|
Tezcatlipoca posted:Except for the damage done to the participants it is more unrealistic and obviously fake in every way.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Realism and believability are two different things. A well choreographed fight scene in a movie doesn't have to be realistic but it has huge advantages over a pro-wrestling match in terms of believability because a filmmaker has much more control over camera angles and editing than pro-wrestling which is usually a live event.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:We're talking about a movie where the villain's signature finishing move is a backbreaker and the hero counters with a hip toss. You shouldn't get so defensive when your obviously fake "fights" get called out for being silly looking. We do the same to lovely movie fights too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
"The thing you like is bad." "How?" "It just is." "How?" "Ugh, defensive much?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
I've been watching various Seventies movies recently, in part for the retro pleasures of watching chases involving cars the size of boats wallowing around on suspensions apparently made from sponge. It prompted a couple of thoughts: firstly, would films like The French Connection, the Dirty Harry series and their numerous 'tough cop' ripoffs ("Mitchell!", McQ, The Seven-Ups, etc) count as 'action movies' by modern standards? They've got action in them, but it tends to come in short bursts or one big car chase, rather than massive escalating setpieces. Secondly, it shows how much the stakes have had to increase over the years to keep audiences interested. In 1971, the big stunt climax was Clint Eastwood jumping onto the roof of a bus. By 1988, Bruce Willis had to jump off the roof of an exploding skyscraper. Now, nobody even looks up from their phone for anything less than an entire city blowing to bits as Vin Diesel surfs a plane through a fireball.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Secondly, it shows how much the stakes have had to increase over the years to keep audiences interested. In 1971, the big stunt climax was Clint Eastwood jumping onto the roof of a bus. By 1988, Bruce Willis had to jump off the roof of an exploding skyscraper. Now, nobody even looks up from their phone for anything less than an entire city blowing to bits as Vin Diesel surfs a plane through a fireball. Even with the original Die Hard trilogy(so not including the more modern Live Free or Die Hard) the main focus is always the screen presence of Bruce Willis, he's still the one expected to carry the movie, not the big action set pieces. Same thing with most Arnold and Stallone movies, you were going for the personalities even more so than the action itself. Certainly Cruise deserves some credit for consistently raising the bar every few years since the first Mission Impossible in 1996, to the point where the specific stunts and set pieces became the draw. But as you mention, The Fast and the Furious franchise also developed into that kinda thing. So I think those two franchises more than anything else have established that formula as we know it now. But I guess if you want to really trace it all the way back as far as it can go, Bond films were really the first series where people expected increasingly ridiculous stunts and for each new entry to top the previous one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Edge of Tomorrow was on TV the other night, I've seen it a few times but not for a while. I'd actually forgotten how much fun the training part is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
I rewatched Terminator: Salvation and, while I didn't even try to follow the plot, the production design and direction are way better than I gave it credit for the first time around. (Granted, the first time I was just really sleep-deprived.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I rewatched Terminator: Salvation and, while I didn't even try to follow the plot, the production design and direction are way better than I gave it credit for the first time around. (Granted, the first time I was just really sleep-deprived.) Terminator: Salvation is a frustrating movie, because I can see a good movie hidden in there. Anton Yelchin is fantastic as Reese. Worthington is...fine, but manages to not gently caress anything up too badly. The action set pieces are pretty great, and I would have liked more of them. But the movie grinds to a loving halt anytime they go back to Bale as John Conner at their base. Apparently the script originally only had John heard over the radio for most of the movie, and they met him at the end. But when Bale was cast, they decided to add in a bunch more scenes with him since, gently caress, we've got Christian Bale, we should probably use him. And it really shows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I've been watching various Seventies movies recently, in part for the retro pleasures of watching chases involving cars the size of boats wallowing around on suspensions apparently made from sponge. It prompted a couple of thoughts: firstly, would films like The French Connection, the Dirty Harry series and their numerous 'tough cop' ripoffs ("Mitchell!", McQ, The Seven-Ups, etc) count as 'action movies' by modern standards? They've got action in them, but it tends to come in short bursts or one big car chase, rather than massive escalating setpieces. Makes me wonder when "action" even started to be used as a named genre. I feel like the real "action" films of the seventies are more likely to be whacky hijinx type stuff (starring Burt Reynolds) and perhaps some war films. On a tangent, Dirty Harry (the film and the character) is actually far goofier than I expected in the first movie, simething they moved away from in the sequels and, speaking of escalating stakes, I remember the big action climax in one of the Dirty Harry films (the one with Tyne Daily, forget the name) was Harry firing a rocket launcher and instantly killing the bad guy. e: Looked it up, The Enforcer. Also while looking some stuff up... holy crap that's some body of work you got there Don Siegel Gravy Jones fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Dec 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, the Action Movie as a genre came into its own in the 70s, mostly in the form of those tough cop films. (Before that it was "adventure" films or specific genres, namely the Western.) As to whether or not any given cop film counts as an action film, I think it's very much a call-it-like-you-see-it thing based on whether or not the action sequences are the reason people see the movie. If the non-action scenes in a cop movie are dominated by the lead actor's "presence" and not any kind of intriguing plot of police procedure, well, there you have it. I think you make a good point about sequels: Death Wish and Dirty Harry may not be action movies, but the sequels are shoot-em-ups, and well, there you have it. thrawn527 posted:Worthington is...fine, but manages to not gently caress anything up too badly. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Dec 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Terminator: Salvation is a frustrating movie, because I can see a good movie hidden in there. Anton Yelchin is fantastic as Reese. Worthington is...fine, but manages to not gently caress anything up too badly. The action set pieces are pretty great, and I would have liked more of them. But the movie grinds to a loving halt anytime they go back to Bale as John Conner at their base. Apparently the script originally only had John heard over the radio for most of the movie, and they met him at the end. But when Bale was cast, they decided to add in a bunch more scenes with him since, gently caress, we've got Christian Bale, we should probably use him. And it really shows. It would've been a much better movie if Bale had been willing to play the Worthington role, and give the much smaller John Conner role to Worthington. Let Bale do the heavy lifting with the more complex and emotional character arc, and the Conner character can just be in the background the way it was originally written. But I guess Bale probably thought that Conner was the bigger opportunity because he was anticipating multiple films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Sam Worthington appears to have been produced by a Leading White Male Actor factory. He was born (decanted?) to play the protagonist in every movie based on a FPS. I'm Default Male Shepard and this is my favorite post on the forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
wasnt it originally written that bale finds himself-as-terminator in that Big Hole in the beginning and the Connor that goes back is actually a terminator, but word of this leaked and the Internet went loving bonkers so they reshot a lot of the movie?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:wasnt it originally written that bale finds himself-as-terminator in that Big Hole in the beginning and the Connor that goes back is actually a terminator, but word of this leaked and the Internet went loving bonkers so they reshot a lot of the movie? I thought it was that he dies after being stabbed at the end, and they replace him with a reprogrammed Terminator to maintain continuity in the leadership of the resistance. Bale vetoed that plan I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I thought it was that he dies after being stabbed at the end, and they replace him with a reprogrammed Terminator to maintain continuity in the leadership of the resistance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:wasnt it originally written that bale finds himself-as-terminator in that Big Hole in the beginning and the Connor that goes back is actually a terminator, but word of this leaked and the Internet went loving bonkers so they reshot a lot of the movie? That sounds a lot like Terminator: Genisys, the fifth Terminator film, which opens with a voiceover explaining what a Terminator is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
The Power Rangers movie was surprisingly bad. I would much rather have rewatched the first one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:The Power Rangers movie was surprisingly bad. I would much rather have rewatched the first one. I thought it started strong with the discovery of the cave but then at some point I was like "hmmm they seem to be taking forever getting to the actual Power Rangers portion of the movie", and I looked at the runtime and the movie only had 15 minutes left. Should've gone all-out but they didn't have the nerve I guess so the movie is just a big nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:wasnt it originally written that bale finds himself-as-terminator in that Big Hole in the beginning and the Connor that goes back is actually a terminator, but word of this leaked and the Internet went loving bonkers so they reshot a lot of the movie? The idea I always heard is that Bale dies, but they graft his face onto Sam Worthington’s body to keep the mythos going (and explain why John Conner moves like a robot at the beginning of T2). Presumably follow up films would have had robo-Bale going toe-to-toe with Terminators, becoming more and more of a legend in the process. It’s stupid and kind of undermines what John Conner is supposed to be representative of, but at least it would have been something new.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I thought it started strong with the discovery of the cave but then at some point I was like "hmmm they seem to be taking forever getting to the actual Power Rangers portion of the movie", and I looked at the runtime and the movie only had 15 minutes left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I thought it started strong with the discovery of the cave but then at some point I was like "hmmm they seem to be taking forever getting to the actual Power Rangers portion of the movie", and I looked at the runtime and the movie only had 15 minutes left. Should've gone all-out but they didn't have the nerve I guess so the movie is just a big nothing. Listen, they're trying to build a shared extended Dark cinematic universe here, you can't blow your load that early when you're doing that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Give me a dark n gritty VR Troopers movie
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Gravy Jones posted:On a tangent, Dirty Harry (the film and the character) is actually far goofier than I expected in the first movie, simething they moved away from in the sequels I just thought to compare the Dirty Harry series with the Die Hard series, BTW. Dirty Harry/Die Hard: the groundbreaking original which inspires dozens of imitators Magnum Force/Die Hard 2: the sequel that ups the stakes for violence and action but is a lot more straightforward and less smart. The Enforcer/Die Hard With A Vengeance: a change of tack into a 'mismatched partners forced together' story where the plot is just an excuse for running around a photogenic city wrecking stuff. The fairly nuanced hero of the original is now a quip-spouting violent cartoon. Sudden Impact/Die Hard 4.0: throws the hero into a new 'fish out of water' environment. Feels disconnected from the rest of the series as a result. The Dead Pool/Live Free Or Die Hard: any pretence at realism or social commentary goes out of the window for overblown and goofy action sequences, dumb gags and a hero who can literally be caught in an explosion without a scratch. The series has become a parody of itself. That said, at least The Dead Pool is watchable, unlike LFODH which was an inane and hideous pile of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Didn't Sudden Impact give Harry a comedy farting dog? (For some inexplicable reason it's the only Dirty Harry film I don't own, so I can't check.) Yes, but it gets castrated by the gang rapists who also murder Harry's friend, so it's not completely comedic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
It became a sort of running gag that he would lose a partner over the course of the film, but isn't there one where he loses three partners in the one film? Or have I mashed the one where he partners with a Chinese guy and the one where partners with a woman together?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
I remember almost nothing about A Good Day to Die Hard other than that I saw it on Valentine’s Day. I think they go to Chernobyl for some reason? God that movie blows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I remember almost nothing about A Good Day to Die Hard other than that I saw it on Valentine’s Day. I think they go to Chernobyl for some reason? God that movie blows. It's especially annoying because the opening chase scene is actually really good (very silly and out of place in a Die Hard movie, but good) and the tracking shot of the helicopter crash at the end is really impressive. There's a couple of scenes that show there was some actual talent working on the film. It is dreadful, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
"I'm on vacation!" - catchphrase of the guy who is in Russia to see his son put on trial for murder. Did the writers even re-read their own script?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 09:26
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I remember almost nothing about A Good Day to Die Hard other than that I saw it on Valentine’s Day. I think they go to Chernobyl for some reason? God that movie blows. I got insanely drunk on Mickey’s and saw it opening night to a crowd of 3 people with my buddy. They didn’t give a gently caress about it so the bottom half of the screen was misaligned so we couldn’t read the subtitles. I barely remember it but I know I laughed a lot and yelled things out in anger. It was a horrendous piece of trash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
I don't like the fact that they keep making McClane's life shittier with each successive film starting with Die Hard With a Vengeance. I guess you could argue his life marginally improved from With a Vengeance to Live Free or Die Hard, where he at least seems to have stopped drinking. Then they way they wrote A Good Day to Die Hard they kinda forced themselves into a position where McClane had to be a lovely estranged father who hasn't seen his family for years. I mean, sure it's an aspect of the original that John is a stubborn rear end in a top hat in some ways, and that's what makes him the terrorists worst nightmare blah blah blah, but does that mean he can never be happy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
My main problem with A Good Day to Die Hard is that on top of the completely incoherent action scenes due to the editing, it's just so goddamn joyless in a way that none of the other Die Hard sequels are. It honestly feels like none of the actors even wanted to be in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
The problem with latter day Die Hard’s is that the protagonist is now more Bruce Willis than John McClane, and Bruce Willis is a joyless dildo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
Fart City posted:The problem with latter day Die Hards is that the protagonist is now more Bruce Willis than John McClane, and Bruce Willis is a joyless dildo. Yea think about McClane's interactions with Argyle in the first film, I just don't know that Willis is even capable of that kind of thing anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Wasn’t Bruce Willis originally a hard sell for John McClane because he only did comedy up to that point, like Moonlighting and The Return of Bruno?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Willis appeared on the BBC's The One Show to promote AGDTDH, and although he blamed jetlag afterwards, it was obvious he didn't give a poo poo about the movie or even being there. But don't take it from me, let Charlie Brooker and co explain!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:Wasn’t Bruce Willis originally a hard sell for John McClane because he only did comedy up to that point, like Moonlighting and The Return of Bruno? Yes. Die Hard was oriignally written for Frank Sinatra and the protagonist in the book is significantly older. OutlawVern did a write up of the book vs the movie, it's interesting. http://outlawvern.com/2000/01/10/nothing-lasts-forever-the-birth-of-die-hard/ Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Dec 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:"The thing you like is bad." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Equalizer 2 was pretty solid, I enjoyed it. Nothing groundbreaking but a worthy followup imo, if a bit too predictable. There's a sick shot of Denzel pulling his car into a spin as a hitman tries to kill him from the backseat where the camera stays locked inside the car but you can see the world around them spinning and Denzel causes the guy's gun to fall forward where he of course smoothly turns it around and puts two in the guys face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
What one of you wrestling dudes should have posted was the fight from They Live!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 23:49
|
|