Well, looks like we've strayed again.... fine by me.

John, funny you should say what you did, because I was just having a conversation with a friend of mine today about this very topic.

I think you hit at the heart of one of the most important things
that makes a great movie. You said "they took it seriously."

To me one of the biggest problems with most films I see is that
you get the feeling the the director feels superior to his characters.
That this material is somehow beneath him.

It's something I've been discussing with a few friends of mine,
because I can't really get a handle on it, on where I get this
feeling. But, many people seem to agree ... and just like John
pointed out 'they took it seriously.'

What is it that gives us that feeling?
What is it in the first Indiana Jones that let's us see that
Speilberg respected his characters, and respected the material?

And what is it about something like.... Van Helsing that gives
me the feeling that Sommers not only doens't respect his
characters, but doesn't even see them as individuals?

Just curious on any thoughts.

-Luis

ps.
Robert, when you get a chance, I'd still like to know the author
of that quote.
:)
Thanks.

I think it goes back to violating the universe that was created. Instead of 'What if....' it becomes 'Why not....'

Im not sure what goes through writers/directors/producers minds when they do films like this:

The Gymnast Jurrassic daughter
The Little Chinese Karate expert beating up goons in INDY 2
The absurdity of the entire 3rd Jones film
Val helsing and The Mummy and Mummy 2

Oh jeez; I could go on and on. I want 'What if....' Dont insult me with childish gimmicks.

Look at the original ESCAPE FROM NEW YORk; took it very serious and I think this is a classic film.

Then there was ESCAPE FROM LA; which obviously was a big joke; Snake is surfing now and he's a 'baller'?

What about the last James Bond film? James is surfing the big waves into a mission; very clandestine. Or he's Wind Surfing a massive tidal wave? Come on.

I really dont have a clue as to why this happens. Do people like it? I mean, the films in this matter gross millions. IS this what mainstream moviegoers want? A big fat joke of a film where there are no rules or guidelines? Just an anything goes scenario?

Not me. In fact, that is what disapoints me about modern cinema is the lack of seriousness and plausiblity in the film. Im not saying everything has to be '21 Grams' depressing (which I loved by the way) but I need to at least 'buy it'.

John,

Again you brought up a good point when you said:
"but I need to at least 'buy it'"

I think what might be getting under my skin with these films is
that you get the feeling that the reactions and actions of the
characters are simply not believable, they are not sincere.
And if a character in a film doesn't take his world seriously, and doesn't believe it, why should I?

You mention that a film needs to be 'plausible.'
I would probably say that it is not the world, or even the
storyline that needs to be 'plausible,' but it's the reactions
of the characters that need to be 'plausible.'

A human in the future, or the past, or in outerspace, is still
a human. And we can all feel insincerity when we see it.

-Luis

See again,

I don't think the character needs to take things seriously . . . as long as HE NEVER TOOK THINGS SERIOUSLY. As long as you stick with what you presented early on, when you were "creating the character and universe", you're okay.

I mean, Austin Powers is nothing but ridiculous, everything about it, but that's okay, because it was never supposed to be anything but ridiculous.

Indy started serious then became ridiculous in the sequels. That doesn't work. Most sequels do this. That's why they don't work.

As for why people pay to see the movies, well, that I'm not sure. What I do know is this: Not nearly as many people go to see the movies to get the millions. Prices are much higher now.

Also, if you notice, the movies that make franchises are the good originals. The ones that start bad ususally don't make the serious killer cash. I mean, they make cash, but not as much . . . not NEARLY as much.

Again, the unfortunate fact is that massive advertising to the public "COWS" will make money for the most part. That doesn't surprise me that people are stupid enough to buy into advertising and the status quo. What surprises me is that the studios are so stupid that they don't realize that a GOOD sequel to the Matrix would pull in three times (or maybe 4 or 5) as much. That's why in this thread I went off once about how lazy Hollywood has become in general as filmmakers. With that type of backing and power, there's simply no excuse for a bad movie . . . save for spoiled studio execs and talented, yet rich guys that lost "the beginners mind" years ago.

Ya, John

One of my biggest complaints with Indy 3 was the destruction of marcus/sallah. Man, talk about disrespecting characters.

By the way,

Sense so much sequel talk goes on here, I think it would be a riot to find out what everyone considers to the the worst sequel of all time.

Now the way I personally define the worst sequel is . . .

The sequel that fell the greatest distance from the one before it.

So for instance, even though Lethal Weapon 3 was one of the worst sequels ever, it really wasn't surprising, being that Lethal Weapon 2 showed plently of downfall from the first film. So there was kind of a cushion provided by the stepping stone from 2 to 3. (Then again, Lethal 3 may have been the worst sequel of all time compared to even the second one . . . lololol).

Anyway

Here's my vote:


Larry thinks the worst sequel compared to the one before it was . . .



ESCAPE FROM L.A.!!!!!!!



Ya, John, you had to remind me of that one. LOLOLOOLOL


OHHHHHH LOLOLOLOL


Could it possibly have been ANY WORSE??????

You know, both Carpenter and Russell both claimed that the movie was in fact an ATTEPTED FARCE . . . but I'm not so sure. You never heard that BEFORE the movie tanked at the box office, now did you?

I think they were so embarrassed by the numbers and reviews, that they turned around and tried to make up for it by claiming they tried to make it bad.

Ya, right . . . . nice try guys . . . or poor try as the case may be.


Indy 3 would have taken it for sure if it wasn't for Temple of Doom before it.

Star Wars Episode I had a little Ewok cushion from Jedi.

However, a close second to Escape from L.A. was HIGHLANDER 2!!!!!


Man, that was so bad, and same cast and same director and everything? What happened?


Matrix Reloaded was DEFINITELY in the running.

Die Hard 2 was DEFINITELY in the running.

I'm probably gonna get knocked for this, but I actually liked Jurassic Park (the original) very much (not nearly like Jaws, but perhaps I expected any Spielberg flick at that point to be candy-coated crap, and I didn't see it that way . . . ) so . . . the Gymnastic-Raptor routine in the second one for me brought Jurrasic Park 2 up for consideration.

Plenty-O-others, too, but I think it's gonna be hard to beat Escape From L.A. From a huge bald guy with nail-ridden bats to shooting hoops . . . man, it was just unbelievable.

Even worse, Escape from LA plundered so much from Escape from NY. It was almost the same plot.

Sense I'm staring this stuff off, it's fun to do it with lots of categories. For now let's also vote on best and worst remakes.

My vote for best is John Carpenter's THE THING

My vote for worst is . . . . .

?????

mmmmmmmm

Well, as a movie it really wasn't that bad, but the thing is . . .

PSYCHO. . . because the remakers were so lame, they pretty much made the EXACT SAME MOVIE. It wasn't even really a remake, I'd say it was more of an upgrade with current actors substituted for the older ones. Save for the ending, I think (if memory serves) is was nearly shot for shot and line for line the first movie. They could have done just as well using the old film and computer imaging in the new actors. I mean, if you're gonna have the balls to remake something as classic as Psycho, take a leap, man, don't run up to the edge, try to stop because you decide to chicken out, and then accidentally fall off the ledge like a puss!!!!!

Based on the premis of the "virtual upgrade" as opposed to a "remake" is why it gets my vote. LAME.....

The Zoltan Korda version of "The Fourth Feathers" I think was the third version of that ever made. It is THE great British empire adventure.

And then came the version by Shekhar Kapur in 2002. So lifeless, dry and lame.

PSYCHO. . . because the remakers were so lame, they pretty much made the EXACT SAME MOVIE.

To be fair, that was exactly what Van Sant set out to do. Which does it make it a good idea (truthfully, I can't understand why anyone with a real budget would do this). He didn't make a the exact same movie becuase he couldn't think of a better way to remake but because that's what he wanted to do. So at least he had a vision. Of sorts.

Along the same lines, I saw the shot-for-shot remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark that three 10 year olds made, it was really great - it's up there as one of the best 'remakes' of all time.

Lolololol,

Nice, Joshua, nice.

You guys are killing and Larry and I have exacting thoughts. Hmmmm...

I loved Jaws, Jaws 2 was underated, Jaws 3 was siily good in a 3D ridiculous kind of way but.....................................................

JAWS 4 was sooooooo baaaaaaaaaadddddddd. I thought I would die watching it. Horrible. I can deal with 3 being a 3D gimmick and it had QUAID, THOMPSON, GOSSETT JR and that flash in the pan blonde who is actually a good actress; so it worked for me. I can still watch it and think "Sigh, guilty pleasure shark movie"

But Part 4 was like "Huh? What the heck is this? And Caine was in it! HE is so cool and he did JAWS 4!" Now the shark is hunting the mom down? what?


John Carpenters THE THING is so epic it deserves a remake right this second; on one condition...

John Carpenter doesnt get to do it and KURT RUSSELS character is dead. BRing in the rescue team, they haul the bodies off and fly them to be shipped back to America and on the way over... Well you get it now. But Im not talking about re-hasing the same plot. I want the virus to spread while off the boat in New York and the end of the movie basically shows some kind of THING apocalypse just like the good doctor predicted in the first one.

Oh jeez, Ill write and direct it, Fine.



STAR WARS (New ones)

Baaaad. Uckkkky. Crap. Those Ewoks in JEDI are not enough to cusion this blow. Could I be ever more let down than this? And they are still bad. The THIRD one will be as bad as the first two.

SUPERMAN 3

Now 2 wasnt as baaaaaaaaad as it seems. It does have ZOD and thats kind of cool (Bow down before ZOD!). Lex was back and perfect as always is Hackman. But 3? Richard Pryor? What?

First Blood was a great film; I still love it. RAMBO 2 and 3? Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaddd!

Rocky 3 4 5 and.........................

All of these were bad. YEs. Even the one with Mr. T and the one with the Russian.

How about GREASE 2? OMG that was horrible!
Stayin Alive anyone? Agggghhhhhh!
Back to the future 2 and 3 were horrible.
Beverly Hills Cop 3 sucked!
Another 48 hours? Big mistake.
Poltergeist 2 and 3
UNder Seige 2

I have to add Riddick.

Pitch Black. Tight, low budget, small cast, very focused. Good for what it was.

Riddick. Bloated, took place on too many planets, left lots of things hanging, incoherent editing.

Pitch Black was a great surprise. Not perfect but one of the better Scifi's to come out in recent memory.

I don't know.... I think the most underratted scifi movie is probably "The Rock." I mean, Nicholas Cage as a biochemist? Come on, THAT is science fiction.

:)

In fact, it was so unbelievable, next time you watch the movie pay attention to how many times Cage makes reference to the fact that he's "just a biochemist." It's as if they realized no one would be able to believe it, and they have to constantly remind the audience.

Okay, totally off topic I know...just couldn't help but throw a jab at that movie in this thread.

-Luis

While were doggin films...

I saw PAYCHECK last night and it completely sucked. John Woo continues to be the best made for TNT hollywood director. Horrible film.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

I have a deep and abiding love for the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Something about a group of people in the wrong place in the wrong time with no real backstory or exposition. Somehow they made it work - it's a wonderful example of low budget production.

The new one just missed the mark entirely. I don't what it was, but it had no majic.

Although I totally digged the remake (and watching Jessica run around in the outfit) I can see where someone might not; especially since it stems from a total classic cult film. Thats a tough one to please.

Lololol on all the bad flicks!


Ahhh, they make the good ones so much better don't they . . . .


OHHHHHHH!!!!!

Joshua!!!! I've heard about the "remake" of Raiders the kids did and couldn't wait to see it. I heard they did a fantastic job for what it was. Heard the built sets, slid under the truck, everything!!!!!! I was actually envious because whether or not I like it, there WAS someone more obsessed with that movie as a kid than I was (I thought I took the cake that I actually learned how to use a whip as a weapon and climing device . . . I literally could latch on to a tree and swing from branch to branch. I actally tracked down the guy who creates the stunt whips for the movies to I can later buy the exact durable stunt version . . . now that's a GEEEEEK!!!!) But the whole movie?????? My god, what an undertaking!!!! I MUST SEE THIS FILM . . .

Joshua, how do I get a hold of this???

I think they are showing it at festivals currently. It'' be available hopefully soon and hopefully GEorge will let them release it. I totally want to see this.

I took the wife and Jeff Kramer and his better half to see this juvy Raiders remake about a year ago in Austin at the Alamo Cinema DraftHouse. We've got an entire thread on it here. Enjoy,

Thanks for the link Chris.