I got roped into agreeing to choosing a movie and giving a short introduction for a classic film group I'm part of. I thought I would show a western as that's a genre that we haven't covered yet (previous movies were: Rear Window, Singing in the Rain, Bringing up Baby) but I don't know what to show. I want to show an older western (30s-40s) so I can eventually show a spaghetti western and people can see how things changed in 20-30 years. Problem is that I don't know that many older westerns and my favorite (High Noon) has already been vetoed on the account of too many people having seen it already.
I'm looking for something that's both good and influential, ideally from the 30s-40s. I was thinking Stagecoach ('39) as it's one of the first John Wayne movies but I'm open to other suggestions.
3:10 to Yuma? It was released in 1957, but maybe that's too late. Same with The Searchers?
I would strongly recommend Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch as a latter day Western; it has one of my favourite set pieces with regards to a train robbery. I don't think it is as well known as some other westerns (Once Upon a Time in the West, The Dollar trilogy, etc..), and it's always enjoyable seeing people's reactions watching it for the first time.
Wild Bunch is kind of like Deliverance most people probably know how it ends, but never watched the movie, much like they know deliverance has a male on male rape, but don't actually know what the movie is about beyond that.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The Duke of Burgundy does its damnedest to capture the tone and texture of a 1970s European art film, and for the most part nails it. It's a little too crisp, but it's gorgeous and tells a really compelling story with a very limited scope.
The basic story is an examination of a Dom/Sub relationship, the power dynamics at play, and the strains it creates. The movie is actually very PG-13, and it's almost totally uninterested in the sexual aspect of the couple. It's beautiful and has a lot to say without being salacious or exploitative and I really enjoyed it.
Then the film hits the 3rd act and devolves into a mass of art student dreck. It's long periods of intensely slow motion shots, followed by rapid fire disorienting imagery that lasts far too long, all set to hypnotic and annoying high pitched sounds. There's some very basic weird dream imagery that doesn't earn the agonizing pace it moves at, and the movie doesn't end so much as it just dissipates. If there was any coherence in the end, I missed it as I tried my best to stay awake.
Have you seen Berberian Sound Studio, the director's previous film? I found The Duke of Burgundy fairly consistent and didn't have your impression of a very different third act, but BSS definitely turns into something very different in the last third, and while I found the change intriguing at first, it also ended up diminishing my impression of the whole film - I liked what I thought they were aiming for, but the film didn't bring this new direction to a satisfying ending for me. I have to rewatch it, though, and I'm looking forward to whatever Strickland does next.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Basically, TFA was the detergent they used to wipe the stank off of the Star Wars name after those shit-ass PT films.
Yeah, I see it very similar. I've said before that TFA is basically a proof-of-concept pitch to the fanbase at large to show Star Wars is in the right hands.
Rogue One felt like the right hands. TFA felt like the wrong ones.
Rogue One pays homage to the PT and the OT without trying to copy it wholesale. TFA likes to pretend the prequels never happened and just copies the OT, upping the ante every so often with the occasional wink wink/nudge nudge.
I just rewatched Rogue One yesterday. With the rose tint of OMG NEW STAR WARS MOVIE ON IMAX removed, I found it to be half of a humdrum experience with a few cool fights, stapled to an hour of amazing sci fi war footage.
It definitely felt like a movie from the guy who gave us Godzilla '14.
I mean, it was never bad. But it was slow to start, not all of the character beats were compelling, and I didn't feel much during
roughly half of the character deaths at the end.
But goddamm, did shit blow up good. Like, if Gareth Edwards was just made Chief Director of All the Star Wars Combat Scenes Ever, I would be okay with that.
Get Gareth Edwards to do the action and Joss Whedon to do the writing and whatever movie they make will end all wars and bring peace on earth, I'm certain of it.
I believe that Michael Bay is very good at doing what he does.
I've said before that I would very much like to see what Michael Bay would do with a Kaiju film. His fetishization of violence and the military would make for a helluva giant monster movie.
I dunno. I think Whedon eats Gunn's lunch when it comes to directing an ensemble. GotG was hilarious and fun, but it was a far cry from Peak Whedon, and not as good at the pathos as Avengers was.
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.
I believe that Michael Bay is very good at doing what he does.
I've said before that I would very much like to see what Michael Bay would do with a Kaiju film. His fetishization of violence and the military would make for a helluva giant monster movie.
He'd spend 90% of the movie focusing on the humans and not the kaiju.
+7
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I dunno. I think Whedon eats Gunn's lunch when it comes to directing an ensemble. GotG was hilarious and fun, but it was a far cry from Peak Whedon, and not as good at the pathos as Avengers was.
I dunno. I think Whedon eats Gunn's lunch when it comes to directing an ensemble. GotG was hilarious and fun, but it was a far cry from Peak Whedon, and not as good at the pathos as Avengers was.
I dunno. I think Whedon eats Gunn's lunch when it comes to directing an ensemble. GotG was hilarious and fun, but it was a far cry from Peak Whedon, and not as good at the pathos as Avengers was.
Huzzah whata? I don't follow entertainment news much. What is Whedon doing for DC?
Batgirl, I believe.
And I think Joss just had too many other chefs in his kitchen on Ultron. He was juggling a lot of requirements for that movie that didn't do him favors.
I dunno. I think Whedon eats Gunn's lunch when it comes to directing an ensemble. GotG was hilarious and fun, but it was a far cry from Peak Whedon, and not as good at the pathos as Avengers was.
Disagree entirely.
And things like Slither shows Gunn's sense of humor is just more my style than Whedon. And I think would work better in Star Wars than Whedon since he feels more contemporary in humor than Gunn.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Huzzah whata? I don't follow entertainment news much. What is Whedon doing for DC?
Batgirl, I believe.
And I think Joss just had too many other chefs in his kitchen on Ultron. He was juggling a lot of requirements for that movie that didn't do him favors.
Huzzah whata? I don't follow entertainment news much. What is Whedon doing for DC?
Batgirl, I believe.
And I think Joss just had too many other chefs in his kitchen on Ultron. He was juggling a lot of requirements for that movie that didn't do him favors.
I think the Whedon Batgirl movie is far from guaranteed. Don't forget that Wonder Woman's first director left over creative differences. Affleck isn't directing Batman anymore despite saying that he was going to do it like a week before he dropped out. Flash has had like two different directors drop out already.
Also, Whedon is not great with visuals. James Gunn is able to get better looking shots and have more interesting things going on in each scene than Whedon.
I put Office Christmas Party on my year-end Best Of list
:cool:
Best of what?
I thought it much better written and developed than a silly party comedy had any right to be. It introduced a dozen archetypal characters and did just about the opposite of what any other movie would do with them.
"Every character sounds just like Joss Whedon talks" is not, to my mind, a significant improvement over Lucas' infamously crappy dialogue.
I mean, maybe if you haven't heard Joss Whedon's character voice - singular - for the last twenty years.
+3
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
I got roped into agreeing to choosing a movie and giving a short introduction for a classic film group I'm part of. I thought I would show a western as that's a genre that we haven't covered yet (previous movies were: Rear Window, Singing in the Rain, Bringing up Baby) but I don't know what to show. I want to show an older western (30s-40s) so I can eventually show a spaghetti western and people can see how things changed in 20-30 years. Problem is that I don't know that many older westerns and my favorite (High Noon) has already been vetoed on the account of too many people having seen it already.
I'm looking for something that's both good and influential, ideally from the 30s-40s. I was thinking Stagecoach ('39) as it's one of the first John Wayne movies but I'm open to other suggestions.
"Every character sounds just like Joss Whedon talks" is not, to my mind, a significant improvement over Lucas' infamously crappy dialogue.
I mean, maybe if you haven't heard Joss Whedon's character voice - singular - for the last twenty years.
I mean, yeah, Whedon has a distinctive voice. So does Tarantino. I like that voice, so I dont mind.
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.
I liked it too! I was a fan of Buffy, and Firefly, and sometimes Angel.
But he's only got the one act. And when you've seen it two or three or half a dozen times...
Whedon's characters aren't all the same. That's a vast over simplification. Banner, Widow, and Ultron sound nothing alike from AoU, just picking three at random.
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Whedon's characters aren't all the same. That's a vast over simplification. Banner, Widow, and Ultron sound nothing alike from AoU, just picking three at random.
He does sometimes rely too much on his shtik and gets carried away with his cleverness, and at those times I find it difficult to read/hear his characters as anything other than "Whedon being Whedon", but IMO those are exceptions. Yes, he has a signature style, but much like you said, Giles doesn't sound like Willow doesn't sound like Anya etc. I liked Guardians of the Galaxy a lot, and I'm looking forward to the second film, but I also felt that the characters and especially the relationships and dynamics between them came across as pretty generic. Generic conflict followed by a generic alliance of convenience followed by generic begrudging friendship. The individual lines were fun and the actors enjoyable to watch, but for me there's so much less to the characters and how they interact that comes across as *specific* to these characters, and that's something where I found Age of Ultron more convincing.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I liked it too! I was a fan of Buffy, and Firefly, and sometimes Angel.
But he's only got the one act. And when you've seen it two or three or half a dozen times...
His acts are quite distinct, what you're referring to is style. There's few creators who don't have a distinct voice.
Huzzah whata? I don't follow entertainment news much. What is Whedon doing for DC?
Batgirl, I believe.
And I think Joss just had too many other chefs in his kitchen on Ultron. He was juggling a lot of requirements for that movie that didn't do him favors.
AoU is so clearly chopped to shit in the editing room that I can't believe there wasn't some reach-around from the higher ups to keep the movie below a certain run-time and god knows what else.
Whedon's characters aren't all the same. That's a vast over simplification. Banner, Widow, and Ultron sound nothing alike from AoU, just picking three at random.
He does sometimes rely too much on his shtik and gets carried away with his cleverness, and at those times I find it difficult to read/hear his characters as anything other than "Whedon being Whedon", but IMO those are exceptions. Yes, he has a signature style, but much like you said, Giles doesn't sound like Willow doesn't sound like Anya etc. I liked Guardians of the Galaxy a lot, and I'm looking forward to the second film, but I also felt that the characters and especially the relationships and dynamics between them came across as pretty generic. Generic conflict followed by a generic alliance of convenience followed by generic begrudging friendship. The individual lines were fun and the actors enjoyable to watch, but for me there's so much less to the characters and how they interact that comes across as *specific* to these characters, and that's something where I found Age of Ultron more convincing.
Agreed on both counts.
Whedon has a distinctive style, yes, but that doesn't mean his characters all sound the same. They just all exist within a specific mode of talking, as with say Tarantino.
GOTG on the other hand is fun and quipy but suffers heavily from a complete lack of character and relationship development. It's super generic and although the dialogue can often be fun, so much of what happens in the movie is barely motivated or rushed or just assumed rather then established.
Whedon's characters aren't all the same. That's a vast over simplification. Banner, Widow, and Ultron sound nothing alike from AoU, just picking three at random.
He does sometimes rely too much on his shtik and gets carried away with his cleverness, and at those times I find it difficult to read/hear his characters as anything other than "Whedon being Whedon", but IMO those are exceptions. Yes, he has a signature style, but much like you said, Giles doesn't sound like Willow doesn't sound like Anya etc. I liked Guardians of the Galaxy a lot, and I'm looking forward to the second film, but I also felt that the characters and especially the relationships and dynamics between them came across as pretty generic. Generic conflict followed by a generic alliance of convenience followed by generic begrudging friendship. The individual lines were fun and the actors enjoyable to watch, but for me there's so much less to the characters and how they interact that comes across as *specific* to these characters, and that's something where I found Age of Ultron more convincing.
Agreed on both counts.
Whedon has a distinctive style, yes, but that doesn't mean his characters all sound the same. They just all exist within a specific mode of talking, as with say Tarantino.
GOTG on the other hand is fun and quipy but suffers heavily from a complete lack of character and relationship development. It's super generic and although the dialogue can often be fun, so much of what happens in the movie is barely motivated or rushed or just assumed rather then established.
Here's hoping Mantis, Gamora and Nebula get more to do this time around.
I think Whedon needs his old collaborators, like David Greenwalt and Tim Minear and Drew Goddard, to really shine. In fact, I think those guys are actually better writers than Whedon himself.
As for best writers for modern space opera, I'd probably go with Ron Moore or Rockne O'Bannon.
I think Whedon needs his old collaborators, like David Greenwalt and Tim Minear and Drew Goddard, to really shine. In fact, I think those guys are actually better writers than Whedon himself.
As for best writers for modern space opera, I'd probably go with Ron Moore or Rockne O'Bannon.
O'Bannon. Defiance has all the strengths of new BSG with none of the weaknesses.
I'm going to chalk a lot of BSG's problems to the Writers Guild strike, which happened during production of the last season of the show. Ron Moore also had some disputes with the Sci-Fi Channel and their unwillingness to make any commitments to renew the show until very late into each season. That also impacted other Sci-Fi shows.
Right now, he's the showrunner of Outlander, which I haven't seen much of but has gotten extremely positive reviews and audience responses.
I'm going to chalk a lot of BSG's problems to the Writers Guild strike, which happened during production of the last season of the show. Ron Moore also had some disputes with the Sci-Fi Channel and their unwillingness to make any commitments to renew the show until very late into each season. That also impacted other Sci-Fi shows.
Right now, he's the showrunner of Outlander, which I haven't seen much of but has gotten extremely positive reviews and audience responses.
I'm not just talking about the last season.
Moore is in fine form on Outlander, he's improved tremendously since BSG.
I'm going to chalk a lot of BSG's problems to the Writers Guild strike, which happened during production of the last season of the show. Ron Moore also had some disputes with the Sci-Fi Channel and their unwillingness to make any commitments to renew the show until very late into each season. That also impacted other Sci-Fi shows.
Right now, he's the showrunner of Outlander, which I haven't seen much of but has gotten extremely positive reviews and audience responses.
BSG's problems extend well beyond that. You just had to listen to him talking about making the show while the show was running. The fundamental issue is he's not a guy who likes to make or stick to a plan and likes to leap on random inspirations he's had. And all that with little regard for tying everything back together at the end of the day.
Posts
3:10 to Yuma? It was released in 1957, but maybe that's too late. Same with The Searchers?
I would strongly recommend Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch as a latter day Western; it has one of my favourite set pieces with regards to a train robbery. I don't think it is as well known as some other westerns (Once Upon a Time in the West, The Dollar trilogy, etc..), and it's always enjoyable seeing people's reactions watching it for the first time.
pleasepaypreacher.net
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The basic story is an examination of a Dom/Sub relationship, the power dynamics at play, and the strains it creates. The movie is actually very PG-13, and it's almost totally uninterested in the sexual aspect of the couple. It's beautiful and has a lot to say without being salacious or exploitative and I really enjoyed it.
Then the film hits the 3rd act and devolves into a mass of art student dreck. It's long periods of intensely slow motion shots, followed by rapid fire disorienting imagery that lasts far too long, all set to hypnotic and annoying high pitched sounds. There's some very basic weird dream imagery that doesn't earn the agonizing pace it moves at, and the movie doesn't end so much as it just dissipates. If there was any coherence in the end, I missed it as I tried my best to stay awake.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Get Gareth Edwards to do the action and Joss Whedon to do the writing and whatever movie they make will end all wars and bring peace on earth, I'm certain of it.
At least as far as space opera things in the modern era.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I've said before that I would very much like to see what Michael Bay would do with a Kaiju film. His fetishization of violence and the military would make for a helluva giant monster movie.
He'd spend 90% of the movie focusing on the humans and not the kaiju.
Theoretical/Past Whedon, yes.
Current/AoU Whedon? Hah, newp.
But he is, yes, extremely good at making those assy movies. Like, very, very good.
I hate to say it, but he's a good director. He's just really, really good at making complete fuckface movies.
Not even Whedon likes AoU Whedon, though: cinemablend.com/new/Joss-Whedon-Admits-Making-Avengers-Age-Ultron-Broke-Him-71430.html. Get Joss working on something he's exited about and not beholden to MARVEL for and I think we'll see a return to form.
Yeah.
Now he's beholden to DC, which considering their current track record should work out so much better.
Batgirl, I believe.
And I think Joss just had too many other chefs in his kitchen on Ultron. He was juggling a lot of requirements for that movie that didn't do him favors.
Disagree entirely.
And things like Slither shows Gunn's sense of humor is just more my style than Whedon. And I think would work better in Star Wars than Whedon since he feels more contemporary in humor than Gunn.
pleasepaypreacher.net
"Too many chefs in the kitchen."
"Now working for DC."
Oh dear.
And thus DC has their first must-see for Nobeard.
Also, Whedon is not great with visuals. James Gunn is able to get better looking shots and have more interesting things going on in each scene than Whedon.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I thought it much better written and developed than a silly party comedy had any right to be. It introduced a dozen archetypal characters and did just about the opposite of what any other movie would do with them.
I mean, maybe if you haven't heard Joss Whedon's character voice - singular - for the last twenty years.
My Darling Clementine, the original Tombstone.
I mean, yeah, Whedon has a distinctive voice. So does Tarantino. I like that voice, so I dont mind.
But he's only got the one act. And when you've seen it two or three or half a dozen times...
I kinda want women to be doing stuff in my Star Wars.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
His acts are quite distinct, what you're referring to is style. There's few creators who don't have a distinct voice.
Yes I get it, Natasha, you've got red in your fucking ledger.
Aside from that I found Avengers dialogue ok. You can definitely tell Hawkeye from Thor.
AoU is so clearly chopped to shit in the editing room that I can't believe there wasn't some reach-around from the higher ups to keep the movie below a certain run-time and god knows what else.
Agreed on both counts.
Whedon has a distinctive style, yes, but that doesn't mean his characters all sound the same. They just all exist within a specific mode of talking, as with say Tarantino.
GOTG on the other hand is fun and quipy but suffers heavily from a complete lack of character and relationship development. It's super generic and although the dialogue can often be fun, so much of what happens in the movie is barely motivated or rushed or just assumed rather then established.
Here's hoping Mantis, Gamora and Nebula get more to do this time around.
As for best writers for modern space opera, I'd probably go with Ron Moore or Rockne O'Bannon.
O'Bannon. Defiance has all the strengths of new BSG with none of the weaknesses.
Right now, he's the showrunner of Outlander, which I haven't seen much of but has gotten extremely positive reviews and audience responses.
I'm not just talking about the last season.
Moore is in fine form on Outlander, he's improved tremendously since BSG.
BSG's problems extend well beyond that. You just had to listen to him talking about making the show while the show was running. The fundamental issue is he's not a guy who likes to make or stick to a plan and likes to leap on random inspirations he's had. And all that with little regard for tying everything back together at the end of the day.