Where Eagles Dare is a terrific movie and is Quentin Tarantino's favourite 'guys on a mission' flick.The scene around the conference table where Burton just lies and lies and lies is a particular highlight.
Finally saw Logan last night. It's excellent, and gains huge weight from
being free from the constraints of setting up another movie or keeping the characters alive for another instalment in the franchise. It seems very much like it's out of continuity altogether, in fact. No new mutants since 2004?
It takes place only four years after the end of Days of Future Past (they send Logan back fifty years to 1973)? I guess the other explanation is that they're really sloppy about continuity and don't care much, which bothers me less with this movie.
One explanation I've seen is that the end of DoFP is in 2014, not 2023, which brushes off the complaints about continuity but is kind of a no-prize answer.
although it's a very melancholy movie and it's about ageing and dying and losing your will to go on I was giggling with anticipation of the ass-whupping to come when Logan shot up all the green juice at the end. wheeze pant collapse injects green juice cut to shots of kids being taken down and then cut to Logan absolutely pelting through the trees and you know someone is about to get messed up real bad.
Where Eagles Dare is a terrific movie and is Quentin Tarantino's favourite 'guys on a mission' flick.The scene around the conference table where Burton just lies and lies and lies is a particular highlight.
I should really rewatch that one. I saw it as a kid, I think, and enjoyed it, but I don't remember all that much. My favourite 'guys on a mission' film would probably be Guns of Navarone, which I loved as a kid, though I don't know how well it'd hold up.
In any case, if there's a war movie from around that time that I can watch again and again and again, it's The Great Escape. Love that one to this day.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Finally saw Logan last night. It's excellent, and gains huge weight from
being free from the constraints of setting up another movie or keeping the characters alive for another instalment in the franchise. It seems very much like it's out of continuity altogether, in fact. No new mutants since 2004?
It takes place only four years after the end of Days of Future Past (they send Logan back fifty years to 1973)? I guess the other explanation is that they're really sloppy about continuity and don't care much, which bothers me less with this movie.
One explanation I've seen is that the end of DoFP is in 2014, not 2023, which brushes off the complaints about continuity but is kind of a no-prize answer.
They left themselves open for sequel/s, which I hope they do.
Logan spoilers
by focusing on X-23's future adventures after she gets to Canada.
For me, Logan is all the more effective if it's seen as the end of a story. As a springboard for a sequel, it loses a lot of its poignancy for me. Sure, they could tell good stories with the new mutants, but I hope they don't, because for me that'd cheapen the impact of Logan.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
For me, Logan is all the more effective if it's seen as the end of a story. As a springboard for a sequel, it loses a lot of its poignancy for me. Sure, they could tell good stories with the new mutants, but I hope they don't, because for me that'd cheapen the impact of Logan.
But it would be an end of a story, and the beginning of another. This isn't either/or.
I just don't think that thinking of everything in terms of franchises and sequels and "Next time on..." has done cinema any favours. If they come up with a good idea, sure, I won't resent them for it - but I don't like it if the thought that we need a sequel comes before the idea that, hey, this would be a cool story to tell. More often than not it makes for stale, safe fan service.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I just don't think that thinking of everything in terms of franchises and sequels and "Next time on..." has done cinema any favours. If they come up with a good idea, sure, I won't resent them for it - but I don't like it if the thought that we need a sequel comes before the idea that, hey, this would be a cool story to tell. More often than not it makes for stale, safe fan service.
I wasn't saying they need to make a sequel for the sake of it, only if they have a good story to tell. Ironically the Wolverine franchise started like this with X-men: Origins - Wolverine, thankfully they got their head together with the sequels.
I don't even think Logan is a sequel to the Wolverine movies, because it is entirely independent of them and even needs to be bent into shape to work with them. More than that, it is better without their baggage. It needs the franchise as a whole, but in a fairly abstract way; we need to know who the characters are or were, but we don't need to have watched all the films or have read a Wiki page or ten. And that's largely why it isn't just a good X-Men film (though that would already be a lot these days) but a good film.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I don't even think Logan is a sequel to the Wolverine movies, because it is entirely independent of them and even needs to be bent into shape to work with them. More than that, it is better without their baggage. It needs the franchise as a whole, but in a fairly abstract way; we need to know who the characters are or were, but we don't need to have watched all the films or have read a Wiki page or ten. And that's largely why it isn't just a good X-Men film (though that would already be a lot these days) but a good film.
Same franchise, and while their canon is tenuous they are all in the same trilogy technically. Mad Max works the same way, actually.
I agree it is a very good movie where it works as a one-off, The Wolverine did this to a lesser degree.
Logan was one of those really good movies that I don't want to watch again anytime soon. The Finacee and I had to go drop in on her niece for some cheery baby time after we watched it.
Mainly because it's just great as it is, and trying to extend the story would just diminish it. But also, I thought the girl who played Laura/X-23 was pretty weak. Yeah she had a good "fierce" face, but the acting was... like, when she did that eulogy thing it was just wtf awful. Zero interest in seeing a movie centred around her.
To someone who has seen both the original and the new Ghost in the Shell: If I'm going to watch one, which one would you recommend?
Well the old GitS is a bit on the slow side with tons of naval gazing introspection but it's a gorgeous classic that you really shouldn't miss out on if you've never seen it.
The 95 GitS is one of those classic animos like Akira. But unlike Akira, it is gud.
It has had so many details and moments copied or homaged that it might end up feeling derivative now, though.
I like Akira better because it was more show don't tell. GitS falls into the box of anime where they spend 2/3rds of it shallowly talking about PHILOSOPHY while the plot happens. While it's connected you should be able to do it without directly telling the audience what you're talking about.
I don't think Logan should have a sequel either, but
I would not complain if, in the sequel to the New Mutants film currently in development, Cable shows up from the future with Laura in tow to whip the kids into shape.
I just watched the first hour or so of the original Ghost in the Shell film. Definitely interesting, artistically beautiful, and I like the philosophical stuff. But for some reason, even with just 20 minutes to go until the end, I didn't feel like finishing it. Maybe to leave something unseen if I decide to give the new one a shot.
The soundtrack was both great and dull. Loved the music they used, and that they sometimes let it take centre stage for a scene (well, paired with the visual art), with no dialogue on top of it. Didn't love the long stretches of nothing though.
To someone who has seen both the original and the new Ghost in the Shell: If I'm going to watch one, which one would you recommend?
The new one is just a half-baked reskin of Robocop anyway.
So, given that Robocop 2014 was far, far better than it had any right to be, and is comfortably the second-best Robocop movie (IMO, YMMV etc)...
Robocop 2014 or Ghost in the Shell 2017?
The new Robocop has a first half where I was legitimately shocked and thought "This ... this might be not bad. Somehow, despite being a stupid cash-in reboot, this might actually be a movie with great ideas that fails based on other things."
And then the ending was a hot steaming pile of shit through and through.
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I just don't think that thinking of everything in terms of franchises and sequels and "Next time on..." has done cinema any favours. If they come up with a good idea, sure, I won't resent them for it - but I don't like it if the thought that we need a sequel comes before the idea that, hey, this would be a cool story to tell. More often than not it makes for stale, safe fan service.
They didn't make Logan with the intention of having it set up a sequel but the potential for a sequel was built into it by virtue of the type of story they're telling. And it would actually be a great opportunity to explore the main ideas and themes of the X-Men franchise in ways that haven't been done in the other X-Men films.
They set up a bleak dystopic world where mutants are being suppressed and exploited for profit, and the few surviving mutants are refugees who have to hide and flee to the few places in the world that are willing to offer them sanctuary.
And the X-Men has always been an allegory for oppressed minorities, people who are hated and persecuted because they're different. The stories they tell are about these persecuted people coming together to fight not just for themselves but for everyone, in the hopes of building a better future where everyone can peacefully coexist and benefit from their gifts. The world established in Logan would be perfect for that. And they would be able to do it in ways that are much more personal, emotionally resonant, and appropriate for the times.
x-23 tipping the cross on its side to form and X got me man. shut up you're crying!
That worked so well on so many levels.
Not only was it a great tribute to the character and a nod to the audience but it makes a lot of sense within the movie. The X-Men have a special significance to Laura and the mutant kids. They were raised in a lab and treated like objects all their lives. The X-Men comics were one of the few things from the outside world they've been exposed to. They were dehumanized all their lives but the comics taught them that they were worth something, that they were people, not things. The comics taught them about heroism and gave them hope.
I submit to you, that the Robocop remake would've been received significantly more warmly, had it not been a remake.
Well, I'd say it really wasn't a remake. It was more in the re-imagining end of things. It was just hamstrung by having that title, and as such the weight of expectation that comes with then being unavoidably compared to one of the greatest movies ever made.
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's dick van dyke, he's been dead for 10 years, and everyone thinks he's alive.
pleasepaypreacher.net
edit: you had Pizza Hut not Taco Bell in the UK? You monsters!
His remains will be compressed into a hockey puck.
Of pure spite.
Finally saw Logan last night. It's excellent, and gains huge weight from
It takes place only four years after the end of Days of Future Past (they send Logan back fifty years to 1973)? I guess the other explanation is that they're really sloppy about continuity and don't care much, which bothers me less with this movie.
One explanation I've seen is that the end of DoFP is in 2014, not 2023, which brushes off the complaints about continuity but is kind of a no-prize answer.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
In any case, if there's a war movie from around that time that I can watch again and again and again, it's The Great Escape. Love that one to this day.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
They left themselves open for sequel/s, which I hope they do.
Logan spoilers
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
But it would be an end of a story, and the beginning of another. This isn't either/or.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I wasn't saying they need to make a sequel for the sake of it, only if they have a good story to tell. Ironically the Wolverine franchise started like this with X-men: Origins - Wolverine, thankfully they got their head together with the sequels.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Same franchise, and while their canon is tenuous they are all in the same trilogy technically. Mad Max works the same way, actually.
I agree it is a very good movie where it works as a one-off, The Wolverine did this to a lesser degree.
Well the old GitS is a bit on the slow side with tons of naval gazing introspection but it's a gorgeous classic that you really shouldn't miss out on if you've never seen it.
The new one is just a half-baked reskin of Robocop anyway.
It has had so many details and moments copied or homaged that it might end up feeling derivative now, though.
I like Akira better because it was more show don't tell. GitS falls into the box of anime where they spend 2/3rds of it shallowly talking about PHILOSOPHY while the plot happens. While it's connected you should be able to do it without directly telling the audience what you're talking about.
Do you want a super deep philosophical movie about what makes a human a human? Original.
Do you want to see ScarJo in a skin colored body suit? New movie.
So, given that Robocop 2014 was far, far better than it had any right to be, and is comfortably the second-best Robocop movie (IMO, YMMV etc)...
Robocop 2014 or Ghost in the Shell 2017?
Steam | XBL
The soundtrack was both great and dull. Loved the music they used, and that they sometimes let it take centre stage for a scene (well, paired with the visual art), with no dialogue on top of it. Didn't love the long stretches of nothing though.
The new Robocop has a first half where I was legitimately shocked and thought "This ... this might be not bad. Somehow, despite being a stupid cash-in reboot, this might actually be a movie with great ideas that fails based on other things."
And then the ending was a hot steaming pile of shit through and through.
So gooood
I don't remember much else from it though. Jackie Earle Haley played a good jerk IIRC.
Steam | XBL
Maybe a bit. But the last half to third of the movie would still be complete garbage, so it would still be shit on.
I'm half convinced that's the purpose of the internet, sometimes
Also porn and pictures of cats.
They didn't make Logan with the intention of having it set up a sequel but the potential for a sequel was built into it by virtue of the type of story they're telling. And it would actually be a great opportunity to explore the main ideas and themes of the X-Men franchise in ways that haven't been done in the other X-Men films.
And the X-Men has always been an allegory for oppressed minorities, people who are hated and persecuted because they're different. The stories they tell are about these persecuted people coming together to fight not just for themselves but for everyone, in the hopes of building a better future where everyone can peacefully coexist and benefit from their gifts. The world established in Logan would be perfect for that. And they would be able to do it in ways that are much more personal, emotionally resonant, and appropriate for the times.
That worked so well on so many levels.
Robocop.
'95 film. Also watch the Stand Alone Complex series.
Well, I'd say it really wasn't a remake. It was more in the re-imagining end of things. It was just hamstrung by having that title, and as such the weight of expectation that comes with then being unavoidably compared to one of the greatest movies ever made.
Steam | XBL