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

Godzilla, King of the [Movies]

12467100

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Godzilla Question:


    Masers?

    Think a laser, but using microwaves rather than light.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I mentally distinguish between something like a single scene followed by TWO WEEKS EARLIER, and something like Deadpool, where the narrative structure just contains an extended flashback, or flips between multiple timelines.

    I don't know if there's a good reason for that distinction, but I make it anyway. :)

    I think it's a very good distinction. There's a difference between a narrative structured around flashbacks or the like and the "Time Period Earlier" thing. Because the whole point of the second device is to show you a scene you don't really understand at all, presumably to grab your attention or something, and then quickly cut back and show the actual story, which will at some point intersect with and then move on from that initial scene.

    It really does feel to me like a thing someone came up with decades ago to grab the audiences attention that no one has questioned since. Even though I think it doesn't actually work because we either don't understand what's going on and so it's meaningless or we instantly spot the fake-out or whatever and so it does nothing for us.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think viewer reviews are largely driven by the accuracy of the trailers and marketing. Like, if you're dropping money to see a Michael Bay movie, you're probably the kind of person who's going to dig a Michael Bay movie. Conversely, something like Hereditary is definitely not going to appeal to everyone, and the trailer doesn't really prepare you for what you're about to see.

    Mother's Basement had a good video about all this:

    https://youtu.be/a8_nX7TA5Os

    What's the thesis here?

    Because judging from the title I'm not sure I can take it seriously if it doesn't think critics value spectacle.

    That critics, being in a profession built around using words (whether spoken or written) to create images and transmit ideas, tend to overfavor the elements of media closest to their wheelhouse.

    This seems a poorly supported idea.

    Gravity has a 96% RT rating. That's a movie that's built on spectacular sequences.
    Jurassic Park has like universal acclaim.
    I could go on like this.
    Fuck, even Avatar has 82% at RT and that things pure spectacle because everything else it tries to do it sucks at.

    Critics are fine with spectacle. These all seem like ways to get around just admitting that maybe the movie just wasn't that good.

  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think viewer reviews are largely driven by the accuracy of the trailers and marketing. Like, if you're dropping money to see a Michael Bay movie, you're probably the kind of person who's going to dig a Michael Bay movie. Conversely, something like Hereditary is definitely not going to appeal to everyone, and the trailer doesn't really prepare you for what you're about to see.

    Mother's Basement had a good video about all this:

    https://youtu.be/a8_nX7TA5Os

    What's the thesis here?

    Because judging from the title I'm not sure I can take it seriously if it doesn't think critics value spectacle.

    That critics, being in a profession built around using words (whether spoken or written) to create images and transmit ideas, tend to overfavor the elements of media closest to their wheelhouse.

    This seems a poorly supported idea.

    Gravity has a 96% RT rating. That's a movie that's built on spectacular sequences.
    Jurassic Park has like universal acclaim.
    I could go on like this.
    Fuck, even Avatar has 82% at RT and that things pure spectacle because everything else it tries to do it sucks at.

    Critics are fine with spectacle. These all seem like ways to get around just admitting that maybe the movie just wasn't that good.

    The thing is though, those films are based around having a lot of screen time dedicated to the people. I haven't see Gravity, but the humans are the important part of Jurassic Park and Avatar, regardless of performance. The spectacle breaks up the human story, and is there to add exciting sequences to the story. The same with Godzilla 2014. The spectacle isn't the point. From what I hear about Godzilla 2, which again I haven't seen yet, the spectacle is the point, and the human story is very much sidelined and is there to break up the spectacle.

  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited June 2019
    Avatar having an 82% is just astounding. It's nothing but a soggy turd of writing with pricey spectacle and a great hype campaign. It's about as well-written as The Core, with a lot bigger special effects budget and some better actors.

    And at least when the say "unobtanium" in that movie, it's funny-bad instead of shitty-bad.

    Ninja Snarl P on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited June 2019
    A flash forward (or a prologue) can be used to make promises or set the tone of a story that's going to start somewhere that doesn't quite match what the story will become, though that probably makes more sense in longer-form media like TV, novels, etc.

    Kamar on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Avatar having an 82% is just astounding. It's nothing but a soggy turd of writing with pricey spectacle and a great hype campaign. It's about as well-written as The Core, with a lot bigger special effects budget and some better actors.

    And at least when the say "unobtanium" in that movie, it's funny-bad instead of shitty-bad.

    Remember that RT only measures how many people gave it like 3/5+ or something vaguely like that. Basically a movie that does enough that everybody kinda likes it but nobody loves will still get a high RT score. Although Avatar still got fairly high even on shit like Metacritic.

    For similar shit, Star Trek 09 got like 94% and Into Darkness still got like 82%.

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think viewer reviews are largely driven by the accuracy of the trailers and marketing. Like, if you're dropping money to see a Michael Bay movie, you're probably the kind of person who's going to dig a Michael Bay movie. Conversely, something like Hereditary is definitely not going to appeal to everyone, and the trailer doesn't really prepare you for what you're about to see.

    Mother's Basement had a good video about all this:

    https://youtu.be/a8_nX7TA5Os

    What's the thesis here?

    Because judging from the title I'm not sure I can take it seriously if it doesn't think critics value spectacle.

    That critics, being in a profession built around using words (whether spoken or written) to create images and transmit ideas, tend to overfavor the elements of media closest to their wheelhouse.

    This seems a poorly supported idea.

    Gravity has a 96% RT rating. That's a movie that's built on spectacular sequences.
    Jurassic Park has like universal acclaim.
    I could go on like this.
    Fuck, even Avatar has 82% at RT and that things pure spectacle because everything else it tries to do it sucks at.

    Critics are fine with spectacle. These all seem like ways to get around just admitting that maybe the movie just wasn't that good.

    Either that or critics are suckers for a bandwagon and depressingly few of them are capable of an original thought.

    I mean you could read the ratings that way.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think viewer reviews are largely driven by the accuracy of the trailers and marketing. Like, if you're dropping money to see a Michael Bay movie, you're probably the kind of person who's going to dig a Michael Bay movie. Conversely, something like Hereditary is definitely not going to appeal to everyone, and the trailer doesn't really prepare you for what you're about to see.

    Mother's Basement had a good video about all this:

    https://youtu.be/a8_nX7TA5Os

    What's the thesis here?

    Because judging from the title I'm not sure I can take it seriously if it doesn't think critics value spectacle.

    That critics, being in a profession built around using words (whether spoken or written) to create images and transmit ideas, tend to overfavor the elements of media closest to their wheelhouse.

    This seems a poorly supported idea.

    Gravity has a 96% RT rating. That's a movie that's built on spectacular sequences.
    Jurassic Park has like universal acclaim.
    I could go on like this.
    Fuck, even Avatar has 82% at RT and that things pure spectacle because everything else it tries to do it sucks at.

    Critics are fine with spectacle. These all seem like ways to get around just admitting that maybe the movie just wasn't that good.

    The thing is though, those films are based around having a lot of screen time dedicated to the people. I haven't see Gravity, but the humans are the important part of Jurassic Park and Avatar, regardless of performance. The spectacle breaks up the human story, and is there to add exciting sequences to the story. The same with Godzilla 2014. The spectacle isn't the point. From what I hear about Godzilla 2, which again I haven't seen yet, the spectacle is the point, and the human story is very much sidelined and is there to break up the spectacle.

    But the parts that weren't spectacle in Avatar were crap.
    And Gravity is mostly spectacle. It's got a character arc for it's only real character, but it's mostly a big set piece.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Rchanen wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think viewer reviews are largely driven by the accuracy of the trailers and marketing. Like, if you're dropping money to see a Michael Bay movie, you're probably the kind of person who's going to dig a Michael Bay movie. Conversely, something like Hereditary is definitely not going to appeal to everyone, and the trailer doesn't really prepare you for what you're about to see.

    Mother's Basement had a good video about all this:

    https://youtu.be/a8_nX7TA5Os

    What's the thesis here?

    Because judging from the title I'm not sure I can take it seriously if it doesn't think critics value spectacle.

    That critics, being in a profession built around using words (whether spoken or written) to create images and transmit ideas, tend to overfavor the elements of media closest to their wheelhouse.

    This seems a poorly supported idea.

    Gravity has a 96% RT rating. That's a movie that's built on spectacular sequences.
    Jurassic Park has like universal acclaim.
    I could go on like this.
    Fuck, even Avatar has 82% at RT and that things pure spectacle because everything else it tries to do it sucks at.

    Critics are fine with spectacle. These all seem like ways to get around just admitting that maybe the movie just wasn't that good.

    Either that or critics are suckers for a bandwagon and depressingly few of them are capable of an original thought.

    I mean you could read the ratings that way.

    What bandwagon are you even talking about?

    I don't see how you could "read it either way" here.

  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    -Loki- wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think viewer reviews are largely driven by the accuracy of the trailers and marketing. Like, if you're dropping money to see a Michael Bay movie, you're probably the kind of person who's going to dig a Michael Bay movie. Conversely, something like Hereditary is definitely not going to appeal to everyone, and the trailer doesn't really prepare you for what you're about to see.

    Mother's Basement had a good video about all this:

    https://youtu.be/a8_nX7TA5Os

    What's the thesis here?

    Because judging from the title I'm not sure I can take it seriously if it doesn't think critics value spectacle.

    That critics, being in a profession built around using words (whether spoken or written) to create images and transmit ideas, tend to overfavor the elements of media closest to their wheelhouse.

    This seems a poorly supported idea.

    Gravity has a 96% RT rating. That's a movie that's built on spectacular sequences.
    Jurassic Park has like universal acclaim.
    I could go on like this.
    Fuck, even Avatar has 82% at RT and that things pure spectacle because everything else it tries to do it sucks at.

    Critics are fine with spectacle. These all seem like ways to get around just admitting that maybe the movie just wasn't that good.

    The thing is though, those films are based around having a lot of screen time dedicated to the people. I haven't see Gravity, but the humans are the important part of Jurassic Park and Avatar, regardless of performance. The spectacle breaks up the human story, and is there to add exciting sequences to the story. The same with Godzilla 2014. The spectacle isn't the point. From what I hear about Godzilla 2, which again I haven't seen yet, the spectacle is the point, and the human story is very much sidelined and is there to break up the spectacle.

    But the parts that weren't spectacle in Avatar were crap.
    And Gravity is mostly spectacle. It's got a character arc for it's only real character, but it's mostly a big set piece.

    But they're there. The same could be said for 2/3 of Godzilla 2014. If you read into the idea that critics want more than spectacle, the human story taking the bulk of the movie but being bad is better than the human story being mostly absent.

  • ArchangleArchangle Registered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    Waiting for Godzilla to start, but I just realized that I'm probably going to see Terminator: Dark Fate, just to find out what the fuck they did with the continuity.

    They ignored it. It’s a direct sequel to Terminator 2, fuck everything else.

    This is probably the right move, but the better move would be to stop making Terminator movies. Give that shit a rest.
    I wrote a summary in a previous thread, but the short version is that the Ellison siblings paid a shitload of money back in 2011 for the rights, on the assumption they could get a trilogy out of it.

    So far they've only been able to make Genisys, and Cameron gets the option to file for the rights to revert back to him later this year - so they have to release something NOW to recoup their investment.

    What Cameron is going to do with his rights reversion option is anyone's guess - I think he's made statements to the effect that he's made all the terminator movies he wants to make, so he's probably not personally going to carry the torch. Whether he's happy to license it back out for free money, or whether he's going to sit on it so Dark Fate becomes the last movie is anyone's guess.

  • FroThulhuFroThulhu Registered User regular
    No, I just mean what the hell is Arnold doing in this movie?

    Like... it's not genesys, so it's not old terminator Arnold, so... ???

  • LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited June 2019
    Lanz wrote: »
    Godzilla Question:


    Masers?

    Think a laser, but using microwaves rather than light.

    No no, I mean do they have masers in this US series yet or are we still without Masers

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LegacyLegacy Stuck Somewhere In Cyberspace The Grid(Seattle)Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Masers were mentioned.

    Can we get the chemicals in. 'Cause anything's better than this.
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    I rewatched old time Judge Dredd. It’s so bad. Stallone is having a difficult time making it to the end of a scene in character. Rob Schneider is apparently ageless like Keanu Reeves. I hadn’t realized that!

    The set design and costuming is pretty good though. At least I enjoyed it. The setting is disserviced by the plot and I’m glad they tried again later with Dredd.

    And even though overall it’s a poor movie and the lead is just not performing well, I actually enjoy watching it. Strange times back then.

  • TNTrooperTNTrooper Registered User regular
    FroThulhu wrote: »
    No, I just mean what the hell is Arnold doing in this movie?

    Like... it's not genesys, so it's not old terminator Arnold, so... ???

    Make some references to T2 and collect a paycheck.

    steam_sig.png
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Rob Schneider doesn't age because he's too dumb to age. It'd be a scientific miracle if he believed in science.

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

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    John Wick:
    The point of the in medias res is threefold

    1, it tells us immediately that this is an action movie, which is good because the first 15 minutes of JW are poorly shot scenes of him moping

    2, it suggests that JW is going to be in some serious trouble by the end, which not only aids the film’s sense of an inevitable rush toward carnage but also gooses the stakes a little so JW doesn’t seem so untouchable

    3, it’s symbolic—at the beginning of the story, John is dead/dying; at the end of the story, when we return to this scene, he gets up and goes on to live again.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    Tunnel (Netflix) was a really good Korean movie that was able to make a decent disaster movie with thriller elements mainly because it's setting was in Korea. What drew me to it was it was made by the same guy who did the very good A Hard Day film (and is also the director for that Netflix series The Kingdom which everyone loves). The story is a car salesman is driving home for his daughter's birthday but the tunnel he's passing through collapses on him, and while he's able to call for help all he has with him in the car are two bottles of water and the birthday cake he bought for his daughter. We then see things from his perspective in the rubble as well as the rescue effort, primarily from his wife and the rescue chief (the dude with the mole who has been in nearly every big Korean movie, you know him when you see him, the prison owner from Oldboy).

    What it does well is mixing in all the different genres of movie while still being lowkey. It never gets as laser focused as something like Locke did with regards to the car scenes but you get the sense it's borrowing from that film, as well as real events like the Sampoong Store collapse that happened in Seoul in the 90's. And true to Korean thriller form it knows how to blend in the dark humor well and drop it out of nowhere and some real human moments but what it really excels at is the korean element for such a film. I know I know that sounds stupid a duh but for this type of movie it makes it very refreshing as it's not trying to copy American blockbusters or be incredibly emo or emotionally draining misery porn; it uses dark humor with the politicians using the recovery efforts for political gain like making the wife pose for photos before they can even begin digging out the tunnel or how much money is being lost by having to stop construction on a nearby tunnel to dig out this one, it reminds me a bit of the talk going on here about that Shin Godzilla movie with bureaucracy. And the movie also incorporates the different cultural aspect coming from Korea in the value of doing all this for one life, especially as the days continue to drag on, it's something that makes the whole film worthwhile compared to say an American version (kept thinking of that Sly movie Daylight) or a Chinese version (trick question the people's republic tunnels and freeways never collapse or just fall apart in fact their engineers save the Transformers and Iron Man at the same time building earth moving rockets).

    Very strong movie, not really a twist to the whole thing but the character work is great and has moments of real sads, I'd say it works better as a whole compared to A Hard Day mainly because it's more consistent and hits the notes it wants to hit better, as A Hard Day starts off incredibly strong but it pulls one too many "there's no way this dude could be alive" cards at the end that drag the film down.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Astaereth wrote: »
    John Wick:
    The point of the in medias res is threefold

    1, it tells us immediately that this is an action movie, which is good because the first 15 minutes of JW are poorly shot scenes of him moping

    2, it suggests that JW is going to be in some serious trouble by the end, which not only aids the film’s sense of an inevitable rush toward carnage but also gooses the stakes a little so JW doesn’t seem so untouchable

    3, it’s symbolic—at the beginning of the story, John is dead/dying; at the end of the story, when we return to this scene, he gets up and goes on to live again.

    The first fifteen minutes are excellently shot scenes of him moping!

    Seriously, I thought it was a very clean and touching sequence that nicely illustrated a man grieving the loss of his wife.

    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.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    -Loki- wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think viewer reviews are largely driven by the accuracy of the trailers and marketing. Like, if you're dropping money to see a Michael Bay movie, you're probably the kind of person who's going to dig a Michael Bay movie. Conversely, something like Hereditary is definitely not going to appeal to everyone, and the trailer doesn't really prepare you for what you're about to see.

    Mother's Basement had a good video about all this:

    https://youtu.be/a8_nX7TA5Os

    What's the thesis here?

    Because judging from the title I'm not sure I can take it seriously if it doesn't think critics value spectacle.

    That critics, being in a profession built around using words (whether spoken or written) to create images and transmit ideas, tend to overfavor the elements of media closest to their wheelhouse.

    This seems a poorly supported idea.

    Gravity has a 96% RT rating. That's a movie that's built on spectacular sequences.
    Jurassic Park has like universal acclaim.
    I could go on like this.
    Fuck, even Avatar has 82% at RT and that things pure spectacle because everything else it tries to do it sucks at.

    Critics are fine with spectacle. These all seem like ways to get around just admitting that maybe the movie just wasn't that good.

    The thing is though, those films are based around having a lot of screen time dedicated to the people. I haven't see Gravity, but the humans are the important part of Jurassic Park and Avatar, regardless of performance. The spectacle breaks up the human story, and is there to add exciting sequences to the story. The same with Godzilla 2014. The spectacle isn't the point. From what I hear about Godzilla 2, which again I haven't seen yet, the spectacle is the point, and the human story is very much sidelined and is there to break up the spectacle.

    I don't think the human bits are deliberately sidelined, I think they were just poorly done such that everyone just wanted them to be over so we could get back to the good parts.

    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.
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    I rewatched old time Judge Dredd. It’s so bad. Stallone is having a difficult time making it to the end of a scene in character. Rob Schneider is apparently ageless like Keanu Reeves. I hadn’t realized that!

    The set design and costuming is pretty good though. At least I enjoyed it. The setting is disserviced by the plot and I’m glad they tried again later with Dredd.

    And even though overall it’s a poor movie and the lead is just not performing well, I actually enjoy watching it. Strange times back then.

    It originally got an NC-17 rating. It was Robocop-levels of violence and gore. Then...
    Stallone said he thought the film was supposed to be an action comedy film so demanded rewrites to make it more comedic.

    They started cutting things, deleting whole scenes. Most of the ending got cut. They got the R rating but kept cutting after that, trying to get a PG-13.

    There's a better version of Judge Dredd out there. We're just never going to get to see it thanks to Stallone.

    nibXTE7.png
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    There's a better version of Judge Dredd out there.

    Right.
    341bea38d25ad9701d42d1816ac8c3fc.jpg

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    The look and design of the Stallone Dredd movie is great. Mean Machine Angel is perfect. Hammerstein is a massive practical effect and all the better for it. Diane Lane could've been a great Hershey but is hampered by a script that gives her nothing.

    The script is garbage on fire and Stallone is quite bad.

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    I am trying to watch Stray Dog, but it's just so slow.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Sometimes I sell my stuff on Ebay
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    John Wick:
    The point of the in medias res is threefold

    1, it tells us immediately that this is an action movie, which is good because the first 15 minutes of JW are poorly shot scenes of him moping

    2, it suggests that JW is going to be in some serious trouble by the end, which not only aids the film’s sense of an inevitable rush toward carnage but also gooses the stakes a little so JW doesn’t seem so untouchable

    3, it’s symbolic—at the beginning of the story, John is dead/dying; at the end of the story, when we return to this scene, he gets up and goes on to live again.

    The first fifteen minutes are excellently shot scenes of him moping!

    Seriously, I thought it was a very clean and touching sequence that nicely illustrated a man grieving the loss of his wife.

    Yeah and like while I enjoy the Equalizer as well, that opening felt like it stretched on forever. Wick's introduced us to a man experiencing loss, getting some joy, and then having that snatched from him. As far as action movie set ups it was brisk.

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

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Stallone ruined his version of Dredd because he was a jackass

  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    edited June 2019
    I rewatched old time Judge Dredd. It’s so bad. Stallone is having a difficult time making it to the end of a scene in character. Rob Schneider is apparently ageless like Keanu Reeves. I hadn’t realized that!

    The set design and costuming is pretty good though. At least I enjoyed it. The setting is disserviced by the plot and I’m glad they tried again later with Dredd.

    And even though overall it’s a poor movie and the lead is just not performing well, I actually enjoy watching it. Strange times back then.

    I always got a hoot out of Armand Assante and Jurgen Prochnow in it. They both followed the Raul Juila in Street Fighter approach, know you're in a piece of schlock and simply enjoy the ride on the all you can eat scenery buffet.

    BlackDragon480 on
    No matter where you go...there you are.
    ~ Buckaroo Banzai
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Dredd needs a Fury Road treatment. Well made but in a really crazy setting. While Dredd 3D has the former it's really lacking in the latter.

  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    Holy shit Dredd was just so good. The action was great, and Urban does such a good job with the helmet never coming off. So many nice touches, the judges hiding in the apartment and Anderson spotting the picture of a father they killed earlier as well as Anderson making that dude pee himself. I wish they'd ramped up the look of Mega City One to be truer to the soruce, but the semi realistic bit wasn't terrible.

    Armand Assante was pretty great as Rico in the Stallone dumpster fire one.

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    The look and design of the Stallone Dredd movie is great. Mean Machine Angel is perfect. Hammerstein is a massive practical effect and all the better for it. Diane Lane could've been a great Hershey but is hampered by a script that gives her nothing.

    The script is garbage on fire and Stallone is quite bad.

    Stallone had the chin. Urban had the scowl.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    Holy shit Dredd was just so good. The action was great, and Urban does such a good job with the helmet never coming off. So many nice touches, the judges hiding in the apartment and Anderson spotting the picture of a father they killed earlier as well as Anderson making that dude pee himself. I wish they'd ramped up the look of Mega City One to be truer to the soruce, but the semi realistic bit wasn't terrible.

    Armand Assante was pretty great as Rico in the Stallone dumpster fire one.

    Honestly, IMO it would have made the movie look too cartoony. Something that is fine in an actual cartoon or a comic book, but once you go live action you have to go for something that matches the real world. In Judge Dredd, you never saw anything that didn't look like a cheap movie set. It honestly ruined the flow of the action in many ways, like that opening scene with the block war? Its claimed that because the towers are so huge their bullets become ineffective at 150 yard straight down, cut to; Stallone and co running up and clearing out 3 rooms(and only 3 rooms) in the next scene. Or the statue of liberty fight scene that starts in a basement lab(?) and ends up hangin from her torch/crown(?)

    Compare that to the even cheaper sets in Dredd, which looks lived in by societies poorest citizens. It has classrooms and shopping centers, medical clinics and maintenance doors. Its only one building, but its more akin to a city unto itself. It speaks to what mega-city one is; a Mega City where every building contains the population of a smaller, lesser city.

    Less is more sometimes.

    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • LordSolarMachariusLordSolarMacharius Red wine with fish Registered User regular
    edited June 2019
    honovere wrote: »
    Dredd needs a Fury Road treatment. Well made but in a really crazy setting. While Dredd 3D has the former it's really lacking in the latter.

    Ironically, I think when they were kicking around the idea of a sequel to Urban's Dredd they were talking about doing The Cursed Earth story. (Where Mega City 2 is infected with the 2T(fru)T rage-virus, Mega City 1 scientists create a cure but can't fly in, so Judge Dredd leads a convoy across the Cursed Earth and has to deal with a robot T-Rex, the President of the USA, and a biker gang war between the Burger King and Ronald MacDonald.)

    LordSolarMacharius on
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited June 2019
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I am trying to watch Stray Dog, but it's just so slow.

    it's really good though definitely finish it

    sending you my focus

    edit - not focus. tolerance for boredom? hahaha I don't know what to call it.

    this inspired me to check and while I have the dvd it's awesome that not only is this on the Criterion service but apparently you can watch it with the commentary on there. that's v fucking cool considering that's a huge reason their discs have any value. I guess no matter how expensive your product, a subscription is the better investment as a hook than any number of 1 time purchases.

    Variable on
    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Dredd needs a Fury Road treatment. Well made but in a really crazy setting. While Dredd 3D has the former it's really lacking in the latter.

    Ironically, I think when they were kicking around the idea of a sequel to Urban's Dredd they were talking about doing The Cursed Earth story. (Where Mega City 2 is infected with the 2T(fru)T rage-virus, Mega City 1 scientists create a cure but can't fly in, so Judge Dredd leads a convoy across the Cursed Earth and has to deal with a robot T-Rex, the President of the USA, and a biker gang war between the Burger King and Ronald MacDonald.)

    Oh wow

    Now I’m so angry I’ll never see this.

  • LegacyLegacy Stuck Somewhere In Cyberspace The Grid(Seattle)Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Just got out of Rocketman. That was so much better than Bohemian Rhapsody. If Malek can win an oscar for what he did with Mercury, Edgerton should easily win for his Elton John. And they should just take back the Oscar they gave to BR for editing and give Rocketman *two* Oscar's for editing next year.

    My only real issue with the movie is that I wasn't aware before going in that it was basically a musical, but the movie itself didnt seem like it wanted to commit to that idea either? I dunno how to word it right, but itd kinda just float into a musical-esque number and then forget what it wanted to do with the musical-ness and kinda float back to a regular scene?

    Still better than BR.

    Can we get the chemicals in. 'Cause anything's better than this.
  • WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I am trying to watch Stray Dog, but it's just so slow.


    edit - not focus. tolerance for boredom? hahaha I don't know what to call it.

    It's legal now, you can just say weed.

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
  • The Zombie PenguinThe Zombie Penguin Eternal Hungry Corpse Registered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    honovere wrote: »
    Dredd needs a Fury Road treatment. Well made but in a really crazy setting. While Dredd 3D has the former it's really lacking in the latter.

    Ironically, I think when they were kicking around the idea of a sequel to Urban's Dredd they were talking about doing The Cursed Earth story. (Where Mega City 2 is infected with the 2T(fru)T rage-virus, Mega City 1 scientists create a cure but can't fly in, so Judge Dredd leads a convoy across the Cursed Earth and has to deal with a robot T-Rex, the President of the USA, and a biker gang war between the Burger King and Ronald MacDonald.)

    Oh wow

    Now I’m so angry I’ll never see this.

    Dredd so fucking good, and it's a travesty we never got a sequel. (Dredd/John wick/fury road are my watch this to learn how to do action films trilogy)

    Ideas hate it when you anthropomorphize them
    Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
    Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
    Switch: 0293 6817 9891
  • TenzytileTenzytile Registered User regular
    edited June 2019
    Criterion spine #520: Everlasting Moments

    A newer film than most Criterion releases, this is a 2008 period drama by Swedish filmmaker Jan Troell, one of the country's most notable directors who made several international hits dating back to the 60's. This one is a personal story set in the early 20th century about a lower class Swedish family in which the father is a drunk and the mother takes up a photography as a hobby.

    It's less of a family epic and more of an anecdotal family diary, covering about a decade of levity and misery as children grow up and father ends up drunk or in jail or in another woman's arms. The film is presented in a very homey, nostalgic way, with golden light, pretty children, and idyllic country retreats. For a while it's novel, even a little enchanting, but the film's lack of dramatic structure begins to weigh the whole experience down and forewarn that the film will simply decide to end as it has carried on rather than build to some truth or aesthetic climax. It's certainly a personal story, but Troell's rose-tinted, assured visual imaginings force it into a mode that asks more of its (admittedly very good) actors to present the jagged edges that lend the circumstances credibility.

    'Remember when...' is the mode of storytelling here, but it does little to imagine the act of remembering (like say, a film by Terence Davies), and it doesn't really present the 'when' as anything spectacular either, as the political and social climates Sweden and the family are experiencing (like the father's stints as a striker and a soldier) are downplayed, or seem to exist more as an impetus for interpersonal drama. It's a nicely made, well-acted, photo album of a film, each page a little less engaging than the last.

    Tenzytile on
This discussion has been closed.