|
lemonadesweetheart posted:I'm struggling with the comparison with game of thrones. Like RoF wasn't a great movie by any accounts but it wasn't soul destroying like the poo poo they pumped out at the end of GoT. Not sure how it fits in with aging badly either. It was just an average fantasy movie with cool beards. Yeah, a big problem with the ending of Game of Thrones is that for a while the series had been building up a colossal number of loose ends, character arcs, plots and so on. Once it ended it was clear none of those were getting a satisfactory conclusion, so the badness was bigger than the episode it was in, if you see what I mean. Reign of Fire was a poo poo movie, but its existence didn't somehow make other movies worse, while the ending of Game of Thrones was so bad it made the rest of Game of Thrones bad by association.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 12:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:I'm struggling with the comparison with game of thrones. Like RoF wasn't a great movie by any accounts but it wasn't soul destroying like the poo poo they pumped out at the end of GoT. Not sure how it fits in with aging badly either. It was just an average fantasy movie with cool beards. they were both presumably ghost written by actual children
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 12:44
|
|
|
In retrospect, perhaps the authors of Wolverine Origins and Lucky Wander Boy should not have been trusted with an expensive tv show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 13:04
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:It's actually"tanks versus dragons" and you'd think it was impossible to gently caress that up. Honestly, I would have loved it if it was just a Godzilla knockoff where you have tanks fighting a nearly indestructible dragon. Instead it went from no dragons to millons of dragons in the span of a screen wipe. Sunswipe posted:Having a massive aerial battle between dragons and Apache gunships in the trailer but not in the actual movie didn't help. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 13:22
|
|
|
The reign of fire GameCube game wasn’t great but it was pretty decent if you wanted to play a game where you shot dragons with tanks/tanks with dragons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:In retrospect, perhaps the authors of Wolverine Origins and Lucky Wander Boy should not have been trusted with an expensive tv show. I mean it was unexpected that it'd end up becoming a pop culture phenomenon. But yes, they should perhaps have been shuffled away from the prestige TV show after a point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 13:37
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I mean it was unexpected that it'd end up becoming a pop culture phenomenon. But yes, they should perhaps have been shuffled away from the prestige TV show after a point. Instead, Netflix is paying them a poo poo load of money to make TV shows out of The Overstory and the Rememberance of Earth's Past trilogy. I'm sure this will go just fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 13:47
|
|
|
Their fathers are millionaires and they met in an mfa program. That probably describes 90% of hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 13:55
|
|
|
Sunswipe posted:Having a massive aerial battle between dragons and Apache gunships in the trailer but not in the actual movie didn't help. I’ve never seen it, but this is the first time I’m learning that that never happened. Thought it was like the whole movie. No wonder nobody liked it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
The United States posted:I mean it was right after Lord of the Rings so of course they did
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
The worst part about Reign of Fire is setting Bamburgh Castle as being 'outside London' when it's about as far away as you can drive without leaving the country. Coincidentally it's also about the same distance as the trip Costner makes in Robin Hood where he somehow passes Hadrian's Wall on the way north from the Channel to Nottingham.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
darkwasthenight posted:The worst part about Reign of Fire is setting Bamburgh Castle as being 'outside London' when it's about as far away as you can drive without leaving the country. Coincidentally it's also about the same distance as the trip Costner makes in Robin Hood where he somehow passes Hadrian's Wall on the way north from the Channel to Nottingham. They moved Hadrian's Wall to it's current location in 1975 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
darkwasthenight posted:The worst part about Reign of Fire is setting Bamburgh Castle as being 'outside London' when it's about as far away as you can drive without leaving the country. Coincidentally it's also about the same distance as the trip Costner makes in Robin Hood where he somehow passes Hadrian's Wall on the way north from the Channel to Nottingham. Fictional geography doesn’t need to be consistent. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Fictional geography doesn’t need to be consistent. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
also the hasty exposition scene of "were about to fly along this exact route in the helicopter to fight the boss dragon" kind of puts a pointer on it almost as good as the two or three scenes of "hey remember when *recites historical spark notes of the last 20 years* happened?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Fictional geography doesn’t need to be consistent. As much as we may wish other Britain is real. It is not strong or anyone's friend though. Antifa Turkeesian posted:Their fathers are millionaires and they met in an mfa program. That probably describes 90% of hollywood. Jesus Christ, of course they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:It's different when you know the geography in question and it's valid if that takes you out of the movie. There's no need to CinemaSins or RLM that poo poo like it's a fatal flaw of the movie, but it's also ok to say "Yeah that made it weaker in my eyes, wish they could have found another way to do it." Nope. If there can be dragons, then the castle can also be located just outside of London.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
Crespolini posted:Nope. If there can be dragons, then the castle can also be located just outside of London.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Yes there can be. There empirically is a movie featuring just that. Well done. I'm glad you agree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
I just meant that Britain is fictional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Crespolini posted:Nope. If there can be dragons, then the castle can also be located just outside of London. There can be. Just don't name it the one that isn't just outside London.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
I saw Reign of Fire in the theater as a kid and the only cool thing I remember was the adults putting on a play for the children where they were acting as Darth Vader and Obi Wan in a lightsaber duel, and that's a semi-clever idea for a post apocalyptic movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Fictional geography doesn’t need to be consistent. No, but if you're going to make a huge change like say, putting DC on the West Coast, you should have either an actual explanation for it in universe or be prepared for people to say you made a boo boo because you didn't give enough of a poo poo about the setting of your movie to consult a map. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:It's different when you know the geography in question and it's valid if that takes you out of the movie. There's no need to CinemaSins or RLM that poo poo like it's a fatal flaw of the movie, but it's also ok to say "Yeah that made it weaker in my eyes, wish they could have found another way to do it." I fail to see how it’s different other than you just don’t want to be associated with those two despite doing the same thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
ClothHat posted:I saw Reign of Fire in the theater as a kid and the only cool thing I remember was the adults putting on a play for the children where they were acting as Darth Vader and Obi Wan in a lightsaber duel, and that's a semi-clever idea for a post apocalyptic movie. Me too, and I don't remember if they even fight the dragons or anything else, it's so forgettable. The star wars pantomime was the only thing I associate with that movie. Makes me wish someone had saved that idea for a better movie...I'm really struggling to remember any scene with a dragon in it. I think the story was: dig in the ground>sleeping dragon or dragons wake up?>???>someone says the dragons eat ash and were the actual cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs because they burned them all up and ate the ashes>??>star wars>???>???????>??????
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
I looked it up and it's about that dumb: apparently they killed a bunch of dragons and all of them were female, leading them to believe that there is only 1 male dragon that exists. Then they shoot explosives into that 1 male dragon's mouth, and decide that they won? I guess all the female dragons will freeze in the winter. If the currently gravid females can't give birth to new male offspring (or have the most dominant female change sexes as some fish or amphibians do) what was going to happen when that male died of old age?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
littlebluellama posted:The star wars pantomime was the only thing I associate with that movie. Makes me wish someone had saved that idea for a better movie... Adventure Time plays with the idea in a few places. There’s a scene where one character is pretending to be on TV and acts out scenes from Cheers to entertain a child. It’s super cute.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
littlebluellama posted:If the currently gravid females can't give birth to new male offspring (or have the most dominant female change sexes as some fish or amphibians do) what was going to happen when that male died of old age? This is based of vague old remembering, but I think what happens is they all go back to hibernation and wait for the world to replenish?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gi...-cult-film/amp/quote:Greenberg added: “The idea — they’re not referred to as such in the movie — but in the script they were firemen. It was this whole idea of firemen as these latter-day knights going up against obviously this mythic threat. I had some friends who were all ‘That’s stupid, that’s so dumb’ and I was like ‘gently caress you!’ I mean, friendships were lost over this.” quote:While a no-brainer now, at the time it wasn’t just the studio Bowman had to convince about Bale — it was Bale himself. “I flew over to Berlin where he was filming, met him in the restaurant at the Four Seasons, and what I remember was he was very pleasant and fine mannered. But he looked at me and held the script up with one hand and said something to the effect of ‘What are we gonna do about this?’ And I was like ‘Christian, I’m reading the same script you’re reading, I know what it is and I’m gonna fix it.’ And he said ‘OK, tell me what it is?’ I told him what I wanted to do with it and that to me, it was really a story about the strength of the human spirit.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
quote:Greenberg added: “The idea — they’re not referred to as such in the movie — but in the script they were firemen. It was this whole idea of firemen as these latter-day knights going up against obviously this mythic threat. I had some friends who were all ‘That’s stupid, that’s so dumb’ and I was like ‘gently caress you!’ I mean, friendships were lost over this.” That does sound better than what we got, ngl AceOfFlames has a new favorite as of 20:18 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I fail to see how it’s different other than you just don’t want to be associated with those two despite doing the same thing CinemaSins' style of criticism builds a brand around critical analysis wherein the highest level of analysis is fealty to "realism." The more "real" you find a movie, the better it is. Problems within a movie can thus be literally quantified, and said counter is a literal metric of any film's overall quality. This is both a limited and frankly adolescent way to approach critical analysis of anything. Now there are lots of people who will rightly point out that CinemaSins is a goofy YouTube show (it is) and not intended to be taken as legitimate criticism (despite never resisting or qualifying that label in meaningful fashion), and I'm not going to debate that. In the end CinemaSins is the natural outgrowth when generations of adolescents and adults grow up under English courses where "The curtains are blue because they symbolize depression" and fail to break through into understanding that critical analysis is not about ascertaining a binary "good or bad" even though we often refer to works as such in casual conversation. Ultimately media can be judged on a wide variety of axis, and understanding that variety is key to getting the most out of what we consume, including the bad stuff. If CinemaSins were more open and willing to grow with this process, it might be more well-regarded instead of being used as shorthand for "lazy, bad faith critique" in the 2020s. That said... Recognizing that elements of a movie can strain or even break verisimilitude-- the ability of the audience to buy into a fictional reality of any kind-- can in-fact be valid personal critical appraisal, and exists on a gradient of context that can be cited as valid personal criticism. Like I just said media can be judged on a wide variety of metrics, and both fealty to realism and verisimilitude are valid ones to use. A modern classic example would be the Fridge scene in "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" wherein the hero survives a point-blank nuclear detonation by hiding inside of a lead-lined refrigerator which is sent airborne at least a full kilometer before landing with him safely. This is often cited as the worst example of the film in terms of realism, which may seem a very odd criticism in a franchise that routinely featured literal religious magic and a similar scene where a raft falls several stories in the air with all of its occupants remaining safe and sound. Why care about "realism" now? The CinemaSins approach is to take this fridge and say "The Fridge sucked, therefore the movie sucks." This is a stupid argument and should be mocked. However there is an argument, and a valid one, that the Fridge may be the-- no pun intended-- crystalizing moment that the film went too far in straining its credulity. Up to this point in the film the presentation has been noticeably aged from prior Indiana Jones features due to a 15 or so year gap between productions. Filmmaking styles and sensibilities have changed. There is much more CGI. Indiana Jones is noticeably kinder in his violence. The Nazis have been replaced with USSR soldiers as militant antagonists. The MacGuffin is more noticeably in the realm of science fiction than religious mysticism. The actors are much more aged and their delivery through the characters is different. A young Shia LeBeouff has been poised as Indiana Jones' son and eventual heir. These are all elements that mark "Crystal Skull" as very tonally different from the prior three movies, making it fight uphill for audience investment-- especially if they fondly remembered the earlier pictures-- and then right at one of the action crescendos midway the Fridge scene occurs. That may indeed be the event horizon from which the movie fails to recover for many people, and it's valid if they say as such... it's just not valid when they try to shorthand all of the elements above or try to cite "realism" as the defense, even if writing all this out marks me as a massive dork who deserves a swirly. The same criticism, but one is ultimately more valid than the other because of context and qualification (as in literally providing that context when rendering judgment). Circle it back to the original argument-- Reign of Fire was weaker for that one poster because the geography of its England is massively altered from the real world. Some people said that's equivalent to "The Fridge sucked, therefore the movie sucks" to again use shorthand. It was implied that such an argument is bullshit because movies are inherently fictional, the one in question called "Reign of Fire" features dragons, therefore adherence to any realistic geography should have been long discarded and the fault is on the viewer and not the work in question. I was saying that's bullshit, because context matters, and that one poster shouldn't get dismissed for not liking the geography. Why? What makes the difference? First let's examine why film geography would even matter. Geography realism is one of the most frequently broken rules in all of moviemaking. Jurassic Park famously has an action sequence that makes no geographic sense. The Shining's hotel geography was deliberately made impossible to disquiet the audience. Continuity of geography is broken in film so often it's usually not worth mentioning unless you're being a pedantic CinemaSins goober who only measures film quality on an axis of "realistic" to "terrible." But, there is an exception which is when you personally know the geography being portrayed. This usually only manifests on a national scale or above, or a very local scale. It is a personal criticism to make, but it is a valid one. A good example is Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. In it the characters say they need to travel from the US to Egypt, and we jump to the next scene where the characters are in Egypt and at the famous Pyramids, and both the editing and narrative indicate this was near-instantaneous. Now even ignoring finer details like where the Pyramids are in relation to Greater Cairo, the fact that the characters managed to essentially warp halfway around the world can be a moment that breaks verisimilitude. Why that and not the conceit of giant robots? Because most audiences know how long it takes even under the fastest technology to travel across the world, and giant robots are a conceit the films already takes pains to ask the audience to accept as exceptional fiction. What CinemaSins and its ilk often fail to articulate or even grasp is that when a narrative is good-- the audience doesn't care. The audience might still notice, but the incongruity is much more acceptable. Examples? It's harder to find geography examples on-hand but let's use the most common examples of "broken physics." See the earlier Indiana Jones movies which pulls dumb physics breaks just like Crystal Skull, but the narrative is strong enough audiences doesn't mind. The first Iron Man movie features two full sequences that have Tony Stark surviving massive falls from a great height, but the audience lets the inconsistency go because we really like Iron Man. The better the story being told, the more elasticity the outlandish elements can have (although it's not a mathematical input/output formula where x good narrative earns y level of inconsistencies, for gently caress's sake please stop trying to boil it all down to binary reasoning). Which brings us back to geography we personally know. When you know the local geography, seeing it broken can also break your engagement with a movie even when you might otherwise like it. When a movie set in the US shows someone going from New York to Texas on the same day without any explanation, it raises an eyebrow, even if it is a minor critique because the rest of the movie may in-fact be Smurfs 4.5: A Smurf in Time or whatever. It's a valid problem to cite geography inconsistency as breaking your personal investment, even if it's ultimately a matter of personal context and not some CinemaSins "ding." And that was what that one poster was doing-- "I know England and seeing its geography broken further took me out of an already outlandish movie." Valid criticism to have. Hope that clears it up a little. AceOfFlames posted:That does sound better than what we got, ngl
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
darkwasthenight posted:The worst part about Reign of Fire is setting Bamburgh Castle as being 'outside London' when it's about as far away as you can drive without leaving the country. Coincidentally it's also about the same distance as the trip Costner makes in Robin Hood where he somehow passes Hadrian's Wall on the way north from the Channel to Nottingham. So you're saying that it's not inside London, ergo...
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
I like RLM they drink and watch movies. Also Mike and Rich are the paintings in the attic for Jay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Roblo posted:There can be. Just don't name it the one that isn't just outside London. It's an alternate universe where dragons exist, and Bamburgh castle is at a different location. Problem?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
The movie does suck because the fridge sucks. It’s so dumb
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
On a cosmic scale, Bamburgh castle is just barely outside London.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:The movie does suck because the fridge sucks. This is a film series where the hero escaped a crashing plane by getting out in an inflatable raft while in midair. Clearly the fourth is the worst one but it isn't like they've operated on real world logic prior to the fourth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:This is a film series where the hero escaped a crashing plane by getting out in an inflatable raft while in midair. Clearly the fourth is the worst one but it isn't like they've operated on real world logic prior to the fourth. That’s cool, if your going to do dumb poo poo make it fun. The fridge is just dumb and boring
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
Personally I thought the fridge scene was funny and one of the better moments in an otherwise mediocre film. It did occur to me at the time that the idea of surviving that landing uninjured was incredibly unrealistic, but so is everything else in every action movie ever. You don't go to an Indiana Jones or a Batman or a Star War or whatever looking for realism. Realism doesn't matter. That scene only gets criticism because it's in a bad movie, and criticizing it instead of the things that actually make it bad (the dialogue probably? idk it's been a long time since I've seen it) is stupid. Even if you don't like that scene, it is not the reason why you didn't like the movie as a whole. Take, for example, the scene in The Dark Knight, an action movie that is generally considered good, where Batman is on a motorcycle chasing the Joker in a semi truck. Batman shoots some sort of cable out from his motorcycle at the truck's grill, then weaves through some light poles, which somehow this causes the truck to flip forward over its nose. How is some sort of grappling hook shot out of a motorcycle supposed to grip a metal grill hard enough to not break while lifting the weight of a semi truck? How does the grill itself not break instead of lifting the semi truck? How is such a thin cable strong enough? How does the cable even catch on the light poles? How does the truck have enough energy to be lifted that high? No one cares because the movie as a whole is good so the lack of realism doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
No one cares because it’s an action sequence. The fridge should be a scene where Indy is clever because it’s not really an action scene And Indy is fundamentally an action serial how you react to the action is kind of the point
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 21:48
|
|