|
Have y'all ever noticed that some movies entirely fail at making their characters appear human? At making them connect with one another in a way that appears genuine at all? It's a pretty common thing with the directors I listed - "well we have the cool plot twists, interesting characters, insane set pieces, let's....have them interact with one another like a child smashing together barbie and ken dolls." I'm always taken out of these sorts of movies, because the dialogue comes off as like, a series of pithy quips instead of humans speaking with one another. Kirk and Spock in new star trek is one example - does anyone buy the growing relationship between them? At any point does it seem like actual rivals becoming friends and working together? It's like the director got to the part where the characters have to care about each other, hit "autogenerate" and walked away. The opposite of this is Wes Anderson. His movies are weird, his characters are often stilted and offputting, and his sets are more like dioramas for how static and "filmy" they are, but the movies are full of heart and make you feel joy at the very real connections that build over the course of his movies. To me, this makes for a much better experience - it turns out the human connection and "realness" is a lot more important to me than any of the (enjoyably!) inane stuff that christopher nolan manages to shove onto the screen. Use this thread to discuss this phenomenon, and most importantly, recommend me movies that have characters who act like real humans with real human concerns towards one another. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Dec 2, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
dogs don't have souls either
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
The movie you are looking for op is Belgica. Its characters are completely lifelike
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
i think jj abrams wasn't paying attention to the good seasons of fringe or something because it turns out that actually having + telling a story is way way better than his "mystery box"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
I would further say that JJ Abrams has no soul.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Skoll posted:I would further say that JJ Abrams has no soul.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Skoll posted:I would further say that JJ Abrams has no soul. Also, like a dog, he can't look up. That's why all the lights in his movies are mounted at eye level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Also, like a dog, he can't look up. That's why all the lights in his movies are mounted at eye level. has anyone considered that jj abrams is actually a dog. if so i think it makes his career a lot more impressive
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
JJ Abrams is really Clifford the Dog in a almost convincing man suit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
I think The Prestige is pretty good but I can't really argue with your post at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:I think The Prestige is pretty good but I can't really argue with your post at all. You can see where the actors are explicitly given emotions to act upon, they do it, like christian bale realizing he'd never see his daughter again, but any given piece dialogue may as well be between two strangers. There's no sense of how people would actually talk to a lifelong friend, a lover, or a rival anywhere in there - the scenes without strong emotions have no emotions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
It's a myth, no church council has ever denied that Nolan and Abrams movies have souls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
remember Lost? man that poo poo sucked
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Abrams has made an art out of making poorly written crap seem good at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
The first JJTrek movie is probably the best Star Trek movie besides Wrath of Khan
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:The first JJTrek movie is probably the best Star Trek movie besides Wrath of Khan It's the only one I've seen..........besides Nemesis for some reason. Still gotta watch the old ones. That doesn't sound like that high a bar to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:The first JJTrek movie is probably the best Star Trek movie besides Wrath of Khan Star Trek 4.  First Contact was pretty fun in spots. Not consistently great but it had a lot of moments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:The first JJTrek movie is probably the best Star Trek movie besides Wrath of Khan I won't lie, 2009 Trek was a good movie.. then Into Darkness came out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Skoll posted:I won't lie, 2009 Trek was a good movie.. then Into Darkness came out. Yeah, Into Darkness is insanely boring. I don't think it makes 2009 worse, though
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
It doesn't, but Into Darkness will mire the entire JJ Trekverse for me even though 2009 and Beyond were good movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
I think they have a couple good movies each. Id like to karate chop JJ Abrams square in the middle of his face, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
How much input did Abrams have in The Force Awakens? because that movie sucked. The actors and actresses seemed to have no chemistry with each other. The only reason it wasn't as bad as Ep. II and III was because Ep. VII didn't have any awkward smooching scenes that the prequels had. What's with another loving planet destroyer? God drat, try something different. The Empire had just lost Palpatine and Vader and the deathstar for a second time. How could an offshoot group conjur up something so massively deadly without it being noticed by anyone? Also it being destroyed very similarly like in a ANH was also very unoriginal. I'm really really glad Abrams only did the one movie instead of all three.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:The first JJTrek movie is probably the best Star Trek movie besides Wrath of Khan I disagree. It's not even the best of the new Trek movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
If abrams stuff has no soul, and nolans stuff has no soul, does westworld have a double no soul?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:If abrams stuff has no soul, and nolans stuff has no soul, does westworld have a double no soul?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
ijii posted:How much input did Abrams have in The Force Awakens? because that movie sucked. The actors and actresses seemed to have no chemistry with each other. The only reason it wasn't as bad as Ep. II and III was because Ep. VII didn't have any awkward smooching scenes that the prequels had. I was annoyed that the rebel pilot dude felt like a really superficial hero that we were supposed to be impressed by and hadn't earned it at all. Then it looked like he died and I thought the director was trying to show how everyone is vulnerable and the new stormtrooper guy had to try to live up to a completely ridiculous ideal. I was interested. But nope, not dead. Just an empty cool pilot hero guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
if you actually thought the pilot guy actually died on the first go-around you're a sucker and i envy you
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:If abrams stuff has no soul, and nolans stuff has no soul, does westworld have a double no soul? I don't agree with the first two things, but Westworld is indeed doubly soulless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Does anyone else feel like Force Awakens' climactic starfighter battle... wasn't? They had the Episode 4 style intro, then barely anything happened with them. At least, they didn't do much that I remember. Also most of the E4 guys died in their attempted bombing runs while most of the E7 jerks are probably going to stick around as merchandisable characters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
it was a soulless, borrowed movie without any heart of its own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
super sweet best pal posted:Does anyone else feel like Force Awakens' climactic starfighter battle... wasn't? It was only there so that they could say the movie had a star war in it. It should have just been the duel on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
T.C. posted:I was annoyed that the rebel pilot dude felt like a really superficial hero that we were supposed to be impressed by and hadn't earned it at all. From interviews I read when Force Awakens released, the rebel pilot dude Poe was supposed to die for real, but Abrams liked the actor so much that he reworked the script to keep him alive and bring him back later in the film. That being said, I think Super 8 is a J.J. Abrams film with soul, and a great love letter to Spielberg. The kids all goof around with each other realistically, and when characters fail to connect (e.g. the police officer father and his son), it's done very intentionally to reflect their profound social isolation and grief following the mother's death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
I think Abrams can do a movie with plenty of soul but he has no interest in 'pushing' against studios, so if they hand him a script with flat characters he's just gonna make a movie with flat characters. His moviemaking style is more about the emotion of the moment and not the richness of the characters creating the moment.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:The opposite of this is Wes Anderson. His movies are weird, his characters are often stilted and offputting, and his sets are more like dioramas for how static and "filmy" they are, but the movies are full of heart and make you feel joy at the very real connections that build over the course of his movies. To me, this makes for a much better experience - it turns out the human connection and "realness" is a lot more important to me than any of the (enjoyably!) inane stuff that christopher nolan manages to shove onto the screen. I've always thought Taika Waititi's movies were good at capturing that Wes Anderson feeling of strange and off-putting while simultaneously having real heart. Hunt for the Wilder People was a really good movie that benefited from having a cranky Sam Neill in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Arc Light posted:That being said, I think Super 8 is a J.J. Abrams film with soul, and a great love letter to Spielberg. The kids all goof around with each other realistically, and when characters fail to connect (e.g. the police officer father and his son), it's done very intentionally to reflect their profound social isolation and grief following the mother's death. This is a good point, super 8 definitely hits notes the others don't. I think I ought to rewatch it paying attention to that specifically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
it's a shame that the lesson DC learned from The Dark Knight was "let's make every single one of our movies from here on out just as joyless and unsmiling"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
I don't know why people get this wrong, but Into Darkness is clearly the best new-Trek movie. That first one was just a mess, and Beyond can take its Beastie Boys and go gently caress itself. I mean, Into Darkness pretty much wins by default, even if it didn't have the best acting and characters, which it does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
The problem with TFA, besides JJ Abrams involvement, is it tried too hard to be A New Hope... Which given JJ Abrams involvement I guess was to be expected. He made a lovely low effort unfun rip off of Wrath of Khan so I guess Star Wars needed its turn. At least he didn't go for the Empire Strikes Back rehash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Once again, Abrams didn't write the script to either of those films. He's not that kind of director.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Just because he didn't write them doesn't mean he had no influence over them. What are the odds that he directs two films that are complete rehashes of prior successful films in two different franchises, only a few years apart?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:33
|
|