• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2018
    It's an absolutely fantastic film. Still holding the position of my number 3 of the year (out of 109 seen so far).
    I am extremely serious.
  1. shocked shocked

    I mean it's not awful...but 3rd out of 109?
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018
    Yup. So far.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018 edited
    It's not bad, probably my favourite of the Disney Star Wars films... but that isn't saying much. Unlike Rogue One, it had much more likeable characters with humour, and unlike the new trilogy films, it didn't have Rey or Rose. The equal rights droid was a bit weird, but that felt more like a piss-take than the actual feminist bent of Mar-Rey Sue. It was funny in places without being The Farce Awakens. And it certainly didn't go the route of "subverting expectations" like The Last Jedi attempted. It played it safe, which I'm glad it did.

    But they continue to feel like fan films; I doubt they'll ever reach the same level of popularity and zeitgeist as the originals.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018 edited
    All the new STAR WARSes have featured relatively high on my annual lists, if you consider that I see approximately 150-180 new films every year. FORCE AWAKENS at 3rd, THE LAST JEDI at 14th and ROGUE ONE among honourable mentions after the Top 20 (not even Giacchino could ruin that, athough he has quite a bit of blame for it falling outside the Top 20). SOLO is definitely up there in the FORCE AWAKENS league, but it remains to be seen whether it will keep its 3rd place by the end of the year.
    I am extremely serious.
  2. You will never be able to repeat the 1977-1983 phenomenon, not within the franchise nor with any other film. There is too much competition these days that fractures the audience. Also in the age of CGI you perceive any kind of eye candy as a given. That's, why I said, it' suffices to be an entertaining space fantasy film. Just like Guardians of the Galaxy. You shouldn't expect too much from Star Wars.

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018 edited
    That's waaaaay too cynical and reactionary, in my opinion. Of course, you should expect much from STAR WARS, and so far they have been very good in casting the right filmmakers for it -- balancing the old with the new in an impressive manner.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018
    I think Volker may be right, especially in the age of streaming on-demand. Perhaps the closest thing we have is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But I'll be surprised if it makes the same impact as Star Wars in the long run. But who knows.

    Oh, and I don't expect much from Star Wars, they're still riding the wake of the success of a film made over 40 years ago, but I still thought The Last Jedi was still a pile of steamy horseshit.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018 edited
    You shouldn't compare Marvel to STAR WARS. At least not yet. The latter has been on a whole other level, artistically. As long as they keep hiring good people (whether for new movies or TV shows or whatever), the franchise should be in safe hands. If you disregard stuff like that old 'Holiday Special' and things like that, there hasn't really been one bad STAR WARS film so far (yes, I'm a devout defender of the prequels).
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018
    Thor wrote
    You shouldn't compare Marvel to STAR WARS. At least not yet. The latter has been on a whole other level, artistically.


    We can in terms of success because it's the biggest player in town and has large cultural significance. Kids (and adults) love superheroes.

    .... there hasn't really been one bad STAR WARS film so far (yes, I'm a devout defender of the prequels).


    lol

    Well, yes.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018 edited
    Steven wrote
    We can in terms of success because it's the biggest player in town and has large cultural significance. Kids (and adults) love superheroes.


    Success? What's the point of comparing that? They're both extremely successful franchises. The point is what artistic direction they've taken, or how artistic integrity is being maintained DESPITE success. STAR WARS is on a whole other level of good quality consistency here.
    I am extremely serious.
  3. I didn't mean to be cynical at all. I still am a big Star Wars fan.

    V.
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018
    The point is about cultural significant and successful movie phenomenons, and currently Marvel seem to be the biggest game in town. You can compare anything to anything given the right parameters, y'dope. dizzy
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018
    What?!?

    I thought we were discussing the quality of the movies, not which franchise has harvested the most money?
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2018 edited
    Vantage Point

    a decent 24-ish action thriller. didn't make that much of an impression, except for Dennis Quaid's truly spectacular scowl.


    and alsoo....

    Watchmen

    The underlying story courtesy of Alan Moore is excellent, but it felt to me that Snyder was doing his best to sabotage it throughout, and that any merit in the movie arrives in spite of, not because of, him. Ultimately extremely unsatisfying.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2018
    Mandy

    Loved the atmosphere, music and visuals. Reminded me a lot of Blade Runner 2049, in that each shot and scene is a living painting. Plot is fairly simplistic, which is fine, but there's a feeling at the end - at least for me - of looking for a point. Maybe that's a mistake in this type of movie. Nicolas Cage kills it. The scene of him howling in the bathroom is incredible. The action scenes are insanely violent but have a brooding feel instead of one of excitement. As an audiovisual visceral EXPERIENCE, there's not much to beat it. As a movie... well why bother? it's not a movie. It's a metal album mixed with an 80s pulp novel mixed with a regular day in the life of Nicolas Cage. Wow.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2018
    Films don't HAVE to be traditional and narrative. That's only the Hollywood mindset speaking. They can also be experimental, tableaux, visceral experiences, you name it. I'm looking forward to seeing it this week.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
    Thor wrote
    What?!?

    I thought we were discussing the quality of the movies, not which franchise has harvested the most money?


    Neither
    . Cultural impact. But it was to do with Volker's point that there will probably never be another Star Wars-like phenomenom. Marvel is the closest thing to that.

    But it's hard to objectively analyse given that the MCU is still relatively new.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
    Oh, OK. We were talking past each other, then. I don't really have that much of an opinion on the cultural impact, other than that it is great.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
    Thor wrote
    Films don't HAVE to be traditional and narrative.


    True, rules are there to be broken, but you really have to know what you're doing if you decide to do that. It's fine if your film is unconventional, great even, but it still needs to work in some conventional sense for it to connect to the audience. We need something to grasp onto, be it an idea, a character, or a theme, for the film to actually work as a film. If you don't have that, you end up with a pretentious film made by hipster students. (You're the exception that proves the rule; I'm sure you could probably watch a series of colours flash on the screen and call it a masterpiece.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
    It's true that in some instances the line between a film and an art installation is blurry (Man Ray's experiments come to mind), but usually you have a lot of leeway. Godard and other New Wavers consistently undermined classical storytelling with a bunch of alienation effects (collages, talking directly to the camera, jump cuts etc.). That doesn't mean they're not films, but rather a different way of communicating films. There should be room for that kind of approach too. After all, film is an audiovisual medium. If storytelling was all there is, we would be reading books instead.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018 edited
    Thor wrote
    After all, film is an audiovisual medium. If storytelling was all there is, we would be reading books instead.


    Completely agree. I think a film should tell its story visually as much as possible, otherwise it's a waste of film. I can't stand copious amounts of exposition (it has its place, but it's a fine line between effective and too much).

    But a movie - that is, something that has a story and not some art installation of various images - needs a narrative to ground its visuals. We need a reason for them. If Star Trek: The Motion Picture had a better narrative and wasn't so fucking boring, the imagery would live on in far more people's memories. Conversely, a book needs imagery to ground its narrative, even though it does it through words.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018 edited
    It doesn't NEED a narrative, but it should definitely have some sort of message or theme or angle. The story in Godard's PIERROT LE FOU, for example, is completely insignificant; there is a very loose one, but it's just a frame through which he may explore experimentation with sound and visuals; the radicalization IS the point or theme.

    Vice versa, a film on the other side of spectrum -- like AVATAR -- obviously has a story, but it's a clichéed and stereotypical one (the "Pocahontas myth"), and it's really not the primary force of the film. That would be the total 'immersion' aspect Cameron was going for, using sound and visuals.

    In some films, story is less important or even unimportant, but they're no less films or even great films for that reason. It would depend on the director's project.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
    We're at risk at talking past each other again. But here goes...

    I'm really talking about basic level stuff here. Those films still have a narrative, however loose or insignificant they may be. As you say, the story may not be the selling point of a film (clearly this is the case with most Hollywood blockbusters), but a movie at its most basic has a narrative, no matter how unconventional or disjointed it may be. Unless we're describing an audiovisual art piece, which don't feature in cinemas or Netflix, you always have a story. There's always something you could describe in words to someone who hasn't seen it. Without it, all you would be describing is a series of images. Avatar is indeed a visual spectacle. But without the story, all we have is a CGI screen test.

    Name one movie where you couldn't possibly describe its premise and narrative using words, and then you have a movie that has no story.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018
    Some examples: Tarkovsky's THE MIRROR, Reggio's KOYAANISQUATSI, BARAKA, Bunuel's L'AGE D'OR are some "non-narrative" films ("non-narrative film" is actually an established term).

    My point is not necessarily cases like those, however, but to counter the belief -- especially in the western world and Hollywood, in particular -- that films MUST have a story, and that it needs to be a defined story with beginning, middle and end that follows a classical recipe. Film is able to do so much more than just relate stories. Sometimes it's all about the mood or the message or the experimentation itself.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018 edited
    Well, no one's saying film can't subvert from established tradition, clearly they do. Like I said, rules are there to be broken. But there's a reason tradition is tradition, where the films you've exampled, films I would describe as art pieces rather than "movies" (or artistic nonsense if I'm honest), are appreciated by relatively few. Or generally speaking, their approach to film making has fewer fans. Even The Mirror has a plot judging by its wiki page. But this is probably a semantic disagreement, movie vs film. I doubt a series of images, whether connected by a theme or not, would make much money in a cinema.

    In other words, these are exceptions. The overwhelming majority of movies have a narrative, and a decent narrative elevates decent visuals and vice versa. Just because a movie has a narrative, that doesn't mean it's predictable either. It's like saying books don't need to use common syntax. Well, no, but it's generally better for it.

    Like I said, unless you really know what you're doing, traditional film making is popular for a reason. Storytelling is deeply ingrained. The better the story, the more impact the visuals are likely to have.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2018 edited
    Well I don't agree that a film must necessarily cater to the masses or the majority, or that they're somehow invalid because they're exceptions or 'alternative' modes of cinema. If that was your argument. I think film as an artform has room for both. Certainly, I can enjoy a huge Hollywood blockbuster one moment, and then a bizarre art film from Hungary the next (like the 7 hour 30 minute SATANTANGO).

    Claiming that all films must have stories (and very traditionally told stories at that), is underestimating the audiences, I think. And the artform itself.
    I am extremely serious.
  4. I recently saw RUSH directed by Ron Howard. The film was interesting (about racecar drivers Lauda and Hunt in the 70s) but I was especially surprised that Hans Zimmer did the score. I didn't notice it too much in the film since there were so many other sound effects - I'd be really interested to hear the score as a standalone and see what I missed. smile Has anyone else heard it?
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2018
    Of course. It's one of his best in the 2010s. The film is great too; what energy in storytelling!
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2018 edited
    Thor wrote
    Films don't HAVE to be traditional and narrative. That's only the Hollywood mindset speaking. They can also be experimental, tableaux, visceral experiences, you name it. I'm looking forward to seeing it this week.


    yeah of course, I should have said, "traditional movie", not just movie.

    personally, I'm a fan of experimental literature, but haven't really delved into experimental films. A movie like Mandy still has roots in plot-character-sequence-of-events, but is clearly meant to be enjoyed on a different level.

    as to the other conversation, whether a movie has to have a narrative to be a movie, all I can really think of as a guiding rule is that a piece of art should justify it's own existence. that's really broad, obviously. usually, movies use narratives and characters, but it can have value through other means, such as pure visual beauty/ugliness. sometimes a movie might feature a traditional narrative but the thing that justifies it's existence is something completely different like it's music.

    Btw, have you seen it yet?
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.