Prez wrote on May 30, 2024, 19:01:
It's why I got so annoyed way back when everyone was falling over themselves praising the first Avatar as a great movie. It was unequivocally not a great movie. It wasn't even a good movie; it was pretty bad. It was a stunning technical cinematic achievement at the time but as a movie it was awful. And people got distracted by that so much that I kept getting told what a great movie it was.

It was the same with Star Wars. But movies are also about visual achievements, especially when they are the paradigm-altering kind. That's what makes them different from novels and plays.

Prez wrote on May 31, 2024, 15:54:

C'mon, Hollywood, you have forgiven rapists, molesters, but not Mel? Did he piss off the wrong people?

If I started skipping movies or shows because I don't like the behaviors of some of the actors I would be missing a huge amount of films. Some of my favorite movies have Harvey Weinstein's name in the credits in the first minute. He's an absolute monster but I am here for the art, not the drama. I even watched The Flash movie for fuck's sake. It was a special level of awful, but I watched it.

On that same front, boycotting a movie because of a single actor also negatively impacts everyone else involved in that movie, from actors to crew. Are people really alright with punishing people for association with people who do or say things you don't like? I wouldn't seek out a movie with Mel Gibson in it anymore, but if he happened to be in a movie I was interested in, I wouldn't refuse. The other actors need jobs too, and their opportunities are often rare, so they may not have the luxury of refusing to be a part of a project that includes someone repulsive. Should they then be punished as well for accepting a role in that movie?

It's a weird phenomenon that people don't seem to put too much thought into. It'd be like expecting someone to quit their job if there's a Trump supporter that works with them.

What a DVD?
/s

C'mon, Hollywood, you have forgiven rapists, molesters, but not Mel? Did he piss off the wrong people?

If I started skipping movies or shows because I don't like the behaviors of some of the actors I would be missing a huge amount of films. Some of my favorite movies have Harvey Weinstein's name in the credits in the first minute. He's an absolute monster but I am here for the art, not the drama. I even watched The Flash movie for fuck's sake. It was a special level of awful, but I watched it.

I saw Furiosa, it was ok. Probably better on the big screen than at home.

Come on guys, no politics, get enough of that trash on regular media.

I liked Fury Road but it did NOT feature Mad Max. I like Tom Hardy, too, but he simply was not Max. He was someone who took Max's name and was quite handy as a supporting character for Furiosa. They should have done Fury Road as a Furiosa only movie - Theron was amazing and the story did not need Max, he was just in there to guarantee the success of the movie.

Not sure about this prequel, I will wait for the blu-ray. And I am still hoping (although Miller is now 80, I think) for a "Logan"-like "Rockatansky" movie featuring Mad Mel. C'mon, Hollywood, you have forgiven rapists, molesters, but not Mel? Did he piss off the wrong people? Miller should just give a damn about Hollywood and produce and shoot this in Australia and Africa. It would not have to cost another $150m, make it smaller scale, a more personal vendetta like in the first movie, and work with African and Australian actors and crews, and get Old Man Rockatansky done, Miller. I know you actually want to do it.

The long continuous tracking shot was impressive, but the part of that movie that haunts me is the nightmare like sequence involving the mother and child trying to survive in the bombed out city.

It was beginning to seem impossible.
But the system he abused and spurned for decades finally got him.

Cyanotetyphas wrote on May 30, 2024, 21:40:
The trick to sequels/prequels is to not actually relate them in your head. It's financing more than passion. I don't consider Fury Road to have anything to do with Mad Max 1/2 (and lol3), but its a kind of amazing movie that updates those inspirations into something else and even makes the wasteland into more of a character itself. I also think that these movies are probably better served on the big screen. The writing is never that strong so if you can bop onto your phone in the middle its over.

For me that is what part of the problem is. When I hear " Mad Max" it evokes a lot more feeling than if you named the same movie something else. I know that studios are using name recognition to tap into a pre-built audience. That's a double-edge sword though. There's a lot more expectation and comparisons to be made once you set your story in such a world. Dialogue, characters, and story are expected to be just as strong as they were in the movies you are referencing. Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy played good characters in Fury Road. But they didn't attain the level of excellence of the characters in the first two for me. That's a comparison I am going to make because of what you named your movie. The second one was my favorite for the record. Something was lost in Fury Road for me even if it was a better movie than Thunderdome.

This comment was edited on May 30, 2024, 23:01.

Prez wrote on May 30, 2024, 19:01:
It's why I got so annoyed way back when everyone was falling over themselves praising the first Avatar as a great movie. It was unequivocally not a great movie. It wasn't even a good movie; it was pretty bad. It was a stunning technical cinematic achievement at the time but as a movie it was awful. And people got distracted by that so much that I kept getting told what a great movie it was.

This was my take completely. SFX demo, utter trash as a movie.

The trick to sequels/prequels is to not actually relate them in your head. It's financing more than passion. I don't consider Fury Road to have anything to do with Mad Max 1/2 (and lol3), but its a kind of amazing movie that updates those inspirations into something else and even makes the wasteland into more of a character itself. I also think that these movies are probably better served on the big screen. The writing is never that strong so if you can bop onto your phone in the middle its over.

Unfortunately, it might be as good for Trump as you would think it should be bad. I have already started steeling myself in anticipation he will win in November. Not a sure thing, but far too likely for my tastes.

Jim wrote on May 30, 2024, 19:07:

RedEye9 wrote on May 30, 2024, 17:27:
Guilty On All Counts In Hush-money Case

President "34"

**Prez practicing voodoo magic and doing an ancient tribal warding dance saying "No politics on Bluesnews. No politics on Bluesnews..."***

RedEye9 wrote on May 30, 2024, 17:27:
Guilty On All Counts In Hush-money Case

President "34"

The impressive technology or a stunning technical achievement should never be the point of a movie or a scene, which is why I found it so annoying that it seemed to be the only topic discussed when 1917 came out. To that end, it's kind of awesome that you didn't notice it. It served the film excellently without defining it.

It's why I got so annoyed way back when everyone was falling over themselves praising the first Avatar as a great movie. It was unequivocally not a great movie. It wasn't even a good movie; it was pretty bad. It was a stunning technical cinematic achievement at the time but as a movie it was awful. And people got distracted by that so much that I kept getting told what a great movie it was.

RedEye9 wrote on May 30, 2024, 18:29:
WOW, It was pretty much all anyone was talking about at the time.
The fact that you didn't notice it speaks volumes about how seamless it was.
1917 - (Behind The Scenes Featurette)

Yeah, I don't recall reading anything about the film before or after watching it. It was on one of the movie channels so I watched it one night. *shrug*

The reason I'm half annoyed at not noticing is how much I fell in love with the dance scene in "La La Land" about 40 minutes into the film. It is Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone dancing on a street at dusk with the LA skyline behind/below them. It was done in a single shot with a single camera, it is fantastic. I have watched that scene on my DVR probably 100 times.

This comment was edited on May 30, 2024, 20:10.

Yes. See furiosa in the theater. If you played the mad max game it all makes sense. It even looks like the game in some respects. This is a prequel to fury road and ends respectfully.

Mr. Tact wrote on May 30, 2024, 18:21:

Blue wrote on May 30, 2024, 11:16:
I was aware that this is all depicted as single running shot like Birdman, but I was still not prepared for such a stunning technical achievement.

Huh, interesting. I've seen 1917 and don't recall noticing it being shot that way. Not that I am saying you are wrong, just somewhere between annoyed and surprised I didn't notice it.

WOW, It was pretty much all anyone was talking about at the time.
The fact that you didn't notice it speaks volumes about how seamless it was.
1917 - (Behind The Scenes Featurette)

The movie was effectively shot in a single take. I say "effectively" because if you remember the scene in the small house by the river, the protagonist seemingly loses consciousness and the screen goes dark for an instant, giving an editor a chance to link up separate takes. I don't know if that happened, and even if it did, the amount of work that had to be done in order to shoot the film in this way is mind-boggling. To someone who appreciates the art of movie making like I do, it's awe-inspiring.

Blue wrote on May 30, 2024, 11:16:
I was aware that this is all depicted as single running shot like Birdman, but I was still not prepared for such a stunning technical achievement.

Huh, interesting. I've seen 1917 and don't recall noticing it being shot that way. Not that I am saying you are wrong, just somewhere between annoyed and surprised I didn't notice it.