Gonna resurrect this long-dead thread because I just published my 100th post. It's a review of The Lego Movie. If you've ever visited the site, thank you so so much.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Doctor Submarine
Gonna resurrect this long-dead thread because I just published my 100th post. It's a review of The Lego Movie. If you've ever visited the site, thank you so so much.
fireproof78 wrote:Here are some people who this movie would be in good company with...
Nah, the GotG are all about giving a fuck.
James Gunn wrote:"For me this movie is about family," he continued. "It's about a bunch of people that don't have a family and they learn to love each other. And I think it's about giving a shit. I think we live in a world where we're taught that not giving a shit is the coolest thing, and this is a movie that says it's really OK to give a shit."
It might sound weird, but I think that's in line with what I said earlier. This movie seems like a total rebuke of the "post-post-modern ironic detachment" school of genre storytelling. Everything about it is totally sincere, which is actually way more subversive than being all sarcastic about its own genre. And that's pretty much what Gunn says in that quote. This movie isn't going to apologize for being ridiculous. It's going to totally own it, and if you don't like that then fuck off. We're at the point right now where being genuine is actually way more surprising than being...well, surprising.
Jesus, dude. There's no reason not to do just one post.
The tagline is "You're Welcome." This movie gives no fucks.
Yeah, this never really took off. Guess I need a new title.
In general, it's always a good thing to have as much detail to your world as possible. Like the LOTR armor that had inscriptions on the inside. 99.9% of the audience won't care about inaccurate code, so making it accurate won't ruin it or anything. And the people who will notice will be thrilled.
And as luck would have it, it's on Netflix. Nice.
Skip season 1. They didn't get a handle on what the show was until season 2, and by the end all the pieces were in place for the great stuff to follow.
You guys should stop watching these shitty movies.
Or at least stop taking them seriously. I mean... Robocop is a fucking stupid idea for a movie. It was amazing that the first one was as watchable as it was, but it was because the people making it knew it was a fucking stupid idea for a movie. It's an action/comedy. It's schlock. I knew the remake was going to be complete shit from the instant the trailer came out, because it was taking itself too fucking seriously. Why the fuck are we trying to take Robocop seriously?
Why the fuck do we want to take Robocop seriously? No one expected Robocop to be a 'good' movie back when it came out. It's a movie called "Robocop".
How do you make a modern Robocop movie, seriously, and make it work? Step one is to change the name to something that isn't retarded. Next, you'd have to do an entirely different take on it, ground it hard, make it a dramatic thriller with a couple of really quick and brutal action beats... Now you have a movie that only resembles the original in passing because there's a guy who's mostly a robot and also a cop.
Genuinely, tho, why the fuck do we keep taking this fucking schlock and trying to make real movies out of it? I don't want to watch Robocop: The thematically relevant dramatic eye-opener that happens to have a couple of shitty CGI action scenes and bad jokes. I wanna watch Robocop: the robot cop who has a gun that can take your leg off and throws people through walls but also occasionally has a moment of reflection and lots of dark humor.
Kinda ranty, but I'm so over these fucking movies. New Robocop movie is fucking awful. Who the fuck didn't see that one coming? Fuck fuckitty fuck fuck.
Sorry.
People think of the original Robocop as a serious take on its issues, but it's a fairly broad satire. It's only because it bothered to be a satire that people take it so seriously. Yeah, the idea is dumb. That's the point. If you take the concept super-seriously, you're not doing justice to the original concept.
Also, seconding Doctor Sub's words toward Pratt. I haven't seen Parks & Rec yet, but now I want to. Moneyball was where I first noticed him, he was playing kind of a huggable sweetheart. It's gonna be a neat transition watching him play a space asshole.
Plus, omg the LEGO movie. I was all but rolling on the floor, some of his lines were so funny.
On Parks and Rec he's basically playing a puppy in human form. Star-Lord is the guy that his P&R character daydreams of being.
Doctor Submarine wrote:Star-Lord is Jack Sparrow from the first Pirates movie, the guy who desperately wants to be notorious.
Except that guy ain't no Johnny Depp. I'm good with the wacky premise and tone. Except for that lead, who doesn't bring much to the party. More and more movies seem to be casting abs, not actors.
That's a role that requires "Nathan Fillion, but younger" to make work. From what we're shown here, new guy isn't bringing it.
Oh boooooooooooo. Chris Pratt is fantastic. He's been killing it on Parks and Rec for years. They didn't cast him for his looks. He actually used to be pretty pudgy, and he lost a ton of weight for the role. I think he's hilarious. If you can't get on board with him, then yeah, the movie's not gonna work for you.
Dude was great in The Lego Movie too. 2014 is the Year of Chris Pratt, and I'm so happy he's finally getting a chance to break out.
Looks promising. I guess they're saving Rocket for the next trailer.
Gotta reel 'em in with the scruffy, goofball human first. Then hit them with the talking raccoon and the sentient tree.
Does nothing for me. My vibe on this has been that it'll either be a total disaster, or an amazing cult masterpiece. After that trailer, I'm leaning hard towards the former. Not funny, weird, but in a way that seems more stupid than clever. It feels like they don't have a grasp on what the tone of this should be at all.
Could just be a bad trailer, but I ain't feeling it.
There's no way this can be a total disaster. The premise is inherently stupid, and the movie is totally aware of that. It's a self-aware take on Star Wars-style space epics. Star-Lord is Jack Sparrow from the first Pirates movie, the guy who desperately wants to be notorious.
There's a firm grasp on the tone. It's every shitty sci-fi story you've ever seen without a trace of self-seriousness.
But hey, doesn't matter if you're not feeling it. This movie is having so much fun all by itself that it doesn't need audience validation. The hero literally looks right into the camera and flips you off. That's incredible.
Oh hey, a blockbuster tentpole comic book movie with a unique personality! Been a while since we've seen one of these.
It's quite possible this is a binding to impose a male's Will (possibly sexual) upon a female but that is purely a guess at this point. It might be be part of a spell working for a person or it might represent a more abstract binding of a female spirit/entity. Possibly a protective binding to entrap or repel a malevolent female energy or spirit.
Wow. And that ties it in to the show's stuff about the subversion of masculinity and the patriarchy. Hart's losing control of his daughters and Cohle (it's implied) accidentally killed his.
By the way, that's not just me, right? Because I saw someone posit that as a "theory" but I was pretty sure that the show literally said that. I guess he just said that she died in an accident, but there's every suggestion that it was Cohle's fault.
Thought about it for a second. Five guys standing around a woman. Where have we seen that before?
* Five Ken dolls standing around Barbie in Audrey's room.
* Five (black) guys standing around the friend of Dora Lang when she was questioned, who had black star tattoos on her neck.
* Five beer-can-men around another after Cohle dissects his six-pack. Of Lone Star beer.
Any others?
There are five points to a star. Or pentagram. The black stars are five people.
Oh wait, he smashed the sixth can into the flat circle, duh. Nevermind. But still. Five star men.
Five pointed star and a circle. Pentagram.
This fucking show.
You're 100% right, but you forgot the most important one. The stick figures.
I went into this commentary with a long list of things that I hated about this movie. As it happens, you guys touched on almost none of them. So now there's twice as many things I hate about Elysium. A+ work, fellas.
I watched the sequence at the grandpa's house again but no hint really came up. He does say "I've seen kids today, all in black, wearing makeup, shit on their faces. Everything's sex." at some point, but it's probably just foreshadowing (or it's nothing at all).
That was absolutely foreshadowing Marty's daughter. And when he says that, Marty shoots him down and says, "Hey, every old generation says that about the younger ones." But Marty gets old, and he becomes that man, whether he knows it or not.
This movie is a fucking blast. Very de Palma/Hitchcock. The premise is relatively simple, but the filmmaking is out of control. This is the kind of movie where a person's throat is about to be slit with a glass shard, and then it smash cuts to a cellist pulling their bow across the strings. I think folks on this forum might really get a kick out of it.
Atmospherically, they've set up a world where something supernatural could happen and it wouldn't feel totally out of place, but in terms of the story I'm not convinced it would work.
Honestly, I'm surprised there isn't already a Robocop commentary.
Gotta say, the most disappointing thing about the show at this point is the case itself. It started out intriguing, but the stuff with the biker gang in the most recent episode felt so recycled.
hahahahaha never mind.
Jimbo wrote:The thing that really Pissed me off about the remake robocop had a taser gun. why would you give robocop a funkin taser gun?
Robocop is not worthy to sniff the gum under Dredd's boot
Robocop is equally badass and he also has a modicum of personality, so I'm gonna disagree with you here.
Someone I follow on Twitter was tweeting out BAFTA results today, and someone got mad at him for "spoiling" the awards. People are so obsessed with getting information exactly the way they want it and exactly when. You're going to find out one way or another, so who cares?
In the context of a story, it's different, obviously. If an artist or storyteller wants you to learn something at a certain point in their story, then it does ruin it (to a degree) to learn it beforehand. Then again, a friend of mine once got extremely agitated when I tried to tell him a tiny detail from The Hunger Games. It wasn't a plot twist, it wasn't even an aspect of the plot. It was just a thing that was in the movie, and it was relevant to the conversation we were having. He doesn't want ANY knowledge of a film before he goes in. I think that's a little extreme.
Someone shows Pope, head of the OCP project, some mock-ups for Robocop action figures. "Are you kidding? I wouldn't buy that for a dollar!"
I want to die.
SPOILERThey got rid of Christina is a relatively careful way. It's never perfectly smooth when you're deliberately trying to write someone out. They telegraphed it and primed the audience for it ahead of time. She didn't just summarily disappear. Her visibility was diminished from the beginning of the season, and her ouster was part of Claire's effort to drive a wedge into the POTUS' and first lady's marriage, a chaos ploy. So it doesn't exactly come out of nowhere in that line of dialogue. We see it coming a mile away. Just like the POTUS' chief of staff being dismissed.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Doctor Submarine
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.