28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Irish]

The claim that certain Hollywood directors (Cameron, Eastwood, Nolan, Scorsese, Tarantino, et al.) have a "blank check" to do whatever they want always strikes me as overstated and ignores the very real aesthetic, ideological, and commercial constraints these filmmakers tacitly accept.

It's the end result of publicists using auteur theory and box office as a marketing strategy and film fans adopting that language to sound more legitimate. This happens even when it doesn't make sense. There's no reason why anyone should know Brett Ratner's name, for instance, or what the "#1 film in America" is in any given month.

PS: While it's true that everyone works within certain constraints, the guys you named have a lot more wiggle room to experiment and fuck up. (I mean, "Letters from Iwo Jima," "Death Proof" and "Silence" would have paused most people's careers, if not ended them outright.)

And yet Scorsese went over budget at least once during the making of "The Irishman." Tarantino negotiated final cut with Sony on "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood." Eastwood's most profitable movie is the 40 years old and one where he appear opposite an orangutan. Exploitable IP and franchise filmmaking made Nolan and Cameron; either one would be given carte blanche on another "Batman," "Terminator," or "Alien."

[baby doll]

It's the end result of publicists using auteur theory and box office as a marketing strategy and film fans adopting that language to sound more legitimate. This happens even when it doesn't make sense. There's no reason why anyone should know Brett Ratner's name, for instance, or what the "#1 film in America" is in any given month.

PS: While it's true that everyone works within certain constraints, the guys you named have a lot more wiggle room to experiment and fuck up. (I mean, "Letters from Iwo Jima," "Death Proof" and "Silence" would have paused most people's careers, if not ended them outright.)

And yet Scorsese went over budget at least once during the making of "The Irishman." Tarantino negotiated final cut with Sony on "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood." Eastwood's most profitable movie is the 40 years old and one where he appear opposite an orangutan. Exploitable IP and franchise filmmaking made Nolan and Cameron; either one would be given carte blanche on another "Batman," "Terminator," or "Alien."

One minor point: Letters from Iwo Jima was nominated for best picture, so even if the film didn't make a ton of cash, the industry recognized it as meeting their criteria of a good film. Similarly, with regards to The Irishman, the film's recognition within the industry as evidenced by its Oscar nominations--that is, the cultural capital it generated--no doubt compensated for Scorsese going over-budget, which is not the worst thing a director can do since extravagant production values are a form of product differentiation.

Second minor point: Although Shinoda Masahiro's Silence (which is based on the same novel as Scorsese's film) isn't generally considered one of his best films, it neither paused nor ended his career.

[Morris Schæffer]

I rather like James Cameron's work in a narrow Hollywood sense. He has a lot of style and flash but not too much substance. I would label him as what Michael Bay should aspire to be yet fails to achieve due to being lazy and a propaganda machine for the US military.

Welcome new guy!

The director of The Terminator? Frequently referred to as one of the best sci-fi movies ever, its antagonist one of the best bad guys ever? The director of T2? Frequently referred to as one of the best sequels ever, as well as an absolute technical milestone? These movies transcend so dramatically anything that Bay has ever done that the comparison, in whatever form to the Bad Boys director, is a strange one.

Would you argue that Alien is style, flash but little substance? I'll wager that you wouldn't. So is Aliens a more apt example then of style, flash but little substance? One of the best sequels ever, expanding Scott's universe in valid and intriguing ways. True, these movies exist primarily to thrill and frighten, but we're absolutely nowhere near a "leave your brain at the door" sort of thing. Their substance is the brilliance in how they're directed, in their premises and how the feelings they elicit from the audience go far beyond "solid, mindless timewaster."

Even Titanic is a huge labour of love for the director. He wasn't interested in the story of Jack and Rose, but in the ship herself and there is great substance in how majestically she's been framed and how accurate Cameron's depiction of her sinking is.

I think Cameron's a great storyteller by the way, but I agree that True Lies and Avatar are his weakest efforts.

[Morris Schæffer]

My skin absolutely crawls every single time that helicopter flies under the overpass.

That's this guy doing the flying, Chuck Tamburro.

[DFA1979]

Welcome new guy!

The director of The Terminator? Frequently referred to as one of the best sci-fi movies ever, its antagonist one of the best bad guys ever? The director of T2? Frequently referred to as one of the best sequels ever, as well as an absolute technical milestone? These movies transcend so dramatically anything that Bay has ever done that the comparison, in whatever form to the Bad Boys director, is a strange one.

Would you argue that Alien is style, flash but little substance? I'll wager that you wouldn't. So is Aliens a more apt example then of style, flash but little substance? One of the best sequels ever, expanding Scott's universe in valid and intriguing ways. True, these movies exist primarily to thrill and frighten, but we're absolutely nowhere near a "leave your brain at the door" sort of thing. Their substance is the brilliance in how they're directed, in their premises and how the feelings they elicit from the audience go far beyond "solid, mindless timewaster."

Even Titanic is a huge labour of love for the director. He wasn't interested in the story of Jack and Rose, but in the ship herself and there is great substance in how majestically she's been framed and how accurate Cameron's depiction of her sinking is.

I think Cameron's a great storyteller by the way, but I agree that True Lies and Avatar are his weakest efforts.

I don't think any action movie is that intelligent, even including John Woo's best efforts. Like I said I am a James Cameron fan and I do appreciate him being more liberal than many filmmakers in the action genre. Aliens was a great flick but it was not really anything beyond surface level that better war films covered.

[Dukefrukem]

I don't think any action movie is that intelligent, even including John Woo's best efforts. Like I said I am a James Cameron fan and I do appreciate him being more liberal than many filmmakers in the action genre. Aliens was a great flick but it was not really anything beyond surface level that better war films covered.

[DFA1979]

I consider Inception to be mostly sci-fi. I like Nolan a lot too but I thought Interstellar was far more interesting than Inception.

[Skutch]

true lies is cool. arnold is cool. curtis is beautiful. wtf is wrong with some of you people.

but t1 > t2. that's obvious.

[StuSmallz]

I don't think any action movie is that intelligent, even including John Woo's best efforts.

What about this one?:

[Skitch]

true lies is cool. arnold is cool. curtis is beautiful. wtf is wrong with some of you people.

but t1 > t2. that's obvious.

I will find you, and I will shin kick you. lol

[Morris Schæffer]

I don't think any action movie is that intelligent, even including John Woo's best efforts. Like I said I am a James Cameron fan and I do appreciate him being more liberal than many filmmakers in the action genre. Aliens was a great flick but it was not really anything beyond surface level that better war films covered.

Aliens' relentlessly terrifying pace would likely have been hampered immensely by philosophical ruminations on the meaningless nature of war etc...

Yeah, it's not that movie. I think your point is a bit moot, doing the movie a slight disservice. In fact, it is quite possible you have just given the entire action genre an unfair shake with one fell swoop.

On the other hand, and although they don't add much for me personally, the Vietnam comparisons have been made often with regards to aliens, and they're kinda apt.

Not every war film needs to be The Thin Red Line or Paths of Glory.

[Morris Schæffer]

I will find you, and I will shin kick you. lol

Your evil twin brother?

[megladon8]

Saying an entire genre of film has nothing to offer beyond surface level thrills seems pretty closed minded and short sighted.

I would be much more inclined to say that war movies often have very little to say or offer beyond either simplistic "brotherhood born in blood" stuff, or "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!" (alternatively, "(insert country of film's origin), FUCK YEAH!"

But there are several war films out there that do have more to offer the viewer.

TL;DR there is no genre in existence that has nothing intellectual to offer.

Well...maybe whatever Skitch is watching.

[Skitch]

TL;DR there is no genre in existence that has nothing intellectual to offer.

Well...maybe whatever Skitch is watching.

Listen up, pal...midget pudding wrestling porno is a legitimate statement against their oppression from tall people.

[megladon8]

Listen up, pal...midget pudding wrestling porno is a legitimate statement against their oppression from tall people.

Sounds like something a Skitch would say.

Just keep your kind away from my land

[Skitch]

Sounds like something a Skitch would say.

Just keep your kind away from my land

Oh one day I'm coming back home to the fatherland.

[megladon8]

Oh one day I'm coming back home to the fatherland.

I'm sure New Jersey can't wait to have you back.

[Skitch]

I'm sure New Jersey can't wait to have you back.

Ohhhhhh Caaaaaannnnaaadaaaaa

[baby doll]

I don't think any action movie is that intelligent

Define "intelligent."

[Irish]

I think he means an intelligence in story, plot, or theme.

Otherwise, I can't explain the reaction to "Alien," which obviously has a great deal of intelligence behind its construction but whose story lacks a meaningful depth.

I don't know if they count as "action movies," per se, but I'd offer "The Searchers" and "Princess Mononoke" as counter examples.

Both films lack clear antagonists --- or at least, our ideas of who the antagonist is meant to be shifts over the course of the story --- and while both movies have opposing factions that isn't quite the same as, for example, "Star Wars," with its Rebels and Empire, because neither "Searchers" nor "Mononoke" depicts one group as morally superior to the other.

[DFA1979]

Ohhhhhh Caaaaaannnnaaadaaaaa

Wait this isn't the other Skitch? Maybe you are the evil one.

[DFA1979]

Define "intelligent."

"Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level." I think that's the textbook definition according to Google.

[DFA1979]

I think Alien is intelligently made. I was discussing Aliens.

[DFA1979]

What about this one?:

The Mad Max movies are as much sci fi as they are action. I love them a lot but I don't really think about any of them that much.

[Skutch]

I think Alien is intelligently made. I was discussing Aliens.

I think Irash meant Aliens. Alien 2. The second one. Directed by Jomes Camerun. Released in 1986.