Alright, let me answer this a bit more concisely. I don't care.

That's all there is to it. I. Don't. Care. A movie could have all the internal logic in the world and it wouldn't make a difference to me if it wasn't entertaining to watch. Nitpicking flaws in the story doesn't make me happy, and it's not why I watch movies. If a story genuinely has flaws that break it completely, then yeah, I'll point that out. But if the movie is fine EXCEPT that there's a better way it could have done something, well, that's a bullshit approach to criticism. Take a movie on its own terms.

I know I diverge from 99% of the people on this forum on this issue, and I'm comfortable with that. Just thought I should make it clear where I'm coming from in these discussions.

I really enjoyed this and the follow up, Children Of Dune, as well. I prefer it's adaptation to the 1984 film, which I don't care for much. I'd like to see this get a well funded TV season to flesh out the world fully, or perhaps a movie trilogy would do the trick- LOTR style?

fireproof78 wrote:

Invid wrote:

From talking about Satan to talking about religion. There was no reason to go there.

Yeah, Invid pretty much hit the nail on the head. Religious discussions on the Internet usually don't end well. At all.

And, I posted the gif after the whole "guy in sky no proof of existence" comment, hence the escalation, and now we've come full circle, we're walking, we're walking, hey, Rosemary's baby!

There was no escalation, though, mountain out of a mole hill. There was no malice or spite on my side therefore no argument. There is no proof, that is not a lie, just as those who believe would say there is no proof that he doesn't. Also, I wasn't the first to mention God, therefore I was not the first to mention religion, I just gave my opinion which I am perfectly entitled to do but I dd so in a jokey manner.  The thing about the internet is that you just can't gage someone's intentions correctly via text. Gifs on the other hand....

So, yeah, Rosemary's Baby, that's a thing. Haven't seen it in years and have yet to listen to this commentary, I'll need to get on that at some point

can't see spiderman on the itunes feed...  am I doing something wrong?

BigDamnArtist wrote:

It's this idea, and this happens for pretty much every big splosion summer flick, that the visual effects are THE selling point, not a cool bonus or added perk, but THE reason to go watch a movie, never minding what the visual effects are actually portraying. Just that the VFX are so so amazing you need to see them. It's just a weird slanty way of the world and at a movie that really doesn't sit right with me.

I completely agree with you., but it took this post to make me realize it. The previous one, not so much.

I do find VFX amazing and spectacular. I don't care that it's become a norm. It's exactly like some people who were saying back when Curiosity landed on Mars, "Hmpft. Who cares. It's been, like, done." So what? Does it suddenly become less epic? Robots landing on motherfucking Mars. It still is a marvel, and it will still be for a long time.

But I find VFX amazing and spectacular when they're in their right place. Which is, helping the film tell its story. Most blockbusters nowadays are VFX enhanched with a story. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

When someone asks me what my favourite movie with VFX is, I answer Children of Men. Of course, probably no one ever came out of the theater after watching it and saying "Wow, the VFX were amazing". Children of Men is good at using VFX and not showing off with it. Cloud Atlas might be a better example. It relies heavily on VFX, but uses them to tell something. Prometheus does it too, mind you. Only the story sucked.

I'll go see Gravity because I believe Cuarón is able to tell me a great story with great directing. If it turns out it's just a spectacular eye candy flick, and nothing more, I'll be very disappointed. Wait and see, right?