The Endless
WE are Groot
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2013
- Messages
- 8,009
- Reaction score
- 661
- Points
- 103
And the opening to Saving Private Ryan is incredibly powerful. It MEANs something. It moved people to tears.
Nope, that scene is simply very well done, i can follow the action, instead of only looking at the soldier's feet, the shaky makes it look like found footage of war in a way, makes the battle look even more realistic.
I find that interesting given at that point in time absolutely none of the characters had all that much of this 'all important' character development or time for the audience to get to know and care about them. Who knew.
We know that they are soldiers fighting in the most important moment in the most important war of the 20th century. And it was incredibly accurate and harrowing. Real men went through that ordeal. That's all we need to know.
Pearl Harbor didn't portray the soldiers in as positive light, it kind of made a joke out of them in various scenes. As i said, i just found the way RotF was shot very unpleasant, and i didn't find the same problem in DotM.
I don't remember too well(only saw it once) but comic characters aren't foreign to war films and they are a stable of enjoyable cinema(even titanic), throughout the ages. That being said a guy with a toothbrush in the middle of an attack turns people off to sympathy? Tragic really. Same with a guy the stutter?There was that idiotic soldier who was constantly making weird noises with his mouth for comic relief, there was also a scene of a soldier in the middle of attack with a toothbrush.
I tend to agree with some parts of this. I think you are missing the mark with what the internet thinks about mos vs the GA.I agree that i find the 1st and 3rd very entertaining, but most of the criticism they get is deserved, in least when it comes to the script and characters. When it comes to action However, i think it's usually quite good, i remember when The Avengers came out and everybody was talking about how superior its City battle was, compared to Transformers 3's, then i went to see that film and was disapointed by the action, which was very standard. You really see Michael Bay's major focus on making the action amazing.
I also agree that the internet often exagerated what's popular and what's hated, if what the fandom said was allways a fact, then Avatar wouldn't have made half of what it did, Transformers wouldn't be such a major franchise and Thor 2 would have on the very least made a billion thanks to Loki. Oh, and The Man of Steel would have been the best film of the summer.
If you were a human on the battle ground, most you would see of 40 foot robots is their feet. At a certain point it becomes about immersive film making. Celebrated in some films others apparently not so much.
I've always been of the mind that detractors just want their TF action a certain way. Ie, they want to see full bodies doing full body things. All bay cares about is immersive realism in his action. Not so much different than Paul Greengrass. I also think anyone can follow these things if they really want to, they simply don't like it. But that's imo.
Rush? Isn't two years the standard for these big genre sequels? I mean just look at marvel.
Anyways Paramount needs this and bay, after disney bought all their hard work with marvel. Hasbro is Paramounts big partner going forward into the breach.
Also, i'm actually surprised at how quickly they keep churning out these TF movies. With the amount of FX involved, you would think it would take many years between movies, but the first 3 were out every other year.