|
RagnarokAngel posted:Sorry to bring this up almost 2 pages later but this actually was my sole complaint about The Book of Eli. I really hated how Mila Kunis's character looks far too good for her role. Everyone else looks great, her mom looks plain but not ugly (I would assume Oldman's character would in fact take someone who was attractive since he's in a position to do this) and Oldman and Washington look like hell. Kunis looks like she has no trouble finding makeup in a world where Shampoo basically can't be found. I'm not blaming Kunis for being attractive of course, just wish they picked someone who was more "girl next door" pretty. God drat I hate the ending to this movie Eli's dead and gone. Time for Mila Kunis's character to strike out on her own in the world. With these super skills that Eli apparently taught her, given the badass look she's sporting. In the what, week or so that they knew each other? These are skills based on a highly developed sense of motion that a blind guy has, and she picked up all the tips she needed to be able to deal with anything she comes across, after barely any training, and ignoring she's spent the rest of her life as a bartender?
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
ZenMaster posted:
They made it a point to not use magic because it'd give away everything. It hasn't mattered before, because Maleficent doesn't need the girl until her 16th birthday. Now that she's finally 16, though, they have to take extra care not to use magic. ZenMaster posted:- Aladdin India had a strict caste system, Aladdin was on the lowest rung possible. He was literally not worthy enough to sell things, the best he'd do is live life as a servant to an abusive master. Then again, it being a Disney movie, that's kind of moot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Wow, really? Is this from the second film? I never saw it. Suddenly it makes the ending of the third movie a lot sadder though. God drat I'm an idiot. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
Robzor McFabulous posted:This is totally fine, and something I never had a problem with. But my point still stands - Buzz really thinks he's a Space Ranger. The big point to the film was him coming to the realisation that, yes, he is in fact "just a toy". So if he started out not believing he was a toy, why would he follow these "toy rules"? When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I'm getting so loving tired of the "It's just Dances with Wolves with Smurfs, mmmmkay?" attitude. The story is just another example of the "noble savages" fiction. Which, while it might sound racist, is a centuries old and rather popular archetype which didn't reach its peak with some stupid Kevin Costner movie. And as such, Avatar is a perfectly acceptable peace of narrative. The story is about a military man who becomes accepted into a native tribe and chooses to give up his normal life in order to stay with them. I don't care how many sources you can pull up in literature to show how it's a widespread thing, they will all be more obscure/further off than Dances With Wolves. James Cameron didn't do poo poo to brush up on his subtle storytelling nuances in order to make something that just sort of borrowed something similar to Dances With Wolves. The movie is a straight cop of DWW set in the future, and the only reason it got made was to make James Cameron money and let him play with those fancy 3D cameras he wanted to make. Avatar is a means to an end, the end being a technological gain for Cameron, and money in the bank to churn out two more movies. The guy was ballsy enough to leave Movie 1 out of a trilogy that could've flopped with a cliffhanger ending for gently caress's sake. The only other thing Avatar could possibly be is a poorly-made vehicle to argue against drilling for oil, and even on that angle the whole movie is a half-baked pile of crap. Pre-emptive counterpoint: loving Unobtanium. The story's a wash. Speaking of all those things I just said, there are some general things I hate seeing in movies. Like the Unobtanium thing. It takes maybe fifteen minutes to brainstorm something better than Unobtanium. Hell you could even make it something entirely different from Unobtanium and actually make it more compelling. The movie is now about a need in [random element here] for structural support in modern technology. Let's pick a random metal, I'll say Palladium, because it gets made into an alloy and is stronger than anything else previously used. Nobody had to make up a fictional, retarded element to give the mining company a motivation. Hooray! The worst is when somebody finally gets caught doing something "wrong" to a group they're allied with for an overall important reason, but they don't try to explain. They try once, a small token effort, and they're shot down and so they don't try any more. God drat, just state your case. If they won't listen to you, make them listen. A lot of third-act conflict would get resolved if our main character would just grow a pair and say "No, shut up, let me explain god dammit" instead of letting their tail dangle between their legs. Dickweasel Alpha has a new favorite as of 06:04 on Sep 15, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:So people fly for light-years to a hazardous planet to mine an element that occurs on Earth? Compelling indeed. Oops we mined it all to poo poo and Pandora is the only place with a substantial enough amount of Palladium to meet any demands for it. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
Pwnstar posted:Unobtanium is a cool name because its a scientist joke about any material that does a magic thing and/or is hella hard to find, we've been over this. Its cool though because obviously when they discovered the planet and all that some nerd scientist called it Unobtanium for fun as a little private joke amongst his science pals and then when the military and corporations move in they either don't give a poo poo or are too dumb to realise and just keep the name. You can reach really far and assume that, but at the end of the day it's still James Cameron giving a stupid loving name to a MacGuffin because it's a MacGuffin. It's given the least amount of development in the movie (saying a lot) and it's the most important drat thing in the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
Kung Food posted:Yes, Cameron should have broken the pacing of the movie to give a ten minute exposition on the origins and properties of the magic space rock that nobody but nerds gives a poo poo about, because what every movie needs is more techno babble about pretend elements. Two minutes. Two loving minutes of dialogue to do something besides handwave away the entire motivation of the  big bad company with a magic space rock with a name this goddamn stupid. It takes zero effort to make it anything else. It takes marginally more effort to make it something only of value instead of practical usage. They could very loving well make it something that is directly responsible for the link the Na'vi have with the rest of nature, anything to cement the antagonist's motivation. It's literally the laziest loving thing you can do from a writing standpoint outside of giving them no motivation at all, but even that would create something more substantial because it would prove that they're just chaotic-loving-evil instead of marginally greedy mining people with robots. Or worse, the writers actually sat down together as a group and decided "Yes, Unobtanium is the best decision because _______" for any reason besides being lazy. Then they're just retarded.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Yes, exactly! Why are people having a difficult time understanding this? It is literally the entire motivation for the antagonists to exist, outside of general dude wanting to kill a few aliens. No Unobtanium, no mining company, no conflict. It's the crux of the whole story make a drat bit of sense, but it's given no real development or any sort of reasoning for being important when it goddamn is. It's not like they forgot to flesh out exactly how their intergalactic travel is for my immersion or something, they just entirely ignore the purpose--and importance of--the entire reason the mining company even gives a poo poo about Pandora. It's the equivalent of "She really loves him" "He really loves her!" "You should care about this romance!" you get in bad romantic comedies. It's anti-character development, it's just simplifying the gently caress out of the humans to call them bad guys, it ruins the development of the antagonistic company as anything but a basic company, the only thing we get to give a poo poo about (for good or bad) from then on out is Mr. Jake Sully, Blue Alien Fucker Esquire. It pigeonholes humans as Stupid Evil right off the bat. There's nowhere to go but up, but it never goes up. The audience is just supposed to gasp about nature and then be furious at the guy who only wants to kill blue furry alien. And all of those lovely, lovely things are a result of how little of a poo poo the filmmakers gave for Unobtanium, and by extension how little of a poo poo the audience gives. It's not the cause, or at least not entirely the cause, but it is the most glaring symptom of "We Didn't Give A poo poo About Making A Meaningful Movie Outside Of These Fancy New Cameras We Have" and that pisses me right off. Especially when half the goddamned thing is a romance. It'd almost slide by if it was just action, but being meaningful and having a romance are pretty important to have hand-in-hand
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 15:52
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:You're confusing the symptom with the cause. Or the egg with the chicken. "Unobtanium" is a nice illustration of "it's a McGuffin nobody should give a gently caress about", not the cause of said attitude. And if the Mcguffin actually had some meaning beyond "this will make the bad guys stinking rich", then Avatar would be a completely different movie. Which would've been a good thing, that's my point. My Irritating Movie Moment is the whole freakin' run of Avatar.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
Christmas Jones posted:Well then it's good that this is the irrationally irritating moments thread. Although the difference between Aladdin not being a "real" prince but Jafar being a "real" sultan makes no sense, rational or otherwise. Al wants to be a prince, bada-bing bada-boom it's done. Jafar wants to be the sultan, and it happens. He's installed over the current one, who is no longer the sultan. The difference lies in the fact that Jafar's has direct ties and consequences that we can see, whereas Aladdin just needed a cover story (which is much easier to pull off than, say, creating an entire nation) Although one could argue that Genie might have actually made Aladdin a prince by twisting the fabric of reality to set into motion the events leading up to the third movie, where Aladdin is basically the prince of thieves. Regardless the sultan thing lasts for all of five minutes before Jafar decides he'd rather be a sorceror so it doesn't really matter too much.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
Malachite_Dragon posted:Correction: Jafar wanted to be an all-powerful Genie. He got his wish, but there are rules about being a Genie... Such as, being bond to a lamp unless freed via wish. He wishes to be a sorceror first. It goes sultan->sorceror->genie Because he must have MORE POWER 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 08:25
|
|
|
It's worth it for the songs alone, especially Aladdin's prince theme with the parts sung by Genie pretending to be regular people.  The whole film is great, even if it does have a few minor bumps. Like the wishing thing, nobody will ever get wishing right in a movie, there is always a loophole unless you say "no loopholes, I get final say on what poo poo can fly" "You can't wish for somebody to love you." "I wish I was a combination of every trait Jasmine finds attractive" "...gently caress you, street rat."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
I think there are some instances when he has the Spider Sense working for him, but we just don't get the neat Spider Sense slowdown. He does a lot of fancy dodges in the films, so it becomes less of a talent that's constantly working and more of something that helps him when he's focused. That's the apologist's way of handling it, at least. It's very poorly implemented, but there could very well be a point of fallibility to it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
Mu Cow posted:I haven't seen the third one yet, but the second movie makes it clear that Woody is an old toy. It's mentioned that his show was cancelled after Sputnik was launched in 1957. So by the time of Toy Story 2, Woody was at least 42 years old. So he must have had a previous owner. I doubt it, Woody never knows about his old show and he has an extreme attachment to Andy. I think Woody was just tossed in storage some place for years until he got snapped up and given to Andy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 10:59
|
|
|
Those love scenes exist for the same reason the explosions exist: Hitting the lowest common denominator. A lot of people like explosions. A lot of people also like watching sex. You bundle the two together and you've got
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2011 09:17
|
|
|
spixxor posted:Really though you can't read too far into The Lion King, otherwise you realize Simba and Nala are half brother and sister. And that Scar would have killed Nala when he took over anyway. Then there are the other things, like how we see the one male lion (Mufasa) and nobody else besides Scar, so the lionesses who have cubs would all have to have mated with Mufasa. Although the last time this got brought up with friends and we all sperged out about it, it's a bit more distrubing to remember what actually happens during lion sex. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Lolitas Alright! posted:A few people earlier mentioned how annoying it is when sex scenes get shoehorned into movies, specifically mentioning the one between Dan and Laurie in Watchmen. One of the things that pisses me off the most is when there's a scene that's supposed to be really loving important, and they play a song that just totally inappropriate for the scene. I mean, yeah, the song "Hallelujah" has the line "remember when I moved in you/and the Holy Ghost was moving too", but the song isn't a happy song you should be playing as a couple who have finally gotten past their issues are consummating their love. It's depressing as balls. If they used the version I think they used (Jeff Buckley's) then it's literally about the female orgasm. He got the full list of verses from Leonard Cohen and then picked and choosed the order of the verses to fit a structure to make it about the female orgasm. The song has a lot of meanings 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2011 11:10
|
|