BurtReynolds wrote:It's not so much about great story than bad story. Bad story breaks immersion. Bad story breaks the psychic link between the artist and viewer, and the art is rendered ineffective. If a film cannot even justify its viewpoint within its own carefully constructed world, a world SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to express that viewpoint, then why would a viewer buy into it?
And this is precisely my problem with the "celebrity eclipse" phenomenon of Ben Affleck, Tom Cruise, and others that you guys got such a kick out of. If an actor's public persona is both wildly inflated and vastly different from a character they're playing, I'm unable to become immersed in the story.
Hey if you can't get passed it, you can't get passed it.
I thought I'd have that problem with Cruise, but he's so good with the action star thing and I've seen him in that role so many times I still forget about the Scientology stuff. There are probably actors I couldn't do that with though. Jennifer Lopez comes to mind.
Yeah, I understand what trag is saying but I can't get on board with it. It's not something I have an issue with.
yeah it might affect whether or not I want to see it in the first place, but once I'm watching it, I forget about it.
Same with endings. Even watching Titanic I kinda forget the ship is gonna sink.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I should remind myself that me made Brick and The Brothers Bloom. Looper and TFA have left a bad taste in my mouth.
I've only seen Brick, which I wasn't crazy about. But I admit I wasn't really in the mood for what it was and I need to give it another shot. The dialogue was soooooooooooo hard-boiled. Which, I get was kinda the point but it rubbed me wrong at the time.
Anyway, it was really beautifully shot, though.
You might dig The Brothers Bloom. It's probably better than Brick.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I should remind myself that me made Brick and The Brothers Bloom. Looper and TFA have left a bad taste in my mouth.
I've only seen Brick, which I wasn't crazy about. But I admit I wasn't really in the mood for what it was and I need to give it another shot. The dialogue was soooooooooooo hard-boiled. Which, I get was kinda the point but it rubbed me wrong at the time.
Anyway, it was really beautifully shot, though.
You might dig The Brothers Bloom. It's probably better than Brick.
That one looked really good but I never got around to watching it.
BurtReynolds wrote:It's not so much about great story than bad story. Bad story breaks immersion. Bad story breaks the psychic link between the artist and viewer, and the art is rendered ineffective. If a film cannot even justify its viewpoint within its own carefully constructed world, a world SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to express that viewpoint, then why would a viewer buy into it?
And this is precisely my problem with the "celebrity eclipse" phenomenon of Ben Affleck, Tom Cruise, and others that you guys got such a kick out of. If an actor's public persona is both wildly inflated and vastly different from a character they're playing, I'm unable to become immersed in the story.
Hey if you can't get passed it, you can't get passed it.
I thought I'd have that problem with Cruise, but he's so good with the action star thing and I've seen him in that role so many times I still forget about the Scientology stuff. There are probably actors I couldn't do that with though. Jennifer Lopez comes to mind.
Yeah, I understand what trag is saying but I can't get on board with it. It's not something I have an issue with.
yeah it might affect whether or not I want to see it in the first place, but once I'm watching it, I forget about it.
Same with endings. Even watching Titanic I kinda forget the ship is gonna sink.
Same. I mean, not about Titanic. But the rest of it.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I should remind myself that me made Brick and The Brothers Bloom. Looper and TFA have left a bad taste in my mouth.
I've only seen Brick, which I wasn't crazy about. But I admit I wasn't really in the mood for what it was and I need to give it another shot. The dialogue was soooooooooooo hard-boiled. Which, I get was kinda the point but it rubbed me wrong at the time.
Anyway, it was really beautifully shot, though.
You might dig The Brothers Bloom. It's probably better than Brick.
That one looked really good but I never got around to watching it.
I remember almost seeing it like four times. Then I was just gonna buy it from Amazon. But I never did. But yeah I've wanted to see it since it dropped.
BurtReynolds wrote:It's not so much about great story than bad story. Bad story breaks immersion. Bad story breaks the psychic link between the artist and viewer, and the art is rendered ineffective. If a film cannot even justify its viewpoint within its own carefully constructed world, a world SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to express that viewpoint, then why would a viewer buy into it?
And this is precisely my problem with the "celebrity eclipse" phenomenon of Ben Affleck, Tom Cruise, and others that you guys got such a kick out of. If an actor's public persona is both wildly inflated and vastly different from a character they're playing, I'm unable to become immersed in the story.
Hey if you can't get passed it, you can't get passed it.
I thought I'd have that problem with Cruise, but he's so good with the action star thing and I've seen him in that role so many times I still forget about the Scientology stuff. There are probably actors I couldn't do that with though. Jennifer Lopez comes to mind.
Yeah, I understand what trag is saying but I can't get on board with it. It's not something I have an issue with.
yeah it might affect whether or not I want to see it in the first place, but once I'm watching it, I forget about it.
Same with endings. Even watching Titanic I kinda forget the ship is gonna sink.
Same. I mean, not about Titanic. But the rest of it.
I know great movies have been made about less, but "stealing some plans" doesn't strike me as a very exciting Star Wars logline, especially when it happens twice and its not even the one where a bunch of Bothans died. Sounds kinda desperate.
BurtReynolds wrote:I know great movies have been made about less, but "stealing some plans" doesn't strike me as a very exciting Star Wars logline, especially when it happens twice and its not even the one where a bunch of Bothans died. Sounds kinda desperate.
Yeah, but...I mean, I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but if the characters and performances are compelling, if Edwards brings a sense of visual awe, if the action sequences are visceral, if the themes are interesting, etcetera...does it matter?
BurtReynolds wrote:I know great movies have been made about less, but "stealing some plans" doesn't strike me as a very exciting Star Wars logline, especially when it happens twice and its not even the one where a bunch of Bothans died. Sounds kinda desperate.
Yeah, but...I mean, I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but if the characters and performances are compelling, if Edwards brings a sense of visual awe, if the action sequences are visceral, if the themes are interesting, etcetera...does it matter?
No it doesn't matter assuming the rest is true, it just makes me think they took some old script and shoehorned it into Star Wars or something. That's a theory that I made up right this second that I'm going to believe is true because fuck star wars.
BurtReynolds wrote:I know great movies have been made about less, but "stealing some plans" doesn't strike me as a very exciting Star Wars logline, especially when it happens twice and its not even the one where a bunch of Bothans died. Sounds kinda desperate.
Yeah, but...I mean, I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but if the characters and performances are compelling, if Edwards brings a sense of visual awe, if the action sequences are visceral, if the themes are interesting, etcetera...does it matter?
No it doesn't matter assuming the rest is true, it just makes me think they took some old script and shoehorned it into Star Wars or something. That's a theory that I made up right this second that I'm going to believe is true because fuck star wars.
