The Movie House - Part 11

Firenze wrote:I was about to say it doesn't, before even watching the trailer.

Surprisingly it doesn't look like the worst thing ever.

Stop hating. Greatest thing ever imo

Super hyped for this now. Looks awesome.

Freeza wrote:

Why the hell does this work...

This looks way better than it has any right to be

Just... why is Charizard furry?

Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald

A clear filler film unfortunately. Pretty disjointed with so many different plot lines going on and trying to converge. Lots of nice nods to the main HP series, some were good, others unnecessary.

The Rise of Grindelwald would've been a better title.

6/10.

Huh, i hadn't seen that Pokemon trailer. By the looks of it, there could be reasons to not be too pessimistic with what the quality of the film will be. The film seems to have a gritty aesthetic and story, even down to Pikachu's voice, so at least the film didn't turn out to be all bright and happy in order for biggest possible mass appeal.

It might end up having some substance... for a mainstream film  that has potential to serve as basically a 2 hour commercial for toys.

This movie was my entire childhood. So happy I'll get to witness it again in a new medium.

Now this film existing i don't agree with.

The Madrid One wrote:Now this film existing i don't agree with.

Any reason?

1. Well, its one of those reboot/remake type of films that aims to use brand recognition and nostalgia to draw people in. Since the main objective is to draw in cash through conglomerate enterprise, studios are more than willing to spend a couple hundred million on remaking a film that already exists instead of using that money to fund new stuff with more artistic integrity. To make things worse, the studios will make a profit and the film will end up getting a 90% minimum rating on rotten tomatoes and the cycle will repeat with Toy Story 4, Frozen 2, and Sleeping Beauty 6.

2. Uncanny Valley Effect:  "The concept of the uncanny valley suggests humanoid objects which appear almost, but not exactly, like real human beings elicit uncanny, or strangely familiar, feelings of eeriness and revulsion in observers."

AKA, i do not find the graphics impressive, especially since it's not 1995 anymore (year Toy Story revolutionized things), and i indeed also am repulsed a tad by the graphics and the reasoning behind them, which is basically to add incentive for people to pay for Lion King merchandise again. Looks like a PS4 video game.

Also, these are video game representations of real animals, i can't sense personality from them. Photo-realism doesn't necessarily make for better art. I get more from this



than this




At least with the Pokemon movie, there's a universe that WOULD BE interesting to see with "real" graphics, it has not been done before, and the story seems to be gritty.

The Madrid One wrote:1. Well, its one of those reboot/remake type of films that aims to use brand recognition and nostalgia to draw people in. Since the main objective is to draw in cash through conglomerate enterprise, studios are more than willing to spend a couple hundred million on remaking a film that already exists instead of using that money to fund new stuff with more artistic integrity. To make things worse, the studios will make a profit and the film will end up getting a 90% minimum rating on rotten tomatoes and the cycle will repeat with Toy Story 4, Frozen 2, and Sleeping Beauty 6.

2. Uncanny Valley Effect:  "The concept of the uncanny valley suggests humanoid objects which appear almost, but not exactly, like real human beings elicit uncanny, or strangely familiar, feelings of eeriness and revulsion in observers."

AKA, i do not find the graphics impressive, especially since it's not 1995 anymore (year Toy Story revolutionized things), and i indeed also am repulsed a tad by the graphics and the reasoning behind them, which is basically to add incentive for people to pay for Lion King merchandise again. Looks like a PS4 video game.

Point 1 is only analysing the entire industy on a macro level.
Of course it's about making money, but looking at it only that way is to be intentionally oblivious and cynical to the micro level that movies are made in.

Jon Favreau, the director, basically has carte blanche to do whatever he wants to do. And he chose this project, becaus he loves it. He certainly doesn't need money, he can pretty much do what he wants.

So to suggest this movie only happens because of the corporate side of things isn't an honest interpretation of what happens when movies are made.

Would it be made regardless? Sure. But every single movie, and story in general, are remakes. The oldest form of storytelling is telling stories you've heard from one part to another part, thereby remaking another person's story as your own. It's a discipline as old as humankind.
___

Quick question. Have you seen Jungle Book? Because I don't see how you can watch that film, and completely ignore the passion that has been injected into a project like that.

And the graphics are incredible considering they aren't completed.

The reason i mentioned the macro is because it obviously affects the micro. Jon Favreau does not have "carte blanche;" what does that even mean? He has boundaries set by studios and by the pre-existing material that this is based on.

You think studios will let him make an experimental expressionistic thing with themes of sociopathy and sexual abuse from Scar if that's what the director wanted? Studio will find someone who can do a "good job" within the parameters they are looking for.

That point you make about storytelling is apologetic and too simplistic, and i think you know this.

To top it off, the screenwriter is apparently known for panned reboot/remake/sequel films such as Speed 2, Rush Hour 3, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Skull, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales.

The Madrid One wrote:The reason i mentioned the macro is because it obviously affects the micro. Jon Favreau does not have "carte blanche;" what does that even mean? He has boundaries set by studios and by the pre-existing material that this is based on.

You think studios will let him make an experimental expressionistic thing with themes of sociopathy and sexual abuse from Scar if that's what the director wanted? Studio will find someone who can do a "good job" within the parameters they are looking for.

That point you make about storytelling is apologetic and too simplistic, and i think you know this.

To top it off, the screenwriter is apparently known for panned reboot/remake/sequel films such as Speed 2, Rush Hour 3, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Skull, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales.

It means he can do whatever project he wants to do. He wanted to do it, not to sell toys, or of monetary gain, but because he likes the property. If he wanted to go to any other studio to make a deal with them he could have.

To only see this as some kind of cynical cash grab is just all wrong imo. There's this notion that franchises and remakes are only there for the money, and sure, it's a big part of every single popular entertainment.
But to not realize that all good franchise/remake movies are a labour of love is wrong. Favreau has only made a single movie that wasn't that, Cowboys and Aliens. Hell, the original Lion King is already a Shakespeare adaptation with animals.


And I don't think Disney would give this property to anyone. It's their most beloved animated film I'd say. No way they were giving it to anyone lesser than Favreau.

To top it off?
You do realize the first Lion King is has like 25 credited writers. And you single out a writer's worst works to claim this script is bad, despite him having shown he can adapt a decent script with a capable director. His only other adaptation from a book or work is Catch Me If You Can as far as I can tell. Original storytelling is clearly not his forté, which is where the woman with the story credit comes in. He's merely a formalist it seems.

If you only list a writer's worst works, I could make William Goldman seem like a shit writer.

I think you haven't exactly grasped what i'm trying to say here.

Lets take the Star Wars films. The macro clearly affected the micro. Disney gave the filmmakers parameters with which they could work with, and the director, screenwriter, etc, mutually agreed to make a film within those parameters which could satisfy the parties involved.

With Episode 7 for example, you could have said: "I don't think Disney would give this property to anyone. It's their most beloved franchise I'd say. No way they were giving it to anyone lesser than Abrams." And Abrams agreed to take part in that embarrassment.

So it's not about intentions, but how the intentions affect artistic parameters. You can't just ignore that the biggest motivator from studios here is money. Just not my cup of tea.

Calling Episode 7 an embarrassment. I actually don't know how to even continue this so I'll just stop.

Just seems you've got such a narrow-minded view on any popular movies despite their quality.

The Madrid One wrote:1. Well, its one of those reboot/remake type of films that aims to use brand recognition and nostalgia to draw people in. Since the main objective is to draw in cash through conglomerate enterprise, studios are more than willing to spend a couple hundred million on remaking a film that already exists instead of using that money to fund new stuff with more artistic integrity. To make things worse, the studios will make a profit and the film will end up getting a 90% minimum rating on rotten tomatoes and the cycle will repeat with Toy Story 4, Frozen 2, and Sleeping Beauty 6.

2. Uncanny Valley Effect:  "The concept of the uncanny valley suggests humanoid objects which appear almost, but not exactly, like real human beings elicit uncanny, or strangely familiar, feelings of eeriness and revulsion in observers."

AKA, i do not find the graphics impressive, especially since it's not 1995 anymore (year Toy Story revolutionized things), and i indeed also am repulsed a tad by the graphics and the reasoning behind them, which is basically to add incentive for people to pay for Lion King merchandise again. Looks like a PS4 video game.

Also, these are video game representations of real animals, i can't sense personality from them. Photo-realism doesn't necessarily make for better art. I get more from this



than this




At least with the Pokemon movie, there's a universe that WOULD BE interesting to see with "real" graphics, it has not been done before, and the story seems to be gritty.

That's the whole point mate. And I dont think we can criticize the makers for that especially when the film is one like Lion King. This is them trying to give something, we of the 90s grew up watching, something so precious to us and to them to this generations' kids.
If they are making money doing that, let them. Hell, I would even go so far as to say its a wonderful thing they are doing especially considering the care they are taking here by bringing in some of the best technicians and actors into this. They are even bringing back James earl Jones for reprising the iconic voice of Mufasa.

On the other hand if its  about an Ice age or a Despicable me churning out one sequel after another or a Big bang theory needlessly airing more and more seasons, what you are saying is correct. It is clearly a ploy to draw in more and more cash from past success.

As for the graphics here, its upto each one's tastes I guess. If its Jungle Book level, I think it would be fine.

The Jungle Book was outstanding. You can apply cynicism to whatever you like, and it's not even totally wrong in this case, but if the finished product is that good, then they were certainly right to do it. From an artistic OR corporate point of view.

Can't paint every remake with broad stroke and say it's all soulless corporatism. Real passion and vision can go into making these things. To re-imagine it.

If it's anything like that, then I don't see a reason to not want this to be made. Given that it's the same director and studio from The Jungle Book, I'm excited.

Half expecting Fury to show up after the credits

'Simba, right? Read your file, have you heard of the Avengers Initiative?'

I liked the original Lion King film, I liked the story books (Jungle Book included) when I was younger. But I can't really say I am looking forward to this because I just don't have the same emotional attachment as others.

Love the Lion King

I think it looks amazing and I can't wait. The results of The Jungle Book, which was fantastic, are enough for me to have faith that they'll do really well.

Life Itself was fucking assault

lol why did you watch. All-round bad reviews.

He took one for team GL as far as I'm concerned. I would know since I did it with Valerian last year.

The trailer for that movie was peak pretensiousness.

I saw it for free at work.

Had to witness the madness.

Most pretentious thing I’ve seen my entire life. Best thing was Olivia Wilde getting hit by a bus and Oscar Isaac blowing his brains out in his therapists office

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

I liked it quite a bit and I generally don't like anthologies all that much as they can be very disjointed. There was a great harmony to this one though. It was a typical Coen work with the dark humor and unfortunate fates of the characters. Very well acted and had some gorgeously shot locations.

8.5/10

McLewis wrote:The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

I liked it quite a bit and I generally don't like anthologies all that much as they can be very disjointed. There was a great harmony to this one though. It was a typical Coen work with the dark humor and unfortunate fates of the characters. Very well acted and had some gorgeously shot locations.

8.5/10

Watched it too. Coen Brothers Started off hilariously and then got progressively darker. The cinematography was truly excellent. My favorite story was the the gold prospector one and least favorite was the last one on the stagecoach.