or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › What Movies Are You Watching Lately
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What Movies Are You Watching Lately - Page 412

post #6166 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Mmmmmh. Say Dark Knight when you do it big boy.

nod[1].gif
post #6167 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

Because it was a movie.
I enjoyed the movie a lot, but this scene made no sense. Should've come up with a better solution to how they contact their base.
post #6168 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

Mmmmmh. Say Dark Knight when you do it big boy.

BTW... the 'its a movie' excuse died decades ago. Rebuttals welcome. None forthcoming? I officially declare TDKR a piece of shit.

its a movie based on a comic book right? comic books are pretty much ridiculous tales of fantasy/supernatural/outlandishness but sometimes have great characters and character development, but they are confined by a certain number of static illustrations within a page. Its a medium that lends itself to plot holes galore. So transferring it to screen only exposed such inconsistencies further.

"its a movie" premise still holds.

also idfnl... why so many spoilers? You may not like the movie, but you don't have to completely ruin the movie by giving away key twists and turns in the story. Its a disservice to this thread to those who may have not have seen this particular movie. Go ahead and spoil all you want and rant and rave in the specific batman movie thread.
post #6169 of 9598
I will be receiving TDKR from Netflix tomorrow. With any luck, I'll have time to watch it this weekend and let you guys know who is correct about its quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Gump isn't bad, but it's inexcusable it beat out Pulp Fiction that year. I'll always have hate in my heart for it because of that.

This is really just your just desserts for giving a rat's ass about awards shows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

How many of these thousands of movies have you seen? Gump is a retard. They have retards in all kinds of movies. The only good thing about Gump is the background, what happens to him, and what happens to those around him. Gump is a blank wall. He's the least interesting character of all time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Right, but you said he was "one of the most unforgettable movie characters of all time." I suppose he might be memorable, and if that's all you meant then that's fine. But if you meant it was a good performance, or Gump is an interesting or exciting or compelling character then I must take issue with that.

I agree, for the most part. The thing that made Gump a good movie was the stuff that happened around him. He was just sort of an endearing character around which they based a history of about 40 years of American culture. I do think he's a memorable character, however. I mean, everyone knows about that character, but I don't think he's particularly poignant or deep.
post #6170 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawrenceMD View Post

"its a movie" premise still holds.

Seriously? I don't understand how any person with either a semblance of intelligence or a high school education can think that all orders of nonsense can be excused by such a trivial statement. People would say this to me when I was in grade school and I realized how absurd it was then.

Even if you want to ignore all aesthetic theory that has been developed on this matter, you still have to contend with the basis of the theory that prompted it -- specifically that when a work of fiction is presented to an audience it can't be construed as anything meaningful if it doesn't make sense. This is obvious: even a child understands intuitively that all stories must make sense and they are constructed on this logical, rational basis (even if the child's stories only make sense to the child). That's why I'm convinced that people that find TDKR entertaining must be lacking (by will or otherwise) the necessary rationality and thought processes that make it so utterly ridiculous to anyone with such capacities. As a simple corollary example to demonstrate the point, it's the reason moviemakers strive for continuity; if this could all be dismissed with a simple 'it's a movie' there wouldn't be a point to making sure a character wounded in one scene acts wounded in the next and Hollywood could (and would) cash in on lowered production costs by not re-shooting scenes or editing scripts because audiences wouldn't care -- after all, 'it's a movie'.

Besides, even if you won't concede the points above, an argument specific to TDKR is that Nolan's version of Batman isn't the same one in the comics anyway.
post #6171 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawrenceMD View Post

its a movie based on a comic book right? comic books are pretty much ridiculous tales of fantasy/supernatural/outlandishness but sometimes have great characters and character development, but they are confined by a certain number of static illustrations within a page. Its a medium that lends itself to plot holes galore. So transferring it to screen only exposed such inconsistencies further.

"its a movie" premise still holds.

also idfnl... why so many spoilers? You may not like the movie, but you don't have to completely ruin the movie by giving away key twists and turns in the story. Its a disservice to this thread to those who may have not have seen this particular movie. Go ahead and spoil all you want and rant and rave in the specific batman movie thread.

Good point, sorry. I went back and added spoiler tags.

There is a difference between the creative license of superhero movies and, as why points out above, thoughtless film-making. This is the latter. There is a suspension of disbelief that needs to take place but when you are presented with absurdity after absurdity, many moments that fail the 'what would you do' litmus test, and defies the laws of physics it becomes a bad movie.

2 cases in point:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I mentioned that stock exchange scene, and how it went from day to night in the space of riding thru a tunnel. I mean come on, how thoughtless can you get? With all the people involved in this film nobody caught that? Its just sloppy.

I mentioned the nuke exploding. Even the most basic story-boarding should have made it clear this defies physics. There are 100 ways this could have been handled, the easiest and best being a simple disarm of the weapon. But no... people need excitement and some goofball insisted on a shot of Gotham's skyline with the mushroom cloud in the distance so we get this farcical moment.
post #6172 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by b1os View Post

I enjoyed the movie a lot, but this scene made no sense. Should've come up with a better solution to how they contact their base.

im going to be honest. when i watch movies like that i have almost no interest in the plot having no holes. if the action/violence is good, the characters are decent enough and the polt is not boring me to death, i am a happy man. what can i say, im easily entertained. : )

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I will be receiving TDKR from Netflix tomorrow. With any luck, I'll have time to watch it this weekend and let you guys know who is correct about its quality.

as a mod are you automatically correct?
Quote:
This is really just your just desserts for giving a rat's ass about awards shows.

lolburn
Quote:
I agree, for the most part. The thing that made Gump a good movie was the stuff that happened around him. He was just sort of an endearing character around which they based a history of about 40 years of American culture. I do think he's a memorable character, however. I mean, everyone knows about that character, but I don't think he's particularly poignant or deep.

this. watching what transpired around him was fantastic. also i cried at the end when they revealed the kid. i like that shit. sue me.

also, ITT - people get more srs about movies than they even do about religion the internet. mind blown.
post #6173 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

Seriously? I don't understand how any person with either a semblance of intelligence or a high school education can think that all orders of nonsense can be excused by such a trivial statement. People would say this to me when I was in grade school and I realized how absurd it was then.

Even if you want to ignore all aesthetic theory that has been developed on this matter, you still have to contend with the basis of the theory that prompted it -- specifically that when a work of fiction is presented to an audience it can't be construed as anything meaningful if it doesn't make sense. This is obvious: even a child understands intuitively that all stories must make sense and they are constructed on this logical, rational basis (even if the child's stories only make sense to the child). That's why I'm convinced that people that find TDKR entertaining must be lacking (by will or otherwise) the necessary rationality and thought processes that make it so utterly ridiculous to anyone with such capacities. As a simple corollary example to demonstrate the point, it's the reason moviemakers strive for continuity; if this could all be dismissed with a simple 'it's a movie' there wouldn't be a point to making sure a character wounded in one scene acts wounded in the next and Hollywood could (and would) cash in on lowered production costs by not re-shooting scenes or editing scripts because audiences wouldn't care -- after all, 'it's a movie'.

Besides, even if you won't concede the points above, an argument specific to TDKR is that Nolan's version of Batman isn't the same one in the comics anyway.

^in a vacuum yes. that's just common sense.

but this movie is but just a part of a well established story line. its merely an interpretation of a story that has already been told succinctly before.

and you know what? even the source material is a re-interpretation of the original story.

so any gaps in story telling for this particular movie already has a built in crib sheet, it can be viewed as a cheap tactic, but thats the advantage of this franchise.

its just a movie.... a batman movie... the third installment of the dark night series adapted from a famous comic book series.... nothing to get riled up about when you realize the context.

edit: my wife and I tried to watch A Fish Called Wanda the other night. damn that movie didn't age well... i think i was less than 10 years old when that movie came out, and I remember how my parents were simultaneously covering my eyes/ears whenever something adult happened. I also remembered how much/hard they laughed throughout the movie. The wife and I just stopped watching and went to sleep.
post #6174 of 9598
Watched Two For the Road last night with the lady.

Really enjoyed it.
post #6175 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawrenceMD View Post

^in a vacuum yes. that's just common sense.

but this movie is but just a part of a well established story line. its merely an interpretation of a story that has already been told succinctly before.

and you know what? even the source material is a re-interpretation of the original story.

so any gaps in story telling for this particular movie already has a built in crib sheet, it can be viewed as a cheap tactic, but thats the advantage of this franchise.

its just a movie.... a batman movie... the third installment of the dark night series adapted from a famous comic book series.... nothing to get riled up about when you realize the context.

So if the plot holes were fixed the movie would be the same to you?

And I don't know what 'in a vacuum' means in this context. If you mean that what I wrote can't be placed into context, then I disagree. What I wrote can be applied generally, which is why I gave general examples that demonstrate the absurdity of 'it's a movie' as some kind of excuse for sloppiness.

Plus, as I've posted before (in The Hobbit thread, I think) the idea that the source material of a movie needs to be considered alongside the movie is preposterous. Again, this is trivially true when taken to its limit: if I made a movie that was a black screen for two hours but said it was inspired by King Lear should this somehow affect the fact that it's literally a black screen?

That's not to say source material can't affect a person's opinion of a movie -- of course it can. It would be silly to think a subjective opinion isn't subject to the viewer. It's materially no different than, say, exposure to basic physics makes James Bond's 20-story headfirst dive in Skyfall seem absurd, or why Pitch Perfect is more enjoyable if the viewer knows or enjoys the songs covered in it.
Quote:
edit: my wife and I tried to watch A Fish Called Wanda the other night. damn that movie didn't age well... i think i was less than 10 years old when that movie came out, and I remember how my parents were simultaneously covering my eyes/ears whenever something adult happened. I also remembered how much/hard they laughed throughout the movie. The wife and I just stopped watching and went to sleep.

That movie is still great. What didn't age well in it?
post #6176 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

So if the plot holes were fixed the movie would be the same to you?

And I don't know what 'in a vacuum' means in this context. If you mean that what I wrote can't be placed into context, then I disagree. What I wrote can be applied generally, which is why I gave general examples that demonstrate the absurdity of 'it's a movie' as some kind of excuse for sloppiness.

Plus, as I've posted before (in The Hobbit thread, I think) the idea that the source material of a movie needs to be considered alongside the movie is preposterous. Again, this is trivially true when taken to its limit: if I made a movie that was a black screen for two hours but said it was inspired by King Lear should this somehow affect the fact that it's literally a black screen?


That movie is still great. What didn't age well in it?
I'm beginning to think you don't know what's good.


Classic Why: Let me argue with myself moment. fing02[1].gif

as for a fish called wanda. I understand that its a beloved comedy. I wanted to laugh and follow the story, but with the advent of improved efficient improv comedic timing thats pervasive in the last 15 years in TV/Movies/commercials/youtube shorts it just felt off paced. I'm a huge fan of the monty python troop/descendant comedies but some of that comedy/movies isn't as funny as it was back in the day.

when was the last time you watched the movie? I watched it on wednesday and well it didn't hook and make me laugh. I realized "its just a movie" and turned it off. Its a simple procedure and saves a lot of undue stress.
post #6177 of 9598
Watched it maybe three months ago. Kevin Kline is awesome. I count it among the movies that makes me smile throughout. I actually don't like the Monty Python movies much and think they're really, really overrated.

And I have no idea what 'improved efficient improv comedic training' is. Some stuff will pretty much always be funny.

Or are you referring to watching people fall off roofs or autotuned remixes of viral videos on Youtube as some brand new sort of comedy that makes A Fish Called Wanda not funny?
post #6178 of 9598
A Fish Called Wanda is completely timeless. Perfect cast and seamlessly excellent writing.
post #6179 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

Watched it maybe three months ago. Kevin Kline is awesome. I count it among the movies that makes me smile throughout. I actually don't like the Monty Python movies much and think they're really, really overrated.

And I have no idea what 'improved efficient improv comedic training' is. Some stuff will pretty much always be funny.

Or are you referring to watching people fall off roofs or autotuned remixes of viral videos on Youtube as some brand new sort of comedy that makes A Fish Called Wanda not funny?

are you always going to argue with yourself?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
A fish called wanda was written by John Cleese and takes a ton of homage from Python-esque comedies of past and present. Some python stuff is aged... some is timeless
post #6180 of 9598
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawrenceMD View Post

as for a fish called wanda. I understand that its a beloved comedy. I wanted to laugh and follow the story, but with the advent of improved efficient improv comedic timing thats pervasive in the last 15 years in TV/Movies/commercials/youtube shorts it just felt off paced. I'm a huge fan of the monty python troop/descendant comedies but some of that comedy/movies isn't as funny as it was back in the day.

when was the last time you watched the movie? I watched it on wednesday and well it didn't hook and make me laugh. I realized "its just a movie" and turned it off. Its a simple procedure and saves a lot of undue stress.

 

AFCW is a master work of comedy writing, acting and timing. You find it lacking when compared to ... youtube clips? What exactly does "improved efficient improv comedic timing" mean? 

 

It is the filmmaker's goal to fill the plot holes and ease over the narrative inconsistencies of a comic turned film. It's a real challenge as what works on 8 panels rarely does when translated directly to the screen. The Walking Dead is a good example of how difficult this can be.

 

TDKR is a failed film from a narrative perspective - it is ridiculous at times, but because it is a huge financial success due to the average movie goer having little to no standards no one involved particularly gives a shit about the plot holes. 

 

lefty 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › What Movies Are You Watching Lately