MovieChat Forums > einsteinfountain > Replies
einsteinfountain's Replies
I agree 100% Even though I think I prefer 2 I can't fight that. Solid points my man.
You might be able to even make the case Aliens is a better sequel than Terminator 2. I say this and I adore both these films. Aliens does not rehash the plot of the first Alien. It also introduces some cool new ideas to the franchise. Now the thing I give the first Alien is I felt everyone was fair game to die in that film. Where as in Aliens it was obvious Ripley and Newt were going to make it out alive. Alien had the brilliance of not making it obvious who the main star was until the end. The Alien is more mysterious and scary in the first also. I do like Sigourney Weaver's performance a tad more in the second though. I also like how it is a bit more fast paced and fun honestly. Yeah it is a tough call I love both honestly.
Oh no yes Empire is hands down better than the Last Jedi. It is like I said if you compared BVS Dawn of Justice and the Dark Knight it is like really come on man.
The official definition is the correct way to define something.
Then the film is badly executed. It wouldn't matter if the film was trying to preach a political agenda, a religious agenda or anything if it is badly executed it makes no difference what message it is trying to convey.
Thing is people will dismiss something completely if it is woke. Which would mean you dismiss a film like Moonlight just off the basis of knowing what the subject matter is. How am I suppose to respect an opinion when someone walks in with a slanted view already ready to dislike the film? Judge a film for what it is not what you like or do not like.
Birdman is well shot acted, and written. You can call it pretentious all you want that does not take away where it will stand in film history.
I know exactly what I said he learned what emotion is but he can not have it. He knows why life is valuable but again a machine can never feel.
This drives the entire objective though.
See I disagree here. I think you have a strong case either way with Alien vs Aliens or Terminator vs Terminator 2. This isn't like okay what is better The Dark Knight or Batman V Superman Dawn of Justice. That is such a joke of a comparison it is not worth mentioning. Terminator vs 2 or Alien vs Aliens you have a strong case for preferring either.
First lets go over the definition of woke. People most of the time do not even understand the meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke
<blockquote>aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)</blockquote>
A film such as 12 Years a Slave can be called woke. So can a film like Schindler's List or even a film such as Selma or Moonlight. Are these films bad because they are woke? Nope. Can a film that is woke be bad yes but like anything it is determined by execution.
There Will Be Blood often gets called pretentious. Does this have any bearing on the acting, cinematography, music, editing, etc?
Disagree about it being a throwaway line. Sarah's closing speech says if a Terminator can learn the value of a human life maybe we can too. Showcasing that humanity can survive if we learn the value of life.
The fact they made it an objective really explores this concept and fleshes it out. The other aspect is a machine can learn emotion but it can not have emotion. Another theme not present in the first.
So answer this why do the mass majority of critics and the mass majority of people all have Terminator 2 above one?
See but that is just the deal. Terminator 2 does rehash the plot but it also adds more depth than the first one offered. There is no fate but what we make, how it is in our nature to destroy ourselves and Sarah having to put aside her distrusting of the T800 were all great themes added into the second film. The first one does have depth but is more straightforward than the second one is.
A movie being pretentious is not necessarily in my opinion a valid argument as to why a film is bad. Neither is a film being woke a valid point either. What matters is the execution of the film. People often misuse the word woke or think by seeing if something is pretentious automatically means ok bad. Some of the greatest films of all time are woke or pretentious.
I agree the soundtracks deserved better films.
I agree about the music on the video actually. I felt the prequels despite being lackluster had really good soundtracks honestly.
I agree if you rehash it will have much higher difficulty of making it's own mark. Here is an interesting question though. Terminator 2 is absolutely a sequel but undeniably a rehash of the first. Thing is Terminator 2 revolutionized special effects where as the first one did not. Which is the better film? If you go by cultural impact and memorability the second one would take the mantle.
Okay so then if a movie is deeper than another does that by default make it better? Say for instance you have a film such as Chinatown vs a film like Mad Max Fury Road.
Okay so then something being a rehash does not by default make it bad either then correct?
Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. What would stop someone from saying it is an objectively bad film because it has no story or depth?
If I was making an excuse I would have just honed in on your misquote while not acknowledging my error. I did not do that. Lets move past this point okay my bad.
Here is my issue though is something bad by default because it is a rehash? If so that means Terminator 2 is by default a bad film. Furiosa, Nux and Immortan Joe are the standout characters. However what makes their arcs unique? Nux goes through the positive character arc change the most common character arc used in literature. Immortan Joe is simply a negative flat villain that oppresses. Furiosa is the rebel who goes against the oppressor. Is any of that unique?
So does that mean Mad Max Fury Road is also an objectively bad film?
Okay so despite the production value you feel the other elements are so bad it negates the films technical achievements? This video is discussing the music and why it is underwhelming. Care to share why the writing is so bad for TFA specifically. Not the others this one. Actually hold on let me finish this video actually.
When I acknowledge I should have said best openly what more needs to be done? I am honestly asking?
Couldn't someone call that film mindless fun? What is the story depth? Is that a unique story when objectively measuring it as a screenplay?
No I am not. A film can excel at one thing and be sub par in many areas and still be considered a decent film. Avatar is a cliche derivative story that completely relies on the technical stuff. Avatar did revolutionize certain things technically for special effects. Revolutionizing things or pioneering things for effects or visuals can help you out a ton. It can be the very thing that makes your movie considered good.
I agree that story, and characters hold up better than technical scale things do. However film is a visual medium therefore visuals matter more in the film world than vs lets say writing a book.
I acknowledged I should have said best. Thing is you want me to literally gravel and go I was so wrong. I made an error I acknowledged that. Since you keep bringing that up I will gladly keep bringing up how you misquoted me. Your misquote did change the meaning actually. If someone said Occam's razor means the simplest explanation is the best one they would be wrong. That makes it that you are making it an absolute stance. Saying it is THE best when the correct term would be it is often the best. I admit I should have said best openly but you are wrong by saying that not including often does not change the core meaning.
Is Mad Max Fury Road mindless fun?
True okay I would be happy to.
Yet again you can objectively break down from a visual perspective or sound perspective why TFA is good. Movies are made up of tons of things. Technically TFA is a well shot film, with good sound. Not every criticism is valid of TFA. Are there some good criticisms sure but again you can say the film is good and not agree with all the criticisms that claim it is a bad film.
So then if the point about the flaw would be correct and if they have several you can not come against, then that means they have the right to call the film bad because of those flaws correct?