MovieChat Forums > Starman > Replies
Starman's Replies
Yes, good one! Have Radiohead ever had a song featured in any film so far?
You like old fashioned classical films from the 40's/50's? I am in my 30's and still watch and re-watch them regularly, I feel like one can lost grounding so to speak when paying attention only to modern films, especially filmmakers, seeing Allied for the first time made me excited to re-watch some of my favorites like Teresa (1951) and Casablanca (1942), I haven't watched anything from the last 50 years for 2 weeks since then. There's been lots of films made with a similar subject matter during and after the end of WWII, lots of romantic war films. Do you have any favorite romance/war films from that period yourself?
That's why in my view the real purpose of sequels is to take it into other directions by keeping only some key aspects of the original film. Think Halloween 3, the only connection is the halloween night, that's it. However, studios don't take risks, and neither audience tends to get challenged and adopt new perceptions, hence why they've been repeating more of the same in the following sequels, instead of less and less. Shaymalan might have been recently among the new wave of filmmakers who's started changing this exact concept, as well as the minds of the financiers. Successful trend of spin offs have also been changing this paradigm as well, as the films connected to the original universe started to venture out into other further and further directions, I feel like it was about time. This franchise deserve to go elsewhere, perhaps to use different characters, and maybe retain only the aspect of these cyborgs and the potential future of this war. Just tell the story from different angles, with different experiences.
His best acting was definitely in Twilight series, hence why the audience responded so well to him, he was perfect for the role, the same I think he's perfect to be a Batman. One of the few actors who really know how to play with body language as well. You don't need to be in high intellectual films to recognize that you are a great actor from the get go.
It helps to know how the film ends so one can enjoy the journey more rather than a destination, because at the time people were virtually unable to be spoilt by any information about the films whatsoever, or at least far less, that's why trailers used to reveal so much more. Many people have lost that ability to be in the moment, in the now, and forget what they know or don't know.
I'll use one example from a more modern film, War of the Worlds, the horror and bloody conflicts are not graphically shown as much as people's reactions to them, which is emotionally even more striking and powerful. Val Guest was a master at this as a couple of others of his generation, the old fashioned way was to rely on people's imagination a lot more, which tends to be a completely foreign concept for many modern viewers, the viewer tends to receive far more emotional reward when things are merely implied by seeing characters's responses to them, because the psychology of our brain tends to supply far more gritty picture of what happens than when it is cheated by being exposed to it, the same goes for the books.
By moving onto the later decades when films started showing more, there's still dozens of other instances from the 70's onwards: Massacre in Rome (1973), Search and Destroy(1979), Un Flic (1972), Jaws (1975), Fire in the Sky (1993), The Duellists (1977), The Others (2001), What lies Beneath (2000), Dark Knight (2008), etc.
For the message itself of the so-called political agenda it's perhaps the only film in the franchise truly worthy of watching, very positive from Cameron to do this for the younger generations. Many of us realize that we're living in a time when this is extremely needed for the upgrade of the new paradigm, to heal the toxicity of the masculine and feminine aspect we've been under for hundreds of years and bring about the balance on Earth, the 3D consciousness is stuck in the past, which is perfectly understandable. This film is going to be huge. The feminine energy rising is a mirror of the Acquarian age of Mother Gaia awakening, and metaphorically females (within men and women) are in a sense the saviors of the world, most films featuring females in power more than before is merely a reflection of that. The same is happening in other circles of life, in education, book stories, paintings, in behaviour, diet, in our DNA and genetics. The world is going through a quantum leap of a massive change far beyond of what disguises itself as this or that. God works in mysterious ways.
Finally an actor who truly looks and feels like Batman, Pattinson is easily the most physically intimidating actor for Batman, I always imagined him as a monster in the Frankenstein story actually, watch his film The Lighthouse, he's also probably going to be the tallest of all Batmans. You dont need to be bulky to be Batman, actually the opposite would be more interesting for being cunning like a snake and stealth-like, like a bat. Notice how much Pattinson looks like someone who has two sides to him, living two kinds of lives, like there's a hidden shadow side that is very attractive, it's seen especially in Twilight.
It is still the best Indy film for me, and I have grown up with them since the early 80's. This film has something very magical and special like most Disney films of the early 60's. it is about the exploration of consciousness which is still the theme of our times, it is definitely not some science fiction film, inter-dimensional beings exist for those of us who are visiting them in astral realms, it's just a fiction, like any other film.
because they are many "pseudo-remakes" ( are there? examples?)
Outside of Hollywood, possibly dozens of foreign films have done them, I can't even remember what they are.
It would be a remake when it's using basic character traits, names and so forth. Many remakes have done that, like Tarzan.
Considering countless of Rambo pseudo-remakes over the years, it would be more than welcome for millions of people to see more versions of the character, as long as it stays as far away from the book or Stallone's versions as possible, otherwise it is unnecessary to repeat what's been done before, do something different, adapt it to modern times to reflect the time we live in, not the 70's or 80's.
Sequels are not always made because of the studios wanting to capture the audience of the first film, but because there is a confidence for the sequel to stand on its own, there's many examples of that happening before in the franchises. There is a confidence in this case, because I believe the studios know of what Cameron is capable of, so no matter what, the film is going to be popular and would gain new audience easily, even despite the first film still retaining a massive cult following, the gap of 10 years is nothing, even 50 years would not hurt if the project is good, in that case this being a sequel becomes irrelevant. When Cameron made Aliens, it was not exactly the same kind of film like the first one, and neither Terminator 2, managing to almost change the entire genres and tone of the films.
I connected with this film just as much, this film and many others of European cinema (especially French) and Malick's recent films are journeys into the future of filmmaking or telling stories through various other forms, by giving us space not unlike that of a painting to explore our own projections upon it, our dreams, desires, traumas and subconscious memories, I love films like this the same way like I love Patrice Leconte's films for instance, it does not expain everything, it offers glimpses, gentle touches, colors and shapes, ideas yet to be finished by our own participation. I found this film actually very beautiful, not particularly gloomy or depressing, it is reflecting the journey into the unknown, the emptiness of the universe, as well as our own mind, and at the end into a new birth, symbolized by the void, the black hole, we're meant to encounter things that don't make "sense", only make us "feel" something, very much like during a deep meditation, it uncovers hidden things in our subconscious. I feel like it shows the wall many humans need to come across in order to reach the state of emptiness and bliss, I found the appearance of black hole at the end as a mere symbol of a higher life, the bliss itself, the whole film is all about the transition and transformation, being basically prisoners feels more like the idea of all of us being prisoners of our own body, our materialism. These kinds of things is very healthy to bring to our consciousness whenever we watch a film like this, even just to our own self, to ask who we are, what we hold in our own hearts and souls, what is it that we see, even when we keep them to our own selves, it is worthy of a little self exploration.
Anyway, the film is certainly a reflection of our own times, of fears of many sections of the society, but also great beautiful transformation happening on Earth.
Just like Brian De Palma, I feel like his work since 2000 has been the most interesting of his career, artistically, for me, maybe not commercially (Although I prefer Flatliners, Dying Young and Lost Boys), however the time of less bloated big productions was welcome, more auteur-like, and interesting experiments. I would love to see him continue, making more personal films, few people realize how versatile this man is, with an absolutely mind bloawing depth of a personality, almost a split personality, very much in touch with a feminine side that worked for him tremendously, he could make a small gritty movie, and at the same time big productions, that's why I think so many people are surprised what kind of films he has directed, with a totally different sensibility and genre for almost each film. There's a quite gothic side to his style that is slightly recognizable, his dramas can have a depth of a Sidney Lumet film, his romantic films the heart of a child. His films deserve to be re-evaluated, as their own entity, not for the purpose of discovering some repeating trademarks.
Thank you, interesting insight, which is always helping to think about the motivation and what it suggests about the programming of AI, in our own near future. Although I would like to point out, your suggestion of anti-hero (whatever that means) would be the opposite of what my intitial post was also meant to provoke, the expansion of consciousness, non-judgmental non-identifying mind, to identify with our beliefs of good or evil greatly reduces the power of our own consciousness from seeing what the film as a whole conveys as a non-dualistic message (that has no sides to choose), as a reflection, be it of society, our times, and so forth.
I understand some less open minded or intelligent users on this thread may not get it, yet some do, it also provokes a bit deeper conversation on a more philosophical level.
:)
Yes, a film that proves my point about the audience.
What that has to do with being original? By having an EXPECTATION, by saying "I want", right there it is limiting the originality and what the film is meant to be. Discussed rating here is just an example of how people can be mind controlled, to react, to perpetuate the safety of archetypes and familiarity. I've been basically using rating as a decoy to make this point, because in essence none of it should matter in the face of original creation, whatever that may be.