MovieChat Forums > dirkdiggler > Replies
dirkdiggler's Replies
No love for Close Encounters?
I agree. It’s the perfect thriller. Every scene feels iconic. The characters are burned into our memories. It’s a grand adventure that even kids can watch, but it’s got serious horror film vibes, shocking/realistic violence, and a strong sense of foreboding and dread, combined with the triumph of human ingenuity. It is possibly the most perfect high concept movie. There’s a reason its template has been copied over and over again.
Her songs are pretty mediocre tbh fam. You want a great singer/songwriter try Laura Nyro.
I think Burke was just using the damage to company property angle as an excuse to disguise his real agenda of preserving the alien species. As he mentions a few seconds later, it was an “important species... that no one has the right to arbitrarily exterminate.” Burke was a psychopath who saw the alien as his ticket up the corporate ladder.
Dr Wren in Resurrection mentions that the potential for the species went beyond “urban pacification.” They talked about studying the alien to develop new alloys and vaccines. Basically because the alien was the ultimate organism, it had potential to be used not as a weapon itself, but its biology could be studied to improve weapon and medical technology they already had.
The film is not Tolkien’s work. You’re talking about the books. While the books are considered one long story, the films are obviously three separate installments. In fact, Tolkien would no doubt disown the movies because of how different they were. At the end of the day, it’s still a trilogy.
<blockquote> Rohan and Gollum carried over into Part III so therefore those are not individual subplots.</blockquote>
You mean like how Vader and the Emperor also “Carry over” into Ep. 6? Then those are not “individual subplots” either.
<blockquote> The same cannot be said for Lord of the Rings.</blockquote>
There’s literally no difference between what you described in Star Wars and what happens in LOTR. LOTR also has an overarching story with individual subplots in each of the films. The first was about discovering the ring and the formation of the Fellowship. The second was about enlisting Rohan’s aid and securing Helm’s Deep. Etc. The only difference is that the films were shot at the same time over 2 years, but other than that, each film looks and feels different.
<blockquote> TDK trilogy is as perfect as it gets.</blockquote>
Kind of a laughable statement. TDK is filled with so many plot holes it barely holds up.
Just because the movie is based off the book does not make it the same as the book. The films are three different and distinct entries. You could play the same scenes side by side and you’d notice they are different. Tolkien is only an authority on the books, not the films. Also the films are pretty different compared to the books. Saying there are no different subplots in Two Towers is incorrect, as the main issue of the film involves Rohan, the Ents, and Gollum, which is different from the previous film. By that logic we can also say Empire Strikes Back is just a continuation of the story of the first movie with the rebels seeking to defeat the empire.
Also rest assured, you haven’t debunked anything. In fact, the Dark Knight might be one of the most poorly scripted blockbusters ever made. Plot holes being enough to drive the bat mobile through. It’s a turn off your brains popcorn movie in the vein of Transformers. Or maybe Independence Day.
If we’re going by the books then yes Tolkien considered it one story, but the films are not the books. They are obviously edited and marketed as three separate and distinct movies. Obviously the Star Wars movies can’t stand on their own either (except the first one), but they’re still a trilogy.
Anyway, I found Nolan’s Batman movies to be too full of plot holes and just bad script design to be seriously considered as the best of all time.
Lady Gaga also sucks
Looks like pure cringe
Nolan’s trilogy is highly flawed and overrated. For simplicity’s sake, Lord of the Rings is a trilogy due to it consisting of three distinct and separate films.
There are also other trilogies like Dollars, Evil Dead, Bourne, and the Apu trilogy that leave Nolan’s in the dust.
I mean, all those did end. Although Tarzan ‘99 was pretty good.
If we’re being honest, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are the best official trilogies. Then after that are loose trilogies like Three Colours or Antonioni’s trilogy on modernity and its discontents. Nolan’s Batman trilogy so far too flawed and overrated to be seriously considered.
What different takes? Each interpretation of Batman in movies is the fcking same. He’s a brooding antihero who dwells in a mansion.
You can say that about any character. “Superman is like James Bond,” “Indiana Jones is like James Bond” blah blah blah. At the end of the day, we do not need every movie to become a franchise with endless sequels.
It’s a remake disguised as a sequel.
Yes, two days before 9/11. His assassination was a huge tipoff.
But in Afghanistan Massoud is a national hero.
“Sometimes” can mean anything from once a week to once a month. It’s not a useful barometer of information.
Anyway, I ask again, why should multiplexes only be constrained to “mindless entertainment” and not be more high brow?
You never said “occasional,” also why should “real theatre” be relegated to indie or art house instead of the multiplex? We should hold our blockbuster entertainment to a higher standard.
<blockquote> I don't expect "real cinema" from a comic book production</blockquote>
Why not? Hollywood USED to make quality comic book adaptations. Nowadays it’s the equivalent of daytime tv. You people who just seek mindless entertainment no matter the quality are part of the problem.