Movies The Movie Thread! - Continuation - Part 1

[xi0]

Not really, the fact is there's two types of movies, and generally blockbuster movies are more on the surface, but author's cinema is different, and is way more deep than any blockbuster movie period. Even if you have some blockbuster trying to be deep, it can never be as deep as an author film. It's a matter of preference in the end, and right now the most successful movies are blockbusters filled with brainless action. We can't judge a whole genre on simply a few movies, we judge it on the majority of the films, and in the case of author movies there aren't many that have brainless action either. Like someone said blockbusters don't win the oscars for best movie or rarely, so they're just good to fill the pockets of movie studios with money.
Doesn't mean I don't watch blockbusters, I watch a few a year, but I feel that author's films deserve more recognition, sadly they don't have the ressources nor the exposure needed to make it, and this is particularily the case in the US. Winning the oscars isn't enough, and it's not about being elitist. It's about choosing carefully what you watch, being picky I guess. I don't feel involved in the story of a blockbuster, however in some author films they bring out a lot of good points, and overall I feel more invested. Right now the studios in the US mostly are just cashing on franchises such as Avengers, and the few other choices aren't that good either. So I really don't see why people should give their money to these greedy studios, who more often than not are just rehashing the same stuff.There's no variety, and the themes aren't deep enough.

The problem with this logic is believing that Depth = Quality. Or that the only measure of quality is depth, to be more precise. I also think you're only applying the word "blockbuster" to brainless action movies. I only mean blockbuster in the sense of a movie being successful. The word doesn't attach itself to a particular type of movie technically. It just tends to apply to those summer blockbuster movies with a ton of action and visual effects. But not all successful movies are like that, obviously.

And even if a particular movie is, like in the case of Fury Road (at least ostensibly), this doesn't mean it can't be of amazing quality IMO.


And while I'm sort of an anti-hype type of person, I try to divorce the movie from the studio or whoever is responsible for creating it. A movie has to be able to stand on it's own. I mean, it's difficult since a lot of filmmakers have awful reputations when it comes to substance and quality, but George Miller just isn't that kind of filmmaker.

 

[Notice me Escanor senpai]

The problem with this logic is believing that Depth = Quality. Or that the only measure of quality is depth, to be more precise. I also think you're only applying the word "blockbuster" to brainless action movies. I only mean blockbuster in the sense of a movie being successful. The word doesn't attach itself to a particular type of movie technically. It just tends to apply to those summer blockbuster movies with a ton of action and visual effects. But not all successful movies are like that, obviously.

And even if a particular movie is, like in the case of Fury Road (at least ostensibly), this doesn't mean it can't be of amazing quality IMO.


And while I'm sort of an anti-hype type of person, I try to divorce the movie from the studio or whoever is responsible for creating it. A movie has to be able to stand on it's own. I mean, it's difficult since a lot of filmmakers have awful reputations when it comes to substance and quality, but George Miller just isn't that kind of filmmaker.

Not saying that all blockbusters are bad, but to me at least it looks like having more depths in these kind of movies wouldn't hurt, and I do think that more serious movies can be seeing as better quality movies. Not all of them are, they can be boring sometimes. It's also a matter of personal preference, blockbusters are mostly enteraining, but for a real experience, with possibly more profound themes author movies are the way to go, at least ever since I started watching them I'm spending 2 hours and feeling that I didn't waste my time when I could be reading a book or something.Sadly for the past few years I felt like wasting my time while watching most blockbuster movies.
That's the problem, it's all about hype. For example a movie like Skyfall had a lot of it...but I didn't like it. It also had a few plotholes, like what happened to the list after they stopped the bad buy(Javier Bardem). So you see lately movies get so hyped thanks to social media etc that it's hard to really figure out which ones really live up to the hype. So now I tend to mostly follow movies and authors that I know can live up to the expectations, along with recommandations from people I know or blogs, or just follow film festivals like Cannes etc, which meet my tastes in terms of films.

 

[xi0]

Skyfall is your best example of bad hype? Well, maybe I didn't fall for it. I liked Casino Royale a lot, saw Quantum of Solace only out of curiosity, but I don't think Skyfall was ever going to live up to the pre-release hype for it. I really didn't have much of an interest in seeing it and still haven't.

But I think sites like RottenTomatoes and Metacritic do a ok job of getting to the nuts and bolts of quality. It's not the best metric, and since entertainment is a personal thing, it's up to me whether I enjoy something or not. Not a review, not how much money it made, etc.

 

[Notice me Escanor senpai]

Skyfall is your best example of bad hype? Well, maybe I didn't fall for it. I liked Casino Royale a lot, saw Quantum of Solace only out of curiosity, but I don't think Skyfall was ever going to live up to the pre-release hype for it. I really didn't have much of an interest in seeing it and still haven't.

But I think sites like RottenTomatoes and Metacritic do a ok job of getting to the nuts and bolts of quality. It's not the best metric, and since entertainment is a personal thing, it's up to me whether I enjoy something or not. Not a review, not how much money it made, etc.

It was an exemple out of many...Yeah Casino Royale is still my favorite, even after rewatching it some years after it still holds itself up pretty well. Quantum was better for me than Skyfall, because it was in the continuity of Casino, with Bond looking for answers etc....Well you get my point. Movies that are hyped can often be disappointing, most of the mainstream movies get a lot of hype that is somewhat undeserved. Again I said MOST not ALL. Some movies live to the hype...
Well not gonna drag this talk unnecessarily, I'm not sure if I'll be watching any of the movies that are going to come out this summer, but I might check a few like Far from the madding crowd, although I read the critics and it isn't that good. The only movies I'm interested in this year are Spectre, and Mission Impossible 5, mostly because I'm curious how they're going to portray Morocco lol. Hope they don't fuck it up
And before anyone says something I'm not gonna check Star Wars, I'm not a Star wars fan. I'm such a hipster I know.

 

[xi0]

Well, you'd only be a hipster depending your reason to not see it/not be a fan

 

[Notice me Escanor senpai]

Well, you'd only be a hipster depending your reason to not see it/not be a fan

I have no reason to watch it or to be a fan, it's just meh to me

 

[xi0]

I have no reason to watch it or to be a fan, it's just meh to me

Not even the slightest bit of curiosity?

 

[Notice me Escanor senpai]

Not even the slightest bit of curiosity?

Nope.

 

[danzouismadara]

FOCUS ~> the worse movie on god's green earth. I would have turned off the tv if it werent for Margot Robbie's sexiness.

 

[kkck]

Not even the slightest bit of curiosity?

We all know lola is a hypster

 

[MiyamotoMusashi]

I don't get the analogy at all. Plenty of blockbuster-like movies have substance.

I'm not talking about shit that merely makes money and is therefore a blockbluster. I'm talking about something that is almost universally well-received on top of it. Surely there are enough cynical movie critics to knock down stuff just because it's popular. Hype goes hand in hand with hyperbole, but just because something makes money, doesn't automatically void it's artistic merit. That's too jaded for me, sorry.

Yeah, my wording was faulty (partly because i felt the statement "the problem lies with you" was offensive), it´s not necessarily blockbuster, meaning the movies that make money, but hte movies that do not have any artistic value whatsoever and are only made to make money more than anything else (all the rehashes that were released and will be released like it´s 1993, the Marvel Universe and so forth). The fact that a movie like Grand Budapest Hotel for example can make a 150 mil € is actually something to be happy about and does not diminish the movie´s worth nor Anderson´s integrity as a moviemaker since you can actually see for yourself watching the movie how much effort he put into it.

You are probably mistaken about something else though, for me, the movie does not have to be the most profound ever or full of substance, contrary to the misconception about me in the forum (though that´s usually those movies that have the most impact for me) but i wanna see something that tries to be new or different or the best at what it does but the monetary background does simply not allow that with those movies. The writing is full of holes and inconsistencies, not to forget so many stupid details that could be fixed with a little more time or effort, the action scenes are mostly generic, dialogues are clichéd, the editing is so quick and full of cuts in order to hide the actor´s inability to fight + shaky cam of course, the fact that producers have more to say than the actual director of the movies which is a sacrilege to a creative process and so forth. Yet when you call these things out, you are called elitist and pretentious, haha. Funny thing is, calling these kind of things out is considered and labeled nitpicking by most which makes me think that today´s audience actually believes that you can not do a movie without these faults.
You know, i remember a scene from Jackie Chan´s movie "The Young Master" which i recently saw again in a video. In the scene, Jackie throws a fan in a fight and catches it again after the fan turned a few times. Anyone who has actually thrown a fan before knows how unpredictable it flies but in the scene, the throwing and catching looks so natural and easy, not at all revealing that Jackie actually took 120 takes to get that move right (Edit: i found it again, it´s around 4 minutes if you do not want to watch the whole video, it´s interesitng though, the whole channel is actually). Now compare that fact with something like this from Avengers for example where it seems like Scarlett is knocking the guys out with her hair, something that could be easily fixed with a few more takes. That´s where the analogy with McDonalds and a meal prepared by a chef for example kicks in, once in a while eating McDonalds is not the worst thing and sometimes it can even be tastier if the chef ruines a meal but nevertheless, the latter tried something different and tried to do his best. Why compromise with a subpar result of a movie where the guys behind it are still content about delivering such a product while there are actual masters of the craft who are willing to go so much further to create something. If you ask me, there is a reason that the old Chan and Bruce Lee movies are still so popular.
Following that logic, what makes these movies apparently so good then? Well, what´s left, special effects and hot idol-like actors (not to diminish the work of the special effects guys and girls though, from my limited perspective really good job).
And c´mon, the fact that movies like Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy have such a high rating by critics on rotten for example is a joke.
The former apparently shines through its suspense and its take on political thriller but everyone who actually has watched a few of those could see every little twist from a mile away. And the latter, well, action-wise an utter disappointment and comedy-wise, a hit and miss.
It´s funny really, the higher budgets could theoretically improve filmmaking so much yet it has the opposite effect due to the implications of it.

 

[xi0]

The writing is full of holes and inconsistencies, not to forget so many stupid details that could be fixed with a little more time or effort, the action scenes are mostly generic, dialogues are clichéd, the editing is so quick and full of cuts in order to hide the actor´s inability to fight + shaky cam of course, the fact that producers have more to say than the actual director of the movies which is a sacrilege to a creative process and so forth. Yet when you call these things out, you are called elitist and pretentious, haha. Funny thing is, calling these kind of things out is considered and labeled nitpicking by most which makes me think that today´s audience actually believes that you can not do a movie without these faults.

Are we talking about a specific movie here, or generic action movies in general? Because I thought you hadn't seen Fury Road, and I would dispute Tom Hardy's inability to fight just based off of his filmography.


And as far as comic book movies go...I think most of them are judged on a different scale than other movies. I guess it's appreciated that filmmakers can take these iconic characters and not make terrible movies with them. But I myself would only take a select few and label them as being truly great films. I don't have a problem with seeing the movies like these that interest me, but I don't care about the other spinoffs, like TV shows or something. That to me is milking the cow too much.

 

[MiyamotoMusashi]

Are we talking about a specific movie here, or generic action movies in general? Because I thought you hadn't seen Fury Road, and I would dispute Tom Hardy's inability to fight just based off of his filmography.


And as far as comic book movies go...I think most of them are judged on a different scale than other movies. I guess it's appreciated that filmmakers can take these iconic characters and not make terrible movies with them. But I myself would only take a select few and label them as being truly great films. I don't have a problem with seeing the movies like these that interest me, but I don't care about the other spinoffs, like TV shows or something. That to me is milking the cow too much.

Nah, generic action movies in general, like i said, the earlier comment was only an exaggerated response to a statement like "the problem lies with you", since i have not seen Mad Max yet, i hardly can judge it, though i have to admit that it being a rehash does not put it in a good light for me but it could be a good movie. And yep, just based on movies like Warrior alone, the guy can probably fight.

Why should they be judged on a different scale though? I mean i can understand it for comic fans who grew up with these characters, more or less, i mean if a high-budgeted live action movie of Dragonball came out, i would be hyped as well and be more patient with it, but a box office result of 1.5 billion $ for The Avengers can hardly consist of only comic book fans watching it. And well, it varies from really terrible movie to not so terrible movie, when the latter is achieved, people are already starting to scream "movie of the year".
Just to clarify though, i am not saying don´t watch it or don´t think it´s the best, i am not arrogant enough to tell other people what to enjoy, i am simply stating why i think these movies can never be the exceptional movies or belong to the best.

 

[xi0]

Nah, generic action movies in general, like i said, the earlier comment was only an exaggerated response to a statement like "the problem lies with you", since i have not seen Mad Max yet, i hardly can judge it, though i have to admit that it being a rehash does not put it in a good light for me but it could be a good movie. And yep, just based on movies like Warrior alone, the guy can probably fight.

Why should they be judged on a different scale though? I mean i can understand it for comic fans who grew up with these characters, more or less, i mean if a high-budgeted live action movie of Dragonball came out, i would be hyped as well and be more patient with it, but a box office result of 1.5 billion $ for The Avengers can hardly consist of only comic book fans watching it. And well, it varies from really terrible movie to not so terrible movie, when the latter is achieved, people are already starting to scream "movie of the year".
Just to clarify though, i am not saying don´t watch it or don´t think it´s the best, i am not arrogant enough to tell other people what to enjoy, i am simply stating why i think these movies can never be the exceptional movies or belong to the best.

I think the statement was intended as being thought-provoking. Not necessarily insulting...but if you have the opposite opinion of most people, it can be chalked up to taste. I mean, if that's really why you didn't enjoy something, and not just to be going against the grain.

I didn't say it was correct to judge them differently, just that it seems that is what happens. Like, I don't think there's a situation in which someone would say something was great only because it's a comic book movie, when in reality, the same movie in another setting would be seen as unequivocally bad. I haven't seen the second movie, but nothing about the first Avengers movie was "terrible"...and while I am a comic fan, I am not the type to just consume everything Marvel and DC put out just because it's comics.

 

[FetherMan]

FOCUS ~> the worse movie on god's green earth. I would have turned off the tv if it werent for Margot Robbie's sexiness.

I think, your mad because big willy hit Margot off twice in that movie. "worst movie on god's green earth"...?. really...?.

 

[Nuno]

Man screw your topic, I'm more into venting about not having watched Avengers yet... We just never got to it somehow (no one pushing...) and ended up watching Mad Max instead last week since Avengers no longer air in the big cinema halls. Have to watch it in the smaller rooms =(

 

[kkck]

Saw tomorrowland yesterday. Not particularly epic but still worth watching IMO, it was fun. It's a respectable change from the all the gritty movies and the doom and whatnot... Science fiction should be more optimistic... On a separate note, the movie made me dread even more the upcoming gritty fantastic 4 movie (because science fiction shouldn't be gritty...).

 

[SharkBait]

Saw tomorrowland yesterday. Not particularly epic but still worth watching IMO, it was fun. It's a respectable change from the all the gritty movies and the doom and whatnot... Science fiction should be more optimistic... On a separate note, the movie made me dread even more the upcoming gritty fantastic 4 movie (because science fiction shouldn't be gritty...).

Oh good cant wait. I just bought my movie ticket to see it tomorrow. I didnt realize movies are only 5$ here on weekdays. Screw breaking the bank paying 8$ for movies on Saturdays!!!

 

[goldb]

Man screw your topic, I'm more into venting about not having watched Avengers yet... We just never got to it somehow (no one pushing...) and ended up watching Mad Max instead last week since Avengers no longer air in the big cinema halls. Have to watch it in the smaller rooms =(

Already? I know Mad Max is the most recent blockbuster but still...

Anyway, just watch it; I went to watched Mad Max in a smaller theatre and in 2D but it was nonetheless a fun movie. I guess the small rooms will just be 2D for you guys?

 

[SharkBait]

Tomorrowland was pretty fantastic for 5$. Loved just about all of it and the adult actor was hilarious. I liked the message of hope and change it embodied. We need more movies with such a message.