Scots Taffer on 27/4/2008 at 23:58
Quote Posted by Stitch
why would anyone want to see either of these movies
In all fairness, Ironman looks like entirely (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZp2qpZtfbo) watchable pap whereas Speed Racer looks like technicolour vomit and the trailer made my toes curl so much that I'm pretty sure my toenails will come out in my shit. That said, it does appear to be aimed at young children.
DaBeast on 28/4/2008 at 01:23
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
In all fairness, Ironman looks like entirely (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZp2qpZtfbo) watchable pap whereas Speed Racer looks like technicolour vomit and the trailer made my toes curl so much that I'm pretty sure my toenails will come out in my shit. That said, it does appear to be aimed at young children.
I agree completely.
Ironman looks like it could possibly be awesome but might be shit.
BEAR on 28/4/2008 at 03:07
These will both be terrible movies.
Malygris on 28/4/2008 at 05:46
Not that I have anything against mindless popcorn-gorfing fun, but
Quote Posted by Stitch
why would anyone want to see either of these movies
Scots Taffer on 28/4/2008 at 06:05
guy in hotrod red metal suit blowing shit up and flying around looks more fun than transformers
ZylonBane on 28/4/2008 at 06:28
Quote Posted by Stitch
why would anyone want to see either of these movies
To piss you off.
Thirith on 28/4/2008 at 06:30
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
This is a real shame. The total disconnect is what makes them interesting. You know when people talk about popcorn flicks not needing to be grounded in reality when they are excusing something crud? Well the total disconnect is the only situation where this really applies. You're missing out man. Too bad.
That's the thing, though. I like escapism, but if there's not at least a glimmer of something human there, it bores me. I don't particularly enjoy sitting through two hours of what is just eye candy, just like I can't look at a gorgeous piece of abstract art for two hours. Give me 5-10 minutes and I'll appreciate it for what it is, but longer than that and I feel it's too much of a good thing. Which is one of the reasons why I enjoyed the
Sin City trailer but disliked the film itself. The other thing is pacing and rhythm - too many of those films bombard you with stuff, but without moments of quiet - without pianissimo passages to offset the fortissimo ones, so to speak - it's all just noise. Insolent noise. (Okay, ignore that last bit. That was just my film geek brain doing a silly hyperlink. ;))
Did you enjoy
The Phantom Menace? If not, why weren't you able to go for the total disconnect there?
Iron Man looks like fun, though, and it's Robert Downey Jr. who should be able to keep it grounded for me.
Fafhrd on 28/4/2008 at 07:25
Christ, it's like a bunch of you just turned into Aerothorn. Whatever the hell happened to having FUN at the movies?
SubJeff on 28/4/2008 at 07:31
Quote Posted by Thirith
Did you enjoy
The Phantom Menace? If not, why weren't you able to go for the total disconnect there?
Because it's not the same type of film - it's supposed to be grounded in it's
own reality.
Thirith on 28/4/2008 at 07:46
Sorry, I'm not sure which film you're referring to with "it" now: Speed Racer or The Phantom Menace? I would think that TPM *is* grounded in its own reality (unless you're talking about lack of continuity with the Original Trilogy), probably as much as Speed Racer will be.
Fahfrd: That is one of the stupidest strawman arguments I can think of. Fun at the movies? Sure, I enjoy myself at the movies. But do you enjoy any- and everything at the cinema? Aren't there films that you didn't like or even hated where other people said, "It's just a movie, for fuck's sake! What happened to having FUN at the movies?"
