- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Great Cracked article about why current movies seem to fall short
Posted on 9/30/15 at 8:06 am
Posted on 9/30/15 at 8:06 am
6 Stupid movie characters Hollywood now puts in every movie.
The link is about movie characters, but the list itself actually delves into a lot of writing problems that movies these days have, especially blockbusters. It mainly picks on things like Terminator, Jurassic World, X-Men, Hobbit, Hunger Games, Star Trek, etc. And it even acknowledges that some of these movies are still enjoyable, but it gets into how terrible the writing is on a lot of them. Pretty interesting (and accurate) article; check it out.
There are some spoilers throughout, but most are sort of general spoilers and nothing movie-ruin worthy, FYI (and I imagine most have already seen the movies referenced anyway).
The link is about movie characters, but the list itself actually delves into a lot of writing problems that movies these days have, especially blockbusters. It mainly picks on things like Terminator, Jurassic World, X-Men, Hobbit, Hunger Games, Star Trek, etc. And it even acknowledges that some of these movies are still enjoyable, but it gets into how terrible the writing is on a lot of them. Pretty interesting (and accurate) article; check it out.
There are some spoilers throughout, but most are sort of general spoilers and nothing movie-ruin worthy, FYI (and I imagine most have already seen the movies referenced anyway).
quote:
That's nonsense, but still not a fraction of the gibberish of Terminator Genisys's timeline-skewing inciting incident, which sees Arnold sent back to save a nine-year-old Sarah Connor. When asked point blank who sent him, the Terminator claims his memory of this was erased, to which Kyle Reese jokingly exclaims, "Well that's convenient!" The film never bothers to bring it up again. That joke is seriously the only explanation for why the entire film exists.
When asked, even the director admitted that the logical details of Terminator were a wretched mess, and said that he was hoping to use humor to "skate over it." In his exact words, "It's a way of saying, 'You may not get this, but who cares? Keep going!'" To recap, the most important detail of the entire movie doesn't make sense, and the movie addresses this by pointing it out and laughing about it.
12
Posted on 9/30/15 at 8:09 am to CocomoLSU
quote:Brilliant?
To recap, the most important detail of the entire movie doesn't make sense, and the movie addresses this by pointing it out and laughing about it.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 8:21 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Oh right. That's exactly what happens in Age Of Ultron, when Hawkeye practically loses an eye winking about how silly the Marvel Universe is. Because modern films are now terrified of taking themselves too seriously, and instead resort to self-aware, Wayne's World-esque dialogue that manages to completely misinterpret what "self-aware" actually means.
i smell a Marvel v. DC digression in this thread
Posted on 9/30/15 at 8:37 am to CocomoLSU
Good article, lots of great points all around...
Laziness and lack of rules go far beyond this though. This is probably one of my biggest problems with films.
My only qualm here is that EoT's magical visions are literally the plot. He's spot on about everything else though.
He's right about this, but he's completely wrong about the reasons, or he doesn't dive down into enough of them (spot on about AoU. I liked that scene for the "fatherly" advice angle, but it did hit this problem). Why?
Because this, and yeah it's a huge problem, ties down to the paradox of everyone wanting "Action! Danger! Suspense!" but no one wanting to actually come to grips with it. More post-9/11? I think culturally, at large, there's an aversion to considering the real consequences of said actions, and it's why so many films, most comic book movies and blockbusters, have moved to this weird self-actualizing place where they don't take themselves seriously. That's why both MoS and AoU went opposite directions in dealing with mass destruction. As much as people love the Walking Dead, they don't want to think about mass destruction. They just want to romanticize it.
I mean, what modern film has played wanton destruction well? Made it real?
quote:
And while you're probably shrugging this off as magic, that's exactly why this technique is so goddamn lazy in the first place. There are no rules given to us about how this works, so we accept it and move on, provided it doesn't seem too insane.
Laziness and lack of rules go far beyond this though. This is probably one of my biggest problems with films.
quote:
I swear to fricking God that's a plot point in the film. And while it might be the most egregious example, we see this in everything from The Lego Movie to Edge Of Tomorrow to the double-whammy in Days Of Future Past, in which Wolverine's flashback exposition makes him physically unable to stop a pivotal plot point.
My only qualm here is that EoT's magical visions are literally the plot. He's spot on about everything else though.
quote:
If "Katniss" was the name of a moss species used in the Hunger Games fighting arena, she'd probably have more impact on the outcome of the games. In fact, she's pretty much the poster child for useless "kickass" female characters. At the very beginning, she's given a sweet bow and arrow that she uses precisely one time to take a life, and instead deals out indirect (but no less horrific) deaths using mutant dogs, gravity, and beehives. Her primary method of defense is being miraculously saved by other characters, and by the second film, she's being lied to and manipulated for furthering a revolution that's apparently pivoting on her celebrity love life and pretty dresses.
quote:
#1. Characters Are Aware That Their Movies Are Ridiculous
He's right about this, but he's completely wrong about the reasons, or he doesn't dive down into enough of them (spot on about AoU. I liked that scene for the "fatherly" advice angle, but it did hit this problem). Why?
Because this, and yeah it's a huge problem, ties down to the paradox of everyone wanting "Action! Danger! Suspense!" but no one wanting to actually come to grips with it. More post-9/11? I think culturally, at large, there's an aversion to considering the real consequences of said actions, and it's why so many films, most comic book movies and blockbusters, have moved to this weird self-actualizing place where they don't take themselves seriously. That's why both MoS and AoU went opposite directions in dealing with mass destruction. As much as people love the Walking Dead, they don't want to think about mass destruction. They just want to romanticize it.
I mean, what modern film has played wanton destruction well? Made it real?
This post was edited on 9/30/15 at 8:38 am
Posted on 9/30/15 at 8:48 am to Freauxzen
quote:
I mean, what modern film has played wanton destruction well? Made it real?
Interstellar?
It didn't tell us why really, but we know that Earth is fricked because it is blighted, and humanity is on the brink if extinction, which leads to us having to explore other galazies for possible replacement homes. That's about as real as it gets in terms of destruction and facing that reality.
Children of Men could possibly fit as well.
But if you're talking strictly in terms of a villain/antagonist and their actions to destroy shite, then I guess you could go with something like TDK, but those movies face some of the same problems mentioned in the article (as I'm sure most do, but some obviously way more than others).
Posted on 9/30/15 at 8:56 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
It didn't tell us why really, but we know that Earth is fricked because it is blighted, and humanity is on the brink if extinction
Global warming, bro.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 9:17 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Interstellar?
It didn't tell us why really, but we know that Earth is fricked because it is blighted, and humanity is on the brink if extinction, which leads to us having to explore other galazies for possible replacement homes. That's about as real as it gets in terms of destruction and facing that reality.
But that wasn't "character-driven, on-film" destruction. I'm talking about onscreen deaths of thousands. Real, visceral destruction.
For instance, I always felt that Independence Day, as cheap as that film could be, made sense in how it handled that stuff. Characters were dealing with that destruction constantly. The President's Wife? The prayer circles? It all made sense, even if only slightly.
And characters dealing with it.
quote:
But if you're talking strictly in terms of a villain/antagonist and their actions to destroy shite, then I guess you could go with something like TDK, but those movies face some of the same problems mentioned in the article (as I'm sure most do, but some obviously way more than others).
Yeah but at no point did even hundreds die in TDK. TDKR had it's own problems. But look at Jurassic World, nary a thought given to at least the hundreds that died. The poor assistant, I never knew if that scene was supposed to be funny or not, I feel like it was. Man of Steel?
AoU's problem was the opposite, "HEY WE'RE SAVING PEOPLE OVER HERE! LOOK. SAVING PEOPLE. DO YOU GET IT! IT'S WHAT SUPERHEROES DO! THEY SAVE PEOPLE! SAVING! ALL THE TIME!" It was as subtle as Crash.
quote:
Children of Men could possibly fit as well.
Good call. That movie was steeped in desperation, that's what made it so good.
This post was edited on 9/30/15 at 9:19 am
Posted on 9/30/15 at 9:32 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Jurassic World,
sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
bad
Posted on 9/30/15 at 9:35 am to Freauxzen
To tie this in to another thread, there are a lot of complaints about the reactions of the characters of Fear the Walking Dead in light of the situation they face. Audience members want them to take extreme action after nine days of exposure to the crisis.
I completely disagree. I actually think the show takes a more realistic approach to how a group of people would respond to a crisis they're aware of at their front door but seemingly isolated from it. Most people would probably be in denial as to its severity and would try to stay on some sort schedule to find some normalcy. Sure, people would be worried but they aren't going to be scaling fences and trying to sneak out of military protection because they simply wouldn't understand the nature of the crisis yet.
I completely disagree. I actually think the show takes a more realistic approach to how a group of people would respond to a crisis they're aware of at their front door but seemingly isolated from it. Most people would probably be in denial as to its severity and would try to stay on some sort schedule to find some normalcy. Sure, people would be worried but they aren't going to be scaling fences and trying to sneak out of military protection because they simply wouldn't understand the nature of the crisis yet.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 9:47 am to Freauxzen
quote:Not just film. Big problem with TV too.
Laziness and lack of rules go far beyond this though. This is probably one of my biggest problems with films.
I'm so sick of hearing morons on here say It's just a popcorn flick as an explanation for weak writing.
Even worse, "It's Sci-Fi / Fantasy" as if zero rules apply and anything no matter how irrational or unbelievable should just be accepted.
Star Trek was exceptional at making the science feel real. The endings almost always felt like a real ending and not just some Deus Ex Machina week after week (Looking Right Squarely In Your Face Doctor).
Posted on 9/30/15 at 9:54 am to Freauxzen
The Road is another good one. Not a lot of onscreen deaths but the post apocalyptic world was pretty depressing.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 10:03 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
To tie this in to another thread, there are a lot of complaints about the reactions of the characters of Fear the Walking Dead in light of the situation they face. Audience members want them to take extreme action after nine days of exposure to the crisis.
I completely disagree. I actually think the show takes a more realistic approach to how a group of people would respond to a crisis they're aware of at their front door but seemingly isolated from it. Most people would probably be in denial as to its severity and would try to stay on some sort schedule to find some normalcy. Sure, people would be worried but they aren't going to be scaling fences and trying to sneak out of military protection because they simply wouldn't understand the nature of the crisis yet.
Winner. I really like how they've handled FTWD so far. People are clinging to their normalcy. It's really well done. 4 episodes in and they still cringe when killing a walker. And not in the "oh that's gross way," but most characters still believe walkers are human.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 10:29 am to Brosef Stalin
The Road is a fantastic example of the difference between "serious" and "popcorn".
how about district 9?
how about district 9?
Posted on 9/30/15 at 10:43 am to Freauxzen
quote:
But that wasn't "character-driven, on-film" destruction. I'm talking about onscreen deaths of thousands. Real, visceral destruction.
There are hardly any movies in any era that deal with this in this fashion. Period. With the exception of movies centered around war, I cannot think of anything like this and, frankly, even war movies for the most part have the nameless and faceless dying.
That's why shows like Homeland, Game of Thrones, and Band of Brothers are so remarkable. But they have the benefit of having an "afterwards." Movies typically don't. They are too short. If you had superheroes dying left and right and grisly scenes of thousands upon thousands dead, it would too off putting. The vast majority of watchers don't want to see that and there is no reason to put it in except to make it "more realistic." But frick, there's a dude fricking FLYING and shooting LIGHTNING from his hammer while some a-hole who was trained at a fricking circus is somehow also contributing to this team of superheroes. I mean come on. If you need the deaths of thousands shown on screen to keep the stakes and the plot real for you, I just don't know what to tell you. The thing that makes these movies interesting is not the mass destruction but the personal relationships and consequences their decisions have within those confines, not the world's death toll.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 10:43 am to CocomoLSU
The thing about their argument to how kids react to Jurassic Park is flawed though.
The kids in Jurassic Park were walking into something they had no idea existed.
In Jurassic World the idea of dinosaurs and the parks to see those dinosaurs was around for before they were born. So it's not a crazy idea for them not to be in the same sort of shock. Plus, these guys are getting more brotherly time and adventure than they have ever had before, so it's fun in a sense. They understand their life is on the line and after each small win, you can't help have fun, it's either that or dying.
And for the "aware" characters...I think these only came about in sequels or parodies because they finally have the material, world, and audience familiar with these things to throw that in there. It's meta, and meta can't exist without a foundation. There's that in the Marvel universe now. There's that in sequels that are spread decades apart. It's the same as using a joke from the previous movie. But it's a joke of that joke. Meta. Not a big deal really. Nothing to gripe about. Heck, it even enhances the viewing. Jake Johnson was one of the best parts of Jurassic World.
The kids in Jurassic Park were walking into something they had no idea existed.
In Jurassic World the idea of dinosaurs and the parks to see those dinosaurs was around for before they were born. So it's not a crazy idea for them not to be in the same sort of shock. Plus, these guys are getting more brotherly time and adventure than they have ever had before, so it's fun in a sense. They understand their life is on the line and after each small win, you can't help have fun, it's either that or dying.
And for the "aware" characters...I think these only came about in sequels or parodies because they finally have the material, world, and audience familiar with these things to throw that in there. It's meta, and meta can't exist without a foundation. There's that in the Marvel universe now. There's that in sequels that are spread decades apart. It's the same as using a joke from the previous movie. But it's a joke of that joke. Meta. Not a big deal really. Nothing to gripe about. Heck, it even enhances the viewing. Jake Johnson was one of the best parts of Jurassic World.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 11:35 am to CocomoLSU
If you're looking for a great film that doesn't rely on tropes and winks to a knowing audience, I'd avoid seeing the fourth and fifth installments in a movie franchise.
"Every movie"... I didn't see these characters in Black Mass, or Diary of a Teenage Girl, or Everest, or Pawn Sacrifice...
If you don't like these ongoing pop-culture movie series then just don't see them.
"Every movie"... I didn't see these characters in Black Mass, or Diary of a Teenage Girl, or Everest, or Pawn Sacrifice...
If you don't like these ongoing pop-culture movie series then just don't see them.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 12:07 pm to Fewer Kilometers
Made some good points but I enjoy the meta esque humor in some of these movies like Jurrasic World and other blockbusters
Not taking yourself seriously is a great tool to use if you're a CGI tent pole, because honestly I don't go to see those if they are they EXPLOSION driven and 100 percent way too serious, like Transformers.
Not taking yourself seriously is a great tool to use if you're a CGI tent pole, because honestly I don't go to see those if they are they EXPLOSION driven and 100 percent way too serious, like Transformers.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 12:09 pm to CocomoLSU
The article was okay, but using Jurassic World as one of the main offenders didn't really strike a chord with me.
That movie was supposed to be kind of campy and satirical. shite, I laughed more during Jurassic World than the last few new comedies that I have seen.
That movie was supposed to be kind of campy and satirical. shite, I laughed more during Jurassic World than the last few new comedies that I have seen.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 3:23 pm to CocomoLSU
Too many comic book movies.
Posted on 9/30/15 at 4:04 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
at large, there's an aversion to considering the real consequences of said actions, and it's why so many films, most comic book movies and blockbusters, have moved to this weird self-actualizing place where they don't take themselves seriously. That's why both MoS and AoU went opposite directions in dealing with mass destruction. As much as people love the Walking Dead, they don't want to think about mass destruction. They just want to romanticize it.
I think you are onto something here and it is much deeper than film/TV shows etc.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News