Christopher Nolan's "Inception" (We're giving up on spoiler tags) [Archive] - Page 7

Spinal

11-30-2010, 04:15 PM

I tend to ascribe to the viewpoint that "life is most successfully viewed from a single window, after all." When it comes to creative things, at least.

To do otherwise is like attending a church without any particular belief system. What the hell's the point?

In order to process this stuff, have any kind of thoughtful opinion, you've got to start from some kind of reference point, some kind of framework.

I try to meet a film, or any piece of artwork, on its own terms, rather than hold it to some predetermined notion of what I think it should be before I experience it. This is sometimes challenging, and sometimes I need to see a film again in order to fully drop my expectations. But I think flexibility is a valuable trait to have as a movie goer.

As someone who likes Hot Tub Time Machine, I suspect that you probably do this as well.

Dukefrukem

11-30-2010, 05:13 PM

I try to meet a film, or any piece of artwork, on its own terms, rather than hold it to some predetermined notion of what I think it should be before I experience it.

Do you do this for remakes and reboots as well?

Kurosawa Fan

11-30-2010, 05:14 PM

As someone who likes Hot Tub Time Machine, I suspect that you probably do this as well.

:lol:

:|

Qrazy

11-30-2010, 05:25 PM

And no background in logic.

I was going to guess grade school student who saw one movie once.

Spinal

11-30-2010, 05:26 PM

Do you do this for remakes and reboots as well?

This is more difficult because I generally assume that the filmmaker's goal in this case is to nab my money, so I tend to start with a fair amount of cynicism.

number8

11-30-2010, 05:29 PM

I was going to guess grade school student who saw one movie once.

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/70/l_aaaaac086f52fa57dbbfb2dc9ad4 1d37.jpg

balmakboor

11-30-2010, 05:57 PM

... sometimes I need to see a film again in order to fully drop my expectations.

This is the truest thing I've read in a long while around here.

Spinal

11-30-2010, 06:05 PM

This is the truest thing I've read in a long while around here.

Don't you sometimes have that feeling when you get to the end of a film and you're like, oops, I watched it wrong.

Raiders

11-30-2010, 07:17 PM

Don't you sometimes have that feeling when you get to the end of a film and you're like, oops, I watched it wrong.

Actually.... no.

megladon8

11-30-2010, 07:58 PM

I think everyone here should just subscribe to the notion that Irish is nuts, and get on with it.

:P

Russ

11-30-2010, 08:13 PM

I think everyone here should just subscribe to the notion that Irish is nuts, and get on with it.

:P
Haven't you learned yet to back up your bold statements with examples?

;)

Spinal

11-30-2010, 08:15 PM

I think everyone here should just subscribe to the notion that Irish is nuts, and get on with it.

:P

Irish is no more nuts than many of you. We're just more accustomed to your idiosyncrasies.

endingcredits

11-30-2010, 08:21 PM

megladon8

11-30-2010, 08:24 PM

Haven't you learned yet to back up your bold statements with examples?

;)

Irish is no more nuts than many of you. We're just more accustomed to your idiosyncrasies.

Le sigh...

[ETM]

11-30-2010, 08:34 PM

Irish is no more nuts than many of you. We're just more accustomed to your idiosyncrasies.

Now, this is the truest thing I've read in a long while around here.

number8

11-30-2010, 08:40 PM

You can argue that his approach to evaluating movies is probably the most "normal," given its rigidity. I mean, a bunch of us are die-hard lovers of Speed Racer, Torque and Southland Tales, after all.

Ezee E

11-30-2010, 08:47 PM

Le sigh...
I don't think he's picking you out in particular. It's mroe of each individual. Irish just hasn't been with us very long.

megladon8

11-30-2010, 09:58 PM

I don't think he's picking you out in particular. It's mroe of each individual. Irish just hasn't been with us very long.

I don't think anyone's picking on me.

I just don't think they got that I was joking.

Kurosawa Fan

12-01-2010, 12:47 AM

Pretty sure Russ did, considering the smiley. His comment was a jab at Irish, I believe.

Russ

12-01-2010, 12:51 AM

Pretty sure Russ did, considering the smiley. His comment was a jab at Irish, I believe.
A good-natured one, I might add.

Kurosawa Fan

12-01-2010, 12:56 AM

A good-natured one, I might add.

Being good-natured yourself, I had no doubts.

Spinal

12-01-2010, 01:53 AM

I thought I was building on meg's joke. I'm a team player here, man.

Kurosawa Fan

12-01-2010, 02:50 AM

Your joke didn't work because I'm not nuts. I have impeccable taste and opinions.

Irish

12-01-2010, 04:08 AM

;304737']No, not really. Not at all. Even though his "journal" is the "official record" for these adventures, the stories themselves are rarely told from Watson's POV. In fact, large chunks happen without either him or Holmes witnessing them.

No, they don't. At least, the original Conan Doyle stories don't. IIRC, they are all told in the first person, completely from Watson's point of view. You never have an instance where a part of the story is told from the pov of Mrs Hudson or Moriarity or Holmes himself. (Take Hound of the Baskervilles. Holmes disappears for almost two-thirds of that story while Watson is left to wander around the moors by himself.)

Doyle is strict about not breaking that point of view either, which is part of what makes those stories so clever.

Most crime and detective stories -- here I'm thinking of Marlowe, Spade, the Continental Op, Hercule Poirot, Miss Marples -- follow more of less the same format.

Irish

12-01-2010, 04:15 AM

I can't tell if you're joking with all of this. The way I'm reading it is that you're being extremely sarcastic. I hope I'm right.

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. I think you need some kind of framework, outside of just pure gut reaction, in order to judge anything. (This is where education comes into play.)

I try to meet a film, or any piece of artwork, on its own terms, rather than hold it to some predetermined notion of what I think it should be before I experience it. This is sometimes challenging, and sometimes I need to see a film again in order to fully drop my expectations. But I think flexibility is a valuable trait to have as a movie goer.
I agree with this, but with limits. Genre is one of those limits.

Irish

12-01-2010, 04:17 AM

Pretty sure Russ did, considering the smiley. His comment was a jab at Irish, I believe.

Yeah, that was a dig at me, and it was a good one. (I laughed)

[ETM]

12-01-2010, 04:33 AM

No, they don't. At least, the original Conan Doyle stories don't.

Er, no. I have the book. The facsimile edition. I have read them all.

Irish

12-01-2010, 04:35 AM

;304962']Er, no. I have the book. The facsimile edition. I have read them all.

Are you saying there's original Conan Doyle stories from someone else's point of view? Which ones?

BuffaloWilder

12-01-2010, 05:53 AM

...Like, the first novel. Literally, the very first one, dude. About an entire third of A Study In Scarlet is a flashback that takes place a good thirty years earlier in America - the events that happen therein are never referenced or recounted by Watson later on, and exist only so that we might know some of what has led to the crime that the entire story does center around.

B-side

12-01-2010, 06:43 AM

I agree with this, but with limits. Genre is one of those limits.

Wait, what?

Boner M

12-01-2010, 06:52 AM

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lc7dp9bVsg1qc21oto1_250 .gif

number8

12-01-2010, 03:42 PM

Haha, it's pretty obvious you've never read A Study in Scarlet, Irish. It's kinda hard to miss that half the book was written in third-person voice.

number8

12-01-2010, 03:46 PM

I agree with this, but with limits. Genre is one of those limits.

Genre films is where it's most important to let go of preconceived expectations. They are the best when they diverge entirely from what they're "supposed" to be. The best genre films throw you in for a loop.

Irish

12-01-2010, 07:00 PM

Haha, it's pretty obvious you've never read A Study in Scarlet, Irish. It's kinda hard to miss that half the book was written in third-person voice.

:D Yeah, truth be told I was thinking of the Strand Magazine stories, not any of the stand alone novels.

Raiders

12-01-2010, 07:08 PM

Behold wikipedia...

All but four stories are narrated by Holmes's friend and biographer, Dr. John H. Watson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Watson); two are narrated by Holmes himself ("The Blanched Soldier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Blanched_ Soldier)" and "The Lion's Mane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Lion%27s_ Mane)") and two others are written in the third person ("The Mazarin Stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Mazarin_S tone)" and "His Last Bow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Last_Bow_(story))"). In two stories ("The Musgrave Ritual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Musgrave_ Ritual)" and "The Gloria Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Gloria_Sc ott)"), Holmes tells Watson the main story from his memories, while Watson becomes the narrator of the frame story. The first and fourth novels, A Study in Scarlet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Study_in_Scarlet) and The Valley of Fear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Valley_of_Fear), each include a long interval of omniscient narration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_omniscient_narrative) recounting events unknown both to Holmes and to Watson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes

Irish

12-01-2010, 08:44 PM

Genre films is where it's most important to let go of preconceived expectations. They are the best when they diverge entirely from what they're "supposed" to be. The best genre films throw you in for a loop.

Hmmm .. we may be talking about different things. The trouble with genre is that once you start wandering away from the conventions your work is no longer part of that genre. Once you do that, what's the point of setting it there in the first place?

BSG and Deadwood are examples at the high end of that spectrum. The low end contains material like Back to the Future Part III and Wild Wild West, which are awful as both science fiction and westerns.

I think you can take something beyond the limitations, like Coppella did with Godfather and Scorcese did with Goodfellas and Tarantino/Avary did with Pulp Fiction. Those movies aren't slavish to convention, almost become bigger than they have a right to be, but do it while steadfastly working within the boundries.

Derek

12-01-2010, 08:48 PM

almost become bigger than they have a right to be

According to...?

Irish

12-01-2010, 08:53 PM

According to...?

According to me. Look at the source material for a lot of this stuff. These movies are based on pop-cult trash fiction, "beach books" that would have loooooong been forgotten if it weren't for these movies.

(Jaws fits right in there too. So does stuff like Mystic River, and Shutter Island, but to a lesser extent.)

Boner M

12-01-2010, 08:53 PM

Pages on, and Irish is still explaining the rules. META!

number8

12-01-2010, 08:53 PM

The trouble with genre is that once you start wandering away from the conventions your work is no longer part of that genre. Once you do that, what's the point of setting it there in the first place?

To play with the genre and create a vastly more interesting work.

BSG and Deadwood are examples at the high end of that spectrum.

Case in point.

[ETM]

12-01-2010, 08:54 PM

Hmmm .. we may be talking about different things. The trouble with genre is that once you start wandering away from the conventions your work is no longer part of that genre. Once you do that, what's the point of setting it there in the first place?

Doesn't strict "genre" restrict (or not) just as much as anything? I mean, if you want to play within the confines of conventions, you'll be just as limited in, say, horror as you would be in contemporary drama. If you're shooting a vampire flick, having vampires in it restricts you about as much as not having the option of vampires in contemporary drama. I don't know if you follow - what number8 is saying here is: genre elements, when used well, can broaden the scope and help tell a story which would be otherwise impossible to tell. You mentioned BSG - it deals with real life issues and characters in a way that would have worked in many a non-genre setting, but the genre elements amplify it and also bring a surface aesthetic value that can't be ignored. Most plot points would have played out similarly in a historic war setting, but I frakkin' loved the space battles even on their own.

Irish

12-01-2010, 09:03 PM

To play with the genre and create a vastly more interesting work.

Case in point.

My argument is that these aren't vastly more interesting works.

BSG had some great moments based in science fiction, but a helluva lot of it was a soap opera, a kind of West Wing in space. That ain't science fiction and it's not interesting.

With Deadwood, given the high praise thrown at it, I second guess that I didn't give it enough of a chance. It struck me as an attempt at Shakespeare in the mud. The most telling thing about it was a writer/producer interview in which it was stated that the show was originally pitched as being in ancient Rome. HBO passed because they already had something similar in the works.

[ETM]

12-01-2010, 09:08 PM

My argument is that these aren't vastly more interesting works.

Uh, yes they are. And fun. You know, fun?

BSG had some great moments based in science fiction, but a helluva lot of it was a soap opera, a kind of West Wing in space. That ain't science fiction and it's not interesting.

I have severed all ties with people for less.

DavidSeven

12-01-2010, 09:27 PM

Pages on, and Irish is still explaining the rules. META!

Hm...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v518/davidseven/irishinception.jpg

Irish

12-01-2010, 09:33 PM

Oh fuck me I owe you big time for giving me the biggest laugh of the day. :lol:

Nicely done.

Qrazy

12-01-2010, 09:34 PM

To play with the genre and create a vastly more interesting work.

Case in point.

Some other good examples being Altman's The Long Goodbye, Suzuki's Gate of Flesh, or Cassavetes The Killing of a Chinese Bookie.

number8

12-01-2010, 09:35 PM

My argument is that these aren't vastly more interesting works.

BSG had some great moments based in science fiction, but a helluva lot of it was a soap opera, a kind of West Wing in space. That ain't science fiction and it's not interesting.

With Deadwood, given the high praise thrown at it, I second guess that I didn't give it enough of a chance. It struck me as an attempt at Shakespeare in the mud. The most telling thing about it was a writer/producer interview in which it was stated that the show was originally pitched as being in ancient Rome. HBO passed because they already had something similar in the works.

Nnnnngggghhhhate you.

MadMan

12-01-2010, 09:39 PM

Hm...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v518/davidseven/irishinception.jpgJokes centered around these same pictures are still funny to me months later.

I don't have much else to add here, except that its awesome that they released a stills gallery full of pictures from the movie, and that its finally coming out on DVD so I can go buy it and watching it a million times more. Not to figure out the ending-screw that, I love how its a mystery-but instead to keep watching all of the amazing hallway fight scene over and over again on my TV. I know its on YouTube, but I'd prefer to view it in Blu Ray.

Irish

12-01-2010, 09:44 PM

;305171']I have severed all ties with people for less.

Nnnnngggghhhhate you.

:cry:

(You know I'm right :P)

number8

12-01-2010, 09:50 PM

:cry:

(You know I'm right :P)

Can't, because I think they're two of some the best TV has ever had to offer.

But in the bigger scheme of things, I just simply find any work, particularly television shows, that sticks to the traditional rules and conventions of its genre really boring, and about as useful to pop culture as another Law & Order spin-off.

Irish

12-01-2010, 09:51 PM

;305154']what number8 is saying here is: genre elements, when used well, can broaden the scope and help tell a story which would be otherwise impossible to tell. You mentioned BSG - it deals with real life issues and characters in a way that would have worked in many a non-genre setting, but the genre elements amplify it and also bring a surface aesthetic value that can't be ignored.

A couple of your statements contradict themselves. On one hand, you seem to be saying that genre elements enhance the story. On the other, you seem to be saying they're not necessary because the story could have been played out in any other setting and worked just as well.

My viewpoint is this: If you take the genre elements out, completely remove them, and the story still works, then your story isn't a part of the genre. It's adopting a bunch of arbitrary trapping for the fuck of it.

That kind of thing bugs me, especially in science fiction -- a genre that's become so watered down that its current incarnation is no more meaningful than whiz-bang set pieces, slick CGI, and Tom Cruise running down a desaturated corridor with some kind of ray gun in his hand.

Considering its roots and its past, that is a major effing shame.

Most plot points would have played out similarly in a historic war setting.
That right there is my beef with the show. When they did do real science fiction, though, they did it brilliantly.

[ETM]

12-01-2010, 09:56 PM

A couple of your statements contradict themselves. On one hand, you seem to be saying that genre elements enhance the story. On the other, you seem to be saying they're not necessary because the story could have been played out in any other setting and worked just as well.

No, I'm saying it would have worked, most of it, but it would have been nowhere near as daring and/or interesting.

[ETM]

12-01-2010, 09:58 PM

That right there is my beef with the show. When they did do real science fiction, though, they did it brilliantly.

I fucking hate it when people do this. You can take your "real science fiction" and put it where the sun don't shine, buster.

Irish

12-01-2010, 10:02 PM

But in the bigger scheme of things, I just simply find any work, particularly television shows, that sticks to the traditional rules and conventions of its genre really boring, and about as useful to pop culture as another Law & Order spin-off.

I can't agree with you more, especially in the case of the godawful, genre deadening Law & Order (which has more or less ruined television cop shows for a generation).

Back on point (ha!): This ties into my pet theory about the box office success of Inception. It succeeds because of what it is not more than what it is. In a summer of sequels, franchises and brain dead actioners, it's a standout. It reminds people that yeah, they can engage their brains at the movies and not everything has to have a number in the title or based on previously published material to be enjoyable.

I hated the movie, but I hoped that it made money because I wanted producers to think that the market for original work still exists.

At the same time, I think that the bloom is going to fall off Inception's rose in 5 years time, when people start watching it outside of the context of its release year (see also: Matrix sequels, Sin City, 300, etc).

MadMan

12-01-2010, 10:03 PM

Someone tell me what "Real Science Fiction" is supposed to be, exactly. Or show me. Sci-fi is sci-fi, man.

Irish

12-01-2010, 10:31 PM

Someone tell me what "Real Science Fiction" is supposed to be, exactly. Or show me. Sci-fi is sci-fi, man.

Here's my working definition: That the "science fiction" elements have to be integral to the story. If you remove them, then the story doesn't work or is impossible to tell.

So stuff like Star Wars and Flash Gordon aren't science fiction, because you could easily tell those stories in a variety of settings. They're more adventure fantasy than anything else. (There's a bunch of stuff set in science fiction settings, but play as another genre -- The Road Warrior behaves mostly as a Western, for instance-- and that's fine.)

Science fiction is at its best when it uses its tropes to underline or question some aspect of humanity, like what Philip K Dick does in almost all his novels or what Moore did on the "pure" episodes of BSG and Star Trek: The Next Generation.

number8

12-01-2010, 10:44 PM

Moore worked on DS9, not TNG.

Anyway, that story about David Milch originally wanting to set Deadwood in ancient Rome, it's because he wanted to make a TV show about the infancy of society, about a barbaric culture more or less forced to adopt civilized governance by circumstance. He found that the theme is easily transferable to the story of Deadwood, so he took that theme and restarted the concept. He didn't bring in the same story (obviously, since he chose to use historical Deadwood characters and events), but he maintained that focus on the emergence of a city. Given that that's a very western point of view (shades of Once Upon a Time in the West), I'd say it's not at all divorced from its genre. Not that that matters, since it's awesome either way.

Irish

12-01-2010, 10:49 PM

Moore worked on DS9, not TNG.

As I leap from behind my avatar and exclaim, "AHA! You are WRONG on the INTERNET!"

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601822/filmoseries#tt0092455

(He's got 27 writing credits on ST:TNG, and for my money the series' standout episodes are attributable to him.)

Anyway, that story about David Milch originally wanting to set Deadwood in ancient Rome, it's because he wanted to make a TV show about the infancy of society, about a barbaric culture more or less forced to adopt civilized governance by circumstance. He found that the theme is easily transferable to the story of Deadwood, so he took that theme and restarted the concept. He didn't bring in the same story (obviously, since he chose to use historical Deadwood characters and events), but he maintained that focus on the emergence of a city. Given that that's a very western point of view (shades of Once Upon a Time in the West), I'd say it's not at all divorced from its genre. Not that that matters, since it's awesome either way.
Yeah, I heard that too (about the repitch). I think it's a terrific concept, and part of the reason why I suspect I didn't give it enough of a chance.

number8

12-01-2010, 10:58 PM

:sad:

How come I never knew this.

Irish

12-01-2010, 11:00 PM

:sad:

How come I never knew this.

Honestly, I never would have known it either except a friend pointed out -- mid gripe -- that my favorite TNG episodes were almost all written by the guy helming BSG.

[ETM]

12-01-2010, 11:04 PM

:sad:

How come I never knew this.

I think he wrote like 6 or 8 out of ten of my favorite TNG episodes.

Mysterious Dude

12-02-2010, 03:57 AM

I love the story of how Moore became a writer for Star Trek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_D_Moore

In 1988, he managed to arrange a tour of the Star Trek: The Next Generation sets through his girlfriend during the filming of the episode Time Squared.[3] While on the tour, he passed a script to one of Gene Roddenberry's assistants, who liked the script enough to help him get an agent who submitted the script through the proper channels. About seven months later, executive producer Michael Piller read the script and bought it; it became the third season episode "The Bonding".

Unfortunately, I don't think it would work twice.

Dukefrukem

12-02-2010, 12:43 PM

I hate Irish's avatar.

MadMan

12-02-2010, 06:28 PM

I hate Irish's avatar.I think its hilarious.

Dukefrukem

12-02-2010, 07:37 PM

I think its hilarious.

It's hilarious if you or I had it. It's condescending if he has it.

MadMan

12-02-2010, 07:55 PM

It's hilarious if you or I had it. It's condescending if he has it.Its all part of the joke. I think he/she (I have no idea what sex Irish actually is) is being ironic, which is fine with me.

Back to the movie, though: I'd say my favorite scene is probably Leo wandering through the kitchen as he arms himself. The color schemes that keep changing as he moves from room to room are pretty fantastic-I can't remember what part of the score was used during this, though.

number8

12-06-2010, 04:07 PM

MHBlYJ-tKcs

MadMan

12-06-2010, 08:07 PM

I'll be seeing this again on Wednesday, but in Blu Ray because my buddy has a Blu Ray player and is buying it. So I'll be able to refresh key events in my mind, and finally write a review. There are some things I'd like to clear up.

And after listening to the entire soundtrack yesterday, its one of the year's best. "Time" is one of my favorite tracks.

megladon8

12-06-2010, 08:13 PM

At the same time, I think that the bloom is going to fall off Inception's rose in 5 years time, when people start watching it outside of the context of its release year (see also: Matrix sequels, Sin City, 300, etc).

Eh...I really don't agree with this.

Inception was genuinely inspired. I think it'll be remembered quite fondly in years to come, particularly as Nolan's career advances and he moves past the Batman franchise.

Sin City is still great. And many people still consider the Matrix sequels to be superior to the original - in fact, I can think of 3 or 4 people on this board who consider Reloaded to be the best of the trilogy.

I'll give you 300, though. I had a hell of a fun time watching it in the theatre with my buddies, but it has not aged well at all.

number8

12-06-2010, 08:15 PM

And many people still consider the Matrix sequels to be superior to the original - in fact, I can think of 3 or 4 people on this board who consider Reloaded to be the best of the trilogy.

Hi.

[ETM]

12-06-2010, 08:15 PM

And after listening to the entire soundtrack yesterday, its one of the year's best. "Time" is one of my favorite tracks.

This is just insane. "Time" is the only track you can actually listen on its own, the whole thing doesn't work outside the movie for one second. I keep wondering how Zimmer keeps getting work, but people seem to like it for reasons unfathomable to me.

MadMan

12-06-2010, 08:16 PM

;306636']This is just insane. "Time" is the only track you can actually listen on its own, the whole thing doesn't work outside the movie for one second. I keep wondering how Zimmer keeps getting work, but people seem to like it for reasons unfathomable to me.I disagree-there were several tracks I felt stood alone. I also happened to like Zimmer's work on Sherlock Holmes, too. Is it at times bomblastic? Sure. But I thought his work on Inception fit the movie really well.

[ETM]

12-06-2010, 08:23 PM

"Several tracks", yeah, but "one of the best of the year"? Really? I'm sorry if I'm harsh, it's just... incredible to me. I could never understand it, and I never will, probably.

"Sherlock Holmes" had some value overall, but it's still not something you listen to and enjoy. The "Zimmer sound" kills any good, fresh idea he has in a score, like the out-of-tune piano in Holmes, the slowed-down Piaf in Inception, or the lovely Davey Jones' theme in POTC.

megladon8

12-06-2010, 08:25 PM

The score for The Dark Knight was phenomenal and should not only have been nominated, but should have won the Oscar.

[ETM]

12-06-2010, 08:28 PM

The score for The Dark Knight was phenomenal and should not only have been nominated, but should have won the Oscar.

Sherlock Holmes was the more worthy Zimmer project, and it still was far from the best.

MadMan

12-06-2010, 08:29 PM

;306649']"Several tracks", yeah, but "one of the best of the year"? Really? I'm sorry if I'm harsh, it's just... incredible to me. I could never understand it, and I never will, probably.....Okay, so I counter your argument while also stating that the entire soundtrack works as a whole. You make this post. I shake my head and go on thinking I'm right. Hurray!

"Sherlock Holmes" had some value overall, but it's still not something you listen to and enjoy. The "Zimmer sound" kills any good, fresh idea he has in a score, like the out-of-tune piano in Holmes, the slowed-down Piaf in Inception, or the lovely Davey Jones' theme in POTC.Still don't know what you've got against Zimmer. Is he a great composer? Nah, but he's made some really good scores over the years.

[ETM]

12-06-2010, 08:35 PM

Still don't know what you've got against Zimmer.

I like good music and scores that have had some thought put into. Also - I prefer my musicians alive.

Is he a great composer? Nah, but he's made some really good scores over the years.

A great number of composers have made some good scores over the years. And most of them are better than Zimmer. Do I listen to some of his scores? I do. Do I think he's running the artistry into the ground? Yes. Thank God he's still cooperating with composers with actual talent, otherwise nothing that ever came out from him alone would be any good.

Dukefrukem

12-06-2010, 08:36 PM

Still don't know what you've got against Zimmer. Is he a great composer? Nah, but he's made some really good scores over the years.

Like Gladiator.

Qrazy

12-06-2010, 08:40 PM

megladon8

12-06-2010, 08:47 PM

The "Zimmer doesn't use a live orchestra so his music sucks" argument is totally useless.

I don't care if music is electronic or live orchestra. Good music is good music. And The Dark Knight had good music.

DavidSeven

12-06-2010, 09:42 PM

The music in Inception was fine and definitely works within the context of the film, but those other guys who did the music for the first two trailers definitely came up with more memorable pieces than anything Zimmer contributed.

Ezee E

12-06-2010, 09:57 PM

angrycinephile

12-06-2010, 10:02 PM

The music from Trailer #1 feature in the film. Slightly alternate though. It's called 528491 on the soundtrack.

Skitch

12-06-2010, 10:10 PM

I'm surprised how much effort you guys are expending on Irish. :). The "not sci-fi, sci-fantasy" argument makes me bang my head against the wall. Just because stuff like Star Wars is outside the realm of our percievable science-factual possibility, that hardly makes its fiction too fantastical to become reality. Hey, people scoffed when James Bond used a car phone, microwave, or made his car invisible, yet those things now range from common place to under-construction.

I don't think the argument of the Matrix sequels or Sin City works, because they had major detractors upon their release.

As for Zimmer, I think he's made some remarkable scores, Gladiator, TDK, and Inception being among the best I've heard in years. He still has misteps, though.

[ETM]

12-06-2010, 10:19 PM

Your top five alternates?

I haven't seen enough films to compare, but most of what I did see was incomparably better in my opinion, so there's gotta be at least five out there.

The "Zimmer doesn't use a live orchestra so his music sucks" argument is totally useless.

How is it useless if I hate it and it ruins his best musical ideas for me? I adore challenging scores, daring mixtures, digital and acoustic, obscure with popular, but, again, in my opinion, replacing a proper orchestra with high quality samples which always produce the exact same sound is far from art. My favorite Zimmer scores are his early ones and those he did with others, because the others invariably produce the best influences and parts (Badelt in POTC, Lisa Gerrard in Gladiator). Anything recent with Zimmer as the sole credit has been instantly forgettable and generic.

I mean, we've been through this before - I wasn't starting a discussion again here, but simply restating my honest disbelief at the praise (and work) he still gets with so much talent out there. In his "stable" alone, there are at least half a dozen younger and less established composers whose work I consistently enjoy much, much more than Zimmer: Powell, Gregson-Williams, even Jablonsky and Dooley. Hell, even the least score for a TV show by Bear McCreary has more soul and nuance than anything Zimmer has done in ages.

DavidSeven

12-06-2010, 10:26 PM

Qrazy

12-06-2010, 10:28 PM

Watashi

12-06-2010, 10:29 PM

Zimmer is amazing. ETM is wrong.

Watashi

12-06-2010, 10:30 PM

You know, I look at Zimmer's filmography, and I don't see much in the way of memorable stuff. The highlights probably being the Batman films, The Thin Red Line, and that score he copied from Badlands for True Romance.
I think The Lion King and the Pirates trilogy have very memorable scores.

His most underrated score is The Prince of Egypt.

[ETM]

12-06-2010, 10:33 PM

Zimmer is amazing. ETM is wrong.

Zimmer is a good composer who is past his prime and has turned into an automaton in recent years. I also love The Prince of Egypt.

Watashi

12-06-2010, 10:39 PM

;306711']Zimmer is a good composer who is past his prime and has turned into an automaton in recent years. I also love The Prince of Egypt.
I think Inception is one of his very best scores with "Time" being one of his best tracks up there with "Journey to the Line" and "Chevaliers de Sangreal".

Irish

12-06-2010, 10:49 PM

The "not sci-fi, sci-fantasy" argument makes me bang my head against the wall. Just because stuff like Star Wars is outside the realm of our percievable science-factual possibility, that hardly makes its fiction too fantastical to become reality. Hey, people scoffed when James Bond used a car phone, microwave, or made his car invisible, yet those things now range from common place to under-construction.

That's an entirely different argument from the one I was espousing.

I don't think the argument of the Matrix sequels or Sin City works, because they had major detractors upon their release.

Good point. I'm interested in how Inception is going to be perceived once you remove it from the context of this year -- in my mind, a terrible one for summer movies, or hell, movies in general.

Take 1982. In the course of two or three weeks during the summer Blade Runner, Tron, The Thing and ET were all released.

One of those movies was immensely popular and did incredible box office. The other movies were critically derided and bombed with audiences.

Fast forward to today, which ones are still talked about? Considered ground breaking? The best of that director's career? The perception of those movies changed over time, once they were removed from the context of that summer.

I'm thinking that the same thing will happen with Inception.

Skitch

12-06-2010, 11:56 PM

Ehh... you're never going to be able to hear lasers in outerspace or to breathe regularly the atmosphere on an asteroid.

Maybe they're super-duper-mega-phaser-lasers! Maybe the asteroid was melting internally and extruding oxygen! Maybe giant space worms gastro-intentinal insides are made of MAGIC!

:lol:

At Irish...

Yeeeeeees I was generalizing your desire to analyze genres into a million micro-genres.

I don't see the point you're attempting to make with '82. You're saying that Inception will have an opposite reaction as those films down the road? It would seem to me you would have to produce a film that was critically acclaimed and a box office smash that people turned on later, not movies that were ahead of (their time/the curve/underappreciated) when they were released.

Irish

12-07-2010, 12:32 AM

Yeeeeeees I was generalizing your desire to analyze genres into a million micro-genres.

Well if you're going to do it, do it better than that. :P

My argument had little to nothing to do with technology.

I don't see the point you're attempting to make with '82. You're saying that Inception will have an opposite reaction as those films down the road? It would seem to me you would have to produce a film that was critically acclaimed and a box office smash that people turned on later, not movies that were ahead of (their time/the curve/underappreciated) when they were released.

You saw my point about '82 perfectly.

The most well known examples I can think of: The Greatest Show on Earth, Marty, Dances with Wolves, and Braveheart.

Bunch of Oscar winners that did well commercially. Are they bad movies? No, but they're not nearly as well regarded now as they were back in the day.

If I google, I can throw out more examples, but yeah, that's pretty much my point.

I know it's a long shot, but goddamn I'm still hoping. :D

[ETM]

12-07-2010, 12:32 AM

I think Inception is one of his very best scores with "Time" being one of his best tracks up there with "Journey to the Line" and "Chevaliers de Sangreal".

I don't see it. It's a repetitive track that has a catchy theme and nice mood, but brings nothing new neither in musical nor technical terms. Mainly it sounds just like a regular Zimmer track through and through. If it weren't for the connection to the cathartic moments from the film, I wouldn't care much for it on its own merits at all.

Skitch

12-07-2010, 12:52 AM

Well if you're going to do it, do it better than that. :P

My argument had little to nothing to do with technology.

You saw my point about '82 perfectly.

The most well known examples I can think of: The Greatest Show on Earth, Marty, Dances with Wolves, and Braveheart.

Bunch of Oscar winners that did well commercially. Are they bad movies? No, but they're not nearly as well regarded now as they were back in the day.

If I google, I can throw out more examples, but yeah, that's pretty much my point.

I know it's a long shot, but goddamn I'm still hoping. :D

You're...looney tunes. But you're not an asshole. So kudos! You go that way, I'll go home. :lol:

DavidSeven

12-07-2010, 12:56 AM

You saw my point about '82 perfectly.

The most well known examples I can think of: The Greatest Show on Earth, Marty, Dances with Wolves, and Braveheart.

Bunch of Oscar winners that did well commercially. Are they bad movies? No, but they're not nearly as well regarded now as they were back in the day.

And then there are commercially and critically successful movies like The Godfather, Annie Hall, and The Silence of the Lambs that stood the test of time. So, uh, yeah. That's where we are.

Irish

12-07-2010, 01:14 AM

You're...looney tunes. But you're not an asshole. So kudos! You go that way, I'll go home. :lol:

:lol: Fair enough.

And then there are commercially and critically successful movies like The Godfather, Annie Hall, and The Silence of the Lambs that stood the test of time. So, uh, yeah. That's where we are.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo. You can't possible conflating this piece of junk sci fi movie with the likes of Annie Hall and The Godfather.

Let me say that again, because it needs to be said:

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooo.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 01:26 AM

Take 1982. In the course of two or three weeks during the summer Blade Runner, Tron, The Thing and ET were all released.

One of those movies was immensely popular and did incredible box office. The other movies were critically derided and bombed with audiences.

Fast forward to today, which ones are still talked about? Considered ground breaking? The best of that director's career? The perception of those movies changed over time, once they were removed from the context of that summer.

I'm thinking that the same thing will happen with Inception.If all 4 films were rereleased tomorrow, which would do the best?

ET and it wouldn't even be close, and it isn't like ET has slipped with the critics either. Blade Runner has rebounded greatly with critics, but there are three versions of the film now. Which version is the best received? And if it isn't the original version, how can you compare it to the other films from the same year? The Thing has also rebounded, but it isn't mentioned in the same breaths as Blade Runner or ET. Tron shouldn't even be included.

Inception might receive backlash eventually. Who knows? I doubt it though.

[ETM]

12-07-2010, 01:28 AM

You can't possible conflating this piece of junk sci fi movie with the likes of Annie Hall and The Godfather.

Are you mental?

Irish

12-07-2010, 01:38 AM

If all 4 films were rereleased tomorrow, which would do the best?

I think that's already happened. Didn't ET get a theatrical rerelease a couple of years back? (When Spielberg pulled a Lucas and digitally swapped hanguns for walkie talkies).

Anyway, those were just examples of how the perception of a work can change over time.

ET might still be a solid movie (I haven't seen it in ages), but it's not exactly considered a genre defining work or one of Spielberg's best moments.

Inception might receive backlash eventually. Who knows? I doubt it though.

I am quite literally crossing my fingers and hoping the world wakes up from this horrible narrative fever dream that has apparently gripped it.

;306809']Are you mental?

From what people have been telling me since I started posting here: Yes. :lol:

More seriously, you're equating the depth and breadth of The Godfather and Annie Hall with Inception?

You really think it's that good?

DavidSeven

12-07-2010, 01:42 AM

Watashi

12-07-2010, 01:44 AM

Silence of the Lambs is not even a good movie. Inception is way better.

DavidSeven

12-07-2010, 01:45 AM

Well, I still like it, in spite of Hopkins' hammy performance, and I don't think the consensus has turned on it yet. Perhaps I'm wrong on the latter point.

[ETM]

12-07-2010, 01:50 AM

More seriously, you're equating the depth and breadth of The Godfather and Annie Hall with Inception?

You really think it's that good?

Why are you comparing... well, it's not apples and oranges, it's more like apples and asteroids, really. I never much cared for either Annie Hall or The Godfather beyond cinematic appreciation. I appreciate them for what they are. Same with Inception.

Irish

12-07-2010, 01:51 AM

Someone could walk in here and tell me they think Inception is a better film than Annie Hall or Silence of the Lambs, and I wouldn't bat an eyelash. They could tell me the exact opposite, and I wouldn't bat an eyelash.

One off internet weirdos -- myself included -- don't count. :D

You can find ardent defenders of any movie on internet message boards. It's not particular meaningful that a couple of nuts defend Matrix Revolutions to their dying breath.

From what people in this thread are saying, it sounds like you all believe Inception is so good that it will be on top ten of the decade lists years from now, it will be mentioned in Nolan's obituary, that it will beloved by general audiences, and it will be referenced in the future by academics and critics.

That's my question. Do you believe this film is that good?

[ETM]

12-07-2010, 01:56 AM

I don't think anyone needs to explain how good they think it is, especially not after so much discussion in this very thread. You, however, barged in here with a suspiciously trollish controversial opinion and pretty much failed to back yourself up with anything we haven't heard in the Dead Parrot Sketch.

megladon8

12-07-2010, 02:01 AM

More seriously, you're equating the depth and breadth of The Godfather and Annie Hall with Inception?

You really think it's that good?

Yes, it was that good.

Why are so against genre films? Why can a movie only be great if it's a serious-minded drama?

I just cannot understand this aspect of your film criticism at all.

endingcredits

12-07-2010, 02:05 AM

One off internet weirdos -- myself included -- don't count. :D

You can find ardent defenders of any movie on internet message boards. It's not particular meaningful that a couple of nuts defend Matrix Revolutions to their dying breath.

From what people in this thread are saying, it sounds like you all believe Inception is so good that it will be on top ten of the decade lists years from now, it will be mentioned in Nolan's obituary, that it will beloved by general audiences, and it will be referenced in the future by academics and critics.

That's my question. Do you believe this film is that good?

I was somewhat indifferent to it, but I can appreciate it despite its being exposition heavy and too structurally rigid given my predilections for immediacy and absence of control. Some people really connected with it. I don't think it matters what critics and academics will think N years from now. I don't even care what they think today.

Irish

12-07-2010, 02:06 AM

;306825']I don't think anyone needs to explain how good they think it is, especially not after so much discussion in this very thread.

You do when movies like The Godfather and Annie Hall are given as a reference point.

I get that you dug this movie, maybe even loved it. I'm just trying to gauge how far that goes, because it's easy to be caught up in the moment and think something is better than it is.

Haven't you ever had the experience of watching something and loving it to death, then going back ten years later and thinking "Wow, this movie is terrible"?

You, however, barged in here with a suspiciously trollish controversial opinion and pretty much failed to back yourself up with anything we haven't heard in the Dead Parrot Sketch.

Dude, calling me a troll is over the line. Believe it or not, these are my honest opinions. You should have seen my face after walking out of the theater on this one.

I don't get the "Dead Parrot Sketch" reference.

DavidSeven

12-07-2010, 02:07 AM

That's my question. Do you believe this film is that good?

Well, it doesn't even really matter. You just brought up a bunch of films that lost some luster and have nothing to do with Inception, and I brought up some films that retained their luster and have nothing to do with Inception to illustrate how arbitrary your comparisons were. I chose films that fit in the parameters that you set out: commercially and critically successful at the time of release.

And no one is rabid fanboy here (sorry, Wats). Generally, the posters here have appreciated films that ended up having staying power and have derided the ones that ended up being trendy hits (e.g. Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, Crash, etc.) before the critical consensus got there.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 02:11 AM

I am quite literally crossing my fingers and hoping the world wakes up from this horrible narrative fever dream that has apparently gripped it.
Why? I don't understand why this should be so encompassing that you should care one way or the other. Inception isn't going to have a wide-sweeping effect to change film as we know it. What you like in film will still be available. OMG! Inception might win at the Oscars!!! Who the fuck cares? The Oscars are a joke. More than that there are far bigger problems to fear than Nolan's "horrible narrative fever dream" film gripping the world's populace.

Irish

12-07-2010, 02:14 AM

Yes, it was that good.

Why are so against genre films? Why can a movie only be great if it's a serious-minded drama?

I just cannot understand this aspect of your film criticism at all.

I'm against bad movies and an enviroment where my choices at the theater are Iron Man 2 or Jonah Hex .. and that's it. And if I want to see anything that doesn't feature some dude in spandex with a shitload of CGI, then I have to either watch something in a foreign language or wait until November.

I'm not against genre films. I think they can be tons of fun. I am admittedly hard on science fiction because post 1977, the genre went off the rails in a big way.

I think it's odd and a shame that opening a book or hell even playing a video game can offer you a better science fiction experience, not to mention better storytelling, than what's offered at the movies.

[ETM]

12-07-2010, 02:15 AM

Haven't you ever had the experience of watching something and loving it to death, then going back ten years later and thinking "Wow, this movie is terrible"?

Only examples are something I loved as a child, which doesn't really count.

Dude, calling me a troll is over the line. Believe it or not, these are my honest opinions. You should have seen my face after walking out of the theater on this one.

I get it, you're special, and it's okay, I got it. But you keep calling Inception "piece of shit" in several threads, which is trollish behavior at the very least - you're trying to provoke those of us who really like the film.

I don't get the "Dead Parrot Sketch" reference.

http://ifmproductions.com/pictures/yesno.gif

megladon8

12-07-2010, 02:18 AM

I'm against bad movies and an enviroment where my choices at the theater are Iron Man 2 or Jonah Hex .. and that's it. And if I want to see anything that doesn't feature some dude in spandex with a shitload of CGI, then I have to either watch something in a foreign language or wait until November.

I'm not against genre films. I think they can be tons of fun. I am admittedly hard on science fiction because post 1977, the genre went off the rails in a big way.

I think it's odd and a shame that opening a book or hell even playing a video game can offer you a better science fiction experience, not to mention better storytelling, than what's offered at the movies.

None of this is true, though, it's just an incredibly closed-minded view of the genre.

The 2000s have been incredible years for sci-fi films. In fact, I think a very large chunk of my "favorite sci-fi" list would be from these past 10 years.

And yes, there has been an overload of superhero movies (I'm a superhero fanboy and even I admit that) but come on...that's not all there is to be seen at the theatres.

Movies (and the selection of what to see at the theatre) are no worse than 20, 30 or 50 years ago.

Watashi

12-07-2010, 02:18 AM

Irish

12-07-2010, 02:20 AM

Well, it doesn't even really matter. You just brought up a bunch of films that lost some luster and have nothing to do with Inception, and I brought up some films that retained their luster and have nothing to do with Inception to illustrate how arbitrary your comparisons were. I chose films that fit in the parameters that you set out: commercially and critically successful at the time of release.

Ah, gotcha. I misunderstood part of your intent. I agree that Inception could go the other way -- become a modern classic, something with staying power -- but I hope the hell it doesn't.

At least not at the level of the films mentioned.

Derek

12-07-2010, 02:22 AM

Watashi

12-07-2010, 02:24 AM

Why does it matter if a movie has "staying power" or not? Just look what the AFI deems as the 100 best American films. A lot of those have been cited as "classics" and most of them aren't good.

DavidSeven

12-07-2010, 02:29 AM

All this tells me is that you have extremely good control of your eyelashes.

And somehow, this is still more than you need to know about comparing the "staying power" of Inception to The Godfather or E.T.: the Extraterrestrial.

Irish

12-07-2010, 02:31 AM

;306836']I get it, you're special, and it's okay, I got it. But you keep calling Inception "piece of shit" in several threads, which is trollish behavior at the very least - you're trying to provoke those of us who really like the film.
This started in the Oscar prediction thread, and the posts got moved here.

Initially I was spouting off about Inception's Oscar chances. A few pages back I tried to articulate just what my issues were with the film. Then I got yelled at, and the conversation was spoofed a few times (which was a fun result). Then I stopped talking about it completely.

I don't know how you get "trolling" from that, and given our interactions in the past I think that's an unfair statement.

Irish

12-07-2010, 02:34 AM

Why does it matter if a movie has "staying power" or not?

Because it tells you if it's culturally relevant. If a movie still resonates after thirty, forty, fifty years, that tells you something important.

[ETM]

12-07-2010, 02:35 AM

I don't know how you get "trolling" from that, and given our interactions in the past I think that's an unfair statement.

"Trollish behavior" doesn't mean I'm calling you a troll. I haven't followed the Inception discussion involving you in its entirety, but I have seen you say those things about it elsewhere, as if trying to provoke reaction. If it wasn't your intention, all is good, but that was my perception.

Irish

12-07-2010, 02:36 AM

Others movies besides these two came out.

You mean the movie where the rogue CIA/Navy Seal/Counter Intelligence guy teams up with his old buddies and is on the lam from the very agency that employed them for their entire career?

Yeah, I saw that movie this summer. Three times. Each time it had a different cast and director.

A startling variety at the cinema, to be sure.

[ETM]

12-07-2010, 02:36 AM

Because it tells you if it's culturally relevant. If a movie still resonates after thirty, forty, fifty years, that tells you something important.

Don't bad movies resonate as well? Cultural relevance is not reserved for masterpieces.

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 02:39 AM

Well if you're going to do it, do it better than that. :P

My argument had little to nothing to do with technology.

You saw my point about '82 perfectly.

The most well known examples I can think of: The Greatest Show on Earth, Marty, Dances with Wolves, and Braveheart.

Bunch of Oscar winners that did well commercially. Are they bad movies? No, but they're not nearly as well regarded now as they were back in the day.

If I google, I can throw out more examples, but yeah, that's pretty much my point.

I know it's a long shot, but goddamn I'm still hoping. :D

Marty is actually pretty damn good. I liked it a lot.

Irish

12-07-2010, 02:45 AM

The 2000s have been incredible years for sci-fi films. In fact, I think a very large chunk of my "favorite sci-fi" list would be from these past 10 years.

I've seen a lot of chase movies, a lot of run and gun stuff, some horror sci fi. but there's only been a handful of stuff that's approached "true" sci fi. Stuff like Children of Men, Moon, and the Solaris remake.

Most of them weren't very good, and only of passing interest.

Movies (and the selection of what to see at the theatre) are no worse than 20, 30 or 50 years ago.

It's vastly different. The summer used to be a dumping ground for movies the studio didn't believe in (sort of like January & February are now). Then Steven Spielberg made Jaws and everything changed.

Off the top of my head: Look up the Oscar noms for 1981 or 1982. Look up the other releases for those two years. There's an enormous variety there. I could cherry pick other release years (1994 and 1999 spring to mind). I look at those lists and I think, man, that kind of environment just doesn't exist now. The variety is gone.

2011 is going to feature eleven superhero movies. All of them, afaik, are going to be released over a three or four month period. Which means there's going to be 2-3 superhero movies playing any time you show up at the theater. I can't think of anything more boring.

endingcredits

12-07-2010, 02:50 AM

2011 is going to feature eleven superhero movies. All of them, afaik, are going to be released over a three or four month period. Which means there's going to be 2-3 superhero movies playing any time you show up at the theater. I can't think of anything more boring.

Wow, that's shitty. I thought the superhero craze would be dying out by now.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 02:50 AM

You mean the movie where the rogue CIA/Navy Seal/Counter Intelligence guy teams up with his old buddies and is on the lam from the very agency that employed them for their entire career?

Yeah, I saw that movie this summer. Three times. Each time it had a different cast and director.

A startling variety at the cinema, to be sure.I have no idea where you live, but surely you have an art house available to you?

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 02:50 AM

I predict that in 10 years I will feel the same way about Inception as I do now. Which is to say I find it to be a great genre film but certainly not a masterpiece of the medium. I'd lump it in with The Matrix, Aliens, Terminator 2, etc.
All of these films are films I enjoy watching a lot but if I want to see the best the medium has to offer I will turn to Fellini, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, etc and so forth.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 02:52 AM

2011 is going to feature eleven superhero movies. All of them, afaik, are going to be released over a three or four month period. Which means there's going to be 2-3 superhero movies playing any time you show up at the theater. I can't think of anything more boring.Same vein as my other post: Eleven superhero movies released out of 200+ films in 2011. I'm pretty sure you can stay away from them and still find enjoyment through other films.

Irish

12-07-2010, 02:54 AM

Marty is actually pretty damn good. I liked it a lot.

It is a good movie & I enjoyed it too. (Between this and From Here to Eternity, hot damn Borgnine is a helluva actor.)

It benefitted from being released in a weak year, at least as far as the noms were concerned. (I mean, The Rose Tattoo?).

There were other films that weren't nominated but are still much more memorable: East of Eden, The Man With the Golden Arm, Rebel without a Cause, and Bad Day at Black Rock.

Irish

12-07-2010, 02:55 AM

;306854']Don't bad movies resonate as well? Cultural relevance is not reserved for masterpieces.

That's a good question. I don't think they do, outside of the snarky, ironic kind of viewpoint that something like Mystery Science Theater employs.

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 03:04 AM

I've seen a lot of chase movies, a lot of run and gun stuff, some horror sci fi. but there's only been a handful of stuff that's approached "true" sci fi. Stuff like Children of Men, Moon, and the Solaris remake.

Which are the ones you hold in high regard? Because I love great, thoughtful sci fi and I agree that we haven't had a masterpiece in a while... but it's not only that not many great sci fis are made these days, not many have ever been made. There have certainly been highlights over the years (2001, Stalker) but it's hard to make a list of 50 genuinely great sci fi films.

Here's our match cut attempt at creating a rough top 100 sci fis...

http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=2298&highlight=sci+list

Irish

12-07-2010, 03:05 AM

I have no idea where you live, but surely you have an art house available to you?

Same vein as my other post: Eleven superhero movies released out of 200+ films in 2011. I'm pretty sure you can stay away from them and still find enjoyment through other films.

Absolutely. And that's what I do. I keep a list of stuff people take about here and give it a rental, or download it, or whatever. (That's one of the things I love about this board. You guys talk about super obscure shit I otherwise never would have heard of, much less seen).

But sometimes I'd like to see more adult dramas, or sci fi movies with intelligent themes, or movies with something interesting to say, with good production values and actors over 40.

I feel that's impossible to get these days without subtitles. Hell, especially from March through September.

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 03:06 AM

It is a good movie & I enjoyed it too. (Between this and From Here to Eternity, hot damn Borgnine is a helluva actor.)

It benefitted from being released in a weak year, at least as far as the noms were concerned. (I mean, The Rose Tattoo?).

There were other films that weren't nominated but are still much more memorable: East of Eden, The Man With the Golden Arm, Rebel without a Cause, and Bad Day at Black Rock.

Well I"m with you that the Oscars are a joke. They always were and always will be. I mean Crash, Slumdog, A Beautiful Mind? Come on.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 03:09 AM

Absolutely. And that's what I do. I keep a list of stuff people take about here and give it a rental, or download it, or whatever. (That's one of the things I love about this board. You guys talk about super obscure shit I otherwise never would have heard of, much less seen).

But sometimes I'd like to see more adult dramas, or sci fi movies with intelligent themes, or movies with something interesting to say, with good production values and actors over 40.

I feel that's impossible to get these days without subtitles. Hell, especially from March through September.So, what's wrong with getting it through subtitles?

megladon8

12-07-2010, 03:10 AM

Because it tells you if it's culturally relevant. If a movie still resonates after thirty, forty, fifty years, that tells you something important.

So do you love Gone With the Wind?

Would you consider it to be superior to Citizen Kane? Sure, Kane has garnered great praise and success over time, but it made peanuts compared to Gone With the Wind, which continues to rake in the dough.

megladon8

12-07-2010, 03:15 AM

But sometimes I'd like to see more adult dramas, or sci fi movies with intelligent themes, or movies with something interesting to say, with good production values and actors over 40.

What the hell does the age of the actors have to do with anything?

I feel that's impossible to get these days without subtitles. Hell, especially from March through September.

This is just ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous.

My advice? Find a new hobby. Clearly movies just aren't for you.

Irish

12-07-2010, 03:17 AM

So, what's wrong with getting it through subtitles?

Nothing. Sometimes (okay, a lot of the time) I want to watch something in my native language.

I'd also like a more adult-friendly atmosphere here at home. I want all kinds of movies to thrive in the US, with all kinds of ideas.

Think about a culture where the stuff you enjoy isn't so completely marginalized, a world where I am Love or A Prophet plays at the suburban multiplex right next to The Expendables or Green Lantern.

That seems like a healthier culture to me, and a more interesting one.

Sycophant

12-07-2010, 03:19 AM

Irish apparently loves and cares about movies a lot. Christ, why does it ever have to go there?

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 03:25 AM

megladon8

12-07-2010, 03:29 AM

Nothing. Sometimes (okay, a lot of the time) I want to watch something in my native language.

I'd also like a more adult-friendly atmosphere here at home. I want all kinds of movies to thrive in the US, with all kinds of ideas.

Think about a culture where the stuff you enjoy isn't so completely marginalized, a world where I am Love or A Prophet plays at the suburban multiplex right next to The Expendables or Green Lantern.

That seems like a healthier culture to me, and a more interesting one.

This is just not possible, and you're going to have to come to terms with this.

Movies are a business. Movie theatres are businesses. Regardless of my thoughts or yours, PG-13 superhero movies sell. They make tons of money - so much so that movie companies can confidently pour $200-million into their budgets and know they'll make back double that in profits.

A Prophet does not sell. Indie/foreign/arthouse flicks do not sell tons and tons of tickets.

That's why any given city only has a couple of arthouse theatres showing these movies - that's all the city needs, and anything more would not turn in enough money to warrant its existence.

For ever one of you, or me, or any other MatchCutter with "sophisticated" taste and an interest in seeing small and/or foreign films in the theatres, there are 100...no...1000 people out there who are just your average joe moviegoer looking to be entertained. And for those people, Transformers, or Green Lantern, or whatever the next franchise is, is perfectly adequate in this regard.

It's not a mystery. It's not a conspiracy against good taste. It's not even complicated science. It's just business.

Frankly I think you, me, and everyone here should be thankful as all hell that we are living in the world we are in today, where a movie like A Prophet is so readily available to view. Just 15 or 20 years ago, not many of us would have an opportunity to see it.

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 03:31 AM

But that's a fantasy. As long as the dollar drives this country, you will never see that. Summer days at the megaplex will feature the same type of film. Big budgets, big stars, big laughs, big special effects. Character driven films about adult problems don't cater to the 6-25 year old demographic, which are the key targets of summer films. Accepting this and moving on, as well as accepting that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences almost always never choose the best films to be represented in its award show will allow you to be a happier moviegoer.

As long as the films are still being made somewhere in the world I'm happy. Although to be honest I find that a lot of national cinemas aren't what they used to be. Japan (with a couple exceptions), Italy and Russia for instance are nothing compared to a few decades ago. That said there's such a huge reservoir of great content out there that we can always just dig into the earlier decades to find great works... which is what we often end up having to do.

Irish

12-07-2010, 03:32 AM

Which are the ones you hold in high regard? Because I love great, thoughtful sci fi and I agree that we haven't had a masterpiece in a while... but it's not only that not many great sci fis are made these days, not many have ever been made. There have certainly been highlights over the years (2001, Stalker) but it's hard to make a list of 50 genuinely great sci fi films.

Here's our match cut attempt at creating a rough top 100 sci fis...

http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=2298&highlight=sci+list

I owe you rep for this list. Holy shit, that thread is a goldmine.

My memory sucks, but off the top of the head, the stuff I found most interesting was Primer, Children of Men, Moon, and Solaris.

I don't think Children of Men was a great movie, or even a good one, but hell at least it approached something interesting and treated it seriously. Likewise the Solaris remake. It's a mess of a movie, but the ideas in it lit my head on fire. That has more to do with Stanislaw Lem than Soderburgh though.

Moon was a treat. Nobody pulls a gun. Nobody runs down a hallway. Nobody spouts technobabble about plasma converters failing the warp core relays.

It's a movie with a solid sci-fi premise that takes that idea and lays out a whole slew of interesting questions about identity and what it means to be "human." Really, that script could have been taken from a PKD short.

From the thread you linked to, it seems like you've got a wider experience here than I do, so if you have any recent favorites, please post them.

Edit: Just remembered Sleep Dealers, low budget Mexican sci fi. Not a great movie, but like some of the others has good concepts and tries to deal with them in interesting ways.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 03:40 AM

As long as the films are still being made somewhere in the world I'm happy. Although to be honest I find that a lot of national cinemas aren't what they used to be. Japan (with a couple exceptions), Italy and Russia for instance are nothing compared to a few decades ago. That said there's such a huge reservoir of great content out there that we can always just dig into the earlier decades to find great works... which is what we often end up having to do.It's ever-changing. Iran, S. Korea and China (proper) are probably stronger the last 20-30 years than before. Romania seems to be on the upswing. I agree that the age of the internet has "allowed" us to see a wider variety of films from a wider range of countries. Also the rise of digital filming has made it affordable for many more to make there own films. This has been a boon for documentarians.

Irish

12-07-2010, 03:41 AM

But that's a fantasy.
Well, according to you guys, 90% of the stuff I say is pure fantasy, and when has that ever stopped me? :P

As long as the dollar drives this country, you will never see that. Summer days at the megaplex will feature the same type of film. Big budgets, big stars, big laughs, big special effects. Character driven films about adult problems don't cater to the 6-25 year old demographic, which are the key targets of summer films. Accepting this and moving on, as well as accepting that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences almost always never choose the best films to be represented in its award show will allow you to be a happier moviegoer.

True. I agree, or at least can't argue the point.

I guess my issue is that the window for any kind of alternative keeps getting smaller.

I mean, summer movies used to be released .. in the summer. Now they're being released started in March and ending in September. That doesn't leave a lot of room for anything else.

As for the Academy, I was fine with those awards being self aggrandizing and self promoting. But now it's more on the level of pure hucksterism. The studios nominate a bunch of intentionally high brow stuff, "prestige" pictures, so they can tell themselves they're still in it for the good, while really all they're interested in doing is shoving Jonah Hex and Cowboys and Aliens down our throats for 9 months out of the year. What bullshit.

megladon8

12-07-2010, 03:42 AM

Irish, am I right in assuming you really liked Soderbergh's Solaris since you mentioned it?

It's always great to meet another fan of that movie. Both Jen and I love it. It's one of the first movies I got her to watch when we first started talking.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 03:53 AM

Well, according to you guys, 90% of the stuff I say is pure fantasy, and when has that ever stopped me? :P

True. I agree, or at least can't argue the point.

I guess my issue is that the window for any kind of alternative keeps getting smaller.

I mean, summer movies used to be released .. in the summer. Now they're being released started in March and ending in September. That doesn't leave a lot of room for anything else.

As for the Academy, I was fine with those awards being self aggrandizing and self promoting. But now it's more on the level of pure hucksterism. The studios nominate a bunch of intentionally high brow stuff, "prestige" pictures, so they can tell themselves they're still in it for the good, while really all they're interested in doing is shoving Jonah Hex and Cowboys and Aliens down our throats for 9 months out of the year. What bullshit.Everything made by the major Hollywood studios is made with the idea of turning a profit, the high brow stuff included. They aren't art generating machines, they are money generating machines. Winning an Academy Award allows for them to market the film as an Academy Award Winner in order to sell their product better. I don't think Warner Bros. executives ever say, "Let's make this film. It's the right thing to do. We'll take a hit financially, but the few who see it will be better off for it."

Irish

12-07-2010, 03:53 AM

This is just not possible, and you're going to have to come to terms with this.

Believe it or not, there was a time when Errol Morris' documentary The Thin Blue Line played in suburban multiplexes next to Predator. You think about going to the theater now, and that sounds bizarre.

Indie stuff used to sell and there used to be a market for it. What the hell happened?

Irish

12-07-2010, 03:56 AM

Irish, am I right in assuming you really liked Soderbergh's Solaris since you mentioned it?

Yeah, I did. I mean, I think it's a mess of a movie, but watching it my eyes were popping, jaw was dropped, and the inside of my head felt like there were fireworks going off in there.

I don't know if I'd ever recommended to anyone, or even admit I liked it to most people, but holy shit what a great movie of ideas.

Watashi

12-07-2010, 03:56 AM

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 03:58 AM

Ezee E

12-07-2010, 03:59 AM

Before 3D, the Denver/Boulder theaters had just about everything. That's slowed down this year, but the big ones like Black Swan, Winter's Bone, and The Kids Are All Right still got played, or will be getting played.

Ezee E

12-07-2010, 03:59 AM

Irish

12-07-2010, 04:00 AM

Everything made by the major Hollywood studios is made with the idea of turning a profit, the high brow stuff included. They aren't art generating machines, they are money generating machines. Winning an Academy Award allows for them to market the film as an Academy Award Winner in order to sell their product better. I don't think Warner Bros. executives ever say, "Let's make this film. It's the right thing to do. We'll take a hit financially, but the few who see it will be better off for it."

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. I know what you're saying and on one hand I agree, but on the other hand these guys have almost always done prestige pictures. Stuff they know has a limited market.

Years past, they'd just do a smaller budget and have a smaller ambition. Today, they don't bother making that movie at all.

Things have gone to using "tentpole" movies to finance smaller pictures, to saying fuck it, let's do another tentpole and we'll make our numbers for next quarter. They're looking for big numbers and huge audiences and stuff they can sell to 4,000 screens. To hell with everything else.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 04:01 AM

Clearly, Predator played at The Thin Blue Line's 23 theaters.The year prior.

Ezee E

12-07-2010, 04:03 AM

The year prior.
Sacre Bleu!

Irish

12-07-2010, 04:07 AM

It all depends where you live and what type of demographic dominates your area. I work at multiplex in SoCal and we had stuff like I Am Love and Winter's Bone playing next to all of the big budget popcorn films.

Didn't you say you lived in LA? Everything plays in NY and LA.

Since when does being "adult" mean better quality?
It doesn't necessarily mean that, but it's a helluva lot trickier to do adult themes and sophisticated narratives at a kid's level.

I think there's a problem when an enormous part of the culture is so heavily focused towards a single demographic.

It means less variety overall and ultimately a stagnant culture.

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 04:08 AM

I owe you rep for this list. Holy shit, that thread is a goldmine.

My memory sucks, but off the top of the head, the stuff I found most interesting was Primer, Children of Men, Moon, and Solaris.

I don't think Children of Men was a great movie, or even a good one, but hell at least it approached something interesting and treated it seriously. Likewise the Solaris remake. It's a mess of a movie, but the ideas in it lit my head on fire. That has more to do with Stanislaw Lem than Soderburgh though.

Moon was a treat. Nobody pulls a gun. Nobody runs down a hallway. Nobody spouts technobabble about plasma converters failing the warp core relays.

It's a movie with a solid sci-fi premise that takes that idea and lays out a whole slew of interesting questions about identity and what it means to be "human." Really, that script could have been taken from a PKD short.

From the thread you linked to, it seems like you've got a wider experience here than I do, so if you have any recent favorites, please post them.

Edit: Just remembered Sleep Dealers, low budget Mexican sci fi. Not a great movie, but like some of the others has good concepts and tries to deal with them in interesting ways.

Interesting thoughts but yeah I meant more films before all these that you view as the thoughtful sci fi you want more of... unfortunately to the best of my knowledge (still tons of foreign cinema to plow through) there haven't been many great recent thoughtful sci fis but I've always got my eyes peeled. I'll let you know when I see something, but for now maybe check out the couple on the list you have still to see.

Watashi

12-07-2010, 04:09 AM

Didn't you say you lived in LA? Everything plays in NY and LA.

It doesn't necessarily mean that, but it's a helluva lot trickier to do adult themes and sophisticated narratives at a kid's level.

Brad Bird, Hayao Miyazaki, and Bruce Timm would disagree.

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 04:10 AM

It's ever-changing. Iran, S. Korea and China (proper) are probably stronger the last 20-30 years than before. Romania seems to be on the upswing. I agree that the age of the internet has "allowed" us to see a wider variety of films from a wider range of countries. Also the rise of digital filming has made it affordable for many more to make there own films. This has been a boon for documentarians.

Yeah I just don't like their cultural aesthetic as much as I like Russian/Japanese/Italian. :P But yeah there are definitely a lot of good films coming out of these places... except Crimson Gold. That wasn't very good.

Irish

12-07-2010, 04:16 AM

Predator (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=predator.htm) was released at 1636 theaters, The Thin Blue Line (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=thinblueline.htm) at 23.

So are you saying I'm factually wrong with this example, or that my point isn't true, that how it is now has always been the case?

That example might be an odd one -- or else I got really, really lucky. Because I saw The Thin Blue Line and Predator at the theater on the same day. I remember wanting to see Thin Blue Line because Siskel and Ebert had featured it on their show. And well, Predator was an Arnold movie, so that had to be seen too.

This was a general audience, suburban theater. It wasn't a specialty thing, or any kind of arthouse theater.

My point is: This also wasn't unusual at the time, but it sure as hell would be now.

As a side note, I'm endlessly amused that you actually looked up that up in an effort to prove me wrong, though.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 04:19 AM

Yeah I just don't like their cultural aesthetic as much as I like Russian/Japanese/Italian. :P But yeah there are definitely a lot of good films coming out of these places... except Crimson Gold. That wasn't very good.
:lol: Haven't seen it yet. Korean film is the most interesting national cinema to me right now. Is it bad that when I see news reports of N. Korea bombing a S. Korean island I think to myself, "Man, this is really going to add some more fuel for future Korean films!"

Ezee E

12-07-2010, 04:20 AM

Irish

12-07-2010, 04:21 AM

Brad Bird, Hayao Miyazaki, and Bruce Timm would disagree.

Cartoons don't count. :D

Animation in Japan (and comics too) is an adult medium. It's treated and viewed completely differently than in the US.

Bruce Timm and Warners ... same kind of thing? We're talking about cartoons that played Friday nights at 10pm on a cable channel. (Although, tbh, I'm surprised that Batman and JLU got away with half the things they did).

Your examples are good (surprised you didn't mention Chuck Jones) and I see your point, but nobody is going to convince me that stuff like Harry Potter and How to Train Your Dragon are sophisticated on an adult level no matter how entertaining they may be.

The requirements and scope are so different, for one.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 04:27 AM

So are you saying I'm factually wrong with this example, or that my point isn't true, that how it is now has always been the case?

That example might be an odd one -- or else I got really, really lucky. Because I saw The Thin Blue Line and Predator at the theater on the same day. I remember wanting to see Thin Blue Line because Siskel and Ebert had featured it on their show. And well, Predator was an Arnold movie, so that had to be seen too.

This was a general audience, suburban theater. It wasn't a specialty thing, or any kind of arthouse theater.

My point is: This also wasn't unusual at the time, but it sure as hell would be now.Just that I'm sure Inside Job played at as many theaters as The Thin Blue Line, and as Wats said you could probably find it playing next to big budget action films too, if you canvased the country. Since there was a year gap between Predator's release and The Thin Blue Line's maybe you saw it at some random second run?

As a side note, I'm endlessly amused that you actually looked up that up in an effort to prove me wrong, though.
You say something that doesn't sound plausible, and you expect not to have someone spend the whole of one minute to see if or not it's true? Do you just take everyone's word as gold? Or am I just supposed to take yours as gold? Look I can pull some shit out of my ass too, The Thin Blue Line actually made more at the box office than The Thin Red Line. Accept it as the truth. I said it.

Irish

12-07-2010, 04:28 AM

Interesting thoughts but yeah I meant more films before all these that you view as the thoughtful sci fi you want more of..

unfortunately to the best of my knowledge (still tons of foreign cinema to plow through) there haven't been many great recent thoughtful sci fis but I've always got my eyes peeled. I'll let you know when I see something, but for now maybe check out the couple on the list you have still to see.

Thanks :)

From that thread, I'm going to track down a copy of Kin Dza Dza (Daneliya, 1986). The screenshot you posted makes it worth a view.

I haven't seen a lot of thoughtful stuff that leaps to mind, beyond the obvious contenders. (I hesistate to recommend Sleep Dealers, because it's not such a great movie, despite some awesome ideas and coming from a different point of view).

It bothers me thinking that something like 2001 wouldn't have a prayer of getting made by a major American studio today, but if Tom Cruise wants to run around with ray guns, it's greenlit with a $150M budget.

Irish

12-07-2010, 04:39 AM

Since there was a year gap between Predator's release and The Thin Blue Line's maybe you saw it at some random second run?
Haven't researched it, but it's possible that this could have been a second run for the Thin Blue Line, or that movie got a staggered distribution, being a documentary and all (which would account for the different release dates appearing on IMDb for TBL and Predator).

I do remember seeing them on the same day, and the Morris' movie being featured on Siskel and Ebert. My friends and I paid for Predators and I convinced them to sneak into Thin Blue Line afterwards.

You say something that doesn't sound plausible, and you expect not to have someone spend the whole of one minute to see if or not it's true? Do you just take everyone's word as gold? Or am I just supposed to take yours as gold? Look I can pull some shit out of my ass too, The Thin Blue Line actually made more at the box office than The Thin Red Line. Accept it as the truth. I said it.
I'm not an accountant or a lawyer. I don't have your fetish for fact checking.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm wrong on that example. I'm not, but let's assume it anyway.

Do you believe that the theater experience, release dates and schedules, was the same 20 years ago (or even 10 years ago) as it is today?

I don't, because I've seen it change over the course of my lifetime. I remember when it changed recently (like when a comic book movie actioner was released in March, did great business, and that widened the "summer movie" window for everybody).

If you go back and cherry pick some release years, you'll see what I'm referencing. Even the indie market in the mid 1990s that launched Kevin Smith's career has evaporated. There was an active, thriving market around the kind of films I'm talking about, and it is all but gone now.

Edit: The fact that you thought my example sounded implausible at all proves my point.

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 05:04 AM

Thanks :)

From that thread, I'm going to track down a copy of Kin Dza Dza (Daneliya, 1986). The screenshot you posted makes it worth a view.

I haven't seen a lot of thoughtful stuff that leaps to mind, beyond the obvious contenders. (I hesistate to recommend Sleep Dealers, because it's not such a great movie, despite some awesome ideas and coming from a different point of view).

It bothers me thinking that something like 2001 wouldn't have a prayer of getting made by a major American studio today, but if Tom Cruise wants to run around with ray guns, it's greenlit with a $150M budget.

To be fair though it takes a real visionary to make a film like that and there are precious few of those in Hollywood these days. But yeah, you may be right that it may be even harder to get such a film made in this day and age.

soitgoes...

12-07-2010, 05:47 AM

Believe it or not, there was a time when Errol Morris' documentary The Thin Blue Line played in suburban multiplexes next to Predator. You think about going to the theater now, and that sounds bizarre.

Indie stuff used to sell and there used to be a market for it. What the hell happened?

Haven't researched it, but it's possible that this could have been a second run for the Thin Blue Line, or that movie got a staggered distribution, being a documentary and all (which would account for the different release dates appearing on IMDb for TBL and Predator).

I do remember seeing them on the same day, and the Morris' movie being featured on Siskel and Ebert. My friends and I paid for Predators and I convinced them to sneak into Thin Blue Line afterwards.

I'm not an accountant or a lawyer. I don't have your fetish for fact checking.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm wrong on that example. I'm not, but let's assume it anyway.

Do you believe that the theater experience, release dates and schedules, was the same 20 years ago (or even 10 years ago) as it is today?

I don't, because I've seen it change over the course of my lifetime. I remember when it changed recently (like when a comic book movie actioner was released in March, did great business, and that widened the "summer movie" window for everybody).

If you go back and cherry pick some release years, you'll see what I'm referencing. Even the indie market in the mid 1990s that launched Kevin Smith's career has evaporated. There was an active, thriving market around the kind of films I'm talking about, and it is all but gone now.

Edit: The fact that you thought my example sounded implausible at all proves my point.It sounds implausible because your fucking point was that indie films used to sell, which might be true, but your example was shit. My bad for even mentioning Predator. That's completely clouded the rest of the conversation from what you were initially saying. If indie films used to sell, using The Thin Blue Line as an example, how is it that your example only made $1M in 23 theaters? Was this the financial windfall that you're basing all past glories of indie films on? Surely in a time of such great cultural awareness as the 80's an indie film would have found it's way onto more than 23 theaters nationwide. At least Errol Morris' name is known in many a household because of it, right?

EDIT: Reply to this or not, I'm pretty much done here.

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 05:50 AM

It sounds implausible because your fucking point was that indie films used to sell, which might be true, but your example was shit. My bad for even mentioning Predator. That's completely clouded the rest of the conversation from what you were initially saying. If indie films used to sell, using The Thin Blue Line as an example, how is it that your example only made $1M in 23 theaters? Was this the financial windfall that you're basing all past glories of indie films on? Surely in a time of such great cultural awareness as the 80's an indie film would have found it's way onto more than 23 theaters nationwide. At least Errol Morris' name is known in many a household because of it, right?

Disappointing that Three Brothers wasn't better but I pretty much agree with your Cloud Capped Star rating.

Irish

12-07-2010, 06:53 AM

It sounds implausible because your fucking point was that indie films used to sell, which might be true, but your example was shit. My bad for even mentioning Predator. That's completely clouded the rest of the conversation from what you were initially saying. If indie films used to sell, using The Thin Blue Line as an example, how is it that your example only made $1M in 23 theaters? Was this the financial windfall that you're basing all past glories of indie films on? Surely in a time of such great cultural awareness as the 80's an indie film would have found it's way onto more than 23 theaters nationwide. At least Errol Morris' name is known in many a household because of it, right?

EDIT: Reply to this or not, I'm pretty much done here.

Yikes. You're not a fan of the Brave Little Toaster, are you? Because that's some awesome shit right there.

I'm confused why you're getting so worked up, and to be honest I can't make heads or tails out of this last post.

Raiders

12-07-2010, 12:50 PM

Yikes. You're not a fan of the Brave Little Toaster, are you? Because that's some awesome shit right there.

I'm confused why you're getting so worked up, and to be honest I can't make heads or tails out of this last post.

His point is that you made a statement and then supported it with an example that is nonsense. Surely if you wanted to make a valid point you could have found an example that worked, no?

I don't really believe that there was a bigger market for independent films back in the late 80s, but I guess it is possible. Certainly the shift has been since the late 70s for multiplexes to primarily house the bigger releases, ones with distribution deals that make it economical to take up temporary residence in such large venues. Truthfully though, I'm not sure we can really call it a "shift," can we? Low budget films prior to the 70s didn't use to get their own release; they often were shown in conjunction with larger releases or were drive-in material, more cultish and certainly not what you're talking about.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2010, 01:03 PM

People take their movie discussions very seriously (http://inception.davepedu.com/) here. geeze.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2010, 01:44 PM

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 05:49 PM

Those three are masterpieces & genre films in my eyes.

Fair enough, they're certainly the best of their kind and I like them a lot. I just don't feel they fulfill me intellectually which is something I look for in a film I would label a masterpiece.

Irish

12-07-2010, 06:07 PM

His point is that you made a statement and then supported it with an example that is nonsense. Surely if you wanted to make a valid point you could have found an example that worked, no?

I dunno. The example was true to life and used to illustrate the larger point, that my "fantasy" about multiplexes existed at one time in the US.

I tried to provide other examples, eg Kevin Smith and independent cinema out of the 1990s.

I don't really believe that there was a bigger market for independent films back in the late 80s, but I guess it is possible.

Check out Tales from the Script. One of the writers they interviewed worked on Pump Up the Volume in the early 1990s. He noted that that movie would not be made today because it is, (airquotes) "too small." That's goes directly to what I was saying about everything being tentpole now, with the focus is making big budget films full of spectacle that can play on 4,000 screens nationwide.

My feeling is that the environment that produced Quentin Tarantino, Hal Hartley, Edward Burns, and Kevin Smith in the early to mid 1990s -- and allowed them to thrive -- is gone now.

That's all I was trying to articulate, and all my examples were supposed to illustrate. /shrug.

Raiders

12-07-2010, 06:37 PM

I dunno. The example was true to life and used to illustrate the larger point, that my "fantasy" about multiplexes existed at one time in the US.

But the point remains that your anecdotal story still exists today. There is a cinema in Annapolis I frequent that plays both independent releases and mainstream releases. It exists.

Check out Tales from the Script. One of the writers they interviewed worked on Pump Up the Volume in the early 1990s. He noted that that movie would not be made today because it is, (airquotes) "too small." That's goes directly to what I was saying about everything being tentpole now, with the focus is making big budget films full of spectacle that can play on 4,000 screens nationwide.

That's crap. There are dozens of small films released every year by studio offshoots that produce smaller films with more limited releases. They may not be playing at the local Cinemark, but I guarantee there is at least one showing available at some not-too-distant theater unless you live in say, Nebraska.

I will give you that studios segregate more; they own subsidiaries for small dramas, for horror films and so forth. It is more niche now as business strategies change, but I think the end result, that is, what we the viewers get and where we can get it, hasn't changed much at all over the past twenty or thirty years.

My feeling is that the environment that produced Quentin Tarantino, Hal Hartley, Edward Burns, and Kevin Smith in the early to mid 1990s -- and allowed them to thrive -- is gone now.

Tarantino and Smith are success stories, not necessarily the norm. Hartley? He's never seen a wide audience.

That's all I was trying to articulate, and all my examples were supposed to illustrate. /shrug.

Fair enough.

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 06:45 PM

Tarantino and Smith are success stories, not necessarily the norm. Hartley? He's never seen a wide audience.

Plus one produces low brow humor and the other violent crime/genre pictures. There's certainly a large market for both of these.

Barty

12-07-2010, 06:51 PM

;306767']I don't see it. It's a repetitive track that has a catchy theme and nice mood, but brings nothing new neither in musical nor technical terms. Mainly it sounds just like a regular Zimmer track through and through. If it weren't for the connection to the cathartic moments from the film, I wouldn't care much for it on its own merits at all.

God damn that Mozart for using Sonata forms in his music! He didn't always do something completely different, therefore it's repetitive!

I hate you.

Barty

12-07-2010, 07:15 PM

Okay, first off, it it's absolutely false that there is somehow less of a market for independent and art films nowadays. It fact, it's rapidly going in the other direction towards bigger market.

First, the production cost of movies has rapidly fallen thanks to digital video and computers. This is not to say that tons of money isn't being poured into big Hollywood blockbusters anymore, but as a matter of accounting studios making more profit off small, low budget successes than anything else. It's not coincidence that major studios have their own independent wings, and there's dozens of smaller independent studios.

Can we really ignore a movie like Brokeback making almost 200 million? Or Slumdog making as much as it did? Whether some of us love or hate these films, the smaller dramas or art films have a far greater chance of being noticed by the population.

With the internet, the home video market, and the ability of information to spread instantly studios have been changing their strategies to take advantage of the independent cinema goers interests. If you can make a movie for less than 100k on digital, market it for dirt cheap using the internet not only directly, but by the word of mouth that will spread naturally on it, and throw it into 50 cinemas for nothing except the cost of a hard drive you can easily take the chance as a studio that you will have the next break out hit and make thousands of percentage points in pure profit.

The economics of the internet and film production is precisely what is going to bring independent cinema and art to a more mainstream audience in the years to come, and is going to cause some of our favorite smaller films to get more play in bigger multiplex's.

Of course, there's always going to be those small films we love which will fail miserably at the box office because the market for a film isn't based per se on cost of production and marketing, but it's people, and sometimes a ton of people just aren't going to want to see a film where a girl has her clitoris cut off, where as they may want to see a film with two gay cowboys - which - suprise! - nobody thought they would want to see but did.

So sorry Irish, you are wrong.

number8

12-07-2010, 07:34 PM

I dunno. The example was true to life and used to illustrate the larger point, that my "fantasy" about multiplexes existed at one time in the US.

Where do you live? In platform cities, indie movies regularly play in multiplexes.

Divorced from the point, your example really was terrible, though. It's purely anecdotal. The Thin Blue Line? Come on. I can counter that by saying I saw Tyson in a multiplex. Monsters vs Aliens was playing next door.

Qrazy

12-07-2010, 07:42 PM

In Montreal there are three theaters I frequent. The first is purely blockblustery content, the second is a compelling mix between well reputed indies and foreign films, and bigger films and the last is a rep theater which also shows less well known foreign films and arthouse pictures.

[ETM]

12-07-2010, 07:59 PM

God damn that Mozart for using Sonata forms in his music! He didn't always do something completely different, therefore it's repetitive!

I disliked something. I can't do that? Am I not free to not like something?

I hate you.

He feels something!:pritch:

MadMan

12-07-2010, 08:47 PM

Holy shit, Barty made a post that wasn't about politics. This is rare.

God damn that Mozart for using Sonata forms in his music! He didn't always do something completely different, therefore it's repetitive!

I hate you. :lol:

I also like that this thread has completely gone off topic. But that was bound to happen considering we're now on page 57.

[ETM]

12-07-2010, 10:28 PM

I also like that this thread has completely gone off topic.

It's gone Irish.

Barty

12-07-2010, 10:36 PM

;307148']It's gone Irish.

I don't hate you anymore. :lol:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7384/braveheart172639201256.jpg

"Irish...."

Ezee E

12-08-2010, 01:14 AM

People take their movie discussions very seriously (http://inception.davepedu.com/) here. geeze.
bookmarked! I need this on my phone.

MadMan

12-08-2010, 01:17 AM

;307148']It's gone Irish.Shit.....

Irish

12-08-2010, 03:29 AM

That's crap. There are dozens of small films released every year by studio offshoots that produce smaller films with more limited releases. They may not be playing at the local Cinemark, but I guarantee there is at least one showing available at some not-too-distant theater unless you live in say, Nebraska.

Focus Features, the "arthouse" distribution arm of NBC/Universal distributed a whopping six movies in 2010. Smaller distributors like Roadside might throw out three or four movies a year at most. Many of the other boutique studios have either been reabsorbed into their owners or shuttered.

Lionsgate is so big at the point, they were bidding on either MGM's library or making a play for Miramax (I can't remember which). They're not any kind of small time player.

Tarantino and Smith are success stories, not necessarily the norm. Hartley? He's never seen a wide audience.

To Barty's point, if this business is thriving as claimed, then where are the up and coming 25 year old writer/directors on the national scene? Where's the generation that is going to replace Smith, Burns, Hartley, and Tarantino? If digital film is so cheap and distribution so easy, then why aren't we being absolutely deluged in smaller, less ambitious movies?

Citing one-off examples that are years old -- Brokeback, Juno, Little Miss Sunshine -- is contrary to the point. Those are lottery winners, and blockbusters in their own right. Mentioning them in this context is like pointing to recent Powerball winners as an example that the American dream is alive and well.

DavidSeven

12-08-2010, 03:40 AM

Not reading all of the content of these posts, but I do agree that the generation of influential and powerful American filmmakers to follow Tarantino, PTA, Wes, et al. is strangely MIA. Is it really Snyder and Roth? Yeesh. American independents are still viable, but American independents penetrating the broader American consciousness seems like a thing of the past (unless stuck in the confines of Horror). New guys have less opportunity than ever to earn their stripes and build a reputation. Of course, we'll still have esoteric stuff available at various cineplexes, but the days when the new little guys are being handed decent budgets and mass distribution seem to be ending. Is something like Magnolia or Taxi Driver ever going to get financed and distributed at the same level again? Seems unlikely, but I hope so.

number8

12-08-2010, 04:12 AM

MacGuffin

12-08-2010, 04:19 AM

So I'm watching the features on the Inception Blu-ray. There's one on the music and shows plenty of footage of Zimmer conducting a big live orchestra in a recording studio.

What was the argument about, again?

It's possible he's using MIDI in conjunction with live recording. Many composers do that.

[ETM]

12-08-2010, 06:01 AM

So I'm watching the features on the Inception Blu-ray. There's one on the music and shows plenty of footage of Zimmer conducting a big live orchestra in a recording studio.

What was the argument about, again?

I'm objecting to him (or anyone) using it at that scale, I'm not saying it's all he does on every project.

Ezee E

12-08-2010, 06:25 AM

DavidSeven

12-08-2010, 06:57 AM

Same things happen in bouts. Mid to late 80's were the same way.

Well, the Coens and Soderbergh showed up around that time. Others too, probably. But yeah, their generation wasn't as pronounced as the film school brats (70s) or the home video brats (90s). Hopefully, there will be a decent waive in 2010-2020.

Ezee E

12-08-2010, 07:01 AM

2010's be the viral or youtube brats?

Ezee E

12-08-2010, 07:02 AM

I guess the 00's can claim Christopher Nolan and Darren Aronofsky.

DavidSeven

12-08-2010, 07:11 AM

I guess the 00's can claim Christopher Nolan and Darren Aronofsky.

I'm more inclined to say these guys caught the tail end of the 90s waive. But I guess that might be arbitrary. Still, it's been a solid 10 years since those guys broke through.

The next wave is clearly going to be the movie forum brats. Guys who learned about cinema through inane discussions of blood splattered camera lenses.

Ezee E

12-08-2010, 07:16 AM

Otherwise, yeah, it's mostly all horror related. Snyder, Roth, Reeves, Aja....

Got one possibility. Neil Blomkamp?

Two.... Can't deny that his name is why people see his films, even if Match Cut hasn't seen any of them... Tyler Perry

Qrazy

12-08-2010, 07:42 AM

Well, the Coens and Soderbergh showed up around that time. Others too, probably. But yeah, their generation wasn't as pronounced as the film school brats (70s) or the home video brats (90s). Hopefully, there will be a decent waive in 2010-2020.

Yeah. They'll be known as the Bratty Brats taking back Bratdom.

DavidSeven

12-08-2010, 07:48 AM

Yeah. They'll be known as the Bratty Brats taking back Bratdom.

Clearly, a working title. They're definitely coming out as BRATS 3D (Cinema in yo face).

Irish

12-08-2010, 11:04 AM

I guess the 00's can claim Christopher Nolan and Darren Aronofsky.

Same generation as Kevin Smith, Edward Burns, Wes Anderson, PT Anderson, and Noah Baumbach. They're all 40+, all Gen Xers. Tarantino is a little bit older by about 7 years. All of them made their first film in their mid to late 20s.

Snyder and Roth got a later start, but from what I can tell they were coming from inside the industry. Both of them made their first film after 30.

Tyler Perry is a good pick. He's another Gen Xer, early 40s, worked as a playright on the west coast and then did direct to video stuff in his early 30s before moving up to feature releases (all of it based on the same material and that Medea character).

number8

12-08-2010, 12:34 PM

If Neill Blomkamp is the future of cinema, I'm shooting somebody in the face.

Boner M

12-08-2010, 12:54 PM

Watched this again. Still like it, but has anyone yet lodged a convincing defense of the snow-level scenes?

Ezee E

12-08-2010, 01:17 PM

If Neill Blomkamp is the future of cinema, I'm shooting somebody in the face.
Isn't that what Blomkamp would want essentially?

DavidSeven

12-08-2010, 04:30 PM

I figured it out. 2001-2010 gave us Sofia Coppola, Jason Reitman, and Duncan Jones. It's the nepotism generation. Famous dads FTW.

Irish

12-08-2010, 04:41 PM

I figured it out. 2001-2010 gave us Sofia Coppola, Jason Reitman, and Duncan Jones. It's the nepotism generation. Famous dads FTW.

This is starting to weird me out. I never realized these guys were all the same age -- Coppola and Jones are a year younger than Kevin Smith and Noah Baumbauch.

Reitman fits the mold though -- younger than the others by seven years and making his first movies in his mid to late twenties.

DavidSeven

12-08-2010, 05:48 PM

Watched this again. Still like it, but has anyone yet lodged a convincing defense of the snow-level scenes?

What are the chief criticisms? I think I've read people say that it was spatially confusing, but I believe that was the entire point. That's why Ariadne was tested on her ability to craft mazes.

If you're talking purely artistic aesthetics, I agree. I wish it was more visually consistent with the other levels. And I do wish it was less action-y. But then it's also the most dramatic and engrossing section of the film, too. So, whatevs.

MadMan

12-08-2010, 10:16 PM

From what I recall, I loved the snow level scenes. Plus that part of the film is where the movie became truly emotional, what with Cililan Murphy's scene with his dad and Leo coming to terms with his wife, although that happened in the final level.

Ezee E

12-08-2010, 10:31 PM

The snow level seems to be Nolan's "application" to do a Bond movie, which seems like a step back for him. It's definitely the least interesting part of the movie.

Pop Trash

12-09-2010, 03:21 AM

David Gordon Green is under 40. There are a few others: Richard Kelly, the Brick dude.

Irish

12-09-2010, 03:39 AM

The snow level seems to be Nolan's "application" to do a Bond movie, which seems like a step back for him. It's definitely the least interesting part of the movie.

^ This. The whole thing plays like a scene lifted straight from On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

MadMan

12-09-2010, 07:50 AM

The snow level scene actually reminds me more of Call of Duty.

Also this film looks really stunning in Blu Ray.

Idioteque Stalker

12-09-2010, 09:59 AM

This is starting to weird me out. I never realized these guys were all the same age -- Coppola and Jones are a year younger than Kevin Smith and Noah Baumbauch.

Reitman fits the mold though -- younger than the others by seven years and making his first movies in his mid to late twenties.

The discussion, if I'm not mistaken, is about waves or generations (roughly by decade) of American directors, not their ages. Crudely: when did so-and-so release their first batch of significant films?

I think Reitman can be considered a part of this group. With only one movie under Jones' belt, it's too early to claim him as an influential director. Even if he does prove to be one, I suppose he'll be a part of a new (2010s) group with a strong release at the tail end of the previous decade--kinda like Coppola/Virgin Suicides.

EDIT: And I agree with E about Nolan and Aronofsky. Them too.

Irish

12-09-2010, 10:15 AM

The discussion, if I'm not mistaken, is about waves or generations (roughly by decade) of American directors, not their ages. Crudely: when did so-and-so release their first batch of significant films?

I think Reitman can be considered a part of this group. With only one movie under Jones' belt, it's too early to claim him as an influential director. Even if he does prove to be one, I suppose he'll be a part of a new (2010s) group with a strong release at the tail end of the previous decade--kinda like Coppola/Virgin Suicides.

EDIT: And I agree with E about Nolan and Aronofsky. Them too.

That's a fair point. (I was mostly just noting surprise that everybody I looked up was around the same age).

It makes sense to give credit to the 2000s for some of these people, and the 90s to others .. but there's still a mystifying lack of young up-and-coming directors making features out there (at this point, I'd call anybody under 35 "young").

Idioteque Stalker

12-09-2010, 10:39 AM

I think I've read people say that it was spatially confusing, but I believe that was the entire point. That's why Ariadne was tested on her ability to craft mazes.

I wouldn't call it spatially confusing as much as spatially incohesive. Mazes are designed to be confusing, but they're able to be solved through some kind of systematic reasoning or trial-and-error based on where things are in relation to each other. I've only seen the movie once, but it was by far the weakest sequence for me because Nolan was more concerned with cross-cutting to seemingly random locations (action quota) than presenting a tangible puzzle for the characters and viewers to solve.

Boner M

12-09-2010, 11:16 AM

If you're talking purely artistic aesthetics, I agree. I wish it was more visually consistent with the other levels. And I do wish it was less action-y. But then it's also the most dramatic and engrossing section of the film, too. So, whatevs.
I guess I just find it counter-productive for Nolan to indulge in an extended 007 homage when the film is reaching its emotional apex.

Boner M

12-09-2010, 11:18 AM

Same generation as Kevin Smith, Edward Burns, Wes Anderson, PT Anderson, and Noah Baumbach.
One of these names is not like the others.

number8

12-09-2010, 01:43 PM

One of these names is not like the others.

Yeah, Noah Baumbach hasn't made a good movie yet.

Irish

12-09-2010, 02:52 PM

Yeah, Noah Baumbach hasn't made a good movie yet.

Greenberg, dude. Jesus. :P

Dukefrukem

12-09-2010, 03:05 PM

Greenberg was a good movie.

MacGuffin

12-09-2010, 05:33 PM

Is Greenberg more The Squid and the Whale and less Margot at the Wedding?

Sycophant

12-09-2010, 05:34 PM

I don't think I've seen a Baumbach film I haven't liked/loved. And the only of his features I haven't seen is Highball.

Derek

12-09-2010, 05:42 PM

Is Greenberg more The Squid and the Whale and less Margot at the Wedding?

More neither, but it's less acerbic than Margot if that's what you're looking for.

MacGuffin

12-09-2010, 05:45 PM

More neither, but it's less acerbic than Margot if that's what you're looking for.

That's exactly what I'm looking for. I'll have to give it a rent.

MacGuffin

12-09-2010, 05:46 PM

Oh wow, I just checked my Netflix queue and they're sending it to me as we speak. It must've been at or near the top of my queue.

Pop Trash

12-09-2010, 06:14 PM

Greenberg is a wonderful film that many people will (and already do) hate.

Mysterious Dude

12-09-2010, 06:19 PM

I've been saying for years that America is suffering from a dearth of new talented filmmakers, but everyone here said I was full of shit (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1829).

Pop Trash

12-09-2010, 06:23 PM

I've been saying for years that America is suffering from a dearth of new talented filmmakers, but everyone here said I was full of shit (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1829).

I don't think you are full of shit. Film Comment did a critic's poll at the end of the last decade for best new filmmakers (meaning their feature debut was '00 or after) and very few of them were American. I think Judd Apatow made the list and maybe a few others (Ramin Bahrani maybe?).

Idioteque Stalker

12-09-2010, 06:45 PM

Is Greenberg more The Squid and the Whale and less Margot at the Wedding?

Considering all the major characters in each respective movie and rating them on an asshole scale of 1-10 (1 being not an asshole, 5 being your normal everyday asshole who you may be friends with, and 10 being Aaron Eckhart from In the Company of Men), the average in Margot is about an 8, Greenberg is a 6.5 (with the namesake being an outlier at 9.5), while Squid runs a measly 4.

Hope that answers your question.

DavidSeven

12-09-2010, 10:11 PM

The discussion, if I'm not mistaken, is about waves or generations (roughly by decade) of American directors, not their ages. Crudely: when did so-and-so release their first batch of significant films?

Yeah, their specific ages are completely besides the point. We were just talking about periods of time when we saw an influx of American guys firmly establish themselves in the cinema milieu. Even the 80s laid claim to the Coens, Jarmusch, Soderbergh, James Cameron, Crowe, T. Scott, uh, Hughes and others. All of whom were pretty substantial in their own respect by the end of the decade. 2001-2010 was sort of a wasteland for new American talent headed by the nepotism all-stars, Coppola and Reitman. Oh well, at least there were some discoveries in South Korea.

I've been saying for years that America is suffering from a dearth of new talented filmmakers, but everyone here said I was full of shit (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1829).

Proud to say I essentially agreed with your post in my response from two years ago.

Boner M

12-09-2010, 10:50 PM

Yeah, where are the new Edward Burnses??!!

DavidSeven

12-09-2010, 10:54 PM

Yeah, where are the new Edward Burnses??!!

He's like this generation's Woody Allen. Except not at all.

Boner M

12-09-2010, 10:57 PM

It's kinda funny to think there was a time when The Brothers McMullen was a big deal. Silly mid-90's indie boom!

DavidSeven

12-09-2010, 10:58 PM

Say what you will about him, but dude gets shit made. Eleven titles. Each one written and directed by. WTF.

number8

12-09-2010, 11:58 PM

He also found the time to write this.

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/574/284517-20359-121756-1-ed-burns-dock-wallo_super.jpg

It was pretty good.

DavidSeven

12-10-2010, 01:02 AM

I've only seen She's the One. I remember kind of liking it.

StanleyK

12-13-2010, 01:27 PM

Okay, I'm in love with this movie all over again. Credit to the 'inception as metaphor for filmmaking' theory, which works so well for me I have adopted it. It lifts the ending from a money shot for the sake of itself, to Nolan consciously employing artifice to remind the viewer that what they've just seen is, in fact, a dream- the artist's dream. Consider that the climax of the film has Cobb literally talking to his subconscious; isn't film, after all, the director talking to himself (with some external creative input, in this case Ariadne), pouring his soul on the project to rid himself of the internal demons anguishing him? And by watching the achievement of this catharsis, the audience (Fischer) can walk away inspired, with a new concept that can come to define them.

Heretic to suggest this movie is nearly as good as Persona, I know, and yet I feel it deals with similar themes and is successful in much of the same ways. Inception is a film about how art shapes our worldviews- and you might not even know it did!

number8

12-15-2010, 02:11 AM

I re-reviewed the movie for the Blu-ray. My opinion changed, just slightly.

http://www.justpressplay.net/movie-reviews/929-dvd-reviews/7235-inception.html

DavidSeven

12-15-2010, 02:28 AM

My initial impression of the film can be read here. Generally positive, with reservations on the emotions behind its busy plot. A look at the film again on Blu-ray is a chance to revisit that side. Another viewing is in fact kinder to the characterizations, which I had trouble with originally. "Cold and mechanical," I accused it being. "...More fun to follow than to contemplate," I concluded. Yet many months later, here I am finding myself contemplating a lot about the scenario presented in the film, particularly that of Leonardo DiCaprio's Cobb's relationship with his kids.

Better to get it right late than never, 8.