It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.
On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.
*I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.
It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.
*I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.
They probably did, but as I argued earlier, franchises like James Bond and whathaveyou are being adapted from a source material anyway, so there's no true one interpretation.
Indiana Jones is whole-cloth, and that whole-cloth is made of Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg.
I think you could even argue otherwise for Bond as Fleming made Bond's dad Scottish after he enjoyed Connery's performance in Dr. No.
My primary list is for big expansive cinematic experiences whose plotting and editing are tight as a pressed drum.
@Bogart - Tinker Tailer probably deserves a spot on that first list. The list isn't definitive, and is always growing.
Honestly, I don't think E.T. is plotted tight as a drum, because part of plot includes characterization and E.T. himself is some sort of idiot-savant dog instead of consistent.
Also, the new Tinker Tailor is amazing. So well made.
It's probably a combination of limited exposure (in the US, if you want to watch foreign films not called Harry Potter, you have do some digging) and simply a lot of it not being my interest. I've talked about it here before, but I feel that there's a good deal of nuance that's lost between cultures any time you observe a foreign product, and the greater your cultural gap from that product, the more likely you are to fail to fully comprehend what the project is trying to say.
As an American, the drift on my scope of assured reference goes: America, Canada, the Caribbean, the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, South America, Middle East, Far East.
Each next step takes my understanding more and more away, so I feel less assured in my criticisms and understanding of films from those areas.
This is obviously my opinion only, but IMO you're missing out a lot. To my mind the majority of films by Kurosawa are closer to 'conventional' Western storytelling than, say, Tarantino (or the Coens' No Country for Old Men), in spite of him being Japanese.
In addition - and the following may well be patronising - I sometimes get the impression when reading your posts that you want storytelling in films and on TV to fit certain (culturally defined) modes, and when they don't you're very quick to criticise. Now, sometimes that criticism is very valid, and those modes obviously work, but they're not the only ones that do, and exposing your cinematic palate to other flavours is worth it. I'll shut up now, though, because I'm already being condescending enough.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.
On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.
*I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.
It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.
This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?
I don't think thats necessarily a bad thing, a good movie is defined by the generation watching it, and if the movies of the past don't appeal to you, you wouldn't consider it "perfect" despite however many critics say it is so. There is no objective measure of what makes a movie good for any specific person nor can there be.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
...but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie...
This statement I'd take issue with. Being entertaining is *one* point that a movie can have, and it's definitely a popular one, but it's by no means *the* point. is 2001 entertaining? Is No Country for Old Men entertaining? What about The Road or Requiem for a Dream? Lots of people would say no, unless your entertainment is of a very abstract, intellectual or aesthetic kind. (I absolutely understand why many people prefer films that are entertaining, but making them primarily about that strikes me as very restricting, to any art form.)
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.
On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.
*I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.
It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.
This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?
Also, if you're going to talk comedies, let's talk Life of Brian.
It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.
On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.
*I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.
It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.
This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?
Are we still talking about Atomic Ross's list? 'cus... it does have Casablanca. Not that it isn't heavily weighed towards relatively recent Hollywood products.
It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.
On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.
*I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.
It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.
This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?
Also, if you're going to talk comedies, let's talk Life of Brian.
I thought you wanted to discuss comedy why would you list a monty python film?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.
On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.
*I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.
It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.
This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?
Are we still talking about Atomic Ross's list? 'cus... it does have Casablanca. Not that it isn't heavily weighed towards relatively recent Hollywood products.
I'm talking in general; his list just spurred the idea because Casablanca stands out sorely amongst that reads a lot like a gen-X Harry Knowles marathon.
Where's The African Queen? Or Lawrence of Arabia? Or anything by Wilder, Huston, Lean, Ford, etc.?
That's on my list of movies I watch once to say I watched it, and get the experience, and never watch it again.
It's up there with the LotR trilogy, The Godfather Trilogy, Natural Born Killers, etc.
Kids told the story better without such an obvious in your face "DRUGS ARE BAD!!!" not to mention it drags like a motherfucker. I mean I appreciate the nudity from Jennifer Connelly, but the movie is the definition of an art house waste of time in my opinion. But that's the way I think of all of that directors films, because I'm a plebian who wants Maximus to entertain me.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The African Queen is a good movie but not really a great one. To Have And Have Not, The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of Sierra Madre and of course Casablanca are all much better Bogie films.
...but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie...
This statement I'd take issue with. Being entertaining is *one* point that a movie can have, and it's definitely a popular one, but it's by no means *the* point. is 2001 entertaining? Is No Country for Old Men entertaining? What about The Road or Requiem for a Dream? Lots of people would say no, unless your entertainment is of a very abstract, intellectual or aesthetic kind. (I absolutely understand why many people prefer films that are entertaining, but making them primarily about that strikes me as very restricting, to any art form.)
The point of telling a story, especially a fictional story, is, I'd argue, to get people to listen and hear it. Would you not?
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Seriously, I'll watch Armageddon every time it's on TV and I still tear up at the end, but I can't sit through Requiem without wanting to turn it off once it starts going downhill for the motley crew.
...but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie...
This statement I'd take issue with. Being entertaining is *one* point that a movie can have, and it's definitely a popular one, but it's by no means *the* point. is 2001 entertaining? Is No Country for Old Men entertaining? What about The Road or Requiem for a Dream? Lots of people would say no, unless your entertainment is of a very abstract, intellectual or aesthetic kind. (I absolutely understand why many people prefer films that are entertaining, but making them primarily about that strikes me as very restricting, to any art form.)
The point of telling a story, especially a fictional story, is, I'd argue, to get people to listen and hear it. Would you not?
The desire to be entertained is not the only reason people will sit and watch and listen.
The African Queen is a good movie but not really a great one. To Have And Have Not, The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of Sierra Madre and of course Casablanca are all much better Bogie films.
The African Queen is better than To Have and Have Not which isn't even a top tier Hemingway story let alone Huston picture.
Seriously, I'll watch Armageddon every time it's on TV and I still tear up at the end, but I can't sit through Requiem without wanting to turn it off once it starts going downhill for the motley crew.
Because guys like you and I AH generally watch movies for an entirely different point than other people who watch them. I mean we are more likely to want to watch the latest mockbuster than anything that premiered at Cannes.
We are no better or worse than other people, and can be honest that we really just watch movies to be entertained, even if that entertainment is pretty brainless.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The African Queen is a good movie but not really a great one. To Have And Have Not, The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of Sierra Madre and of course Casablanca are all much better Bogie films.
The African Queen is better than To Have and Have Not which isn't even a top tier Hemingway story let alone Huston picture.
To Have and Have Not is a fantastic movie and you shut your filthy whore mouth.
Seriously, I'll watch Armageddon every time it's on TV and I still tear up at the end, but I can't sit through Requiem without wanting to turn it off once it starts going downhill for the motley crew.
Because guys like you and I AH generally watch movies for an entirely different point than other people who watch them. I mean we are more likely to want to watch the latest mockbuster than anything that premiered at Cannes.
We are no better or worse than other people, and can be honest that we really just watch movies to be entertained, even if that entertainment is pretty brainless.
I'll go with that. To me movies are a way to turn off my brain and sit and enjoy life for two hours. I'll examine the living fuck out of them years later when they're on DVD or netflix and I've seen them seven times, but when I go to watch a movie, I'm there to watch it and enjoy it, period.
I'll sit through just about any sci-fi original picture from start to finish if it keeps my attention in the first 10 minutes.
...but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie...
This statement I'd take issue with. Being entertaining is *one* point that a movie can have, and it's definitely a popular one, but it's by no means *the* point. is 2001 entertaining? Is No Country for Old Men entertaining? What about The Road or Requiem for a Dream? Lots of people would say no, unless your entertainment is of a very abstract, intellectual or aesthetic kind. (I absolutely understand why many people prefer films that are entertaining, but making them primarily about that strikes me as very restricting, to any art form.)
The point of telling a story, especially a fictional story, is, I'd argue, to get people to listen and hear it. Would you not?
The desire to be entertained is not the only reason people will sit and watch and listen.
Look, I'm not talking philosophically here. You're telling me your decision to see a movie is more, "Hmm, that looks like a good edification on a man losing his soul to corporate America..." rather than "Hey, this Man in the Gray Flannel Suit looks good..." Really? Really really?
Seriously, I'll watch Armageddon every time it's on TV and I still tear up at the end, but I can't sit through Requiem without wanting to turn it off once it starts going downhill for the motley crew.
Because guys like you and I AH generally watch movies for an entirely different point than other people who watch them. I mean we are more likely to want to watch the latest mockbuster than anything that premiered at Cannes.
We are no better or worse than other people, and can be honest that we really just watch movies to be entertained, even if that entertainment is pretty brainless.
I'll go with that. To me movies are a way to turn off my brain and sit and enjoy life for two hours. I'll examine the living fuck out of them years later when they're on DVD or netflix and I've seen them seven times, but when I go to watch a movie, I'm there to watch it and enjoy it, period.
I'll sit through just about any sci-fi original picture from start to finish if it keeps my attention in the first 10 minutes.
I'll drink to that, and then go watch Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The African Queen is a good movie but not really a great one. To Have And Have Not, The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of Sierra Madre and of course Casablanca are all much better Bogie films.
The African Queen is better than To Have and Have Not which isn't even a top tier Hemingway story let alone Huston picture.
To Have and Have Not is a fantastic movie and you shut your filthy whore mouth.
That's what I told your mom last night*. Burn!
*Except I didn't say the part about To Have and Have Not being better than The African Queen 'cause I'm not a liar.
...but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie...
This statement I'd take issue with. Being entertaining is *one* point that a movie can have, and it's definitely a popular one, but it's by no means *the* point. is 2001 entertaining? Is No Country for Old Men entertaining? What about The Road or Requiem for a Dream? Lots of people would say no, unless your entertainment is of a very abstract, intellectual or aesthetic kind. (I absolutely understand why many people prefer films that are entertaining, but making them primarily about that strikes me as very restricting, to any art form.)
The point of telling a story, especially a fictional story, is, I'd argue, to get people to listen and hear it. Would you not?
The desire to be entertained is not the only reason people will sit and watch and listen.
Look, I'm not talking philosophically here. You're telling me your decision to see a movie is more, "Hmm, that looks like a good edification on a man losing his soul to corporate America..." rather than "Hey, this Man in the Gray Flannel Suit looks good..." Really? Really really?
I haven't said why I go and see movies, or whether entertainment comes into it more or less than anything else. It probably does, but it isn't the only criteria by which I decide to go and see a movie. A four hour movie about poverty stricken life in postwar Tokyo doesn't sound entertaining to anyone, but I still might go and see it.
I could have made the obvious joke about people at Adam Sandler movies, asking if anyone watching it looks entertained, but I chose not to.
Man there is a big difference between not liking art house movies, and watching adam sandler movies, it comes when you cross the line to being retarded...
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
...but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie...
This statement I'd take issue with. Being entertaining is *one* point that a movie can have, and it's definitely a popular one, but it's by no means *the* point. is 2001 entertaining? Is No Country for Old Men entertaining? What about The Road or Requiem for a Dream? Lots of people would say no, unless your entertainment is of a very abstract, intellectual or aesthetic kind. (I absolutely understand why many people prefer films that are entertaining, but making them primarily about that strikes me as very restricting, to any art form.)
The point of telling a story, especially a fictional story, is, I'd argue, to get people to listen and hear it. Would you not?
The desire to be entertained is not the only reason people will sit and watch and listen.
Look, I'm not talking philosophically here. You're telling me your decision to see a movie is more, "Hmm, that looks like a good edification on a man losing his soul to corporate America..." rather than "Hey, this Man in the Gray Flannel Suit looks good..." Really? Really really?
I haven't said why I go and see movies, or whether entertainment comes into it more or less than anything else. It probably does, but it isn't the only criteria by which I decide to go and see a movie. A four hour movie about poverty stricken life in postwar Tokyo doesn't sound entertaining to anyone, but I still might go and see it.
I could have made the obvious joke about people at Adam Sandler movies, asking if anyone watching it looks entertained, but I chose not to.
But how are you using the word "entertaining?" I'm using it in the sense of something that holds your interest for however long. Isn't that entertainment?
If your four-hour post-war Tokyo drama keeps your eyes glued and your brain engaged, are you not entertained?
I am half convinced Adam Sandler movies are just an elaborate way of paying back favours for old friends.
Not even that elaborate, and its more that he can keep his failed actor friends employed (though I'm still mystified as fuck as to how Rob Schnieder got a network sitcom). Red Letter media hit on this in their jack and jill annhilation, but its pretty damn true that there is no other explination as to why his movies cost so much and have so little to justify their expenses.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Entertaining as in enjoyable, relaxing, fun, dramatic, etc. If you mean entertaining to be just something that isn't boring then Yes, of course I agree.
Entertaining as in enjoyable, relaxing, fun, dramatic, etc. If you mean entertaining to be just something that isn't boring then Yes, of course I agree.
You say "enjoyable" as if you're going to see your hypothetical post-war Tokyo drama because you're going to hate it. Why would you even do that?
I mean entertainment as something you engage with that holds your interest. That's why I would put Casablanca on a list and not Citizen Kane. I get why directors love it, but the story is too thin to as not be drowned out by the "Hey! This type of shot/transition/edit is new!" quality of Welles's direction. It advanced the language of filmmaking, but not of being particularly engaging.
...but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie...
This statement I'd take issue with. Being entertaining is *one* point that a movie can have, and it's definitely a popular one, but it's by no means *the* point. is 2001 entertaining? Is No Country for Old Men entertaining? What about The Road or Requiem for a Dream? Lots of people would say no, unless your entertainment is of a very abstract, intellectual or aesthetic kind. (I absolutely understand why many people prefer films that are entertaining, but making them primarily about that strikes me as very restricting, to any art form.)
The point of telling a story, especially a fictional story, is, I'd argue, to get people to listen and hear it. Would you not?
Yes - but if your definition is that broad, then I'd call Citizen Kane entertaining. I was plenty entertained when I watched it, at least if entertainment just means "you want to listen and hear it". Earlier you mentioned that a reason you wouldn't put it in your list of perfect films is that it isn't entertaining, so... Erm? At that point the notion of entertainment becomes so broad, that it may as well have no function at all beyond "I liked it" or "I found it interesting."
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It's definitely a Hollywood-centric list, but as that it's a good one. I'd put additional films on there (e.g. Seven Samurai or Jules et Jim - not original mentions, but classics for a reason), but that doesn't change that the films on there are at the top of the game in achieving brilliantly what they set out to do.
On the Indiana Jones thing: to my mind, the films are iconic, especially Raiders. Having a reboot that basically does the same with a different, younger actor would lose a lot of this iconic element;* and I fail to see what a reboot along the lines of Battlestar Galactica could do that would benefit from it explicitly being an Indiana Jones film rather than a critical take on the genre and style.
*I could imagine that people felt the same way about the first Roger Moore Bond films, mind you.
It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.
This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?
My list has Casablanca on it . . .
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It's probably a combination of limited exposure (in the US, if you want to watch foreign films not called Harry Potter, you have do some digging) and simply a lot of it not being my interest. I've talked about it here before, but I feel that there's a good deal of nuance that's lost between cultures any time you observe a foreign product, and the greater your cultural gap from that product, the more likely you are to fail to fully comprehend what the project is trying to say.
As an American, the drift on my scope of assured reference goes: America, Canada, the Caribbean, the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, South America, Middle East, Far East.
Each next step takes my understanding more and more away, so I feel less assured in my criticisms and understanding of films from those areas.
This is obviously my opinion only, but IMO you're missing out a lot. To my mind the majority of films by Kurosawa are closer to 'conventional' Western storytelling than, say, Tarantino (or the Coens' No Country for Old Men), in spite of him being Japanese.
In addition - and the following may well be patronising - I sometimes get the impression when reading your posts that you want storytelling in films and on TV to fit certain (culturally defined) modes, and when they don't you're very quick to criticise. Now, sometimes that criticism is very valid, and those modes obviously work, but they're not the only ones that do, and exposing your cinematic palate to other flavours is worth it. I'll shut up now, though, because I'm already being condescending enough.
No, I get what you're trying to say, but I also have a somewhat specific notion of what narratives should seek to accomplish and what fidelity a film should attempt to adhere to unto itself.
I'm a big proponent of Tolkien's notion of "Secondary Worlds," and I think the philosophy extends to all forms of genres and medias. I like films that have an internal consistency and defined world, and genre tropes shouldn't ever be used as crutches for a weak story and script.
I've written a lot about it here on this board, actually.
Just got home from seeing a midnight showing of Prometheus in IMAX. I'm definitely glad I went, as I really enjoyed. Easily my favorite movie so far this year.
The 3D was well done. It wasn't intrusive, but added a subtle depth to the picture that made it feel more realistic. The set design, CGI, location scouting, or whatever was absolutely phenomenal. The entire movie was simultaneously beautiful and yet wrong. Fassbender was amazing as always and Theron, Rapace, and Elba fit well in their roles.
Now for theories. First the obvious one that I suspect everyone else has figured out without even seeing the movie.
I went in believing the ship from the trailer is the one from the beginning of Alien, and left believing the same. The Space Jockeys actually being more or less human was a big surprise though. I'm guessing I know what the Nephilim from Genesis are in the movie world...
Now for my more personalized one, on "Why"
I think that they were trying to terraform Earth and humans were an accident. And now they were ready to colonize...
The only problem I see with the theory is that they helped out some ancient humans. But that's easily explained by political shifts, desire for a slave race, desire for pre-built infrastructure, or just a couple outcasts wanting to be worshiped as Gods.
See, I was thinking that it was the same ship up until the space jockey got out of the pilot's seat and came after her. No space jockey in the seat, not the same ship, other problems with it being the same ship, no egg vats on board. I kind of feel like the movie was originally supposed to end when she was under the ship right as her suit told her she had two minutes of oxygen left. That would have been a nice ending with good closure. After it ended I was talking to a friend who had followed the media leading up to the release, and he said the was a direct quote from Ridley Scott in an interview where he said that it wasn't a true prequel, but more of a film that shared the "same DNA" as the original Alien, that was then going to branch off into its own universe.
As for why they nurtured Earth, and created humans, I figure they wanted to use us as cattle, they needed us to harvest the Xenomorphs. Which is what I figure David was getting at with his "Sometimes to create life you have to destroy it first." line.
Other things that bugged me about the movie:
What the fuck was going on with the space jockey at the beginning of the movie? Why did he commit suicide by ingesting a bioweapon?
Also I was incredibly disappointed that after everything she went through in the movie, Shaw, rather than piloting a ship chock full of bioweapon right into the heart of the Space Jockey's home planet, killing God so to speak, wanted to find out why Daddy was mad at us. Pretty disappointing IMHO.
Not that I feel ripped off or anything, it was a fantastic movie, and I am eagerly awaiting further stories in this universe now that I know that's how Ridley Scott intends to play things.
I took the guy at the beginning as being a rogue Jockey who stole from the others, came to Earth, and created life.
First off, to address the space thing question: No, it is not the same ship. It is not even the same planet!
Prometheus takes place on LV-223 while the Derelict ship from Alien takes place on LV-426.
As to why there is an Engineer committing suicide on Earth: a user on Imdb.com mentioned a delete scene where an "elder" Engineer walks down with the "initiate" engineer as a sort of ritual. It would explain why he is robed and removes the robe before ingesting the fluid (Pilgrims journey).
No, I get what you're trying to say, but I also have a somewhat specific notion of what narratives should seek to accomplish and what fidelity a film should attempt to adhere to unto itself.
I'm a big proponent of Tolkien's notion of "Secondary Worlds," and I think the philosophy extends to all forms of genres and medias. I like films that have an internal consistency and defined world, and genre tropes shouldn't ever be used as crutches for a weak story and script.
I've written a lot about it here on this board, actually.
Sure, I get that, but I honestly think you sometimes take this to a point where you conflate "this isn't to my taste" with "this is inferior" too readily, exactly when it comes to what doesn't fit the modes you prefer - and that goes well beyond the "internal consistency etc." you mention above. E.g. the discussion we had about "having someone to root for" - which is an absolutely valid thing to look for in narratives, if that's your preference, but its absence isn't necessarily a flaw. (Have you seen any of Refn's Pusher Trilogy?)
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Posts
It's also very boomer-centric, and doesn't really include any of the true classic comedies like Duck Soup.
Increasing your quote folding settings should help prevent unfortunate instances like that in the future.
I think you could even argue otherwise for Bond as Fleming made Bond's dad Scottish after he enjoyed Connery's performance in Dr. No.
Honestly, I don't think E.T. is plotted tight as a drum, because part of plot includes characterization and E.T. himself is some sort of idiot-savant dog instead of consistent.
Also, the new Tinker Tailor is amazing. So well made.
In addition - and the following may well be patronising - I sometimes get the impression when reading your posts that you want storytelling in films and on TV to fit certain (culturally defined) modes, and when they don't you're very quick to criticise. Now, sometimes that criticism is very valid, and those modes obviously work, but they're not the only ones that do, and exposing your cinematic palate to other flavours is worth it. I'll shut up now, though, because I'm already being condescending enough.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
This. Any list of best filmz evar! that doesn't have something like Casablanca on it (note, I'm not putting something like Citizen Kane, which advanced the medium as far as editing/style went, but isn't that entertaining as a film which is also the point of a movie) or anything before the seventies is... :?
pleasepaypreacher.net
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Also, if you're going to talk comedies, let's talk Life of Brian.
I thought you wanted to discuss comedy why would you list a monty python film?
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's on my list of movies I watch once to say I watched it, and get the experience, and never watch it again.
It's up there with the LotR trilogy, The Godfather Trilogy, Natural Born Killers, etc.
I'm talking in general; his list just spurred the idea because Casablanca stands out sorely amongst that reads a lot like a gen-X Harry Knowles marathon.
Where's The African Queen? Or Lawrence of Arabia? Or anything by Wilder, Huston, Lean, Ford, etc.?
Kids told the story better without such an obvious in your face "DRUGS ARE BAD!!!" not to mention it drags like a motherfucker. I mean I appreciate the nudity from Jennifer Connelly, but the movie is the definition of an art house waste of time in my opinion. But that's the way I think of all of that directors films, because I'm a plebian who wants Maximus to entertain me.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The point of telling a story, especially a fictional story, is, I'd argue, to get people to listen and hear it. Would you not?
The desire to be entertained is not the only reason people will sit and watch and listen.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The African Queen is better than To Have and Have Not which isn't even a top tier Hemingway story let alone Huston picture.
Because guys like you and I AH generally watch movies for an entirely different point than other people who watch them. I mean we are more likely to want to watch the latest mockbuster than anything that premiered at Cannes.
We are no better or worse than other people, and can be honest that we really just watch movies to be entertained, even if that entertainment is pretty brainless.
pleasepaypreacher.net
To Have and Have Not is a fantastic movie and you shut your filthy whore mouth.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I'll go with that. To me movies are a way to turn off my brain and sit and enjoy life for two hours. I'll examine the living fuck out of them years later when they're on DVD or netflix and I've seen them seven times, but when I go to watch a movie, I'm there to watch it and enjoy it, period.
I'll sit through just about any sci-fi original picture from start to finish if it keeps my attention in the first 10 minutes.
Look, I'm not talking philosophically here. You're telling me your decision to see a movie is more, "Hmm, that looks like a good edification on a man losing his soul to corporate America..." rather than "Hey, this Man in the Gray Flannel Suit looks good..." Really? Really really?
I'll drink to that, and then go watch Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's what I told your mom last night*. Burn!
I haven't said why I go and see movies, or whether entertainment comes into it more or less than anything else. It probably does, but it isn't the only criteria by which I decide to go and see a movie. A four hour movie about poverty stricken life in postwar Tokyo doesn't sound entertaining to anyone, but I still might go and see it.
I could have made the obvious joke about people at Adam Sandler movies, asking if anyone watching it looks entertained, but I chose not to.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
pleasepaypreacher.net
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
No thanks, since in entitled to like what I want and you're entitled to have a wrong opinion.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
But how are you using the word "entertaining?" I'm using it in the sense of something that holds your interest for however long. Isn't that entertainment?
If your four-hour post-war Tokyo drama keeps your eyes glued and your brain engaged, are you not entertained?
Not even that elaborate, and its more that he can keep his failed actor friends employed (though I'm still mystified as fuck as to how Rob Schnieder got a network sitcom). Red Letter media hit on this in their jack and jill annhilation, but its pretty damn true that there is no other explination as to why his movies cost so much and have so little to justify their expenses.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
You say "enjoyable" as if you're going to see your hypothetical post-war Tokyo drama because you're going to hate it. Why would you even do that?
I mean entertainment as something you engage with that holds your interest. That's why I would put Casablanca on a list and not Citizen Kane. I get why directors love it, but the story is too thin to as not be drowned out by the "Hey! This type of shot/transition/edit is new!" quality of Welles's direction. It advanced the language of filmmaking, but not of being particularly engaging.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
My list has Casablanca on it . . .
No, I get what you're trying to say, but I also have a somewhat specific notion of what narratives should seek to accomplish and what fidelity a film should attempt to adhere to unto itself.
I'm a big proponent of Tolkien's notion of "Secondary Worlds," and I think the philosophy extends to all forms of genres and medias. I like films that have an internal consistency and defined world, and genre tropes shouldn't ever be used as crutches for a weak story and script.
I've written a lot about it here on this board, actually.
Prometheus takes place on LV-223 while the Derelict ship from Alien takes place on LV-426.
As to why there is an Engineer committing suicide on Earth: a user on Imdb.com mentioned a delete scene where an "elder" Engineer walks down with the "initiate" engineer as a sort of ritual. It would explain why he is robed and removes the robe before ingesting the fluid (Pilgrims journey).
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods