think i ended up liking Finding Dory even better. Not in terms of what had a better message (what is the definition of family), but Finding Dory had me laughing throughout while Zootopia kind of had a lot of tonal shifts.
"Regina Fong" I don't really care how Hero played with neo-confederates. The war was shitty and never should have been fought but we're still better off that the north won.
lol
wow
You keep having this conversation with yourself, I'll go grab some popcorn.
Well ok then:
You don't see any parallels between the two? Should I have thrown in a Lincoln or JFK quote to hammer the point home?
Cause as far as I can tell there isnt much difference between hero and an apocryphal story about how booth didn't shoot Lincoln.
Sure then we're talking about the founding myths of China rather than the founding myths of the US. But I am not sure why their myths get any less reverence than ours. Or why the message, that sacrifices are valuable to the public good, a message that we propagandize when it suits us, is particularly bad.
Now I am not going to say that Hero isn't propaganda. But it's not bad or plotless. Even if it is just another take on the heros journey
Abraham Lincoln was a good man who passed legislation ending slavery, respected the limitations of his office, and tried his best to balance the needs of the nation with his moral obligations.
Qin Shi Huang was a tyrant who attempted to annihilate any school of thought that didn't obey his systems, crushed independent nations to enshrine his own power, murdered hundreds for failing to make him immortal, and set up a shitty-ass government that didn't even survive to see his grandson on the throne.
If you can't tell the difference between a legitimately elected official fulfilling his oath of office and a murderous tyrant trying to get more people under his boothill, Fong's right. There's no point in having a discussion with you.
And yet his reign was less violent than the one prior. And the Han dynasty lasted for 400 years
Everything he built crumbled within his son's lifetime.
If you're going to defend a murderous tyrant based on efficiency, try to pick one who managed to pick a fucking successor. Say what you will about Genghis Khan, at least he realized that the world wouldn't end when he did.
As an east asian history major
This really isn't very true
His dynasty collapsed, it's true, but the Han government took a great deal of the forms of government built by the Qin. Much as how the Sui dynasty cleaned the slate of previous independent political institutions for the Tang, the Qin destroyed much of the old order to the benefit of the Han.
Interpretations of Qin rule have disagreed for a long time* over whether or not the Han could have existed stably without the benefit of the Qin, and of course much of what we know about Qin rule are based on later Han sources, this isn't some sort of newfangled PRC invention to redeem dictatorship. Indeed, for most of its existence the PRC has been more on the "ruthless dictator without any redeeming qualities" end of the interpretations, they wouldn't have welcomed comparisons of PRC leadership with that of Qin Shi Huang at all, they're Communists after all.
There seems to be a regular conflation of the Chinese people with the current Chinese government, and that any sort of moral complexity or cultural specificity in a Chinese story, no matter how well-trod that story already is, is just bowing to the whims of a dictatorial Communist central committee.
*and by long time I mean CHINESE long time
The bolded is also fairly normal for historians.
You'll see a historical figure analyzed one way, then looked at another way, then 20 years from now looked at the first way again, but in the light of the 2nd way. And so on and so forth.
I will say this about the man. He built a bitchin tomb.
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
"Regina Fong" I don't really care how Hero played with neo-confederates. The war was shitty and never should have been fought but we're still better off that the north won.
lol
wow
You keep having this conversation with yourself, I'll go grab some popcorn.
Well ok then:
You don't see any parallels between the two? Should I have thrown in a Lincoln or JFK quote to hammer the point home?
Cause as far as I can tell there isnt much difference between hero and an apocryphal story about how booth didn't shoot Lincoln.
Sure then we're talking about the founding myths of China rather than the founding myths of the US. But I am not sure why their myths get any less reverence than ours. Or why the message, that sacrifices are valuable to the public good, a message that we propagandize when it suits us, is particularly bad.
Now I am not going to say that Hero isn't propaganda. But it's not bad or plotless. Even if it is just another take on the heros journey
Abraham Lincoln was a good man who passed legislation ending slavery, respected the limitations of his office, and tried his best to balance the needs of the nation with his moral obligations.
Qin Shi Huang was a tyrant who attempted to annihilate any school of thought that didn't obey his systems, crushed independent nations to enshrine his own power, murdered hundreds for failing to make him immortal, and set up a shitty-ass government that didn't even survive to see his grandson on the throne.
If you can't tell the difference between a legitimately elected official fulfilling his oath of office and a murderous tyrant trying to get more people under his boothill, Fong's right. There's no point in having a discussion with you.
And yet his reign was less violent than the one prior. And the Han dynasty lasted for 400 years
Everything he built crumbled within his son's lifetime.
If you're going to defend a murderous tyrant based on efficiency, try to pick one who managed to pick a fucking successor. Say what you will about Genghis Khan, at least he realized that the world wouldn't end when he did.
everyone sooner or later realizes that simple inheritance is a bad way to deal with political power, but any good founding father should at least be responsible for murdering a lot of people.
Keep in mind that China isn't a mere 240 years old. so their founding myths go back to bloodier times. hero worshipping of first kings is a well known tradition everywhere, the guy who united the country is always the best.
I agree simple inheritance isn't the best system. (Hell, Ghengis Khan recognized that, since I brought him up already. He picked a later son since the firstborn kid wasn't popular with all his brothers.) But Qin Shi Huang didn't go "Well, fuck. Letting someone run the country just because he was produced by my badass sperm might not be the best call. I'll set up reforms to ensure that the line of succession is orderly and... shit. I am dead before I could finish." He went "Obviously I will be an immortal GOD EMPEROR who reigns forever, so there is no need to... shit. I am dead because eating mercury does the opposite of make you immortal."
And he recognized the hero worship of first kings, which is why he burned all records he could find of earlier dynasties, because then people might go "You know, Qin's kind of shit compared to past kings."
One of the most basic duties of any legitimate ruler is to ensure a peaceful handover of power once he's gone. It's the difference between setting up a government and a cult of personality. Yes, time and chance can quite easily fuck you over no matter what you do. Even Shakespeare's idealized version of Henry V had his reign fall apart as soon as he bought it, but, key difference here, he set things up to lead to a peaceful and lasting union of England and France. His son was legitimate heir to both thrones, he married into the French royal family, and he took measures to soothe the bad blood from the whole "Went into France to take it the fuck over" thing. He even made sure he left a regent to deal with things until his son came of age. Again, it all went to shit, but there's a big difference between "Tried to leave a solid, lasting legacy, undermined by circumstances beyond his control" and "Didn't even bother with naming a heir."
Washington got a lot of credit for quitting and making sure the nation would live on after him. I'm not going to give Qin Shi Huang any points for unifying a country if the guy two rounds down the line had to go and unify it again.
Maybe you're way beyond the scope of the movie then? The movie doesn't idolize Qin, or depict him as a good person, but nor is it "pro tyrant", or a statement on the relative qualities of of the various dynasties.
So apparently I missed the rest of the Hero discussion and somehow disagree with almost everyone!
The core theme of the movie, presented through the variations on the story, is that violence and revenge just beget more violence and that the true hero is the one who breaks the cycle. It glorifies the idea of putting yourself aside for others - a noble sentiment.
It is a noble sentiment, which ends up looking horrific when the bad guy wins.
It just gets confused at the end about which side is the one that should be sacrificed for. This is mostly dependent on the historical context of the movie, rather than the actual text. The movie suggests that the Qin Emperor ultimately comes to understand Nameless and accept his philosophy of serving others. It would be a spectacular ending - if it weren't for the actual historical reality showing it to be complete fantasy.
Exactly, and I don't think the Chinese government would have be ok with that ending if they felt that was the overt message.
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
It just gets confused at the end about which side is the one that should be sacrificed for. This is mostly dependent on the historical context of the movie, rather than the actual text. The movie suggests that the Qin Emperor ultimately comes to understand Nameless and accept his philosophy of serving others. It would be a spectacular ending - if it weren't for the actual historical reality showing it to be complete fantasy.
Exactly, and I don't think the Chinese government would have be ok with that ending if they felt that was the overt message.
I don't think the Chinese government would have a big problem with that moral being overt, since I actually do consider it overt in the frame story and "true" retelling. It's just that if said sacrifice were focused on more stereotypical American goals (e.g. FREEDOM, self-determination) they would have considered the movie subversive to the government.
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
I think disagreeing on whether or not he was the "bad guy" in the context of the movie is fair. But he's certainly the antagonist of the frame story and at least one of the retellings.
There seems to be a regular conflation of the Chinese people with the current Chinese government, and that any sort of moral complexity or cultural specificity in a Chinese story, no matter how well-trod that story already is, is just bowing to the whims of a dictatorial Communist central committee.
Yeah, that's why I still quite like Hero despite the implications of the movie. To a certain extent the pro-tyranny reading is dependent on my cultural context and I can accept that from a different context it's a "patriotic" movie.
It's also why I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that any positive representation of a Chinese character is always due to pressure by the CPC or due to pandering.
There seems to be a regular conflation of the Chinese people with the current Chinese government, and that any sort of moral complexity or cultural specificity in a Chinese story, no matter how well-trod that story already is, is just bowing to the whims of a dictatorial Communist central committee.
Yeah, that's why I still quite like Hero despite the implications of the movie. To a certain extent the pro-tyranny reading is dependent on my cultural context and I can accept that from a different context it's a "patriotic" movie.
It's also why I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that any positive representation of a Chinese character is always due to pressure by the CPC or due to pandering.
I should point out that there are some who think the cultural revolution and the chaos, bloodshed and bullshit that resulted from that made many Chinese people of that generation or any generation that was alive during that time very, very uncomfortable with political chaos.
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
A dude never came to his palace to murder him. A dude came to his palace and said "we aren't even playing that game, but if we were I would have won".
He also doesn't turn him into a martyr for his cause. He martyrs him for the assassins cause!
And he is not the antagonist in any retelling of the story. There is no conflict the resolution to which the character is against.
It lacked the heart and soul of the original but had everything else in spades and cranked to 11. If the cast had been more charismatic and some of the unnecessary characters and plot threads left on the cutting room floor, it could have been something really special.
In any case, it's worth a watch if you enjoy special effect spectacle or disaster flicks.
And will smith showed up to save the day right
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
The Maze Runner: Scorch Trials (HBO), way to steer a decent YA movie franchise into a wall. I mean, I guess the Scorch Trials in the title refers to 98 Degrees of banality, because this movie was directed by Nick Cliche :snap:
I have nothing to really write about here, it's just every cliche from every other movie bundled together in a PG-13 YA setting. Mazes and robot monsters were so kiddie, so let's be a Resident Evil/Walking Dead knockoff instead now. And along the way we'll crib scenes from other movies that makes this endeavor even more generic because by the end I still don't what's really going on and I just don't care anymore, let Tammy 1 win. And this is a movie with the rare gift of having good teen actors, but they're wasted now, and the lead actor now has a face of perpetual exasperation the whole time.
2 hours of boring, and I thought this was a trilogy but it's five damn books! So peace out, diving roll out the car while before this thing Thelma and Louise's itself.
His next movies were supposed to be the Stargate sequels we should have gotten (even though I grew up watching SG1 and still liked it, I always preferred the movie version).
IIRC the sequels were supposed to show alien overlords who based the aesthetic of their "civilizations" (or I guess influenced civilizations on Earth) on the Romans and ancient China. If it was at the same level as the original movie I would have loved to see both.
I think it's been going back and forth on a sequel or a reboot.
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
It lacked the heart and soul of the original but had everything else in spades and cranked to 11. If the cast had been more charismatic and some of the unnecessary characters and plot threads left on the cutting room floor, it could have been something really special.
In any case, it's worth a watch if you enjoy special effect spectacle or disaster flicks.
And will smith showed up to save the day right
He did not.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Soldier (HBO), a film that was ten years too late to be made, or five years too early to enjoy better CGI and a faster paced story. It makes sense on paper; let's have Rambo and Mad Max and Aliens all together, it will be super cool! But it never gets there.
The world shown is interesting with soldiers chosen from birth, and Gabriel Cash being the best soldier through years of grinding out empathy and emotions, only for Dragon The Bruce Lee Story and his buddies to replace the old crop of Busey led soldiers, leading to trying to live on a junk world with peaceful hippies like The Commish and a blonde Connie Nielsen which makes me pause and go hey girl, how you doin' ? But then those new soldiers be steppin' on the hippies toes and so Snake Pliskin has to use tactical stealth action to save the day and bang Connie Nielsen.
This movie's version of space feels more like a believable version with that Demolition Man/Aliens sense of believably, all the old stuff basically being dropped into junkyard planets while Earth gets the new stuff, and the armor and vehicles look believable enough with no laser weapons but just bigger guns. Granted, if this was made in the 80's it would have looked more understandable because it does have an Aliens vibe there (this is supposed to be in the same world as Blade Runner so there you go). But the problem is you have a solid opening to show Russell being outdated, followed by way too much of the junkyard world and Russell trying to reconnect with his emotions and the PTSD he's suffered while hardly speaking throughout the film, something that makes the generic story arc of hippies scared of him and his penchance for violence and teachign violence to their kids even though it's totally needed kill the snake it's a green mamba even as the head hippie tries to be super nice and tolerant. And then you have the usual big action scene of one soldier vs. 20 super soldiers just blowing up everything, which is cool no doubt, but could have really used that earlier on. Or at least better flashbacks of Russell's soldier days.
What surprised me more than anything was this was a Paul W S Anderson movie, even though it has none of his usual style here. Very slow, not quite knowing if it wants to be an homage to the 80's or be more cynical like all the 90's stuff was. There's some good fight scenes but also way, way too much slow-mo going on. But like always Russell is super dependable and should have been given more to work with here because he played the type of believable, mini-Ahnald soldier well, although I can totally get why this movie bombed. Worth a watch just to see wasted potential but expect to fast forward a lot.
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
A dude never came to his palace to murder him. A dude came to his palace and said "we aren't even playing that game, but if we were I would have won".
He also doesn't turn him into a martyr for his cause. He martyrs him for the assassins cause!
And he is not the antagonist in any retelling of the story. There is no conflict the resolution to which the character is against.
He is definitely the antagonist, except unlike in most stories the hero ends up siding with him - then gets fucking murdered for it. Because the emperor wasn't going to let him get out alive. The hero "sacrificing" himself for the emperor isn't a noble cause the movie sells it as - when the story points out the emperor was engaging in total destruction of his enemies for "peace." Ozy did the same thing in Watchmen to keep the world together - he was still the villain in the piece.
The Maze Runner: Scorch Trials (HBO), way to steer a decent YA movie franchise into a wall. I mean, I guess the Scorch Trials in the title refers to 98 Degrees of banality, because this movie was directed by Nick Cliche :snap:
I have nothing to really write about here, it's just every cliche from every other movie bundled together in a PG-13 YA setting. Mazes and robot monsters were so kiddie, so let's be a Resident Evil/Walking Dead knockoff instead now. And along the way we'll crib scenes from other movies that makes this endeavor even more generic because by the end I still don't what's really going on and I just don't care anymore, let Tammy 1 win. And this is a movie with the rare gift of having good teen actors, but they're wasted now, and the lead actor now has a face of perpetual exasperation the whole time.
2 hours of boring, and I thought this was a trilogy but it's five damn books! So peace out, diving roll out the car while before this thing Thelma and Louise's itself.
Which decent movie franchise did it ruin? I thought it only ran a crappy one further into the ground.
Maze Runner was half a decent movie. Once they start answering questions, it goes to hell, because the answers are super fucking dumb.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It didn't talk about the need of the state or the people to unite and the usual Chinese propaganda embedded in their (and Hong Kong) movies right now, it was the usual Caddyshack underdog story with the bad guy being the rich team. Yeah those steroids were American but they only used us because China didn't make the knock off yet a boom truth bomb.
Shaolin Soccer's biggest flaw was the soccer chick shaving her head and that's all ewww. No. stop that.
I haven't seen Shaolin Soccer but I won't stand for any anti-ladies-with-badass-buzz-cuts talk
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
A dude never came to his palace to murder him. A dude came to his palace and said "we aren't even playing that game, but if we were I would have won".
He also doesn't turn him into a martyr for his cause. He martyrs him for the assassins cause!
And he is not the antagonist in any retelling of the story. There is no conflict the resolution to which the character is against.
He is definitely the antagonist, except unlike in most stories the hero ends up siding with him - then gets fucking murdered for it. Because the emperor wasn't going to let him get out alive. The hero "sacrificing" himself for the emperor isn't a noble cause the movie sells it as - when the story points out the emperor was engaging in total destruction of his enemies for "peace." Ozy did the same thing in Watchmen to keep the world together - he was still the villain in the piece.
Based on his choice of words mirroring my choice of words, I think he's referring to the three retellings of Nameless's tale - not the frame story.
While in the first variant of the story the other warriors are the antagonists and the King's variant has the apprentice (Moon), all those characters are on the same side in the final retelling. That variant is certainly the most intricate of them, but their conflicts are driven by their opposition (or feigned opposition) to the King's actions.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
There's some interesting background info about Soldier on "Good Bad Flicks."
I've always enjoyed this movie, but could tell from my first viewing that some hijinks behind the scenes had hobbled the production
Apparently there's a lot of 90's movies that could have been a bit more but got hamstrung by corporate hijinks. Event Horizon apparently got cut to shit because it was too disturbing.
From Wikipedia:
In test screenings the cut was poorly received. There were complaints about the extreme amount of gore,[5] and Anderson and producer Jeremy Bolt claim members of the test audience fainted during the screening.[4] Paramount, which had stopped looking at the dailies before any of the gore was shot and were seeing the complete movie for the first time along with the audience, were similarly shocked by how gruesome it was and demanded a shorter length time with a decreased amount of gore.
Event Horizon was the film I didn't walk out of but wished I had. This illustrates the vast gulf between me and fans of horror films, because this seems to be one of the most favorite horror films of all time and just... I totally should have walked out of the theater. Afterwards one of my friends was sitting out in the lobby waiting for the rest of the group. Another friend and I were like "Oh my God, wish you'd said something we would have left with you."
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
A dude never came to his palace to murder him. A dude came to his palace and said "we aren't even playing that game, but if we were I would have won".
He also doesn't turn him into a martyr for his cause. He martyrs him for the assassins cause!
And he is not the antagonist in any retelling of the story. There is no conflict the resolution to which the character is against.
He is definitely the antagonist, except unlike in most stories the hero ends up siding with him - then gets fucking murdered for it. Because the emperor wasn't going to let him get out alive. The hero "sacrificing" himself for the emperor isn't a noble cause the movie sells it as - when the story points out the emperor was engaging in total destruction of his enemies for "peace." Ozy did the same thing in Watchmen to keep the world together - he was still the villain in the piece.
Based on his choice of words mirroring my choice of words, I think he's referring to the three retellings of Nameless's tale - not the frame story.
While in the first variant of the story the other warriors are the antagonists and the King's variant has the apprentice (Moon), all those characters are on the same side in the final retelling. That variant is certainly the most intricate of them, but their conflicts are driven by their opposition (or feigned opposition) to the King's actions.
No, not the frame story; not anything. In no narrative structure in the movie is the King the villain. He takes no action in the movie. China is unified, its done and over. He is a macguffin. The thing the characters want because they want. Sure the characters want the macguffin because its shiny/it can explode/it belongs in a museum or in this case it wronged them. But its a MacGuffin none the less.
Ozy is the villain because he directly acts to create all of the action of the story, which the heros must work against, as a part of the story. Qin does nothing in the movie that any character at any point works against. The closest he gets is failing to be killed in an assassination. Which is no different than when any character recounts how close they got to getting the MacGuffin that one time.
Posts
But...I have heard nothing about it from anyone, not family or friends or coworkers with kids who would normally have to go see it or talk about it. I think there's only been a few posts about it here. It's been a while since I've experienced that kind of feeling with a movie. I know I've experienced the opposite (watching Scott Pilgrim in the theater I thought it would make decent money but then find out nope it was a wet fart).
I've heard it starts out kind of "sequelly" but ends up really finding its own voice about 10 minutes in and it's a great movie.
Kind of. Kind of not. And the "any reign" was kind of the theme.
everyone sooner or later realizes that simple inheritance is a bad way to deal with political power, but any good founding father should at least be responsible for murdering a lot of people.
Keep in mind that China isn't a mere 240 years old. so their founding myths go back to bloodier times. hero worshipping of first kings is a well known tradition everywhere, the guy who united the country is always the best.
There was a difference in the before time, the long long ago.
Shaolin soccer was released in 2001 a whole year before Hero. So not it was not Hong Kong then if it wasn't for Hero.
Well I mean, Shaolin Soccer was banned in mainland China. While Hero was made by mainland China. Banned I'll add because they didn't apply for a bunch of Chinese screening permits/permission to show the movie in Hong Kong.
Shaolin Soccer's biggest flaw was the soccer chick shaving her head and that's all ewww. No. stop that.
Also, while Shaolin Soccer was fun and cool, Kung Fu Hustle blew it out of the water for me
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
You missed the entire "Kung fu saves the nation" where Kung Fu amd its applications is one of the founding myths of China.
It would be like if apple pie were the secret to being good at cricket and beating the evil British team and that is why we play baseball and why out moms are the best.
The core theme of the movie, presented through the variations on the story, is that violence and revenge just beget more violence and that the true hero is the one who breaks the cycle. It glorifies the idea of putting yourself aside for others - a noble sentiment.
It just gets confused at the end about which side is the one that should be sacrificed for. This is mostly dependent on the historical context of the movie, rather than the actual text. The movie suggests that the Qin Emperor ultimately comes to understand Nameless and accept his philosophy of serving others. It would be a spectacular ending - if it weren't for the actual historical reality showing it to be complete fantasy.
Simplified, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter (mostly) worked because the reality of the man doesn't have to be set aside. Pol Pot Vampire Hunter would not.
Yep, I thought the exact same thing myself. I'm not sure it's actually worse, but the contrast between the opening narration and the reality is jarring.
As an east asian history major
This really isn't very true
His dynasty collapsed, it's true, but the Han government took a great deal of the forms of government built by the Qin. Much as how the Sui dynasty cleaned the slate of previous independent political institutions for the Tang, the Qin destroyed much of the old order to the benefit of the Han.
Interpretations of Qin rule have disagreed for a long time* over whether or not the Han could have existed stably without the benefit of the Qin, and of course much of what we know about Qin rule are based on later Han sources, this isn't some sort of newfangled PRC invention to redeem dictatorship. Indeed, for most of its existence the PRC has been more on the "ruthless dictator without any redeeming qualities" end of the interpretations, they wouldn't have welcomed comparisons of PRC leadership with that of Qin Shi Huang at all, they're Communists after all.
There seems to be a regular conflation of the Chinese people with the current Chinese government, and that any sort of moral complexity or cultural specificity in a Chinese story, no matter how well-trod that story already is, is just bowing to the whims of a dictatorial Communist central committee.
*and by long time I mean CHINESE long time
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
The bolded is also fairly normal for historians.
You'll see a historical figure analyzed one way, then looked at another way, then 20 years from now looked at the first way again, but in the light of the 2nd way. And so on and so forth.
I will say this about the man. He built a bitchin tomb.
I agree simple inheritance isn't the best system. (Hell, Ghengis Khan recognized that, since I brought him up already. He picked a later son since the firstborn kid wasn't popular with all his brothers.) But Qin Shi Huang didn't go "Well, fuck. Letting someone run the country just because he was produced by my badass sperm might not be the best call. I'll set up reforms to ensure that the line of succession is orderly and... shit. I am dead before I could finish." He went "Obviously I will be an immortal GOD EMPEROR who reigns forever, so there is no need to... shit. I am dead because eating mercury does the opposite of make you immortal."
And he recognized the hero worship of first kings, which is why he burned all records he could find of earlier dynasties, because then people might go "You know, Qin's kind of shit compared to past kings."
One of the most basic duties of any legitimate ruler is to ensure a peaceful handover of power once he's gone. It's the difference between setting up a government and a cult of personality. Yes, time and chance can quite easily fuck you over no matter what you do. Even Shakespeare's idealized version of Henry V had his reign fall apart as soon as he bought it, but, key difference here, he set things up to lead to a peaceful and lasting union of England and France. His son was legitimate heir to both thrones, he married into the French royal family, and he took measures to soothe the bad blood from the whole "Went into France to take it the fuck over" thing. He even made sure he left a regent to deal with things until his son came of age. Again, it all went to shit, but there's a big difference between "Tried to leave a solid, lasting legacy, undermined by circumstances beyond his control" and "Didn't even bother with naming a heir."
Washington got a lot of credit for quitting and making sure the nation would live on after him. I'm not going to give Qin Shi Huang any points for unifying a country if the guy two rounds down the line had to go and unify it again.
Why I fear the ocean.
It is a noble sentiment, which ends up looking horrific when the bad guy wins.
Exactly, and I don't think the Chinese government would have be ok with that ending if they felt that was the overt message.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
Why I fear the ocean.
I think disagreeing on whether or not he was the "bad guy" in the context of the movie is fair. But he's certainly the antagonist of the frame story and at least one of the retellings.
It's also why I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that any positive representation of a Chinese character is always due to pressure by the CPC or due to pandering.
I should point out that there are some who think the cultural revolution and the chaos, bloodshed and bullshit that resulted from that made many Chinese people of that generation or any generation that was alive during that time very, very uncomfortable with political chaos.
A dude never came to his palace to murder him. A dude came to his palace and said "we aren't even playing that game, but if we were I would have won".
He also doesn't turn him into a martyr for his cause. He martyrs him for the assassins cause!
And he is not the antagonist in any retelling of the story. There is no conflict the resolution to which the character is against.
And will smith showed up to save the day right
I have nothing to really write about here, it's just every cliche from every other movie bundled together in a PG-13 YA setting. Mazes and robot monsters were so kiddie, so let's be a Resident Evil/Walking Dead knockoff instead now. And along the way we'll crib scenes from other movies that makes this endeavor even more generic because by the end I still don't what's really going on and I just don't care anymore, let Tammy 1 win. And this is a movie with the rare gift of having good teen actors, but they're wasted now, and the lead actor now has a face of perpetual exasperation the whole time.
2 hours of boring, and I thought this was a trilogy but it's five damn books! So peace out, diving roll out the car while before this thing Thelma and Louise's itself.
http://deadline.com/2016/06/moonfall-roland-emmerich-universal-pictures-independence-day-resurgence-1201778886/
IIRC the sequels were supposed to show alien overlords who based the aesthetic of their "civilizations" (or I guess influenced civilizations on Earth) on the Romans and ancient China. If it was at the same level as the original movie I would have loved to see both.
I think it's been going back and forth on a sequel or a reboot.
He did not.
The world shown is interesting with soldiers chosen from birth, and Gabriel Cash being the best soldier through years of grinding out empathy and emotions, only for Dragon The Bruce Lee Story and his buddies to replace the old crop of Busey led soldiers, leading to trying to live on a junk world with peaceful hippies like The Commish and a blonde Connie Nielsen which makes me pause and go hey girl, how you doin' ? But then those new soldiers be steppin' on the hippies toes and so Snake Pliskin has to use tactical stealth action to save the day and bang Connie Nielsen.
This movie's version of space feels more like a believable version with that Demolition Man/Aliens sense of believably, all the old stuff basically being dropped into junkyard planets while Earth gets the new stuff, and the armor and vehicles look believable enough with no laser weapons but just bigger guns. Granted, if this was made in the 80's it would have looked more understandable because it does have an Aliens vibe there (this is supposed to be in the same world as Blade Runner so there you go). But the problem is you have a solid opening to show Russell being outdated, followed by way too much of the junkyard world and Russell trying to reconnect with his emotions and the PTSD he's suffered while hardly speaking throughout the film, something that makes the generic story arc of hippies scared of him and his penchance for violence and teachign violence to their kids even though it's totally needed kill the snake it's a green mamba even as the head hippie tries to be super nice and tolerant. And then you have the usual big action scene of one soldier vs. 20 super soldiers just blowing up everything, which is cool no doubt, but could have really used that earlier on. Or at least better flashbacks of Russell's soldier days.
What surprised me more than anything was this was a Paul W S Anderson movie, even though it has none of his usual style here. Very slow, not quite knowing if it wants to be an homage to the 80's or be more cynical like all the 90's stuff was. There's some good fight scenes but also way, way too much slow-mo going on. But like always Russell is super dependable and should have been given more to work with here because he played the type of believable, mini-Ahnald soldier well, although I can totally get why this movie bombed. Worth a watch just to see wasted potential but expect to fast forward a lot.
I've always enjoyed this movie, but could tell from my first viewing that some hijinks behind the scenes had hobbled the production
He is definitely the antagonist, except unlike in most stories the hero ends up siding with him - then gets fucking murdered for it. Because the emperor wasn't going to let him get out alive. The hero "sacrificing" himself for the emperor isn't a noble cause the movie sells it as - when the story points out the emperor was engaging in total destruction of his enemies for "peace." Ozy did the same thing in Watchmen to keep the world together - he was still the villain in the piece.
Which decent movie franchise did it ruin? I thought it only ran a crappy one further into the ground.
Maze Runner was half a decent movie. Once they start answering questions, it goes to hell, because the answers are super fucking dumb.
Based on his choice of words mirroring my choice of words, I think he's referring to the three retellings of Nameless's tale - not the frame story.
While in the first variant of the story the other warriors are the antagonists and the King's variant has the apprentice (Moon), all those characters are on the same side in the final retelling. That variant is certainly the most intricate of them, but their conflicts are driven by their opposition (or feigned opposition) to the King's actions.
Apparently there's a lot of 90's movies that could have been a bit more but got hamstrung by corporate hijinks. Event Horizon apparently got cut to shit because it was too disturbing.
From Wikipedia:
In test screenings the cut was poorly received. There were complaints about the extreme amount of gore,[5] and Anderson and producer Jeremy Bolt claim members of the test audience fainted during the screening.[4] Paramount, which had stopped looking at the dailies before any of the gore was shot and were seeing the complete movie for the first time along with the audience, were similarly shocked by how gruesome it was and demanded a shorter length time with a decreased amount of gore.
No, not the frame story; not anything. In no narrative structure in the movie is the King the villain. He takes no action in the movie. China is unified, its done and over. He is a macguffin. The thing the characters want because they want. Sure the characters want the macguffin because its shiny/it can explode/it belongs in a museum or in this case it wronged them. But its a MacGuffin none the less.
Ozy is the villain because he directly acts to create all of the action of the story, which the heros must work against, as a part of the story. Qin does nothing in the movie that any character at any point works against. The closest he gets is failing to be killed in an assassination. Which is no different than when any character recounts how close they got to getting the MacGuffin that one time.