Post by PG Cooper on Oct 3, 2014 13:30:32 GMT -5
Archived from the "Call me crazy" thread. Feel free to add others from wherever on the forum.
PG Cooper
Call me crazy, but I think Back to the Future Part II is better than Part I. I think it's funnier, more bizarre, more unique, and the stakes are higher. Plus there's no Huey Lewis and the News.
Call me crazy, but I think Back to the Future Part II is better than Part I. I think it's funnier, more bizarre, more unique, and the stakes are higher. Plus there's no Huey Lewis and the News.
JBond
Call me crazy, but I think PG Cooper doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Call me crazy, but I think PG Cooper doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Dracula
No, I can't get behind that, but I do think that II is drastically better than III.
No, I can't get behind that, but I do think that II is drastically better than III.
JBond
I've never understood the dislike for the third one.
I've never understood the dislike for the third one.
Dracula
It's the silliest of the three and it lacks all the clever time paradox stuff of the first two.
It's the silliest of the three and it lacks all the clever time paradox stuff of the first two.
Masterchief117
I like Huey Lewis.
I like II more than III but I don't think III is as bad as people make it to be.
I like Huey Lewis.
I like II more than III but I don't think III is as bad as people make it to be.
Dracula
Call me crazy, but I think the first Rambo movie is the worst of the series, and the most recent installment is the second worst.
Call me crazy, but I think the first Rambo movie is the worst of the series, and the most recent installment is the second worst.
Ramplate
I think they all pretty much suck
I think they all pretty much suck
PG Cooper
These are the only ones I've seen. I actually really like the first, but I hated the newest one.
These are the only ones I've seen. I actually really like the first, but I hated the newest one.
JBond
Call me crazy, but I have yet to see a Rambo movie.
Call me crazy, but I have yet to see a Rambo movie.
Doomsday
When Rambo was released it wasn't meant to spur this ridiculous over the top blood and guts unintentionally funny action series. It was based on a book and was meant to be an adventure movie. Steve McQueen was actually interested in taking the role but died of lung cancer, with Stallone taking the role a few years later. Correct me if I'm wrong Drac but I doubt you're a fan of any of the Rambo movies just based on your taste, but I think the reputation of First Blood would be much much different had the other films never been made.
When Rambo was released it wasn't meant to spur this ridiculous over the top blood and guts unintentionally funny action series. It was based on a book and was meant to be an adventure movie. Steve McQueen was actually interested in taking the role but died of lung cancer, with Stallone taking the role a few years later. Correct me if I'm wrong Drac but I doubt you're a fan of any of the Rambo movies just based on your taste, but I think the reputation of First Blood would be much much different had the other films never been made.
Dracula
I feel like First Blood is as poorly made as the sequels but its pretensions of being a serious drama mean that it isn't even any fun. Two and Three at least have good action scenes and are unintentionally funny. The last one however brought back the pretensions and added all that miscalculated genocide stuff which was a complete downer.
I feel like First Blood is as poorly made as the sequels but its pretensions of being a serious drama mean that it isn't even any fun. Two and Three at least have good action scenes and are unintentionally funny. The last one however brought back the pretensions and added all that miscalculated genocide stuff which was a complete downer.
PG Cooper
Call me crazy but while I realize Highlander isn't a good film, I LOVE Clancy Brown as the Kurgan.
Call me crazy but while I realize Highlander isn't a good film, I LOVE Clancy Brown as the Kurgan.
Neverending
Highlander is awesome. WTF you talkin' about?
Highlander is awesome. WTF you talkin' about?
Dracula
Highlander sucks
Highlander sucks
PG Cooper
Come on man, it's pretty bad. Christopher Lambert is horrible, and the love story with the forensics chick was pretty unnecessary.
But like I said, I love the Kurgan. "Happy Halloween ladies!"
Come on man, it's pretty bad. Christopher Lambert is horrible, and the love story with the forensics chick was pretty unnecessary.
But like I said, I love the Kurgan. "Happy Halloween ladies!"
Neverending
Highlander has Queen and Sean Connery. You can't go wrong with that combination.
Highlander has Queen and Sean Connery. You can't go wrong with that combination.
PG Cooper/b]
I dislike Queen.
I dislike Queen.
JBond
Call me crazy, but PG is crazy.
Call me crazy, but PG is crazy.
Dracula
Do you also dislike chocolate and sunshine?
Do you also dislike chocolate and sunshine?
Neverending
I don't think the sun reaches Canada.
I don't think the sun reaches Canada.
JBond
Call me crazy, but when all is said and done with digital media (as "done" as it can get in these times) won't movies more likely be downloaded to hard drives instead of better streaming? The way I see it, bandwidth wil always get better, but disk space is always getting larger and cheaper. The one thing that WON'T continue growing is the amount of space you'll need per movie. Sure, theres VHS, DVD, bluray, it seems it will keep going, but it won't. Movies are as abuot as high-res as they'll get. So when you can store thousands of movies on your computer or TV or whatever, and bandwidth would allow you do download them in seconds, where will streaming ever come in the future?
Call me crazy, but when all is said and done with digital media (as "done" as it can get in these times) won't movies more likely be downloaded to hard drives instead of better streaming? The way I see it, bandwidth wil always get better, but disk space is always getting larger and cheaper. The one thing that WON'T continue growing is the amount of space you'll need per movie. Sure, theres VHS, DVD, bluray, it seems it will keep going, but it won't. Movies are as abuot as high-res as they'll get. So when you can store thousands of movies on your computer or TV or whatever, and bandwidth would allow you do download them in seconds, where will streaming ever come in the future?
PsYkOoOoO
Call me crazy, but I'm not a fan of streaming either, no matter how clear the quality is. I like to OWN things, even if it is in a hard drive and not exactly tangible.
Call me crazy, but I'm not a fan of streaming either, no matter how clear the quality is. I like to OWN things, even if it is in a hard drive and not exactly tangible.
Doomsday
I like to own things as well, I like adding to (or taking away from) my collection. I know it will eventually go the way of the dodo but it accounts for your taste and interest and it's something to cultivate, it shows a side of you. It will be disappointing when people finally stop collecting hard copies of films, probably the way some people feel about CDs and vinyl.
I like to own things as well, I like adding to (or taking away from) my collection. I know it will eventually go the way of the dodo but it accounts for your taste and interest and it's something to cultivate, it shows a side of you. It will be disappointing when people finally stop collecting hard copies of films, probably the way some people feel about CDs and vinyl.
PsYkOoOoO
I totally agree there. When someone comes to my place, they can immediately tell that I like books, the kind of books I like to read, and the same thing applies to movies as well. They are representation of who we are, not just to others but to ourselves. An iPad can probably store all the books I own, sure, but do I really want to hand a guest at my place an iPad when he/she comes over? It seems a tad cold and distant if you ask me.
I totally agree there. When someone comes to my place, they can immediately tell that I like books, the kind of books I like to read, and the same thing applies to movies as well. They are representation of who we are, not just to others but to ourselves. An iPad can probably store all the books I own, sure, but do I really want to hand a guest at my place an iPad when he/she comes over? It seems a tad cold and distant if you ask me.
Franklintard
call me crazy but your discussions on streaming make you guys sound like luddites... if we can get comcast/verizon/time warner behind the whole 'improve your network' instead of 'line your pockets and offer tiered services' then we will keep seeing dramatic improvements in quality for streaming movies.
blu ray is not the end all be all. the makers of vhs probably said the same thing.
really you guys... just wanna be hipsters and use material goods as barometers for your personality, which is fine, but using the argument that it will never get any better than now is absurd.
technology gets better. this is not the end all be all.
like i said the only problem is corporate greed, with cable companies now stopping improving their networks and instead just limiting what you can use on a given month, it will have detrimental effects on streaming and streaming technology.
i was just surprised to see it (luddite-ish attitudes) on this site.
call me crazy but your discussions on streaming make you guys sound like luddites... if we can get comcast/verizon/time warner behind the whole 'improve your network' instead of 'line your pockets and offer tiered services' then we will keep seeing dramatic improvements in quality for streaming movies.
blu ray is not the end all be all. the makers of vhs probably said the same thing.
really you guys... just wanna be hipsters and use material goods as barometers for your personality, which is fine, but using the argument that it will never get any better than now is absurd.
technology gets better. this is not the end all be all.
like i said the only problem is corporate greed, with cable companies now stopping improving their networks and instead just limiting what you can use on a given month, it will have detrimental effects on streaming and streaming technology.
i was just surprised to see it (luddite-ish attitudes) on this site.
Neverending
Did you guys complain when iTunes replaced the CD? Did you go around saying, "man, I can no longer show-off my collection"?
Did you guys complain when iTunes replaced the CD? Did you go around saying, "man, I can no longer show-off my collection"?
Tolkien
I hated my CD collection. They were always getting scratched and whatnot, and most of all, I usually had to purchase entire albums just for the four or five songs I actually wanted. Man, I praised the day that iTunes replaced CD format. Praised it.
I hated my CD collection. They were always getting scratched and whatnot, and most of all, I usually had to purchase entire albums just for the four or five songs I actually wanted. Man, I praised the day that iTunes replaced CD format. Praised it.
JBond
Actually, yes. I only use CDs (and mp3s) and don't use iTunes.
Personally, I don't think many people even read my post. I wasn't saying I hate streaming, I was throwing out a theory that I wanted honest feedback on whether streaming would outlast disk space. If Tornado says a new one is comign out, then fine, maybe I'm wrong.
Actually, yes. I only use CDs (and mp3s) and don't use iTunes.
Personally, I don't think many people even read my post. I wasn't saying I hate streaming, I was throwing out a theory that I wanted honest feedback on whether streaming would outlast disk space. If Tornado says a new one is comign out, then fine, maybe I'm wrong.
Tornado
The conflict is that, with Blu-ray, it only required a new player (as I would like to think that the average person owns an HDTV by now). The new format, which promises much greater resolution (4K resolution as opposed to 2K offered by Blu-ray), would require both a new player and a new television capable of handling the increase in resolution. The argument of most cinephiles is that things can only look so good until it gets to the point of being unnecessary, and I agree. Blu-ray has been out for about five years, officially, which I don't think is even an indication of how long it's been popular. Despite what many people would argue, DVD is still the dominant home media format. Only recently did a new release sell more on Blu-ray than it did on DVD, and that was a rare instance that I do not believe has been repeated since. Most people do not have a Blu-ray player, and I think even fewer would be willing to upgrade to a new 4K set-up.
The conflict is that, with Blu-ray, it only required a new player (as I would like to think that the average person owns an HDTV by now). The new format, which promises much greater resolution (4K resolution as opposed to 2K offered by Blu-ray), would require both a new player and a new television capable of handling the increase in resolution. The argument of most cinephiles is that things can only look so good until it gets to the point of being unnecessary, and I agree. Blu-ray has been out for about five years, officially, which I don't think is even an indication of how long it's been popular. Despite what many people would argue, DVD is still the dominant home media format. Only recently did a new release sell more on Blu-ray than it did on DVD, and that was a rare instance that I do not believe has been repeated since. Most people do not have a Blu-ray player, and I think even fewer would be willing to upgrade to a new 4K set-up.
Dracula
Itunes didn't replace CDs, CDs are still readily available, in fact physical albums still usually outsell their digital counterparts to this day. People can stream all they want for all I care as long as physical copies are still available.
What's more, streaming services are more analogous to something like Rhapsody or Pandora than they are to Itunes. Itunes was about downloading and keeping files, streaming is about having the files available to you so long as the companies allows them to be available.
Additionally, the extra benefits that Itunes allowed (namely the Ipod and the ability to buy songs piecemeal) don't extend to movies. No one wants to buy individual chapters of their movies, and while some people seem to enjoy watching movies on portable devices, those people are lunatics. The only convenience that you get from streaming or downloading movies is that you don't need to go to the store or have them delivered, and since I'm not agoraphobic or wildly impatient, I don't care.
Also, Itunes has mostly succeeded because they have a nearly complete library at this point (aside from a few holdouts like AC/DC, Kid Rock, and Tool), while streaming libraries all have gaping holes and there's no reason to think those holes are going to be filled any time soon. The reason those holes exist is because they can't pay the content holders ala carte, because they aren't getting 99 cents out of every download/stream like they do at Itunes.
Itunes didn't replace CDs, CDs are still readily available, in fact physical albums still usually outsell their digital counterparts to this day. People can stream all they want for all I care as long as physical copies are still available.
What's more, streaming services are more analogous to something like Rhapsody or Pandora than they are to Itunes. Itunes was about downloading and keeping files, streaming is about having the files available to you so long as the companies allows them to be available.
Additionally, the extra benefits that Itunes allowed (namely the Ipod and the ability to buy songs piecemeal) don't extend to movies. No one wants to buy individual chapters of their movies, and while some people seem to enjoy watching movies on portable devices, those people are lunatics. The only convenience that you get from streaming or downloading movies is that you don't need to go to the store or have them delivered, and since I'm not agoraphobic or wildly impatient, I don't care.
Also, Itunes has mostly succeeded because they have a nearly complete library at this point (aside from a few holdouts like AC/DC, Kid Rock, and Tool), while streaming libraries all have gaping holes and there's no reason to think those holes are going to be filled any time soon. The reason those holes exist is because they can't pay the content holders ala carte, because they aren't getting 99 cents out of every download/stream like they do at Itunes.
Neverending
Better picture and sound quality isn't enough for people to upgrade.
Better picture and sound quality isn't enough for people to upgrade.
Dracula
I hear people tell me that, then they buy an HDTV and change their minds real fast.
Try watching a VHS tape now and avoid throwing up at the ridiculous quality, that might have seemed perfectly acceptable at the time, but as soon as you see the alternative you can't unknow what you're missing. As for Laserdisc, those things were ludicrously expensive, couldn't record (which was a big deal back then), and had a host of other annoying features that held them back. Blu-Ray is a much more consumer friendly format.
As HDTVs proliferate the market so will Blu-Ray.
I hear people tell me that, then they buy an HDTV and change their minds real fast.
Try watching a VHS tape now and avoid throwing up at the ridiculous quality, that might have seemed perfectly acceptable at the time, but as soon as you see the alternative you can't unknow what you're missing. As for Laserdisc, those things were ludicrously expensive, couldn't record (which was a big deal back then), and had a host of other annoying features that held them back. Blu-Ray is a much more consumer friendly format.
As HDTVs proliferate the market so will Blu-Ray.
Neverending
It's about perception. An HDTV is not just better picture and sound. It's flat. It's wide. You can hang it on the wall. But, a Blu-Ray is just another disc. Customers look at it and say, "that's it?" You have to excite people. Blu-Ray isn't exciting. Streaming, on the other hand, is very exciting. You can buy or rent a movie/TV episode with just a click of a button. It's so... futuristic.
This is why Steve Jobs was so brilliant. An iPod wasn't just another Walkman or MP3 player. There was more to it and each new version created new standards.
It's about perception. An HDTV is not just better picture and sound. It's flat. It's wide. You can hang it on the wall. But, a Blu-Ray is just another disc. Customers look at it and say, "that's it?" You have to excite people. Blu-Ray isn't exciting. Streaming, on the other hand, is very exciting. You can buy or rent a movie/TV episode with just a click of a button. It's so... futuristic.
This is why Steve Jobs was so brilliant. An iPod wasn't just another Walkman or MP3 player. There was more to it and each new version created new standards.
Dracula
But it was just another MP3 player.
But it was just another MP3 player.
Doomsday
That's exactly why I don't own a Blu-ray player. I have an HDTV, I just haven't needed to pick up a new player yet, my DVD player works just fine as is. One day I suspect fairly soon I'll pick up a Blu-ray player, but one thing I won't do is start 'converting' my current DVD collection to Blu-Ray. There are maybe....oh 3 or 5 of my current DVDs that I would pick up on Blu-Ray, that's about it. I'm not gonna be one of those chumps who says 'well, looks like I need to start replacing all 2,000 of my DVDs with Blu-rays.' It was different with VHS, the DVDS were smaller and easier to store, much better quality, chapters, special features, language selections, closed captioning, trailers, the works. Blu-ray just isn't the jump that VHS to DVD was. It's a step, but not the leap. When I get a Blu-ray player I'll start buying solely Blu-ray movies, but it's not like I'm watching a completely different film if I'm watching a DVD vs. Blu-ray.
That's exactly why I don't own a Blu-ray player. I have an HDTV, I just haven't needed to pick up a new player yet, my DVD player works just fine as is. One day I suspect fairly soon I'll pick up a Blu-ray player, but one thing I won't do is start 'converting' my current DVD collection to Blu-Ray. There are maybe....oh 3 or 5 of my current DVDs that I would pick up on Blu-Ray, that's about it. I'm not gonna be one of those chumps who says 'well, looks like I need to start replacing all 2,000 of my DVDs with Blu-rays.' It was different with VHS, the DVDS were smaller and easier to store, much better quality, chapters, special features, language selections, closed captioning, trailers, the works. Blu-ray just isn't the jump that VHS to DVD was. It's a step, but not the leap. When I get a Blu-ray player I'll start buying solely Blu-ray movies, but it's not like I'm watching a completely different film if I'm watching a DVD vs. Blu-ray.
IantheCool
This is an interesting discussion. Personally, I think that blu-ray will likely be the last physical format. Sure, another ultra-highdef format may be released, but will likely flounder. But nor do I think streaming is the future. Movies will be downloaded just like iTunes are once bandwidth and storage space get tot eh point where its feasible to do so.
My only concern is that when the general public chooses convenience over quality, the technology to improve the quality of film presentation stagnates. I just signed up to netflix, and wow, it this quality bad. I understand that it will improve, but it seems to me like there's a long way before it gets to blu-ray quality. One day, yes, but when will that be I wonder.
This is an interesting discussion. Personally, I think that blu-ray will likely be the last physical format. Sure, another ultra-highdef format may be released, but will likely flounder. But nor do I think streaming is the future. Movies will be downloaded just like iTunes are once bandwidth and storage space get tot eh point where its feasible to do so.
My only concern is that when the general public chooses convenience over quality, the technology to improve the quality of film presentation stagnates. I just signed up to netflix, and wow, it this quality bad. I understand that it will improve, but it seems to me like there's a long way before it gets to blu-ray quality. One day, yes, but when will that be I wonder.
JBond
Call me crazy, but David Fincher is proving he is of the very elite directors.
Call me crazy, but David Fincher is proving he is of the very elite directors.
Dracula
The only thing crazy about that is that it took you this long to figure it out.
The only thing crazy about that is that it took you this long to figure it out.
JBond
No, I always knew he was great, but you also need longevity to be among the best. He's still in his prime with every movie. It's always ongoing.
No, I always knew he was great, but you also need longevity to be among the best. He's still in his prime with every movie. It's always ongoing.
Neverending
David Fincher peaked with Fight Club.
Let's see...
- Panic Room is okay at best.
- Zodiac is ridiculously over-rated.
- Benjamin Button is Oscar-bait nonsense.
- Dragon Tattoo gets more love than is deserves.
So, really, The Social Network is his only great movie since Fight Club.
David Fincher peaked with Fight Club.
Let's see...
- Panic Room is okay at best.
- Zodiac is ridiculously over-rated.
- Benjamin Button is Oscar-bait nonsense.
- Dragon Tattoo gets more love than is deserves.
So, really, The Social Network is his only great movie since Fight Club.
JBond
I think you're in the minority for most of those opinions. (Minus Benjamin Button)
I think you're in the minority for most of those opinions. (Minus Benjamin Button)
Neverending
I'm aware, but we can atleast agree that Se7en and Fight Club are his "masterpieces." The same way that Quentin Tarantino has never replicated the success/acclaim of Pulp Fiction.
I'm aware, but we can atleast agree that Se7en and Fight Club are his "masterpieces." The same way that Quentin Tarantino has never replicated the success/acclaim of Pulp Fiction.
JBond
Personally, I like Zodiac more than Se7en and Kill Bill more than Pulp Fiction.
Besides, big deal if his best one is long ago. Give him time.
Personally, I like Zodiac more than Se7en and Kill Bill more than Pulp Fiction.
Besides, big deal if his best one is long ago. Give him time.
Dracula
The thing is, every flaw in any of those movies is a problem with the script, and Fincher didn't write any of them. They all would have been substantially worse if someone else had directed them.
The thing is, every flaw in any of those movies is a problem with the script, and Fincher didn't write any of them. They all would have been substantially worse if someone else had directed them.
Neverending
That's a bold claim to make. No one knows what another director would have done. They could have re-written the script for all you know. If you're gonna defend Fincher, this is the poorest excuse you can make. If anything, it makes Fincher look worse because now you're saying that Fincher wouldn't know a good script if it slapped him in the face.
That's a bold claim to make. No one knows what another director would have done. They could have re-written the script for all you know. If you're gonna defend Fincher, this is the poorest excuse you can make. If anything, it makes Fincher look worse because now you're saying that Fincher wouldn't know a good script if it slapped him in the face.
Dracula
He knows a good script just fine, but often he needs to do commercial thrillers like Panic Room, The Game, and TGWTDT, or Oscar bait like Benjamin Button in order to stay in Hollywood's good favor and get funding for films like Fight Club, Zodiac, and The Social Network.
As for the claim that the films "would have been substantially worse if someone else had directed them" I really meant that they would have been worse if a non-elite director made them.
He knows a good script just fine, but often he needs to do commercial thrillers like Panic Room, The Game, and TGWTDT, or Oscar bait like Benjamin Button in order to stay in Hollywood's good favor and get funding for films like Fight Club, Zodiac, and The Social Network.
As for the claim that the films "would have been substantially worse if someone else had directed them" I really meant that they would have been worse if a non-elite director made them.
JBond
Call me crazy, but I think you CAN tell that movies such as Panic Room and Zodiac were better because of the director. The first one's about being trapped in a room. The second one is a killer movie where they don't catch him. And they're both awesome to watch.
Call me crazy, but I think you CAN tell that movies such as Panic Room and Zodiac were better because of the director. The first one's about being trapped in a room. The second one is a killer movie where they don't catch him. And they're both awesome to watch.
MovieBuff801
Call me crazy, but I enjoy Hannibal just as much as Silence of the Lambs. Sure, Hannibal cheapens things a bit by showing more of the violence, but Ridley Scott gives the movie an incredible sense of atmosphere and suspense, and having Lechter out there in society, posing an actual threat is something I find effective, because we really get a sense of his menace and cunning and I like that. Yes, it has its ridiculous moments (the brain scene), but I can't deny that I found myself wrapped up in it.
Call me crazy, but I enjoy Hannibal just as much as Silence of the Lambs. Sure, Hannibal cheapens things a bit by showing more of the violence, but Ridley Scott gives the movie an incredible sense of atmosphere and suspense, and having Lechter out there in society, posing an actual threat is something I find effective, because we really get a sense of his menace and cunning and I like that. Yes, it has its ridiculous moments (the brain scene), but I can't deny that I found myself wrapped up in it.
Dracula
Crazy talk, Hannibal is an absolute mess.
Crazy talk, Hannibal is an absolute mess.
MovieBuff801
But it's a glorious mess. Well, glorious is too strong, but it's the kind of mess you can't look away from. There were quite a few parts of it I liked, I have to admit.
But it's a glorious mess. Well, glorious is too strong, but it's the kind of mess you can't look away from. There were quite a few parts of it I liked, I have to admit.
PG Cooper
I like Hannibal, but it's flawed as hell, and no where near The Silence of the Lambs. Yeah, Hannibal is atmospheric, and I'll never get sick of Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, but it just has so much silly things in it. Also, I like Julianne Moore, but Jodie Foster IS Clarice Starling, period.
I like Hannibal, but it's flawed as hell, and no where near The Silence of the Lambs. Yeah, Hannibal is atmospheric, and I'll never get sick of Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, but it just has so much silly things in it. Also, I like Julianne Moore, but Jodie Foster IS Clarice Starling, period.
MovieBuff801
I guess what I like most about Hannibal is that Lechter isn't confined to his cell in it. He actually does stuff in it and like I said, we get a sense of how devious and cunning he can be in society. I can even overlook the brain scene for that.
I guess what I like most about Hannibal is that Lechter isn't confined to his cell in it. He actually does stuff in it and like I said, we get a sense of how devious and cunning he can be in society. I can even overlook the brain scene for that.
Neverending
I think what people are trying to say is that Hannibal is a horror movie while Silence, and even Red Dragon, are thrillers.
I think what people are trying to say is that Hannibal is a horror movie while Silence, and even Red Dragon, are thrillers.
PG Cooper
I consider Silence horror. It's just smarter, more sophisticated, and better executed on every level.
I consider Silence horror. It's just smarter, more sophisticated, and better executed on every level.
MovieBuff801
I'd say both Silence and Red Dragon are more psychological thrillers, and Hannibal fits more neatly into horror.
I'd say both Silence and Red Dragon are more psychological thrillers, and Hannibal fits more neatly into horror.
Dracula
I'd say Silence is a psychological thriller, Red Dragon is a regular-ass thriller, and Hannibal is an unintentional comedy.
I'd say Silence is a psychological thriller, Red Dragon is a regular-ass thriller, and Hannibal is an unintentional comedy.
MovieBuff801
Whoa, whoa, whoa...Nolan is HEAD AND SHOULDERS above James Cameron. Like I said, he's not my favorite, but he's definitely pretty high up there. He's one of the few directors who has a consistent track record.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...Nolan is HEAD AND SHOULDERS above James Cameron. Like I said, he's not my favorite, but he's definitely pretty high up there. He's one of the few directors who has a consistent track record.
PG Cooper
Call me crazy, but I love Chris Nolan and James Cameron equally.
Call me crazy, but I love Chris Nolan and James Cameron equally.
Moviebuff801
Both Nolan and Cameron pull directing and screenwriting duties for their films, but between them (in my book), Nolan has the edge because Cameron isn't as good a screenwriter as he is a director.
Building off what I just posted, Cameron seems to give more thought to the effects/budgetary aspects of his films, and not so much to the story aspects. Nolan gives equal thought to both, which is what makes him better. He doesn't NEED Cameron's sense of scope to make a good movie. Memento, Following, Insomnia and The Prestige are proof of that.
Both Nolan and Cameron pull directing and screenwriting duties for their films, but between them (in my book), Nolan has the edge because Cameron isn't as good a screenwriter as he is a director.
Building off what I just posted, Cameron seems to give more thought to the effects/budgetary aspects of his films, and not so much to the story aspects. Nolan gives equal thought to both, which is what makes him better. He doesn't NEED Cameron's sense of scope to make a good movie. Memento, Following, Insomnia and The Prestige are proof of that.
Doomsday
This is what I hate about the comparison game, we try to bring one up by chopping another guy down.
Like moviebuff said, James Cameron is more of a 'technical' guy which is true. But what his films do is groundbreaking stuff. From animatronics to CGI and capture, he has been leading the way on FX since the 80s. Aliens, The Abyss, T2, Titanic, Avatar, he helped demonstrate not only how special effects can look amazing and state fo the art but also how they can enhance a movie, in his cases already good movies to begin with. Chris Nolan revamped Batman.
As I've said multiple times, Nolan gets way too much credit for his writing abilities. I could have mentioned it earlier but didn't (trying to be nice and on topic) and yeah, he's a really good director but just an alright writer. Look at Inception, a writer could take that script and tear it limb from limb. As for James Cameron, you can use Avatar and Titanic as proof of his writing misfires, but to say that Chris Nolan is better....well there are certainly better screenwriters in Hollywood than James Cameron but I wouldn't call Chris Nolan one of them. Just take Aliens for example. He took a popular, successful film and was making a sequel to it. So what did he do? He made it the opposite of what the original was while at the same time paying homage to it (not copying it). And what was the product? A movie that was arguably superior to the original. You'd have to be more than just an average writer to make something like that work, and that's just one example.
We could play these pong games all day, so why don't we just say that both are good filmmakers with their own places in modern cinema history?
This is what I hate about the comparison game, we try to bring one up by chopping another guy down.
Like moviebuff said, James Cameron is more of a 'technical' guy which is true. But what his films do is groundbreaking stuff. From animatronics to CGI and capture, he has been leading the way on FX since the 80s. Aliens, The Abyss, T2, Titanic, Avatar, he helped demonstrate not only how special effects can look amazing and state fo the art but also how they can enhance a movie, in his cases already good movies to begin with. Chris Nolan revamped Batman.
As I've said multiple times, Nolan gets way too much credit for his writing abilities. I could have mentioned it earlier but didn't (trying to be nice and on topic) and yeah, he's a really good director but just an alright writer. Look at Inception, a writer could take that script and tear it limb from limb. As for James Cameron, you can use Avatar and Titanic as proof of his writing misfires, but to say that Chris Nolan is better....well there are certainly better screenwriters in Hollywood than James Cameron but I wouldn't call Chris Nolan one of them. Just take Aliens for example. He took a popular, successful film and was making a sequel to it. So what did he do? He made it the opposite of what the original was while at the same time paying homage to it (not copying it). And what was the product? A movie that was arguably superior to the original. You'd have to be more than just an average writer to make something like that work, and that's just one example.
We could play these pong games all day, so why don't we just say that both are good filmmakers with their own places in modern cinema history?
JBond
You're the only one who doesn't think Inception's a masterpiece. Please, tear it "limb from limb."
You're the only one who doesn't think Inception's a masterpiece. Please, tear it "limb from limb."
Doomsday
I wasn't aware anybody thought it was a masterpiece. We must run in different circles.
I wasn't aware anybody thought it was a masterpiece. We must run in different circles.
Neverending
I understand where Doomsday is coming from. Chris Nolan has a tendency to over-explain things in his movies. Not to mention that the dialogue in his movies tend to be horrible.
To me, Nolan is an Idea Man. He needs people like his brother to turn those ideas into a good story. Notice how his best movies are the ones his brother writes (Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight).
I understand where Doomsday is coming from. Chris Nolan has a tendency to over-explain things in his movies. Not to mention that the dialogue in his movies tend to be horrible.
To me, Nolan is an Idea Man. He needs people like his brother to turn those ideas into a good story. Notice how his best movies are the ones his brother writes (Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight).
IantheCool
I think Inception has staying power certainly.
I think Inception has staying power certainly.
MovieBuff801
Inception will definitely be highly regarded in both sci-fi and general film circles ten years from now.
Inception will definitely be highly regarded in both sci-fi and general film circles ten years from now.
sshuttari
James Cameron even loved inception and said Nolan was robbed not getting that movie nominated for best picture. I would say it has staying power...
James Cameron even loved inception and said Nolan was robbed not getting that movie nominated for best picture. I would say it has staying power...
Doomsday
Maybe I just read different things and talk to different people but...I don't really get a sense that people regard Inception as a great movie now, and who knows what they'll think 10 years from now. I know a lot of people on these boards love the movie which is fine but I'm not seeing a lot of discussion and analysis and comparison of Inception in the mainstream like with other big films in their genre in their day like Sixth Sense or Lord of the Rings or even Dark Knight (I'm NOT comparing it to those movies). I hear people say that Inception is a highly regarded and 'one of the best...' kinda movie, I just don't see or read anything to back that up. I mean when was the last time you watched tv or read Entertainment Weekly and heard anyone talk about Inception? And it barely came out 2 years ago.
when was the last time there was some real Inception discussion was going on anywhere? CS! threads do not equal real world influence or in depth analysis or discussion of future impact on cinema. I'm not knocking the quality of the movie in case that's what you think I'm doing, I'm just questioning whether people really think that it's going to be discussed and lauded 10 years from now when I don't even get a sense of much of that going on today as it is.
Maybe I just read different things and talk to different people but...I don't really get a sense that people regard Inception as a great movie now, and who knows what they'll think 10 years from now. I know a lot of people on these boards love the movie which is fine but I'm not seeing a lot of discussion and analysis and comparison of Inception in the mainstream like with other big films in their genre in their day like Sixth Sense or Lord of the Rings or even Dark Knight (I'm NOT comparing it to those movies). I hear people say that Inception is a highly regarded and 'one of the best...' kinda movie, I just don't see or read anything to back that up. I mean when was the last time you watched tv or read Entertainment Weekly and heard anyone talk about Inception? And it barely came out 2 years ago.
when was the last time there was some real Inception discussion was going on anywhere? CS! threads do not equal real world influence or in depth analysis or discussion of future impact on cinema. I'm not knocking the quality of the movie in case that's what you think I'm doing, I'm just questioning whether people really think that it's going to be discussed and lauded 10 years from now when I don't even get a sense of much of that going on today as it is.
Jbond
When was the last time you heard anyone talk about any movie that's more than 2 years old, these days? Or not coming out in theaters or video, anymore? What would this hypothetical article in EW be? "Inception Still Awesome"?
When was the last time you heard anyone talk about any movie that's more than 2 years old, these days? Or not coming out in theaters or video, anymore? What would this hypothetical article in EW be? "Inception Still Awesome"?
Doomsday
That's entirely my point. We don't really talk about it as it is, so why are we discussing the staying power of Inception and how highly it will be regarded 10 years from now? It will be remembered as a good movie in Chris Nolan's canon alongside Insomnia and Following and all his other films. There will be other sci-fi movies for people to discuss, other mind-bending films and movies with cutting edge visuals. It's impossible to say how it will be regarded in the future.
That's entirely my point. We don't really talk about it as it is, so why are we discussing the staying power of Inception and how highly it will be regarded 10 years from now? It will be remembered as a good movie in Chris Nolan's canon alongside Insomnia and Following and all his other films. There will be other sci-fi movies for people to discuss, other mind-bending films and movies with cutting edge visuals. It's impossible to say how it will be regarded in the future.
Neverending
I'm sure there's a college kid out there talking about Inception in his film classes. I wrote a paper on Memento and that was back in 2005 when Nolan-Mania didn't exist.
I'm sure there's a college kid out there talking about Inception in his film classes. I wrote a paper on Memento and that was back in 2005 when Nolan-Mania didn't exist.
PG Cooper
Inception is placed 14th on IMDB's top 250.
I'm not saying that list is the ultimate mark of quality, but it proves the film resonated with people. Just because it isn't being talked about on EW or what have you does not mean it's not held in high regard. Also, saying it will be regarded in the same vein as Insomnia or Following (movies hardly anyone talks about) is ludicrous.
Inception is placed 14th on IMDB's top 250.
I'm not saying that list is the ultimate mark of quality, but it proves the film resonated with people. Just because it isn't being talked about on EW or what have you does not mean it's not held in high regard. Also, saying it will be regarded in the same vein as Insomnia or Following (movies hardly anyone talks about) is ludicrous.
Doomsday
When it comes to Inception, let me put it differently. Instead of going back yeeees and nooooo ad infinitum, maybe someone can tell me why Inception will be remembered in a decade. What benchmark has it set and what puts it above other sci fi movies that have and will be released?
And before you get confused, let me put it another way. Movies like Aliens or T2 or The Matrix, sci-fi action movies that we still talk about today, they set some sort of milestone, they left a big impression on audiences that still make them discussed and compared to even today. What I'm asking is, if people think we're going to be holding Inception to that same level of esteem then what does it have that really warrants it being at that level? Just for the sake of discussion.
When it comes to Inception, let me put it differently. Instead of going back yeeees and nooooo ad infinitum, maybe someone can tell me why Inception will be remembered in a decade. What benchmark has it set and what puts it above other sci fi movies that have and will be released?
And before you get confused, let me put it another way. Movies like Aliens or T2 or The Matrix, sci-fi action movies that we still talk about today, they set some sort of milestone, they left a big impression on audiences that still make them discussed and compared to even today. What I'm asking is, if people think we're going to be holding Inception to that same level of esteem then what does it have that really warrants it being at that level? Just for the sake of discussion.
PG Cooper
Well for one thing, it's a brilliantly executed film. That alone is reason to believe it will still be lauded in ten years. Movies like The Shawshank Redemption and Magnolia aren't really benchmarks, but they are lauded still because they are extremely well-made.
Inception also has the benefit of being one of the most original science fiction films in recent memory. The only other recent science-fiction film (that I can think of) with the same level of originality is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. So that helps the argument. No other film pays with dreams the same way.
There's also the fact that Inception was a big-budget blockbuster which actually had a brain. Inception made its audience think. Most summer blockbusters are mindless garbage. Inception was actually made with a lot of heart and soul.
Well for one thing, it's a brilliantly executed film. That alone is reason to believe it will still be lauded in ten years. Movies like The Shawshank Redemption and Magnolia aren't really benchmarks, but they are lauded still because they are extremely well-made.
Inception also has the benefit of being one of the most original science fiction films in recent memory. The only other recent science-fiction film (that I can think of) with the same level of originality is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. So that helps the argument. No other film pays with dreams the same way.
There's also the fact that Inception was a big-budget blockbuster which actually had a brain. Inception made its audience think. Most summer blockbusters are mindless garbage. Inception was actually made with a lot of heart and soul.
Doomsday
See that's where I felt the film lacked, the execution. If you wanna know where I come from, my personal opinion, I felt the film could have been a perfectly good film without the needless action which didn't benefit the story or move anything forward. That whole James Bond-esque siege might have looked cool but was so unnecessary for the rest of the film, and it was half-assed thrown in with 'well the dream becomes unstable so there's going to be some action.' As I watched the film a couple more times I just felt that Chris Nolan tried to have his cake and eat it too. Also, as Neverending touched on earlier, I have always had issue with Nolan's use of exposition which is especially apparent in Inception. In every movie there's some dialogue to bring the audience up to speed or explain what might be happening, but when Nolan at multiple times has to literally stop the film and explain at length what we will be seeing, it's a) not good writing, b) insulting to the audience, and c) depletes any sense of suspense later on in the film, and d) shows how convoluted the story really is. In actuality, it's a really simple story at its core that's bogged down by so much fluff that doesn't contribute anything to the final outcome of the film. I think a lot of the 'discussion' of the film that took place when it came out was just people trying to figure out what the hell was going on, but once you piece it together it makes you go 'oh ok.' I could go on but that's the gist of my issues with the movie. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad movie, I just think the emphasis was in all the wrong places. It ramped up the action at the cost of intrigue and suspense. That's just me though.
See that's where I felt the film lacked, the execution. If you wanna know where I come from, my personal opinion, I felt the film could have been a perfectly good film without the needless action which didn't benefit the story or move anything forward. That whole James Bond-esque siege might have looked cool but was so unnecessary for the rest of the film, and it was half-assed thrown in with 'well the dream becomes unstable so there's going to be some action.' As I watched the film a couple more times I just felt that Chris Nolan tried to have his cake and eat it too. Also, as Neverending touched on earlier, I have always had issue with Nolan's use of exposition which is especially apparent in Inception. In every movie there's some dialogue to bring the audience up to speed or explain what might be happening, but when Nolan at multiple times has to literally stop the film and explain at length what we will be seeing, it's a) not good writing, b) insulting to the audience, and c) depletes any sense of suspense later on in the film, and d) shows how convoluted the story really is. In actuality, it's a really simple story at its core that's bogged down by so much fluff that doesn't contribute anything to the final outcome of the film. I think a lot of the 'discussion' of the film that took place when it came out was just people trying to figure out what the hell was going on, but once you piece it together it makes you go 'oh ok.' I could go on but that's the gist of my issues with the movie. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad movie, I just think the emphasis was in all the wrong places. It ramped up the action at the cost of intrigue and suspense. That's just me though.
JGBarnes
I'm gonna have to side with Doomsday on this.
When you dig through and translate all the complex blabber that Inception is loaded with and tear away the veil, there's literally nothing underneath. There is no heart, the characters are as rich and deep as a sheet of construction paper, the action scenes have no visceral energy, and the whole thing feels so shamelessly passionless and insipid. Nolan's films are as dry as desert sand and it boggles my mind that he gets the praise he does. Inception is at least original. I'll give the guy that, but it's essentially four mediocre action films chopped into pieces and randomly pasted back together and the mess that appears on-screen is somehow considered genius just because it's complex.
I'm gonna have to side with Doomsday on this.
When you dig through and translate all the complex blabber that Inception is loaded with and tear away the veil, there's literally nothing underneath. There is no heart, the characters are as rich and deep as a sheet of construction paper, the action scenes have no visceral energy, and the whole thing feels so shamelessly passionless and insipid. Nolan's films are as dry as desert sand and it boggles my mind that he gets the praise he does. Inception is at least original. I'll give the guy that, but it's essentially four mediocre action films chopped into pieces and randomly pasted back together and the mess that appears on-screen is somehow considered genius just because it's complex.
PG Cooper
The characters are more complex than you're giving them credit for. Do they have intense Shakespearean depth? No, but much deeper than you're making them out to be. Besides, to judge Inception based on the depth of its characters is to miss the point entirely. Inception is a movie about ideas and it explores those ideas brilliantly. With the exception of Cobb and to a lesser extent Robert, the film isn't about analyzing the motivations of its characters. It's about exploring science-fiction ideas based on dreams.
As for the action scenes having no energy and the film having no passion, I completely disagree.
The characters are more complex than you're giving them credit for. Do they have intense Shakespearean depth? No, but much deeper than you're making them out to be. Besides, to judge Inception based on the depth of its characters is to miss the point entirely. Inception is a movie about ideas and it explores those ideas brilliantly. With the exception of Cobb and to a lesser extent Robert, the film isn't about analyzing the motivations of its characters. It's about exploring science-fiction ideas based on dreams.
As for the action scenes having no energy and the film having no passion, I completely disagree.
Jbond
Thank you, PG. I don't know why the quality of all movies has to be based on characters. Try telling that to Isaac Asimov.
The fact that so many people can't enjoy Inception makes me wonder about the state of science fiction.
Thank you, PG. I don't know why the quality of all movies has to be based on characters. Try telling that to Isaac Asimov.
The fact that so many people can't enjoy Inception makes me wonder about the state of science fiction.
Neverending
Initially, I did complain about the film's lack of heart. But upon repeat viewing on HBO, it doesn't bother me anymore. As PG Cooper said, the film is an exploration of ideas. It's pure science fiction and fantasy that doesn't alienate mainstream audiences. I would never call Inception a masterpiece - at least not yet - and the film's lack of heart and over use of exposition are the main reasons. But it's still a GREAT movie and among the best released in the last 5 years or so. I understand that Nolan-Mania gives reason for people to nitpick his work but in a few years, when things have calmed down, I think "the haters" will be able to review his work with fresher eyes. And let's keep in mind that even Steven Spielberg had critics during his heyday. You have no idea how happy some people were when 1941 was released.
Initially, I did complain about the film's lack of heart. But upon repeat viewing on HBO, it doesn't bother me anymore. As PG Cooper said, the film is an exploration of ideas. It's pure science fiction and fantasy that doesn't alienate mainstream audiences. I would never call Inception a masterpiece - at least not yet - and the film's lack of heart and over use of exposition are the main reasons. But it's still a GREAT movie and among the best released in the last 5 years or so. I understand that Nolan-Mania gives reason for people to nitpick his work but in a few years, when things have calmed down, I think "the haters" will be able to review his work with fresher eyes. And let's keep in mind that even Steven Spielberg had critics during his heyday. You have no idea how happy some people were when 1941 was released.
JGBarnes
I'm not asking for Shakespearean depth. Even the action segments, as flaccid as they are, I could forgive if it weren't for the one core thing that truly peeves me about Inception and that it's based on dreams and ideas, yet stops at "Hey, I got an idea." It's as if Nolan HAS a great idea that hasn't happened yet and we're only seeing the notes he scribbled down on a napkin. The whole film plays like a live-action instruction manual.
The film deals with subject matter that I have explored and studied a very long time and, I feel, for a film that's supposed to be full of ideas and passion, it lacks any exploration of either one -- which shocks me that you find it to be the total opposite.
I am the exact person Inception is made for. Nolan's EXACT audience, and yet I feel cheated. Nolan's concepts are premature. I've seen the film a few times now because I keep telling myself I can't possibly dislike it. Believe me, I WANT to like Inception and I actually DID the first time I saw it, though underwhelmed, and every subsequent viewing it's gotten more stale and harder to get through.
I'm not asking for Shakespearean depth. Even the action segments, as flaccid as they are, I could forgive if it weren't for the one core thing that truly peeves me about Inception and that it's based on dreams and ideas, yet stops at "Hey, I got an idea." It's as if Nolan HAS a great idea that hasn't happened yet and we're only seeing the notes he scribbled down on a napkin. The whole film plays like a live-action instruction manual.
The film deals with subject matter that I have explored and studied a very long time and, I feel, for a film that's supposed to be full of ideas and passion, it lacks any exploration of either one -- which shocks me that you find it to be the total opposite.
I am the exact person Inception is made for. Nolan's EXACT audience, and yet I feel cheated. Nolan's concepts are premature. I've seen the film a few times now because I keep telling myself I can't possibly dislike it. Believe me, I WANT to like Inception and I actually DID the first time I saw it, though underwhelmed, and every subsequent viewing it's gotten more stale and harder to get through.
Tornado
I'm a huge Nolan fan and I loved Inception, but I don't think it will be remembered like The Matrix (that's not to say I think Inception will be forgotten, I just don't feel like they're on the same level). The latter was pretty groundbreaking for American cinema and as much as I loved the former, I don't think it really achieved anything wholly unique.
I'm a huge Nolan fan and I loved Inception, but I don't think it will be remembered like The Matrix (that's not to say I think Inception will be forgotten, I just don't feel like they're on the same level). The latter was pretty groundbreaking for American cinema and as much as I loved the former, I don't think it really achieved anything wholly unique.
JBond
Call me crazy, but Do the Right Thing is overrated.
Call me crazy, but Do the Right Thing is overrated.
Justin
Call me crazy, but Spike Lee is an overrated filmmaker.
Call me crazy, but Spike Lee is an overrated filmmaker.
Neverending
That is insane. He peaked with Malcolm X in `92, but he still makes the occassional great movie like 25th Hour and some of his documentaries.
That is insane. He peaked with Malcolm X in `92, but he still makes the occassional great movie like 25th Hour and some of his documentaries.
JBond
I love 25th Hour, I'll give him that.
I love 25th Hour, I'll give him that.
Dracula
You're both nuts.
I'll grant you that Spike Lee isn't the most consistent filmmaker by any means, but when he's on he's unstoppable and I don't think he's ever made a film which isn't at least interesting.
Do the Right Thing in particular is an unassailable masterpiece, what's your beef with it?
You're both nuts.
I'll grant you that Spike Lee isn't the most consistent filmmaker by any means, but when he's on he's unstoppable and I don't think he's ever made a film which isn't at least interesting.
Do the Right Thing in particular is an unassailable masterpiece, what's your beef with it?
Justin
25th Hour and Inside Man were both good. And yeah, his idea of remaking Oldboy is absurd. One of my favorite movies. I still can't believe--well, I can, but I didn't expect him to be doing it--it's being remade.
25th Hour and Inside Man were both good. And yeah, his idea of remaking Oldboy is absurd. One of my favorite movies. I still can't believe--well, I can, but I didn't expect him to be doing it--it's being remade.
JBond
Inside Man was entertaining as well. I found Do the Right Thing tedious and filled with mixed messages.
Inside Man was entertaining as well. I found Do the Right Thing tedious and filled with mixed messages.
