MovieChat Forums > Starman > Replies
Starman's Replies
Yes, the best story ever, prequel, the same way like Indiana Jones TOD was a prequel as a 2nd film, but Cameron would have had to direct it. I think it would need to be made in between 86-88, to keep Michael Biehn around the same age, and also because I think Cameron still had more edge in the 80's. I would love to see all those concentration camps, and how John Connor has become such a hero among his people, make it an epic story of one man's life, from Kyle Reese's point of view, but without his voice over, let the audience see what happens, maybe even include flashbacks to his childhood.
They still could make that kind of a gritty film (without Biehn though).
If there was a second sequel and third alternative film (also directed by Cameron), imo it would have to focus on an alternative future, how the war is about to start... but still keeping up with the tone of the previous films.
T2 is not a very good film, normally sequels are better than originals, but in this case it was highly inferior, I remember when I was 11 year and saw this how dissappointed I was, no one wanted to see Arnold Termonator as a good guy, and making it a family film what started as a pure pulp horror. The sequel completely butchered the potential this franchise had after the 1st film... the seriousness of the original was gone, once the light-heartedness and cgi started appearing, it was a let down for many of us kids back then, we liked it, but as a sequel to Terminator it failed to fulfill the potential of its tone it had established. It was becoming more Hollywodized and dramatized to be taken seriously, the first film felt grounded down to earth like it could have happened in our life, 2nd film felt more like a film to enjoy, but not really something to relate to as something that could happen in life with each presented scene. It sacrificed so much, so much... people forget that because it is a quality film, but forget what following films could have done...
Obviously Robocop 2 is superior... including in special effects, which seem more grounded as well, it also didn't manage to change the tone and storyline so dramatically like T2, so it workds better as a sequel.
Yes I can't even imagine hearing that music score when it starts relentlessly going "thugh thugh thugh thugh.... oh god, scariest thing ever, is that it is fiction, yet it can happen if our psychic centers are open enough to welcome such entity into our world.
This movie is very much loved,it just I think is not for most audiences who are attached too much to our archetypes of how characters or films are supposed to be done, this is a slow and emotional western, few of them are out there, but it works for me exactly because it is so different from most movies. There used to be westerns, so many of them in the old times, but none of them had such a profound depiction of emotions and human conditions in such a deep way, it is a very humane film. It is almost an antithesis of most blockbusters, that are fast full of cgi and fantasy, this goes the opposite extreme way, and it is refreshing. If all the comic book films were made in such a slow and deep humane way, I wouldn't mind. And if westerns are meant to come back as a popular genre again, and they were meant to be made in a similar way like this film, I wouldn't mind either.
Hostiles as a film is one of the few that seems to show the ways how we can face our darkness, that even though we are depicted as heroes, we might be just as corrupted as our enemies from a different angle.
Cheesy... how many people from english speaking territories realize that most if not all languages do not even have such a word or meaning in their own, yes people say stinky, but not about something that has no smell, but really a food, not music or film, etc. Only a complete egoic cynic can invent and use such a word in such contexts, implying that they lack humility and respect for anything life brings to their attention. It reflects back on the mentality of an individual. I tend to either stay away from people who use that word in such a way or just be more careful, and for this good reason, because never have I been mistaken about it revealing exactly such a type of mind-set, energy or personality. Which is fine, everyone is different, but there's usually something prominent in such people that I can't relate to emotionally.
Funny thing is that Cobra was far more popular among teenagers at the time, that's just my experience. This film is like a video game or a song you wish to play over and over again, it stays with you longer.
Silent Hill
Rocky Balboa
It's a Boy Girl Thing
Black Book
Inquiry
I realize this might not be the right board for my post, as it's more of a statement about most uber-violent films in general, I'm just having this thought recently how far can we go in films, how far people can push the violence, films like Hostel was the furthest it could go probably, in a few decades Rated R would be rather standing for utter decadence, unless filmmakers turn it around and start using more imagination once again. But making this Rambo film, as the fifth film in the series old fashioned way, it would be quite a statement. If the film is great, it's going to be popular no mattter what rating anyway. It would have to stand on its own though, enough for the new younger generation to go see it, I know some franchises like Die Hard an Expedables used PG13 for their last films, but in my view it's not because of rating they were not as good, but the quality of films in general.
That image is amazing, so important at this time, people are finding a way how to infuse our subconscious with the androgynous nature of who we are, toxic masculinity and feminity are disappearing finally, so many of us have been waiting for this for decades, no longer uber male and uber female images, that's not the reality, evolution is changing, our DNA and male and female biology is not the same like 100 years ago, human beings are different. Plot of the film, and everything around it is on the surface, but what is underneath is very important. This is a beautiful time to be alive. I hope we'll see more actors of LGBT too, to help educate children
the value of being different and change new generations of people who used to be growing up on toxic ideas and beliefs of duality and humanity, it takes time and effort. James Cameron is well aware of our collective consciousness, human develpment and our subconscious, hence the casting and this image, and I'm sure the film will also reflect that. Teminator Genesys was a good start already. Yay.
They are connected indeed, it is called destiny, not as brother and sister. I would suggest anyone to watch this new film as a story creating an alternate timeline. Changing the narrative. At the end, anyone can choose which timeline works for them the best. But yes, the original film does not intentionally explain anything besides suggesting the idea of fate, that Michael is somehow her lover from hell, that she attracted by her sexual repression, her fears, fears to face other people, including those she secretly loves, Michael was a manifestation for her to ultimatelly face herself. Halloween was a powerful film because subliminally (wihout filmmakers'intention) taps into the psyche of collective consciousness dealing with love, fear and sexual energy. I'm very curious how they are going to develop Laurie now, to see how much has she has changed.
The Thing would not be popular even if it was released today or any time in the 80's, it is a film for special kind of audience, whereas the original The Thing From Another World is a more traditional ilmmaking that focuses on development of characters, their struggles are more pronounced and plot changes in new directions. The Thing from Carpenter within the half of the film starts feeling like an action film, war film or video game, it's all about suspense non stop, it doesn't let up. In that way it's a popcon ride full adrenaline, not really a serious type of balanced film like the orginal. On a side note, I wonder if anyone noticed that The Thing as a story has been done every 30 years now. Coincidence? The next one could go back to the novel and start all over again with new interpretations, the novel is written in such a way that it lends itself to so many new directions. Prequel from 2011 tried to follow the formula of 82 film, but the theme of not knowing who is The Thing could be taken to very extreme far more exciting directions by going even deeper, deeper into the conflicts and struggles between the characters.
Honestly lesbo sex is not as hot as gay sex anyway, and I am hetero... but still I believe people generally watch movies because of the story or energy of the whole film itself.
If so, then that reflects the audience, as to what m-asses want.
I care about the depth more, sex without feeling of the heart is empty as well, and I'm polyamorous myself.
Most people this character is supposed to represent are the ones who can help to consult how authentic and true to life it is, I think according to most trans people who are the real experts on authenticity of trans life, the character should not be played by a woman if it is a ftm trans person, because it's a man on the inside who after transition also becomes a man on the outside, only sort of physically handicapped by not having certain aspects of the male sex. Scarlett obviously cared about being true to life, just because most people are ignorant of issues of the few does not mean that the film is meant to be dishonest to reality that those few know about and most don't, many films try to bring in all kinds of experts in fields that most dont know about, only because filmmakers want the film to be realitstic as much as possible. Trans people are here to be listened to as consultants more than most whiners who have a problem with her staying away from this role, she is the producer of this film, she makes the decisions how the film should look, it is what she said, she wants the film to be played by trans people, so there could be a balance of opportunity for trans actors, and also wants the film to be more realistic. It is wiser to better listen to trans people's advice because it touches them the most with regards to authenticity, truth and spreading awareness, if it the awareness is inaccurate, it's better there is no false representation at all. If the film is not made, it's the victory all the same. Playing a character is not the same like playing a different race or gender, how many actors play a different gender or race, very few, there exist trans actors in the industry, if the film is meant to be popular, they can cast famous people around the main character, like in the case of French film Fantastic Woman. We don't live in the 90's or 00's, representation of various races and genders is more affordable.
Knowledge about things that concern the few is always going to be shared by the minority, yes pedophilia is just a sexual orientation, nothing in and of itself wrong for being part of some humans makeup, it is the physical acting on it, that is a different thing. Well said Thrillhouse (321), very true, especially about the age of consent, it completely excludes individuality, basically labelling the collective like a sheep that is meant to be the same, while dozens of us used to be born with so many new anomalies that go beyond the set up standards of science. Everyone of us ages molecularly differently, especially when you compare certain generations of people, our genes and brain development is different compared to most people 100 years ago. When science sets up a standard, the nature is always bound to eventually break it apart, because nothing stays the same, universe is in constant metamorphosis, changing and shifting.
In the 60's it was more normal to have sex around 15 or 14 years of age, wasn't it, it was at the time of sexual revolution and having relationships with older men was even more further in the past encouraged, as even 12 years old have been forced into marriage with older men. Absolutely normal, it's less so only in this modern culture, definitely not 100 years ago or the 60's, as far as I know at the time people had no problem with that. But her father was definitely not approving of her relationship because they felt he's from the wrong side of the tracks, in the 80's things didn't need to be explained, just implied and suggested, at the time people used to have more imagination, holistic perception and didn't need explanations or details as much, hence why lots of things were not purposefully shown and explained in films to allow the audience more power and space for their imagination. People didn't focus on that. But her father turning around and respecting Johnny had also a lot to do by seeing how he helped her with self confidence and as a dancer. The father was clearly a very judgmental person.
By the way, we don't even really see them 'doing it' , instead we see them dancing,touching/kissing/holding each other. Old fashioned classic filmmaking - show little/leave the rest for the audience.
To me in terms of quality Dirty Dancing can't compare to these films though, as it is an iconic film that set a new bar and was not a victim of the time as it's been widely celebrated throughout the years the same like Indiana Jones and other timeless films, it seems like pretty much everyone knows Dirty Dancing. Millions of people quote it wherver I go, etc. While many people I know haven't watched Footloose or Flashdance, or don't remember them, that's just my experience.