Octorox said:
Star Wars was really the catalyst that shifted sci-fi from "Thinking man's sci-fi" such as 2001: A Space Odyssey to "fantasy/action/western set among futuristic backdrops."
2001 had rather less thought (of any value) and rather more pretension that is often recognized. Overrated movie. Give me Star Wars any day -that had humanity and an active imagination.
To me, a good movie is something that keeps me entertained for the ~2 hours you invest in it. Nothing more, nothing less. Make a film with as much symbolism and underlying themes as you want. Congratulations, you've made "art". I don't pay 10 bucks a head for art. In that respect, I immensely enjoyed both Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe. Terminator: Salvation, on the other hand, was below average. Really, if it wasn't for the fact that it was an installment in one of my favorite series, I probably wouldn't have wasted my time on it. That said, it doesn't belong in my "worst movies ever" category. That's reserved for movies like Natural Born Killers, Alone in the Dark, and Black Dahlia.
Vaderisnothayden said:
Octorox said:
Star Wars was really the catalyst that shifted sci-fi from "Thinking man's sci-fi" such as 2001: A Space Odyssey to "fantasy/action/western set among futuristic backdrops."
2001 had rather less thought (of any value) and rather more pretension that is often recognized. Overrated movie. Give me Star Wars any day -that had humanity and an active imagination.
STAR TREK CAME BEFORE STAR WARS, AND IT COULD EASILY BE DISCRIBED AS "FANTASY/ACTION/WESTERN SET AMONG FUTURISTIC BACKDROPS" THOUGH STAR WARS DID TAKE THAT FURTHER.
"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide
Johnboy3434 said:
To me, a good movie is something that keeps me entertained for the ~2 hours you invest in it. Nothing more, nothing less. Make a film with as much symbolism and underlying themes as you want. Congratulations, you've made "art". I don't pay 10 bucks a head for art. In that respect, I immensely enjoyed both Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe.
Well, that was my problem. I simply didn't enjoy G.I. Joe. I agree with you that movies don't have to be art to be enjoyable, but I didn't find this at all enjoyable. I was squirming in my seat the entire time hoping it would end soon and wondering why I had let my friends talk me into seeing it. It's been, what, three months now, and I'm still scarred over that!
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Gaffer Tape said:
Well, that was my problem. I simply didn't enjoy G.I. Joe. I agree with you that movies don't have to be art to be enjoyable, but I didn't find this at all enjoyable. I was squirming in my seat the entire time hoping it would end soon and wondering why I had let my friends talk me into seeing it. It's been, what, three months now, and I'm still scarred over that!
And there's nothing wrong with that. People enjoy different things. That's life. What peeves me is when people say that a movie is worthless simply because there's nothing to it but popcorn entertainment, as if a movie has to "make you think" (notice how they never point out what you're supposed to be "thinking" about?) in order to be an enjoyable experience.
Oh, yeah, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion to like it. I'm not criticizing you for liking it. While I think there is an overabundance of non-thinking popcorn fluff, I can find popcorn fluff enjoyable. But for some reason, I just found this movie completely devoid of any intellectual processes to the point that I just couldn't enjoy it.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Gaffer Tape said:
Johnboy3434 said:
To me, a good movie is something that keeps me entertained for the ~2 hours you invest in it. Nothing more, nothing less. Make a film with as much symbolism and underlying themes as you want. Congratulations, you've made "art". I don't pay 10 bucks a head for art. In that respect, I immensely enjoyed both Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe.
Well, that was my problem. I simply didn't enjoy G.I. Joe. I agree with you that movies don't have to be art to be enjoyable, but I didn't find this at all enjoyable. I was squirming in my seat the entire time hoping it would end soon and wondering why I had let my friends talk me into seeing it. It's been, what, three months now, and I'm still scarred over that!
That's exactly how I felt when I watched "Boondock Saints". It almost seems like a requirement that every college kid is supposed to love it (just about all my friends do), but the whole time I was like "When on earth is this movie going to end?"
Things are so bad that I've really stopped going to theaters. If I can find a good art-house theater then you can't get me to leave.
What I really would like to do is lock a huge audience in a multiplex and swap whatever crapfest they paid for to a pristine 35mm print of Tarkovsky's Solaris. Then we can see their heads roll.
I thought for the longest time that modern audiences could no longer appreciate great works of the cinema. Roger Ebert once asked: "Do modern audiences have the patience to wait for Harry Lime in The Third Man?" The answer is: yes. I started a Film Appreciation club at school, and people actually get engrossed by classic film again. So, there really is hope in the world when college students sit in rapt attention for THX 1138, Barry Lyndon, Once Upon a Time in the West, and The Third Man. I want to break out Lawrence of Arabia and Once Upon a Time in America now just to see the reaction.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
The wife and I watched this last night. I don't see the fuss over it one way or another. I would put it right beside Mummy 3, Transformers, Armageddon, etc... Mostly souless Summer Blockbuster- which is good or bad depending on your tastes. I give it a very cool 2.5 stars. I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
captainsolo said:
I thought for the longest time that modern audiences could no longer appreciate great works of the cinema. Roger Ebert once asked: "Do modern audiences have the patience to wait for Harry Lime in The Third Man?" The answer is: yes. I started a Film Appreciation club at school, and people actually get engrossed by classic film again. So, there really is hope in the world when college students sit in rapt attention for THX 1138, Barry Lyndon, Once Upon a Time in the West, and The Third Man. I want to break out Lawrence of Arabia and Once Upon a Time in America now just to see the reaction.
But you're comparing apples to oranges if you think GI Joe is comprable to The Third Man.
Compare meaningless entertainment like Joe (which I reather enjoyed for what it was) with classic meaningless entertainment, not with classic great films.
"GI Joe" should be compared to "Tiger Woman: Perils of Darkest Africa" not "Lawrence of Arabia."
Sci-fi schlock like "Transformers" shouldn't be compared and found wanting next to "Solaris." It should be compared to "The Blob."
It would be like saying that old movies were no good by comparing "American Beauty" to "The Mole People."
Vaderisnothayden said:
You could also try watching Zardoz.
Somehow I had never heard of Zardoz until just a couple years ago. I saw the trailer on the Enemy Mine DVD we got from Netflix. It blew my mind how bizarre, ridiculous and stupid the whole thing looked. If my wife is being bad, I can just threaten to rent Zardoz. Which I did one week when she was out of town. I'm sad to say it wasn't half as bad as the trailer had made it appear to me to be.
Stupid misleading trailers.... grumble grumble...
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
Well, I wasn't comparing them. I was simply trying to point out that modern audiences can appreciate art and aren't the complete morons Hollywood assumes them to be. If only we could make this more evident!
BTW, I couldn't get through 5 minutes of this crapfest.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader