The Big Picture: Mystery Bonks

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
BloodRed Pixel said:
I still don't get why so many people were 'thrown off/ surprised' by the Sixth Sense?

I thought I need to leave the movie aber six minutes (read: after Bruce got shot) because I exactly knew how it would end.
So I dragged through the movie ONLY to find that it ended EXACTLY how I was suspecting it to end.

I refuse to believe that I was the only person on earth to 'get it'.
You weren't the only one, but years of Hollywood dross has basically trained audiences not to think about anything that happens, because so little of what happens in a movie has meaning.
 

Stryc9

Elite Member
Nov 12, 2008
1,294
0
41
What I took away from this is that Toho needs to make a Godzilla movie where the opposing monster is a giant mutated lion from outer space, I would totally watch that but only if Toho made it and it was imported to the States.
 

Mr. Q

New member
Apr 30, 2013
767
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
Audiences are only surprised when the surprise is a surprise. Or actually exists.

My moma always said "JJ Abrams is like a box of chocolates: something to occupy your time while waiting for Pacific Rim"
XD Thank you, DVS BSTrD, for giving me the best laugh I've had today.

I agree with Bob, J. J. Abrams is not the next Spielberg. I recall Newsweek making that assumption with M. Night when Signs came out and we can all agree how accurate that headline was. Abrams is an ok filmmaker but not much to write home about. He won't score the A+ on the finals but will get the C average.

As for using mystery to hype up your movie, it works if only done properly. I thought Cloverfield was good but its viral marketing kept throwing so much stuff it made the movie-watching experience rather confusing for me. Hell, I never heard about the Voltron assumption myself but that is what happens when you over-hype the mystery just to get more asses into theaters.

BTW, I think anyone who knows their Star Trek lore can guess what the big mystery aka who the big bad is in Star Trek Into Darkness. I may be wrong but it looks like J.J. Abrams is blowing smoke up our butts to hide what most of the Internet has already figured out.
 

nuba km

New member
Jun 7, 2010
5,052
0
0
I hate mystery for the sake of mystery, so many stories that spend 95% of their time giving close to nothing about what going on and then telling you everything in the last 5% as if its meant to be surprising. But here's the thing for it to be surprising it has to be something other then what I was expecting and you made me expect something convoluted and most likely filled with plot holes, which is what I got. Happened with bioshock infinite and is happening with doctor who. A surprise lasts a moment a memorable story lasts a life time.
 

Stewart Marshall

New member
May 16, 2011
8
0
0
As someone who has seen the movie AND ISN'T GIVING ANY SPOILERS

The reviews that have been negative on this film have done so precisely because of this mystery box idea. A lot of people said: 'There was just something missing' but couldn't articulate what it was. I would say, the problem people had with was the Mystery Box promises there's going to be something amazing inside. Something totally unexpected. Whilst I liked what was in the box. It wasn't mind-blowing and I think this ultimately lead to the disappointment of fans who got caught up in this marketing campaign.

So, for those who haven't seen it, don't expect this movie to change your life and you'll probably enjoy it.
 

Mike Richards

New member
Nov 28, 2009
389
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
Abrams' magic box isn't very magical, considering that, when it comes to him taking on loved franchises, all that comes out of it is "pew-pew" action schlock that is just flash and no substance. And of course, that isn't at Star Trek and Star Wars are about.

So, that is why I consider him an enemy, and I'm not going to go see this new movie. I'll be sitting here waiting for an actual Star Trek movie and/or proper style series.
Yes, because the original films weren't action movies already.

People like to give XI a lot of flack for being too devoid of substance but how exactly is it different from the fan-favorite duo Wrath of Kahn/First Contact? Uber-villian with emotional baggage and history with our captain, a bunch of interpersonal drama about the captain worrying if they're up to the challenge/the rest of the crew questioning their motives and qualifications, massive threat to earth that will destroy the Federation, and we spend a lot of time running around shooting people and stuff blowing up. The only reason WoK and FC had a slightly slower, more deliberate pace is because it better fit the respective cat and mouse submarine warfare and slowly-being-overrun-by-zombies plots, things XI doesn't have to deal with.

And when the movies did try to live up to the more 'high-minded' reputation the franchise has gathered, anyone remember what we got? The Slow-Motion Picture and The Final Frontier.

And besides, saying Star Wars was never about being old-school adventure serial, intentionally campy 'action schlock' is just blatantly ridiculous.
 

speccy4i

New member
Feb 11, 2011
10
0
0
Kmadden2004 said:
Say what you will about the quality of his movies (personally, I like them, for what it's worth), I will say this about Abrams;

In a time where some films (like the next X-Men and Spider-Man movies) basically have daily twitter updates, and where trailers seem hellbent on showing you absolutely everything in the damn movie, I do appreciate that Abrams at least tries to keep his movies under wraps for as long as possible.

Hell, I remember the off-set photos of his first Star Trek film where he had the cast walk around outside the soundstage in hooded black robes so that nobody would see the new uniforms too soon.
I agree with that. In an age where it's almost expected to have every plot twist thoroughly spoiled weeks ahead of time, it's nice to see a director make an effort to keep something a secret. I've seen Into Darkness and whilst I loved it and liked the big reveal of the mystery, I can see a lot of people being upset and angry because they'll have felt that they've been lied to by JJ.

Into Darkness really doesn't live or die on it's mystery box, it's a bit silly and if you're not in by the time it's opened, you might not be on board with it. I thought that IM3's was way better precisely because it wasn't expected.
 

Chaos999

New member
Jun 7, 2010
27
0
0
I already saw it
It?s an action movie with a few references to the original Khan movie. For me that?s not Star Trek. Don?t misunderstand it?s a good action movie. But if you a fan of the franchise then this doesn?t work.
 

Toilet

New member
Feb 22, 2012
401
0
0
I saw Star Trek: Into Darkness yesterday, it's alright and I cant think of any twists other than a few references and a death which lasts 20 minutes near the end of the movie because of an famous Star Trek villains plan. I can't think of any real twist.

I dont even consider these movies Star Trek, they are just action movies with the Star Trek label.
 

Jandau

Smug Platypus
Dec 19, 2008
5,034
0
0
Abrams... well... I can't say I'm a fan. Nothing about his work sticks out to me and a lot of it I find just plain bad (Lost, the new Star Trek movies, etc.).

As for the new Star Trek, let me lay it out simple for you: Did you like the first one? If yes, then you'll love this one. It's better. If not, you'll hate this one as well, though maybe a little less. It's an improvement over the previous film, for what it's worth. Though it's no more a Star Trek movie than sticking a Snickers wrapper on an orange makes that orange a Snickers bar.

That being said, I'm actually OK with Abrams doing the new Star Wars movies, since the new Star Trek movies would work a lot better as Star Wars movies...
 

kailus13

Soon
Mar 3, 2013
4,568
0
0
It's good to have some mystery, but if you hype it up too much then people will be expecting more from the movie than it can possibly give.
 

Imp_Emissary

Mages Rule, and Dragons Fly!
Legacy
May 2, 2011
2,315
1
43
Country
United States
Got to agree with Bob on this one. If you hype up the "surprise" then it has even less chance of not only actually being a surprise, but may also not be well received by the audience who thought it was going to be something better. Especially if there isn't all that much of a surprise in the first place.
DVS BSTrD said:
Audiences are only surprised when the surprise is a surprise. Or actually exists.

My moma always said "JJ Abrams is like a box of chocolates: something to occupy your time while waiting for Pacific Rim"
:) Oh yeah. I forgot about that movie. Hope it's good.
 

SlightlyEvil

New member
Jan 17, 2008
202
0
0
I recall vaguely that Cloverfield had a bunch of viral marketing attached that gave cryptic hints as to the creature's origin, nature, motivations, etc. It involved some Japanese kid or something. In any case, it all clearly set up that the movie would answer the questions raised by the campaign, but of course the film resolutely refused to answer anything.

This is an increasingly obnoxious trend in viral marketing: having nothing at all to do with the game. Bioshock 2 was guilty of this as well. The viral campaign centered on a guy whose daughter mysteriously disappeared, with the implication being that she had been abducted, taken to Rapture, and made into a little sister. This character was originally not even in the game, and was only added last-minute because of unexpected fan interest in the ARG.
 

XDravond

Something something....
Mar 30, 2011
356
0
0
Well I would like to meet whomever say that J.J Abrams is the next Spielberg and have a flare/flash/etc and stab them in the eyes so their entire life can become a J.J Abrams movie...
And yea he does fail at being as good as he makes the commercials seem he is, it is a bit of what is called "not living up to the hype"

ST:ID is ok->good, would be on good if it just were a bit less lens flares around it got really annoying in some cases could hardly see the picture....
So go see it if you like sci-fi, but bring sunglasses... :)
 

Jman1236

New member
Jul 29, 2008
528
0
0
Didn't know about the whole voltron rumor over cloverfield till now. Still would of sounded better than the current Voltron script which is ripping off mad max.
 

AldUK

New member
Oct 29, 2010
420
0
0
Went to see ST: Into Darkness on the weekend it came out here in England. Absolutely loved every minute of it, it's just as good as the first film, which was also brilliant. I really don't understand the prevailing attitude around here of everybody putting their noses up at Abrams while snickering; "heh... lense flare man..."

It's not the Star Trek from the 60s, it's a complete re-imagining of the setting and as far as sci-fi action moves go, you'd be hard pressed to find more excitement crammed into 120 minutes. Wonderful acting from a perfectly cast set of actors and amazing special effects. Great fun and I'll be watching it again before its showing is done.
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
I remember the marketing to The Bastards - how it looked like it was going to be some kind of action-funtime nazi-killing ww2 movie... but then half of was about this woman and her revenge plot

Both plots were good on their own - but IMO it felt two movies had been edited together, two movies that could have worked quite well on their own - but together they just became a confusing mess, since the two plots never actually merged

Iron Man 3, yes, great example of surprises done right. The Bastards: Surprise done wrong (Or just plain movie done wrong...)