|
The original Star Wars movies' magical force poo poo was lovely anyways. It's like a lazy freshman level creative writing plot device. Luke can do some bullshit because wizard powers. Cool. If that poo poo showed up in a modern movie that wasn't explicitly about wizards you'd laugh your goddamn way back to the box office to get your money back.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:The original Star Wars movies' magical force poo poo was lovely anyways. It's like a lazy freshman level creative writing plot device. Luke can do some bullshit because wizard powers. Cool. If that poo poo showed up in a modern movie that wasn't explicitly about wizards you'd laugh your goddamn way back to the box office to get your money back. I disagree. There was a popular movie last year that had telekinesis pop up as a major plot point and there was nothing in the marketing that said anything about it. It's impossible to say the name of the movie without ruining it for anyone who hasn't seen it though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:The original Star Wars movies' magical force poo poo was lovely anyways. It's like a lazy freshman level creative writing plot device. Luke can do some bullshit because wizard powers. Cool. If that poo poo showed up in a modern movie that wasn't explicitly about wizards you'd laugh your goddamn way back to the box office to get your money back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:The original Star Wars movies' magical force poo poo was lovely anyways. It's like a lazy freshman level creative writing plot device. Luke can do some bullshit because wizard powers. Cool. If that poo poo showed up in a modern movie that wasn't explicitly about wizards you'd laugh your goddamn way back to the box office to get your money back. I find your lack of faith disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Carthag posted:He was also hopped up on bennies, at least in some of the books. In the books Bond was always a complete rear end in a top hat, just an rear end in a top hat that was very good at his job. Sadly most of the films gently caress up either one or the other. Lately they seem to have the rear end in a top hat part down but Craig's Bond is an appallingly terrible spy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
AFewBricksShy posted:I disagree. There was a popular movie last year that had telekinesis pop up as a major plot point and there was nothing in the marketing that said anything about it. Yeah, they took some creative liberties with Jack Reacher...
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
jabby posted:Craig's Bond is an appallingly terrible spy. Bond isn't a spy. He's not supposed to be a spy. He's an assassin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Bond isn't a spy. He's not supposed to be a spy. He's an assassin. What? He's certainly a spy. He just happens to be a spy that does well at assassinations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
In the many adaptions of Pride and Prejudice, it is pretty drat clear that you need children, male children really, to keep your family line going and to be really successful. So what loving benefit does Darcy get if he marries de Bough's daughter, the girl too sick to even speak to people? He already has plenty of money, what he needs is to have kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
This is probably a rational irritating moment, but trailers are apparently placed solely by keywords, and not very deep keywords either. I saw Only Lovers Left Alive and it was preceded by a trailer to Vampire Academy. Good thinking, advertising people, the audience for Jim Jarmusch movies, where nothing happens for two hours and by God that's how we like it, has a lot of overlap with the audience for teen romance Twilight knockoffs because there's vampires in both! It's like if they found the 100% restored version of Metropolis and in front of it had a Star Wars trailer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:This is probably a rational irritating moment, but trailers are apparently placed solely by keywords, and not very deep keywords either. I saw Only Lovers Left Alive and it was preceded by a trailer to Vampire Academy. Good thinking, advertising people, the audience for Jim Jarmusch movies, where nothing happens for two hours and by God that's how we like it, has a lot of overlap with the audience for teen romance Twilight knockoffs because there's vampires in both! Trailers are placed by the same thing as everything else; money. Reliance Entertainment is currently paying for their lovely Vampire Academy trailer to play before everything rated PG13 or R.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
jabby posted:In the books Bond was always a complete rear end in a top hat, just an rear end in a top hat that was very good at his job. Sadly most of the films gently caress up either one or the other. Lately they seem to have the rear end in a top hat part down but Craig's Bond is an appallingly terrible spy. You could argue that Craig's Bond is pretty much just starting to be Bond (since each film he's been in is a sequel to the last, and the first one was the first Bond story). He's good at the killing stuff, not so much the not-killing stuff. Whether or not it was planned that way, or just sort of a hand-wave to why his movies are filled with him being bad at his job is another question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:You could argue that
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
AFewBricksShy posted:I disagree. There was a popular movie last year that had telekinesis pop up as a major plot point and there was nothing in the marketing that said anything about it. This is driving me crazy. What movie are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Gaunab posted:This is driving me crazy. What movie are you talking about? I guess Looper but knowing that there is telekinesis in Looper isn't exactly a spoiler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
That makes sense. When he said last year I was thinking 2013.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:You could argue that Craig's Bond is pretty much just starting to be Bond (since each film he's been in is a sequel to the last, and the first one was the first Bond story). He's good at the killing stuff, not so much the not-killing stuff. The trouble with that is that it doesn't explain why he got the job in the first place, or why M continues to put up with him when he repeatedly demonstrates remarkable incompetence. I'm going to alter my nitpick slightly. New Bond is indeed an rear end in a top hat like Book Bond, but he's almost the wrong kind of rear end in a top hat. He should absolutely be a hypocritical, prejudiced, womanising stone-cold killer, but he also needs to be smooth, calm and composed to do his job. The best portrayals (or maybe that should read 'most accurate') in my opinion are the ones that can switch believably from flirting with the female villain to shoving her into the path of a bullet. Kind of charming but soulless, if you know what I mean. By comparison breaking into his boss's house to show off and throwing temper tantrums every five minutes just makes him seem like a dick who nobody would realistically like or tolerate for more than five minutes. Which is a bad attribute in someone whose job is at least partly infiltration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:I guess Looper but knowing that there is telekinesis in Looper isn't exactly a spoiler. That's the one, but there wasn't anything in the marketing about it. And I thought it was released early last year. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
I watched a bunch of the original series recently, and it was brought up a few times that oldkirk had been kind of bookish in school and always tried to take the more restrained path.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:You could argue that Craig's Bond is pretty much just starting to be Bond (since each film he's been in is a sequel to the last, and the first one was the first Bond story). He's good at the killing stuff, not so much the not-killing stuff. Which leads me to anything irritating thing about skyfall. He's supposed to be a completely new agent and we're supposedly restarting the series from scratch. So where the gently caress does that Aston Martin come from? He even gives M a knowing glance about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Which leads me to anything irritating thing about skyfall. Did the Aston have any gadgets? I can't recall. If not, I'd say the Aston is left over from his parents. They were obviously well off, they had that giant estate. If it did have gadgets, I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
AFewBricksShy posted:Did the Aston have any gadgets? I can't recall. Machine guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
jabby posted:Machine guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
They've been kinda hinting on-and-off that you're just supposed to accept that Bond's been around since the 60's ever since Goldeneye at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
So, is it a Dread Pirate Roberts situation or is he supposed to be the same guy all this time?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
It depends if you accept The Rock as part of the Bond canon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:So, is it a Dread Pirate Roberts situation or is he supposed to be the same guy all this time? Same guy. They never directly acknowledge it or anything. They Sean Connery movies were everyones favorites so they cant just ignore them, and it would be dumb to try to fit the stories into the 21st century, so it just get's handwaved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Which leads me to anything irritating thing about skyfall. Skyfall was the 50th anniversary of Bond movies so the movie had tons of homages to old Bond movies like the Aston Martin and M's office at the end. "All the Bonds existed in the same universe/Bond is just a codename" is just a dumb fan theory that has actively disproven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Skyfall was the 50th anniversary of Bond movies so the movie had tons of homages to old Bond movies like the Aston Martin and M's office at the end. "All the Bonds existed in the same universe/Bond is just a codename" is just a dumb fan theory that has actively disproven. Which is fine except we were told again and again that this was a reboot of the entire universe so which is it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Have the creators ever actually said outright that Casino Royal was a reboot instead of a prequel, or have people just assumed* it was? *Which isn't exactly a huge leap in logic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Pneub posted:Have the creators ever actually said outright that Casino Royal was a reboot instead of a prequel, or have people just assumed* it was? E: although tbh, I've never seen that version, so I can't say how similar it is to the book or the Craig one hyperhazard has a new favorite as of 22:57 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
hyperhazard posted:Well, a film adaptation of Casino Royale came out in the 60s, so it's really a reboot of a prequel. That one was a spy movie spoof. They actually did an TV movie version in the US back in the 50's too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
The first Casino Royale is fantastic. It works on so many levels. Basically takes the piss out of Bond before Bond movies existed and then beats the hell out of Austin Powers because relativity was a new thing back then and that just happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
So basically nothing like the 2006 one, gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
I really don't get all the acclaim for Hugo. I really don't. I've tried to watch it a few times and it's just so loving dragging boring. I managed to last right up to him going to get the automaton for Georges before it just blew itself down. Oh, wow, I wonder whatever could happen now? I bet he gets caught, I bet he does! I bet he gets caught and almost goes to the orphanage but gets saved in time! Jesus Christ kid, you bring the loving old man and his family to the drat station and SHOW THEM your place, because I'm drat sure Georges would have been impressed with all the work Hugo did recreating the thing and the actual clock work too. I was more interested in the inspector actually talking to the flower lady, or the dog lady's suitor finally finding a way to speak to her, than I was about the stupid kid and the automaton. Wait. For Bond movies, are we supposed to think every Bond is the same guy? I always thought there were several men called 007 at once to keep the bad guys guessing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:It depends if you accept The Rock as part of the Bond canon. Of course it's canon, and also the best Bond movie ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
The thing I found annoying about Hugo is the first half of the movie is all about that automaton robot that his dad found but then they just kind of ditch that plot to become obsessed with Melies and his movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:
Nightfall indicates that not only was it just one guy but "James Bond" isn't even a codename, that's his given name from birth. Which makes him giving out his real name all the time in bars and casinos that much more irritating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:I really don't get all the acclaim for Hugo. I really don't. I've tried to watch it a few times and it's just so loving dragging boring. I managed to last right up to him going to get the automaton for Georges before it just blew itself down. Oh, wow, I wonder whatever could happen now? I bet he gets caught, I bet he does! I bet he gets caught and almost goes to the orphanage but gets saved in time! Jesus Christ kid, you bring the loving old man and his family to the drat station and SHOW THEM your place, because I'm drat sure Georges would have been impressed with all the work Hugo did recreating the thing and the actual clock work too. I was more interested in the inspector actually talking to the flower lady, or the dog lady's suitor finally finding a way to speak to her, than I was about the stupid kid and the automaton. Did you get a chance to see it in 3D? It's the only movie I've seen that really loses something when it's watched normally (and I'm not a big 3D fan to begin with). Scorsese was able to draw some cool parallels between early movies and modern ones. You laugh at the audience who jumps when video of a train comes toward them, but then a few minutes later, the same thing happens to you. The video of Harold Lloyd dangling from a clock isn't scary, but when Hugo does it, you get vertigo. Without that 3D effect, it's pretty much pointless. The idea is that film technology was new and exciting back then, similar to how people view 3D now. It's definitely a movie about the history of film, and less about the characters themselves. I've been meaning to read the book, which is probably more character-driven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
hyperhazard posted:Did you get a chance to see it in 3D? It's the only movie I've seen that really loses something when it's watched normally (and I'm not a big 3D fan to begin with). Scorsese was able to draw some cool parallels between early movies and modern ones. You laugh at the audience who jumps when video of a train comes toward them, but then a few minutes later, the same thing happens to you. The video of Harold Lloyd dangling from a clock isn't scary, but when Hugo does it, you get vertigo. Without that 3D effect, it's pretty much pointless. The idea is that film technology was new and exciting back then, similar to how people view 3D now. Nope, 2D only. If you need 3D to make the movie actually enjoyable, it's a pretty poo poo movie. It was just so loving boring and formula. All I can think is that it got tons of acclaim because of the Scorsese name attached; if a no-name had directed it, this would be at the bargain bin at Walmart. And the 'film about the history of film' only showed up in the latter quarter of the movie, so it was pretty weird to go from everything focused on clocks and the automaton to moviesmoviesmovies. poo poo, throw in the old guy seeing ladies in high heels and frowning in the start of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:12
|
|