The problem with modern action movies

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I'm a pretty hardcore fan of action movies and I really don't think having stakes is the key to a good action movie or action scene. Come on, we know the main character is at least going to make it to the end battle, that doesn't nullify all other action scenes besides for the last one. Even in say Logan we know Wolverine is going to make it to the end battle whether he gets killed off or not. In a Jackie Chan movie, we know he's going to save the day, it's the how that makes it special. Characters are always the most important aspect of a movie and that is still key for an action movie because you have be interested or like the characters because most of the runtime of an action movie isn't action so a movie with amazing action scenes still isn't a good movie because over half the movie isn't entertaining. Learning something about a character from an action scene can be instrumental in making the scene that much better. However, in the end, the construction is the most important element of an action scene. That fight scene between Michelle Yeoh and Zhang Ziyi in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is amazing just as a standalone piece; the choreography, how it's shot, and the music is all amazing.

Yes, we know the hero will probably survive, but we still need to feel their struggle against the odds. We need to be made aware of what will happen should they lose, what will happen to them or their loved ones if they don't conquer whatever threat they're confronted with. You take the '100 mile dash' scene from The Incredibles, and the reason it's so effective is because the henchmen are presented as having no qualms shooting and killing Dash if they get the slightest oppertunity, and showing them relentlessly pursuing him to do so.

I agree the threat has to be legit. Some of the best action movies are the best because of the villain. I guess I skimmed the original post a bit too much and/or took "stakes" as too literal. Good characters are the key to any movie whether it's a drama or action movie.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

It absolutely can, yes. And Road Warrior - which I assume is the one you're thinking of, considering the first is more or less unarguably about Max, and Thunderdome... well, Thunderdome just sucks - is in fact rife with it.

That's not what I term explicit character narrative at all, though.

I'd have to see it again (none of my memories of it are particularly fond, so I've no incentive to) as I've not seen it in over a decade, most likely, but going from 'all' the dialogue Road Warrior's at best bare-bones and broad strokes.

And I could do that because those movies were about Max, as opposed to just cool cars, post-apocalyptic tribal getups, and explosions.

I think Fury Road's much more than that; it has a soul and heart that the other Mad Max films [I've seen] just do not (Gibson had charisma at times, but I prefer the duo of Theron and Hardy - shite sorta-kinda-maybe Aussy accent aside).

Regardless, in the context of this thread Fury Road's certainly a great contemporary action oriented film, and one I don't believe is empty headed at all (ergo doesn't fit in the purely mindless spectacle box).

It was, I think, as much as a cash-in as a failure on Miller's part, as an artist, to know when to stop.

This thread really isn't about Mad Max, or Star Wars, or anything but the thread title... but I don't see where and why Miller should've held back.

T1 or T2? I'd argue that T1 is more an action-horror movie, whereas T2 is more conventional action.

The original, given that's what dscross referred to.

...and even if they do not, they certainly qualify as spectacle films which ensure character narrative makes the action truly connective to an audience, ergo they fulfill exactly what you seem to suggest is lacking.

Eh? I've not suggested any of the films he cited lacked character narrative. I've generally mentioned it in context of how an 'action movie' is defined in terms of actual action quota. If The Terminator counts, then I'd say the category's broad indeed.

A "consistent level of quality." Yeah, okay, if the level of quality is "average." The only truly good Potter film I can name is Deathly Hallows pt. 2, because while every film prior to it has been a shell of the book it was based on (least since Azkaban)*, Pt. 2 at least has the benefit of using spectacle. That, and I'd argue that Deathly Hallows is the weakest book outside Cursed Child, so there is that.

*I'll admit that Azkaban and its successors are arguably better movies than the first two, but the first two are at least better adaptations.

I'm not going to dig into the series as this ain't the thread for it (consensus and history will certainly mark it down as a significant series in terms of quality and richness of characters, so you're in the minority with the average assessment), but I couldn't care less about the books - I'm lucky enough to be able to judge them as films alone.

...and I'm not a fan of DHp2 (DHp1's one of my favourites in the series); the humdrum climax and a painfully terrible last reel left a bad last impression for me.

Other than that it's hard to find any [just-about] fun-for-all-the-family series across any decade of cinema that matches it, and it'll be a long time till anything surpasses it.

Also really not a fan of its tone and aesthetics, which is of course subjective, but again, if Disney gave Star Wars back its 'soul,' what have they done with it? Make one film that's a riff of what's come before, and one film that's worse than most of what came before.

As I said; one that gave it its soul back, and a second that was an oddball experiment. Adam Jensen stylee, "I never asked for Rogue One this" - and I don't think anyone did, ditto with the new, shittily named Solo film. But I admired the risk as much as I'm annoyed by the apparent interference. I feel it has as much to recommend it as to damn it, which I went into in a previous post (I certainly think it's leagues ahead of any of the prequel trash, and there's much I prefer about it over ANH or even sections of Jedi).

I expect/hope the new mainline entry will at least match TFA's quality whilst pitching headlong into its own story (I've not watched the new trailer, and I've no intention of watching any more promos till I see the film itself), but after an interesting punt with Rogue One it seems as if the rather contrived anthology entries have already gone off the rails.

(I'm still holding out for something akin to what the Weekly Planet podcast guys pitched; Boba Fett: Chronicles Of The Galaxy's Worst Bounty Hunter)

Finally, I don't think anything Disney could do could tarnish SW's legacy more than it's already been over the decades, and I feel they'd need to rip apart the fabric of time and space itself to make a worse film than any of the prequels... The Solo 'story' might end up lost deeper in the editorial woods than Rogue One, but I'd take formulaic homogenised competency over the kinds of how-not-to-make-films masterclasses that are the prequels (the Mr Plinkett series really should be forcibly played to Lucas and his yes-men).

It's worth it for the opening chase, which is incredible because it was done for real, but the pace of the first Mad Max is almost identical to The Terminator, so be warned. It's not so much an action film as a man being pushed to the edge, and finally pushing back. Fairly simple 70's revenge stuff.

Yeah, I've seen some footage on YT in reviews and wotnot, and it's certainly ballsy filmmaking. But as you said; fairly simple '70's revenge stuff, and therefore it's not going to float my particular boat. The only reason I'd like to see it is for pure curiosity, looking at where Miller started and where it ended up with Fury Road.

Titanic is all mushy romance in the first half and keeps that going even after the action starts, yet to this day people classify it as action.

Not a point I'd really bother to stress, but for Titanic I reckon disaster movie suffices. The real draw is, frankly, watching shit go [quite literally... ] down, and the romance and faffing is obviously to try to humanise what's essentially quite disturbingly grim voyeurism.

 

[Ogoid]

That's not what I term explicit character narrative at all, though.

I'd have to see it again (none of my memories of it are particularly fond, so I've no incentive to) as I've not seen it in over a decade, most likely, but going from 'all' the dialogue Road Warrior's at best bare-bones and broad strokes.

Well, if by that you meant "dialogue-heavy", then yes, that's something that Road Warrior really can't be accused of being; but I would still maintain it is very much a character-driven narrative. As Mad Max is the story of Max's fall from grace, from one of the few good people standing against the tide of anarchy to a lawless wanderer with nothing to lose himself, Road Warrior is the story of his starting to break out from the shell of the misanthropic drifter he let himself become, and finding again a measure of empathy for his fellow man.

I think Fury Road's much more than that; it has a soul and heart that the other Mad Max films [I've seen] just do not (Gibson had charisma at times, but I prefer the duo of Theron and Hardy - shite sorta-kinda-maybe Aussy accent aside).

Regardless, in the context of this thread Fury Road's certainly a great contemporary action oriented film, and one I don't believe is empty headed at all (ergo doesn't fit in the purely mindless spectacle box).

I really couldn't disagree more.

Hardy's Max was a complete nonentity whose role could have been written out entirely with barely any changes to the script, and Furiosa - the protagonist in all but name, presumably because "Furious Furiosa" didn't have as high a brand recognition with the focus groups - can be described as a character, in her entirety, as "has a robotic arm and scowls a lot". Which brings me to my next point...

This thread really isn't about Mad Max, or Star Wars, or anything but the thread title... but I don't see where and why Miller should've held back.

I know, and I apologize. The subject of Mad Max tends to exacerbate my already considerable tendency towards verbiage.

That said, I think its case is one that is an excellent illustration of the point dscross originally raised.

Road Warrior (and Mad Max before it) took their time to build up characters and give us reasons to root for them. The Narrator quickly establishes for us why Max is the way he is - he lost his family. We see the people from Pappagallo's compound besieged, attacked, tortured and killed by Humungus' gang. Pappagallo gives Max a dose of reality, and gets decked in the face for his trouble. We see Wez and some others destroy Max's car and kill his dog. Then we get a huge truck chase, in the result of which we are already invested.

Fury Road, though, tosses some guy called Max at us with a vague monologue about "people he couldn't protect", he gets taken down in like 5 seconds flat after the world's most leisurely pissing; tries to escape his captors but fails on account of, apparently, suffering from a severe form of schizophrenia and seeing a bunch of people whose relation to him we have no idea whatsoever... and promptly disappears from view. In comes Furiosa, of whom we know precisely jack diddly squat at this point. She runs off with the wives of a cartoon villain who squanders the supposedly most precious resource in the land by distributing it to the masses in the most spectacularly, idiotically wasteful way possible, 15 or 20 minutes into the film, and we're supposed to be rooting for her to get away... well, because she's there, apparently. And it really doesn't get much better as it goes on.

In the old Max movies, the action served a narrative; in Fury Road, what precious little in the way of narrative there is seems to exist only as an excuse for - again - green-screened stunts and CGI explosions.

As for why he should have held back... for the same reason, I think, nobody would have been that much worse off if George Lucas had, and Star Wars Episodes I, II and III had never happened. Sometimes less is more.

 

[Hawki]

I'm not going to dig into the series as this ain't the thread for it (consensus and history will certainly mark it down as a significant series in terms of quality and richness of characters, so you're in the minority with the average assessment),

That's a very bold claim. Thoughts on the quality of the films aside, I haven't noticed any mark they made on popular culture. Harry Potter as a franchise/IP remains popular to this day, but I'd argue that's primarily because of the books. The characters in the films are like shells of their book counterparts. Even something like The Hunger Games spawned off a surge of YA films in film. I didn't notice the HP films do the same. Yeah, we got two Percy Jackson films and...that's it.

I'm lucky enough to be able to judge them as films alone.

Not sure if I'd call that "lucky," but whatever.

Other than that it's hard to find any [just-about] fun-for-all-the-family series across any decade of cinema that matches it, and it'll be a long time till anything surpasses it.

That's easy, the MCU.

I'm not the biggest fan, but the MCU has more or less had the same run as the HP films (mostly average films with a few standouts), and even both franchise's RT scores are in fairly similar territory (70s to 90s for HP, 60s to 90s for the MCU). And all of the MCU films are child friendly. And as someone who works in a library, and is regular exposed to what "kids these days" are into, there's a clear link between the MCU and the Marvel characters being popular among kids, or at least, the MCU characters.

As I said; one that gave it its soul back, and a second that was an oddball experiment. Adam Jensen stylee, "I never asked for Rogue One this" - and I don't think anyone did, ditto with the new, shittily named Solo film. But I admired the risk as much as I'm annoyed by the apparent interference. I feel it has as much to recommend it as to damn it, which I went into in a previous post (I certainly think it's leagues ahead of any of the prequel trash, and there's much I prefer about it over ANH or even sections of Jedi).

This is still predicated by the idea of Star Wars losing its soul at some point. If it did, I'd argue it was the moment that Disney bought it and gutted the majority of its canon for films that no-one asked for.

I expect/hope the new mainline entry will at least match TFA's quality whilst pitching headlong into its own story (I've not watched the new trailer, and I've no intention of watching any more promos till I see the film itself),

I won't spoil anything, but let's just say that all indications are that The Last Jedi will be to The Empire Strikes back what TFA was to A New Hope.

Finally, I don't think anything Disney could do could tarnish SW's legacy more than it's already been over the decades,

Besides retconning almost the entirety of Star Wars lore, making one film that's a retread of A New Hope, making a second film that's a structural mess, making a third film that looks set to be a retread of Empire, making a fourth film that's gone through development hell, and be set to make a fifth film that has a strong chance of having Starkiller Base II in it.

Whatever ups and downs Star Wars may have had, it was never nuked for the sake of a cash grab.

and I feel they'd need to rip apart the fabric of time and space itself to make a worse film than any of the prequels...

Plenty of films exist that are worse than the prequels. I can't even call the prequels bad films. Flawed films, certainly, and the OT is still the much stronger trilogy, but at this point, the prequels still stand above Disney's output so far in terms of aggregate.

The Solo 'story' might end up lost deeper in the editorial woods than Rogue One, but I'd take formulaic homogenised competency over the kinds of how-not-to-make-films masterclasses that are the prequels (the Mr Plinkett series really should be forcibly played to Lucas and his yes-men).

Okay, I agree in principle that execution trumps conception, but no-one deserves to be forced to watch Plinkett's output.

And again, if you want to learn how not to make films, Rogue One still exists. Despite my above comments, TFA still at least functions as a film. Rogue One doesn't. It's to Disney's output what Attack of the Clones is to the prequel trilogy.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Ever since Mark Kermode compared the first The Raid film to a musical I've been unable to see action movies any other way again. And there's a clear distinction here: when I say action movie, I mean films like Fury Road, John Wick and The Raid. Movies where the action is the main focus. Not plot, not characters, not dialogue, but the setpieces themselves. As in, I don't consider Marvel movies action films the same way In consider the Bourne movies to be ones. That's not to say I'll just accept 100 minutes of mindless action with no structure whatsoever. But I enjoyed John Wick 2 even more than the first because it put such a deliberate focus on the action. It was like going to see a ballet performance: do those have a particularly coherent structure, characters you care about, or a deep narrative? On the most basic level yes. Same with action movies.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

That's a very bold claim. Thoughts on the quality of the films aside, I haven't noticed any mark they made on popular culture. Harry Potter as a franchise/IP remains popular to this day, but I'd argue that's primarily because of the books.

Quite the opposite, it's a very safe claim given their critical and commercial success.

As for the legacy? On that count it's shared across the page and screen, given both would've fueled interest in the other. Funnily enough I don't read children's books or watch children's TV, but I've no doubt it affected genre mores and - one can hope/speculate - went some way to equalising more narratives across the genders, given HP was by and large a quite progressive, empowering world.

The characters in the films are like shells of their book counterparts.

Like I said; I'm lucky I have no extraneous info to deal with. If I was writing a piece on the adaptation of the series, I'd need to dig into the books, but since I'm not I can just say - like so many others in my position - the character's were still incredibly rich and engaging.

Even something like The Hunger Games spawned off a surge of YA films in film. I didn't notice the HP films do the same. Yeah, we got two Percy Jackson films and...that's it.

I feel that's certainly down to the challenges of adaptations, i.e. YA films trying to hang off THG's coat-tails had a much easier job; dystopia + empowered young protagonist/reader conduit = YA IP Variant 231.3b.

But Harry Potter? Nick the magical school idea and it seems painfully derivative. Try to do a fantastical, non-patronising narrative with a young lead and sand its thematic edges off, and bingo, you have an incredibly promising yet drowned-at-birth post-Potter series like The Golden Compass.

That's easy, the MCU.

I'm not the biggest fan, but the MCU has more or less had the same run as the HP films (mostly average films with a few standouts), and even both franchise's RT scores are in fairly similar territory (70s to 90s for HP, 60s to 90s for the MCU).

As you may remember, I'm a huge fan of the MCU (own all but IM2 on disc), but I don't think they're directly comparable. Both great examples of how far the mainstream's come since the dark ol' days of the '80's, '90's, sure, but the MCU is not a distinct, connective single narrative.

And despite how 'four corner/tentpole' some of the MCU entries have been, they are still rather blokey generic fare. We've had comicbook and superhero films going back absolutely decades, but there was never anything quite like the Potter film series.

How many other instances where a single narrative across seven films became an immediate global phenomena, and then got better after the first two (most trilogies can't sustain the weight of their own bloat. I'd argue even The Dark Knight Rises is a bit shit compared to the first two)? One can argue the minutiae of merits across the individual entries, and I know fans of the books have many more nitpicks (like I said, I'm lucky to not have to deal with those), but in general what HP did isn't just rare - it's unprecedented. Many kids pretty much grew up alongside the characters across the series, and it was notable for having the guts - as I assume the books generally did - to do what, for comparative example, Joss did with Buffy, i.e. not patronise your audience and allow your characters and the content to truly mature.

This is still predicated by the idea of Star Wars losing its soul at some point. If it did, I'd argue it was the moment that Disney bought it and gutted the majority of its canon for films that no-one asked for.

In a post-MCU world I'd say a lot of people were very open to the idea of seeing what Disney could do with the franchise. Cinematically it was artistically dead since '83, and so TFA was a veritable revelation.

The anthologies have stumbled already, sure, and I find it hard to believe Solo won't be even worse, but even if those are a bust nothing to me suggests the mainline films aren't going to be pretty damn good. I mean, jeese, even TFA gave us some of the best action sequences and lighsaber clashes in the entire series, so even if the mainlines only deliver on those counts - and avoid the singularity of dross that the prequels were - many are going to be more than happy.

I won't spoil anything, but let's just say that all indications are that The Last Jedi will be to The Empire Strikes back what TFA was to A New Hope.

Provided it ticks the boxes I mentioned above, I'll be content. In a way the prequels were a bit of a masterstroke; in setting the bar so low as the "plannnnet corrrrrr!", anything that follows it can be praised...

Whatever ups and downs Star Wars may have had, it was never nuked for the sake of a cash grab.

Er, the history of the whole franchise has been - largely - a Lucas cash grab?

It is a case of looking at an IP's potential and then developing that. If you're an anti-capitalist, fine, have at it, but you can't really blame a company for acquiring such a property and then wishing to benefit from it.

As with the MCU, TFA had heart and soul as well as formula. Combine with that real directorial verve, and it's the most important Star Wars creation in over thirty years.

Plenty of films exist that are worse than the prequels. I can't even call the prequels bad films. Flawed films, certainly, and the OT is still the much stronger trilogy, but at this point, the prequels still stand above Disney's output so far in terms of aggregate.

Honestly, I find it quite hard to seriously converse with anyone who excuses the prequels. They are cinematic abominations (Phantom does almost everything terribly, but the final reel is an astonishingly adept showcase of exactly how not to direct, write, or edit a film), and a defining expression of egomaniacal authorial indulgence. In retrospect they are an almost surreal failure, particularly when you look at the variously dumbfounded reactions of underlings in the behind the scenes content, as George totters around mumbling nonsense.

It's evident he couldn't write, direct, or know how to relate to actors.

Okay, I agree in principle that execution trumps conception, but no-one deserves to be forced to watch Plinkett's output.

Pft, that series is genius. Having a hand in catalysing YT film critique and satire is perhaps the prequels most valuable legacy...

Well, if by that you meant "dialogue-heavy", then yes, that's something that Road Warrior really can't be accused of being; but I would still maintain it is very much a character-driven narrative.

Not dialogue heavy, or nuanced. Does a story need to, to be considered a character narrative? No, of course not, but as formulaic as something like Doctor Strange is (or even Wonder Woman, which I just saw last night), I personally still find that far more satisfying, and a stronger, more defined example of upfront character narrative. This is a thread re the mainstream, remember, so I'm all for less conventional ways to tell narratives as well.

The script alone does tell a lot about The Road Warrior, but to deconstruct it further I'd obviously need to see it again, so I can't really comment much more than that. For now I'll concede it's character driven in a way Fury Road is not.

I really couldn't disagree more.

Hardy's Max was a complete nonentity whose role could have been written out entirely with barely any changes to the script, and Furiosa - the protagonist in all but name, presumably because "Furious Furiosa" didn't have as high a brand recognition with the focus groups - can be described as a character, in her entirety, as "has a robotic arm and scowls a lot". Which brings me to my next point...

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on Fury Road.

Wasn't it Miller's right, though, to play with his universe as he saw fit? For it to become something else? It became, after all, a critical and commercial hit, so it's safe to say he succeeded.

Fury Road, though, tosses some guy called Max at us with a vague monologue about "people he couldn't protect", he gets taken down in like 5 seconds flat after the world's most leisurely pissing; tries to escape his captors but fails on account of, apparently, suffering from a severe form of schizophrenia and seeing a bunch of people whose relation to him we have no idea whatsoever... and promptly disappears from view. In comes Furiosa, of whom we know precisely jack diddly squat at this point. She runs off with the wives of a cartoon villain who squanders the supposedly most precious resource in the land by distributing it to the masses in the most spectacularly, idiotically wasteful way possible, 15 or 20 minutes into the film, and we're supposed to be rooting for her to get away... well, because she's there, apparently.

Aren't you rather missing the point by trying to apply cold reason to a film like Fury Road? It's ostensibly mythic, arch, a work of grand gestures and symbolism. To me I find that infinitely more interesting than the older, lower budget bare-bones precedings.

Also, I absolutely admire its feminist edge. Hard to call it subtext, as it's fairly on the nose, but it's at least a distinct vision of a post-fall world, and at times effectively becomes a ballsy deconstruction of the inherent destructiveness of hyper-masculinity - something which is still a relevant issue. I can't really remember any glimmer of strident social commentary in the older Mad Max films.

Ergo Fury Road has a poignancy and depth that I never felt in Road Warrior or the rather ridiculous Thunderdome, and so for me it's a great example of just how far mainstream spectacle films have come.

As for why he should have held back... for the same reason, I think, nobody would have been that much worse off if George Lucas had, and Star Wars Episodes I, II and III had never happened. Sometimes less is more.

And sometimes much more is just awesome...

I'm not keen on any follow up's, though, primarily because lightning rarely tends to strike twice.

Ever since Mark Kermode compared the first The Raid film to a musical I've been unable to see action movies any other way again. And there's a clear distinction here: when I say action movie, I mean films like Fury Road, John Wick and The Raid. Movies where the action is the main focus. Not plot, not characters, not dialogue, but the setpieces themselves.

As in, I don't consider Marvel movies action films the same way In consider the Bourne movies to be ones.

I'm all for redefinitions of the reductive term 'action film', but it's a bit of a stretch to try to say the MCU's offerings don't fit such a box. Personally I think something more akin to spectacle film suffices better, but one could say something like Fury Road is an even better fit for that label (i.e. action/musical distinction you're referring to).

Action is, surely, arguably a primary draw for the MCU. Despite being incredibly formulaic, Doctor Strange still works both as a cracking actioner as well as a strong character narrative. Same goes with Civil War or Wonder Woman.

 

[Asita]

Rogue One is not something that is meant to be viewed in isolation. It's there to bridge the gap between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope and establish the need for everything in a New Hope. The need for a Rebel Alliance, the need to stop Tarkin, the need to destroy the Death Star, the need for a good counterpart to Darth Vader. Better yet, let's think of the original trilogy as a single story. Rogue One is the prologue to that story, setting the stage for A New Hope.

Playing semantics, did we actually need Rogue One? Taking A New Hope in isolation, everything's pretty self-explanatory. The Empire is bad, and we know it's bad because of that scary space samurai guy, and they shoot farmers and jawas, and blow up planets, and it's up for our heroes to stop the Empire and the scary black guy. If you needed further context, there's still the prequels. Rogue One doesn't really fill any major gap that needs filling, it just builds a story around an established event. If anything, I'd argue it kind of diminishes A New Hope in that it reveals that the Death Star's weakness was built in intentionally, rather than being exploited by the Rebellion.

For a given value of "need"? If you're willing to take the original movies at face value, then no. The thing is though that since Star Wars was originally released audiences have largely waxed cynical and are far more willing to try to undermine the story through darkly cynical interpretation.

For the sake of example, have you perhaps heard the argument that the genie in Aladdin proves that Agrabah is set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, based entirely on the genie's use of anachronistic humor? That Beauty and the Beast is the greatest story of Stockholm syndrome in history[footnote]Yes, yes, I can hear people typing away in their eagerness to discuss THAT issue. That's a discussion for another time and another place[/footnote], and Gaston was the real hero all along? That Glinda deliberately set up Dorothy as a political assassin in the Wizard of Oz? Perhaps that the police deliberately framed Kimble in the Fugitive? That Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder) was really a sociopathic sadist who specifically set up the factory tour to maximize the chances that his 'guests' would hurt themselves? It goes on and on...

Was it strictly necessary? No, but we're now in a world where people can and will try to defend the destruction of Alderaan as justified. So reestablishing that the Empire were supposed to come off as villainous is not a bad thing either.

With that being said, I also very much agree with your take on the Death Star's weakness. Turning it into sabotage rather cheapens the victory at the end of A New Hope.

 

[Ogoid]

Not dialogue heavy, or nuanced. Does a story need to, to be considered a character narrative? No, of course not, but as formulaic as something like Doctor Strange is (or even Wonder Woman, which I just saw last night), I personally still find that far more satisfying, and a stronger, more defined example of upfront character narrative. This is a thread re the mainstream, remember, so I'm all for less conventional ways to tell narratives as well.

The script alone does tell a lot about The Road Warrior, but to deconstruct it further I'd obviously need to see it again, so I can't really comment much more than that. For now I'll concede it's character driven in a way Fury Road is not.

Fair enough.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on Fury Road.

Wasn't it Miller's right, though, to play with his universe as he saw fit? For it to become something else? It became, after all, a critical and commercial hit, so it's safe to say he succeeded.

Sure. But just as it's his right to do with his creation as he pleases, I think it's not only fair but simply reasonable to judge it by the standard the previous movies set.

As far as commercial success, though, as I recall it just barely broke even at the box office, so I'm not sure I would say it was an unqualified success.

Aren't you rather missing the point by trying to apply cold reason to a film like Fury Road? It's ostensibly mythic, arch, a work of grand gestures and symbolism. To me I find that infinitely more interesting than the older, lower budget bare-bones precedings.

Also, I absolutely admire its feminist edge. Hard to call it subtext, as it's fairly on the nose, but it's at least a distinct vision of a post-fall world, and at times effectively becomes a ballsy deconstruction of the inherent destructiveness of hyper-masculinity - something which is still a relevant issue. I can't really remember any glimmer of strident social commentary in the older Mad Max films.

Ergo Fury Road has a poignancy and depth that I never felt in Road Warrior or the rather ridiculous Thunderdome, and so for me it's a great example of just how far mainstream spectacle films have come.

I don't think it's cold reason I'm applying to it, as much as simple tried-and-true storytelling principles. It doesn't matter how much pyrotechnics you can throw at the screen if you don't give the audience something to be invested in, and Fury Road simply throws a bunch of characters at us, never really develops any of them in any significant way, and expect us to care what happens to them simply because. The result is simply empty bombast - a whole lot of sound and fury, if you will, signifying nothing.

And I think that goes for the themes, as well. The original Mad Max films were very much a product of their time, of the fears of the Cold War and oil depletion - I seem to recall Miller stating somewhere that one of his main inspirations for it was reading news of how gasoline shortages in the 70's resulted in actual physical violence between drivers on gas station lines. They were also a way of Miller, who had worked as a doctor and patched up a lot people who had been in traffic accidents, to exorcise a lot of the violence he had seen.

They were, in short, both commentary on then-current events, as well as personal statement and expression by its authors.

Fury Road, though, doesn't have any reason to exist that I can conceive of that isn't "some Hollywood suit thought there was money to be made". It's characters aren't simply meaningless caricatures that don't represent anything, they don't even bear the slightest amount of actual scrutiny; its entire plot hinges on the fact of the villain having sex slaves (which is also the only thing we're shown that actually makes him a villain), because obviously there wouldn't be any women who would willingly be concubines for the most powerful man in a post-apocayptic, irradiated desert where simple drinking water is a rare commodity. Comparatively trivial concerns like basic survival, as we all know, are secondary at best in such a situation.

I think the problem with Fury Road is that it is, quite frankly, atrociously written; on a broader scale (and actually on topic for this discussion), it's one more example in a continuing Hollywood trend, to reboot/remake/sequelize movies that were great without any apparent understanding or regard as to what made them great to begin with.

 

[Hawki]

Quite the opposite, it's a very safe claim given their critical and commercial success.

As for the legacy? On that count it's shared across the page and screen, given both would've fueled interest in the other. Funnily enough I don't read children's books or watch children's TV, but I've no doubt it affected genre mores and - one can hope/speculate - went some way to equalising more narratives across the genders, given HP was by and large a quite progressive, empowering world.

I'm not disputing that the films were critically and commercially successful (so were the prequels for that matter), but again, if we're talking about legacy, where is it? We've already discussed follow-up films, but if we want to go down the rabbit hole of gender equalization, if anything, Harry Potter sets it back. There's an argument out there that Hermione should have been the protagonist, yet despite her intelligence, is reduced to a supporting character, that Harry is the protagonist because male leads sell better (or at least sold better at the time). It is known that on the books, "J.K. Rowling" is used rather than "Joanne Rowling" because publishers thought that boys wouldn't be keen on reading books written by a female.

Now, I don't agree with the argument of the books being reductive myself, but if you're looking for progressive female leads in children's/YA fiction, there's no shortage of actual female leads. And while HP (well, the books at least) looks at issues like prejudice and racism, gender equality isn't among them. I don't think that's a mark against it, but at the end of the day, if one wants to hold up HP as an example of progressive literature for gender equality/female empowerment, I think there's better options available.

How many other instances where a single narrative across seven films became an immediate global phenomena, and then got better after the first two (most trilogies can't sustain the weight of their own bloat. I'd argue even The Dark Knight Rises is a bit shit compared to the first two)? One can argue the minutiae of merits across the individual entries, and I know fans of the books have many more nitpicks (like I said, I'm lucky to not have to deal with those), but in general what HP did isn't just rare - it's unprecedented. Many kids pretty much grew up alongside the characters across the series, and it was notable for having the guts - as I assume the books generally did - to do what, for comparative example, Joss did with Buffy, i.e. not patronise your audience and allow your characters and the content to truly mature.

Eight films, technically. Nine if you include Fantastic Beasts.

Well, The Fast and the Furious kind of comes to mind, but whether that counts as a "single narrative" is debatable. Alright, fine, I'll grant you that as a single narrative, as far as critical consensus goes, I can't think of a franchise running for eight films that has the same consistantly average to high RT scores that Harry Potter has. Happy?

But on the other hand, not many franchises have that kind of template to work off. There's also other series based on books that have run shorter, but been more critically successful (e.g. Lord of the Rings).

In a post-MCU world I'd say a lot of people were very open to the idea of seeing what Disney could do with the franchise. Cinematically it was artistically dead since '83, and so TFA was a veritable revelation.

"Artistically dead since '83" is a misdirection/misunderstanding, depending on where you stand. Even ignoring the prequels, if one watched Return of the Jedi, after watching its previous films, would someone say that the Star Wars series was "dead," or that it had ended?" It's like saying that Lord of the Rings became "dead" after Return of the King, or Harry Potter became "dead" since Deathly Hallows. If a film/book/whatever series ends at a satisfying end-point for its overall narrative, is calling it "dead" really the term to use?

It's also missing the point that Star Wars had a healthy life in its EU, fleshing out the universe, and establishing a massive fanbase by building off what the films provided, both OT and PT. Now, let's say that for argument's sake I agree with your take on the prequels, that doesn't change the existence of the EU. So even if TFA was a "veritable revelation," it doesn't change the fact that it's a revelation that is based on ripping out 90% of Star Wars lore up to that point to even function. And even if we're confining this just to the films, there's far more art in the prequels than TFA. TFA functions better than 2/3 prequels, but that's about it - it functions. If we're judging the films as craft, then TFA wins, but if we're judging them as art, the prequels have far more artistic integrity. Far more worldbuilding, far more ideas, different story structure, different characters, different pace, etc. Put the PT by the OT, and anyone will see the difference. Put TFA by the OT, and it comes off as a greatest hits collection - mainly riffing off A New Hope, but there's still elements of the other films in there.

The anthologies have stumbled already, sure, and I find it hard to believe Solo won't be even worse, but even if those are a bust nothing to me suggests the mainline films aren't going to be pretty damn good. I mean, jeese, even TFA gave us some of the best action sequences and lighsaber clashes in the entire series, so even if the mainlines only deliver on those counts - and avoid the singularity of dross that the prequels were - many are going to be more than happy.

"Best action sequences and lightsaber clashes?" You mean perhaps one of the worst, if not THE worst lightsaber clash in all the films? Okay, maybe the Dooku sequence in AotC is worse, but that's about it, and that's a big maybe. And action sequences? Um...sorry, nothing special comes to mind. Nothing but the Falcon evading Tie Fighters (which we've seen, and while the directing is great, the sequence itself is nothing special), or the attack on Starkiller Base (a third Death Star, for all intents and purposes), or the Maz Kanada sequence...okay, maybe that one, but if you want to talk about great action sequences or lightsaber battles, the other films easily surpass TFA. Even Rogue One surpasses TFA in its Scarif battle sequence.

Er, the history of the whole franchise has been - largely - a Lucas cash grab?

It is a case of looking at an IP's potential and then developing that. If you're an anti-capitalist, fine, have at it, but you can't really blame a company for acquiring such a property and then wishing to benefit from it.

No, I can't blame a company for acquiring a property and wishing to benefit for it. I can blame a company when they destroy 90% of the IP to benefit from it, and then don't even do anything interesting with the property.

Even if one makes the argument that the Lucas films were cash grabs, they were still cash grabs with far more artistic integrity than TFA.

As with the MCU, TFA had heart and soul as well as formula. Combine with that real directorial verve, and it's the most important Star Wars creation in over thirty years.

Yeah...no. Just no. If I agreed (which I don't), what does it say about the franchise if its "most important creation" is a re-tread of its first film? I'll give that TFA has "directorial verve," but it has little in the way of "heart" or "soul." If you want that, practically every other Star Wars film has more of that.

Honestly, I find it quite hard to seriously converse with anyone who excuses the prequels.

Says the person who's excusing TFA.

They are cinematic abominations (Phantom does almost everything terribly, but the final reel is an astonishingly adept showcase of exactly how not to direct, write, or edit a film), and a defining expression of egomaniacal authorial indulgence. In retrospect they are an almost surreal failure, particularly when you look at the variously dumbfounded reactions of underlings in the behind the scenes content, as George totters around mumbling nonsense.

And also says the person who has Interstellar as their avatar.

Fine, let's just say I agree with the severity of that assessment and move on. But if you think the prequels are "cinematic abominations," then either you've not seen many films, or have seen many films and just been extremely lucky/selective. But at their very worst, the prequels are flawed, average, but still net positive films. Sure, TFA is better executed, and you've already seen that I rank it above Phantom and Clones, but there's so many films that are worse out there. And since you've already played the critical consensus card with Harry Potter, here's the RT scores for the prequels:

-The Phantom Menace: 55%

-Attack of the Clones: 65%

-Revenge of the Sith: 79%

Those are hardly the scores of "cinematic abominations." If you want examples of "cinematic abominations," there's the Transformers films (which also have the critical scores to match).

Pft, that series is genius. Having a hand in catalysing YT film critique and satire is perhaps the prequels most valuable legacy...

Alright, let's say I agree with you in the argument of "catalysing YT film critique," nevermind that online critique existed before the review. I'll also point out that most film reviewers don't resort to unfunny jokes about hostage taking (and other, far less scrupulous things). Also, I'd argue that a good standard of critique is to attack the product, not the person, and the reviews fail in that regard, since they're half a critique, 25% Lucas bashing, 25% fan bashing. It frankly shows a disturbing mindset, that either one agrees with the reviewer, or is only "defending it," woe betide that someone has a different opinion (and this isn't exclusive to Star Wars by any means). It's also the same argument that you use, that I have to "excuse" the prequels, that anyone who likes anything that you don't like is only "excusing" them or "defending" them. Up until that point, I wasn't excusing you of "defending" or "excusing" TFA, and even now, I don't doubt that you really like TFA, or even Interstellar for that matter.

Also, if we want to talk about the prequels most valuable legacy, one only has to look at stuff like Battlefront, or The Clone Wars (both series), or the plenthora of EU works they spawned. Y'know, actual creations. I'm not disrepaging reviewers, but it's much harder to create than it is to critique, and the original material within the reviews is unfunny at best, and disturbing at worst.

 

[Hawki]

For a given value of "need"? If you're willing to take the original movies at face value, then no. The thing is though that since Star Wars was originally released audiences have largely waxed cynical and are far more willing to try to undermine the story through darkly cynical interpretation.

For the sake of example, have you perhaps heard the argument that the genie in Aladdin proves that Agrabah is set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, based entirely on the genie's use of anachronistic humor? That Beauty and the Beast is the greatest story of Stockholm syndrome in history[footnote]Yes, yes, I can hear people typing away in their eagerness to discuss THAT issue. That's a discussion for another time and another place[/footnote], and Gaston was the real hero all along? That Glinda deliberately set up Dorothy as a political assassin in the Wizard of Oz? Perhaps that the police deliberately framed Kimble in the Fugitive? That Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder) was really a sociopathic sadist who specifically set up the factory tour to maximize the chances that his 'guests' would hurt themselves? It goes on and on...

Was it strictly necessary? No, but we're now in a world where people can and will try to defend the destruction of Alderaan as justified. So reestablishing that the Empire were supposed to come off as villainous is not a bad thing either.

With that being said, I also very much agree with your take on the Death Star's weakness. Turning it into sabotage rather cheapens the victory at the end of A New Hope.

Yeah, I'm aware of the reinterpretations (heck, you missed out Lion King being a story about how Scar's attempt to end hyena aparthid was cut down by a dictatorial monarchy), but they're almost always done in jest. But I don't think Rogue One really reinterprets anything. It does show a shadier side of the Rebellion, but that's about it. The Empire is still very much the enemy, doing the same things it'll do in A New Hope (killing innocents and destroying planets). So, do we "need" Rogue One? It doesn't tell us much about the Empire that the original doesn't already establish. Something like Empire "needs" a sequel for instance, because it has the whole Vader/Han thing hanging over the heads of the protagonists. But by definition, if a work of fiction stands alone, it doesn't "need" expansion.

Not saying that there never should be expansion, but, well, as you can tell, I'm not fond of Rogue One - even less fond of it than TFA. And as stated, if anything, it kind of undermines A New Hope.

 

[Asita]

For a given value of "need"? If you're willing to take the original movies at face value, then no. The thing is though that since Star Wars was originally released audiences have largely waxed cynical and are far more willing to try to undermine the story through darkly cynical interpretation.

For the sake of example, have you perhaps heard the argument that the genie in Aladdin proves that Agrabah is set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, based entirely on the genie's use of anachronistic humor? That Beauty and the Beast is the greatest story of Stockholm syndrome in history[footnote]Yes, yes, I can hear people typing away in their eagerness to discuss THAT issue. That's a discussion for another time and another place[/footnote], and Gaston was the real hero all along? That Glinda deliberately set up Dorothy as a political assassin in the Wizard of Oz? Perhaps that the police deliberately framed Kimble in the Fugitive? That Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder) was really a sociopathic sadist who specifically set up the factory tour to maximize the chances that his 'guests' would hurt themselves? It goes on and on...

Was it strictly necessary? No, but we're now in a world where people can and will try to defend the destruction of Alderaan as justified. So reestablishing that the Empire were supposed to come off as villainous is not a bad thing either.

With that being said, I also very much agree with your take on the Death Star's weakness. Turning it into sabotage rather cheapens the victory at the end of A New Hope.

Yeah, I'm aware of the reinterpretations (heck, you missed out Lion King being a story about how Scar's attempt to end hyena aparthid was cut down by a dictatorial monarchy), but they're almost always done in jest. But I don't think Rogue One really reinterprets anything. It does show a shadier side of the Rebellion, but that's about it. The Empire is still very much the enemy, doing the same things it'll do in A New Hope (killing innocents and destroying planets). So, do we "need" Rogue One? It doesn't tell us much about the Empire that the original doesn't already establish. Something like Empire "needs" a sequel for instance, because it has the whole Vader/Han thing hanging over the heads of the protagonists. But by definition, if a work of fiction stands alone, it doesn't "need" expansion.

Not saying that there never should be expansion, but, well, as you can tell, I'm not fond of Rogue One - even less fond of it than TFA. And as stated, if anything, it kind of undermines A New Hope.

I wasn't trying to imply that Rogue One was reinterpreting anything, and if I did then I apparently didn't convey what I intended. What I was trying to convey was that modern audiences are jaded and that Rogue One helps to reestablish the "Empire bad, Rebels needed" status quo that they are no longer taking for granted.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I'm not disputing that the films were critically and commercially successful (so were the prequels for that matter), but again, if we're talking about legacy, where is it?

Whilst I can ignore the books when discussing the qualities of the films, HP's cultural impact inextricably ties to the books as well, so I should imagine the answer to 'where is it' is 'pretty much everywhere in some form' (including some of the language we use).

I don't think that's a mark against it, but at the end of the day, if one wants to hold up HP as an example of progressive literature for gender equality/female empowerment, I think there's better options available.

...which is a fine line had I stated HP was the shiningly perfect beacon of gender politics - when I did not.

The feminist/empowerment angle suffuses the series in general (its very culture; pro-equality, nurturing of a healthy skepticism for power structures, and so on), and regardless of your reading Hermione's become an enduring relatable and inspiring character for girls.

Eight films, technically. Nine if you include Fantastic Beasts.

No, I don't for the latter. I've not seen it yet, either, so I can't speak about whether it adds to the overall extended franchise.

But on the other hand, not many franchises have that kind of template to work off. There's also other series based on books that have run shorter, but been more critically successful (e.g. Lord of the Rings).

Eh, I'd say HP trumps LotR in many respects (I've never been a huge fan, of Tolkien - though I greatly admire much of his world/myth creation - or Jackson's patronisingly bombastic films), but that's a whole separate - and even more pointless - nerdy conversation.

Yes, not many have had such a template to work from, but that makes it even more remarkable, because we've all seen just how hard it is to adapt successful book series'. I dislike the first two HP's, but they work fine as children's films, and from three on there isn't a cinematic dud amongst 'em. No film is ever perfect, and people can point to all sorts of niggles with either pacing or structure, but even when the series stumbles the richness of the world and the characters - along with some fine performances - is always there to carry the story to conclusion and on to the next part (Order Of The Phoenix and Half-Blood are probably my two faves. DHp1 has a couple of my favourite scenes in the series, and I could've watched Harry and Hermione camp in the woods and just talk for much longer).

I assert that only in the modern era of mainstream spectacle filmmaking can anything like it be achieved.

"Artistically dead since '83" is a misdirection/misunderstanding, depending on where you stand. Even ignoring the prequels...

If you're going to quote me at least retain the context of the line, because that capital A's looking powerful suspicious given this was how the sentence began; Cinematically it was artistically dead since '83...

It's also missing the point that Star Wars had a healthy life in its EU, fleshing out the universe, and establishing a massive fanbase by building off what the films provided, both OT and PT. Now, let's say that for argument's sake I agree with your take on the prequels, that doesn't change the existence of the EU. So even if TFA was a "veritable revelation," it doesn't change the fact that it's a revelation that is based on ripping out 90% of Star Wars lore up to that point to even function.

I personally don't much care for the EU at all. Reducing them to 'legends' seems fair enough if they wish to create their own narratives.

Not an elegant solution, sure, and perhaps not something I'd have gone for, but it's not one I'm fussed about. The bigscreen's the most important expression of Star Wars, after all, so as long as the mainline Disney offerings are good, almost any retcon or EU 'sacrifice' is worth it.

"Best action sequences and lightsaber clashes?" You mean perhaps one of the worst, if not THE worst lightsaber clash in all the films? Okay, maybe the Dooku sequence in AotC is worse, but that's about it, and that's a big maybe.

Did you grow up with the prequels by any chance? Or as you just being contrarian about all this?

Debating on the quality of lightsaber clashes is approaching singularity levels of mindlessness... but I'm not sure what you want out of them in a SW film if you don't feel TFA's sequence is a highpoint. Kenobi and Maul having a rhythmic gymnastics face-off isn't my idea of good choreography or good narrative infused action.

I've been into HEMA for a few years now, btw, and TFA got very close to giving me exactly what I wanted out of snazzy laser sword combat (which is pretty much what Empire did, but with arguably better photography and fidelity of effects used to enhance atmosphere the realism of their environs).

No, I can't blame a company for acquiring a property and wishing to benefit for it. I can blame a company when they destroy 90% of the IP to benefit from it, and then don't even do anything interesting with the property.

To me what really matters is the films - nothing more, ergo where it matters Disney have maybe tinkered with the edges and, happily, chose to ignore some of the banal damage Lucas did to his originals (midi-whatnow?). Having a continuation of that with a contemporary shot in the arm is fine by me. It'll be great to see Hamill portray Luke again.

The anthologies might be another issue, but see my opinion of the prequels for why I'm not overly bothered.

One I would like to see is Kenobi's, though ideally they'd go full Logan, not for the cussin' and bloodshed, but a very stripped down character narrative telling a much smaller, personal story. Given the eventual interference on Rogue One, and the apparent upheaval/lack of focus on Solo, there seems little chance they'd be able to do it justice. But hey, Logan was a bolt from the blue, so if a bunch of dumbasses at Fox can accidentally back something genuinely quite daring, then so can Disney.

And also says the person who has Interstellar as their avatar.

Neat... another completely off-topic cul-de-sac.

Then again I'd say one of the finest sci-fi films ever made also adds weight to the superiority of contemporary mainstream/spectacle films.

Evidently we'll just disagree on that one, so getting analytical's a waste of both our time unless you want to do in via PM's.

Those are hardly the scores of "cinematic abominations." If you want examples of "cinematic abominations," there's the Transformers films (which also have the critical scores to match).

Bay's cacophonous behemoths at least seem to openly embrace their slo-mo stupidity and headache inducing sensory assault, which I can respect and ultimately enjoy. TF1's one of the best action offerings of the 2000's, and Dark Of The Moon has far less crippling problems than anything in the prequels.

I'll also point out that most film reviewers don't resort to unfunny jokes about hostage taking (and other, far less scrupulous things).

Mr Plinkett's a character, so I think I'll cut 'him' some slack.

Also, I'd argue that a good standard of critique is to attack the product, not the person, and the reviews fail in that regard, since they're half a critique, 25% Lucas bashing, 25% fan bashing.

See above. Though I feel the films earn that level of attack, certainly filtered through a character.

It's also the same argument that you use, that I have to "excuse" the prequels, that anyone who likes anything that you don't like is only "excusing" them or "defending" them.

The prequels are quite unlike anything else, and so no, for me this isn't about subjective critique; for me someone praising the prequels (especially Phantom or Clones) is akin to trying to tell me the sky is bright green on a clear, sunny afternoon.

Watching the behind the scenes footage demonstrably reveals an egoistic, incompetent, rather lazy halfwit enabled by yes-men (and destructively empowered by CG), and so there is no great mystery as to why the prequels are the way they are. For every 'Ani' line, or Jar-Jar treading in shit, there's George pulling the strings (I think he called Binks the 'funniest character' they've ever had, which goes to show just how dislocated he'd become from his own damn universe).

I'm not disrepaging reviewers, but it's much harder to create than it is to critique, and the original material within the reviews is unfunny at best, and disturbing at worst.

You're still addressing Plinkett's series? I found it frequently hilarious, and incredibly insightful. It was certainly quite crass and even nasty at times, sure, and that's not my preferred tone for humour, but there was also a great deal of compassion and humanity in them, an empathy for good character narrative and a well told story.

Sure. But just as it's his right to do with his creation as he pleases, I think it's not only fair but simply reasonable to judge it by the standard the previous movies set.

If someone doesn't think much of the original films, then their standard is much lower than yours seems to be, ergo it's not surprising they come to very different conclusions.

And as for---

As far as commercial success, though, as I recall it just barely broke even at the box office, so I'm not sure I would say it was an unqualified success.

If we're comparing directly to the originals, then if Wiki's entry is correct Fury Road is at least the highest grossing of the series.

It's a skewed comparison in all sorts of ways, but ultimately the OP didn't stipulate anything about box office profit margins, so it's relatively unimportant. No one would really try to argue that it can't fit into a box marked 'action movie'.

I don't think it's cold reason I'm applying to it, as much as simple tried-and-true storytelling principles. It doesn't matter how much pyrotechnics you can throw at the screen if you don't give the audience something to be invested in...

Criticising water wastage has nowt to do with "tried-and-true storytelling principles", and it's that which I feel is a criticism well wide of the mark given the film's clear stylistic choices and tone. It has a blind guy with a double necked guitar that doubles as a flamethrower, after all...

...and Fury Road simply throws a bunch of characters at us, never really develops any of them in any significant way, and expect us to care what happens to them simply because. The result is simply empty bombast - a whole lot of sound and fury, if you will, signifying nothing.

To you, sure. Not to me, and not to a lot of other people. You evidently didn't care, I very much did. There's not much more we can say on that count.

Fury Road, though, doesn't have any reason to exist that I can conceive of that isn't "some Hollywood suit thought there was money to be made".

If Fury Road's what constitutes IP exploitation, then I want a lot more of it with other IP's.

...its entire plot hinges on the fact of the villain having sex slaves (which is also the only thing we're shown that actually makes him a villain)

I'd very much say the opening scene's cruel demonstration of power over the rabble fits neatly into a column marked Villainous Acts.

...because obviously there wouldn't be any women who would willingly be concubines for the most powerful man in a post-apocayptic, irradiated desert where simple drinking water is a rare commodity.

Literal objectification through abject desperation for the benefit of tyrannical patriarchs isn't exactly an enviable life decision.

I think the problem with Fury Road is that it is, quite frankly, atrociously written; on a broader scale (and actually on topic for this discussion), it's one more example in a continuing Hollywood trend, to reboot/remake/sequelize movies that were great without any apparent understanding or regard as to what made them great to begin with.

Subjectivity strikes again. That's your POV, mine is that the script, action, music (to be fair I felt that was perhaps its biggest weakness for me. some great moments, but otherwise not as audacious as it perhaps should've been), direction, and performances all clicked together, and that it's a superb example of how to transform and elevate a series.

As I keep saying, I'm not keen on a follow-up, so I'd rather this was an oddball classic on its own as opposed to anything else. Ditto with Logan, although I really can't see how Fox would try to directly capitalise on that.

 

[Hawki]

The feminist/empowerment angle suffuses the series in general (its very culture; pro-equality, nurturing of a healthy skepticism for power structures, and so on),

Book series, yes, film series...I just don't see it. Almost every time the books went in-depth with prejudice, the films cut it out. Malfoy's mudblood comment in book 2? Kept. Lucius's anti-muggle views in book 2? Kept. Book 4's SPEW/house elf sub-plot? Gone. Hagrid's giant ancestry coming to light in book 4? Kept, I think, but I barely remember. Dumbledore and Fudge's falling out in the same book, showing how Fudge is keeping his head in the sand? Gone. Harry's trial in book 5? Kept. The centaur sub-plot in book 5 and Umbridge's views on them? Gone/neutered (I recall the centaurs play a role, but I don't think the film goes into the same depth as the books, if at all - certainly Firenze doesn't become a teacher or anything). The symbolism of the wizard fountain in Dumbledore and Harry's now almost entirely non-existent conversation?* Never mentioned. The Gaunt backstory in book 6? Gone. The parallels to Nazi Germany and 'race supremacy' in book 7? Gone.

Hence why the films feel like a shell of the books, because while I'm not expecting a 1:1 adaptation, the themes/motifs of the books are either removed, or so neutered that they may as well not be there at all most of the time. It's why Order of the Phoenix and Deathly Hallows pt. 2 stand as my favorites, because at the very least, they're a spectacle of action and visuals. If I'm not going to get the clever, intelligent storytelling of the books, I may as well have fun with the perks of a visual medium. And it's one of the few areas that the films surpass the books, since the Dumbledore vs. Voldemort/Harry vs. Voldemort book equivalents are...not great, to put it mildly.

*Film version is "Voldemort tried to kill you because of a prophecy. Deal with it."

Eh, I'd say HP trumps LotR in many respects (I've never been a huge fan, of Tolkien - though I greatly admire much of his world/myth creation - or Jackson's patronisingly bombastic films), but that's a whole separate - and even more pointless - nerdy conversation.

Fine, I won't engage, but to me, Jackson's films trump the HP ones in every regard.

If you're going to quote me at least retain the context of the line, because that capital A's looking powerful suspicious given this was how the sentence began; Cinematically it was artistically dead since '83...

And if you're going to quote me, at least do a full quote where I went exclusively into the films "ending" in 1983, not "dying."

Not an elegant solution, sure, and perhaps not something I'd have gone for, but it's not one I'm fussed about. The bigscreen's the most important expression of Star Wars, after all, so as long as the mainline Disney offerings are good, almost any retcon or EU 'sacrifice' is worth it.

Yeah, all they need to do now is put out a film that actually is good.

But even if they did, I'd still be poorly inclined to them. They could have said "everything after RotJ is non-canon," or, if we're factoring in Rogue One, "everything after RotS is non-canon." But no, they had to nuke everything. I'm not even that big of an EU follower, but I know people who are, and I can understand how rankled they'd be, because I was rankled myself. It's nice to know that almost the entirety of my Star Wars books and games are now non-canon because you were too greedy/lazy to do anything creative with your new IP ya bastards.

Did you grow up with the prequels by any chance? Or as you just being contrarian about all this?

Debating on the quality of lightsaber clashes is approaching singularity levels of mindlessness... but I'm not sure what you want out of them in a SW film if you don't feel TFA's sequence is a highpoint. Kenobi and Maul having a rhythmic gymnastics face-off isn't my idea of good choreography or good narrative infused action.

Contrarian? I've barely seen anyone defend the Rey vs. Ren lightsaber fight up to this point.

But to answer your question, it depends how you define "growing up." Born in 1989, I was introduced to Star Wars when the OT was re-released in cinemas in the early 90s - saw the three films in close succession. Then saw the prequels as they were released, so would have been 10 for Ep. 1, 12 for Ep. 2, 14 for Ep. 3.

And fine, I won't debate the quality of lightsaber clashes, but basically, the Rey vs. Ren fight fails in both choreography and in narrative. Pretty much every lightsaber fight in every other film succeeded in at least one of those two areas (bar Dooku vs. Anakin, hence why I rank it lower), and the best ones tend to be those that excel at both (so, Jedi, Empire, Sith).

Bay's cacophonous behemoths at least seem to openly embrace their slo-mo stupidity and headache inducing sensory assault, which I can respect and ultimately enjoy. TF1's one of the best action offerings of the 2000's, and Dark Of The Moon has far less crippling problems than anything in the prequels.

Haven't seen them, but I have seen Revenge of the Fallen and Age of Extinction. And...no. Just no. RotF is, without hyperbole, the worst film I've ever seen. AoE barely even scrapes into guilty pleasure territory, and there's so many better guilty pleasures to choose from. The prequels have flaws, but they never descend into the hive of scum and villany that's Bayformers. Or the hive of scum and villany that's so many other, similarly vapid action flicks.

Mr Plinkett's a character, so I think I'll cut 'him' some slack.

I'm aware that he's a character, but he's a character that functions as a mouthpiece for Stolokas. So, if you write your character as an old man that hates something to the extent that he hates everyone who had a hand in that thing, who likes that thing, and takes women captive to put in basements, and speaks in an annoying voice and makes unfunny jokes, then chances are I'm not going to like that character.

The prequels are quite unlike anything else, and so no, for me this isn't about subjective critique; for me someone praising the prequels (especially Phantom or Clones) is akin to trying to tell me the sky is bright green on a clear, sunny afternoon.

And someone who enjoys Transformers, and thinks they're enjoyable movies, is like that person telling me that they can see the stars during the daytime.

...no, I don't actually believe that, but surely you've got to realize what an asinine line of argument that is. Ad hominem attacks aren't argument.

Watching the behind the scenes footage demonstrably reveals an egoistic, incompetent, rather lazy halfwit enabled by yes-men (and destructively empowered by CG), and so there is no great mystery as to why the prequels are the way they are. For every 'Ani' line, or Jar-Jar treading in shit, there's George pulling the strings (I think he called Binks the 'funniest character' they've ever had, which goes to show just how dislocated he'd become from his own damn universe).

I've watched the behind the scenes as well, and I don't see that. What I do see is a man trying his best. A man who didn't succeed in everything he wanted to do, and in the process, did make some bad decisions that might have been avoided if he'd been challenged more (e.g. Jar Jar - don't know what's wrong with "Ani," I found that endearing). Now, of course, execution trumps conception, which is why I don't rank the prequels that highly in the list of Star Wars films I did, but after everything I've read/seen, I haven't seen anything that would indicate that Lucas didn't at least try. That's far more than I can say for someone like Bay.

You're still addressing Plinkett's series? I found it frequently hilarious, and incredibly insightful. It was certainly quite crass and even nasty at times, sure, and that's not my preferred tone for humour, but there was also a great deal of compassion and humanity in them, an empathy for good character narrative and a well told story.

"Compassion and humanity?" Where? Was it when he said how glad that his 'son' wouldn't be around forever like the prequels? Was it where he took one of his hostages upstairs to watch 'Attack of the Clones' with him, being so 'generous' after keeping her locked in the basement? Was it where he attempted character assassination on everyone involved in the prequels and those who liked them? Plenty of reviewers I've watched have said things along the lines of "if you disagree with me, that's fine." Even when they've torn apart works I absolutely despise, I still respect them for acknowledging that there's people who may like what I hate, and can acknowledge that it's fine for them to do so. Plinkett has none of that. At all.

Oh, and "empathy for good character narrative and a well told story?" That's a bunch of weasel words. Pretty much everyone has empathy for that. That's not the issue, what is the issue is that opinions differ as to whether those goals are met. It's the equivalent of saying "I like x, because x has good characters and good story." In actual discussion/debate, that's a worthless assertion, because it does nothing to demonstrate why. Difference between me and Plinkett is that I feel that for their many, MANY flaws, the prequels did manage to meet that goal at the end of the day. Another difference is that I don't refuse to entertain the notion that it's just my opinion, and that many people feel that they failed.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Book series, yes, film series...I just don't see it.

And I do, so that's that dealt with. Ignoring the books entirely - which is what I'm doing, and, I'd wager, a great deal of critics when the films rolled out - the films have a reputation as setting a good, strong example for younger kids of both genders, so 'the books did it better!' angle doesn't do anything to negate observations about the films.

And if you're going to quote me, at least do a full quote where I went exclusively into the films "ending" in 1983, not "dying."

I didn't twist what I quoted to respond to something else entirely, which is largely what you did by misrepresenting my line.

That hinges on me wholly dismissing the prequels, and you somehow not doing so, so there's nothing more to be said on that.

Yeah, all they need to do now is put out a film that actually is good.

I'm not clear on this. Are you genuinely trying to say even TFA isn't a "good" film? Or are you just referring to the anthology eps?

Contrarian? I've barely seen anyone defend the Rey vs. Ren lightsaber fight up to this point.

I've seen nothing but praise for its execution, with quibbles being typically reduced to their contrived separation, the exact amount of damage various strikes do/don't do, aaaand, er... Rey not being a simpering inadequate, I guess? And that last point is reserved for the inane Mary Sue angle, so it's never worth addressing.

But to answer your question, it depends how you define "growing up." Born in 1989, I was introduced to Star Wars when the OT was re-released in cinemas in the early 90s - saw the three films in close succession. Then saw the prequels as they were released, so would have been 10 for Ep. 1, 12 for Ep. 2, 14 for Ep. 3.

So yes, you did grow up with the prequels as a kid.

...the Rey vs. Ren fight fails in both choreography and in narrative.

Like I said, I've dabbled in HEMA for several years, and I'd very much disagree with the former. It terms of affected realism it was just about perfect. Stunningly photographed, too, with three fine actors doing well in their respective roles at the heart of the clash.

...and the best ones tend to be those that excel at both (so, Jedi, Empire, Sith).

Given there was no coherent character narrative in the prequels - just characters who'd read the script beforehand and grinding into the correct, contrived places for ANH - I'm not sure how prolonged rhythmic gymnastics in RotS can excel at "both". Then there's the high ground nonsense... and after that the question of why Kenobi's such a reprehensible sadist for leaving his 'friend' there to burn to death slowly as opposed to saving him, or a total idiot for not finishing Lil' Ani off to avoid him surviving and posing a problem in the future.

Haven't seen them, but I have seen Revenge of the Fallen and Age of Extinction. And...no. Just no.

So, the two films I didn't mention, then? I've no doubt you'll dismiss TF1 and DotM as well, but RotF and AoE are truly terrible, particularly the latter. Revenge was hampered by the writer's guild strike, and AoE retained the repetitive plots, overlong running time, overwhelming action, yet somehow managed to extract elements that many found distasteful in the main trilogy, but which at least gave the films some kind of identity.

And, as unpopular as the opinion is, I liked Shia and Fox. Not 'perfect' leads, sure, and Sam Witwicky could be incredibly annoying at times, but I enjoyed the performances and they had a decent, quippy chemistry that AoE (and the most recent one, I gather) erased without a trace (I also can't really stand Mark Wahlberg).

I'm aware that he's a character, but he's a character that functions as a mouthpiece for Stolokas. So, if you write your character as an old man that hates something to the extent that he hates everyone who had a hand in that thing, who likes that thing, and takes women captive to put in basements, and speaks in an annoying voice and makes unfunny jokes, then chances are I'm not going to like that character.

Subjectivity is as subjectivity does. I laughed out loud to every installment, and have watched them a few times over the years and always find them incredibly entertaining, in part due to the brilliantly canny writing and editing.

If you don't have the humour to connect to - and would probably be on the defensive anyway, given their subject matter - then your own objections to the sometimes dark tone would make it hard to enjoy.

It's also worth noting something you've seemed to have ignored, or missed - it's also biting satire:

"But I need to share my pain. I need to make others understand"
"Pain? It's just a movie, mister".
"No, it's not. It's more than that, it's... it's the most disappointing thing in cinematic history! I have a duty, to the human race to explain why in detail"
"Wow, you really are crazy, mister".

I do hate the prequels, and to me they really are the biggest, dumbest, least coherent disappointments in cinematic history. And so for me the Plinkett series across the terrible trio is also a chance to cathartically laugh at myself, given they are just films, and ultimately completely meaningless. But human beings are curious, simple creatures... who apply undue sentimental import to things, especially to things experienced during their formative years.

The Plinkett series is an expertly crafted balancing act of self-entitled (yet collectively cathartic) loathing, robust critical analysis, and self-mockery.

This is all tangential to this thread, but it connects to what I feel is the superiority of pop-culture now to the '90's or, heaven forbid, the '80's or earlier. When a film's released today, there is a veritable army of reviewers ranging from the professionals to YT'ers who get barely a few hundred views, as well as all the articles, blog pieces, forum posts, and so on. A vast, interconnected network of interpretative reaction and contextualisation.

How do you think Phantom would've been received today? It'd be an absolute massacre of reviews and hitpieces, with a handful of hold-outs - just as what occurred with BvS, which to me is one of the few mass market films that approaches Phantom's level of full spectrum clusterfuckery; a failure so immense it's actually fascinating to dissect.

Along with the vastly superior network of incredibly diverse feedback points (reviews, YT vids, blogs, newspaper articles, forum posts, etc), there is also a fairly dispiriting level of hyper-analysis, sure (e.g. repeated trailer breakdowns and face-cam reaction vids). But that's the internetz for ya; the most double-edge of double-edged swords. In all mediums it facilitates brilliant critique, as well as giving a soapbox for braindead idiots (or/and scumbags where [anti-]social commentary is concerned).

Didn't the Russo brothers even try to Cinema Sins-proof The Winter Soldier? Who knows how different such films would be without teh internetz and all it has to offer, critically, but a collective and disparate reaction is more a part of mainstream creation than ever before.

And someone who enjoys Transformers, and thinks they're enjoyable movies, is like that person telling me that they can see the stars during the daytime.

...no, I don't actually believe that, but surely you've got to realize what an asinine line of argument that is. Ad hominem attacks aren't argument.

That's not an ad hominem, though? Me saying I don't respect your opinion about the prequels isn't an attack on you or your character at all.

What I do see is a man trying his best.

That counts for nothing if the result is infantile garbage.

That's far more than I can say for someone like Bay.

For two-thirds of the TF trilogy I greatly enjoyed and admired his turn-it-up-to-11 self-indulgence. In terms of cultural and artistic relativism, I loved how profoundly un-Malick or un-Kurosawa his experiences were... Colour, movement, sound, effects - all of it ramped up, culminating in a kind of prolonged sensory assault that no other director's quite pulled off in the mass market.

Again, I'm talking about TF1 and DotM. RotF was a disaster (it has a handful of scenes and moments I still quite like), and AoE is just one long flatline.

The most recent and apparently fairly terrible TF did the worst box office in the series, I believe, so it'll be interesting to see just what they try to do with the Bumblebee spin-off. So long as Wahlberg's in a TF, I won't watch it, so I might check out the spin-off/s. They'll be the first TF's not directed by Bay, as well, so the studio may allow them to mix things up a bit (Hailee Steinfeld's the new, I gather, which could be interesting).

Compared to Bay's world conquering blockbusters I feel superhero movies tend to have their cake and eat it, i.e. give good spectacle and some earnest character elements at the same time. Doctor Strange is an example I keep coming back to, but it is both annoyingly formulaic (just like Guardians 1), but incredibly creatively sincere, too. A certain death sequence may be one of the most beautifully shot and acted in the MCU. Whilst simple, I loved the subversion of the finale-equals-destroyed-city convention, as it was quite literally negating that orgy of carnage. Instead of destruction, there was creation. Ditto the character arc resolving on recognition of the negation of ego, and victory through defeat/yielding of Self.

And so maybe the MCU's success, in particular, but also stuff like Potter and Hunger Games through the years, has ultimately eaten in to our willingness to just pay to see Bayhem unfold yet again. The international market might have other ideas, seemingly, but overall it feels as if Bay's time in the spotlight's come to an end.

Wonder Woman's a similar example (formulaic yet more satisfying than pure SFX carnage, adding to the list that I reckon refutes the OP's angle), and it of course has the modest but still important trump card of being the only proper female led superhero flick worth a damn.

 

[Hawki]

I didn't twist what I quoted to respond to something else entirely, which is largely what you did by misrepresenting my line.

Ahem:

DR: In a post-MCU world I'd say a lot of people were very open to the idea of seeing what Disney could do with the franchise. Cinematically it was artistically dead since '83, and so TFA was a veritable revelation.

Hawki: "Artistically dead since '83" is a misdirection/misunderstanding, depending on where you stand. Even ignoring the prequels, if one watched Return of the Jedi, after watching its previous films, would someone say that the Star Wars series was "dead," or that it had ended?" It's like saying that Lord of the Rings became "dead" after Return of the King, or Harry Potter became "dead" since Deathly Hallows. If a film/book/whatever series ends at a satisfying end-point for its overall narrative, is calling it "dead" really the term to use?

It's also missing the point that Star Wars had a healthy life in its EU, fleshing out the universe, and establishing a massive fanbase by building off what the films provided, both OT and PT. Now, let's say that for argument's sake I agree with your take on the prequels, that doesn't change the existence of the EU. So even if TFA was a "veritable revelation," it doesn't change the fact that it's a revelation that is based on ripping out 90% of Star Wars lore up to that point to even function. And even if we're confining this just to the films, there's far more art in the prequels than TFA. TFA functions better than 2/3 prequels, but that's about it - it functions. If we're judging the films as craft, then TFA wins, but if we're judging them as art, the prequels have far more artistic integrity. Far more worldbuilding, far more ideas, different story structure, different characters, different pace, etc. Put the PT by the OT, and anyone will see the difference. Put TFA by the OT, and it comes off as a greatest hits collection - mainly riffing off A New Hope, but there's still elements of the other films in there.

So, how did I misinterpret your post? Your claim was that the films were cinematically artistically dead since '83. I responded with the following points:

-It's hard to call the franchise "dead" if it ends in RotJ, since it was a solid ending. It's like calling any series "dead" by virtue of it coming to an ending on its own terms.

-The claim relies on ignoring the prequels (which I allowed for argument's sake)

-It's ignoring that even if the films were "artisitcally dead," the EU was at such a point that Star Wars as a brand was still alive.

-Even ignoring the EU, but accepting that the films were "dead" since 83, I refute the notion that TFA made it 'alive' again.

I didn't misconstrue anything. I responded to your cinematic claim, then pointed out the wider context, then returned to the cinematic claim with TFA. You're the one who chose to misconstrue what I said.

I'm not clear on this. Are you genuinely trying to say even TFA isn't a "good" film? Or are you just referring to the anthology eps?

Wait, when have I given the impression that I thought TFA was "good?"

Fine, I'll reiterate. I see TFA as "average." I also see Rogue One as "average," though it's a ranking that it earns only because its third act saves its first two. In case you've forgotten, here's how I rank the Star Wars films:

THE BAD

9) The Clone Wars

THE AVERAGE

8) Attack of the Clones
7) Rogue One
6) The Phantom Menace
5) The Force Awakens
4) The Empire Strikes Back

THE GOOD

3) Revenge of the Sith

THE EXCELLENT

2) Return of the Jedi
1) A New Hope

And Battle for Endor fits in there somewhere, it's been too long since I saw it to rank it.

I've seen nothing but praise for its execution, with quibbles being typically reduced to their contrived separation, the exact amount of damage various strikes do/don't do, aaaand, er... Rey not being a simpering inadequate, I guess? And that last point is reserved for the inane Mary Sue angle, so it's never worth addressing.

Believe it or not, there's a middle ground that exists between a character being a "simpering inadequate" and a Mary Sue/Gary Stu.

There's a saying in writing that "give your character weaknesses, but don't make them weak." By that standard, Rey fails, even if I find her character still likable.

Like I said, I've dabbled in HEMA for several years, and I'd very much disagree with the former. It terms of affected realism it was just about perfect. Stunningly photographed, too, with three fine actors doing well in their respective roles at the heart of the clash.

Realism by what standards? If you're trying to perscribe realistic swordfighting techniques to lightsaber combat, you're setting yourself up for disaster.

But maybe "realism" is wildly swinging a lightsaber around with no grace or poise, so what do I know?

Given there was no coherent character narrative in the prequels

Disagree.

I'm not sure how prolonged rhythmic gymnastics in RotS can excel at "both".

Because it's the culmination of three films worth of character development coming to the forefront with the action to match.

Then there's the high ground nonsense...

Wouldn't call it nonsense, but whatever.

and after that the question of why Kenobi's such a reprehensible sadist for leaving his 'friend' there to burn to death slowly as opposed to saving him, or a total idiot for not finishing Lil' Ani off to avoid him surviving and posing a problem in the future.

Even leaving the novelization aside, I don't see how Kenobi's action/lack of it falls into sadism. It's obvious how conflicted he is. He's got every reason to pity Anakin, and every reason to hate him. He has every reason to put him out of his misery, or save him, or leave him to burn. The novelization explains his decision as leaving it to the Force, fearing that if he took Anakin's life he could go down the same dark path, but even that aside, on its own, the scene works.

Funnily enough, TFA's novelization also manages to add some depth to Rey vs. Ren, but the difference is that if we cast both novelizations aside, RotS's duel works on the visual and emotional scale. TFA's duel fails in both.

And, as unpopular as the opinion is, I liked Shia and Fox. Not 'perfect' leads, sure, and Sam Witwicky could be incredibly annoying at times, but I enjoyed the performances and they had a decent, quippy chemistry that AoE (and the most recent one, I gather) erased without a trace (I also can't really stand Mark Wahlberg).

I've got nothing against Shia or Wahlburg, but I'll sooner take Jaeger over Sam. As in, a character that actually does something rather than either wait to be rescued or yell "OPTIMUSSSSS!"

It's also worth noting something you've seemed to have ignored, or missed - it's also biting satire:

"But I need to share my pain. I need to make others understand"
"Pain? It's just a movie, mister".
"No, it's not. It's more than that, it's... it's the most disappointing thing in cinematic history! I have a duty, to the human race to explain why in detail"
"Wow, you really are crazy, mister".

I'm aware that it's satire, it's just not particuarly good satire, because I have to wade through a barrage of unfunny jokes, an annoying voice, and disturbing imagery to get to them. You want an example of good Phantom Menace satire?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4TX6x2WLgk

There. There you go. Difference is I still consider Phantom Menace a net positive at the end of the day, but I can still laugh at this.

How do you think Phantom would've been received today? It'd be an absolute massacre of reviews and hitpieces, with a handful of hold-outs - just as what occurred with BvS, which to me is one of the few mass market films that approaches Phantom's level of full spectrum clusterfuckery; a failure so immense it's actually fascinating to dissect.

Ah yes, because anyone who likes BvS is a "holdout." And I say this as someone who doesn't even like BvS.

But if Phantom released today? If I assume that it was released in the same context, I don't see anything different happening. It would probably be well received, and then be more negatively reflected on over time, then reach the point where the amount of hate reaches absolutely absurd levels. At best, I could see this process be sped up by current technology, but that's about it. Same with BvS. Yes, it was a bad film, but despite what some might say, it wasn't the worst film in the last decade, it wasn't even the worst film of 2016.

Didn't the Russo brothers even try to Cinema Sins-proof The Winter Soldier?

If they did, my question is "why?" Cinema Sins is humour, not serious critique. Its "sins" include "DC Comics" and "scene does not contain a lap dance." Its job is to find 'sin' everywhere. I found it pretty funny back in the day (don't watch it now - videos got too long and the humour too repetitive), but it's hardly what I'd call actual critique.

Who knows how different such films would be without teh internetz and all it has to offer, critically, but a collective and disparate reaction is more a part of mainstream creation than ever before.

That's not an ad hominem, though? Me saying I don't respect your opinion about the prequels isn't an attack on you or your character at all.

You compared liking the prequels to insanity - how's that not ad hominem?

Christ, I'm not even the biggest fan of the prequels anyway.

That counts for nothing if the result is infantile garbage.

A.k.a. Transformers

For two-thirds of the TF trilogy I greatly enjoyed and admired his turn-it-up-to-11 self-indulgence. In terms of cultural and artistic relativism, I loved how profoundly un-Malick or un-Kurosawa his experiences were... Colour, movement, sound, effects - all of it ramped up, culminating in a kind of prolonged sensory assault that no other director's quite pulled off in the mass market.

That's an...interesting, interpretation. Here's another one - "a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Also, if you're looking for 'sensory' assault, there's far better films out there that can do it (e.g. Guardians of the Galaxy). Sometimes a piece of garbage isn't some bold artistic statement that goes against the established norms. Sometimes, it's simply garbage.

Doctor Strange is an example I keep coming back to, but it is both annoyingly formulaic (just like Guardians 1), but incredibly creatively sincere, too. A certain death sequence may be one of the most beautifully shot and acted in the MCU. Whilst simple, I loved the subversion of the finale-equals-destroyed-city convention, as it was quite literally negating that orgy of carnage. Instead of destruction, there was creation. Ditto the character arc resolving on recognition of the negation of ego, and victory through defeat/yielding of Self.

I mostly agree there. Doctor Strange is my #2 MCU film.

And so maybe the MCU's success, in particular, but also stuff like Potter and Hunger Games through the years, has ultimately eaten in to our willingness to just pay to see Bayhem unfold yet again. The international market might have other ideas, seemingly, but overall it feels as if Bay's time in the spotlight's come to an end.

Don't agree there though. Bayformers would have worn itself out with or without better alternatives. You can only do the same film so many times before it runs stale.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Ahem:

Jeese, are you OCD? My original point was merely to ignore everything between '83 and TFA. That's all. Going off on tangents about "dead" franchises - when I made no remark about that at all - has no relevance, when my target was the creative/artistic bankruptcy of the prequels.

...yes, yes, TFA's remake/soft reboot blah, but we simply - monumentally, it seems - differ on the artistic merits of the prequels and TFA. Soft reboot and over used references or no, for me TFA had heart, soul, and some sense of character narrative coherence.

And given how we're the only ones left batting back and forth variously offtopic textwalls, I'll reply to the rest via PM.