|
Vintersorg posted:What a great movie tho - loved it from start to finish. And I am glad Maurice never died, he was my favorite - "......run" You and me both!
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
One of the things that I liked about Koba and Caesar's relationship was that at the beginning of the film we see that the ape "handshake" of submission has evolved into a "real" forearm grasping handshake of brotherhood. This is one part where it's important to remember the first film. As the movie progresses and their relationship becomes strained, their "handshakes" regress back to the way they were in the first film. Based on No Wave's rap sheet, I'm going to guess that his knowledge of the word privilege is primarily from the phrase "User loses posting privileges for X days"...
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Privilege is a pretty universal term, and yes it basically does mean fortunate. It's to do with having something you associate as 'normal' but others do not have at all. Being raised by humans who love you is not a right, it is a privilege that Caesar got lucky with. SuperMechagodzilla posted:The point of James Franco being a good man, like you is that, if you recall from the first film, Franco was entirely motivated by saving his father - until Lithgow dies. Then, suddenly, he's worried about the risks and consequences. Being 'a good man' means being well-intentioned, but enormously flawed - loving your family to such an extent that you miss the bigger picture entirely. SuperMechagodzilla posted:There's no getting around the fact that this film is ridiculously well-made, but Walter Chaw unwittingly raises the issue in his 4-star review: the message is the same as in satirical films like Transformers, Star Wars 1-3, Prometheus and so-on, but the naturalistic presentation makes the liberal protagonists' faults seem, well, natural. When Optimus Prime declares freedom the right of all sentient beings - with the unspoken corollary that if you threaten our freedom, you are not a sentient being - it's funny/horrifying. It cuts to the chase. This film is, for better or worse, way more gentle with its criticism. It's a liberal-humanist film about the limits of liberal humanism. Armond White's issues, given that his politics are far more radical than Chaw's, are entirely understandable. EDIT: I just read Armond White's review of Dawn and I agree with everything he said. It's happening. No Wave fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:You can see a bit of it before when he's influencing Caesars son. I'm paraphrasing but stuff like him going " Scars make you a badass", "Humans suck!" "See your dad likes them!" He was slowly sowing the seeds of a takeover as he always thought Caesar was weak. I didn't read the "Scars make you stronger" as a dig at Caesar, more of a "buck-up, kid!" to Blue Eyes. I think the sentiment may have colored Koba's outlook once poo poo started going down, though. The other stuff I thought happened after Caesar allowed Malcolm & Crew to visit the dam, which would fit with my theory that the cracks in Caesar and Koba's relationship didn't really start to show until the human element came in. But hell yeah on Maurice. Best single-word line in the film!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
I am not sure if it's been mentioned but there will be a sequel to this right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:I am not sure if it's been mentioned but there will be a sequel to this right? Well, it was a $70,000,000 opening weekend. The last one opened at $54,000,000. I'm guessing most likely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Chaw's review was real bad. I remember when he was the best around. Or was I dumber then? All I know is his review of Age of Extinction is the worst one I've seen. "Bay is among the worst human beings on the planet" ... huh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:All I know is his review of Age of Extinction is the worst one I've seen. "Bay is among the worst human beings on the planet" ... huh? It does raise the question of how you evaluate a movie when so many these days are satirical in one form or another. If a movie is a sterling example of lovely thought and its consequences, is it a good movie or a bad movie? Without playing idiotic "what was their intent" or "what will the shitpeople think" games, it seems like you can only really evaluate a film based on a.) whether the narrative presented in the narrative strikes you as somehow profound and b.) how much the film gets you off - after that, it's really just about how much time you dedicate to thinking about it (determined largely by the second factor). No Wave fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Yeah I haven't seen the T-former movies so I couldn't comment on it. I haven't seen it either but I am going to say pretty confidently that Michael Bay isn't one of the worst people on the planet for directing it. Unless I guess the production involved an actual genocide. Then maybe. I guess I should reserve my opinions until I have seen the film!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Yeah I haven't seen the T-former movies so I couldn't comment on it. That statement has nothing really to do with seeing the films, though. It's plainly ridiculous no matter what the particular content of the fiction the man creates. quote:Without playing idiotic "what was their intent" or "what will the shitpeople think" games, it seems like you can only really evaluate a film based on a.) whether the narrative presented in the narrative strikes you as somehow profound and b.) how much the film gets you off - after that, it's really just about how much time you dedicate to thinking about it (determined largely by the second factor). My solution is to simply always do your best to evaluate a film in a way that most brings out whatever merits and relevant meanings or thought-provoking aspects you can find in it, without falling into those traps you mentioned ("what was their intent" or "what will the shitpeople think"). Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Michael Bay filmed real sentient robots having their faces destroyed while making Transformers. It is the equivalent of the animal death featured in Cannibal Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
I didn't mean that as a defense of Chaw (given that I just called his review lovely), I just meant that I didn't bother reading the reviews. I'm sure that in-context it's very stupid, I'm just not going to get worked up over out-of-context hyperbole.Lord Krangdar posted:My solution is to simply always do your best to evaluate a film in a way that most brings out whatever merits and relevant meanings or thought-provoking aspects it may have, without falling into those traps you mentioned ("what was their intent" or "what will the shitpeople think").
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
No Wave posted:The trouble is that professional critics end up being assigned to review films that they feel nothing about, making them invent justifications for their indifference (even though that's sort of the default state of being) - then, of course, you can say "that film made you think about that justification! Therefore it's a thought-provoking film!" Eh... sort of. Well that touches on why I don't usually pay any attention to professional critics. quote:I didn't mean that as a defense of Chaw (given that I just called his review lovely), I just meant that I didn't bother reading the reviews. I'm sure that in-context it's very stupid, I'm just not going to get worked up over out-of-context hyperbole. Ok, I see what you meant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
It didn't keep me from enjoying the movie, but was anyone else bothered at the almost complete lack of female characters? One female character for each side. Why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Erethizon_dorsatum posted:It didn't keep me from enjoying the movie, but was anyone else bothered at the almost complete lack of female characters? One female character for each side. Why? I hadn't thought of that. It was virtually the same for the last movie too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Erethizon_dorsatum posted:It didn't keep me from enjoying the movie, but was anyone else bothered at the almost complete lack of female characters? One female character for each side. Why? Malcolm's wife was an egregiously lame sub-1950s doting wife character, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Malcolm's wife was an egregiously lame sub-1950s doting wife character, too. In what way?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
I did kind of start laughing at her constant shouting of "MALCOLM!" whenever something remotely bad happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Malcolm's wife was an egregiously lame sub-1950s doting wife character, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Oh, come on, dude. If that was true than she would actually be kind of interesting. Hahahahaha good point. Lord Krangdar posted:In what way? She did nothing, she was nothing, she contributed nothing except doe-eyed concern to sell the danger of the mission.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Erethizon_dorsatum posted:It didn't keep me from enjoying the movie, but was anyone else bothered at the almost complete lack of female characters? One female character for each side. Why? It kind of made sense to me. This movie is very much about conflict, and when poo poo hits the fan, its men who take to the front lines. Both the apes and humans are significantly fewer in number than they'd like to be, with a large number of humans being wiped out and the apes being comprised of those who escaped from their respective facilities. In that scenario, you wouldn't send out your women and children to perform risky jobs or fight. They're too important to the survival of the species. So Malcolm tries his best to keep his kid and girlfriend back in the rear, failing miserably in that regard, and the apes keep the females as far away from danger as possible. The communal area they kept showing may very well have had a shitload of female apes, but I can't tell the difference so I wouldn't know. Back to the humans, Malcolm's excursion was a high risk operation, not because of the actual work being done, but because they were venturing into what is essentially enemy territory. There's no reason to take more risks than necessary, especially to the detriment of the human race, so bringing more women than absolutely necessary doesn't seem like a smart move. Back in the rear, we focus mostly on Oldman's character as a leader, and the two dudes who get schwacked by Koba. They're integral to the conflict brewing. The civilians doing whatever it is they do don't really matter, so we don't focus on them, really, outside of them smiling at electricity and getting wasted by apes. That isn't to say women aren't important in their respective ape and human societies, but they played a vastly different role in more egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, which is slowly where humanity was headed and where the apes already were. When we're down to the wire, we revert to those evil patriarchal devil gender roles that not only ensured humanity survived, but thrived. Spoilered in case I spill the beans on something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Erethizon_dorsatum posted:It didn't keep me from enjoying the movie, but was anyone else bothered at the almost complete lack of female characters? One female character for each side. Why? Male screenwriters by default write very few female characters, and the ones they do write tend to be stock characters. Which is not to defend them, but simply to say that this is ingrained, usually absent of any malice. When the director was asked this question in an interview, he admitted he and the writers hadn't ever thought about it. EVER. Which, rather than being a defense, is a stunning indictment of the industry, and male screenwriters/directors in particular. This sort of poo poo is why, if I ever get around to doing serious fiction writing, one of my long term ambitions, most of my main characters will be women. It's a challenge, for sure, but just writing about men because I'm a man is loving lazy, and it's the sort of low effort logic Hollywood is built on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
penismightier posted:She did nothing, she was nothing, she contributed nothing except doe-eyed concern to sell the danger of the mission. She didn't drive the story for the most part, but that wasn't my experience. Also Caesar accepting her medical help for his wife even though it made him look weak and somewhat wishy-washy was actually a significant plot point. And your reference to a 50's doting wife is still bizarre and unjustified.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
I see what you're saying, Xeremides, but there's some characters that could have been made female and nothing would have changed. Carver, Malcolm's son, Gary Oldman's character etc could easily have been made women. The humans would have had to take female Carver with them anyway because Carver was apparently the only survivor who had worked at the dam. Malcolm's son went along because he felt like it he was equally safe with his dad as he was at the compound. That wouldn't have changed if he had been a daughter instead. At the very least, they could have included a scene of the doctor treating Cornelia. It would have been interesting to see what their thoughts about the ape/human interactions were.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
If those characters could have been written/cast as women without changing anything then writing/casting them as women wouldn't have changed anything. So how would that have improved the film, again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:If those characters could have been written/cast as women without changing anything then writing/casting them as women wouldn't have changed anything. So how would that have improved the film, again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Keri Russells character reminded me of a useless version of Julianne Moore's character in The Lost World. Jason Clarke is really the only good human in the movie in terms of compelling character stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Erethizon_dorsatum posted:I see what you're saying, Xeremides, but there's some characters that could have been made female and nothing would have changed. Carver, Malcolm's son, Gary Oldman's character etc could easily have been made women. The humans would have had to take female Carver with them anyway because Carver was apparently the only survivor who had worked at the dam. Malcolm's son went along because he felt like it he was equally safe with his dad as he was at the compound. That wouldn't have changed if he had been a daughter instead. I think Malcolm's family dynamic was meant to mirror Caesar's, so it was actually important for him to have a son versus a daughter. As Blue Eyes was Caesar's heir, so was I-Never-Bothered-To-Remember-His-Name Malcolm's heir. Gary Oldman's character could have potentially been made female, but are we just changing genders for the sake of gender quotas in film, or because it actually adds to the story? For me, it goes back to the idea of conflict. Oldman was a former police chief, and a mayoral candidate; someone people would look to for leadership in a crisis. San Francisco just got their first female police chief 5 years ago, so I don't know that the one female police chief would be more likely to survive than the myriad of male police chiefs, of which Oldman happened to be one of them. To me anyway, but I'm probably a shitlord. I agree that changing doucheface who shot anything that moved with a woman wouldn't have changed very much, but then you'd probably get comments about a woman being depicted as too emotional and incompetent. Or not. I don't know. Xeremides fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:If those characters could have been written/cast as women without changing anything then writing/casting them as women wouldn't have changed anything. So how would that have improved the film, again? Female audience members like to see female characters in movies. It's the same with people of color. A diverse cast is more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Jason Clarke is really the only good human in the movie in terms of compelling character stuff. Erethizon_dorsatum posted:Female audience members like to see female characters in movies. It's the same with people of color. A diverse cast is more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
The story is primarily a story about four males: Gary Oldman, Malcolm, Caesar, and Koba. Yes some of the other characters could have been made female, but considering the themes of men being obsessed with showing strength and disliking weakness as a negative trait of both ape and human males was central to the story, I think that those four being male was important. In a story that is specifically about masculine machismo being a destructive influence on society, it's easy to fall into the trap of "women need to teach them a softer touch" which is also sexist. Not all stories need to have an even balance of character gender. Stories that are not specifically about gender roles may want to avoid the issue so that it doesn't detract from issues that the story is trying to address. At then end of the day, not every single story can be about gender issues AND whatever else it's supposed to be about. This is a movie where the characters are primarily male, but the movie is critical of the male stereotypes they embody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Snak posted:Not all stories need to have an even balance of character gender. Stories that are not specifically about gender roles may want to avoid the issue so that it doesn't detract from issues that the story is trying to address. At then end of the day, not every single story can be about gender issues AND whatever else it's supposed to be about. See: The Thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:If those characters could have been written/cast as women without changing anything then writing/casting them as women wouldn't have changed anything. So how would that have improved the film, again? Because women exist and do things so they should be in movies too? By your own admission, some of these characters could have easily been women, so why not? The lack of women should be justified, not the inclusion. For example: Snak posted:Yes some of the other characters could have been made female, but considering the themes of men being obsessed with showing strength and disliking weakness as a negative trait of both ape and human males was central to the story, I think that those four being male was important. I don't necessarily agree with this, but it's a fair point to run with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
I'm not saying the movie should have been about gender roles along with everything else. A movie can have women in it without being about gender roles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:See: The Thing. Compare it to Alien. Alien is a very good film, with characters that were written to be gender neutral. The characters behave gender neutral for the most part. All of the Alien films are about rape, and the victimization of the female characters as opposed to the male characters both influences this and is influenced by this. You can make (probably a good argument) the The Thing is just as much about rape, but it is perceived differently because the monster isn't shaped like a penis and its victims aren't women. In both films a being that is different from the characters forces itself on them physically in order to reproduce. Alien obviously has a much stronger visual and thematic references that make the theme explicit, but it can be argued that this sort of thing galvanizes people against the message. Alien portrays a being so powerful that rape and unwanted pregnancy becomes a male problem, and the solution to this problem is to kill the super-male. The Thing, in contrast, presents rape as a disgusting and systemic problem: rape is an infection in our society. If you accept my reading that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is critical of traditional masculinity, it becomes problematic if the characters not required to be male for the message to be clear are made female. Then it is "Men act like this, women act like this" rather than "Men feel that they should act a certain way and that is a big problem" I agree that there should be more well-written female characters in films, but adding more minor female characters does not advance an agenda of gender equality. non-gender issues comment: I think it would be cool if, in the future, the sketchbook from this film becomes like an ape bible or historical relic. It documents the fall of mankind and Caesar's deeds leading up to the war between apes and men. edit: Erethizon_dorsatum posted:I'm not saying the movie should have been about gender roles along with everything else. A movie can have women in it without being about gender roles. I think it would actually be a great issue for the next movie to tackle, with the apes comparing their gender roles to that of humans. There were no female ape characters except for Caesar's wife. It would be great for there to be a female Ape protagonist who learns from watching humans that her role in her society should not be limited by her sex. This same hypothetical sequel could address that humans still don't have real gender equality. But none of this would fit in Dawn. Snak fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Erethizon_dorsatum posted:Female audience members like to see female characters in movies. It's the same with people of color. A diverse cast is more interesting. If "nothing would have changed" how could the result be more interesting? What allows you to speak for entire groups of people? DetoxP posted:Because women exist and do things so they should be in movies too? By your own admission, some of these characters could have easily been women, so why not? The lack of women should be justified, not the inclusion. I didn't admit that. I was trying to follow along with someone else's logic. I think that having more central women characters with more agency would actually change the film significantly. This is not a work of utopianism. Its a work of social criticism, and one fundamentally about failure. Depicting two societies which fail in allowing women equal opportunities and agency as men is in line with that social criticism. Films depicting progress on that front might be nice, but in this particular film it would have been at odds with everthing else. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:If "nothing would have changed" how can the result be more interesting? If you want us to prove that "groups like presentation," you're not really debating in good faith. I think your point about social criticism is fair and a reasonable argument, but you're also making a lose-lose scenario. You say women can't be included because it changes the point of the film (fair), but when presented with the opposite scenario (does not significantly change the narrative or thematic focus of the film), you're basically saying "Why bother?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Assuming that men and women are treated differently in society, writing characters into a script without consideration of their gender seems like a misrepresentation of reality. If we are indeed sexist, then the reactions of other characters should be influenced by the gender of those they interact with. Someone's saying that Oldman could have been female - but isn't glorious death much more a male fantasy than a female one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
It's not so much the wife's relevance to the plot or weight of screentime, it's the fact that she's given no inner life and no independent thoughts or actions. Notice the way she's always framed at Malcolm's side, and the way she practically only speaks when spoken to. She's never given a moment alone. That kind of stuff isn't representative of a world where women don't have much of an impact but is symptomatic of a film which is disinterested in their perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
DetoxP posted:If you want us to prove that "groups like presentation," you're not really debating in good faith. I don't want anyone to prove that. I want posters to stop pretending to speak for entire groups of people. I wasn't saying why bother including women at all. I was trying to get that poster to stop saying the change they were arguing for wouldn't change anything, and instead to come out and say exactly why they think it would improve this particular film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:31
|
|