State your unpopular film related opinion - - - - - - - - - - - Part 20

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]480587[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]475723[/split]

 

[The Endless]

The shot of them arguing with the camera moving around weirdly was for story telling and not just to look cool though. It gives the scene a dreamy vibe and it focusing on the scepter is indicating it's influence on them.

I didn't like the dutch angles though. They used too many of them in the first Thor as well.

Wally isn't perfect anyway. The guy can't frame an action scene for ****. Although i really like most of his compositions. The Joker leaning out of the cop car... Batman standing in the rubble with Dent's coin. Class.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I only posted the Pfister thing because it seemed appropriate considering you're talking about The Dark Knight.

 

[Doctor Jones]

PTA shot Magnolia in 60ish days. That's not even close to a year Hahaha. He started production on Inherent Vice at the end of last May and the film was locked(for those who don't know what that means it means the film is 100% finished and approved by the studio) a few weeks ago, so he finished his last film in about 14 months. So that point is ridiculous and uninformed. The auteurs don't typically work way longer than anyone else except Kubrick.

And I'm sorry, but shot composition, lighting, and use of music is a huge part of directing. Someone so bland with those like Whedon can't be considered a great director by anyone who actually studies film and/or is in the business. Camera, lighting, and use of music is the most cinematic way to tell stories. Whedon has to rely on his writing and his work with actors alone to tell his story. He's a great writer, which helps his actors, but he can't tell a story with a camera move or an edit or a choice of music like Scorsese or PTA can. Not mention his writing is very narrow. It's all very similar where as someone like PTA can write Boogie Nights and something as different as There Will Be Blood and still be great at both( both screenplays were up for Oscars for best screenplay).

Look at Spielberg. He's a better comparison because he makes more 'fun films' like Whedon. He's made tons of blockbusters, yet he's great with all aspects of directing, not just reaching the audience with funny, quirky characters like Joss Whedon. Think of the music in Jaws, or the fantastic vertigo move when Brody first sees the Shark. Then there's the wonderful editing between each person walking by Brody in the same scene, cuting back and forth from the ocean to Brody every time a person crosses the screen, making it seamless like one shot. Or the long take on the ferry when Brody is warned not to close down the beach...Speilberg uses it all in blockbusters, "fun movies".

Whedon's directing arsnel is small. He's a good director, but miles away from being great.

Also enough of the experience talk. If you're a great director, you are a great director. Godard's first film was Breathless. Spielberg directed Jaws before he was 30. PTA wrote and directed Boogie Nights at the ripe age of 26. If Whedon was going to be great with cinematography and use of music ect., he would have shown it by now.

My mistake. But wasn't it going to be 60 but it went overschedule to 90 days? Either way, I do remember it went overschedule (Yes, if you're wondering, I have watched the documentary on the DVD) because PTA and his crew were just struggling with the undertaking of the massive material. My point is here, Marvel Studios doesn't work like that. They have their director who can collaborate with their vision, and they build off eachother and to get **** done. Whedon is one of the better of those because of his massive talented sense of direction. Directing is also in writing in some respects. His whole direction in terms of the concept behind Avengers is what makes it a great film. And him a great director.

You understand this is all subjective right? Sure, I can value great lighting, editing, and composition as much as the next film fan. Prisoners was my favorite film last year. It had pretty much everything you described down to a T. But at the end of the day, it told the story extremely well, which is why I loved it. It could still have Deakins' excellent cinematography and such, but without a good director or script, it wouldn't matter. Then on the other hand my favorite film of 2012, which happened to be The Avengers, while not exactly matching someone else's idea of great filmmaking, but the principal I'm using is that the only thing both films have in common is that they both told great stories. Two films doing two different things. To compare the two any more than that would be ridiculous.

I don't know how a teenage girl fighting vampires, a gang of dysfunctional superheroes, a crew of space privateers that mixes the sci fi and the Old West, a woman with implanted memories who can be different people, a musical about a mad scientist all constitute as similar in character so you lost me there. I happen to think Whedon is better at writing character than PTA. And hey, that's my preference. Hence, why I think Whedon is just as great a director. Is he in my top five? No, but that's because, once again, have preferences. I thought The Avengers was better than The Master. And not just because I preferred it, but because I do think how the story was told was told better than that of The Master. One is technically superior in your terms, yet one is a better film in mine.

In terms of writing, Whedon also shaped Toy Story into what it is today, which was nominated for an Oscar, if we're going to use that cheap card.

You happened to name three great filmmakers who made great first few films. Other people happen to think of Whedon who is as great as those but in his own way. Is there something wrong with that? I'm no longer arguing the point of what I think makes a great filmmaker, but that what everyone else might think. Because this is all subjective.

And "Who needs Buffy when there's The 400 Blows?" Jesus Christ. Can you get more pretentious? Buffy happens to be the most academically studied piece of pop culture. So please, on your part, if you're going to bash something, be more informed like I might next time about Magnolia's exact shooting schedule.

 

[spiderman2]

Men in black 3 is the best of the 3. I loved the time travel thing and I thought men in black 1 and 2 where just ok and that the 3erd one was good.

 

[georgec]

Con Air sucks.

 

[JAK®]

Wally Pfister doesn't have a problem with showing off himself, provided he is using an IMAX camera to show off big buildings.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Con Air sucks.

You take that back!

They make the best blowdryers around!

 

[georgec]

You take that back!

They make the best blowdryers around!

Revlon 4 life.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Wally Pfister doesn't have a problem with showing off himself, provided he is using an IMAX camera to show off big buildings.

So I guess Transcendence worked out real well for him.

 

[MadVillainy]

Christ....

F*** Transcendence. Hated that movie

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

 

[Doctor Jones]

If Pfister is gonna talk up a big game, he better back it up with his DEBUT film.

 

[T-Ray]

Ok.. Here it goes..

- I absolutely think that Spider-Man 3 is a pretty good movie and that it works within the trilogy.. It is not perfect, it has flaws, but I think that "emo, dancing Peter" is not a flaw and is kinda cool way to show deterioration of Parker's character..

- Transformers movies are almost as good as G1 cartoon, especially the first one (ROTF is still the worst of the bunch).. And I love the robot designs (including weirder ROTF ones)..

- Iron Man 3 is, along with CA:TWS, is better written and better directed than some of more acclaimed CB movies... And I think that the Mandarin twist was cool and worked perfectly within the story (even that the Mandarin is among my favorite Marvel villains)..

- I like Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze in Batman & Robin movie... Being huge Mr. Freeze fan, I know that it should offend me that he appeared in such silly movie, but it doesn't, I think he's the best and the most entertaining thing in that movie...

- Humor in MCU movies is not that prominent or distracting as people say it is...

- The best Batman movie is Batman Returns..

- Ang Lee's Hulk is one of the best depictions of Hulk, and a darn fine movie..

 

[MadVillainy]

Ok.. Here it goes..

- I absolutely think that Spider-Man 3 is a pretty good movie and that it works within the trilogy.. It is not perfect, it has flaws, but I think that "emo, dancing Peter" is not a flaw and is kinda cool way to show deterioration of Parker's character..

- Transformers movies are almost as good as G1 cartoon, especially the first one (ROTF is still the worst of the bunch).. And I love the robot designs (including weirder ROTF ones)..

- Iron Man 3 is, along with CA:TWS, is better written and better directed than some of more acclaimed CB movies... And I think that the Mandarin twist was cool and worked perfectly within the story (even that the Mandarin is among my favorite Marvel villains)..

- I like Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze in Batman & Robin movie... Being huge Mr. Freeze fan, I know that it should offend me that he appeared in such silly movie, but it doesn't, I think he's the best and the most entertaining thing in that movie...

- Humor in MCU movies is not that prominent or distracting as people say it is...

- The best Batman movie is Batman Returns..

- Ang Lee's Hulk is one of the best depictions of Hulk, and a darn fine movie..

The first Transformers is still a pretty fun movie to me. I dont see what's godawful with it like I do with ROTF or DOTM. I like watching it, the autobots had some personality and Shia LaBeouf wasnt a spazz. AoE couldve been better than the first movie if it cut down on the time. If Bay follows what he did in AoE of balancing the humor a bit better and cutting down time then he'll have a really good summer blockbuster movie

At the risk of starting a huge argument Im gonna comment on the Mandarin twist.
Ive seen IM3 3 times now each time I had a different reaction to the twist. At first I didnt like it because it was a bastardization of comics, the 2nd viewing I didnt mind it because I just realized that I should just realize/accept that Guy Pearce is the Mandarin...
But in my third viewing, I realized my major problem with the Mandarin twist was that they took a very good actor and an interesting idea and just made it a joke and a punchline. The decoy idea is actually good and a way to keep people guessing.

And that bring my problem with humor in some of the Marvel movies. Im fine with humor in a movie especially summer ones. I think Godzilla couldve used some and MoS really needed some. But when it gets to the point where in serious tense moments that theyre cracking multiple jokes I think that's too much.
TDK had a good amount of humor, but when Batman was fighting the Joker at the end they knew to stop. Not even using a CBM, in Star Trek 09 there were a lot of joke but when Kirk and Spock were on Nero's ship they knew to stop telling jokes and get serious.
But in Thor The Dark World when you have the action stopping to show Darcy kissing the intern or Thor and Malkeith "humorously sliding down a window" I think it's too much.

But I think the only Marvel movies with a problem with balancing humor are Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, and TDW. And I still like IM3

 

[Rowsdower!]

Christ....

F*** Transcendence. Hated that movie

LOL, I saw that over the weekend. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be but boy did it draggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg. It seemed like if you cut out all the shots of Rebecca Hall walking down long hallways you would have reduced the movie by 45 minutes.

I thought the concept was interesting but the plot sort of devolved into stupidity once

Spoiler

those military guys or contractors or whatever they were decided to just start shooting everyone and blowing sh** up.

 

[weezerspider]

My mistake. But wasn't it going to be 60 but it went overschedule to 90 days? Either way, I do remember it went overschedule (Yes, if you're wondering, I have watched the documentary on the DVD) because PTA and his crew were just struggling with the undertaking of the massive material. My point is here, Marvel Studios doesn't work like that. They have their director who can collaborate with their vision, and they build off eachother and to get **** done. Whedon is one of the better of those because of his massive talented sense of direction. Directing is also in writing in some respects. His whole direction in terms of the concept behind Avengers is what makes it a great film. And him a great director.

You understand this is all subjective right? Sure, I can value great lighting, editing, and composition as much as the next film fan. Prisoners was my favorite film last year. It had pretty much everything you described down to a T. But at the end of the day, it told the story extremely well, which is why I loved it. It could still have Deakins' excellent cinematography and such, but without a good director or script, it wouldn't matter. Then on the other hand my favorite film of 2012, which happened to be The Avengers, while not exactly matching someone else's idea of great filmmaking, but the principal I'm using is that the only thing both films have in common is that they both told great stories. Two films doing two different things. To compare the two any more than that would be ridiculous.

I don't know how a teenage girl fighting vampires, a gang of dysfunctional superheroes, a crew of space privateers that mixes the sci fi and the Old West, a woman with implanted memories who can be different people, a musical about a mad scientist all constitute as similar in character so you lost me there. I happen to think Whedon is better at writing character than PTA. And hey, that's my preference. Hence, why I think Whedon is just as great a director. Is he in my top five? No, but that's because, once again, have preferences. I thought The Avengers was better than The Master. And not just because I preferred it, but because I do think how the story was told was told better than that of The Master. One is technically superior in your terms, yet one is a better film in mine.

In terms of writing, Whedon also shaped Toy Story into what it is today, which was nominated for an Oscar, if we're going to use that cheap card.

You happened to name three great filmmakers who made great first few films. Other people happen to think of Whedon who is as great as those but in his own way. Is there something wrong with that? I'm no longer arguing the point of what I think makes a great filmmaker, but that what everyone else might think. Because this is all subjective.

And "Who needs Buffy when there's The 400 Blows?" Jesus Christ. Can you get more pretentious? Buffy happens to be the most academically studied piece of pop culture. So please, on your part, if you're going to bash something, be more informed like I might next time about Magnolia's exact shooting schedule.

First off writing is not really part of directing. A lot of, if not most, great directors are a big part of the writing stage, if they don’t write altogether, but plenty of great directors don’t and never have written at all. So like I said, Whedon is a great writer, not a great director.

Furthermore, MCU scheduling or whatever doesn’t factor into this. I’ll be honest; I’m not quite sure what point you’re making here. Whedon’s made a few films outside of the MCU and that style of scheduling and I don’t find those films any more stylistically pleasing than The Avengers. In fact, if I haven’t already stated, I think The Avengers is his best film.

This is a forum where we speak our opinions (an unpopular opinion thread at that), do I really need to put IMO after every sentence? Of course art is subjective, and if I came off rather smug, it’s probably because DA_Champion recently has blasted my opinions in a smug, nose in the air fashion as if he’s God himself in many different topics(As Parker Wayne alluded to earlier in this conversation), so on that, I apologize. However, and because tensions have been raised I will make this clear that it is IMO, that the Avengers succeeded in telling it’s story through plot, not through the story. I prefer story over plot. I prefer the way the story is told and the characters much more than the story itself. For reference to what I mean by that if that doesn’t seem to make sense: http://nofilmschool.com/2014/07/martin-scorsese-difference-between-story-plot/. Like I said, that’s my opinion.

That comes into play with the next subject you mentioned regarding your opinion that Whedon’s characters are vastly different and in your opinion, he’s a better writer than PTA. Whedon’s characters on the surface may look different, as you named all the different characters, but they all act very similar IMO and only seem like different outlets for Whedon to express his Whedonisms whereas all PTA’s characters feel like real people IMO and not a bunch of different outlets for the creator. Back to story vs Plot, The Master feels like real life. These characters feel rich and real which moves the story, along with the craft of the filmmaking. Whereas The Avengers is focused on the plot. How do we manage to get all of these people to get along and stop Loki? I know the outcome after seeing it once, whereas I learn something new about the characters in The Master every time or I notice a camera move or something subtle I didn’t notice. Again, IMO.

Regarding the last comment, I feel that people misunderstood me because I articulated myself very poorly. We were discussing Buffy from a ‘studied’ standpoint. Studying art. If someone is studying art, you would think that they would study what is considered the highest of art, like something like The 400 Blows. A food critic is going to go well respected restaurants to review, not Burger King. Does that mean that the food critic doesn’t like the occasional Fast Food? No. He may, and probably does, but he wouldn’t spend the time to analyze it. Likewise, I enjoy all types of films(was very excited and pleased with my advance showing of GoTG last night) as do many, but I just find it odd that someone would take the time to study Buffy when there are works of art of greater importance in the film analysis community. I prefer The Avengers to 2001:A Space Odyssey, but if I’m writing a paper on a film, I’m picking 2001 every time. Again, I was frustrated and should have worded it differently, though I’m sure I’ll be labeled as a snob which is fine by me. It is the unpopular opinion thread after all.

 

[DA_Champion]

I give up.

 

[MadVillainy]

So about those unpopular movie opinions...

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I hate it when mom and dad fight. I always feel like it's my fault

 

[MadVillainy]

-The Sopranos>>>>>Goodfellas>>>>>The Godfather.

I dont even know if that's an unpoular opinion I just just them to stop whining at each other

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

All three are excellent. I watched all of The Sopranos last year, and loved it. Watch Goodfellas so many times too last year. I love all the Goodfellas references The Sopranos makes.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I dont even know if that's an unpoular opinion I just just them to stop whining at each other

Spoiler

Not really, because we've moved on, but I really wanted to post thig gif.

 

[weezerspider]

WTF? Here you go again with the unprovoked personal attacks, you just can't help yourself. You do this in conversation after conversation. This makes three conversations in a row with you.

I wrote that your opinions on Whedon are uninformed as you have not watched his works, which you've admitted you have not watched his best works. That's not personal -- nobody's informed on any director they're unfamiliar with, by definition.

Anyhow, it's the third conversation in a row where you flame out of the blue, in addition to many in the past. You're a very knowledgeable guy, but I see a pattern here. That's just too bad.

Three conversations in a row that started with you looking down on my or other's opinion in smug fashion, man. Things like:

"I'm not sure your opinion is credible beyond it being a statistical near-certainty when said about any director."

"If you hold an opinion and movies, and Tarantino and Jarmusch say something else, go to the corner and consider re-evaluating."

"Your analogy doesn't hold."

You can articulate yourself all you want, but saying these types of things still make you come off as pretentious and smug. Maybe you honestly don't mean it(though I doubt it). Try saying things like:

"Hey man, did you say you haven't seen as much of his TV work? I think you should give it another try man, it's really awesome! My opinion on his directing skills has been shaped more so by that than his films."

" Tarantino and Jarmusch like it, so there are at least two well-respected people who share my opinion, though that doesn't mean anything".

"I don't agree with your analogy".

You deleted that post, yay. For the sake of the thread, I'm done.