[WhiteCrow]

Quote:

But doesn't watching robots blow each other up for two and a half hours while painfully weak attempts at plotting and comedy flop around like dead fishes in the background get old fast? My point is is that I don't see how it *could possibly* be fun. I'm not saying that watching robots duke it out isn't fun--just that I'm going to require a bit more than that if I've gotta pay money for almost three hours of it. Lol. 

I don't think saying "hey this mindless action movie sure could use some better writing" is to much to ask. A lot of dumb action movies are good because of the silly over the top writing. Screaming and explosions an over the top movies does not make. Suspension of disbelief does not apply when it's not outrageous enough to make you think "WOW, I cant believe that just happened! Even in a movie! Ahhhh the movies". Transformers aside from the talking cars is not that outrageous; I'm sure all of us at one points had some form of transformers in our childhood. This is pretty much the the level of cinema quality that's considered acceptibal today. The movie avatar was as skin deep as it could be with some of the worst design choices and hack job writing as is gets; but he masses flocked to it because it looked so perty! Not every movie needs to be The Kings Speech; but don't give us G.I. Joe, Transformers, Avatar(both of them), Clash/Wrath of the titans, and so on. People shouldent have to lower their standards to find a movie genuinly enjoyabal even if it is a silly dumb action flicK.

 

[Tangster]

Quote:

I don't think saying "hey this mindless action movie sure could use some better writing" is to much to ask. A lot of dumb action movies are good because of the silly over the top writing. Screaming and explosions an over the top movies does not make. Suspension of disbelief does not apply when it's not outrageous enough to make you think "WOW, I cant believe that just happened! Even in a movie! Ahhhh the movies". Transformers aside from the talking cars is not that outrageous; I'm sure all of us at one points had some form of transformers in our childhood. This is pretty much the the level of cinema quality that's considered acceptibal today. The movie avatar was as skin deep as it could be with some of the worst design choices and hack job writing as is gets; but he masses flocked to it because it looked so perty! Not every movie needs to be The Kings Speech; but don't give us G.I. Joe, Transformers, Avatar(both of them), Clash/Wrath of the titans, and so on. People shouldent have to lower their standards to find a movie genuinly enjoyabal even if it is a silly dumb action flicK.

I really liked it. 

Probably because it was Disney's Pocahontas with sci-fi stuff.

 

[WhiteCrow]

Quote:

I really liked it. 

Probably because it was Disney's Pocahontas with sci-fi stuff.

I really liked Pocahontas,. Avatar was Dances with wolfs in space with bad writing.

 

[mutabor]

Quote:

 
Again, it would be wise to ignore mutabor. He has his preset ideals, and will twist/ignore your arguments to suit his.

 
Could you stop commenting my personality on different threads? You behave like a 5 year old. 

 

[mutabor]

Quote:

 
I mentioned a few random thoughts and It wasn't my goal to give everyone a history lesson. 

 
Sorry if I touched your feelings. In fact I used your thoughts as incentive to express my ideas on topic of WW II and I didn't intend to make a discussion with you or accuse you in something. By the way two guys found my links very interesting and that was the goal of my posts to give food for thought to those who is interested.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

 
Could you stop commenting my personality on different threads? You behave like a 5 year old. 

 
Maybe if you didn't try to crap on the West and America at every turn, not to mention that you females at a lower standard.

 

[mutabor]

Quote:

 
Maybe if you didn't try to crap on the West and America at every turn, not to mention that you females at a lower standard.

 
And how this is a reason to comment my personality? If you don't agree with my opinions move on and don't flame the threads with useless personal attacks. 
 
And I'm rather pro-western and pro-american in my political views. Duh. 

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

 
And how this is a reason to comment my personality? If you don't agree with my opinions move on and don't flame the threads with useless personal attacks. 

 
Nothing I said was personal. I simply warned other of your tendencies.
 
I'm done.

 

[WhiteCrow]

guys, take it else where. This isn't a political discussion thread, it's fine to argue about movies as this thread is about movies and what ever your opinion on them is you Can post it here; but stop with the bickering about your personal feelings on subjects not relating to these movies. Yes I realize you're posts started out about the portrayal of the Americans in WWII movies but that's not what its about anymore.

 

[mutabor]

Well the problem is that military movies by themselves are a topic of hot debate. The debate can arise when there are clear opposite sides of discussion. If you didn't know I represent the former USSR side hence my opinions can be different from yours. I do see these events from the different angle and I'm saying what I think about them. I basically don't support State ideology be it ideology of Russia or America or whoever. I can heavily criticize Russian military movies in the same manner. But we are talking about American movies right?
 
P.S. Take into consideration that I'm from the former USSR and consequent biases that I may have.

 

[Focker]

Quote:

But doesn't watching robots blow each other up for two and a half hours while painfully weak attempts at plotting and comedy flop around like dead fishes in the background get old fast? My point is is that I don't see how it *could possibly* be fun. I'm not saying that watching robots duke it out isn't fun--just that I'm going to require a bit more than that if I've gotta pay money for almost three hours of it. Lol. 

 
 
I totally get that. I have several friends who would be applauding you for what you just said and feel EXACTLY as you do. But I think the disconnect here is that you're just not the target audience for this type of film. I really think this is why you'll often see a film like Battleship get hammered by the critics, i.e. those who ARE paying attention to the elements you cited, but still make a good buck. I don't know that Battleship is the best example cause I don't think it did all that well in terms of box office, but summer after summer there are popcorn flicks that get lousy critical reception but make hundreds of millions. I'm *sorta* the target audience cause even though I prefer a good indy film with a solid plot, strong writing, effective acting, etc, I can watch a film like Skyline, not care about any of that, and walk out of the the theater going, "hmmm...pretty cool!" lol.  I mean, just take the "romance" aspect of these films. Can you really say that anything that happened between Benny Affleck and Liv Tyler in Armageddon was remotely realistic? Or the relationship between Shia LeBouf and the hottie in Transformers? Anyone who watches a film like 500 Days of Summer around the same time as either of those films will see a stunning contrast between the two. Even in something like Love and Other Drugs, which was just on the other night, the relationship between Jake Gyllenhal and Anne Hathaway's characters...just far more based in reality. The popcorn romances aren't meant to hold up to scrutiny. 
 
To your point, though, I'm not trying to justify that popcorn flicks not focus on putting out better quality movies. I just think we live in a time of trailer grab advertising where they try and stuff all the money in the bag opening weekend, and that there is a huge population of moviegoers who like it that way. They want to get off work or school, hit the theaters on Fri and Sat night, meet up with a group of friends, talk during half the film and just go along with the ride. The jumping off point for me, and the reason why I can answer your question about whether it gets old with a "no, not really" is because I dine on a variety of genres and films of varying quality, so I can usually find a spot every so often for the "look at all the shiny things!" movies...but yeah, it would certainly get old if that was the only thing I watched lol. 
 
And just to be clear, just based on the posts of yours I've read in this forum, I think you're a SUPERIOR critic and fan of film. Not for one single minute am I trying to say you should reconsider your position, cause you shouldn't. As i said, I have several good friends who approach it the same was as you do. I just think in this particular instance that square peg won't fit into the round hole, no matter how hard you push. 

 

[metalsonata]

Awwww. Thanks lol.
 
And yes, this was the sort of response that I was looking for. Makes good sense to me. ^^
Quote:

 
 
I totally get that. I have several friends who would be applauding you for what you just said and feel EXACTLY as you do. But I think the disconnect here is that you're just not the target audience for this type of film. I really think this is why you'll often see a film like Battleship get hammered by the critics, i.e. those who ARE paying attention to the elements you cited, but still make a good buck. I don't know that Battleship is the best example cause I don't think it did all that well in terms of box office, but summer after summer there are popcorn flicks that get lousy critical reception but make hundreds of millions. I'm *sorta* the target audience cause even though I prefer a good indy film with a solid plot, strong writing, effective acting, etc, I can watch a film like Skyline, not care about any of that, and walk out of the the theater going, "hmmm...pretty cool!" lol.  I mean, just take the "romance" aspect of these films. Can you really say that anything that happened between Benny Affleck and Liv Tyler in Armageddon was remotely realistic? Or the relationship between Shia LeBouf and the hottie in Transformers? Anyone who watches a film like 500 Days of Summer around the same time as either of those films will see a stunning contrast between the two. Even in something like Love and Other Drugs, which was just on the other night, the relationship between Jake Gyllenhal and Anne Hathaway's characters...just far more based in reality. The popcorn romances aren't meant to hold up to scrutiny. 
 
To your point, though, I'm not trying to justify that popcorn flicks not focus on putting out better quality movies. I just think we live in a time of trailer grab advertising where they try and stuff all the money in the bag opening weekend, and that there is a huge population of moviegoers who like it that way. They want to get off work or school, hit the theaters on Fri and Sat night, meet up with a group of friends, talk during half the film and just go along with the ride. The jumping off point for me, and the reason why I can answer your question about whether it gets old with a "no, not really" is because I dine on a variety of genres and films of varying quality, so I can usually find a spot every so often for the "look at all the shiny things!" movies...but yeah, it would certainly get old if that was the only thing I watched lol. 
 
And just to be clear, just based on the posts of yours I've read in this forum, I think you're a SUPERIOR critic and fan of film. Not for one single minute am I trying to say you should reconsider your position, cause you shouldn't. As i said, I have several good friends who approach it the same was as you do. I just think in this particular instance that square peg won't fit into the round hole, no matter how hard you push. 

 

[grokit]

For myself, a good action movie plot should be neither too simplistic (transformers, battleship), nor overly convoluted as I have observed recently in this thread. And obviously technologies like CG and 3D are best when employed judiciously. But what really makes an enjoyable watch, again for myself, is character development. I want to know the protagonist's motivations, his strengths and weaknesses, and other details so I can root for a victorious outcome. I like to see stuff blowing up, but I want to know why it's blowing up without losing any story momentum. In other words, keep the narrative going at a good clip but explain/reveal things as you go along. And don't make up story developments that make no sense and the viewer doesn't care about just to check things off a plot formula list.

 

[tdockweiler]

Life of Pi - 8.75/10
 
Loved every minute of this once he was on the ship to Canada. Those CGI animals were totally convincing to me.
 
 

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

By the end I'm thinking..."That's it?". Kind of fell apart towards the end or maybe something stupid simple went over my head.

The entire movie is much more simple than I expected. Somehow I expected some huge epic story.

I would have preferred the story told in a slightly different way and not so much like Titanic or Forrest Gump in flashback mode.

 

 

[WhiteCrow]

Quote:

Life of Pi - 8.75/10
 
Loved every minute of this once he was on the ship to Canada. Those CGI animals were totally convincing to me.
 
 

yeah, I didnt thing it was better then the book, Shocking I know; but the book was much better.