Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:06 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y' 
Author Message
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Ken wrote:
I can agree with that. The Matrix blows its intellectual load in the first hour. After that, it's all chases, gunfights, and kung fu.

Which is apparently what comic books are...?


Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:04 am
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Comic books are pamphlets of paper and ink that tell stories in comic art. I am not sure I see how this is here or there in terms of The Matrix getting much, much less interesting as the story unfolds.


Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:45 am
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Ken wrote:
Comic books are pamphlets of paper and ink that tell stories in comic art. I am not sure I see how this is here or there in terms of The Matrix getting much, much less interesting as the story unfolds.

Jeff accused The Matrix of descending to the level of a comic book, inferring there's a descent from film to comics. That's what I took issue with. I have a feeling that's not quite what he meant and not what anyone interpreted from my original post.

The Matrix has a crummy ending, this much is true. I just don't see how that correlates to anything related to a comic book. Its qualities are in line with a disappointing ending... and that's it.


Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:12 am
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:40 pm
Posts: 951
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Pedro wrote:
Ken wrote:
Comic books are pamphlets of paper and ink that tell stories in comic art. I am not sure I see how this is here or there in terms of The Matrix getting much, much less interesting as the story unfolds.

Jeff accused The Matrix of descending to the level of a comic book, inferring there's a descent from film to comics. That's what I took issue with. I have a feeling that's not quite what he meant and not what anyone interpreted from my original post.

The Matrix has a crummy ending, this much is true. I just don't see how that correlates to anything related to a comic book. Its qualities are in line with a disappointing ending... and that's it.


I thought the ending was fine. That being said, I haven't seen "The Matrix" in a few years.

I think the real frustration is Hollywood's obsession with comic books. Even movies that aren't based off comics seem like they are ("Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow," "Immortals," any other action movie in the past decade).

Hollywood is more and more appealing to the most specific markets they can identify: comic book fans, hipsters, and foreign audiences. From a business perspective, it makes sense. The audience wants something, and Hollywood delivers. The problem is that these are fringe groups. Most people have no interest in comics like "Ghost World," "Scott Pilgrim" or any other Wes Anderson-ish type of shit. Neither do they have any sort of affection for Spiderman, Superman or Batman (Christopher Nolan notwithstanding). Even worse is the obsession with foreign audiences. The emphasis of visual appeal over plot and character means that everything that truly appeals to a viewer's interest is diluted to the point where everyone finds it watchable, but no one gives a shit.

Audiences want something that they haven't seen before. To be honest, I can understand Hollywood's insecurity about taking chances. Tens of millions of dollars is a lot of money, regardless of how much money the have. But the reason people go to the movies is because they want to be told a story. That should be the number one priority when choosing a script and a director. Unfortunately, not every story is easy to "package," so the produce something with the empahsis on what they know works. Therefore, Hollywood is more interested in music video directors than film students who have spent their lives refining their talents.

In the end, Hollywood only cares about getting audiences INTO the theater. Who cares if they actually LIKE the movie?

_________________
My movie review site:

Mighty Mike's Raging Reviews

http://mightymikesragingreviews.blogspot.com/


Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:26 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Why Do The Right Thing is better than Crash:

1: The characters in Do The Right Thing are better developed. A large majority of the ones in Crash, while more than one-dimensional, are clearly archetypes.

2: Lee keeps things tighter than Haggis does. He introduces a wide range of characters. But limits enough so them and the story can develop.

3: Do The Right Thing has a more leisurely pace. This works well for the type of story it's telling.

4: Lee is more subtle when it comes to moralizing. Often Haggis seems to be forcing his points.

5: Do The Right Thing has more humor.

6: The music in Do The Right Thing (especially "Fight The Power) is more memorable.

7: With Do The Right Thing, Spike Lee seemed to be focused primarily on making larger points about the world in the context of telling a personal story. (Same as Paul T Anderson was doing with Magnolia). Haggis in Crash seemed determined to tell a perosnal story in the context of making larger points about the world. That utlimately is why I love Do The Right Thing. But admire Crash. Crash isn't bad by any means. But it's immensely overrated. As a race relations film see above and as an ensemble hyperlink film Magnolia is far better.


Couldn't agree more. I think that the New York City setting (and the vibe that comes with it) also helps Do The Right Thing to be even better than it already is. There is something "been there" about Los Angeles (Grand Canyon, Short Cuts..... all L.A. "hyperlink ensemble cast" movies), unless the movie is really clever.


Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:39 pm
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
moviemkr7 wrote:
I think the real frustration is Hollywood's obsession with comic books. Even movies that aren't based off comics seem like they are ("Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow," "Immortals," any other action movie in the past decade).

Hollywood is more and more appealing to the most specific markets they can identify: comic book fans, hipsters, and foreign audiences. From a business perspective, it makes sense. The audience wants something, and Hollywood delivers. The problem is that these are fringe groups. Most people have no interest in comics like "Ghost World," "Scott Pilgrim" or any other Wes Anderson-ish type of shit. Neither do they have any sort of affection for Spiderman, Superman or Batman (Christopher Nolan notwithstanding). Even worse is the obsession with foreign audiences. The emphasis of visual appeal over plot and character means that everything that truly appeals to a viewer's interest is diluted to the point where everyone finds it watchable, but no one gives a shit.

Audiences want something that they haven't seen before. To be honest, I can understand Hollywood's insecurity about taking chances. Tens of millions of dollars is a lot of money, regardless of how much money the have. But the reason people go to the movies is because they want to be told a story. That should be the number one priority when choosing a script and a director. Unfortunately, not every story is easy to "package," so the produce something with the empahsis on what they know works. Therefore, Hollywood is more interested in music video directors than film students who have spent their lives refining their talents.

In the end, Hollywood only cares about getting audiences INTO the theater. Who cares if they actually LIKE the movie?
This post is somewhat of a conflation of two separate things.

1. The things people commonly associate with comics (rightly or otherwise) are the same things that people associate with "Hollywood". What people have to understand is that comics has its own "Hollywood"--the major publishers, which primarily deal in flashy, action-heavy stuff, much like the "Hollywood" of the movies. And, just like with movies, this sort of material doesn't begin to define comics as a whole, in spite of the first impressions of the uninitiated. Recall that movies at first glance aren't a terribly appealing picture, either, with the works of Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich invariably getting more attention than the works of the Coen brothers or Paul Thomas Anderson.

2. "Hollywood" does indeed have a predilection for major industry comics. I believe this is for one particular reason above all others. Now that movies are capable of rendering any visual that an artist can conceive, film executives can pick up a comic, open it, and see exactly how the movie's going to look right then and there. Nobody needs to draft a pitch. Nobody needs to hire an artist to draw up concept sketches. It's all right there at their fingertips. They can buy it off the shelf for $3 and make an immediate decision on whether or not they want to put it in the pipeline.

(I cannot claim credit for this piece of insight. I went to see David Petersen give a talk a few years ago in which he touched briefly upon this subject. He described comics as "ready-to-pitch" properties.)

The major comics publishers are well aware of this, too. In conjunction with the movie industry's rising interest in them, the major publishers are putting out comics that look and read like conventional movies. They want their monthly titles to look like movie pitches, for obvious reasons.


Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:04 am
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2469
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Casino Royale (2006) is better than the Bourne Films because -

1. The plot is more engrossing and involving for the viewer. The Bourne films are good stories but I feel distanced from the protagonist.

2. Craig's bond is human. A tough bastard but a tough bastard who errs, whereas Damon's Bourne is a robot with little personality at all.

3. With reference to point 2, you never know exactly what's going to happen with Bond, but with Bourne the whole thing feels like and overly choreographed dance.

4. Girls

5. The other characters are better explored in Bond. In Bourne they simply help the plot progress.

6. The Chase scene and the Miami Airport scene in Casino Royale rock!!

7. My UK bias :D

...as a footnote, I still rate all the Bourne films highly!

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:45 am
Profile
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
NotHughGrant wrote:
Casino Royale (2006) is better than the Bourne Films because -

4. Girls

7. My UK bias :D


Two valid points. ;)


Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:55 am
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
UK bias aside, I can agree with that.

Maybe not so much with the sequels, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine Bourne in the first film as an Americanized, amnesia-stricken 007. What might Bond's life be like if he suddenly forgot his past, including all his obligations to Queen and country?


Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:15 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7423
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
7 Reasons Charlie Chaplin is better than Buster Keaton

1. Chaplin was actually funny

2. Chaplin was actually funny

3. Chaplin was actually funny

4. Chaplin was actually funny

5. Chaplin was actually funny

6. Chaplin was actually funny

7. Chaplin was actually funny

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:20 pm
Profile
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Rebuttal.

1. Keaton is so funny, and so is yer mom.
2. Chaplin is sometimes cloyingly sentimental.
3. Keaton invented the front-of-the-house-falling-down gag that launched a million cartoons.
4. The cannon scene in The General is one of the funniest single compositions in cinema.
5. While Chaplin is no slouch, Keaton's movements have a kinetic intensity that Chaplin doesn't match. Keaton often makes himself into a human projectile.
6. You're a doodyhead.
7. My dad can beat up your dad.


Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:11 am
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
7 Reasons why District 9 is better than Avatar (in my opinion):

(possible generic spoilers):

1. I love me some documentary style.
2. I grew to like and root for Wilkus... There was nothing that made me wanna root for the guy from Terminator: Salvation.
3. Real life is rated R.
4. The picture perfect blue aliens in Avatar... Really? So they basically look like us but twice as tall and blue? At least D9 went with an insect vibe so we weren't just feeling for an alien species because 'it looks pretty'.
5. Action scenes in D9 were explosive and brutal. I felt like there was nothing in Avatar we haven't seen before. The 'final battle' seemed like it could have been taken directly from one of the star wars prequels.
6. Avatar's 'happy ending'... It was so black and white. Humans bad / aliens good. D9 had a very bleak outcome. The main bad guy was beaten, but surely another will take his place tomorrow. It didn't prevent the eviction, and we only had a glimmer of hope for our main character.
7. I didn't have to drive home in a blizzard after seeing D9 ;)


I'm sure many will disagree with my points, but I feel that the films are a lot more similar than a lot of people realize.


Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:42 pm
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2469
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
For the record I think they were both bad. But at least District 9 had the odd amusing moment, like when they'd doctered that picture of him so it looked like he'd had sex with an alien.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:34 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1564
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Resurrecting this forgotten thread

The Abyss is better than Titanic because

1: The Abyss has a more original story.
2: The characters are better developed and we care more about them.
3: The love story elements are better integrated.
4: Cameron's weakness when it comes to writing dialogue isn't as obvious here.
5: The story's trajectory takes some interesting turns.
6: The film never feels overlong even in the director's cut.
7: The Abyss doesn't have a piece of vomit inducing crud by Saline Dion.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:08 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1713
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
For Your Eyes Only is better than Raiders of the Lost Ark of the same year because

1. The action is more kinetic. Glen gets things moving more swiftly and sharply during the car and ski chase sequences than Spielberg does.
2. Belloq and Kristatos are pretty much equally weak villains, but FYEO has the added bonus of the Topol twist.
3. Revenge is a better motive than treasure hunting.
4. More than any other Bond movie up to that point since Majesty, FYEO knew when to calm down, which Raiders sometimes didn't.
5. FYEO showed the dark side of its protagonist.
6. Bond had to do work to to foil the villains. Indy just had to chill out.
7. Glen's establishing landscape shots are better/nicer than the map transitions in Indy.


Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:45 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7423
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
MGamesCook wrote:
For Your Eyes Only is better than Raiders of the Lost Ark of the same year because

1. The action is more kinetic. Glen gets things moving more swiftly and sharply during the car and ski chase sequences than Spielberg does.
2. Belloq and Kristatos are pretty much equally weak villains, but FYEO has the added bonus of the Topol twist.
3. Revenge is a better motive than treasure hunting.
4. More than any other Bond movie up to that point since Majesty, FYEO knew when to calm down, which Raiders sometimes didn't.
5. FYEO showed the dark side of its protagonist.
6. Bond had to do work to to foil the villains. Indy just had to chill out.
7. Glen's establishing landscape shots are better/nicer than the map transitions in Indy.


The Topol Twist sounds like an amazing dance. Belloq is a terrific villain though. So cultured and well-spoken. I also think you're the first person in the history of time to complain about the action in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:06 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 196
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Ken wrote:
Rebuttal.

1. Keaton is so funny, and so is yer mom.
2. Chaplin is sometimes cloyingly sentimental.
3. Keaton invented the front-of-the-house-falling-down gag that launched a million cartoons.
4. The cannon scene in The General is one of the funniest single compositions in cinema.
5. While Chaplin is no slouch, Keaton's movements have a kinetic intensity that Chaplin doesn't match. Keaton often makes himself into a human projectile.
6. You're a doodyhead.
7. My dad can beat up your dad.


Yes.

Jeff Wilder wrote:
Resurrecting this forgotten thread

The Abyss is better than Titanic because

1: The Abyss has a more original story.
2: The characters are better developed and we care more about them.
3: The love story elements are better integrated.
4: Cameron's weakness when it comes to writing dialogue isn't as obvious here.
5: The story's trajectory takes some interesting turns.
6: The film never feels overlong even in the director's cut.
7: The Abyss doesn't have a piece of vomit inducing crud by Saline Dion.


1: :? But Titanic was historical fiction, it's hard to fault it creativity when it has a template.
2: The characters in Abyss are excellently developed, but I still have never had a problem with the characters in Titanic.
3: Do you mean less a central plot point?
4: Alright, I'll give you that.
5: Plot twist. The Titanic sunk but it's passengers were actually abducted by extraterrestrials and their bodies were replaced by doppelgangers. Rose escaped and tells her story two miles above the wreckage some eighty years later. Interesting turn?
6: Titanic has a great pace, especially considering its three hours long. Now you brought up the director's cut. As much as I love The Abyss (and I've sung its praises around here for a while), it never fully figured out the ending. The the ending of the theatrical cut felt truncated but at least it wasn't as sappy and preachy as the finish of the director's cut.
7: Image

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Sat Aug 17, 2013 5:46 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
I wasn't completely sold on The Abyss the first time I saw it, but I appreciated it a whole lot more after seeing Titanic.


Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:08 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1713
Post Re: 7 reasons why 'X' is better than 'Y'
Quote:
The Topol Twist sounds like an amazing dance. Belloq is a terrific villain though. So cultured and well-spoken. I also think you're the first person in the history of time to complain about the action in Raiders of the Lost Ark.


I complain about it because I've seen better. I could see where it's easy to fixate on just one movie like Raiders, but there are dozens of movies whose action is more exciting and more dramatic.


Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:14 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr