Attack-Free Unpopular Opinion Thread

[Yxklyx]

All you LOTR haters are dead to me :)

[megladon8]

I find the battle in the forest at the end of Fellowship much more exciting than the larger scale battles in the following two movies.

[baby doll]

I wonder if there's really a case to be made for The Lord of the Rings trilogy as movies. With Star Wars, you could at least make the case, as Julie Turnock does in her book on blockbuster aesthetics, that Lucas was doing something new in the context of 1970s Hollywood, emphasizing kinetic movement, light, and colour over plot and character--though it's hard to see the film's originality today given its pervasive influence. But what's Jackson bringing to the table? I'll grant that the film was important historically for its financing and marketing strategies, but as a film it doesn't strike me as particularly accomplished even as an example of blockbuster filmmaking, certainly nothing to rival the best films of Ridley Scott, James Cameron, or Paul Verhoeven.

[megladon8]

Ridley Scott is at his worst when trying to engage in “blockbuster filmmaking”.

[baby doll]

Ridley Scott is at his worst when trying to engage in “blockbuster filmmaking”.I was thinking particularly of Alien and Blade Runner.

[megladon8]

I was thinking particularly of Alien and Blade Runner.

Yes. I don’t think either of those were attempts at making blockbusters, no?

[Dead & Messed Up]

I wonder if there's really a case to be made for The Lord of the Rings trilogy as movies. With Star Wars, you could at least make the case, as Julie Turnock does in her book on blockbuster aesthetics, that Lucas was doing something new in the context of 1970s Hollywood, emphasizing kinetic movement, light, and colour over plot and character--though it's hard to see the film's originality today given its pervasive influence. But what's Jackson bringing to the table? I'll grant that the film was important historically for its financing and marketing strategies, but as a film it doesn't strike me as particularly accomplished even as an example of blockbuster filmmaking, certainly nothing to rival the best films of Ridley Scott, James Cameron, or Paul Verhoeven.

I think it's less that Jackson reinvented the wheel and more that there were a shocking number of wheels needed to keep the big machine moving, and they were all handled with surprising efficiency. As an example of visual effects work, they can be lauded for their wide variety of effects, some of them groundbreaking (the CGI "massive" battle sequences, the motion capture work on Gollum as a first of its kind), others remarkably simple in construction and execution (the oversized miniatures for Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith). As an example of concurrent production, filming three three-hour movies at once. As a Lucas-similar approach of pulling much of the production out of Hollywood and building a national cinema apparatus in New Zealand that persists to this day (similar to how Star Wars was, as much as was possible, an independent film made under the auspices of a major studio).

Probably the biggest thing that Jackson brought to the table was his attempt to deliver a story in the fantasy genre with a relative amount of seriousness and maturity. There were outliers prior to him, obviously. Bakshi's Wizards, the twin fantasies of La Belle et la Bette, and Orphee, definitely the works of Miyazaki (and more depending on how you categorize fantasy, like Powell's religion-tinged A Matter of Life and Death). But the budget and live-action assets afforded Jackson were the kind almost always used in service of either Frank Frazetta goofs like Conan and The Beastmaster, serial-friendly adventures like The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts, kid quests like Labyrinth and The Neverending Story.

[Of course, that all depends on how you gauge things like "seriousness" and "maturity" and "intelligence."]

A good question is: do they need to be "new" or can they be sufficiently exciting as a renewal? Is it enough that they were of a genre style rarely granted large swathes of money and a production scale unseen almost since the days of David Lean? What I enjoyed as a teen was the very simple pleasure of enjoying imagination on-screen I hadn't seen before, of a size I hadn't seen before. Nowadays? I think they're still very entertaining movies, a new pinnacle in Hollywood swashbuckling. But I'm the guy who's perfectly happy to watch films-as-spectacle. I can't wait for Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Give me that eye meat.

[baby doll]

Yes. I don’t think either of those were attempts at making blockbusters, no?If Alien isn't a blockbuster, I don't know what is. It has a high-concept premise that can fit on a bumper sticker and the studio spent more on advertising it than they actually did on producing it (16 million for advertising versus an 11 million production budget).

[PURPLE]

I boycotted all of the LOTR and Harry Potter films because I didn't want Hollywood to be taken over by fantasy book adapdations. And I won! It was taken over by comic book adaptations, instead. I boycott almost all of those as well. I didn't win.

[baby doll]

I think it's less that Jackson reinvented the wheel and more that there were a shocking number of wheels needed to keep the big machine moving, and they were all handled with surprising efficiency. As an example of visual effects work, they can be lauded for their wide variety of effects, some of them groundbreaking (the CGI "massive" battle sequences, the motion capture work on Gollum as a first of its kind), others remarkably simple in construction and execution (the oversized miniatures for Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith). As an example of concurrent production, filming three three-hour movies at once. As a Lucas-similar approach of pulling much of the production out of Hollywood and building a national cinema apparatus in New Zealand that persists to this day (similar to how Star Wars was, as much as was possible, an independent film made under the auspices of a major studio).

Probably the biggest thing that Jackson brought to the table was his attempt to deliver a story in the fantasy genre with a relative amount of seriousness and maturity. There were outliers prior to him, obviously. Bakshi's Wizards, the twin fantasies of La Belle et la Bette, and Orphee, definitely the works of Miyazaki (and more depending on how you categorize fantasy, like Powell's religion-tinged A Matter of Life and Death). But the budget and live-action assets afforded Jackson were the kind almost always used in service of either Frank Frazetta goofs like Conan and The Beastmaster, serial-friendly adventures like The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts, kid quests like Labyrinth and The Neverending Story.

[Of course, that all depends on how you gauge things like "seriousness" and "maturity" and "intelligence."]

A good question is: do they need to be "new" or can they be sufficiently exciting as a renewal? Is it enough that they were of a genre style rarely granted large swathes of money and a production scale unseen almost since the days of David Lean? What I enjoyed as a teen was the very simple pleasure of enjoying imagination on-screen I hadn't seen before, of a size I hadn't seen before. Nowadays? I think they're still very entertaining movies, a new pinnacle in Hollywood swashbuckling. But I'm the guy who's perfectly happy to watch films-as-spectacle. I can't wait for Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Give me that eye meat.I'm not opposed to films-as-spectacle. I'm opposed to sameness. Making a fantasy film on a bigger budget, with better special effects, and a more sombre tone than '80s films like The Never-Ending Story and Labyrinth in itself doesn't strike me as especially imaginative.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm not opposed to films-as-spectacle. I'm opposed to sameness. Making a fantasy film on a bigger budget, with better special effects, and a more sombre tone than '80s films like The Never-Ending Story and Labyrinth in itself doesn't strike me as especially imaginative.

Okay then.

[megladon8]

I’m feeling attacked.

Someone call an adult.

[Skitch]

I personally like Two Towers best, jussssssssst barely over Fellowship.

Dalton is a GREAT Bond. He feels really lethal.

[megladon8]

I personally like Two Towers best, jussssssssst barely over Fellowship.

Dalton is a GREAT Bond. He feels really lethal.

Exactly. People who love Craig and hate Dalton are weirdos. They’re playing the same character.

[Yxklyx]

I was lukewarm about the LOTR films at first but after I watched all the "making-of" features and listened to the commentaries I found myself unable to critique the films anymore. So much love, passion, and work went into making them that I can't see them as anything but a masterpiece work of art.

[baby doll]

I was lukewarm about the LOTR films at first but after I watched all the "making-of" features and listened to the commentaries I found myself unable to critique the films anymore. So much love, passion, and work went into making them that I can't see them as anything but a masterpiece work of art.There are lots of mediocre films that were made with love, passion, and hard work. That's not a reason for liking them as films.

[Irish]

Dalton sucks. You can't play Bond as that dour after Connery and especially Moore.

LOTR: The movie is an achievement in scale and scope. I get the criticisms, but I think it's also a little ... weird? to tag it as cliched when the source material almost established an entire genre by itself.

Conan and Beastmaster rule and not to go full nerd but they're in a different class (low fantasy compared to LOTR's high fantasy, IIRC.)

I wonder if D_Davis lurks? He'd be into this convo for sure.

[MadMan]

Out of the Past is just a bad film. There's really nothing to recommend to it above hundreds of other movies. There are tons of B movie noirs that are much superior films.

Well at least you love the LOTRs movies.

[MadMan]

Had to look it up. And I laughed after your description and then watching it. I never remembered this scene...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrsC1Hm30ug

That part is hilarious. Its the Suicide Bomber Olympics!

[Dead & Messed Up]

Conan and Beastmaster rule and not to go full nerd but they're in a different class (low fantasy compared to LOTR's high fantasy, IIRC.)

Oh, for sure, and I hope my post didn't come off as slighting them, because I find them delightful. I know people more experienced with fantasy distinguish between "high" and "low" fantasy, but I don't even like that verbiage. One's not intrinsically more high-minded or noble in my eyes, they're just chasing different things.

[megladon8]

Dalton sucks. You can't play Bond as that dour after Connery and especially Moore.

LOTR: The movie is an achievement in scale and scope. I get the criticisms, but I think it's also a little ... weird? to tag it as cliched when the source material almost established an entire genre by itself.

Conan and Beastmaster rule and not to go full nerd but they're in a different class (low fantasy compared to LOTR's high fantasy, IIRC.)

I wonder if D_Davis lurks? He'd be into this convo for sure.


I still speak to him regularly and he definitely, most definitely does not.

Can’t blame him, either

[MadMan]

I missed out on Davis leaving, but I think I have several ideas why. Can't say I blame him, either.

[MadMan]

Irish I feel that Dalton was closer to how Bond is in the books. I do concede that he was much different after Connery's even balanced take and Moore's campy spin on Bond. I guess my lame opinion is that I like all of the Bonds.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Is it unpopular to say I liked Lazenby as Bond and wish he got another movie/opportunity?

[megladon8]

Moore is my least favorite.

Lazenby was all right. Wish he had a more Connery-toned film. OHMSS felt like it should have been Moore.

Brosnan could have been the very best, but only had one good movie.

[Skitch]

Brosnan could have been the very best, but only had one good movie.

Yep agreed and...

...Goldeneye is the BEST Bond movie.

[Dukefrukem]

Considering License to Kill is the best Bond movie, Dalton does not suck.

[Skitch]

Considering License to Kill is the best Bond movie, Dalton does not suck.

I accept that opinion with open arms.

[megladon8]

Considering License to Kill is the best Bond movie, Dalton does not suck.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dukefrukem again.

[Scar]

I certainly liked Dalton, but Craig is my favorite.

As a wee lad, I loved the shit out of the Moore films.

[MadMan]

Is it unpopular to say I liked Lazenby as Bond and wish he got another movie/opportunity?

Nah. I liked him in the role.

[MadMan]

Moore is my least favorite.

Lazenby was all right. Wish he had a more Connery-toned film. OHMSS felt like it should have been Moore.

Brosnan could have been the very best, but only had one good movie.I may have to go through his films again but I am not a big fan of Brosnan as Bond. I liked him better post 007.

Netflix having multiple Bond flicks is making me view the ones they have even though I own 1-20 and I have seen the whole series multiple times.

I think Craig is the best Bond btw. Yet I still think From Russia With Love is #1 in the series. I loved Goldeneye the movie and the video game.

[megladon8]

I may have to go through his films again but I am not a big fan of Brosnan as Bond. I liked him better post 007.

Netflix having multiple Bond flicks is making me view the ones they have even though I own 1-20 and I have seen the whole series multiple times.

I think Craig is the best Bond btw. Yet I still think From Russia With Love is #1 in the series. I loved Goldeneye the movie and the video game.


It’s always such a joy to see someone else loving From Russia With Love.

[Milky Joe]

I could watch Fellowship of the Ring 100 times and never get bored. It's a perfect movie and a perfect adaptation IMO (that it is one of the great adaptations of a work generally considered unfilmable is its greatest accomplishment). The other two? I usually get bored about an hour into The Two Towers and can never finish ROTK. I actually feel the same way about the books too though.

Also the Extended Editions have some stuff in them that eerily foreshadow just how terrible The Hobbit would turn out to be.

[Skitch]

From Russia is great, so is Octopussy.

[Peng]

I loved Fellowship the best too, the only one of the trilogy in my top 100.

[Peng]

As for Bond films, from the ones I have seen (I watched many of these a long time ago, and this is an old list, so they may change now)...

Great
1. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2. Casino Royale
3. Skyfall

Very good
4. From Russia With Love
5. Goldfinger
6. Lincense to Kill

Good
7. Dr. No
8. Golden Eye
9. For Your Eyes Only
10. The Spy Who Loved Me
11. Tomorrow Never Dies

Decent time-passers
12. Spectre
13. The World is Not Enough
14. Quantum of Solace

Mediocre
15. The Man with the Golden Gun
16. Diamonds Are Forever
17. You Only Live Twice

Please Just End Faster
18. Moonraker
19. Thunderball

[Dukefrukem]

Skyfall suffers from the 'villain intentionally gets captured' trend in action films. I hate that so much.

This is making me want to watch them all again in sequence though...

[megladon8]

Am I really going to have to post my Bond movie list, too?

[megladon8]

Top Tier

From Russia With Love
Goldeneye
The Spy Who Loved Me
Casino Royale (‘06)
Licence to Kill



Good Tier

Dr. No
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
For Your Eyes Only
Skyfall



Mid Tier

Goldfinger
Thunderball
The Man With the Golden Gun
The Living Daylights
Spectre



“Movies That Exist” Tier

Diamonds Are Forever
Live and Let Die
Never Say Never Again
Octopussy
A View to a Kill
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World is Not Enough
Quantum of Solace



What Were They Thinking? Tier

Die Another Day
You Only Live Twice
Moonraker
Casino Royale (‘67)


My Bond tastes are a bit different from normal.

I would also say I’m probably the resident Bond movie expert. Does anyone dare challenge me?

[Pop Trash]

I wonder if there's really a case to be made for The Lord of the Rings trilogy as movies. With Star Wars, you could at least make the case, as Julie Turnock does in her book on blockbuster aesthetics, that Lucas was doing something new in the context of 1970s Hollywood, emphasizing kinetic movement, light, and colour over plot and character--though it's hard to see the film's originality today given its pervasive influence. But what's Jackson bringing to the table? I'll grant that the film was important historically for its financing and marketing strategies, but as a film it doesn't strike me as particularly accomplished even as an example of blockbuster filmmaking, certainly nothing to rival the best films of Ridley Scott, James Cameron, or Paul Verhoeven.

LOTR series were the best integration of CGI with natural surroundings (New Zealand) that's ever been made. Compare and contrast with the 2D video game look of the George Lucas Star Wars prequels that were coming out around the same time. Those had actors that felt like they were robotically moving in front of a green screen. LOTR series also had great casting, great pure filmmaking, lots of heart, and didn't disrespect the source material. They felt neither too silly or dumbed down nor too didactic or convoluted (eg. David Lynch's Dune).

[Pop Trash]

Considering License to Kill is the best Bond movie, Dalton does not suck.

Aw hell yus. Bond going rouge and taking on the Latin American drug cartel? Sign me up. The two bond girls (short hair tomboy and sexy mamacita) are muy caliente tambien.

[Dukefrukem]

LOTR series were the best integration of CGI with natural surroundings (New Zealand) that's ever been made. Compare and contrast with the 2D video game look of the George Lucas Star Wars prequels that were coming out around the same time. Those had actors that felt like they were robotically moving in front of a green screen. LOTR series also had great casting, great pure filmmaking, lots of heart, and didn't disrespect the source material. They felt neither too silly or dumbed down nor too didactic or convoluted (eg. David Lynch's Dune).

It's true... the silliest looking thing in the entire LOTR trilogy was this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSzBlmjNaxc

Where as shit like this rampant in all three prequels.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy3_ObShSro

[Dukefrukem]

Wouldn't let me post more than 2 videos in a post.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCpwAzv2Q4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-FghNriqFA

[baby doll]

LOTR series were the best integration of CGI with natural surroundings (New Zealand) that's ever been made. Compare and contrast with the 2D video game look of the George Lucas Star Wars prequels that were coming out around the same time. Those had actors that felt like they were robotically moving in front of a green screen. LOTR series also had great casting, great pure filmmaking, lots of heart, and didn't disrespect the source material. They felt neither too silly or dumbed down nor too didactic or convoluted (eg. David Lynch's Dune).I'll grant that The Lord of the Rings trilogy had the best special effects money can buy, but I think there's an important distinction to be made here between a technical achievement (the special effects are seamlessly integrated with the film's overall look) and an artistic one (how the film works on the spectator cognitively, emotionally, and sensually).

In fact, I'm a bit confused by your reference to to "great pure filmmaking," since my memory of the films from the early 2000s is that stylistically they weren't all that inventive, alternating conventionally shot expositional scenes with chaotic battle scenes that all look the same, helicopter shots of hobbits trudging over mountains, and portentous close-ups of Ian McKellan dispensing timeless wisdom to uplifting music. Die Nibelungen it ain't.

Also, while it's difficult for me to gauge how well the film tackles the problem of adapting Tolkien's novels, my sense is that the primary difficulty for Jackson and his team, and their ultimate accomplishment, was streamlining a fairly convoluted narrative line so that it's intelligible on the screen for people like me who are unfamiliar with the source material--which, to paraphrase Jonathan Rosenbaum on The Big Sleep, seems to me more a triumph of accommodation than artistry. In general, when it comes to adaptations, I'm less concerned with whether a given film respects its source than what it does with it: Robert Altman didn't respect Raymond Chandler but The Long Goodbye is still a wonderful movie.

[Grouchy]

In general, when it comes to adaptations, I'm less concerned with whether a given film respects its source than what it does with it: Robert Altman didn't respect Raymond Chandler but The Long Goodbye is still a wonderful movie.
Even you have to realize that this comparison is nonsensical - Jackson was adapting the source material straight while Altman was offering a modern commentary on the original text. The intentions are completely different.

[baby doll]

Even you have to realize that this comparison is nonsensical - Jackson was adapting the source material straight while Altman was offering a modern commentary on his original text. The intentions are completely different.All I wanted to suggest is that respect for one's source material is not in itself a virtue. Whether an adaptation is subverting the text or playing it straight, it still has to do something with it. (To cite only the first instance that comes to mind, A Room with a View and Howards End both respect E.M. Forster till the cows come home to no discernible benefit to anyone.)

[megladon8]

I have always felt that ROTK cleaned up at the Oscars as a means of recognizing the incredible achievement the team made with the trilogy as a whole.

The undertaking of those three films was immense and was at the time (and perhaps still) unmatched.

I almost saw them as “honorary Oscars”.

And I don’t mean that as a sleight. I love the movies. But that’s how I felt those awards came across.

[Mr. McGibblets]

The animated Lord of the Rings film is a better adaptation than Jackson's movies.

[Watashi]

I think Bakshi's LOTR movie is very good, but it's incomplete.

[Neclord]

Die Another Day is the second best Brosnan Bond outing.

[Dukefrukem]

Die Another Day is the second best Brosnan Bond outing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3CF3QER_h4

[megladon8]

Boiler Room > The Wolf of Wall Street

[Milky Joe]

^ Ahahahahahaha. That is some hilarious MST3K worthy nonsense. Brosnan's acting throughout the entire sequence is somewhere between 'slight indigestion' and 'have to take a bad shit'.

[Dukefrukem]

That was my way of saying "hell no". Tomorrow Never Dies is the 2nd best Bronson Bond because a)Wai Lin b) this bike chance and c) they literally drop through the roof of two people having sex before Bond casually drops a "pop the clutch" line.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRMqcxBF4aM

[kuehnepips]

Venom is great

[Philip J. Fry]

After watching the Patrick Willems video about music biopics, it came back to my mind that if there could be someone who could be the subject a pretty kickass biopic, it'd be The Gun Club's Jeffrey Lee Pierce. He wrote some great music and innovated the field (specially creating the groundwork for Cowpunk and Alt Country), but unlike many musicians Willems mentions like Ray Charles, Freddie Mercury or Johnny Cash, he didn't have the money, fame or mainstream success they had to offset/redeem his antics (and boy, did he had those) which would already subvert a good chunk of biopics: this wouldn't be a story of success, this could be the hard hitting tragedy of a man who lived hard, made quality music... and drove away multiple friends, lovers and bandmates just to end up with cirrhosis, AIDS and an untimely death, kind of like a compressed season arc of BoJack Horseman. And even some of the music reflects that, beginning with a no holds barren, fast-paced attack in Fire of Love and finishing with the introspective, sad and angry Lucky Jim.

[Philip J. Fry]

Anyway, if you could make a music biopic, who would you do and how would you approach it?

[Neclord]

Granted I came up with that opinion after watching the Brosnan movies in quick succession, but I can't say I was bored while watching Die Another Day *ahemworldisnotenoughcough*

[baby doll]

Anyway, if you could make a music biopic, who would you do and how would you approach it?I have no ideas myself but I doubt anything can top The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach.

[Philip J. Fry]

I have no ideas myself but I doubt anything can top The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach.Never seen it, I'll look it up.

[Philip J. Fry]

The only thing I remember about The World is Not Enough is the cool Garbage music video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C5NLfYdZaE

[Mysterious Dude]

Never seen it, I'll look it up.
Then we can resume our discussion on slow cinema, and the value of movies that look and sound like shit.

[Morris Schæffer]

You forget to mention the one thing that hurts RAIDERs and most people seem to ignore...

The Nazis would have been defeated without Indy's involvement anyway- deus ex machina to the literal sense

People are ignoring this because it's bullshit buddy. I wonder how many folks genuinely feel this hurts the movie or are just blurting this out in an attempt to achieve faux superiority in a "haha I noticed this and you didn't therefore I'm smarter" kinda way?

Every scene is great in this movie and it maintains its intensity all the way until the end. But worst of all, your, well, attack, seems to imply "deus ex machinas" are inherently wrong. That's rubbish Dukey boy, because Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't cheat, doesn't betray everything they've built up before the opening of the ark. Its dark powers are in fact suggested very early in the movie, a theme which reoccurs at several intervals, no less by the sinister humming sound which makes even the rats scurry away.

You might have had more of a point if the movie went out of its way to suggest the contents of the ark were skittles, oreo cookies and rainbows, only for the finale to bring entirely unexpected pandemonium.

No, Raiders of the Lost ark is a good example of Deus Ex Machina. Your opinion is objectively wrong.

[Skitch]

IMO what hurts Raiders is the silly ending. How the hell did he know that keeping eyes closed would save them? WHY does it save them? Very weird and convenient.

[Dukefrukem]

People are ignoring this because it's bullshit buddy. I wonder how many folks genuinely feel this hurts the movie or are just blurting this out in an attempt to achieve faux superiority in a "haha I noticed this and you didn't therefore I'm smarter" kinda way?

Every scene is great in this movie and it maintains its intensity all the way until the end. But worst of all, your, well, attack, seems to imply "deus ex machinas" are inherently wrong. That's rubbish Dukey boy, because Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't cheat, doesn't betray everything they've built up before the opening of the ark. Its dark powers are in fact suggested very early in the movie, a theme which reoccurs at several intervals, no less by the sinister humming sound which makes even the rats scurry away.

You might have had more of a point if the movie went out of its way to suggest the contents of the ark were skittles, oreo cookies and rainbows, only for the finale to bring entirely unexpected pandemonium.

No, Raiders of the Lost ark is a good example of Deus Ex Machina. Your opinion is objectively wrong.

I'd respond with a serious retort, but your post is so condescending it hurts you and transcends me.

[Irish]

IMO what hurts Raiders is the silly ending.

At first glance, I thought you were talking about the MC poster, not the movie. Very confused there for a sec.


I'd respond with a serious retort, but your post is so condescending it hurts you and transcends me.

Did you really just respond with a fancier version of "I'm rubber and you're glue ..." ?

:D

[baby doll]

Every scene is great in this movie and it maintains its intensity all the way until the end.That's called monotony.

[Grouchy]

That's called monotony.
Nope, that's not what that's called. Try crescendo.

[baby doll]

Nope, that's not what that's called. Try crescendo.Admittedly my memories of the film are a bit hazy, not having seen it since 2004, but my impression of the film is that it consists of one spectacular action sequence after another, all of them extremely well executed but yielding progressively diminishing returns over two hours.

[PURPLE]

Nope, that's not what that's called. Try crescendo.That's definitely not what crescendo means.

[Irish]

Admittedly my memories of the film are a bit hazy, not having seen it since 2004, but my impression of the film is that it consists of one spectacular action sequence after another, all of them extremely well executed but yielding progressively diminishing returns over two hours.

*cough cough* (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/06/15/whipped)



But Spielberg’s technique may be too much for the genre: the opening sequence, set in South America, with Indy Jones entering a forbidden temple and fending off traps, snares, poisoned darts, tarantulas, stone doors with metal teeth, and the biggest damn boulder you’ve ever seen, is so thrill-packed you don’t have time to breathe—or to enjoy yourself much, either. It’s an encyclopedia of high spots from the old serials, run through at top speed and edited like a great trailer—for flash. It’s like a hit number in a musical which is so terrific you don’t want the show to go on—you just want to see that number again. When the action moves to Indy back home lecturing to an archeology class, you know that Spielberg, having gone sky-high at the start, must have at least seventeen other climaxes to come, and that the movie isn’t going to be an adventure but a competition—Spielberg versus Spielberg.

[...]

Kinesthetically, the film gets to you. It gets your heart thumping. But there’s no exhilaration in this dumb, motor excitement. The best of the satirical pulp-adventure movies—the 1939 “Gunga Din” (with a plot lifted from “The Front Page”)—was carefree: there was fresh air between the thrills and the gags, there was time for digressions and for the pleasure of seeing actors you knew horsing around. The picture made you feel good, as if you were singing along with it. In the past, Spielberg has demonstrated a talent for just that kind of elating silliness, and he has a lot of it going here, especially with Harrison Ford, who does mammoth double takes, recoiling in disbelief. But “Raiders” is so professional and so anxious to keep moving that it steps on its own jokes. You can almost feel Lucas and Spielberg whipping the editor to clip things sharper—to move ahead. (I say the two, rather than just Spielberg, because this picture gets dangerously close to cancelling itself out, in a way that recalls “More American Graffiti,” which Lucas also produced.) The effect of the obsessive pace is that the picture seems locked in. Our eyes never have a second just to linger on a face or on an image of planes coming out of the clouds. The frames fit into each other, dovetailing so tight that sometimes it seems as if the sheer technology had taken over. It’s all smart zap—a moviemaker’s self-reflexive feat.

[Grouchy]

That's definitely not what crescendo means.
What? Crescendo is a term for a particular type of musical composition. I'm just making the association with film.

[PURPLE]

What? Crescendo is a term for a particular type of musical composition. I'm just making the association with film."maintains its intensity all the way until the end" describes something that is consistent and not changing. A crescendo starts less intense and peaks at the crescendo - it's not consistent. In film we might call it a "climax". In sex we might call it a "climax". During sex, you can't climax the whole time, otherwise it's not a climax. This is the same with a crescendo - you can't "maintain a crescendo all the way until the end" - it's not a crescendo.

[MadMan]

Die Another Day is the second best Brosnan Bond outing.

No. World's Not Enough is.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'd respond with a serious retort, but your post is so condescending it hurts you and transcends me.

I thought we were supposed to attack each other in the name of fun. I know I should have added a smiley to brighten the mood. Apologies.

That said, I think your critique doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In fact, I even remember the critic who first said what you said. I think it was a Jeffrey Westhof. He started something. :)

[Morris Schæffer]

*cough cough* (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/06/15/whipped)





I dunno. I think there are critics who think they're superior beings. And when they don't respond well enough to a movie, and since they're professionally required to write about it, it sometimes feels like they're pushing it, digging real deep for something intelligent to say. I think Pauline is doing that here. Then again, this was 1981. It's likely that were she able to see Fast and Furious 7 it may have resulted in a newfound appreciation for the quainter times of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

[Irish]

I think Pauline is doing that here.

When Kael reached, she was obvious about it (eg: the ways she sometimes talked about Peckinpah and Altman, or her book on "Citizen Kane").

She's not wrong about "Raiders"---it's very definitely what she called "zap cinema." I still like the movie, but looking at it again I can't deny it's rather desperate to entertain. Her contrast with "Gunga Din" was apt.

[Grouchy]

"maintains its intensity all the way until the end" describes something that is consistent and not changing. A crescendo starts less intense and peaks at the crescendo - it's not consistent. In film we might call it a "climax". In sex we might call it a "climax". During sex, you can't climax the whole time, otherwise it's not a climax. This is the same with a crescendo - you can't "maintain a crescendo all the way until the end" - it's not a crescendo.
Ok, noted and you're right. It's weird to think of Raiders in these terms because for many the ending is infamously anticlimactic.

[Morris Schæffer]

When Kael reached, she was obvious about it (eg: the ways she sometimes talked about Peckinpah and Altman, or her book on "Citizen Kane").

She's not wrong about "Raiders"---it's very definitely what she called "zap cinema." I still like the movie, but looking at it again I can't deny it's rather desperate to entertain. Her contrast with "Gunga Din" was apt.

Desperate to entertain? I dunno man. That's really thin.

[PURPLE]

Ok, noted and you're right. It's weird to think of Raiders in these terms because for many the ending is infamously anticlimactic.aka "blue balls"

[Irish]

Desperate to entertain? I dunno man. That's really thin.

Yes. Desperate to entertain. That's the heart of the criticism and what you seem to be struggling with.

[baby doll]

There's desperate to entertain and then there's desperate to knock the audience's socks off every ten minutes. Whether there are contemporary examples that make Raiders of the Lost Ark seem quaint by comparison seems to me irrelevant.

[megladon8]

I prefer meats to be well seasoned, rather than slathered in gravy.

Gravy is for the potatoes.

[Morris Schæffer]

Yes. Desperate to entertain. That's the heart of the criticism and what you seem to be struggling with.

I guess I am. Funnily enough, apply this to Temple of Doom and I'd probably agree. :)

[MadMan]

There was never a bad Doctor on Doctor Who. Also the Sontarans were the best villains.

[MadMan]

What if I don't give a shit about whether or not Indy was important to ROTLA and I just enjoyed the movie? Some things are exhaustingly annoying for no reason.

[Morris Schæffer]

What if I don't give a shit about whether or not Indy was important to ROTLA and I just enjoyed the movie? Some things are exhaustingly annoying for no reason.

Yep! I'm willing to understand some have a problem with it, but I don't agree. Where is it written that the movie should end with a physical fistfight or gunfight, or something that involves Indiana in a more active role?

You could turn it around and say the finale was quite refreshing in that regard, although it only works because the movie is so damn good at building up the anticipation, amping up the foreboding of what the Ark is or could be when opened. Hints are dropped repeatedly throughout the movie, they even have a book which shows lightning being shot out of the ark, and Brody refers to it as the power of God.

It's a much more exhilarating and climactic finale which we got now, even if it is a bit of a Deus Ex Machina.

That said, I still feel bad about how I replied to Duke about it. Not sure where that came from.

[megladon8]

I’ve never had a problem with how Raiders ends.

That being said, in the spirit of the thread...

The Last Crusade is the best Indy movie.

[Dukefrukem]

No worries Morris <3.

[Yxklyx]

Twin Peaks: The Return is an awful piece of shit.

[megladon8]

The Ninth Gate is pretty damn good.

[Skitch]

The Ninth Gate is pretty damn good.

Oh sir...

The Ninth Gate is FUCKING GREAT and most likely his best movie.

[Irish]

Chris Pratt is a shitty actor with no range!

*sticks fingers in ears*

LALALALALALALALALALA

[Milky Joe]

Yeah is that really an unpopular opinion? The Ninth Gate owns.

[Skitch]

I have no evidence to dispute the claim. Time will tell, I guess. He's a young buck.

[Irish]

I have no evidence to dispute the claim. Time will tell, I guess. He's a young buck.

The evidence is in his performances!

[Skitch]

The evidence is in his performances!

Yeah but I've seen the same role with little variation of character! Maybe its not his fault!

[Ezee E]

The chocolate part of the oreo is better than the filling.

[baby doll]

Oh sir...

The Ninth Gate is FUCKING GREAT and most likely his best movie.Although I like The Ninth Gate, I'd still rank it lower than Two Men and a Wardrobe, Le Gros et le maigre, Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, What?, Chinatown, Le Locataire, Bitter Moon, The Ghost Writer, and La Vénus Ã* la fourrure.

[transmogrifier]

The Ninth Gate is crap on a stick.

[Skitch]

Yeah is that really an unpopular opinion? The Ninth Gate owns.

I've not seen a lot of love for it.

[Dukefrukem]

The evidence is in his performances!

He's a comedic actor. That's like saying Will Ferrell has no range. Water is wet.

[Dukefrukem]

The Ninth Gate is crap on a stick.

Fuckin thank you!

[Dukefrukem]

The chocolate part of the oreo is better than the filling.

In addition to this- the crusty part of the brownie, cookie, meatloaf, lasagna (anything baked in a tin) is better than the gooey middle.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, The Ninth Gate is a fantastic movie, quite different than the novel it's based on that's also worth a rec.

Chris Pratt is OK. Henry Cavill is the one who's a bad actor.

[Irish]

He's a comedic actor. That's like saying Will Ferrell has no range. Water is wet.

Yeah. Uh. Not so much. There a different forms of comedy. Eg: Louis CK is not the same style of comedic actor that John Belushi or Cary Grant were. There's a range there, within the form.

There are also different roles within comedy. Eg: Melissa McCarthy demonstrated range in "Bridesmaids" and "Spy." In the former, she was the comic relief, playing it loud and brash, on top of other comic relief. In the latter, she was the straight man. She's also did light romantic comedy in "Gilmore Girls."

I don't know if Ferrell has any comedic range because he's never pushed himself beyond his own comfort zone. He's usually playing some variation of the lovable blowhard he perfected on SNL. But he has taken dramatic roles and done them well. ("Everything Must Go," "Stranger Than Fiction"). He also has pretty good instincts as a producer ("Funny or Die", "Eastbound and Down").

Meanwhile, with Pratt, I'm saying (a) he's not a good actor in toto which means (b) he's not a very good comedic actor and (c) even as a comedic actor he has no range.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah. Uh. Not so much. There a different forms of comedy. Eg: Louis CK is not the same style of comedic actor that John Belushi or Cary Grant were. There's a range there, within the form.

There are also different roles within comedy. Melissa McCarthy demonstrated range in "Bridesmaids" and "Spy." In the former, she was the comic relief, playing it loud and brash, on top of other comic relief. In the latter, she was the straight man. She's also did light romantic comedy in "Gilmore Girls."

I don't know if Ferrell has any comedic range because he's never pushed himself beyond his own comfort zone. He's usually playing some variation of the lovable blowhard he perfected on SNL. But he has taken dramatic roles and done them well. ("Everything Must Go," "Stranger Than Fiction"). He's also has pretty good instincts as a producer ("Funny or Die", "Eastbound and Down").

Meanwhile, with Pratt, I'm saying (a) he's not a good actor in toto which means (b) he's not a very good comedic actor and (c) even as a comedic actor he has no range.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x-flHyP9I0

[Irish]

Duke.

I posted in that thread (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?7428-The-Kid-(Vincent-D-Onofrio)), about Pratt, which is why I posted the same thing here.

[Dukefrukem]

Oh whoops. I just saw the trailer hit my feed.

[Ivan Drago]

The Ninth Gate is crap on a stick.

On that note, The Fifth Element is overrated.

[PURPLE]

On that note, The Fifth Element is overrated.How do we determine how rated something is, though?

Like, I checked the TSPDT list and it's well below Citizen Kane. Yet, as we all know, there are exactly 0 points in Citizen Kane where someone says, "Leeloo Dallas Multipass", which I feel is a real liability - and yet somehow people are able to look past that and rank it highly. Strangely, in a film like The Fifth Element which contains that classic line, it does not garner near the same level of respect. Perhaps it is - accurately rated?

[Dukefrukem]

She knows it's a multipass!

[Spinal]

The Ninth Gate is crap on a stick.

This is my opinion as well. Not only do I not like it, it's hard for me to grasp how anyone could.

[baby doll]

Even when he's working with subpar material (as is the case in The Ninth Gate), Polanski brings a level of craftsmanship and style to his films that is exceedingly rare in contemporary cinema.

[megladon8]

He's a comedic actor. That's like saying Will Ferrell has no range. Water is wet.

No it’s not at all.

Plenty of comedic actors have incredible range.

[Dukefrukem]

No it’s not at all.

Plenty of comedic actors have incredible range.

Name someone outside of Steve Carell.

[baby doll]

Name someone outside of Steve Carell.Elaine May.

[megladon8]

Name someone outside of Steve Carell.

Jim Carrey, Robin Williams, Cary Grant, Bill Murray, Emma Thompson, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Peter Sellers, Ben Stiller, Christopher Guest (all the Spinal Tap guys, really), Takeshi Kitano, Cloris Leachman, Albert Brooks, Gene Wilder, Lily Tomlin, Jamie Foxx (I’m not a fan but was critically acclaimed)...

Should I keep going?

[baby doll]

Takeshi Kitano???

https://i2.wp.com/vaguevisages.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/sonatine-movie-eight-1024x571.jpg?resize=890%2C496&ssl=1

https://assets.mubi.com/images/film/927/image-w1280.jpg?1546308045

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kEwYqXH828A/T-dRma0Y6vI/AAAAAAAAAKE/M_KH_iBcNzU/s1600/Kikujiro+-+Takeshi+Kitano+-+Beat+Takeshi+-+Yusuke+Sekiguchi.jpg

[megladon8]

In Japan Takeshi Kitano was known as a slap stick funny man and a gameshow host long before he ever started doing crime films.

The way we know him in America is not how he’s known elsewhere.

It would be like if Drew Carey reinvented himself as the star of Scorsese gangster flicks.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, it's weird to say it because half his face is paralyzed but he's a versatile actor.

[Dukefrukem]

Jim Carrey, Robin Williams, Cary Grant, Bill Murray, Emma Thompson, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Peter Sellers, Ben Stiller, Christopher Guest (all the Spinal Tap guys, really), Takeshi Kitano, Cloris Leachman, Albert Brooks, Gene Wilder, Lily Tomlin, Jamie Foxx (I’m not a fan but was critically acclaimed)...

Should I keep going?

I dont think any of these are good examples really. So yes keep going.

[megladon8]

I dont think any of these are good examples really. So yes keep going.

Haha. Sorry, no, not gonna bother.

When you just counter with “I don’t agree” there’s no point.

[Dukefrukem]

Haha. Sorry, no, not gonna bother.

When you just counter with “I don’t agree” there’s no point.

Well I can dissect each one if you'd like? The "range" of the actors you listed are so limited here....

Ace Ventura is Colonel Stars is Andy Kaufman. He did 1 film that's an outlier, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and there's no way I'd give credit to him for a one and done.

[megladon8]

No they’re not. You chose one and wrote it off with one example.

Lily Tomlin is limited? Cary Grant? Peter Sellers? Emma Thompson?

No.

[Dukefrukem]

I asked if you wanted me to go through them all. I just took the first. Odd you started your list with him .

[baby doll]

In Japan Takeshi Kitano was known as a slap stick funny man and a gameshow host long before he ever started doing crime films.

The way we know him in America is not how he’s known elsewhere.

It would be like if Drew Carey reinvented himself as the star of Scorsese gangster flicks.I'm not convinced that appearing in different kinds of films necessarily makes one a versatile actor. Gohatto and Kikujiro are wildly different kinds of films in terms of period, genre, and tone, but Kitano gives essentially the same kind of deadpan performance in both.

[megladon8]

His performances in Violent Cop and Sonatine were fantastic.

[baby doll]

His performances in Violent Cop and Sonatine were fantastic.I didn't say they weren't.

[Grouchy]

Another question would be what differentiates a comedic performer from a performer, period. Jim Carrey is a comedian in the same way Peter Sellers was one but they don't play the same game as Jerry Seinfeld, Don Rickles or Paul Reubens.

Anyway, Jim Carrey does have a lot of range, Duke. You can't tell me Andy Kaufman, The Mask or the crazy dude from that goddamn 23 movie are the same performance.

[Dukefrukem]

That 23 movie was terrible so it doesn't matter what he was trying to do there... he failed.

[megladon8]

Ace Ventura, Man on the Moon, The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are all wildly different performances and show great range.

[Skitch]

He shows quite a bit of range in Truman Show. Even if most of it is funny, theres some incredible heart in there.

[transmogrifier]

Watching Nicolas Cage chew scenery is actually kinda boring and I'm sick of all the meme-y love he gets from the Letterboxd crowd for shouting at stuff and being pretty much a hack nowadays.

[Philip J. Fry]

Ace Ventura, Man on the Moon, The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are all wildly different performances and show great range.He's also really good in Kidding.

[transmogrifier]

I really like Ray Romano as an actor.

[Neclord]

I also really like Ray Romano

[Ezee E]

Guys, the popular opinion is clearly "Everyone Loves Raymond."

hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahah ahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha hahhahahahahahahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah ahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhah ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahah ahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha hahhahahahahahahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah ahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhah ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah

[Ezee E]

I am not fond of Ray Romano.

[Spinal]

He should have won an Oscar for The Big Sick.

[Neclord]

Debraaaa

[baby doll]

Speaking of The Big Sick, how does Holly Hunter look like that at sixty? Is she a wizard?

[Irish]

I go back and forth on Ray Romano.

He was excellent "Men of a Certain Age" but in other roles ... ugh. There's something about his comic persona that grates.

[Skitch]

Debraaaa
Noooooo

[Skitch]

Speaking of The Big Sick, how does Holly Hunter look like that at sixty? Is she a wizard?

They're called vampires yo

[Grouchy]

There's something about his comic persona that grates.
Exactly, there has always been something grating about his presence.

I liked a recent interview where he revealed that Scorsese cast him in his latest because he saw him in some film and had never even heard of Everybody Loves Raymond.

[Morris Schæffer]

Not sure if this is popular or unpopular opinion, but Notting Hill, which I saw again yesterday, is really wonderful.

[StanleyK]

The Artist is a great movie and one of the better Oscar winners of the past two decades.

[Dukefrukem]

The Artist is a great movie and one of the better Oscar winners of the past two decades.

Context

http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?7378-Film-Awards-Talk-2019/page7&p=601052&viewfull=1#post601052

[baby doll]

The Artist is a great movie and one of the better Oscar winners of the past two decades.Go on.

[PURPLE]

It's much easier to be a better Oscar winner than it is to be a great film. I mean, you're competing against Green Book.

[megladon8]

I was unaware of the backlash against Green Book until the Oscars.

[Spinal]

Is backlash the right word? I mean, it opened to mixed reviews and weak box office.

[megladon8]

Yeah just didn’t know what else to call it.

It wasn’t a movie I ever looked deeply into. From the peripherals I thought it was supposed to be good, and the BP non wasn’t a surprise.

[Spinal]

Not sure how unpopular this opinion is, but Tina Fey's sense of humor seems to have now been entirely consumed by her sense of smugness. Amy Poehler is still funny every once in a while. Maya Rudolph is moderately funny.

[Ezee E]

Not sure how unpopular this opinion is, but Tina Fey's sense of humor seems to have now been entirely consumed by her sense of smugness. Amy Poehler is still funny every once in a while. Maya Rudolph is moderately funny.

Maya's Lady gaga voice sounded very close to Gaga.

[Morris Schæffer]

The Artist is a great movie and one of the better Oscar winners of the past two decades.

I love it, and agreed with its Oscar win.

[MadMan]

Yeah I also loved The Artist. My #1 of that year (Drive) wasn't even nominated.

[Irish]

I think somebody mentioned The Narrow Margin (1952) earlier in the thread.

It's playing today at 2pm ET on TCM if ya wanna catch it.

(Also, pretty sure they remade this in the 80s with Gene Hackman in one of the roles??)

[Morris Schæffer]

I think somebody mentioned The Narrow Margin (1952) earlier in the thread.

It's playing today at 2pm ET on TCM if ya wanna catch it.

(Also, pretty sure they remade this in the 80s with Gene Hackman in one of the roles??)

Yeah, Narrow Margin, I saw that. M. Emmet Walsh too. And JT Walsh in a brief role as the unfortunate friend of Anne Archer. Some good stuntwork towards the end.

[Yxklyx]

I think somebody mentioned The Narrow Margin (1952) earlier in the thread.

It's playing today at 2pm ET on TCM if ya wanna catch it.

(Also, pretty sure they remade this in the 80s with Gene Hackman in one of the roles??)

There's a frame in the original (during a fight) in which two of the main actors look like Harvey Keitel and Mads Mikkelsen. Sorry I didn't take a screenshot when I had a chance. I always thought David Clarke (1908-2004) looked a bit like Keitel or maybe I'm thinking of another famous actor.

[Skitch]

Any movie released in any form or format should be eligible for Oscar awards in that calendar year.

[Irish]

The Narrow Margin was a recent rewatch.

Gotta thank you for mentioning this one. I wouldn't have watched it otherwise and it's a helluva good movie!

[Milky Joe]

Videogames are more interesting than movies now

[Skitch]

Videogames are more interesting than movies now

I don't know if I agree or not, but you go boy!

[Philip J. Fry]

Any movie released in any form or format should be eligible for Oscar awards in that calendar year.This shouldn't be an unpopular opinion.

[baby doll]

Any movie released in any form or format should be eligible for Oscar awards in that calendar year.One of the main purposes of the Oscars is to promote movies so that more people pay to see them in theatres. I don't see what the point is of handing an Oscar to a Netflix original when the company makes its money from subscriptions unless they're going to give the film a theatrical release as well.

[Irish]

Videogames are more interesting than movies now

Sometimes I think this is true but I also find that I need to constantly shift my perspective to make it true --- "videogames" aren't a monolith that "movies" are.

(Certainly, triple-A games from major publishers---the ones pumped out like clockwork, like EA sports games or the annual COD---aren't categorically more interesting than other media.)

[baby doll]

Italian Baroque music and 19th century English literature are more interesting than movies now.

[Irish]

One of the main purposes of the Oscars is to promote movies so that more people pay to see them in theatres.

Therein lies the conflict --- promotion as an art or as a business?

(The theatrical angle seems vestigial, a remnant and limitation of a century old technology. Who cares where people pay as long as as they pay?)

[Skitch]

This shouldn't be an unpopular opinion.
Here we go

One of the main purposes of the Oscars is to promote movies so that more people pay to see them in theatres. I don't see what the point is of handing an Oscar to a Netflix original when the company makes its money from subscriptions unless they're going to give the film a theatrical release as well.
Because the highest filmmaking award for the best movie should go to the best movie. Not the best movie that makes money for the one particular system of money making. The current Oscars are the highest form of artistic blasphemy and hypocrisy. Most current evidence is their most recent attempt at a popular picture or whatever nonsense social media killed before it began.

[baby doll]

Therein lies the conflict --- promotion as an art or as a business?I think we should put quotations marks around "art" in this conversation, since the real purpose of honouring "important" middlebrow projects like Green Book is to make the industry look respectable (i.e., less crass and money- and ego-driven than it actually is). Sometimes it works out that the movie that wins the Oscar is actually a great film (The Deer Hunter, Amadeus, The Last Emperor), but that's incidental.

[Irish]

Because the highest filmmaking award for the best movie should go to the best movie. Not the best movie that makes money for the one particular system of money making. The current Oscars are the highest form of artistic blasphemy and hypocrisy. Most current evidence is their most recent attempt at a popular picture or whatever nonsense social media killed before it began.

OTOH, by championing Netflix or Amazon, you're also championing vendor lock-in and platform exclusives (similar to videogames), which are anti-consumer, anti-democratic*, and should be an anathema to anyone who loves the art form.

* one of the things I've always loved about the movies is their democracy --- you buy one ticket and it's as good as any other. Seating was first come, first serve. Showtimes were set and available to anyone. There's no class system there and no exclusivity. Recent trends, which include streaming, violate that history.

[Philip J. Fry]

I like Big Mouth, but I don't see how people consider it in the top echelon of current animated shows. I mean, when it's funny, it's funny, but a lot of the time it feels more mean-spirited and crass than funny or clever.

[Irish]

I think we should put quotations marks around "art" in this conversation, since the real purpose of honouring "important" middlebrow projects like Green Book is to make the industry look respectable (i.e., less crass and money- and ego-driven than it actually is). Sometimes it works out that the movie that wins the Oscar is actually a great film (The Deer Hunter, Amadeus, The Last Emperor), but that's incidental.

It seems to me (and I could be misreading) that Skitch is talking theory: The Oscar should go to the best picture of the year, regardless of where it premiered. He wants there to be an irrefutable statement of purpose behind what the Oscar should mean.

I agree with your post, but your post addresses practice: What would happen and has happened given the realities of the industry.

[baby doll]

Because the highest filmmaking award for the best movie should go to the best movie. Not the best movie that makes money for the one particular system of money making. The current Oscars are the highest form of artistic blasphemy and hypocrisy. Most current evidence is their most recent attempt at a popular picture or whatever nonsense social media killed before it began.The idea that the Oscar should go to the best movie presumes there's a full-proof, universally recognized method for determining not only whether a film is good but better than every other film released that year.

[Skitch]

* one of the things I've always loved about the movies is their democracy --- you buy one ticket and it's as good as any other. Seating was first come, first serve. Showtimes were set and available to anyone. There's no class system there and no exclusivity. Recent trends, which include streaming, violate that history.

...except that the first month is free, so anyone with a throwaway email address could watch anything without even having to buy a ticket.

[Skitch]

It seems to me (and I could be misreading) that Skitch is talking theory: The Oscar should go to the best picture of the year, regardless of where it premiered.

YES. I want the award to be based in art not business.


The idea that the Oscar should go to the best movie presumes there's a full-proof, universally recognized method for determining not only whether a film is good but better than every other film released that year.

WRONG. You're changing the conversation. I'm saying we should pick films based on art, and you're arguing we should pick films that surpassed a certain business/dollar gateway.

[baby doll]

YES. I want the award to be based in art not business.

WRONG. You're changing the conversation. I'm saying we should pick films based on art, and you're arguing we should pick films that surpassed a certain business/dollar gateway.I'm arguing (1) that picking films "based on art" is not what the Oscars do and we shouldn't expect them to, and (2) picking films on the basis of their artistic merit (as opposed to popularity) is impossible anyway. To take as an example one of the better Oscar winners, was Amadeus more or less deserving than Love Streams or The Terminator? And how would you decide?

[Irish]

...except that the first month is free, so anyone with a throwaway email address could watch anything without even having to buy a ticket.

Except "free" isn't free.

Think about the personal infrastructure you need to maintain for a simple email account and a "free" trial --- a computer, broadband, a credit card. That isn't so easily available to everyone, everywhere.

People think Netflix and Amazon are cheap and at face value, they are. But they never think about the $600-$1200+ they're spending every year on broadband just to be able to access those platforms (and in addition to the $100+ annual subscription price!).

The "free" offer compounds privacy issues (needing to give up personal information just to watch a movie) and the stickier questions around exclusives and lock-in.

Meanwhile, a theatrical ticket is a one-shot price, an average of 10 bucks in the U.S., paid with cash, and no strings attached.

[Skitch]

Except "free" isn't free.

Think about the personal infrastructure you need to maintain for a simple email account and a "free" trial --- a computer, broadband, a credit card. That isn't so easily available to everyone, everywhere.


It is to anyone who can a obtain a library card.

[Skitch]

I'm arguing (1) that picking films "based on art" is not what the Oscars do
I know

and we shouldn't expect them to
Yes we should


and (2) picking films on the basis of their artistic merit (as opposed to popularity) is impossible anyway.

No its not. And you put up films as examples, but youre missing the point I'm making. Other films arent even considered options. I'm not saying "the wrong film won", I'm saying "its not fair some films are even considered".

[Irish]

It is to anyone who can a obtain a library card.

True. But library cards require a permanent address --- and in the way you're thinking about them, are specific to Western democracies.

ETA: But we're getting away from my point --- which was that movies were originally popular because they were accessible. A railyard hobo and the Queen of England could purchase a ticket for the same show at the same price and access the same experience.

There's something magical and good about that. I don't think any other 20th century art form made quite the same offer, except maybe comic books.

[Skitch]

True. But library cards require a permanent address --- and in the way you're thinking about them, specific to Western democracies.

So the award for best film of any given year should be restricted to a film that makes itself available to people who are financially able to either purchase a ticket or live in a market where internet is provided through socialistic means that the populous can access it.

But movies that have not been made available through such means should not be permitted to win such awards.

[baby doll]

No its not. And you put up films as examples, but youre missing the point I'm making. Other films arent even considered options. I'm not saying "the wrong film won", I'm saying "its not fair some films are even considered".Would you also be in favour of considering films released anywhere? Is it unfair to Nollywood (one of the world's largest film industries) that none of their films have been considered for Oscars?

[Irish]

So the award for best film of any given year should be restricted to a film that makes itself available to people who are financially able to either purchase a ticket or live in a market where internet is provided through socialistic means that the populous can access it.

But movies that have not been made available through such means should not be permitted to win such awards.

I'm saying that "free" isn't free and "any film, anywhere" comes with heavy strings. Those strings change movies for the worse, far and away from their original appeal.

Personally, I can't resolve the contradiction of "art for arts sake" when it means backing companies like Amazon and Netflix, who so obviously don't give a shit about film-as-art. (The people they hire to create "content" might, but they definitely don't.)

[Skitch]

Would you also be in favour of considering films released anywhere?
Absolutely. Don't take me wrong, I'm just saying if we're to be believing in art and that Oscars is about art, than it should be wide open to the field.


I'm saying that "free" isn't free and "any film, anywhere" comes with heavy strings. Those strings change movies for the worse, far and away from their original appeal.

Personally, I can't resolve the contradiction of "art for arts sake" when it means backing companies like Amazon and Netflix, who so obviously don't give a shit about film-as-art. (The people they hire to create "content" might, but they definitely don't.)

I don't necessarily disagree, but by disagreeing with me you're also backing the company studio business machine that is Hollywood, no? I'm bombed drunk btw so take everything with a grain. Sorry folks. You should all be applauding me for properly utilizing spellcheck at this point. :D

I'm not backing any company. I'm just saying all films should be considered.

[baby doll]

Absolutely. Don't take me wrong, I'm just saying if we're to be believing in art and that Oscars is about art, than it should be wide open to the field.I think there are practical limitations to how many films can genuinely be considered (i.e., seen and evaluated by a significant number of Academy voters), so even if the race were completely wide open, it still wouldn't be a level playing field: experimental films that only play at festivals, video installations, YouTube videos, and porn films likely wouldn't have the visibility or financial backing to put together a successful Oscar campaign if they were suddenly eligible.

[Irish]

I don't necessarily disagree, but by disagreeing with me you're also backing the company studio business machine that is Hollywood, no?

Well, the devil you know and all. :D

This has nothing to do with the Oscars, but as an example: I saw "The Third Man" for the first time on an $8 VHS I bought at Sam Goody. The print was terrible and I knew it would be, but I didn't care because the film starred Orson Welles. I was interested in Welles because earlier that month PBS broadcast "Citizen Kane" on some random night.

That minor bit of serendipity does not and could not happen with Netflix and Amazon "originals," which are forever locked to their respective platforms.

I don't think anyone -- certainly not the critics or the prognosticators --- have really thought through how vendor lock-in will both limit the audience and limit the medium a decade from now, or two.

So for now, yeah, I'll side with the traditionalists more than the streamers.

[Irish]

To put it another way: Amazon and Netflix are the EA and Activision of the movie business, and nothing good can come from what they're pushing.

Or another way: This year's winner of Best Cinematography will now only be seen on television sets and each viewer's experience will be a different, depending on the quality of their TV and the broadband package they can afford. You won't be able to own a copy of it, and it'll never be programmed at retro festival or rep house.

I think that sucks.

[Dukefrukem]

To put it another way: Amazon and Netflix are the EA and Activision of the movie business, and nothing good can come from what they're pushing.

Wow. Totally disagree here. Amazon and Netflix are disrupting the film industry. This is like, innovation 101. If you want to stay relevant, the established players need to adapt. And they are refusing to do that... probably because unions. That's not Netflix or Amazon's problem.

EA and Activision innovate zip.

[Skitch]

Now is when I drop the hammer that this was all a ploy to get you all to agree with me that the Oscars should be delayed 5-10 years so we all have time to evaluate all the films.

[Irish]

Wow. Totally disagree here. Amazon and Netflix are disrupting the film industry. This is like, innovation 101.

This kind of disruption and innovation is wildly overrated---especially, as is usual with Silly Valley, "distruption" means "let's destroy this completely and replace it with something much worse."

Besides, what exactly are Netflix and Amazon innovating aside from content delivery and inventory control? It sure isn't anything around "art," which is Skitch's primary concern.

[Skitch]

I think there are practical limitations to how many films can genuinely be considered (i.e., seen and evaluated by a significant number of Academy voters), so even if the race were completely wide open, it still wouldn't be a level playing field: experimental films that only play at festivals, video installations, YouTube videos, and porn films likely wouldn't have the visibility or financial backing to put together a successful Oscar campaign if they were suddenly eligible.

So only movies with enough financial backing should be considered award worthy.

[Skitch]

Besides, what exactly are Netflix and Amazon innovating aside from content delivery and inventory control? It sure isn't anything around "art," which is Skitch's primary concern.
I love where this going. You're damn right, stay on target!

[transmogrifier]

Now is when I drop the hammer that this was all a ploy to get you all to agree with me that the Oscars should be delayed 5-10 years so we all have time to evaluate all the films.

My opinion on the Oscars is that all they are, and all they ever were, is a bunch of films that a small group of people got together and said "We like these" and it has no other meaning other than that. All this talk of qualifying criteria and improving and art vs. business misses the point that, as an assessment system, the Oscars are not valid, reliable, or representative, and trying to make them so is a waste of time.

In other words, allow streaming films or don't allow streaming films, it doesn't matter because it is still a bunch of people either playing politics, or voting for their friends, or seeing half the options..... and even if you cleaned all that up, it's still just a boring consensus of a small bunch of people. Like...so what, at the end of the day?

[transmogrifier]

This kind of disruption and innovation is wildly overrated---especially, as is usual with Silly Valley, "distruption" means "let's destroy this completely and replace it with something much worse."

Besides, what exactly are Netflix and Amazon innovating aside from content delivery and inventory control? It sure isn't anything around "art," which is Skitch's primary concern.

They managed to innovatively convince Bong Joon-ho, Adam Wingard, David Ayer, Jeremy Saulnier, Paul Greengrass and Dan Gilroy to make their worst films yet, so there is that.

[Dukefrukem]

This kind of disruption and innovation is wildly overrated---especially, as is usual with Silly Valley, "distruption" means "let's destroy this completely and replace it with something much worse."

Besides, what exactly are Netflix and Amazon innovating aside from content delivery and inventory control? It sure isn't anything around "art," which is Skitch's primary concern.

Content delivery is a pretty huge innovation that apparently no one ever thought to do before them.

And I dont remember people complaining when Apple came out with the iPhone and put Blackberry out of business.

Now we have 37 iPhone clones out there today.

[Irish]

it's still just a boring consensus of a small bunch of people. Like...so what, at the end of the day?

You started a thread last month called "Best of 2010-2019."

;)

[transmogrifier]

Oh yeah, I got in trouble in another thread for saying this, so I'll put it here:

Queen sucks.

[Dukefrukem]

You started a thread last month called "Best of 2010-2019."

;)

Hey, we're not boring!

[transmogrifier]

You started a thread last month called "Best of 2010-2019."

;)

Well, yes, but we don't have a cottage industry of bloggers writing hand-wringing opinion pieces about our selection criteria. (At least I don't think so.) It's our boring consensus, and that's all that matters.

EDIT: And the Oscars are their boring consensus that other people should just chill out on, is what I'm saying.

[Irish]

They managed to innovatively convince Bong Joon-ho, Adam Wingard, David Ayer, Jeremy Saulnier, Paul Greengrass and Dan Gilroy to make their worst films yet, so there is that.

Yeah. God. Seeing that list all together like that bums me out.

OTOH, filmmakers always hustle for money so I can't blame them for beelining to a company throwing around sacks of it.

[Irish]

Content delivery is a pretty huge innovation that apparently no one ever thought to do before them.

Sure. All respect to them (really, it's Amazon). But what does that have to do with "art"?


And I dont remember people complaining when Apple came out with the iPhone and put Blackberry out of business.

One company losing market share wasn't to the detriment to the entire mobile phone industry, or its long term potential.

Monolithic platforms turn everything into a commodity. That's good for investors looking for a buck and consumers only interested in consumption. It's bad for everybody else, especially in the realm of history and art.


Now we have 37 iPhone clones out there today.

Is this what we want from the movies? 37 clones of "Bright" or "Mrs Maisel"?

[Dukefrukem]

Is this what we want from the movies? 37 clones of "Bright" or "Mrs Maisel"?

I dont think the platform is to blame of the result. I feel like we are still early with this technology and even though tran's gives good examples of inferior products as of late, I think it will ultimately be an area of artistic freedom. The quality will come.

[baby doll]

So only movies with enough financial backing should be considered award worthy.That's typically what happens with the MC Awards: The films that a lot of people have seen ("First Reformed", Paddington 2, Roma) get more votes than the ones only I've seen (Cocote, Life and Nothing More, Western).

[Ezee E]

Not a fan of marshmallows.

[Skitch]

That's typically what happens with the MC Awards: The films that a lot of people have seen ("First Reformed", Paddington 2, Roma) get more votes than the ones only I've seen (Cocote, Life and Nothing More, Western).

I understand the movies with bigger marketing budgets and releases get more attention. Its literally the point I'm making. All films should be considered. If an indy film with no budget is awesome, it gets rampant word-of-mouth and finds light.

[baby doll]

I understand the movies with bigger marketing budgets and releases get more attention. Its literally the point I'm making. All films should be considered. If an indy film with no budget is awesome, it gets rampant word-of-mouth and finds light.Realistically, of the hundreds of indie films produced in the US each year (to say nothing of the total film production of the rest of the planet), only about half a dozen become modest art house hits. There are lots of awesome, no budget films that don't get rampant word-of-mouth and find light simply because the stars don't align in their favour.

[Skitch]

There are lots of awesome, no budget films that don't get rampant word-of-mouth and find light simply because the stars don't align in their favour.

...which is why the Oscars should be delayed 5-10 years.

[MadMan]

Oh yeah, I got in trouble in another thread for saying this, so I'll put it here:

Queen sucks.Sorry can't agree with you there. I counter with Bon Jovi sucks, but I don't think that is a controversial opinion.

[MadMan]

Not a fan of marshmallows.

You have to roast em just right. I think pickles are gross.

[Skitch]

Pickles are gross. Blue cheese is worse.

[MadMan]

The problem is that film fans put more thought into the Oscars then the Academy does. Also thanks to streaming and services like RedBox I am able to watch movies that never come to my area. Video stores are mostly dead and the library only has so much.

[Ezee E]

You have to roast em just right. I think pickles are gross.

I still don't really like them, at least on their own.

For whatever reason, within the 'Smore.... I like. But only then. On any dessert, cerael, etc... Hate it.

[Philip J. Fry]

Papaya is the worst fruit of them all. It tastes like vomit and regret.

[megladon8]

Not a fan of marshmallows.

Same.

So many of the candies we sell are marshmallow based and hey turn my stomach.

[baby doll]

...which is why the Oscars should be delayed 5-10 years.And during that delay, no new films get produced so everyone has enough time to catch up on all the films eligible for Oscars. Or perhaps a randomly chosen core group of Academy voters gets assigned a particular year and then spends five to ten years on a secluded island to review all the eligible films and make a considered decision.

[amberlita]

Papaya is the worst fruit of them all. It tastes like vomit and regret.

Spoken like someone who has never had durian. :)

[Scar]

Spoken like someone who has never had durian. :)

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

[Philip J. Fry]

Spoken like someone who has never had durian. :)Does that taste like excrement and regret?

[Skitch]

It depends if youre hungry like a wolf.

I thank you

[amberlita]

Does that taste like excrement and regret?

It tastes like someone took a sock off a marathon runner, wiped their ass with it, and then marinated the sock in a garbage bag full of egg shells for 14 days.

But with a hint of sweet.

[Philip J. Fry]

It tastes like someone took a sock off a marathon runner, wiped their ass with it, and then marinated the sock in a garbage bag full of egg shells for 14 days.

But with a hint of sweet.Sweet cheese and crackers.

[Philip J. Fry]

Logan and Batman: Under the Red Hood are the only great superhero movies that have come out since The Dark Knight (I still haven't seen Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, I hope that's number 3).Yup, Spider-Verse is no. 3.

[megladon8]

Just watched it last night, and the 2014 Robocop is actually pretty good.

[Dukefrukem]

Just watched it last night, and the 2014 Robocop is actually pretty good.

Yup (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5330-RoboCop-(Jos%E9-Padilha)&p=516142&viewfull=1#post516142)

[Skitch]

The American is a fucking great film and how Anton Corbijn doesn't have a dozen more films made is disappointing.

[Ivan Drago]

The American is a fucking great film and how Anton Corbijn doesn't have a dozen more films made is disappointing.

Um, YES. SO MUCH YES.

[transmogrifier]

They managed to innovatively convince Bong Joon-ho, Adam Wingard, David Ayer, Jeremy Saulnier, Paul Greengrass and Dan Gilroy to make their worst films yet, so there is that.

And now J.C. Chandor has made his worst reviewed film with them as well in Triple Frontier. The curse is real!

[megladon8]

Tarkovsky can frame a nice image, but not much else.

[baby doll]

Tarkovsky can frame a nice image, but not much else.He can also sustain them over several minutes.

[baby doll]

The American is a fucking great film and how Anton Corbijn doesn't have a dozen more films made is disappointing.Personally I'd rather watch a real Jean-Pierre Melville film.

[megladon8]

He can also sustain them over several minutes.

I can do the same thing with a screenshot.

Overrated filmmaker is overrated.

[baby doll]

I can do the same thing with a screenshot.

Overrated filmmaker is overrated.That's not what I meant by sustaining a shot in duration, since the idea is that it isn't simply a static image but that something is happening in the frame.

Tautologies are tautological.

[megladon8]

That's not what I meant by sustaining a shot in duration, since the idea is that it isn't simply a static image but that something is happening in the frame.

Tautologies are tautological.

I understood what you meant, I just think he’s a boring filmmaker.

Plenty of other directors are able to sustain incredible images for several minutes while also keeping me engaged, instead of making me check my watch.

[baby doll]

I understood what you meant, I just think he’s a boring filmmaker.

Plenty of other directors are able to sustain incredible images for several minutes while also keeping me engaged, instead of making me check my watch.Simply saying a film bores you doesn't necessarily mean it's unsuccessful; it could be that you need to adjust your expectations or that it's simply not for you. Can you point to any specific failing in Tarkovsky's films that you think makes his work less successful than other directors working in a similar mode (e.g., Antonioni, Angelopoulos, Kiarostami, Hou)?

[Skitch]

Personally I'd rather watch a real Jean-Pierre Melville film.

Can you explain your reasoning for putting the word "real" in that post? I've been pondering it and I cant quite understand.

[Morris Schæffer]

Can you explain your reasoning for putting the word "real" in that post? I've been pondering it and I cant quite understand.

Simple though no? He's saying The American is a pale copy of the real thing, the real thing in this case being, oh, Le Samourai perhaps.

Not that I agree or anything.

[baby doll]

Simple though no? He's saying The American is a pale copy of the real thing, the real thing in this case being, oh, Le Samourai perhaps.That's what I meant.

[Grouchy]

The American is a fucking great film and how Anton Corbijn doesn't have a dozen more films made is disappointing.
I agree, so much.

[MadMan]

Personally I'd rather watch a real Jean-Pierre Melville film.

He's dead. Also boring movies do exist. Swimming Pool comes to mind.

[baby doll]

He's dead. Also boring movies do exist. Swimming Pool comes to mind.I didn't say they didn't (although I do like Swimming Pool).

[MadMan]

I wanted to like Swimming Pool. Oh well.

[Philip J. Fry]

Jet and Let Me Roll It are the best things Paul McCartney has done post-Beatles.

[Milky Joe]

Jet and Let Me Roll It are the best things Paul McCartney has done post-Beatles.

Indubitable sir!

[Skitch]

Meet Joe Black and Anti-Trust are decent flicks, and Claire Forlani is a treasure that Hollywood wasted.

[MadMan]

Meet Joe Black and Anti-Trust are decent flicks, and Claire Forlani is a treasure that Hollywood wasted.

I like Claire Forlani.

Also I hate to go back to an old topic but after seeing it again this month I really like A View To A Kill now instead of disliking it as I did before. It is a solid, goofy fun send off for Roger Moore.

[megladon8]

Tanya Roberts is a babe.