Michael Bay To Direct "Prince of Persia" Vid Game Pic
Summary
If you were at all worried about who Disney might nab to direct the Ubisoft video game adaptation, you can rest easy. Michael Bay is on the job! Back to Article
If you were at all worried about who Disney might nab to direct the Ubisoft video game adaptation, you can rest easy. Michael Bay is on the job! Back to Article
(1-153 of 153 posts) | Reply
on Apr 15 2007 03:49 AM There's something very funny about this, just not sure what it is yet. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 04:28 AM That.... actually might turn out to be pretty cool. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 04:56 AM As happy as i am to see this come to the big screen, i'm angry over the choice in director (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 06:37 AM at least the picked a named director for once (for better or worse) this may turn out to be a good videogame movie. also with videogame movies, as long as it isn't Uwe Boll. I'm happy and i'll take Bay over Boll any day (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 06:51 AM The question is... R or PG-13? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 07:01 AM As long as some Iranian digitary condemns the movie, we know it will be a hit. I personally have a soft spot in my heart for these games, so I would probably go see it regardless of the director...Boll excluded of course (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 08:44 AM This could be pretty sweet, a big budget Bay version actually has me looking foreward to this now. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 08:55 AM damn, I made a blood oath to never see another michael bay movie, but I love those games, I guess it'll depend on the tomatometer (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 09:01 AM if Ahmdedinejad condemns this movie, at least he'll have a good reason......because Michael Bay is directing it. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 09:41 AM everyone always complains about Bay..yet his movies make a ridiculous amount of money..somebody must liike him (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 09:53 AM In reply to this comment (#861449) [b]EEEEEEEWWWWWW[/b] I wanna puke. If Michael Bay is directing it, there's no hope for this movie. The first Prince of Persia game was a work of art - now Mr. Bay and Mr. Bruckheimer are going to ruin it with their gigantic budgets, NOT proportional to their directing abilities. Mr. Bay can't make a decent action scene, for ****'s sake. Bay feels the need to cut every shot under 4 seconds, which makes me want to puke even more. Children of Men. There's a great movie. Its 6-minute-long action senes with NO CUTS are like the biggest "screw you, Michael Bay" on Earth. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 09:55 AM In reply to this comment (#861450) [b]There's not always somebody liking him...[/b] "The Island" made about $3.58 in the United States. What's more, that's probably his best film outside of "The Rock", save for the action catastrophe it morphed into the moment the two escaped from the facility. For fourty-five minutes, the film had me tricked into thinking that it was a great film. However, don't get me started on the product placement in "The Island"... Good grief. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 10:37 AM [b]Eh[/b] I love the second Prince of Persia game, it is too bad they don't start with that one instead of the first. The Prince is darker in the second. It is an overall darker game. What someone needs to do is make a movie based on "GOD OF WAR". That would be worth seeing. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 11:23 AM [b]Coming out of the Closet[/b] I didn't know that the Prince of Persia was gay, cause this movie is going to suck some big sausage. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 11:23 AM [b]$ = Quality[/b] Which is why Britney Spears has made some of the best music ever, Titanic is the greatest film of all time, and Microsoft makes all the best computer products. Right. Bay sucks. Internet porn makes a lot of money, too, but that doesn't make it art. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 12:23 PM how is bay going to work in his very own hitech car/flying motorcycle/space shuttle chase scene in prince of persia? this seems like a weird fit because when you think micheal bay you think slick looking high tech nonesense like armageddon or transformers (please dont start, as good or bad as transformers might be, it is the definintion of slick looking high tech nonesense)... the lack of technology in prince of persia makes me think twice about this fit... but whatever. my main concern is who will they cast as the prince? lets hope they actually cast a persian or at least a middle eastener, not a brazilian or some southern american, like they did with xerxes in 300 ( i realize that xerxes was supposed to be really weird, but he did sound spanish and nothing like persian) (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 12:45 PM In reply to this comment (#861455) Proof? Why does Bay suck? Come one nerd. Does he make movies that entertain people? Yes then he does not suck and does what a REAL director is supposed to do. But of course on the internet you losers always have an opinion, You sound like those little kids in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, which you probably hated because it made fun of your kind. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 12:49 PM In reply to this comment (#861456) the answer to your question is that he will use flying carpets for the chase sequences. i bet you didn't know that rugs make gigantic explosions when they crash at over 15MPH. and to your second question, the answer is that he will cast martin lawrence as the prince. "aww, hell no! i ain't wearing that turban!" (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 12:49 PM In reply to this comment (#861456) I will vote for Hrithik Roshan, he is the best actor to fit this part (he is an Indian http htt (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 01:30 PM In reply to this comment (#861457) [b]Hey aknddon3...[/b] That's exactly what I would say if my argument sucked, too. Well done. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 01:37 PM Love the games. Love Bruckheimer. BRING IT ON!! (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 02:02 PM well at least is not Joel Schumacher (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 02:19 PM [b]mhmm[/b] someone said something earlier about pg-13 or R...... did you read the article? the rights are owned by disney. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 02:25 PM [b]I wonder if Michael Bay is thinking[/b] "Surely this will be the film that turns my career around." (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 03:02 PM In reply to this comment (#861440) [b]Charlie Clausen as Prince of Persia[/b] Before you guys argue about who should be Prince, this guy was already signed as the http (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 03:03 PM Pssssh.... I'm holding out on a God of War movie instead. I'd much rather see that! (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 05:48 PM Michael Bay? ugh. well at least it ain't Uwe Boll or Paul WS Anderson. maybe. i guess. right? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 06:19 PM In reply to this comment (#861466) That guy can work as the prince. I think it's a pretty solid cast decision. Don't know about his acting ability, but he definately has the looks to play the prince. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 08:39 PM gaaaaah, will Bay just hurry up and die in a plane crash already, he's already left his "mark" in film, why continue to stomp it into the ground? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 08:51 PM In reply to this comment (#861457) [b]Proof?[/b] You want proof that Bay sucks? That's just ridiculous. I can't have an opinion without "proof"? And I bet you love every single film-maker out there? Well, I hope so, 'cause unless you have proof that they make bad films, start loving, monkey! Oh, and if you're gonna call me a nerd and assume I hate a movie and make all the other totally baseless assumptions about me based on my opinion of one director, allow me to return the favor: Due to your love for Michael Bay and obvious stupidity, I'll bet you're a pock-marked fry-jockey who spends most of his time wanking to Scarlett Johansson in The Island because real girls get creeped out when you drive by in a rusty muscle car blaring that bad Aerosmith song from Armageddon at them and asking them what they're gonna do when you come for them. That's fair, right? By the way, if you really want some proof, how about the awful-to-mediocre scores all his movies have on IMDB? Is that a fair gauge of public disapproval? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 09:36 PM Michael Bay is a brilliant visual director, who seems to have no real understanding (or possibly doesn't really care) of characterization and storytelling. To a lot of people, including myself, he represents `style-over-susbtance' filmmaking that is popular today. So many directors are being plucked from music video and commercial shoots, simply because of their flair for the visuals. While some do end up doing very good work, the majority shoot and edit their films as if they are still shooting 30 second to 3 minute videos designed to hold the attention of a 13 year old used to playing video games. I wouldn't say that Michael Bay sucks, but he has made some of the worst big budget movies I have seen. I did enjoy The Rock, however, and The Island wasn't horrible. Armageddon and Pearl Harbor were crimes against nature, however. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 15 2007 11:28 PM I've been waiting for this movie for ages! The original game was a classic, sure, but the new series is fantastic and the cut scenes alone prove why it'd make a great movie. I actually think "300" borrowed the idea of using electric guitars in the musical score to create that sword and sandals rock opera type experience, from Prince of Persia in fact - if you've played the games you'd know exactly what I mean. As for starting with the second game as some one mentioned - it's called a sequel - so just wait, they'll milk this franchise for all it's worth. I've always thought the characters in the games had an Indian look, which may not be historically accurate but since the Persian Empire consisted of many cultures, why not! And for this reason, I think that guy from "Heroes" (I forget his name) but the Indian scientist narrator guy would be perfect. His voice and look are spot on. Oh, and he can act too! If not him, then Oded Fhrer (SP?) - the guy from the mummy movies - would also be fine. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 15 2007 11:55 PM In reply to this comment (#861474) u mean mohindur.... I don't know though he has the right face cut and features.. he is a bit too dark to play a Perisan, who were mostly Iranians, who are actually quite fair... I will still vote for Hrithik Roshan, not just because of his looks, but his talent as well. He will make the acrobats look so normal and seamless, that you will feel having a controller on your hand.... anyways it seems that the casting decision has been made.... (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 12:39 AM Well.... crap. So, there goes that idea. Oh well, it doesn't matter. Sands of Time had such a strong, cinematic story to begin with - it doesn't really need a movie version to be fully realized. It already WAS a movie, plus interactive. Better to think of this film as a remake, not so much a game-adaptation. Then we can just ignore it, like every other crappy remake. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 01:50 AM In reply to this comment (#861460) How does my argument suck little man? Hmm besides Pearl Harbor he really did not have one bad movie. But you have no argument because you have no idea what you are talking about. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 01:53 AM In reply to this comment (#861472) Oh my god so internet nerds hate his movies that means that he sucks? Those same nerds also love Micheal Moore yet he cannot make a documentary without turning it into propaganda. So do you even have a point? Because those ratings are just as valid and the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HIS MOVIES HAVE MADE. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 04:13 AM Michael Bay is a bit of a hit and miss director. He gets a little bit overzealous with action sequences that go on forever... but sometimes he can kinda get it right, so I will reserve judgement. Jordan Mechner is doing the screenplay though, which is excellent news. He's also the guy who designed and wrote The Last Express, which is one of the most unique computer games I have ever played. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 05:49 AM I actually liked the Rock. It had a great score and I thought kind of witty dialogue between Connery and Cage, and Harris' character was good. And I didn't think Armageddon was that bad until they said the asteroid they were on was the size of Texas, and Ben Affleck just happened to find the other vehicle just driving around! That's when I lost all respect for that movie. I would like to see the Island, but Pearl Harbor looks horrible. I don't think he's that bad. Looking forward to Transformers! They could have gotten someone a lot worse. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 07:40 AM In reply to this comment (#861467) They are making a God of War movie, they announced that earlier this year. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 07:41 AM In reply to this comment (#861455) Whoa buddy, who say's porn isn't art? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 07:43 AM In reply to this comment (#861473) hey, highdough, isn't this the same post from another thread? did you copy and paste from one of your previous posts? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 07:58 AM In reply to this comment (#861483) Well the same argument comes up whenever people talk about Bay, so it's probably a reflex post. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 08:16 AM In reply to this comment (#861478) [b]Wow--[/b] I can't believe after my incredibly instructive lesson on not making snap-judgments of people that you're still willing to call the 50,000 people who voted on Armageddon's bad IMDB score nerds. Right. Well, okay, fair enough, we'll call the fact his movies make money evidence he is good (the same evidence by which we can call internet porn, drug kingpins, and the Saudi Royal family "good"), and the voting system on IMDB evidence by which he is bad (the same evidence by which this group of movies is good: http://imdb.com/chart/top and this group of movies is bad: http://imdb.com/chart/bottom) IF we assume, as you said, those are equal for some reason or another, that still puts us on equally supportable footing for our opinions, right? Which means that I expressed my perfectly valid opinion on a filmmaker, and you responded by personally attacking me for having an opinion that we've just found is just as supportable as your own. So, on the surface, anyway, it would appear that you're a dirty hypocrite. But maybe this is all part of your master plan and the point of your angry ranting will become apparent soon. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 08:24 AM In reply to this comment (#861459) I like Hrithik as much as the next guy. But i dont think he would be the "Perfect" casting choice for the prince. I think some of his features are off by just a bit(Hrithik has curly hair, a little too big to play the prince, etc.). I think the "perfect" casting choice would have to be John Abraham of Water fame. The dude looks so much like the prince that i still beleive that they used him as template while desiging the prince. Plus he's got the acting chops to pull off both good prince and evil prince, which is something i dont think that Hrithik can pull off. He never seems beleivable as a villain, while John has already proven himself to be an evil bastard in a few Bollywood films. You dont beleive me, then check this out for ht (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 08:28 AM Also, i love these games to death, i've played each one at least 2 or three times and i'm just a really big fan. That being said, the announcement of Michael Bay as director has really sunken my hopes for this film a bit. I dont think he's as bad as peope are saying he is, i just dont think he's the right fit for this film AT ALL!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 10:17 AM In reply to this comment (#861453) [b]Make a movie based on God of War?[/b] They've already done that.......many times. God of War is nothing more than a dark retelling of greek mythology. It's all very accurate if you did the research. Just rename Kratos to Hercules and there is almost NO difference. I guess the whole killing the sistes of fate and teaming up with the titans to do it is a little twist, but seriously......it's been done. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 11:29 AM In reply to this comment (#861486) Actually I don't believe John Abraham can pull it off. For one, in my opinion, he is a horrible actor (its just my opinion). Secondaly, Prince is known for his acrobatic moves etc. So when it comes to agility, I am sure you will agree with me, that Hrithik is one of the most agile actor in the world. As for playing evil, Hrithik played a negative character for the first time in Dhoom 2 and it is the biggest blockbuster of Bollywood yet.... (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 01:50 PM It doesn't matter who they get to play this guy, because they're going to have to hire Tony Jaa for all the stunts. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 02:06 PM In reply to this comment (#861485) Go ask 100 random people if they know what IMDB is and guess what i bet only 10 people know about it. The average person does not use that site, nerds do. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 02:15 PM In reply to this comment (#861483) skasforfags is right. I may have posted something similar. I really should just keep posts like that on hand to save me from typing everytime. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 02:19 PM In reply to this comment (#861477) Well, Armageddon was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I never saw Bad Boys 2, but the first one was mildly entertaining. The only real good movie he has made has been The Rock, and the rest have been either mediocre or just plain bad, in my books. Not exactly a great track record. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 03:29 PM In reply to this comment (#861491) [b]So then...[/b] ...you've totally given up on the whole Also, if we're dismissing the opinion of nerds, we'd better start with you, for sitting here bitching on RottenTomatoes's internet message board. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 04:17 PM In reply to this comment (#861491) I'm not quite sure what asking 100 random people has to do with anything, quite frankly. As about the same number of people about Rottontomatoes.com and you'll probably get about the same response. Movie fans go to certain sites. IMDB is the premier site for movie information, whetheryou're a nerd or not. Most people connected to the movie and television business use IMDB, so I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. All speciality websites mostly attracts fans of that activity. And for someone attacing an argument for being baseless, you're quickly losing credibility. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 16 2007 04:50 PM [b]c'mon[/b] Michael Bay??? jeez. Pearl Harbor? cheesy. The Island? Terrible. Aramgedden?? dont even get me started. Bad Boys? alright, but not good. Transformers?? let's hope he doesn't screw that one up. At least Disney is involved.....and Jerry Bruckheimer.........Michael Bay you better not fuck up Prince of Persia (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 04:59 PM Haha, yet another video game movie doomed to failure. Why does anyone bother. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 06:23 PM how is this good news? the man hasn't even made a decent film yet. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 07:18 PM In reply to this comment (#861495) The average viewer does not know about IMDB that is the point so just because some people hate does not make it true. Hell look at their top movies some of them are screwed over and some should not be that high. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 08:40 PM In reply to this comment (#861489) I completly disagree with you. Sure he has had his list of stinkers in the past, but I think Abraham's proven himself in many films. Off the top of my head there's Water, Taxi No. 9211 , Jism, and the very impressive Kabul express. I do agree with you on the agility part though. Hrithik really impressed me in Krrish(The most surprising film of last year), but I dont think John has really been tested yet in any action movies, so it's hard to right him off. And also, i dont care if Dhoom 2 was the biggest blockbuster of Bollywood, but it takes a really bad movie to make me turn it off after the first hour(i cant remeber the last time before this that a film made me want to do that). I have actually suffered through it a second time because my mom really wanted to watch it, and suffice to say that the film didnt wow me. Neither did Hrithik in his "negative" role. All that being said, i wouldnt be angry if they did happen to cast Hrithik in the starring role, i would just be happier if it went to Abraham. He's the guy i always envisioned to play this charcter. Anyway, knowing Hollywood they'll probably completly write off the bollywood actors in a mega blockbuster summer picture. You know, because all they do is sing and dance right? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 16 2007 09:15 PM In reply to this comment (#861500) What do I care what the average viewer thinks? The average viewer is a moron. The average viewer propelled Ghost Rider to $115 million domestic box office while a much better movie, like Zodiac, makes only $30 million. For the most part, the more knowledgeable movie fan goes to IMDB.com. From looking at their top 250, I have no real problem with the choices that they have made. Not that I would make the same choices, but I would much rather see those movies than the ones that made the most money. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 02:23 AM In reply to this comment (#861502) THe average viewers are not morons they understand the point of movies TO ENTERTAIN YOU. Ghost Rider was good and it did its job. Zodiac was boring as hell and not goo, so your whole argument is based off of nothing but OPINION. Yeah then state why they have some no name Japanese movie in the top ten instead of a classic like On the Waterfront? So this crap movie "Shichinin no samurai" is better than that? Or the original star wars? Or raiders of the lost arc? or Citizen Kane? No the more knowledgeable movie fans do not use IMDB, the nerd use it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 05:32 AM In reply to this comment (#861503) [b]HAHAHAHAHAHA[/b] I get it now. This whole time you've been *joking*. You've been doing a subtle parody of some idiot who thinks if a movie's got 'splosions and makes money it *must* be a rollicking good time. But I'm afraid you tipped your hand when you tried to say that the frickiin' *Seven Samurai* is a "no-name" Japanese film. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 06:23 AM In reply to this comment (#861504) Yeah, that was pretty off base. He now has his very own miscalculated "wardrobe malfunction" moment with that credibility shattering comment. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 07:24 AM In reply to this comment (#861451) Mr. Bay can't make a decent action scene....??? you idiot (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 07:54 AM In reply to this comment (#861505) I do however like his use of the word Nerd in the singular to describe all of you as if you were an entire race. Eastern Europe trembled at the approach of the Nerd hordes. Inadvertantly that's very clever and funny. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 08:27 AM In reply to this comment (#861507) [b]That *is* pretty funny[/b] But I also like how the Nerd is an external phenomenon, and he seems to be able to remove himself from that category. Voting on IMDB? Nerd. Whining on RT's message board? Ummm.... Geek, maybe? Lamewad? Some other tribe? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 10:19 AM In reply to this comment (#861503) After this post, I'm guessing you are either joking or, well, beyond help. "Ghost Rider was good and it did its job. Zodiac was boring as hell and not goo, so your whole argument is based off of nothing but OPINION." Am I the only one who sees the hilarity in this statement? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 10:42 AM In reply to this comment (#861509) [b]Dude...[/b] You may THINK Zodiac was better than Ghost Rider, but that's an OPINION. Ghost Rider made more money, that is FACT. FACT: Ghost Rider is better than Zodiac. FACT: Meet the Fockers ($280m) is better than Citizen Kane ($20m--inflation adjusted). *14 times* better. FACT: You can only state your opinion on a film or a filmmaker if your opinion is backed by box office receipts. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 12:13 PM In reply to this comment (#861510) You're almost as funny as aknddon3. Unfortunately I don't think he is doing it intentionally. I'm guessing you are. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 02:44 PM In reply to this comment (#861504) It actually is. Again it is a no name japanese movie, i am a movie fan and the only reason why i know about it is because my roomate used to make fun of it all the time. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 02:45 PM In reply to this comment (#861510) SO he is allowed to have his opinion and state it as fact? Oh yeah that makes sense, the nerds are illogical. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 02:52 PM In reply to this comment (#861512) You'd never heard of the Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa? You're calling THAT a no name Japanese movie? You HAVE to be joking. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 02:59 PM In reply to this comment (#861512) [b]Are you out of your mind?[/b] The fricking Seven Samurai is a no-name movie? That's the biggest bunch of BS. Any "movie fan" knows about fricking Akira Kurosawa, and the Seven Samurai is the best-known and one of the most respected of his films. I'd heard of the movie by the time I was ten fricking years old. Don't try and disguise the fact that you were too thick to realize that "Oh, gee, maybe that weird Japanese title in the top 10 is the *single most significant Japanese movie of all time*" by defending the utterly ridiculous idea that The Seven Samurai isn't a well-known film. By many accounts, it is the first modern action movie--Michael Bay might not even be a freaking director if it weren't for this film. Entertainment Weekly, which is generally a pop-trash rag, called it one of the 12 best films of all time. It's the direct inspiration for "The Magnificent Seven"! I know lots of average people, and the average person has heard of the freaking movie. I'm sorry to tell you that in this regard you are sub-average. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 03:00 PM In reply to this comment (#861513) [b]And apparantly...[/b] ...you also don't recognize sarcasm when it slaps you right in the face. Or is this really all a little joke you're playing on us? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 04:20 PM In reply to this comment (#861517) I'm finding it really hard to believe he's serious. I remember having other discussions with him, and he made a little more sense than this. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 05:01 PM In reply to this comment (#861451) It's not so much that he can't make a good action scene (I personally think he can), it's more that he spends too much time on making a good action scene than anything else. Plus, I like Bruckheimer and some of Bay's stuff. Yes, the Bad Boy movies were awful, and Pearl Harbor was a little to hokey, but I like Armageddon and The Island enough that I find hope for the movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 07:57 PM In reply to this comment (#861514) I only heard about it thru a friend that used to make fun of it. I do not watch japanese movies for the most part because they suck and i do not waste my time on bad movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 07:59 PM In reply to this comment (#861516) Wrong again there fool, the average fan has never heard of that crap movie, You know i rarely turn movies off before they are finished but it was so bad that i could not stand watching it. It just proves that Japanese people cannot make movies like they cannot make cartoons or comics. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 08:01 PM In reply to this comment (#861520) [b]Please, please, please...[/b] ...tell me you're joking. Please. Please, please, please. And if you're not, shame on you for calling yourself a movie fan while totally denying the entire works of freaking *Kurosawa*. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 08:02 PM In reply to this comment (#861518) I will use a little common knowledge, something you nerds do not use. JUST BECAUSE IT HAS A HIGH RATING ON IMDB DOES NOT MAKE IT GOOD. Again that is very bad movie and to dare have it before Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark two movies that have actually shaped the way movies have been made is a slap in the face of a true filmmaker and not some japanese loser. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 08:13 PM In reply to this comment (#861521) [b]This is just getting sad.[/b] The fact is, the average person *has* heard of the Seven Samurai. If you think they haven't, prove it, and bring up something more compelling than your own half-assed attempt to watch it. As you may have noticed, you blew your personal credibility about twenty posts ago. I also love how you have attempted to dismiss the art and culture of an entire nation purely to cover up your incredibly revealing faux pas earlier. You were too blind or too ignorant to realize a movie you were dismissing just happened to be one of film's most treasured classics. So now, to save face, you're committing the even more egregious crime of *knowingly* dismissing that film, *knowingly* dismissing that director, *knowingly* dismissing that entire nation. It's idiotic. No one with a speck of sense would agree with you. It makes it very hard to believe your claim that you're a movie lover, and completely destroys any shred of credibility you may have had in this debate. You can stop now. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 08:20 PM In reply to this comment (#861523) [b]Umm[/b] No, having a high rating on IMDB doesn't make it good. The fact that it is good makes it good. As you haven't actually seen the movie, as you admitted you turned it off, I think it's a little silly for you to be dismissing it, when it is so universally loved. You talk about how great Star Wars is, but do you realize that that "Japanese loser" who directed the film had an *enormous* influence on Star Wars? Lucas admitted that the film was heavily influenced by The Hidden Fortress, and lines from The Seven Samurai are used nearly word for word in Star Wars. Clearly, your hero Mr. Lucas believed Kurosawa to be an exceptional filmmaker. As did Sergio Leone and John Sturgis, who re-made several of his films, including The Seven Samurai, into some of the classics of the Western genre. Kurosawa helped to invent the action movie with The Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and others. His film, Rashomon, is so famed for its use of multiple perspectives in describing the same events that that effect is now called the "Rahomon Effect" in both film and even psychology. Kurosawa did as much to shape film as Lucas did, the fact that you weren't yet alive to see it doesn't make it less true. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 08:30 PM In reply to this comment (#861523) Okay, I will go on the presumption that you are, indeed, serious, as scary as that may be. Ask George Lucas or Steven Spielberg who their inspirations were when they wanted to become filmmakers, and I guarantee they both would mention Akira Kurosawa. Pretty much ask ANY of the iconic directors today and they will call him one of the best directors of all-time and the Seven Samurai as one of the best films of all time. And let me clarify, here. This has NOTHING to do with the IMDB. Until you had mentioned it in your post, I'd only glanced at the list a few years ago. You keep mentioning Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark and you're calling US nerds? Those were also great movies, but a lot of kids see them today, especially Star Wars, and they wonder what all the fuss is about. I'm sure in ten years, someone will see Star Wars high on some list and call it crap. Watching it today, Seven Samurai is slow and dated, but it doesn't make it a bad movie. Quite frankly, I think Citizen Kane is boring as hell to watch today, but I can appreciate it as a great movie and incredibly groundbreaking. It's just that we see it all the time now, but at the time, it was revolutionary. Besides, anyone who thinks Ghostrider was a good movie has pretty much lost any serious discussion about film. Personally, I can't see anyone liking Ghostrider except comic book nerds. See, I can throw that word around, too. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 17 2007 08:32 PM [b]Read this:[/b] You may think Ebert is a fat, befuddled NERD for all I know, but you can't argue his knowledge of http (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 01:47 AM In reply to this comment (#861527) No i do not think that Ebert is a fat, befuddled Nerd, BUT HE IS A WASTE OF TIME THAT NO ONE SHOULD LISTEN TO. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 01:51 AM In reply to this comment (#861524) Again that is not true, ask 100 random people and i bet the majority have not heard of it. I still more cred than you, who has yet to explain how a movie that entertains people and a director who does that makes a crappy movie and a crappy director. Oh i love Japan, but am smart enough to realize they cannot make a movie or cartoon if their life depended upon it. Yeah no one would agree with me. Then how come when asked the greatest movie ever ALMOST EVERYONE SAYS GODFATHER AND NOT THAT SEVEN SAMURAI? THAT IS BECAUSE I AM RIGHT YOU MORON. You have no cred and no ability to debate. Continue to think that crap movie is awesome because once you said that Zodiac was great your opinion fell to the bottom of the barrel. You can stop talking now unless you like to continue to get owned by me. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 02:13 AM There’s a new movie site for this film now it (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 04:36 AM In reply to this comment (#861528) [b]You can't even read one article?[/b] Fine, just read the first paragraph. The one where he explains how Kurosawa, the "Japanese loser", is directly responsible for Michael Bay and Star Wars. Tell me, how is it that you can possibly think this man has no influence on film when the movies you call great are directly descended from his? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 04:56 AM In reply to this comment (#861529) [b]One by one...[/b] "Again that is not true, ask 100 random people and i bet the majority have not heard of it." You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Prove it. So far, I've provided evidence that even Entertainment Weekly loves the movie, the most popular film critic in the country loves the movie, all those folks on IMDB love the movie, and the director of Star Wars loves the movie, and the only contradictory opinion you've found is.... your roommate. Hmm. "I still more cred than you," With who, exactly? The only people who know both of us are the people who are watching this argument. Has any of them said a word to defend your remarks about Kurosawa? Not so far, because said comments are either ignorant or deluded. "who has yet to explain how a movie that entertains people and a director who does that makes a crappy movie and a crappy director." Again, porn entertains people, is it great film? No. People are entertained by public executions, narcotics, and demolition derbies, none of which are particularly "great". Bay's movies may entertain some people, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he has *never* managed to make a film with likable, three-dimensional characters, a compelling, believable plot, or anything else that would pull his films above the level of explosion-porn. "Oh i love Japan, but am smart enough to realize they cannot make a movie or cartoon if their life depended upon it." Tell me, what Japanese movies have you watched that lead you to this opinion? And please, only list the ones you've watched *all the way through*. Because if you haven't even watched the entirety of The Seven Samurai, you're not starting out well. Oh, and how exactly do you reconcile this disdain with Kurosawa's work with the *fact* that he had a direct influence on pretty much every film you've professed love for so far? Or are you just smart enough to realize George Lucas was just kidding when he said that? "Yeah no one would agree with me. Then how come when asked the greatest movie ever ALMOST EVERYONE SAYS GODFATHER AND NOT THAT SEVEN SAMURAI?" ...Are you kidding me, dude? So because everyone says "The Godfather" is the best movie ever, Seven Samurai sucks? Well, gee, no one says On The Waterfront, either, but you seem to like that movie just fine. In fact, if EVERYONE says THE GODFATHER, then the Godfather must be the ONLY good movie, huh? I give you the opinions of critics and filmmakers, and you give me "well, if it's so great, why do people like the Godfather better"? Christ. "THAT IS BECAUSE I AM RIGHT YOU MORON." No, really, you're joking, right? "You have no cred and no ability to debate." Cred with who? Just who do you think is out there, looking at this argument, going "oh, yeah, that zbbrox guy is getting owned here"? And I'll admit, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to debate someone who has no ability whatsoever to backup his wild slurs against Japanese film and one of the greatest, most influential directors of all time. "Continue to think that crap movie is awesome because once you said that Zodiac was great your opinion fell to the bottom of the barrel." Show me where I said Zodiac was great. Or was that something else you imagined? "You can stop talking now unless you like to continue to get owned by me. " No, really, you're joking, right? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 08:00 AM [b]I wanna be like Mike...[/b] Remeber that Michael Jordan song..."I wanna be like Mike"? Man, I was singing that song through this whole thread... (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 09:23 AM Michael Bay is an awful director. Absolutely god-awful. Bruckheimer has limitless funds, why doesn't he buddy up with someone capable instead? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 09:50 AM In reply to this comment (#861526) I liked Ghost Rider, but I didn't take it seriously. I found that it was stupid fun, no more, no less. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 12:45 PM In reply to this comment (#861529) You ask one hundred people to read this thread and 99 of them will say that you have completely lost any credibility and, when backed into a corner, throw out insults like nerd and moron, in an attempt to cover up your complete lack of debating skills. By the way, the 1 who wouldn't is your roommate. As for Zodiac, it got a 87% critic rating and a 93% user rating, and Ghost Rider got a 27% critic rating and a 50% user rating. I'd say more people here agree more with me than you. Or do nerds go on Rotten Tomatoes, too? Notice I haven't mentioned Seven Samurai. No proof what-so-ever will make you admit that you are wrong (if we polled 100 people and most said they had heard of Seven Samurai, tyou'd think of some excuse), so there's really no point in debating it furthur. I've already lost enough IQ points `discussing' this with you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 01:24 PM You know what image comes to mind when I think of this debate you and highdough are struggling to have with aknddon3? I think of a duo of composers scratching their heads over how to teach a goat to write sheet music. I mean really, given the content of aknddon3's posts -and I'm sorry aknddon3, but you force my hand- do either of you think he's going to appreciate any of the points you're making no matter how sound, let alone possess the aesthetic sensibilities that would enable him to? Much respect to you both, but you guys are running a fool's errand. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 01:38 PM In reply to this comment (#861537) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, i love how you think they are doing a good job debating when there whole argument is that because IMDB says its good that makes it good and because a movie entertains it means it is crap. You are a joke just like them and i have owned you too. Are you a retard? Or just slow? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 02:11 PM In reply to this comment (#861537) Agreed. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 08:13 PM In reply to this comment (#861538) All right, I'm going to give you one more chance to debate like a sensible person. So far, you've just ignored every point we've made, and if you continue that now, or simply revert to your inane name-calling, I'm going to follow Matanuki's advice and write you off as hopeless. Here are a few simple questions. Please realize that these are reasonable, honest questions, and if you can't respond in a like matter you cannot claim to be making an argument, let alone winning one. 1: Is the amount of money something makes a good judge of its quality? This is the argument that started this entire thing, and so it's important. You've argued that because Bay's films make money, they must be well-liked, and because they're well-liked, they must be good. Does this hold up for every movie that's made a lot of money? And does it therefore hold that movies that don't make a lot of money are bad? And are things like pornography, drugs, and weapons good because they make a lot of money? 2: If the opinions of the "nerds" on IMDB don't count, why is it that your opinion seems to matter so much when you also post on an internet movie-themed website? Do you claim not to be a nerd? 3: You asked for "proof" that Bay sucks. Am I not allowed to think he sucks without proof? You've said Kurosawa sucks without proof, isn't that hypocrisy? Can't I just have an opinion without being attacked? 4: What Kurosawa movies have you seen that lead you to believe he is a bad director? What about them did you think was bad? 5: Please provide evidence that the average person has not heard of The Seven Samurai. Don't just tell me what you think, or what you "bet", or even what your roommate said, please give me some actual evidence. 6: If George Lucas is a real creative talent, and Star Wars is a great film, and George Lucas has admitted that Star Wars was heavily influenced by Kurosawa, how can you claim Kurosawa had no influence and was, in fact, a "loser"? 7: You keep bringing up IMDB, as if that is the only evidence that Kurosawa was a great director. Fine, ignore IMDB. Instead respond to Entertainment Weekly, Sight & Sound, Time magazine, Roger Ebert, and Total Film, who all include his movies among the best ever. Why do you think all these popular institutions pick his movies if they're "no name" films from a "loser" director? What about his lifetime achievement award from the Oscars and his being admitted to the French Legion of Honor? Even if you don't like his work, it seems hard to argue that it isn't recognized. I think that'll do for now. If you can sensible answer those seven questions, I'll happily continue the debate. If you keep just ignoring everything that doesn't fit your deluded view of the world and calling people names to try and make it look like you have the upper hand, I just won't bother. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 09:15 PM In reply to this comment (#861540) 1. In a way, because if a movie makes a lot of money then that means that the viewers really liked it and if it entertained them enough to see it multiple times then yes it is a good movie by the simple fact that it entertained the audience. You need to stop trying to equate entertainment to porn, it makes you seem desperate. 2. My opinion is just as important but when people attack a director for no reason i will defend him. 3. I gave proof of why he sucks, his MASTERPIECE movie is so bad that it is the only movie i never finished. 4. From the one movie i saw, there is really not one good redeeming quality about him, his characters are not well thought out, the action scenes are subpar, his actual directing is weak, etc. 5. Look at the number of people who voted for that movie? It is lower then most and just by the fact that WORKING AT A MOVIE STORE AND NOT EVEN CARRYING IT makes me thinks MOST people never heard of it. Now i want proof that shows that the average viewer has seen it and likes it. 6. Claiming someone is has an influence and actually being influenced by them is different. I could create the worlds best movie of all time and claim that i was influenced by my father, that does not mean he actually influenced anything just that he played a role in me making the movie. 7. I have no respect for Entertainment Weekly after there moronic reviews of An Inconvient Truth and of all of Micheal Moore's movies. Why is it that only those FEW sources name it one of the best movies ever? Oh yeah because it is not as popular as you think. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 09:15 PM I am still waiting for a real reason why Bay is a bad director. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 18 2007 11:53 PM In reply to this comment (#861541) Since you have made an attempt at a real discussion, I'll chime in here again... 1. The argument that a movie makes a lot of money is good is completely flawed. Movies make money for many reasons: Marketing, stars, trailers, story, timing etc. People don't go and see a movie because it's good. They see it because they HOPE it is going to be good. Just because they spend money on a movie, doesn't necessarily mean they liked it. Ghost Rider is a good example, where 50% of the users on the site who saw it, didn't like it. The Hollywood marketing machine does a pretty good job of knowing how to get people to see their movies. Even before that, it's about picking the right scripts. A `high concept' movie is one that can be explained in one or two sentences. Those are the easiest films to market, and generally the ones that make the most money because of that. Conversely, films that are not high concept, often have difficulty finding an audience. It doesnt make them worse a film because of it. It just means that it didn't have as wide an audience as a high concept movie. Also, I must take issue with your statment that because a movie entertained, then it was good. It also underlines the differences in opinion. Is a movie that entrtains more better than one that might be a more difficult subject? I like movies to be entertaining, but I also like to be moved, emotionally or intellectually. Let's look at Mission Impossible 3. I thought the movie was very entertaining and enjoyed watching it. United 93, on the other hand, wasn't exactly entertaining, but it was a much better movie. It was gripping and emotional. 2. We gave reasons why we were attacking Michael Bay. Some people's reasons were simply because they didn't like any of his movies. Weren't you attacking Seven Samurai for the simple reason that YOU didn't like it? How is it different? 3. You are assuming that opinion is proof, which is not true. YOU didn't like Seven Samurai, but many others have. George Lucas, Steven Speilberg, Martin Scorses, Francis Ford Copolla, Sam Peckinpaw, Clint Eastwood, just to name a few. I would much rather listen to their opinion than yours, quite frankly. Besides, if you say that you not watchng the entire Seven Samurai as proof that Akira Kurosawa sucked, couldn't we say that us hating Armaggedon, among others, as proof that MIchael Bay sucks? It has to go both ways. 4. I found Armageddon one of the most atrocious movies I have ever seen. The characters were predictable, stereotypical and unrealistic, the action scenes incredibly overblown and unintentionally funny, and his lack of understanding of story and character development is incredibly frustrating. He's far more interested in making a movie `look good' that actually be good. 5. Again, just because not a lot of people have seen and rated the movie, doesn't mean that it is a bad movie. It is a foreign film, which immediately cuts the audience by about 75%. Americans generally don't like to watch foreign films, no matter how good they are. Only two subtitled films have ever made more than $100 million domestically. Passion of the Christ and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Does that mean they were the to best subtitled films of all-time? Besides, just because someone hasn't SEEN a movie, doesn't mean they have not heard of it. The point was not whether people had seen it, but whether they had heard of it. You ask 100 people whether they had seen Citizen Kane, and I'll bet most would say no, but they've heard of it. I'll bet most people wouldn't even like it if they saw it today. Does that make it bad? 6. This statement really doesn't make much sense. Akira Kurosawa influenced George Lucas, among many, many others, BECAUSE of his films. That says something about his films and his talent as a director. A far as I know, he is not the father, or even distant relation to any of those directors. The Academy thought enough of him to give him an honourary Academy Award. 7. He named five sources, but you only disputed one of them. How many would you like him to name? And you obviously read it enough that you know what their reviews are of Michael Moore's movies and an Inconvenient Truth (which I'll get to later). Besides, isn't it the fact that it is one of the most popular entertainment magazines make it a good magazine, if your logic is true? And you obviously didn't like An Inconvenient Truth or Fahrenheit 9/11. Isn't the fact that Fahrenheit 9/11 is the highest grossing documentary of all time make it a good movie? People were obviously entertained by it enough to have it make over $100 million. And what is your problem with An Inconvenient Truth? I thought it was one of the best movies I saw last year, it won quite a few awards, including the Academy Award for Best Documentary, and it actually has had a positive global effect. It also was one of the most popular documentaries of all time. Again, using your logic, that meant it must have been good. I don't think Michael Bay is a horrible director, but I don't think he's very good. His movies are stunning visually, but everything else about them is subpar. I look for more than just eye candy when I see a movie. And visually, he pretty much covers the same ground again and again, so it's not like he's breaking new ground. He has had a pretty free reign and lots of money, but he still hasn't made a movie that I really liked. His movies are aimed at 13 year old boys that don't like to think, have a short attention span and like things to blow up. When that's your core audience, you're not exactly making great movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 01:59 AM In reply to this comment (#861543) Just because you are moved emotionally, etc does not mean you were not entertained. I was moved by Reign Over Me and i was also entertained by it. Micheal Moores movies are not documentaries they are Propaganda. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 04:52 AM In reply to this comment (#861543) [b]What Highdough said[/b] Seriously, that was pretty well covered, and I hope you'll respond in more detail than "Michael Moore makes propaganda". Because that's not really the point of the argument, is it? Also, I would like to add: 8: Are you seriously judging Kurosawa's directing ability *purely* by the fact you didn't like the first 20 minutes of his most-loved film? Because I have to say, that's pretty ridiculous. My fiance' didn't much like Seven Samurai, but she still liked Yojimbo, and some critics think Yojimbo, Rashomon, Ikiru, Ran, or something else is his best work. I mean, what if someone judged Kubrick's ability to direct by the first ten minutes of 2001? I know plenty of people who couldn't make it through 2001, and that's often considered Kubrick's masterpiece. But those same people who couldn't make it through 2001 *loved* A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Lolita... 9: By the way, what other Japanese movies have you seen that make you think all their movies suck, not just Kurosawa's? 10: Why do you have such a problem with the comparison between an entertaining movie and pornography? Is porn not entertaining? Is the point of both a high-octane action movie and a porn flick to titillate without providing intellectual stimulation? I'd say the difference between a good action movie and porn is pretty much the same as the difference between a good action movie and a bad action movie: craft, emotional context, creativity, storytelling.... When an action movie lacks those things, it's little better than porn, and while it may make money, like porn does, that certainly doesn't make it art. Why do you feel differently? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 08:57 AM First of all, anyone that comes to RottenTomatoes is a nerd. Nothing wrong with that. Whether or not Michael bay is a "good" director is something that will be debated among critics and bloggers forever it seems. What I do know is that Michael Bay is good at what he does. Good enough that he has one of the best track records as a director in terms of box office receipts. Good enough that his movies appeal to a mass audience that seems to enjoy his work. How else do you explain the box office? This is due to repeat viewings. Most of the people that seem to complain are stuffy critics ,envious film school dropouts, or arthouse snobs, (and, oh yeah, the sad Talkbackers on Ain't it Cool News) But just because a film is serious, that does not make it good and it doesn't mean people will go see it. And I don't care how brilliiant "Children of Men" was, hardly anyone went to see it. And filmmaking, in addition to art, is first and foremost a business. He makes big budget films that, for the most part, entertain and bring in big box office. There is room in the marketplace for different types of movies. If this isn't your bag, go see something else. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 09:09 AM In reply to this comment (#861544) I also would like a more detailed response, but as for the comment that Moore's movies are not documentaries, but propaganda, I'm not going to get into a debate about what documentaries are supposed to do, but what difference does it make if it WAS propanda? People liked it and were entertained by it. Many people feel most Hollywood movies are propaganda in one form or another. They all attempt manipulate and have a certiain point of view. Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor could easily be considered propaganda. Besides, Leni Riefenstahll's Triumph of the Will is considered a great film, despite it being propaganda. Again, you're not being consistent. I think the problem is that YOU disagreed with Michael Moore's viewpoint, and apparently you are a small percentage of the population that cling to the belief that people aren't causing Global Warming. That has more to do with you than the film, and it doesnt detract from the quality of the film. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 09:10 AM In reply to this comment (#861546) [b]I don't think people have a problem with Bay[/b] ...making bad films, so much as making films we'd like other people to make better. He can make all the Bad Boys movies he likes and I'll never say a word. But first Transformers, now Prince of Persia? Sucks to be me. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 10:01 AM In reply to this comment (#861546) I think you're misconstruing what is being debated here. I'm all for entertaining movies. Casino Royale and Borat were two of my favourite movies from last year. My two favourite movies so far this year have been 300 and Hot Fuzz. I don't expect either of those two to be in any running for year end awards. They're entertainment, pure and simple. They were also good movies, in my opinion. I stated that Michael Bay is good at what he does, and that's making movies for 13 year old boys with a short attention span and would rather see things blow up than think. I wouldnt exactly say that's a wide audience. He just aims his movies at people who are most likely to go to movies and are most likely to see movies again. The Island bombed because it wasn't aimed at his regular audience. It was `supposed' to be aimed at more at adults. He can't make movies for adults. Adults, in general, are too sophisticated. Hell, I loved the television show Dukes of Hazzard when I was 13. I tried to watch an episode a few years ago and was horrified at how bad it was. For a 13 year old, though, it was fine. It's hard to take your post seriously when, on one hand you try to preach that there are movies for everyone, but then blast those who disagree with your choices. You also talk of critics as if they are an insular group who all agree with one another. You can't, in fact. lump critics together. They are different people from all walks of life with varied interests and tastes. Rotton Tomatoes is a perfect example of that. Look at the movie Babel. A lot of critics loved it, but 32% of the critics didn't even give it a passing grade. Critics simply represent a portion of society. And Armageddon actually had 42% of critics who liked it. Are you dismissing ALL critics, or just the ones who don't like the same movies you do? Probably the reason more critics don't like his movies is that there are very few 13 year old critics. By the way, my dismissing Michael Bay fans as 13 year olds with a short attention span and would rather watch things blown up than think is just as valid as you dimissing those who DON'T like Michael Bay films as `stuffy critics ,envious film school dropouts, or arthouse snobs'. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 10:08 AM In reply to this comment (#861548) I'd like to add that I also have no problem with Bay making his bad movies, but what I do have a problem with is there are more and more of these movies, which floods the marketplace, and leaves less room for quality movies. In the last two months, I can count on one hand the number of movies which I have even wanted to see. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 10:11 AM In reply to this comment (#861548) "He can make all the Bad Boys movies he likes and I'll never say a word. But first Transformers, now Prince of Persia? Sucks to be me. " Hey, this doesn't sound like a guy who only likes arthouse films or serious movies. Sounds like this guy wants entertaining movies. He might also want quality, entertaining movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 10:14 AM [b]I'd also like to quickly point out...[/b] ...that while movie-making may be a business as well as an art, doing good business is not the same as making good art. McDonalds hamburgers make more money than any other type of hamburger. Are they the best? Actually, I'm a vegetarian, so they may be the best and I wouldn't know, but you see my point. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 10:19 AM In reply to this comment (#861551) [b]Hang on, hang on...[/b] Actually, I wanted to see Sofia Coppola direct Transformers. Let her really get into how isolated Arcee feels being a young robot girl in love with a headstrong young hero, trapped in the midst of a brutal (off-screen) war she never chose to be a part of. Then give Werner Herzog a shot at Prince of Persia. Could be brilliant. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 10:27 AM [b]That was a joke.[/b] Just to be clear. Give Transformers to James Cameron and Prince of Persia to Guillermo Del Toro, that would've made me happy. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 10:56 AM In reply to this comment (#861554) I got the joke. Very funny. And bringing up James Cameron is good. He's made some of the best, most popular movies of all time. Only one of his movies (besides Piranah 2) was I not a big fan of, and that's True Lies, although it's still very watchable and entertaining. It's quite possible to make entertaining movies that are very popular and very good quality. A lot of people don't feel Michael Bay does that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 11:16 AM In reply to this comment (#861555) [b]Absolutely[/b] The knee-jerk reaction when anyone disliked Bay is that "it's okay for a movie to be entertaining." I totally agree. I enjoyed 300, Hot Fuzz, and Grindhouse, and that's just the last couple of months. Casino Royale was great, I like the Pirates movies, I like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon, I like a lot of John Woo's stuff (but remember: Paycheck was a better movie than Hard-Boiled, 'cause it made more money), I like explosions, I like gunfights, I *love* swordfights, I will personally guarantee to go see any movie that has a lightsaber fight in it from now to the end of time, even if the movie surrounding it is a tremendous disappointment. None of this makes me like Bay. I just don't think he makes very good movies. Also, I will admit I'm a little bit angry at him for the Island, which I thought was actually close to being really good. Ah well. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 11:22 AM In reply to this comment (#861554) Never let Del Toro ruin another movie. If i wanted to pay 10 bucks to see idiotic monsters and basically see a good movie turn into an acid trip i would just buy acid and take that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 11:23 AM So wait a movie has to make you think in order for it to be good? Godfather did not make me think and it was the best of all time. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 11:36 AM In reply to this comment (#861557) [b]Err...[/b] 1: Why are you picking another fight when you're still avoiding the first two or three? 2: Del Toro did more than one movie. What is it with you and dismissing a director based on *one* flick? 3: What exactly made the monsters more "idiotic" than the aliens in Star Wars? 4: So is any movie that's "trippy" bad? Not a fan of David Lynch, then? Also: 5: Who said a movie had to make you think for it to be good? 6: The Godfather didn't make you think? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised... (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 11:58 AM In reply to this comment (#861558) No, a movie doesn't have to make you think. I just used that as an example of something that can make a movie good. You're really not following the argument very well. You completely missed the posts where both zbbrox and I said we both enjoy simply entertaining movies, as well as movies that make you think. Did you miss the posts where I said I thought Hot Fuzz and 300 were my favourite movies so far this year? You seem to be completely ignoring the posts which contradict your argument. Both zbbrox and I had long, detailed posts that covered a lot of ground, and the only things you said were that Del Toro shouldn't be allowed to make movies anymore (apparently Pan's Labrynth was a little too much for you), and then made a comment that made it seem like you havent been paying attention. What about your argument that a movie making money is proof that it is good? Do you not have a retort to my and zbbrox's posts about that? And if IMDB's top rated movies is so off, how come you both seem to agree which movie is best? And you mentioned the fact that the low number of people who voted for Seven Samurai shows what a no-name movie it is. You'll notice that very few people voted for pretty much ALL the black and white movies. You'll notice that EVERY movie made before 1970 has fewer than 100,000 votes. And Seven Samurai has more, or about the same number of votes, as Chinatown, Lawrence of Arabia, It's a Wonderfu Life, most of Hitchcock's movies, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Third Man, among many others, mostly made before 1970. Again, we've made some good points, none of which you are commenting on. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 12:02 PM In reply to this comment (#861547) That may be pushing it a bit too far, not to engage in a political debate here, but the danger of propaganda mascerading as a documentary is that people generally speaking don't go to a documentary to be entertained. If they did then you're right a little propaganda would be harmless, but people go to a documentary to learn something or to gain information. If said documentary is false propoganda then that IS a very dangerous thing. Wow I can't believe this thread is approaching 120 posts. We all are in serious need of new lives :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 12:09 PM In reply to this comment (#861560) To be fair their were a butt ton of posts in between. Let's just let the argument go guys. This discussion was interesting for the first 5 pages, but now it's starting to drag. It's a video game movie so it's pretty much gonna suck like all the rest of them have. Nuff said. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 12:10 PM In reply to this comment (#861561) [b]Hmm[/b] I don't think documentaries should be viewed in the same way as the news or a textbook, where obviously there will be some bias but the writer should attempt to minimize it. A documentary is more like an essay, and like an essay there are many types--ones that are purely informative, ones that are persuasive, ones that entertain, etc. Yes, you should learn something from all of them, but do you expect every op-ed piece you read in the paper to be non-partisan and non-discriminatory? Of course not. I think it's an unfair limitation to say that a documentary must be held to a journalistic standard of integrity. And I like most of my life, but I admit I have an unfulfilling job. ;) (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 12:18 PM In reply to this comment (#861561) I completely agree with zbbrox. A documentary is someone's point of view just as an essay is. In fact I've used that exact analogy to describe them. I haven't seen a documentary that was totally balanced. Moore's documentaries are meant to entertain, as well as enlighten. Notice I didn't say educate. An Inconvenient Truth was meant to entertain and educate, not Moore's documentaries. Documentaries are meant to make you think and act, or react. Moore's do just that. I have absolutely no problem with the message that Moore is trying to convey or where his heart is. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 12:23 PM In reply to this comment (#861562) Quite frankly, I'm enjoying myself here a little bit, and I happen to have a little time on my hands (plus, it's helping me procrastinate) so I have no problem going on here a little. This is not meant to be rude, but we're not forcing anyone else to read our discussion. As far as I'm concerned, this is simply between, and for, the three of us. If someone wants to chime in, go right ahead, but I don't really know why anyone else would be reading this. As for the video game, I'd never even heard of it. I don't play video games (I waste my time having pointless discussions on the internet!) so I don't really care much about the movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 12:25 PM In reply to this comment (#861563) Hmmm, see to me a documentary like I'm used to is purely informative. That's the definition of what I thought of as a documentary or an essay for that matter. If I turned in an essay filled with right or left wing diatribes I would expect to get a bad grade for it. See to my way of thinking an op-ed piece is by definition opinionated (the op). Allowing people to say whatever they want with nothing substantive to back it up and selling it as if it were fact is dangerous. You could pass off a documentary about how Jews are secretly running the government or that Bill Clinton is secretly involved in the illegal diamond trade( Or somethings slightly less ridiculous) and the 95% of the public who aren't well versed on that topic are just going to accept it as fact and that's dangerous. I think the recent politization of documentaries is a further symptom of the 24 hour politically biased news culture we find ourselves subjected to. Could someone please bring back Walter Kronkite? Am I alone here in wanting my news back? Oh, and I didn't mean to insult anyone personally I'm sure you all lead active and fulfilling lives, just poking fun at the massive life of its own this thread has taken on :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 12:45 PM In reply to this comment (#861566) [b]Hmm[/b] See, but not all essays are academic. Why should all documentaries be academic? I totally agree with you on the news process, but I think it's a mistake to lump essays and documentaries in with news. Essays and documentaries are art forms in of themselves and have a broad range of purposes--you may as well say that all non-fiction books must be textbooks, or all periodicals must be newspapers. Op-ed, by the way, doesn't have anything to do with "opinion"--it literally means "opposite the editorial page". Yes, they are generally opinion pieces--but so are editorials, and almost any essay you'll find. Read some travel writing--should that all be strictly educational? Or people's biographies and autobiographies. Yes, they should be informative and yes, ideally they won't blatantly lie. But they're not news, they're not real journalism, they're expression. Is the Declaration of Independence fair and balanced? Hell no. Was it a great piece of writing? Hell yes. Jefferson captured the thoughts and feelings of not only a huge part of his nation but, in many ways, the Age if Enlightenment itself. And, when it comes down to it, all the Declaration of Independence was was a short essay. Essays and documentaries aren't educational documents, they're parts of our larger cultural conversation, and expecting a filmmaker to come to a documentary without a point of view is like expecting someone you're discussing politics with to come to the conversation without a point of view. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 02:10 PM In reply to this comment (#861567) See I agree with you that FILMs don't always have to be educational or have the integrity of news pieces, but for me a documentary is one of the sub-elements of film which should by nature be informative. If you want to propagandize something more power to you, but at least have the honesty and respect for your audience to call your film a work of fiction or idealy a docu-drama. By slapping the title documentary or portraying your work as such is blatantly misleading and lends a credibility to your work that it doesn't deserve or in my opinion should have. Just out of curiousity, what part of the declaration of independence isn't fair or balanced? I'm not saying it's not, I'm just interested to hear what specifically you're referencing? Isn't this the document that boldly declared all men are created equal 160 years before that was even close to being true in practice or am I confusing that with the Constitution (a little embarrassed I' m not sure about that) (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 02:38 PM In reply to this comment (#861559) I have not dismissed anything, i answered your questions. Del Toro has yet to make a good movie. Oh yeah because monster with eyes on there hands look awesome in todays world. No, i a trippy movie can be awesome, but his are not. Highdoughs and your whole point is that because Bays movies do not make you think thus they are not good. I am sorry that i am smart enough to have to think deeply about a movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 03:33 PM In reply to this comment (#861569) So you have no response to these points (summarized): - The argument that a movie makes a lot of money is good is completely flawed. - Weren't you attacking Akira Kurosawa for the simple reason that YOU didn't like Seven Samurai? How is it different from us attacking Michael Bay for not liking his movies? - If you say that you not watchng the entire Seven Samurai as proof that Akira Kurosawa sucked, couldn't we say that us hating Armaggedon, among others, as proof that MIchael Bay sucks? - Again, just because not a lot of people have seen and rated the movie, doesn't mean that it is a bad movie. You ask 100 people whether they had seen Citizen Kane, and I'll bet most would say no, but they've heard of it. I'll bet most people wouldn't even like it if they saw it today. Does that make it bad? - Akira Kurosawa influenced George Lucas, among many, many others, BECAUSE of his films. Wouldn't that mean that his FILMS influenced some of the greatest directors alive? How could a bad director making bad movies influence so many people? - Are you seriously judging Kurosawa's directing ability *purely* by the fact you didn't like the first 20 minutes of his most-loved film? Have you seen any of his other movies? - What other Japanese movies have you seen that make you think all their movies suck, not just Kurosawa's? And finally, neither of us has ever said that Michael Bay's movies are not good because they don't make you think. Please quote one of us where we said something even remotely like that. In fact, both of us have refuted this a couple of times. You keep ignoring it when we do. Again, just for clarification...A MOVIE DOES NOT NEED TO MAKE YOU THINK AND CAN BE SIMPLY ENTERTAINING IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE GOOD. Both of us loved Casino Royale, 300 and Hot Fuzz (I haven't been able to see Grindhouse, yet), which were all pure entertainment. We both love James Cameron movies. The only difference between Michael Bay and James Cameron movies is that Cameron is a great director and makes MUCH better films. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 19 2007 06:20 PM [b]Prince of Baysia[/b] uhhhhhhhh... I certainly didn't see THAT coming. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 07:41 PM In reply to this comment (#861570) 1. It is not completely flawed. Money=more people entertained thus in a way a good movie. 2. I am not allowed to hate a director because of one movie yet you are? pot meet kettle. 3. You could. But you would be wrong. 4. You need to learn a few things, Lucas said he influenced him because he came before him, just like all US presidents say that Lincoln influenced them even though he was a bad president. 5. I watched almost all of it, i stopped watching with like 20 minutes left. Tried to watch his other works but they sucked. 6. About everysingle Jackie Chan movie, about every kung fu movies and Battle Royal. 7. You said it was not art because it did not make you think and only movies that make you think are true art. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 08:40 PM In reply to this comment (#861568) [b]Okay, see...[/b] ..."non-fiction with an agenda" and "fiction" aren't the same thing. Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't fiction, or docudrama. Yes, it portrays only one side of events, yes it leads you to conclusions without discussing other possible explanations, but it doesn't fictionalize events. It may have inaccuracies, but these aren't "fiction". Again, a documentary is NOT an educational tool, and it does NOT have to be unbiased. I agree it must educate in some manner, it must present some information, it must have a basis in fact--but it does not have to be journalism. If you disagree, what would be the correct analogous term for a film that does the same job as an editorial in a newspaper? As for the Declaration of Independence, you're right about it listing the rights of man. What's the famous line? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Right. A fantastic sentiment. But it sure as *hell* is not journalistic fact. That right there? That's an opinion--truths held to be self-evident by the writers, not facts they present as evidence. Further, the declaration at length lists the colonists' grievances against King George. Was this a list meant to inform, to simply, fairly, state the situation? No! This was a call to arms. This was a *persuasive* document. This was a document with a distinct political agenda, that gave no thought to the opposition or to dissenting views. The Declaration of Independence is a fine piece of writing, but it is *not* an educational tool, and it is *not* a piece of journalism. It's an essay, and it's non-fiction, and if it were a film it would be a short documentary. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 08:50 PM [b]Oh. My. God.[/b] I am freaking dying with laughter here. Seriously, I can't stop. LINCOLN WAS A BAD Y Dude, you forgot John Woo and Ang Lee. Also Sergio Leone, Roman Polanski, and Robert Rodriguez. HAHAHA. Good lord. I think I've just given up on you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 08:51 PM In reply to this comment (#861573) 1. You apparently missed my explanation of why your argument that a money making more money does not necessarily make it good. Here is the main part of it: The argument that a movie makes a lot of money is good is completely flawed. Movies make money for many reasons: Marketing, stars, trailers, story, timing etc. People don't go and see a movie because it's good. They see it because they HOPE it is going to be good. Just because they spend money on a movie, doesn't necessarily mean they liked it. Ghost Rider is a good example, where 50% of the users on the site who saw it, didn't like it. The Hollywood marketing machine does a pretty good job of knowing how to get people to see their movies. Even before that, it's about picking the right scripts. A `high concept' movie is one that can be explained in one or two sentences. Those are the easiest films to market, and generally the ones that make the most money because of that. Conversely, films that are not high concept, often have difficulty finding an audience. It doesnt make them worse a film because of it. It just means that it didn't have as wide an audience as a high concept movie. There is more that I posted about it, but you get the gist. You simply repeated your original argument, which I, with the above post, disputed. You need to coment on my rebuttal. 2. Again, you missed the point of my post, and none of us are saying we hate a director because of one movie. You watched PART of one movie and made a decision about all his movies. I've watched all but one of Michael Bay's movies, so I think its say to say I can make a judgement. I would never judge a director on part of one of his movies, just as I would not judge a musician on part of one of their songs. 3. "You could. But you would be wrong." I'm sorry, but this is not an argument. This is a statement you make when you can't think of any proof or a real argument. The fact that I used YOUR argument and turned it against you shows that you aren't really following things here. You need to actually back up your argument, if you are disputing something. I could have said the same thing to you about your statement: "Again that is not true, ask 100 random people and i bet the majority have not heard of it." I didn't, because it's not a rebuttal. It's an attempt at an insult. 4. I don't even know where to begin with this statement. I think you need to understand a little more about what the word "influence" means. You're really reaching with this argument. I can't even believe that you posted it. 5. What other movies did you try and watch? How far did you get? 6. Okay, well, apparently your ignorance extends beyond movies and the English language. Jackie Chan is CHINESE, or to be more exact, Hong Kong cinema. The same cinema that produced Bruce Lee. You seem to have watched a lot of the same type of movies, too. Most Kung Fu movies I have seen are pretty lame, but their like what B-movies used to be. Battle Royal is quite controversial and not for most people's tastes, but neither are any of the movies or genres you mentioned. Just out of interest, what foreign films have you seen that you liked? 7. I actually asked for a quote, not paraphrasing something that you thought I said. I never said that. I think I may have tracked down the post that you may be misreading. Here it is: "Also, I must take issue with your statment that because a movie entertained, then it was good. It also underlines the differences in opinion. Is a movie that entrtains more better than one that might be a more difficult subject? I like movies to be entertaining, but I also like to be moved, emotionally or intellectually. Let's look at Mission Impossible 3. I thought the movie was very entertaining and enjoyed watching it. United 93, on the other hand, wasn't exactly entertaining, but it was a much better movie. It was gripping and emotional." What I meant in this post was that the entertainment value of a movie is not the measure of how good a movie is. Some movies entertain, others make you think. Both can be bad, both can be good. Mission Impossible 3 was more entertaining than United 93, but United 93 was a better movie. Casino Royale entertained, but I also thought it was a better movie than United 93. Are you starting to understand? Please carefully read what I have written and try and actually make an argument against it without comments like "You could. But you would be wrong.". I'm assuming you're an adult, and intelligent adults generally don't use comments like that when trying to discuss things intelligently. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 08:54 PM In reply to this comment (#861576) [b]Highdough--[/b] --I think you officially have more patience than me. I don't think I can handle this after that last post. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 08:56 PM [b]Oh, as a note--[/b] My fiance and I went to a concert tonight. While she was on her way to the bathroom, some random drunk guy at the concert asked her if she was in school (which she is) and what her major is (she's a double major in English and Japanese). She told him she majored in Japenese, and he said "I don't know much Japanese or anything, but they've got some awesome directors over there. Kurosawa is awesome." No lie. Just happened. Pretty funny, huh? (Reply to this) |
on Apr 19 2007 09:57 PM wait............. disney??.............. awwwwwww.................... michaeal bay?.............. 65 percent yay rest awwwwww though he is becoming a pretty good director in my opinion he has made some pretty shitty ones (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 10:30 PM In reply to this comment (#861577) Ignorance seems to inspire me for some reason. I don't know why. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, maybe it's obsessive desire to educate the people around me. It's probably just the fact that I'm stubborn as hell and am waiting for the possibility that he might jusr realize, or really admit, as I think he as already realized, his argument is not holding up. I think he is attempting to be controversial, but doesn't really have the knowledge, or possibly the ability, to back up what he is saying. he throws out statements that he possibly hopes will distract us from the actual argument. His last comment about Lincoln is a perfect example. Lincoln consistently ranks among the top Presidents. Even as a Canadian, I know this. What I don't think he realizes is that Lincoln was actually a Republican. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 19 2007 10:33 PM In reply to this comment (#861578) That is very funny. Too funny. it must have been aknddon3! (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 12:27 AM In reply to this comment (#861575) Yes Lincoln was a bad president, and i am republican. More than that, i have seen a shitload of Ang movies and they suck, i have yet to see a good japanese movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 12:32 AM In reply to this comment (#861576) That proves nothing. You forget that movies that make a lot of money get a lot of RETURN VIEWS BECAUSE THEY LIKED THE MOVIE. I know what influenced means and i understand that a lot of people use it without actually being influenced by others, you need to learn that is a catchphrase of the famous so that they do not sound conceited. The only foreign movie i liked was City of God, that was good, i like Letters from Iwo Jima but that is not really a foreign movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 12:34 AM In reply to this comment (#861580) Your argument is based off of opinion yet mine holds no water? That makes no sense. Clinton and JFK rank high as great presidents yet they suck too. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 20 2007 02:00 AM In reply to this comment (#861452) Ignorant.. Because the product placement was a true representation of life, or wait.. Maybe you only stay in the comfort of your own home and never go out to see all the billboards, and promotion, and ...? And you may want to shift that dot to the left.. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 02:37 AM In reply to this comment (#861583) What about the Good the Bad and The Ugly and other spaghetti westerns, Enemy at the Gates, and a ton of British Films Lock Stock and Snatch? I actually agree with some of what you've said as I don't get Anime either and a lot of Foreign films are crap(I admittedly hate arthouse movies, modern art and performance art to me it's pretentious drivel attempting to cover up for a lack of talent), but there are a few that are worthwhile. I'm sure you were just exxagerating to make your point more strongly though. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 04:39 AM In reply to this comment (#861582) [b]So....[/b] What makes you qualified to judge Lincoln as a bad president, despite the contradicting opinion of basically every historian alive today? Also, ANG LEE'S NOT FREAKING JAPANESE! None of the people I listed was Japanese, because Jackie Chan and Kung Fu aren't freaking Japanese! The only Japanese movie you mentioned was freaking Battle Royale! That's like judging American cinema just by watching Saw. Damn. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 04:40 AM [b]What's more...[/b] ...you're still not answering the majority of the points Highdough is repeating so patiently for you. And, seriously, the only foreign film you like is City of God? Seriously? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 02:43 PM In reply to this comment (#861588) Hmm lets see he was a racist, and the whole idea of the Confederacy was that the States should have rights to have their own laws and Lincoln felt that the US government should be the end all to end all. Yeah most historians do not like Lincoln. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 02:44 PM In reply to this comment (#861589) Actually i did. But coming from a guy who thinks that Lincoln was the best your opinion means nothing. Go away. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 04:52 PM In reply to this comment (#861590) [b]Okay, dude...[/b] You are off your rocker. Find me *one* serious historian that doesn't consider Lincoln one of the best presidents. http You' Also, when did I say Lincoln was the best? I simply took issue with you saying he wasn't good, which is frankly bizarre. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 04:57 PM In reply to this comment (#861591) [b]Bull.[/b] You did *not* answer all his points. He had 7 distinct topics, and several other paragraphs, and you answered with about five sentences. You just keep evading and evading, bringing up new outrageous arguments as if hoping we'll forget that you don't actually have any response to the arguments against you. Either actually respond to what people are saying, or stop pretending you're winning the argument. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 05:37 PM In reply to this comment (#861583) Okay, apparently you missed quite a bit of my post about why some movies make more than others. Either that or you just decided to ignore it. Otherwise you would respond with something more than "That proves nothing". As for the repeated viewings, a movie like Armageddon is obviously going to get more repeated viewings than something like, say, Children of Men, as 13-25 year olds watch more movies than anyone else and they are more likely to watch movies again. Adults, 25-40, will go out to movies that interest them, but will generally not see it twice in the theatre. Believe me, I know this stuff. I make a living having to know this stuff. As for Lucas being influenced by Kurosawa, obviously we can only go by what he has said, and what is in his films. I don't personally know him, so I can't asked him if he's REALLY influenced by Kurosawa or it's just something he likes to say. Same with martin Scorses, and all the other directors that have praised Kurosawa as a director. Apparently they were only doing that because no one has heard of him and his movies suck. To me, that's a good reason to do it. My guess is that you have trouble reading the subtitles watching these foreign films, and get confused by some of the big words. Try a dubbed version. It takesa little getting used to, but some actually spend a lot of time and money getting the dubbing right. When I was young, I also had trouble following the subtitles. I watched Das Boot dubbed the first time. Great movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 05:40 PM In reply to this comment (#861584) I'm not American and couldn't give a crap what you think about your Presidents. You attempt to distract me has not worked. Sorry. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 05:44 PM [b]Oh, also...[/b] ...now that you've revealed you're totally ignorant of what is and isn't Japanese film, do you concede you were wrong to write off the entire country's films because you didn't like Seven Samurai and Battle Royale? 'Cause as far as I can tell, those are the only two Japanese movies you've seen... (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 20 2007 05:47 PM In reply to this comment (#861593) You do seem to be avoiding discussing this topic directly. You really haven't answered even half of my questions. And You have given your opinion, but not been able to back any of your opinion up with anything but conjecture. We have actually given you evidence to back up our points. We have given you quotes from famous directors, lists of top films complied by legitimate sources, and other various verifiable evidence. You have quoted your roommate and mentioned what 100 people that may not exist might say. I'm guessing you have never had to write an essay, because you don't seem to understand how to back up an argument. Either back up your argument or admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. We're waiting. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 20 2007 08:27 PM I saw that this rather innocuous news clipping about Bay's Prince of Persia movie had over 150 posts to its name and immediately I knew why and who was responsible. I never, ever figured I'd see Abraham Lincoln here, though. Excelsior! (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 22 2007 10:35 AM Anyone...anyone...aknddon3? Ya. That's pretty much what I thought. (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Links
Related Articles
-
Michael Bay Ponders Transformers 3, Bad Boys 3
(30)
-
Smallville Creators Adapting James Frey for Michael Bay
(1)
- Exclusive: Latest on Transformers 3 with producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura (117)
-
Michael Bay, Audience Darling
(433)
-
DreamWorks and Michael Bay to Reunite for James Frey Sci-Fi Project
(7)
- Director-bots: Transform! (16)
-
Bay Dreams of Nimoy for Transformers Sequel
(9)
-
Details Emerge About Michael Bay's Next Project
(3)
-
Michael Bay Talks Transformers at ShoWest
(10)
- The Legacy of The Matrix (56)
Most Discussed
- Total Recall: Keith David's Best Movies (65)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (51)
- Sundance 2010: RT's 10 Most Anticipated Movies (41)
- Weekly Ketchup: Tron Team to Remake The Black Hole (37)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (34)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: The Blind Side Takes the Lead (29)
- Friday Harvest: Iron Man 2, Harry Potter, and more! (24)
- Help Us Choose the Community Golden Tomato Award (22)
- Awards Tour: D.C. Film Critics Name Up in the Air as Year's Best (18)
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (17)
Latest News
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 2 (0)
- Critics Consensus: Princess, Invictus Are Certified Fresh (8)
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (17)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (34)
- Total Recall: Keith David's Best Movies (65)
- Awards Tour: D.C. Film Critics Name Up in the Air as Year's Best (18)
- Help Us Choose the Community Golden Tomato Award (22)
- RT's Blu-ray Picks from Sony Pictures (0)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Harry Potter and Public Enemies (13)
- The Great Directors: Clint Eastwood Will Make Your Day! (0)
Latest Interviews
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (17)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (51)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (2)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (12)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (23)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (15)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (23)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (9)
Latest Features
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 2 (0)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (34)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (51)
- Exclusive: The World of Where the Wild Things Are (9)
- Sundance 2010: RT's 10 Most Anticipated Movies (41)
- 10 Horrifically Profitable Films (46)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (2)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (106)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (107)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (25)
IGN RSS Feeds