lovestruck420 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 What is so spactacular about making films that A.)Are completely unrealistic B.)Make absolutwely no sense or C.)have 1,000 plot twists that lead to nowhere........ ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrestleManiac Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 [QUOTE=lovestruck420;219365]What is so spactacular about making films that A.)Are completely unrealistic B.)Make absolutwely no sense or C.)have 1,000 plot twists that lead to nowhere........ ???[/QUOTE] a. Unrealism has it's place in movies. I thought that was the whole point. Giant apes, boy wizards, and talking trees don't really exist, you know. Equally realism has it's place, that's what the drama genre is for. b. The point of making movies that make no sense is that I can usually get my head around them where others can't and I feel superior. c. Same as above. If I can follow a thousand and one plot twists then I am more mentally superior to the rest of you!:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Grindhouse looks pretty damn good. I hate reality television, so fictional movies are the best. Matrix wasn't realistic either, and it was a great movie. And X-Men. And Resident Evil. And . . . You get the idea I hope. How does Grindhouse make absolutely no sense? Even from the preview I can figure out the basic premise: revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP1 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 [QUOTE=Anubis;219560]Grindhouse looks pretty damn good. I hate reality television, so fictional movies are the best. [B]Matrix wasn't realistic either, and it was a great movie. And X-Men. And Resident Evil. [/B]And . . . You get the idea I hope. How does Grindhouse make absolutely no sense? Even from the preview I can figure out the basic premise: revenge.[/QUOTE] Did you really like these movies. Other than original Matrix I thought the rest were fairly pants! Especially Res Evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 The Matrix, Resident Evil, and X-Men (along with their sequels) are some of my favorite movies. X-3 was fantastic, though Matrix Revolutions was a letdown. I'm eagerly awaiting Resident Evil 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP1 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Wow, I think you're the first person I've met to like the Resident Evil movies. I agree that Matrix sequals were both letdowns. I just felt that X3 was all style and no substance. At least the first two pretended to care about the characters. As for poster of topic: [QUOTE]What is so spactacular about making films that A.)Are completely unrealistic B.)Make absolutwely no sense or C.)have 1,000 plot twists that lead to nowhere........ ???[/QUOTE] a) Ever seen Lord of the rings? b) Ever seen anything by David Lynch? c) I find that plot twists rarely lead no where. Watch the original Saw, that's a lesson in a twist saving a film from mediocrity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crychon Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I actually found the RE movies to be somewhat enjoyable, of course, I love Milla, so that might have something to do with it. Don't get me wrong, they should've been done MUCH better, but I didn't think they were too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdo_man Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Um, as far as a movie being completely unrealistic, as with most books, you must give them the single premise that is unreal. For instance, Franz Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" is completely unrealistic if you don't grant him that a person could wake up one morning metamorphosized into some sort of a vermin. So, in Lord of the Rings, which is based on a book, you must give him that there is a different world where these things take place. Considering the amount of work that Tolkein put into figuring out every little aspect and fact of Middle Earth, I think it could be given to him that Middle Earth exists, and that it is very realistic if Middle Earth exists. Same with stuff like the Matrix. If we are all in a world that is a virtual reality simulation, then why wouldn't that movie be completely realistic? I've never seen a good movie that didn't make any sense. Sometimes the goal of a movie or book is an emotional response, and so, the plot doesn't have to make any sense because they are trying to spark an emotional response. As far as actually not making any sense, then that means that it is amateur craft and done poorly such that there is no purpose for the movie not making sense. A 1,000 plot twists that lead to nowhere is again, amateur craft, and therefore poor. The best example of plot twists and how to do them properly is in James Joyce's "The Dead", because the revelations and epiphanies that occur are turned around to a final one. But you have to give a moviemaker or writer a given, otherwise these fantastic worlds and great films and books that we can be taken in to will never be realized, because we want complete realism. A film or book has to be realistic within the realm that it lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP1 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Nicely put wierdo man. It's all about suspending our disbelief (part of the reason I like wrestling), if you just accept that Middle Earth exists then you learn to appreciate the plot and characters far more and thus twists and turns can be acceptable or even expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panix04 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Tolkien is a fine example of creating a new reality, the detail and depth to the charcters and world he created is immense, from having detailed info about every single race he created. The Lord of the rings barely touch's on what he wrote concerning middle earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP1 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Couldn't write a decent female character though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panix04 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 are you sure your not thinking of George Lucas? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACCBiggz Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Both his lead females were good characters, Portman however massacred her role in the third film by astonishing bad acting from a good actress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panix04 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 i think the problem with the female characters in Star Wars is none of them were, girly enough. Based purely on the films both Padme and Leia were essentially the same character. Don't get me wrong i think it was required that Leia and Padme have a bit in common, they were mother and daughter after all, but the charcters didnt really stand out as individuals to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker666 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Leia stood out in Return of the Jedi. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovestruck420 Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 Ok, my first post was a bit vague. I love fiction, and things not being real is not the point I was trying to make. A good fiction novel can be based on a make believe world, with made up creatures and still give a realistic story. The things I am talking about is things like A.) A girl given a gun for a leg.....................pogo stick from hell B.)Elijah wood in sin city............... C.)Matrix style effects in every single fricken action movie made today....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP1 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I seeee. A) I haven't seen it yet. B) Excellently macabre and sinistr performance. C) Here we agree. Enough is enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge_JBR Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I was listening to Opie and Anthony this morning, and Jimmy and Opie said that Grindhouse is long (three hours) but it was the quickest three hours ever, and it was a great flick. I can't wait for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrestleManiac Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 A girl with a gun for a leg... Cool. It's called style over substance somthing that Rodriguez and Tarantino are experts at. Grindhouse is 3 hrs long because it is two seperate movies. It's supposed be shown like the old fashioned double-bill features that Tarantino and Rodriguez love so much. Also, I heard a rumour that in UK it is actully being released as two seperate films six months apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thug saint oga Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 i honestly have no interest in grindhouse, but it seems like the kind of movie i would be into. the previews make it look like a wheels of, blow crap up for no reason, bad one-liner movie. and i believe that is exactly what they are going for, in homage and to poke fun at those movies. however, i just ain't buyin it. it seems like jay and silent bob strike back. it was a movie making fun of all sorts of other movies, like michael bay blow-em-ups, the star wars rip-offs, movies with orangutans, etc; but it basically became a crappy movie featuring all of the previous things......still better than clerks 2 though....ouch, that was not so good.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raveneffect21 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 [QUOTE=thug saint oga;219843]i honestly have no interest in grindhouse, but it seems like the kind of movie i would be into. the previews make it look like a wheels of, blow crap up for no reason, bad one-liner movie. and i believe that is exactly what they are going for, in homage and to poke fun at those movies. however, i just ain't buyin it. it seems like jay and silent bob strike back. it was a movie making fun of all sorts of other movies, like michael bay blow-em-ups, the star wars rip-offs, movies with orangutans, etc; but it basically became a crappy movie featuring all of the previous things......still better than clerks 2 though....ouch, that was not so good....[/QUOTE] Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back and Clerks 2 were both awesome imo, but I'm such a Kevin Smith fanboy I even liked Jersey Girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 [QUOTE=Raveneffect21;219949]Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back and Clerks 2 were both awesome imo, but I'm such a Kevin Smith fanboy I even liked Jersey Girl.[/QUOTE] QFT I've loved every Jay and Silent Bob movie. Mallrats is still probably the best of the six, though, followed closely by Dogma and the original Clerks. Just because Clerks 2 was the "worst of the six" doesn't make it bad. Clerks 2 was still awesome, just not as awesome as the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge_JBR Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Clerks 2 was not the worst of the six. If anything, it is second only to the original. It was a movie over ten years in the making, and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was supposed to be Clerks 2: Hardly Clerkin'. Oh well, I also enjoyed Jersey Girl. Anyone see that flick Kevin was in with Garner? Catch and Release I think it's called. It's not too bad, but that's because Kevin's in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thug saint oga Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 [QUOTE=Anubis;219995]Mallrats is still probably the best of the six, though, followed closely by Dogma and the original Clerks.[/QUOTE] mallrats, chasing amy, dogma, then clerks.....but i'm a former comic book nerd, so i like chasing amy a lot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raveneffect21 Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 [QUOTE=Jorge_JBR;220155]Clerks 2 was not the worst of the six. If anything, it is second only to the original. It was a movie over ten years in the making, and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was supposed to be Clerks 2: Hardly Clerkin'. Oh well, I also enjoyed Jersey Girl. Anyone see that flick Kevin was in with Garner? Catch and Release I think it's called. It's not too bad, but that's because Kevin's in it.[/QUOTE] I remember hearing Kevin on O & A saying he was the fat guy the Jack Black would've played if the budget was bigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.