# Hope for Hollywood... or is there?



## Guy Rowland (Jun 10, 2014)

As someone who's spent a long time now moaning here about the state of modern blockbusters, some wild praise for The Edge Of Tomorrow. Yes, it did feel like a blockbuster from 20 years ago, in the best way. As Brad Bird just tweeted, "Don't let the soap opera-y title throw you-- EDGE OF TOMORROW is a smart & funny sci-fi action film. Tom Cruise & Emily Blunt are terrific".

So we have Brad Bird, JJ Abrams and now Doug Liman - that's enough to give me hope. Clearly all the tedious superhero movies aren't going anywhere, but they look like less of a stranglehold than they were. Better still, its the tonal shift - it looks like it's ok to have jokes again, to have fun, to not treat everything like its ABSOLUTELY DEADLY SERIOUS no matter how preposterous it is (yes, I'm looking at you Godzilla - you may have looked and sounded beautiful but jeepers just lighten up a bit, will ya?)

There was a trailer for the new Planet Of The Apes thing - that looked like it was gonna take itself terribly seriously again. It looks like its gonna be fight, this Battle For Fun - a sobering read here - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Edge-Tom ... 43371.html . Edge Of Tomorrow was written off as a bomb after a lacklustre opening USA weekend, but word of mouth and international should be good. Here's hoping fun prevails.


----------



## MA-Simon (Jun 10, 2014)

Evolution was a nice, fun movie to watch (2001):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAiUZUHcEbQ

Arac Attack (2002):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huojhUhA4jU

Edge of Tomorrow did not grab me... (Haven't seen it yet), because of the timetravel thing and because of Tom, I can't stand that guy. 
It is not a cinema film for me, but something I may watch on dvd at some point.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 10, 2014)

MA-Simon @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Edge of Tomorrow did not grab me... (Haven't seen it yet), because of the timetravel thing and because of Tom, I can't stand that guy.
> It is not a cinema film for me, but something I may watch on dvd at some point.



If you don't like Tom, you don't like Tom - it took many years for me to think he'd atoned for Top Gun, Cocktail, Far and Away, Days of Thunder etc etc - oh, and he's a Scientologist. But he can still deliver imo - Mi4 was superb (Brad Bird again).

But in the US anyway not enough people turned up on opening night - maybe the time travel / day repetition thing feels too overdone on a casual glance. Only question for me - does it do it well? Answer - yes. In fact it pulls a few clever tricks not seen in Groundhog Day (one of my favourite films, incidentally). I enjoyed Source Code a few years ago, but this is considerably better imo.

Seems weird to think of Edge Of Tomorrow as a DVD film though.


----------



## MA-Simon (Jun 10, 2014)

> Seems weird to think of Edge Of Tomorrow as a DVD film though.


DvD is the only thing possible for me, because I don't want TV breaks, and there is still no netflix in germany. A decent Cinema visit is arround 20€. DvD price will probably be ~9.95€
And I want to watch films/series with the original voices, I would never watch german voiceovers.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 10, 2014)

Tom Cruise. Very good actor. 

Been around the block and has loads of experience. Very few actors can hold a film together and I think to be fair to Tom Cruise, he definitely can do that.

His performance in Rain Man was very good. For an actor who hasn't done that many films relatively speaking, he's done very well.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2014)

Boy, I just have no real interest in that kind of film anymore, but may watch it on Netflix eventually.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 10, 2014)

Nothing can replace the going to the Theater with friends or family.
For personal entertainment I can watch whatever I want when I want, so that's an option for movies that don't rely on CG and have actual plots and a story line, but for the sake of instant gratification and entertainment, I make a pick out of 12 every month or so, and really am not interested in the good movies there, with the exception of a few where I know and can count on actors/actresses carrying the load.

Hollywood will always be there, rich Arabs wouldn't be investing there if there was no chance of success. Plus it's a great investment for their anti Oil (US only of course) movies and documentaries.
I am really shocked we haven't had some left/right political movies since it's an election year.
Although we are seeing Campaign documents like Hillarys' new book "Hard Choices."
Never did get to see Meagan Fox as Monica Lewinski or Nicolette Larson as Jennifer Flowers.
We gotta have Merlyn Streep as Hillary though, it would be a sell out everywhere.


----------



## rpaillot (Jun 10, 2014)

I think Tom is a terrific actor.

I absolutely don't care if he's a scientologist, only the skills interest me.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 10, 2014)

GO SEE THIS FILM.

Guy is right. Edge of Tomorrow is brilliantly done. Yes, it's an action film with a Groundhogs Day premise, but the script, acting, and presentation are all a step above.

Personally, I can't stand most action films. Why? Because during the action scenes, the main character just reacts. An arrow flies at him? He dodges. A cannon ball flies at his feet? He jumps. His enemies are incompetent and unlucky. The hero can't be hurt (until he's brought within an inch of his life in act 3, of course.) It's simple-minded, boring tripe.

In Edge of Tomorrow, the hero can re-boot like a video game. Yeah, it's corny but it serves a purpose: it allows the hero to fail and die. Splat. Over and over. The guy doesn't walk on water. He's human. Well, except that he gets to learn from the experience and take another shot.

And this is another advantage. The hero doesn't just dodge the bullet because he's lucky; he dodges the bullet because he knows it's coming. It killed him last time through the maze. This allows the hero to be proactive. He's not just reacting; he's trying various strategies and tactics to achieve his goal.

That's another reason this works: We don't know the specific goal until late in the film. Yeah, "defeat the aliens" is the big arc goal, but there are many smaller arcs where the character's goals vary from loop to loop.

As an audience member, we can't help but relate to the character and start thinking through how we might solve the puzzle and how we might experience the situations. This is far more engaging than the typical pulp fest where the testosterone lashes out and the reward is blood porn.

Yes, there is action and injury and death. It's a war context. But the hero doesn't just win because he's the king of awesome. In Edge of Tomorrow, the hero has to solve a multi-layered puzzle. And the audience members get to solve it alongside him.

I generally hate action movies. To me, fight scenes are the slapstick of drama. But I loved this movie.

GO SEE THIS FILM.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 10, 2014)

chimuelo @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Hollywood will always be there, rich Arabs wouldn't be investing there if there was no chance of success. Plus it's a great investment for their anti Oil (US only of course) movies and documentaries.



So quite a bit of redistribution happening in Hollywood Chim?


----------



## snowleopard (Jun 10, 2014)

I think Tom's a weirdo Scientologist. 

But that doesn't stop me from seeing movies he's in, and in some of them he's quite good. Superb performance in Collateral, surprisingly subdued in Last Samurai, excellent going back to Born on the 4th of July. I also liked him in most of the Mission Impossible films where he does seem to have fun and an everyman quality. Also liked him okay in Oblivion. 

Even with my opinons on his personal life and beliefs, if I were a filmmaker I'd jump at the chance to work with him, and just talk business with him and keep it at that. I've never heard any indication he's anything but professional to work with.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 10, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Edge Of Tomorrow was written off as a bomb after a lacklustre opening USA weekend, but word of mouth and international should be good. Here's hoping fun prevails.



international release was first
http://www.edgeoftomorrowmovie.com/releasedates/

and it was kinda of ok
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/edge- ... 01215924/#

ill see it this weekend. 

for the most part of my friends... all said the same thing...

"another tom cruise futuristic movie?! i cant even remember what the previous 2 where about! "


either way... its my style of movie and liked liked the music cd.


----------



## Consona (Jun 10, 2014)

Imo, there are films where Cruise acts good and some others where he doesn't and I felt Edge of Tomorrow was the second case.

The film itself was good, some moments were actually brilliant but nothing that would make me go to the cinema for the second time.

:arrow: But the X-men: Days of Future Past was different story for me. It's one of the best films I've seen in a long time. Direction was flawless, story and script wonderful! and actors were just astonishingly good. And I really don't care whether it's about comic books heroes or whatever. It was just wonderful, it was dead serious, it was funny, it was clever, it was sympathetic but any aspect never felt out of place, just wow. I really did not expect that some blockbuster would impress me so much.


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 10, 2014)

snowleopard @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> I think Tom's a weirdo Scientologist.
> 
> But that doesn't stop me from seeing movies he's in, and in some of them he's quite good. Superb performance in Collateral, surprisingly subdued in Last Samurai, excellent going back to Born on the 4th of July. I also liked him in most of the Mission Impossible films where he does seem to have fun and an everyman quality. Also liked him okay in Oblivion.
> 
> Even with my opinons on his personal life and beliefs, if I were a filmmaker I'd jump at the chance to work with him, and just talk business with him and keep it at that. I've never heard any indication he's anything but professional to work with.



Agreed. He takes interesting projects and is apparently very professional. I recall an incident years ago where a reporter squirted water in his face during a red carpet reception and he very politely dressed the guy down for doing something so stupid.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 10, 2014)

dcoscina @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Agreed. He takes interesting projects and is apparently very professional. I recall an incident years ago where a reporter squirted water in his face during a red carpet reception and he very politely dressed the guy down for doing something so stupid.



That was English pricks and very embarrassing. I would have fucked them up if that had been me, but Cruise dealt with it in a dignified manner. Good guy. I don't worry about an actors religious or political views when they're acting.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jun 10, 2014)

People saying they don't care what an actor's religious/political views are...

I'll wager there's a ceiling to that opinion.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 10, 2014)

He seems to be more popular overseas at the moment rather than in the US.

Had a modest for him 30mil opening in the US, but grossed nearly 100mil in overseas markets. That's why he can still make movies.

Too bad. He does great movies. I've enjoyed almost all of them.

I've taken courses in Scientology and I can tell you first hand it's not that weird. It can be a bit strange, and new. But almost all the BS on the internet is fabricated BS from what I can tell.

TC may be a bit of an odd ball. I don't know him personally. But, I think to judge all of Scientology on the antics of one person is like saying all white people are stupid based on the antics of George Bush.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 10, 2014)

Totally agree with the actors religious and political views statement above.

Now that I've converted to Islam I refuse to watch Charlton Heston movies, especially the documentaries called "The Bible Story" as they are drenched in the religion of the infidels.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 10, 2014)

chimuelo @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Totally agree with that.
> 
> Now that I've converted to Islam I refuse to watch Charlton Heston movies, especially the documentaries called "The Bible Story" as they are drenched in the religion of the infidels.



Assalamu Alaikum my brother.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 10, 2014)

I knew you were hip like me Jose...

Trust me with all of the Arab cash in Beverly Hills and Hollywood, fundraisers are going to be the gig for me.
I'll perform with the Belly Dancers over a back drop of a Sheiks Caravan, and hang with the Nation Of Islam guys that replace the Secret Service in Obamas 3rd term.

We're 2 years ahead of most of Hollywood as they will surely join the club once they see Speilberg and Harvey Weinstein chanting anti Israel slogans with full beards.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 10, 2014)

chimuelo @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> I knew you were hip like me Jose...
> 
> Trust me with all of the Arab cash in Beverly Hills and Hollywood, fundraisers are going to be the gig for me.
> I'll perform with the Belly Dancers over a back drop of a Sheiks Caravan, and hang with the Nation Of Islam guys that replace the Secret Service in Obamas 3rd term.
> ...



It'll be even funnier when they come to your town, blow up your shit and either kill or threaten your family. Ah, those wacky Saudis.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 10, 2014)

EDGE OF TOMORROW was quite good. I'd been waiting for it for years and was pissed when I saw the mech suit thing they stuck Tom in and how he looked like a running dumpster. I'm still pissed that they didn't keep the original title: "All You Need is Kill". The ads for this film aren't very accurate as they downplay the comedy. 

Unfortunately the film hasn't done well domestically but that's the sad state we're in - anything remotely unique or not a sequel usually just won't do well. I'm surprised they didn't stick some big asian actor into any role considering the source material this film is based on and the fact Cruise is big overseas.

DAYS OF FUTURE PAST was kinda meh. It has a cool scene with that fast dude running around a kitchen but other then that it was your typical X-Men film. People like to rank this series from best to worst but I usually can't tell them apart. I do have a great fresh idea for the next film though that'll really change things up: There's a clash between humans and mutants and it's all allegory for gay rights.

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON 2 is pretty awesome. I was at the LA premiere on Sunday and might be a bit biased but I think it's a very strong sequel. Music was great although I couldn't really pay as much attention to it as I wanted. Kept looking for John Powell but maybe he wasn't there. Damn. I thought the 3d was pretty good and the new big dragons are insane looking.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 11, 2014)

Arab issues aside, what splendid posts.

First, the Tom Cruise distraction. Matt, of course you're right - replace the word "Scientology" with "paedophile activist" and the debate changes pretty quick (for the Scientology lawyers watching - I'M NOT EQUATING SCIENTOLOGY WITH PAEDOPHILIA ITS AN ABSURD CONTRAST TO MAKE A POINT). But I'm not letting Scientology off that easy either - Jose, I strongly recommend you start with Jenna Miscaviage Hill's book (niece of David Miscaviage) "Beyond Belief", then we can discuss this fascinating subject further. But in summary - yes it is that weird, considerably more nasty than that actually, but you wouldn't have encountered that at the lowly tiers.

What? Films? Oh yeah. Jon Fairhurst - ace summary. gsilbers - yes, Oblivion et al have probably hurt the draw for this. Oblivion was OK (actually the first half had real promise) but it all became terribly generic and forgettable.

Choco - you're right about the name - the title "Edge Of Tomorrow" is pretty much the worst thing about the film. Super excited about your HTTYD2 report. Are claims of Empire Strikes Back greatly exaggerated? Boy, Pixar need a solid film don't they. Apart from Toy Story 3, it's been pretty mediocre post-Up. HTTYD was way better than any of those recent Pixar fiicks. Way better than pretty much all flicks, to be fair.

Days Of Future Past - given my near pathological hatred of the superhero genre now, I'm still semi-warm towards X Men. I kinda enjoyed the first two. So one day I might dare to watch this, but I suspect Choco's review might be close to mine in the end. And that's a killer of an idea for the next one you got there Choco - really think they might do that?


----------



## AC986 (Jun 11, 2014)

Ironically, superhero comics were written more or less for my generation years ago. The comics were very good and a form of modern art.

The best superhero film I ever saw (and it was by accident on TV) was Watchmen. I thought that was a great film and highly original and very well done.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 11, 2014)

adriancook @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Ironically, superhero comics were written more or less for my generation years ago. The comics were very good and a form of modern art.
> 
> The best superhero film I ever saw (and it was by accident on TV) was Watchmen. I thought that was a great film and highly original and very well done.



Pulitzer prize winning novel about that subject:Michael Chabon's "Kavalier and Klay."


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 11, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Choco - you're right about the name - the title "Edge Of Tomorrow" is pretty much the worst thing about the film. Super excited about your HTTYD2 report. Are claims of Empire Strikes Back greatly exaggerated? Boy, Pixar need a solid film don't they. Apart from Toy Story 3, it's been pretty mediocre post-Up. HTTYD was way better than any of those recent Pixar fiicks. Way better than pretty much all flicks, to be fair.
> 
> Days Of Future Past - given my near pathological hatred of the superhero genre now, I'm still semi-warm towards X Men. I kinda enjoyed the first two. So one day I might dare to watch this, but I suspect Choco's review might be close to mine in the end. And that's a killer of an idea for the next one you got there Choco - really think they might do that?



What are the Empire Strikes Back claims? That it's darker and better than the original? I guess it could be seen as somewhat darker than the original but it's also offset by more jokeyness this time around. Everyone is around 20 years old now so there's a comedy subplot where Fishlegs and Snotlout lust after Ruffnut. It has a funny payoff near the end but it does get a bit repetitive.

I think the original is better than this one but this one is a very worthy sequel. I talked to two people who thought the sequel was better so what do I know. I found the original to be a bit more emotionally satisfying - the parts where Hiccup throws away his cheatsheet and steers Toothless for the first time and the part where Hiccup and Astrid fly through the clouds to Berk are hard to match. One of the coolest parts of this new film to me is how they intro a new mysterious character.

Pixar really does need to step up their game. Dreamworks' How to Train Your Dragon and Kung Fu Panda are now the strongest animated franchises around. I find the first Kung Fu Panda to be very underrated - it's a very strong story. Toy Story 3 is really great but I felt HTTYD bested it that year. Toy Story 3 suffers from a literal Deus Ex Machina near the end. Also you can actually feel the absolute misery that went into crafting TS3 over the years whereas HTTYD has a more effortless magic to it. Of course even more competition has entered the ring lately with Lego Movie, Frozen, and their sequels. I had "Everything is Awesome" stuck in my head until it got replaced by various Frozen songs. Their catchiness is insane. The first Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is also pretty good.

As for superhero films - I've pretty much given up. The best comic book film to me is still The Crow. Nowadays it's like every single one of them has a Tomatometer 30% higher than it should be. It's a bizarre phenomenon. Although knowing all this I will still cave and see Guardians of the Galaxy. I can now probably scratch any chance of seeing Antman off my list now that Edgar Wright left. Heh, Edgar Wright left...


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 11, 2014)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> What are the Empire Strikes Back claims? That it's darker and better than the original?



Something like that - think I read it in the Empire Magazine feature. Apparently the books are to be adapted into a trilogy, film-wise - but since the book and film of #1 were completely different, makes sense for the film folks to just do their own thing with little more than the title and a couple of characters to show for the IP.

Frankly, I'll just take not ruining the franchise - can't really hope for it to be better.

As to everything else in the post - essentially yeah. I thought TS3 was the equal of the first two, so no complaints there, but I get your point - HTTYD had that fresh paint smell. Still haven't done Frozen - at this point its reputation is so phenomenal it's going to be hard not to be disappointed. Oh, and at the 2014 half way point, The Lego Movie is still my film of the year so far (Calvary was good an all, but - well, it was no Lego Movie).

Well, Edge Of Tomorrow is cautious grounds for optimism. Reviewing the kid fare, the adult stuff feels the poor relation still, but you felt with EOT they were trying at least.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 11, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > What are the Empire Strikes Back claims? That it's darker and better than the original?
> ...



Frozen is very strong storywise and musically. I almost want to warn you against seeing it because the songs drove me nuts for a month. I had work to complete and the songs would pop into my head for hours every single day and I'd get off-track. I had almost gotten it out of my system when I was walking home one day and a 7 year old Chinese kid on a bicycle rode by singing a verse of "Let It Go".

Kid fare seems to be better than the adult stuff but that's largely because the lengthy team-oriented development process behind animated films produces superior results. Phil Lord - one of the writer directors on Lego Movie etc - has a cool TED Talk about that topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LeP9fSlmgjc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... eP9fSlmgjc) 

He makes an interesting connection between the story development process and evolution. How multiple people can chime in with ideas and the good ones stick while the bad ones fall away. How he thinks genius is mostly just people working very hard for a very long time and tries to illustrate it all with a sweet quote by Michael Pollan:

*“Design in nature is but a concatenation of accidents, culled by natural selection until the result is so beautiful or effective as to seem a miracle of purpose.” *

And if you want quality adult fare these days it's best to just turn to TV. Every Sunday there's an almost feature length Game of Thrones episode that either rivals or destroys whatever movie opened that Friday.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 11, 2014)

Whoa there, we're in danger of amalgamating every VI Control and / or Me issue in one thread - superiority of contemporary TV over film / nature of genius to add to declining standards of grown up films. Throw piracy and the devaluation of composers in here too and its a full house. (Did I miss any?)

Thanks for the Ted talk link, will definitely check it out.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 12, 2014)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> ...Pixar really does need to step up their game...


Don't hold your breath waiting for that.
Disney now has total control of Pixar.
When Jobs was alive he acted as a firewall between Pixar and Disney.
Last year Disney nixed an "Amish Dinosaur" project that Pixar had been working on for a year. 
This because it was to obscure of a cultural reference for the Asian market.
As a final thanks Disney let 500 Pixar workers go, because Pixar didn't have the promised features ready to go.

Pixar is done.

k


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 12, 2014)

KEnK @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Pixar really does need to step up their game...
> ...



Yeah my girlfriend worked at Pixar Canada in Vancouver until Disney closed the place down late last year. Things aren't going too well in Pixar land.


----------



## The Darris (Jun 12, 2014)

Guy, as always, I enjoy your off topic threads. 

This is something I have actually thought a lot about. As I haven't seen any of the recent 'blockbusters' I do have one concern when you mention J.J. Abrams. I felt his most recent installment of the Star Trek was like getting punched in the face repeatedly by throwback references. We get it JJ, there were moment from the original that we all cherish. You don't need to spoon feed me the geek references. Make them subtle, they will mean much more to those who watched the series. Okay, now to segue into my main concern, Star Wars. I have a lot of high expectations based on the fact that they are making the sets, using puppets, and the returning characters. However, if he spends the entire movie throwing in pointless hat tips to the original series, I am going to be pissed. I don't want to watch a scene with Hans chatting to Chewy about Greedo and who shot who first. I don't need that sh*t. 

/end rant

::wipe sweat from forehead::

Okay, now that I have said all that. I still stand by my words in previous posts. The indie film scene as well as tv-series are getting better. There are so many better indie films than blockbusters. Though, I won't lie. There is nothing like going to the threater, sitting down with your snack and watching a big budget action flick: o[]) 

It would be nice to see more of those will actual stories and memorable characters.


----------



## G.E. (Jun 12, 2014)

Sometimes I wish I had fewer brain cells so I could enjoy a Michael Bay movie.My completely average intelligence is affecting my ability to enjoy a Hollywood movie.
Why do bad things only happen to good people ?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 12, 2014)

KEnK @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Disney now has total control of Pixar.
> When Jobs was alive he acted as a firewall between Pixar and Disney.
> Last year Disney nixed an "Amish Dinosaur" project that Pixar had been working on for a year.
> This because it was to obscure of a cultural reference for the Asian market.
> ...



Oh, I don't know....

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblo ... -animation


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 12, 2014)

The Darris @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> This is something I have actually thought a lot about. As I haven't seen any of the recent 'blockbusters' I do have one concern when you mention J.J. Abrams. I felt his most recent installment of the Star Trek was like getting punched in the face repeatedly by throwback references. We get it JJ, there were moment from the original that we all cherish. You don't need to spoon feed me the geek references. Make them subtle, they will mean much more to those who watched the series. Okay, now to segue into my main concern, Star Wars. I have a lot of high expectations based on the fact that they are making the sets, using puppets, and the returning characters. However, if he spends the entire movie throwing in pointless hat tips to the original series, I am going to be pissed. I don't want to watch a scene with Hans chatting to Chewy about Greedo and who shot who first. I don't need that sh*t.



Well I'm no Trekkie, but have watched all the movies (I think), and the even numbers a few times. I honestly didn't clock all the in jokes in STID. But hey I could handle a few in Star Wars - actually like the idea of them arguing over Greedo (as long as we cut in on the end of the argument for no more than 5 seconds)....

My concern is that he's able to just slow down a bit. STID was just a bit too manic. It was fun - my main concern of course - but I could have done with 10% more character and 10% less exploding / running. But - and this is the important bit really - I'd far, far, far rather JJ overcook the pace than, say, Chris Nolan be at the megaphone. As uber-talented as Nolan is, he's not known for being a laugh a minute, is he?

Actually that fate would be the worst thing that could have happened to Star Wars and film in general. If they over-appease the thirty-something comic book set and do that dreary "darker, more intense" thing, it's game over. But can't see JJ doing that. His great trick in his first Trek movie was to re-inject some humanity as well as fun into proceedings and lord knows that's EXACTLY what Star Wars needs.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 12, 2014)

Well Guy-

I'll be happy if Pixar manages to do something excellent again.
My info though comes from someone who worked there for years,
and is well acquainted w/ the politics of Disney styled creativity.

It is definitely not the same Pixar of even 5 years ago.

Some of these projects take years to realize.
The one in the article you linked to seems more like 
the "Old Pixar" than the Disney version.

It could very well be exactly that.

k


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 12, 2014)

KEnK @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> Well Guy-
> 
> I'll be happy if Pixar manages to do something excellent again.
> My info though comes from someone who worked there for years,
> ...



Much truth there no doubt. The past 5 years' output is nothing like the previous 15. And yes, projects have long gestation periods so Inside Out could be a remnant from the good ol' days. But as your previous example suggests, they can kill a project at any time - and haven't killed this seemingly risky one.

I suspect, like all things, the reality is pretty complex. I've no doubt that there are people there pushing for originality, pushing for greatness amid the suits and marketing department. That might get through less frequently than before, but I'm sure we all hope quality does still win from time to time.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 12, 2014)

The suits have all the say at this point.

According to my source, it's all about how a given project will play
in the Asian markets.
That's where the bottom line is now.

This has been talked about earlier in the thread.
A film can practically tank in the US and do great in India, China and Japan.

Hollywood films are all being made w/ that marketing strategy in mind.

Inside Out may have gotten through because perhaps the nature of the psychology is seen as Universal.
Unlike the Amish Dinosaur flick. 
That was was seen as to culturally unique to the US, so it got shelved.
They worked tons on that- there's talk of re-writing it minus the Amish aspect.
So they can keep a lot of the work already put into it.

Maybe Pixar can still come up w/ some great stuff-
but the quirky aspect is not playing well to the suits

k


----------



## Consona (Jun 21, 2014)

I rewatched Man Of Steel today. And I was cheering (because how awesome action felt) and giggling (when Fiora played bowling with soldiers) and crying (my eyes got a little wet sort of crying :D ) (when Supes was flying through world engine's beam and when he rescued Lois, man those moments were so intense and perfectly shot) by just how right it felt. I want Batman V Superman to be even grittier and more serious!






And the final trailer for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes looks really great. The first film was one of the biggest surprises I've ever experienced in the cinema, trailers looked not so good to me but the film itself was just fantastic.

All those dead serious films just feel compelling and visceral when they are well put together.

I'm really looking forward to playfulness of Guardians of the Galaxy and such but Nolan's serious take on Batman is what I would call _hope for Hollywood_.



The Darris @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> This is something I have actually thought a lot about. As I haven't seen any of the recent 'blockbusters' I do have one concern when you mention J.J. Abrams. I felt his most recent installment of the Star Trek was like getting punched in the face repeatedly by throwback references. We get it JJ, there were moment from the original that we all cherish. You don't need to spoon feed me the geek references. Make them subtle, they will mean much more to those who watched the series. Okay, now to segue into my main concern, Star Wars. I have a lot of high expectations based on the fact that they are making the sets, using puppets, and the returning characters. However, if he spends the entire movie throwing in pointless hat tips to the original series, I am going to be pissed. I don't want to watch a scene with Hans chatting to Chewy about Greedo and who shot who first. I don't need that sh*t.


Haha, yeah, they made alternative time line just to rip off the old films, what an epic fail. The script for STID was so poor. Oh, don't let me start again... :lol:


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 22, 2014)

Consona @ Sat Jun 21 said:


> I rewatched Man Of Steel today. And I was cheering (because how awesome action felt) and giggling (when Fiora played bowling with soldiers) and crying (my eyes got a little wet sort of crying :D ) (when Supes was flying through world engine's beam and when he rescued Lois, man those moments were so intense and perfectly shot) by just how right it felt. I want Batman V Superman to be even grittier and more serious!



Phew, well that answers my OP question - "no, there isn't". I heard some highly plausible speculation this week that because Edge Of Tomorrow underperformed, the wisdom that Hollywood has drawn is that there's no market or draw in that kind of original film. This generation wants a relentless stream of Man Of Steel-style comic book adaptations. They can never be too loud, too OTT, too formulaic - just keep upping the combos (Superman vs Batman vs Godzilla vs Etc) and the punters keep rolling in, delighted with the bland carnage.

Hugely depressing. I think a lot of 30+ cinemagoers have become so bored of the comic book stuff they've just given up on blockbusters altogether, and won't give stuff like EOT the chance it deserves. Can't say I blame them, but it feels like the last chance saloon.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 22, 2014)

Can someone explain to me how Batman v Superman can be serious?


----------



## Consona (Jun 22, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> Phew, well that answers my OP question - "no, there isn't". I heard some highly plausible speculation this week that because Edge Of Tomorrow underperformed, the wisdom that Hollywood has drawn is that there's no market or draw in that kind of original film. This generation wants a relentless stream of Man Of Steel-style comic book adaptations. They can never be too loud, too OTT, too formulaic - just keep upping the combos (Superman vs Batman vs Godzilla vs Etc) and the punters keep rolling in, delighted with the bland carnage.


Your generalisation is misplaced. Just because I've enjoyed MOS so much doesn't mean I adore comic film in general or I want King Kong vs. Wonder Woman movie. :roll: (...or do I?




)

I don't mind the genre of film, when it's good it's good, whether it's a comedy, thriller, drama, sci-fi; man, I just don't want to be bored to death by some goofy Superman, with goofy Otis-like characters and goofy 3 people can reprogram nuclear missile that is being transported by military convoy story elements. Donner's Superman was good for its time but MOS and The Dark Knight are kind of superhero films I want to see these days. MOS was not perfect, I think there could be more meat is some dialogs but as Superman reboot is was overall great. The action was among the best in any film ever and yeah, Superman is not some over-thinking sage, he throws supersonic fast punches left and right, he can fly at supersonic speed and hurl locomotives so bring me the best action possible, he does not need to be smart tactician like Batman, still he is intellectually interesting character, god among men, alien deprived of his roots, etc.

Or look at X-men: Days of Future Past. That film would be great even if it's without comic book characters. But thank god it isn't because Quicksilver scenes were so funny.

It's sad that Edge of Tomorrow is not strong with its box office, but that's not fault of generation of consumers, that's fault of bad advertising.




adriancook @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> Can someone explain to me how Batman v Superman can be serious?


No.


----------



## mverta (Jun 22, 2014)

This past weekend, in 1984, the following movies were in theaters:


Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Gremlins
Ghostbusters
Police Academy
The Natural
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
The Karate Kid

That's vintage Williams, Goldsmith, Bernstein, Folk, Randy Newman, Horner, and Bill Conti. In one weekend. 


You just think about that, and tell me Hollywood's "coming back." That ain't coming back with a freakin' _time machine_, and the shittiest film on that list is more interesting than the last 10 soulless "blockbusters" put together, with nary a memorable line of dialog between them, no hummable themes, no iconic scenes; nothing anybody gives a shit about after the obligatory opening-weekend blitz which studios all but will into existence with $30 million dollar blanket ad campaigns. 

They not only "don't make 'em like they used to," they don't want to, don't know how, and have an entire generation-plus in the demographic that doesn't know any better, and ain't missin' it. You can't go home again, boys.

_Mike


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 22, 2014)

mverta @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
> Gremlins
> Ghostbusters
> Police Academy
> ...



It needs another couple of years and repeated viewings, but I'd put Edge Of Tomorrow above every one of that list. Leaving aside all score issues, that list isn't especially impressive. Ghostbusters I always felt overrated and hasn't aged well, Temple of Doom by far the weakest of the original trilogy, ST3 was so-so, Police Academy is, and always was, plain rubbish. Edge Of Tomorrow has, simply, a better script than any of them. (confession - never seen Karate Kid)

But in terms of that list compared to the glut of superhero flicks - well, that's a more telling comparison - if it were a fair one. So to be fair, let's look at this weekend's provisional top 10:

1	Think Like A Man Too
2	22 Jump Street
3	How to Train Your Dragon 2
4	Jersey Boys
5	Maleficent
6	Edge of Tomorrow
7	The Fault In Our Stars
8	X-Men: Days of Future Past
9	Chef
10	Godzilla

That's not a terrible list by any stretch - and it also contains at least one classic score. It's diverse, and for all my moaning there's only 1 superhero flick. Not pure gold of course, but the 1984 list isn't either. There's a good chance I'd also put HTTYD2 above any in the older crop.


----------



## Consona (Jun 22, 2014)

Gotta agree with Guy Rowland.

The script of Edge of Tomorrow is very solid, the script of X-men:DoFP is just amazing, one of the best in recent years, Godzilla wasn't soulless by any stretch of imagination, even Captain America: TWS was high above average flick, more like some political conspiracy thriller than standard comic book movie stuff.

There are some really bad blockbusters, like imo The amazing spider-man or Transformers, but there are some very well put together as well.


----------



## mverta (Jun 22, 2014)

Of course, the interesting thing is that 20 years later they're still trying to make Indiana Jones Movies, Ghostbusters 3 has been begged for for...ever, if you've heard The score to The Natural once, you can hum it right now, the best cue you will ever write in your entire life _might_ be as good as one of the throwaway cues from Gremlins, Horner's Star Trek stuff was so solid even HE steals from it to this day, and Folk's Police Academy score - regardless of what one thinks of the film - represents a base level cohesion and competence in long-form writing that I personally haven't heard in a long time.

But you make my point - they don't make 'em because they don't need to. Today's films make billions of dollars, and are enjoyed by millions of happy people. Just like chock-a-mut ice cream. I was talking about musicological competence; you were talking about which films you liked. One is fact, one is opinion. But if you honestly cannot perceive the canyon-esque gulf in skill sets between the scores I listed and the scores you listed - with perhaps 1.5 exceptions - then I envy you. 

_Mike


----------



## Consona (Jun 22, 2014)

I have to agree that scores, for example in Marvel films, are so interchangeable, sometimes some good idea here and there but nothing you would remember a minute after you listened to it.

On the other hand melodies in Man of Steel or The Dark Knight trilogy are so simple yet memorable.

I was listening to How to Train Your Dragon 2 OST recently and frankly I cannot recall any melody from that score.

And imo Goldsmith's Star Trek soundtrack > 1000000 x Horner's Star Trek scores. :lol:


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 22, 2014)

mverta @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> Of course, the interesting thing is that 20 years later they're still trying to make Indiana Jones Movies, Ghostbusters 3 has been begged for for...ever, if you've heard The score to The Natural once, you can hum it right now, the best cue you will ever write in your entire life _might_ be as good as one of the throwaway cues from Gremlins, Horner's Star Trek stuff was so solid even HE steals from it to this day, and Folk's Police Academy score - regardless of what one thinks of the film - represents a base level cohesion and competence in long-form writing that I personally haven't heard in a long time.
> 
> But you make my point - they don't make 'em because they don't need to. Today's films make billions of dollars, and are enjoyed by millions of happy people. Just like chock-a-mut ice cream. I was talking about musicological competence; you were talking about which films you liked. One is fact, one is opinion. But if you honestly cannot perceive the canyon-esque gulf in skill sets between the scores I listed and the scores you listed - with perhaps 1.5 exceptions - then I envy you.
> 
> _Mike



You seem to be discussing something entirely different than what this thread is (was) about. I was (re)introducting the topic of blockbuster movies then and now, you seem to want to discuss the skill in scoring mainstream movies. Both well worn subjects here, not sure why you want to conflate the two though? In one breadth you seem to be raging at the screenwriting _("the shittiest film on that list is more interesting than the last 10 soulless "blockbusters" put together, with nary a memorable line of dialog between them"_), the next the composition (_"I was talking about musicological competence; you were talking about which films you liked") _and at this point I'm confused as to exactly what you are or are not arguing. Are movies badly written now? Are they badly scored? Both? Do you think HTTYD is unlistenable worthless shit not fit to tie the shoelaces of any 30 year old score? Was Police Academy's script a work of genius?

Apologies if I'm spoiling the flow of a general unfocused "isn't everything shit now" rant which always plays well to the stalls here, but I actually rather care about all of these subjects, assuredly different as they all are from each other.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 22, 2014)

One question I would ask is what anyone actually wants from a film.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 22, 2014)

adriancook @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> Can someone explain to me how Batman v Superman can be serious?



This is brilliant! Universal killed off the monster movie with Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman in 1943 and followed it with House of Frankenstein in 1944 where the monster, mad doctor, Dracula, Wolfman, and Hunchback all got together. They milked the last drop in 1945 with a similar House of Dracula. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenste ... e_Wolf_Man 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Frankenstein_(1944_film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_F ... (1944_film))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Dracula

When Spider Man, Batman, Superman, and Wolverine all get together, the Shark (who has a cameo) will have been fully jumped.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 22, 2014)

adriancook @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> One question I would ask is what anyone actually wants from a film.



Insight into the human condition, and enough drama (unanswered questions) to keep me interested in the outcome.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 23, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> ...I think a lot of 30+ cinemagoers have become so bored of the comic book stuff they've just given up on blockbusters altogether...


That would be me-
but I still might check out EOT-

But please!
No more guy w/ cape movies!
So tired of the endless sequel "franchise" concept.

As to what I personally want from a film-
Story, Drama, something that will me make me think.
It actually doesn't take 75 mil to do this-
But it does take vision- something lacking in Hollywood now.

Action scenes? Not interested at all.
I invariably just roll my eye's and wait for them to be over,
so that whatever is left of the Story can resume.

k


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Jun 23, 2014)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> As for superhero films - I've pretty much given up. The best comic book film to me is still The Crow. Nowadays it's like every single one of them has a Tomatometer 30% higher than it should be. It's a bizarre phenomenon. Although knowing all this I will still cave and see Guardians of the Galaxy. I can now probably scratch any chance of seeing Antman off my list now that Edgar Wright left. Heh, Edgar Wright left...



I agree with pretty much everything in that post, but for this paragraph in particular, I wish I could high five you through the computer.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 23, 2014)

JonFairhurst @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> adriancook @ Sun Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> > One question I would ask is what anyone actually wants from a film.
> ...



For that to happen you have to have a good script, a beginning a middle and an end, and above all you have to care about the characters. You can do all of that with Batman, but it's getting more and more difficult down the road.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) for example was a classic case of caring about what happens to the characters. Great film all round.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 23, 2014)

Another thing I want from a film: Don't tell and don't show. Imply with images and few words.

Consider walking down the street. There are many things one actively doesn't want to see. Maybe the story calls for a guy getting his brains blown out. After the gun blast, show he victim's feet and the onlookers wincing. That gets the point across. Why would the camera show a closeup of the mess? Would one want to see that in real life? Would one run up to get a closer look? Or would one wince and hope that somebody nearby sacrifices their jacket to cover the body?

One of the greatest contributions ever from the censors was that they forced filmmakers to imply rather than show. As often happens, limitations lead to creativity.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 23, 2014)

Classic case in point would be the shower scene from Psycho. All mostly implied although the audience imagined it differently. Reservoir Dogs to be fair was the same.

I agree, but more in recent years gratuitous violence is necessary to assuage moronic audiences. Films like that are bottom up and not top down. Gone are the days whereby the audience will believe anything I tell them ( or imply ). Graphic anything in a film is for the hard of thinking who don't like to access their imagination on a regular basis.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 23, 2014)

I recently re-read David Mamet's "On Directing". It documents lectures to a film school that takes the students through practical examples. (It's not a thick book so don't over pay. Find a used paperback.)

http://www.amazon.com/On-Directing-Film-David-Mamet/dp/0140127224 (http://www.amazon.com/On-Directing-Film ... 0140127224)

Mamet follow Eisenstein's principles of juxtaposing images to create a thought (though he doesn't go into the "imply" vs. "show" thing.) My example of a gun shooting, a shot of twisted legs on the ground, and a shot of people turning their eyes away clearly communicates a messy killing with much more drama than latex, After Effects, and splattering egg whites and ketchup on a wall. In the first case, we want to know what happened. We're drawn in. In the second case, it's the audience that turns their eyes in disgust. We are repelled.

An interesting thing about the Eisenstein/Mamet approach is that the images are uninflected. Rather than have an actor scream, "She's dead. I'm so sad" and cry crocodile tears, a postman can hand a man a letter and then in a wide shot he falls to his knees. Again, by telling and showing, there's no drama. With the letter opened and the reader falling to the knees (without a word and without even showing the face), we know there is tragedy and we want to know why.

FWIW, Mamet's House of Games (his 1987 directorial debut) is a great example of uninflected delivery (possibly to a fault. The extreme lack of emotion is a kind of inflection in and of itself.) I love that film - and I couldn't imagine it getting major distribution today.

For a dark comedy with a similar, restrained approach, see Things Change.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/house_of_games/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/things_change/


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 24, 2014)

Interesting comments from John Cleese on the origin of lack of humour in recent action films:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/ju ... ets-bourne


----------



## AC986 (Jun 24, 2014)

This is always a bugbear for me. Humour is not only a good idea, it's actually essential.

In real life situations, humour and/or lack of imagination have saved the destruction of minds where the body managed to survive. Case in point, given that it's 2014, would of course be trench warfare of WW1. Loads of humour documented constantly on all sides.

Action films by pure definition are generally going to be nonsense, ergo, it's a good idea to use humour to show an audience that it is in fact silly nonsense, but at least in an entertaining way.

One of the stupidest films ever to escape was Rambo. Rambo is gratuitous violence. Without any meaning or forethought and completely humourless. It even uses lame excuses for everything that occurs within it. Utter fucking trash with a great score.

Naturally, it was extremely successful because it's designed for audiences, particularly male, that think that one day they will abducted by aliens and all their troubles will be over.


----------



## Consona (Jun 24, 2014)

adriancook @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> One of the stupidest films ever to escape was Rambo. Rambo is gratuitous violence. Without any meaning or forethought and completely humourless. It even uses lame excuses for everything that occurs within it. Utter fucking trash with a great score.
> 
> Naturally, it was extremely successful because it's designed for audiences, particularly male, that think that one day they will abducted by aliens and all their troubles will be over.


Do you mean "First blood"? If so, you are very wrong, that film is not about violence but about psychology of veteran soldier. The First blood was great film but the sequels were nothing like the original.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 24, 2014)

You're sadly mistaken and don't understand what the makers of that film were very cleverly appealing to. If you watch that film and think at the same time, you quickly realise there is absolutely nothing in anyway that can be construed as allegorical, meaningful and above all it's probably an insult apart from anything else, to any war veteran from any war, anywhere.
If you continue to argue for this film, I will have to ignore you .......forever.


----------



## Consona (Jun 25, 2014)

adriancook @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> You're sadly mistaken and don't understand what the makers of that film were very cleverly appealing to. If you watch that film and think at the same time, you quickly realise there is absolutely nothing in anyway that can be construed as allegorical, meaningful and above all it's probably an insult apart from anything else, to any war veteran from any war, anywhere.
> If you continue to argue for this film, I will have to ignore you .......forever.


 :shock: Relax, man. We are just discussing films. Didn't know you are so touchy regarding this one. Sorry for calling you _very wrong_, I just thought you were really misjudging that movie, just wanted to express my opinion in internet discussion. :roll:


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jun 25, 2014)

I can't help but feel that Hollywood is constantly massively overspending on its output and this ridiculously inflated system is propping itself up with its never-ending cycle of having to try to make these inflated amounts back.

It's a dick waving contest and not actually good economics. A great film can easily be made for less than $50 million. But the producers want to be seen to be throwing massive budgets at projects, hence they go for the samiest, safest idea imaginable.

Support your independent cinema. Watch low budget movies at the cinema.

@Consona. I must have watched a VERY different Man of Steel to you!


----------



## Consona (Jun 25, 2014)

TheUnfinished @ Wed Jun 25 said:


> @Consona. I must have watched a VERY different Man of Steel to you!


I don't know, that film just worked for me.  Script-wise it could have been better but Snyder's direction was nearly flawless  (I wasn't fan of those triple shots when Zod was shooting from eyes for example). But otherwise you can FEEL the power kryptonians possess in every move they make, I think Snyder has great sense for dynamic motion.

Just curious, what are your problems with MoS?


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jun 25, 2014)

'First Blood' did at least teach me that it's a long road when you're on your own.

If I'm looking for substance and profound meaning about the human condition I tend to look to the great compassionate thinkers and doers of our age and throughout history.

Nelson Mandela
The Buddha
Gandhi
etc…….

Hollywood? Nope.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 25, 2014)

Consona @ Wed Jun 25 said:


> Just curious, what are your problems with MoS?



I can't speak for Mattt, but if I can just butt in here for a minute as I have some serious procrastinating to do in the studio.

I'd rather be dragged naked through a field of broken glass that sit through Man Of Steel again. The main problem was everything. All of the time. Relentlessly. But to break it down a little more, the script was particularly atrocious, everything was spelled out in CAPS LOCK before anything happened. The backstory was right at the beginning, leading the charge that all motivations and plot points were clearly labelled way in advance - like foreshadowing, but just right out telling you. Net effect - you knew exactly what was going to happen before it happened, and the net effect of that was that there was no viewer involvement and the net effect of that was it was stupefyingly boring.

If that was the only problem, it wouldn't have been so bad. Characters weren't. There was no humour - if ever a film needed it, it was this one. Technically it was immaculate, which just made me sad for all the fine effort put in. But it was that last hour, that pure, relentless torture that made it a full blown trauma. A constant barrage of audio and visual noise that just would not quit. No matter how many crumbling buildings and bodies flying through the air there were with no apparent consequences and no matter how loud the sound effects and music got, there was no impact in any of it. Cruelly, we were teased time and again with an ending which never came. I wondered if it was the first film to actually have looping playabck - they could have run the sequence from about 1hr 15 to 2hr 15 in a permanent loop and I swear I'd never have noticed. Everything was turned up to eleventystupid, all the time.

I imagine this is what staying at Hotel Guantanamo Bay is like.

I ran - RAN I tell you - out of the cinema during the deafening closing credits, convinced that I was a one way trip. I reasoned (as much as I was able) that I was so emotionally scarred by the experience that I'd never be able to set foot in a cinema again.

Look at any great action blockbuster - Die Hard, Aliens, True Lies - there's light and shade, a shape to the screenplay, character development, humour, all that boring stuff that Bay / Snyder can't be bothered with. You need to care about the characters for action to work. This whole thing was regurgitated out of a Hollywood mincer with no flair, talent or even jokes. But even as I say that, I realise that many many people came out of that movie perfectly happy. Which, again, makes me very sad indeed.

I'll come off the fence in a minute and tell you what I really thought.

PS - I heard the running time of the new Trasformers movie is 2hrs 46m. God have mercy on their souls.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 25, 2014)

We are not the intended audience.


----------



## AR (Jun 25, 2014)

I think people will look back in 20 years and will say: Uuuuh gosh the 20s were so miserable. They wanned to throw out bigger and bigger movies. In 20 years Gravity will be something like "the Stanley Kubrick movie-back when we were young" for them


----------



## Consona (Jun 25, 2014)

@Guy Rowland

Not all action is filmed equal. MoS action was awesome, Transformers action was boring mess. _Duo cum faciunt idem, non est idem_ :lol: 

But from what you wrote I can understand why you didn't like MoS.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 25, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jun 25 said:


> We are not the intended audience.



I only half buy that. Part of my whole crusade here is that blockbusters - the big Hollywood movies - were pretty universal, a true definition of family films, and they worked for all ages, made with skill, care and craft. If your implication is that the target demographic here genuinely doesn't know or care about skill, care and craft in screenplay / direction etc and just wants cool vfx and sound effects - and there's so many of them that there's no need to attempt to appeal to those outside the demographic who do - there is a good case to be made that its true. But....

The Dark Knight et al is certainly far better made than Man Of Steel. I don't like at all still - "joyless and up its own arse" would be my succinct British response - but it conforms to all the basic rules needed for a film to work. The Bay / McG / Snyder wall-o-noise aesthetic is something else though.

AR - people forget that when 2001 came out, there were plenty who thought it empty and an artistic failure (the revered Pauline Kael described it as "a monumentally unimaginative movie"). I'd argue there are some strong aesthetic similarities between it and Gravity, despite them being diametrically opposed at heart. And yet I'm pretty sure Gravity will be looked back upon with far greater affection then most from this era, with good reason.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 25, 2014)

I know this smacks of heresy 'round these parts, but I can't think of a single blockbuster that will stand the test of time, sorry. Yes that includes all the Spielberg, Lucas movies. So it's too bad that they're actually getting worse, but it's popcorn and coke, y'all. Now, Venus in Fur, two amazing actors and a terrific (and yes, flawed-human) director, all the action in a small theatre, with no FX, a great soundtrack by Desplat, that's movie-making at its best for moi.

That said, my favourite popcorn movies of late have been the Sherlock Holmes movies, with Hans' music, and RDJ.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 25, 2014)

Consona @ Wed Jun 25 said:


> :shock: Relax, man. We are just discussing films. Didn't know you are so touchy regarding this one. Sorry for calling you _very wrong_, I just thought you were really misjudging that movie, just wanted to express my opinion in internet discussion. :roll:



*HERETIC!!!!!!!!*


----------



## AC986 (Jun 25, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jun 25 said:


> We are not the intended audience.



I can recommend Ball of Fire with Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyk (1941).

That's a great film and well worth watching.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 25, 2014)

In all sincerity, TMC is my favourite tv channel. I LOVE old movies, they feel like sci-fi, because the world was so much different 60-70 years ago.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 25, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jun 25 said:


> I know this smacks of heresy 'round these parts, but I can't think of a single blockbuster that will stand the test of time, sorry. Yes that includes all the Spielberg, Lucas movies. So it's too bad that they're actually getting worse, but it's popcorn and coke, y'all.



Funnily enough, I'm very lukewarm about what would have been popcorn movies from back in the day. Some heresy of my own - I don't think North By Northwest is up to much.

!!!!!

The finale is so contrived and dumb, it could only be from a blockbuster....

On the other hand, I saw Back To The Future again a few weeks ago, loved it every bit as much as I always did. My 12 year old got a drink halfway through so we paused. He said he was enjoying it but he'd rather be playing a video game. We forced him at gunpoint to watch the rest. By the time it got to final evening in 1955, he was jumping up and down on the sofa going nuts. We of course said "told you so", "see, if you don't see things through" etc and all that irritating parent stuff.

So for me, some blockbusters do stand the test of time, and I'm grateful to every one of them.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 25, 2014)

Ahh but North by Northwest is MGM's 1959 gloss film for the year. Had it not been directed by Alfred Hitchcock who knows what it would have turned out to be. It's a fun film and also a tongue in cheek statement about New York society of the late 50's. very much part of it's time and really, taken at face value, a great film. Lots of humour.

Blockbusters of the 50s I saw at the time say up to 1960 were things like Ben Hur or say, Bridge on the River Kwai. Big wide screen films that really had to draw in the crowd to compete with the novelty of television.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 25, 2014)

Guy, for me the test of time is not passed if a 12-year old enjoys a movie 30 years later, but rather if it can be appreciated by adults who were not even born when it was released. And FWIW, when I think of blockbusters, I think of popcorn movies made after the first one, Jaws.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 26, 2014)

Guy, the best I ever did with my kid at 12 was Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Airplane, both of which still tickle me. I tried The Meaning of Life, but he was mostly baffled.


----------



## AC986 (Jun 26, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> Ferris Bueller's Day Off



I still watch that.

I think it's because of Twist & Shout, plus the whole ambience of that time in the USA. A voyeuristic film for older people. Haw!


----------



## dpasdernick (Jun 30, 2014)

KEnK @ Thu Jun 12 said:


> choc0thrax @ Wed Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Pixar really does need to step up their game...
> ...



How sad. Pixar were pioneers. Amazing stories until Disney got their claws in them. The almighty dollar rears it's ugly head and creativity and innovation are pushed to the curb as dividends and shareholders storm the gates... The good news? A group of the 500 Pixar guys will start a boutique animation house, come up with a brilliant story and not get hammered over the head by a corporation that used to be somebody and now only wants to sell rehashed sh*t...

If Walt Disney had the mindset of current Disney execs we wouldn't have anything Disney period. He would have sold it out to Monsanto and left the country with a trophy wife and a suitcase full of money.


----------



## Consona (Aug 4, 2014)

Have you seen *Guardians of the Galaxy* yet? I think it is your _hope for Hollywood_! :D

I loved that film. It's very amusing yet dramatic with great characters, they are soulful and you really care for them. They act sometimes in heroic way and something so selfishly and James Gunn was able to keep the tone of the movie the whole time so it's no over-melodramatic yet it touches your heart. :D But sometimes you can really feel the pain they have must gone through in their past so it's not just some silly cosmic ride. Overall it's very entertaining space opera and for me by far the best Marvel film to this date. Cannot wait to see it for the second time.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Aug 4, 2014)

Consona @ Mon Aug 04 said:


> Have you seen *Guardians of the Galaxy* yet? I think it is your _hope for Hollywood_! :D
> 
> I loved that film. It's very amusing yet dramatic with great characters, they are soulful and you really care for them. They act sometimes in heroic way and something so selfishly and James Gunn was able to keep the tone of the movie the whole time so it's no over-melodramatic yet it touches your heart. :D But sometimes you can really feel the pain they have must gone through in their past so it's not just some silly cosmic ride. Overall it's very entertaining space opera and for me by far the best Marvel film to this date. Cannot wait to see it for the second time.



D'ya know, I might see it. One of the heroes is furry, I thought that was a promising sign.

I figure for the past 6 months I must spend on average 5-10 minutes a day just thinking about how astonishingly good The Lego Movie is. It goes without saying it'll be overlooked at the Oscars cos the Academy has always believed that comedy is so easy pretty much anyone can do it, and of course its a kids movie, but if there's any justice in the world this would be up for original screenplay at the very least (if using some existing characters doesn't disqualify it for some arcane reason). And that's on top of best animation of course (though its hard for me to say, it even tops Dragon 2, though that is extremely good too). Hell I'd give it film of the year so far - and yes I have seen and really loved Boyhood. There are a few grown up encouraging signs for sure, but I tells ya, the kids have never had it so good.


----------



## Consona (Aug 8, 2014)

So I have to check The Lego Movie and Boyhood then.

I've seen Guardians for the second time and the film is just average but I really enjoyed it nevertheless. It has something that makes me feel good while watching it, but story and characters were not that deep or complex at all.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Aug 8, 2014)

Consona @ Fri Aug 08 said:


> So I have to check The Lego Movie and Boyhood then.



Two more opposite movies you'll struggle to find (though linked themes of identity and conformity? Think I'm stretching it a tad..) But yeah, but excellent in their different fields. Boyhood is unique in terms of how it was made - shot over 12 years - and it is a gently paced thoughtful film that teases out rather than goes for big gestures, but I loved it for that. As many have commented, it stays with you.

I've probably raved enough about The Lego Movie....


----------



## choc0thrax (Aug 8, 2014)

Boyhood had some really great moments but I think I'm the only person who overall wasn't that impressed. The big reason is that when I go see a film I should be engaged in what's happening and forgetting that I'm in a theatre. I was really into it for quite a while but at a certain point I started waiting for the film to wrap up but it kept going and going. My back and ass started to hurt horribly and it's a shame but eventually I kept shouting inside my own head for the torture to end. When you have a film this narratively loose maybe try not making it almost three hours. Past the two hour mark I kept my eyes peeled for signs that we were wrapping things up... but. it. just. kept. going. I still think everyone should see this film once since it has a lot of great stuff in it. I just feel it would've been far better had they cut 40 mins. A lot of scenes felt unnecessary. 

If you like the concept of Boyhood but need a high entertainment factor in your movie watching maybe just go through all the Harry Potter films. It's the same thing but with magic.


----------



## bimberl (Aug 9, 2014)

choc0thrax @ Fri Aug 08 said:


> Boyhood had some really great moments but I think I'm the only person who overall wasn't that impressed. The big reason is that when I go see a film I should be engaged in what's happening and forgetting that I'm in a theatre. I was really into it for quite a while but at a certain point I started waiting for the film to wrap up but it kept going and going. My back and ass started to hurt horribly and it's a shame but eventually I kept shouting inside my own head for the torture to end. When you have a film this narratively loose maybe try not making it almost three hours. Past the two hour mark I kept my eyes peeled for signs that we were wrapping things up... but. it. just. kept. going. I still think everyone should see this film once since it has a lot of great stuff in it. I just feel it would've been far better had they cut 40 mins. A lot of scenes felt unnecessary.
> 
> If you like the concept of Boyhood but need a high entertainment factor in your movie watching maybe just go through all the Harry Potter films. It's the same thing but with magic.



Wow, I just couldn't have felt more differently. I was absolutely riveted, never thought about the time.

That said, chocothrax, as you are the author of the capri pants post, I may have to defer to your judgement. Respect.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Aug 9, 2014)

I went to Boyhood with a friend who walks at the first sign of fake acting / directing / scripting. He stayed. But he did say he was a bit bored for much of it, until the last half hour so go figure. Like Bimberl, I was never bored or noticed the time.

Funnily enough, Choco, I did think of Harry Potter as the closest precedent I can think of, but I ain't sitting through Goblet of Fire again for all the tea in China. That was a fascinating exercise in how cutting a book ruthlessly for time can make a film feel like it drags on for all eternity.


----------



## choc0thrax (Aug 10, 2014)

BTW here's the trailer for 'Potterhood' http://www.firstshowing.net/2014/watch- ... d-trailer/

I have to admit I easily bore during slower films. As I get older I find myself gravitating towards action films more and more (although I did enjoy the recent film 'Locke' which is just Tom Hardy driving a car and calling people the entire film). 

I was also disappointed by the decade or so that we got in Boyhood. I thought it would be cool to see the world change throughout the film but was reminded the difference between 2002 and 2014 isn't so big. It's a whole big stagnant blehhh area of the timeline to me. Would've been cool to see it start somewhere in the 90s and watch computers, internet, cell phones take off, the arrival of the year 2000 and 9/11 etc. 

Speaking of Tom Hardy, THIS is something I don't think will bore me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akX3Is3qBpw

Nice showcase for the ARRI Alexa.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 11, 2014)

Last time I saw Walt Disney was in Iron Man where he got the part of Tony Starks' Dad.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 12, 2014)

dpasdernick @ 30th June 2014 said:


> He would have sold it out to Monsanto and left the country with a trophy wife and a suitcase full of money.



Hey, that's MY plan.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Sep 6, 2014)

Consona @ Mon Aug 04 said:


> Have you seen *Guardians of the Galaxy* yet? I think it is your _hope for Hollywood_! :D
> 
> I loved that film. It's very amusing yet dramatic with great characters, they are soulful and you really care for them. They act sometimes in heroic way and something so selfishly and James Gunn was able to keep the tone of the movie the whole time so it's no over-melodramatic yet it touches your heart. :D But sometimes you can really feel the pain they have must gone through in their past so it's not just some silly cosmic ride. Overall it's very entertaining space opera and for me by far the best Marvel film to this date. Cannot wait to see it for the second time.



Finally seen it and yay, it WAS fun, wasn't it? What a refreshing thing to hear audience laughter in a blockbuster. It was kind of all over the place superficially - a lot to take in on a first watch - and I can see the comparisons to Star Wars, mostly in the 2nd half. But it had its own unique aesthetic and an admirable sense of puncturing itself when required. Fundamentally solid storytelling and yes, a little heart in there too, and hooray for both of those things. Probably another reason I liked it is that it isn't actually a superhero film at all, so I had no baggage to wade through.

Maybe not 100% classic, but definitely in the Hope For Hollywood camp. And a hit - after the sadly underperforming Edge of Tomorrow, encouraging that audiences have responded to something that has some fun in it.


----------

