Jump to content

Watched, Watched, Watching: Saltier Things Part One


Recommended Posts

The bond discussion made me wonder why modern movies are so insistent on creating a through-line of narrative, making every movie in the franchise part of one long story, instead of being purely episodic. Well I know why studios do it, it's to reduce risk and hope that people will come back to see Part 2 of the movie they just watched.

But it also can alienate viewers, so I'm not sure why they are so eager to do it. Bond never really needed a long running plot, it can work as an episode which is entirely self contained.

I think the Mission Impossible movies do a better job of this, where I can pick any of them up whilst totally forgetting what happened in the last one, and still follow it. I wish more movies were like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

All the Bond films are on Prime, and I'll take this opportunity to say Dalton's two entries don't get enough respect. License to Kill is awesome.

It seems like audience wasn’t ready for the Dalton style Bond at the time, but they were pretty good and reversed the cheesiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a lot of people claim superhero movie fatigue, but I personally have action movie fatigue. Whether the movie has a strong humorous side, like all the Ryan Reynolds movies and a good portion of Dwayne Johnson movies, or are mostly serious like MI and Bond movies, I am tired. It's largely the same plot, the same type of villains, and ridiculous, physics braking action pieces. At least with superheroes, if you accept the lore, the action scenes are more ok.

For example I have no interest in seeing the upcoming Gray Man movie on Netflix despite the star power and being directed by the Russo brothers.

I've only watched each of the Daniel Craig Bond movies once, and that was enough. Same with the recent Mission Impossible movies except maybe Rogue Nation, and I do want to re-watch the very first one sometime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The bond discussion made me wonder why modern movies are so insistent on creating a through-line of narrative, making every movie in the franchise part of one long story, instead of being purely episodic. Well I know why studios do it, it's to reduce risk and hope that people will come back to see Part 2 of the movie they just watched.

But it also can alienate viewers, so I'm not sure why they are so eager to do it. Bond never really needed a long running plot, it can work as an episode which is entirely self contained.

I think the Mission Impossible movies do a better job of this, where I can pick any of them up whilst totally forgetting what happened in the last one, and still follow it. I wish more movies were like this. 

I am going to get a lot of hate for this but that's what turned me off to the Lord of the Rings movies. I knew absolutely nothing going in to it. When I watched the first long ass movie and absolutely nothing happened except to set up for the next in the series I was so pissed. The only one of those I liked was the last one and will never watch them again.

I am fully aware that this is my fault because I could have done some checking on the books but didn't do it. I also understand that there wasn't another way to do this but it just struck a cord when I read that comment.

Looking forward to Peaky Blinders final season. IIRC last season felt like it was about time to kill it so this is good timing for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dbunting said:

I am going to get a lot of hate for this but that's what turned me off to the Lord of the Rings movies. I knew absolutely nothing going in to it. When I watched the first long ass movie and absolutely nothing happened except to set up for the next in the series I was so pissed. The only one of those I liked was the last one and will never watch them again.

I am fully aware that this is my fault because I could have done some checking on the books but didn't do it. I also understand that there wasn't another way to do this but it just struck a cord when I read that comment.

 

I mean ,can't expect to please everyone. The movie is better if you go in enthusiastic and buy into it.

The worst example was when I went to see Return of the King, and a bunch of teenagers walked out 45 mins in, and shouted 'What a shit movie!!' on their way out. 

All I could think was either 
1. They had never seen the previous 2 movies, which makes you wonder what they expected to get out of it
2. The HAD seen the previous 2 movies, but had waited about 6 hours into the trilogy to decide they didn't want to watch any more of it. 

Either way, they were idiots.

 

Edited by Heartofice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corvinus85 said:

I know a lot of people claim superhero movie fatigue, but I personally have action movie fatigue. Whether the movie has a strong humorous side, like all the Ryan Reynolds movies and a good portion of Dwayne Johnson movies, or are mostly serious like MI and Bond movies, I am tired. It's largely the same plot, the same type of villains, and ridiculous, physics braking action pieces. At least with superheroes, if you accept the lore, the action scenes are more ok.

For example I have no interest in seeing the upcoming Gray Man movie on Netflix despite the star power and being directed by the Russo brothers.

I've only watched each of the Daniel Craig Bond movies once, and that was enough. Same with the recent Mission Impossible movies except maybe Rogue Nation, and I do want to re-watch the very first one sometime soon.

My issue with action movies is the lack of invention, so I basically agree with you. I do think the Mission Impossible movies do a really good job of trying to keep the action interesting, but outside of that franchise there is no joy to be had from watching CGI stuff being blown up, watching CGI men running along CGI roads, being shot at with CGI weapons.

Now if we could go back and get some genuine martial arts fights, between people who were genuinely skilled, filmed by a director capable of shooting action that isn't shakycam bullshit, I'd be very happy to watch that. 

Edited by Heartofice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only Bond who really lived up to his 'promise' was Sean Connery, no?  Roger Moore devolved into camp almost immediately.  Pierce Brosnan lasted a little longer and better before also becoming silly. Lazenby and Dalton I'm not even counting.  And, as others said, the high point of Craig's Bond was Casino Royale.

Watched No Time to Die yesterday.  It was okay.  Not as good as Skyfall or Caino Royale and better than Spectre, which was a mess.  Although the action set pieces weren't as well done or extravagent as Spectre, the movie itself was much better.  I liked that they made the plot not about geo politics but something more timeless, even though  Rami Malik's part was under developed.  I'm not sure how I feel about the ending. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

My issue with action movies is the lack of invention, so I basically agree with you. I do think the Mission Impossible movies do a really good job of trying to keep the action interesting, but outside of that franchise there is no joy to be had from watching CGI stuff being blown up, watching CGI men running along CGI roads, being shot at with CGI weapons.

Now if we could go back and get some genuine martial arts fights, between people who were genuinely skilled, filmed by a director capable of shooting action that isn't shakycam bullshit, I'd be very happy to watch that. 

To be fair, a lot of the action scenes are done with practical effects. Even Fast & Furious have a ton of practical stuff only enhanced by CGI - but the practical stuff, of course, are carefully done pyrotechnics that actually make little sense to occur and guys on wires, because no human being can jump or take a hit like they do. 

I would like to see more minimalistic cat & mouse action movies where the moment when action needs to happen, it's visceral, quick, and well earned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

To be fair, a lot of the action scenes are done with practical effects. Even Fast & Furious have a ton of practical stuff only enhanced by CGI - but the practical stuff, of course, are carefully done pyrotechnics that actually make little sense to occur and guys on wires, because no human being can jump or take a hit like they do. 

I would like to see more minimalistic cat & mouse action movies where the moment when action needs to happen, it's visceral, quick, and well earned. 

C'mon, you mean having two cars jump an imaginary ramp at the same time just so a drone camera can fly under it for the shot is an issue?  At least that scene in Ambulance wasn't CGI I guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

It seems like audience wasn’t ready for the Dalton style Bond at the time, but they were pretty good and reversed the cheesiness.

Agreed. Interesting they went back to that style with Craig. Those two portrayals are most similar to the books where Bond is a cold spy on a mission.

I still want book Felix Leiter with a hook for a hand. Maybe they can let him keep his leg. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The bond discussion made me wonder why modern movies are so insistent on creating a through-line of narrative, making every movie in the franchise part of one long story, instead of being purely episodic. Well I know why studios do it, it's to reduce risk and hope that people will come back to see Part 2 of the movie they just watched.

Money. They do it for money.

2 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

I know a lot of people claim superhero movie fatigue, but I personally have action movie fatigue. Whether the movie has a strong humorous side, like all the Ryan Reynolds movies and a good portion of Dwayne Johnson movies, or are mostly serious like MI and Bond movies, I am tired. It's largely the same plot, the same type of villains, and ridiculous, physics braking action pieces. At least with superheroes, if you accept the lore, the action scenes are more ok.

For example I have no interest in seeing the upcoming Gray Man movie on Netflix despite the star power and being directed by the Russo brothers.

I've only watched each of the Daniel Craig Bond movies once, and that was enough. Same with the recent Mission Impossible movies except maybe Rogue Nation, and I do want to re-watch the very first one sometime soon.

I made a conscious decision a while back to "give up" on existing franchise stuff. Yeah, I'll still watch Star Wars and Star Trek and whatnot, but I'm not invested in it at all. I don't especially care about spoilers and if I miss one or two or ten of them, I'm fine with that. I haven't bought a movie ticket for capeshit since 2017.

Going outside of that spectrum is where the really interesting stuff is in general I think. Stuff that can't substitute fan service and nostalgia for creativity and good story telling. Bring it on.

I really admire the fact that Halo decided to go its own way regarding the live-action lore. This pisses off some of the video game nerds to no end but screw 'em.  

1 hour ago, dbunting said:

 

Looking forward to Peaky Blinders final season. IIRC last season felt like it was about time to kill it so this is good timing for me.

I finished it yesterday. It as cool. When you're done check out any of the online documentary material about the Mitford sisters. You may already be familiar

It's not exactly the final season. 

Edited by Deadlines? What Deadlines?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

The only Bond who really lived up to his 'promise' was Sean Connery, no?  Roger Moore devolved into camp almost immediately.  Pierce Brosnan lasted a little longer and better before also becoming silly. Lazenby and Dalton I'm not even counting.  And, as others said, the high point of Craig's Bond was Casino Royale.

Moore to me is a distant last place. Lazenby may have only been in one movie, but it was a damn good Bond film. 

When it comes to Connery, Brosnan and Craig, if you're picking based on best film I actually think Connery comes in third with either Goldfinger or From Russia with Love, but overall he's the only one with a run of good films so if you value that more than he's the best Bond.

 

I do jokingly think that because Connery was in Zardoz  he can never be called the best at anything.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RumHam said:

Swimfan an all too often overlooked character study of a woman who was such a fan of swimming that it caused problems in the community.

The best was how the aol screen name was "swimfan0243" or whatever lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The bond discussion made me wonder why modern movies are so insistent on creating a through-line of narrative, making every movie in the franchise part of one long story, instead of being purely episodic. Well I know why studios do it, it's to reduce risk and hope that people will come back to see Part 2 of the movie they just watched.

But it also can alienate viewers, so I'm not sure why they are so eager to do it. Bond never really needed a long running plot, it can work as an episode which is entirely self contained.

The other issue with doing it is that it has to be done well which is hard for a movie series taking place over many years. For the Craig Bond movies at least Quantum of Solace (for all its weaknesses) does follow-on from Casino Royale but then Skyfall largely ignores the previous films, Spectre tries to unconvincingly retcon them and No Time To Die was left trying to both tie everything together and introducing a new and largely unconnected plot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did Barry become one of the most intense and action-packed show on televisions?  The end of the season came on like a freight train, especially the last three episodes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SpaceChampion said:

How did Barry become one of the most intense and action-packed show on televisions?  The end of the season came on like a freight train, especially the last three episodes.

It's definitely got a Breaking Bad vibe. From interviews with Bill Hader it was basically them just naturally taking what had happened and flowing from there and not trying to do resets or make things super unrealistic or implausible. Apparently

Spoiler

It was getting more and more implausible that the police wouldn't figure out Barry was involved especially as he kept doing worse and worse things, and their incompetence could only go so long - plus they really wanted to have Barry have some actual consequences to his actions. 

The Sally stuff however...whoa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the police chief on Barry. "No, we haven't seen him since he dramatically cocked his gun and stormed out. He's probably seeing the sights"

I do think the Albert stuff was a little odd.

Spoiler

That they didn't have a scene together earlier in the season, and that he just left Barry out there in the desert.

I think this season was a slight step down, but still great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...