|
Snak posted:Okay but it was still weird when Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox's characters were making out (and probably about to bang) on the hood of Bumblebee in front of all the other Autobots. That's sort of the point. In Fury Road, the war-rig literally serves as a cyborg enhancement - Furiosa's left arm, as highlighted by the skeleton decal on the door. In that very specific sense, the rig is alive. Transformers takes this further: the machines are not just alive but have a will of their own. They manipulate you. It's a ghost story, like Christine - or Maximum Overdrive.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Oh boy, people are responding to SMG again. poo poo, if this keeps up we might have a conversation or something. SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's sort of the point. In Fury Road, the war-rig literally serves as a cyborg enhancement - Furiosa's left arm, as highlighted by the skeleton decal on the door. In that very specific sense, the rig is alive. I can't remember who pointed it out, but Shia and Wahlberg's characters relationships with Optimus Prime mirrioring the relationship between their actors and Bay is amazing. A naive young kid swept up in something huge, told that he is special and that star treatment turning him into a terrible person. A guy whose big shot never quite worked out (TF4 was Wahlberg's first blockbuster since 2000) glad to jump on the bandwagon of the first guy to 'believe' in him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The simple reason is memes. You spend far too much time building the worlds biggest nerd strawman to knock over. For someone who claims to have such an aversion to nerd culture, you spend a lot of time limply dissecting it. Do you watch films that aren't scieince fiction/superheo franchises? I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
I do not actually exist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:When the ultimate objective is to catalog plot points on wookiepedia, the fact that Optimus Prime disappears between shots is a threat. I'm saving this to my hard drive, in my compilation of greatest things I've ever seen on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The simple reason is memes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I do not actually exist. If you meet SMG on the street, kill him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The simple reason is memes. I just want the Transformers movies to at least be decent movies. But they're not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:If you meet SMG on the street, kill him. I choose to interpret this as the Toho monster and not the poster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:I choose to interpret this as the Toho monster and not the poster. I would probably convert if the Buddha was in fact a giant robot dinosaur.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:Holy gently caress you can praise someone and critique them at the same time? Usually you wouldn't use a video that offers praise AND critique if you wanted to prove someone was "demonstrably poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
I was so excited for Transformers 4. I sat through 2 and a half hours of barely entertaining crap to finally see Grimlock and the rest of the Dinobots show up. I was elated! Now was the time for the line that I wanted to hear and thus sub par movie experience would jumped up! Instead, more mediocrity, more bad shots and not a single King of the Dinobots. Mad Max kept the action going and I felt pumped all during this movie! I didn't want it to end. What a lovely movie!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Usually you wouldn't use a video that offers praise AND critique if you wanted to prove someone was "demonstrably poo poo." But that's exactly what he does, and the praise is necessary to understand the criticism. He admits that Michael Bay has talent and knows how to set up a cool scene compositionally, but absolutely fails with the end product because he can't comprehend the concept of putting limits in place where there need to be limits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:I was so excited for Transformers 4. I sat through 2 and a half hours of barely entertaining crap to finally see Grimlock and the rest of the Dinobots show up. I was elated! Now was the time for the line that I wanted to hear and thus sub par movie experience would jumped up! Seriously how the gently caress do you make a movie with grimlock in it and not have him say his only line? So edgy, so crafty, of Bayer to not include it. I mean that was literally the only suspense of the movie and boy did it keep me hanging. Literally, I could of hanged myself for watching that crap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Great Rumbler posted:But that's exactly what he does, and the praise is necessary to understand the criticism. He admits that Michael Bay has talent and knows how to set up a cool scene compositionally, but absolutely fails with the end product because he can't comprehend the concept of putting limits in place where there need to be limits. But is it really considered a failure when it might be his objective from the start to make a incoherent balls to the walls cgi action fest? It also sells like hot poo poo. If a director succeeds in making the movie exactly after his vision, and said movie becomes a box office hit, its a success right? How does its failure to follow certain "movie laws" negate that succeess? GyverMac fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
As soon as Michale Bay remember to put in a character I care about in his movies, I might be enjoy one of his movies. I'll give him The Rock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYuZX7swc5Y A scene where Bays style of editing action actually works. one because we get decent coverage of the scene before the shooting starts so we actually know at least the basics of what the gently caress is happening in the scene, and two when the frantic editing of the action starts it actually feels like the uncontrolled chaos that the characters are experience it as. This scene was set up to show a situation going out of control and Bays style of editing action works perfectly with that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrjo9LbeyTQ This is just some fine actors, actors having a tense dialogue scene. Its no good the bad and the ugly graveyard shoot out, but Bay gets a bit cheesy but none the less thoroughly entertaining performances out of the actors, and the fast edited close ups of all the characters works well with the scene. The main reason I enjoyed the rock, characters I cared about. Every other bay film I've seen didn't care about a drat thing that happened as the characters were nothing, I didn't want to see them succeed, I didn't want to see them fail, I just didn't give a drat what happed to a single one of them, making the movies basically nothing more than bits of flickering lights and loud noises. Cinematography is nothing with out subject, and to be frank Bay sucks at subject. you can draw boxes all you want, unless he makes us care about what inside them its meaningless. Might as well just show static. Apart from the rock, that was enjoy. Possibly pain and gain. haven't seen it but I've heard okay things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
No director is responsible for your apathy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Pain and Gain owns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
All Bay movies should be interpreted through the lens of Pain & Gain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
I think they just went way too far with unlikable characters for the purpose of comedy in Transformers 4. Cade is supposed to be a quirky inventor and Mark Wahlberg plays the role for comedy (something he's ordinarily quite good at), but he does things like nearly blow their cover and get them both killed (or at the very least ruining their plan to save the world) for the sake of harassing his daughter's boyfriend because he disapproves of her dating at the age of 17, and bullies his "partner" by claiming ownership of all of his ideas. He attacks property sellers with a bat when his payments are past due and steals electricity. His quirkiness and one-liners don't stop him from being a raging rear end in a top hat. And then Shane is just as bad in most ways. Most movies would spend a few seconds on the age difference between him and Whatshername and leave it at that, but Age of Extinction actually goes into (incorrect) gratuitous detail about Romeo & Juliet laws and even has him pull out a laminated card with the relevant statute from his wallet, which just makes him seem like an epic creep. Then there's lines like "I'm not saving your daughter, you're saving my girlfriend" and him immediately surrendering to Lockdown's goons and Daughter of Yeager constantly crediting him with saving her after Cade does all the work. Can't even remember the loving daughter's name. She gets two or three moments where she does something proactive, spending the entire rest of the movie screaming and crying ineffectually and blaming her dad for all of the stress she's going through trying to save the world. She's the key example of a female character being little more than a useless prop for the men to rescue, a girl who could be replaced by a lamp and have roughly the same impact on the plot. If your heroes are only interesting because of the comedy involved in their dialogue and are otherwise terrible people, you probably didn't pick very good heroes for your "Humanity proves its worth to the Transformers and heroically saves the day" movie. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Here have a whole boatload of stuff about Fury Road film composition! With lines drawn on pictures and everything! Goes into a lot of detail in particular about the lengths it went to to avoid really objectified shots of the women in it. Which might be part of why a lot of women who like the movie, really loving like the movie. http://bonehandledknife.tumblr.com/tagged/film-theory%3A-discussions
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
The articles on how Fury Road was shot also explain how some of what Miller demanded went against typical film logic. Normally you'd want the beautiful women in skimpy outfits to be visible in the shot, but Miller obscured them or shadowed anything sexual like cleavage in favor of keeping the viewer's focus. Ordinarily obscuring someone as beautiful as Rosie Huntington-Whiteley would be lambasted by the director, but Miller asked for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think they just went way too far with unlikable characters for the purpose of comedy in Transformers 4. Cade is supposed to be a quirky inventor and Mark Wahlberg plays the role for comedy (something he's ordinarily quite good at), but he does things like nearly blow their cover and get them both killed (or at the very least ruining their plan to save the world) for the sake of harassing his daughter's boyfriend because he disapproves of her dating at the age of 17, and bullies his "partner" by claiming ownership of all of his ideas. He attacks property sellers with a bat when his payments are past due and steals electricity. His quirkiness and one-liners don't stop him from being a raging rear end in a top hat. When everything in the film contradicts your interpretation, it means that you've messed up and need to start over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:But is it really considered a failure when it might be his objective from the start to make a incoherent balls to the walls cgi action fest? It also sells like hot poo poo. If a director succeeds in making the movie exactly after his vision, and said movie becomes a box office hit, its a success right? How does its failure to follow certain "movie laws" negate that succeess? If you intend to make a heap of garbage and then make a heap of garbage, can that really be considered a success?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Great Rumbler posted:If you intend to make a heap of garbage and then make a heap of garbage, can that really be considered a success? If it was your vision to create that particular heap of garbage, and millions of people like it as well, doesnt that fullfill the criteria of a successful venture?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure this out: The protagonist in Transformers is "supposed to be heroic", but Bay "accidentally" included a scene where he attacks an innocent woman with a baseball bat. Meanwhile, the protagonist in Fury Road is "supposed to be beautiful", but Miller "deliberately" obscured her cleavage. How can you tell that one is accidental but the other is not? Going further: what makes your stance different from complaint that Max is 'supposed to be' the main character of Fury Road?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Optimus Prime is supposed to be a hero, but Bay accidentally left in dozens of scenes in the combined 9 hours of movie where he's a manipulative, murdering psychopathic warmonger who just wears the colours, form and rhetoric of an American hero. That silly old Michael Bay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
quote:Meanwhile, the protagonist in Fury Road is "supposed to be beautiful", but Miller "deliberately" obscured her cleavage. I consider the most erotic part of a woman is the boobies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Contextually, the argument seems to be that Miller specifically avoided filming women in a way considered to be objectifying, which is both unusual and likely deliberate given the influence of the author of the Vagina Monologues in the production. I think the question is, what does this say about Fury Road? I think it is a subtle assertion by Miller that a hyperkinetic action film is not necessarily a gendered, macho construct, which is consistent with the previous Mad Max films, but also goes against the general perception of such movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
This thread has become more of a disappointment then Nux felt when Imortan Joe called him mediocre.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Contextually, the argument seems to be that Miller specifically avoided filming women in a way considered to be objectifying, which is both unusual and likely deliberate given the influence of the author of the Vagina Monologues in the production. I think the question is, what does this say about Fury Road? Right, but if you hadn't been told about Eve Ensler's involvement, how would you know? I'm placing so much emphasis on reading the imagery because, otherwise, the film is being declared feminist or whatever just because a woman from a play with the word 'vagina' in the title - that I guarantee no-one in this thread has ever seen - was consulted at one point. It seems to be that Miller consulting Ensler is being held as proof of his positive intent, and so that means that we don't have to read the film. If we do read the film, as in the above link, it's just a process of confirming what we already believe about George Miller. And that's bad. What if Ensler didn't provide the best advice? What if Miller misinterpreted her advice? The idea put forward in various thinkpieces - that feminism means just covering up breasts - is a false one. When people talk about objectification, they're talking about socioeconomic exploitation. Pornography isn't 'bad' because of nudity, and it doesn't become 'good' if we remove nudity. Frankly, it's extremely unlikely that Miller went through everything with his cinematographer and meticulously removed the breasts in each shot. When was the last time you saw a hospital deathbed scene with a ton of cheesecake everywhere? Miller is simply a good filmmaker who's doing a good job of presenting a dramatic scene.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Okay so what is the interpretation supposed to be here then, you're saying what it isn't and not saying much of what it is. If you want to do 'read the screenshot' like in the SW thread that'd be neat though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 00:44
|
|
GATOS Y VATOS posted:This thread has become more of a disappointment then Nux felt when Imortan Joe called him mediocre. "SMG's not to blame." "THEN WHO KILLED THE THREAD?"
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Contextually, the argument seems to be that Miller specifically avoided filming women in a way considered to be objectifying, which is both unusual and likely deliberate given the influence of the author of the Vagina Monologues in the production. I think the question is, what does this say about Fury Road?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Okay so what is the interpretation supposed to be here then, you're saying what it isn't and not saying much of what it is. If you want to do 'read the screenshot' like in the SW thread that'd be neat though. I don't have access to specific screenshots at the moment, but the obvious point of the scene is how Max is now willingly giving up his blood and asking forgiveness - a reversal of the scenes at the start of the film, where he runs from his guilt and is terrified of losing his blood. The scene is one of the many examples where Furiosa is linked, visually, to the little girl from Max's nightmares. Furiosa is obviously not being sexualized, but that's just a part of the father/daughter, doctor/patient (and Jesus/Lazarus) dynamic going on. Furiosa is presented as both child-like and corpse-like. So of course Miller's not going to put some big ol titties in the shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Fury Road: Yakety Sax Edition
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Okay so what is the interpretation supposed to be This is not how interpretation works, please don't make me defend SMG. SuperMechagodzilla posted:that I guarantee no-one in this thread has ever seen Wrong. quote:Frankly, it's extremely unlikely that Miller went through everything with his cinematographer and meticulously removed the breasts in each shot. When was the last time you saw a hospital deathbed scene with a ton of cheesecake everywhere? Miller is simply a good filmmaker who's doing a good job of presenting a dramatic scene. I actually agree with this and I think that the lack of objectification is just as likely a product of Miller's fundamental lack of male gaze - i.e. the idea of doing something like positioning an actress so that her cleavage is prominent in a shot genuinely never occurs to him at all - as it is deliberate blocking choices to get tits off the screen. Never once in his interviews has he come across as someone concerned with identity politics and afaik the only consulting Ensler did was to give the wives insight into the lives of sex slaves. People declare the film feminist because - like every other piece of Miller's work I've seen - humanism is one of its central themes and the binary nature of pop politics means that humanism is on the same side as feminism so they might as well be the same thing even though that isn't true in practice. Also, since part of your gimmick is to be pedantic, you realize that there are several words that describe what you're talking about better than "thinkpiece" that have the added benefit of making you not sound like an illiterate child, right? VVV Fair point Regulus74 fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
It's both an accurate and pejorative term for the thing I'm decrying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
I wonder if it was considered progressive at the time that the leader of Barter Town was a woman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 03:28
|
|
