@NapoleonWilson Awful. It was bearably silly fun until the Winter Soldier reveal, which even the worst soaps would scoff at and was lamely 'explained' with a 3 second flashback
@Walt Oh my, really a script snob (but Ok, I also found it shit that it actually was his dead friend, which I already knew anyway from wikiing, that was a bit soapy).
Nice example Godzilla, amazing atmosphere, couldn't care less about some stupid plot-holes I didn't even notice if it wasn't for interwebs-fuss or if the human characters were clichéd. The overall thing worked and made a great impression. And that's what it's about, if the friggin thing actually works and grips me. Sure, characters are part of that.
Sorry. Not a fan of that either, you could probably tell ;)
Edge of Tomorrow, I liked a bit more. Because there was an attempt at cleverness and keeping up with a complex script, and even some character work (nice touch to start the film with Cruise as a douche because that's what I think of him anyway)
Same with Interstellar. Was it an utter masterpiece? Maybe not. Was it the most coherent plot? Maybe not. Were some of the characters not that greatly fleshed out? Maybe, don't even really know though. But the overall thing was just a great cinematic experience. And that's the bottom line for me.
@Walt Pff, great movie, but what's so complex about the script. But yeah, people have lauded it for showing the hero as a coward, nice idea, but so what?
@Walt Uh, people with their "there has to be character development". Oh my, most of the time a character doesn't need to change in any way, it's a character and not every story is a bout him. Sorry if that sounds harsh or overgeneralizing, maybe I overreact, but I can's stand people lauding "character development" as the most important thing when it doesn't actually play a role in many great stories.
@NapoleonWilson As I said, I don't think it's the most important thing. But it's very important. And if the character doesn't change, I expect it to be part of the point, the very theme or message that's coming across
@Walt Hmm, works for me. Always gives a sympathetic guy to me. But well, I come from a society that mainly hates him for the Scientology stuff. Not that Scientology would be great, rather on the contrary, but I don't care what he does in his free time.
@Walt Hmm, where's character development in Die Hard? Or is that the point of the movie's message?
@NapoleonWilson I don't care much about that. Surely Scientology has some talanted members, and a lot of actors are whackjobs but I still like their acting
You're saying the limping, bleeding Rambo-esque McClane saving his wife with a machine gun and a gun taped to his back is the same doofy guy that entered the building in the beginning?
He's an everyday guy becoming a cowboy and a kickass vigilante during the film. That's what's so compelling about it.
@Walt Oh, that's supposed to be character development? Hmm, I must be blind to this stuff, or just that terminology and I just book that under the fuzzy general term of "atmosphere" or "story" or "engagement". Hmm, anyway, cake time.
@NapoleonWilson Oh, that I never watched Avatar. No matter how much people begged me, because it seemed to be 100% about the experience and not the script (which seemed like recycled cliches) or the characters. I'm not in it for that.
Enjoy cake. At least one thing we can agree on :)
@NapoleonWilson To put it in perspective: Imagine Die Hard with Steven Seagal as a hardened action hero from the very first minute, mumlbing one liners and kicking everyone's ass with ease. The whole point of Die Hard is that the hero is almost like us.
It's also what made the sequels less effective (as Michael Scott notes) because he just became invincible like any other generic action star. But in the first one, he almost dies a couple of times (and actually cares). He's injured. He's emotionally invested. He gradually gets the hang of it and prevails against all odds.
@Walt Hmm, sure, was nice movie and experience. But yeah, it's not that the story was original in any way.
@Walt WUUUT? Under Siege is one of the best action movies evar! Still the best Die Hard copy to date.
@Walt But not in all the sequels, only in the last one really. In all the other movies it was still a case of random involvement, I think.
"He's injured. He's emotionally invested. He gradually gets the hang of it and prevails against all odds." - Seems to have been the case for most of the Die Hard movies, no?
Maybe I should write a haiku about Die Hard. Yeah, that sounds like a plan!
@NapoleonWilson No. He's less and less emotionally invested (or maybe it's just Willis). And he's not gradually learning the ropes because he's already been through it and he's much more jaded. There's an attempt to replicate the spirit of McClane from the first film, sure. But it only really worked in his first venture.
@Flyk Me neither, but I think it was largely inferrance. You weren't a little 16-yearish gal back then, I think (but ok, I'm not even that sure you aren't now). Well, nevermind.
Die Hard 5 was a flop in the US and (rightfully) massacred by critics. It made much more cash internationally, but really, this (and Willis's gradually disinterested performances) should've killed the franchise
Hmm, that's what people thought about Indy, too. And look at the fun movie they made. Yes, I mean that friggin' serious, I liked it, even if it was by far not on-par with the originals. But I'm proably the only one on the planet who doesn't hate that thing.
@NapoleonWilson Main thing that bothered me was 0 stakes. You didn't think for one minute that anyone's in real danger. It was so PG and like an amusement ride.
Pretty much, he is the highest grossing actor of all time. What amuses me is the second highest grossing actor of all time is Frank Welker, aka the voice of Megatron in the original Transformers. Guy has done voice work for so many things.
"You didn't think for one minute that anyone's in real danger" - Why, I don't get that? But nevermind, I hear that complaint about so many movies often enough. Maybe I'm just too dumb to notice such things.
@Walt Well, it's Williams afterall. Carpenter once said he's one of the biggest advocators of "Mickey Mousing". I'm not entirely sure if that was meant completely derogatory, but to quite some degree for sure.
BTW, I didn't hate IJ4 with a fiery vengeance like everyone else. It was certainly the worst of the bunch, it had some incredibly dumb moments (and CGI), but it's not like Temple of Doom made a lot of sense
And I actually watched it more than once. Though with Rifftrax's help ;)
I don't appreciate franchises that keep going just because the star isn't dead yet. (And I certainly don't appreciate them when even that doesn't stop them...)
Doesn't sound like he has a major part in DH6 from that link you posted, though. "It’s also not a double-act buddy-buddy story. McClane began on his own and should end on his own."
"villain" is way too black/white a word to be used for something as ambiguous as an anti-hero, which would be more fitting to his role in Pulp Fiction. There weren't really any good or bad guys in that movie.
@Walt Oh, so they're speaking about "ending" at least.
@Walt Ugh, me not really. I guess, I'd just wave it away as "there was none, so what?". But maybe it could actually work. You still have to ask a question anyway.
Django Unchained and Inglorius Basterds are both set in the same alternative history universe according to Tarantino. How many of the films made by Tarantino are set in the same universe? Are any of the films he's wrote or starred in but not directed set in the same universe?
Recently I found an article quoting an IMDb Factoid that the character Switch in The Matrix was supposed to be played by two actors, one male and one female:
When Belinda McClory auditioned for the role of "Switch", she was only going for half the role. The character was originally planned t...
@Catija But you don't really ask for only "hard sources" either. That response seems quite bit harsh/discouraging. But Ok, I'm someone who often doesn't make difference between hard sources and well-reasoned ramblings (not saying that applies to this answer).
If he would back his ramblings with a bit more elaboration and "soft evidence" I'd be satisfied (at least I'd see it as a reasonable answer, even if not the only correct one).
@Catija Sure, but at least you allow "soft evidence", I'm not saying he provides it.
@Flyk I never said your answer wasn't good enough (even though I downvoted it, but you know, that's not delete-voting). It was you who deleted it. And this doesn't mean he has to agree with your quality standards, too.
@Catija Bah, just leave it there. I might agree it's not a particularly good answer, and frankly, I don't want ot bother writing a comment myself. Urgh!
@Flyk But that being said, his answer might be unclear or not detailed enough, but yours seemed downright insufficient, I think. His has potential that yours seemed lacking.
@Flyk There's nothing nice or non-nice about downvotes, I think you know that.
@Flyk I have evidence in my question itself that Switch isn't about multiple actors... or at least, that her name refers to something else. The problem that I have is that there's no direct quotes or any actual evidence that what people claim on fan sites and IMDb is true.
You only cited the un-backed IMDb article the Op already knew about and then the script that leaves it equally unclear. Doesn't seem sufficient to me. He at least tries to reason about it, even if it's still not enough. I might even agree that yours was NaA maybe (but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt). I don't say I'm not going to downvote the other answer, too.
@Flyk I think so too, since I feel you're making more out of it than there was to it. And we've come so far since our last argument. You#re really above such downvote-bickery. See you later then.
@Flyk I didn't say that, I am unsure about it and would give you the benefit of the doubt. But nevermind.
Gah, speak about thin skin. Anyway, back to Tarantino as fast as we can I'd say.
It was part of a bigger bad sequel/bad character development in sequels discussion. But yeah, the main incentive was Die Hard.
But as I said, I'm one of the few people on the planet who didn't hate Indy 4. Was it as great as the originals? Hell no! But was it an utter catastrophe? No, it was nice, even if only that.
But speaking about unneccessary sequels, I might opt for Furious 7 tonight maybe.
That Marvel Cinematic Universe question needs to get Daredevil added... maybe it should be made a Wiki answer? Clearly the list is going to grow significantly over the next few years.
I was OK with the mysticism of the other three but they were all earthly the Aliens just seemed off... and Shia doesn't seem like a good son for Harrison, for some reason.
I'm pretty sure that I enjoyed watching the film, overall... but I've never felt the urge to rewatch it.
LaBeouf
Oh, and if you've ever wondered... viewing SE sites in the SE app does not count towards site visits. I was at 83 days and had to go completely mobile for the weekend and now I am back down at 2 days.
@NapoleonWilson I think he's a fine actor, just don't see a connection between the two that makes them feel like family.
@Catija Hmm, it seems those apps a largely a hassle anyway and one should just use the browser. But well, this comes from someone who's never used a smart phone/tab/whatever mobile thing in his entire life (wait, once I did, and even used Movies.SE from it).
In the early 2000s on comedy central, Sunday night had 2 TV shows back to back. First was Dave Attell's Insomniac. The second was some UK show about a guy who had to complete crazy challenges (like hit on another dude in a restroom), failing to complete the challenges wound up with him getting h...
Anyone know why Trick Or Treat (1986) (which stars Gene Simmons and Ozzy Osbourne) didn't have a single track by either artist on the soundtrack? And why they chose Fastway (of all bands) to do the majority of it? I'm fairly confident that had a lot to do with its financial failure, but I'm jus...
Django Unchained and Inglorius Basterds are both set in the same alternative history universe according to Tarantino. How many of the films made by Tarantino are set in the same universe? Are any of the films he's wrote or starred in but not directed set in the same universe?
Recently I found an article quoting an IMDb Factoid that the character Switch in The Matrix was supposed to be played by two actors, one male and one female:
When Belinda McClory auditioned for the role of "Switch", she was only going for half the role. The character was originally planned t...
Anyone know why Trick Or Treat (1986) (which stars Gene Simmons and Ozzy Osbourne) didn't have a single track by either artist on the soundtrack? And why they chose Fastway (of all bands) to do the majority of it? I'm fairly confident that had a lot to do with its financial failure, but I'm jus...
The Screening Room
The Screening Room