nicked on 5/8/2008 at 19:28
I don't think that film series become crap because of the lower rating, it's just that when studios say "Alright, tone down the violence to appeal to the kiddies" they've usually had a say in the rest of the film such as script, art direction etc. as well to try and make the whole film appeal more to the mouth breathers who make up 90% of cinema-goers.
The lower rating doesn't necessarily mean a bad film, it just means compromises will have been made.
rachel on 5/8/2008 at 20:03
I thought T3 was pretty decent. It biggest flaw I would say would be to have Schwarzie in it, but the ending alone makes it worth the watch.
I liked the TV show too. Granted, it's no Emmy material, and it took a bit to get into it, but it's a different take and it was quite refreshing.
Koki on 5/8/2008 at 20:03
Quote Posted by Hier
Also, I find it funny when people trash T3 but hold up the first two as being fantastic films. All three had epic action pieces (or in T3's case, only one epic action piece) separated by terrible acting and dialog.
no
Scots Taffer on 5/8/2008 at 23:45
Quote Posted by Hier
All three had epic action pieces (or in T3's case, only one epic action piece) separated by terrible acting and dialog.
no (although I agree with you that the Terminator becoming "more human" is the weakest part of T2)
Quote Posted by BR796164
T2 followed the mold of T1. Ok, bigger budget, several upgrades and for the time being people were happy with it. But T3 comes and BANG - again the same mold! Two times is fine, but stepping three times into the same slop is a shame.
Gotta say this is incorrect, the mold of T2 set the standard for T3, Terminator buddies up with humans against more advanced Terminator and through the Human-Terminator interactions adding a layer of humour etc.
Quote Posted by BR796164
...but as I look at the history of some series, it's fairly obvious to me they're getting childish. But it also has to do with the fact that once innovative films and monsters are becoming common and stereotypical and new installments sometimes look more like parodies of the originals (send my regards to 007).
Er, did you just say that Quantum of Solace looks like a Bond
parody? Bizarre.
Anyway, as for your other point, I feel like cinema audiences have been getting a raw deal for quite some time when it comes to big blockbuster entertainment... somewhere around the mid-90s they stopped making saavy action movies that poked fun at the genre while truly indulging in it and the blockbusters stopped having to make a lot of sense and just feature a lot of noise and CGI (I see a good example in Jurassic Park to the sequel to the sequel as a diminishing return consistent with the way Hollywood has been treating the audience when it comes to "popcorn" fun).
That said, this year has featured two of the better blockbusters of recent memory - Iron Man and The Dark Knight - one of which simply excels at being a slick, funny, action packed genre piece and the other breaks the boundaries of what we've come to expect from "popcorn" cinema. And if anything, the occasional hits - when they come - are huge, some of the movies over the last few years have been personally huge for me.
What I have noticed is a propensity for a great deal of utter unmitigated shit to come out of Hollywood by the truckload in recent years, without really any apology for the quality of the productions because they attach the right amount of marketability to make it a profitable expectation. That's what's really gone wrong with Hollywood in the past 10 years, the profitability outlook has become paramount at the expense of quality and entertainment in some cases, however that's not entirely their fault, what with the ballooning production costs on nearly every front.
Rogue Keeper on 6/8/2008 at 09:40
Quote Posted by nicked
The lower rating doesn't necessarily mean a bad film, it just means compromises will have been made.
Compromises! That's what I had on my mind. What I wanted from a Terminator sequel for years before T3 came out was a hardboiled futuristic war film, reminiscencing peril of common men in muddy WW1/2 trenches and struggle of last surviving islands of humanity WITHOUT COMPROMISES. I wanted burning carousels, books and happy family photos and dollies flying through the air, I wanted to see mommies and daddies and kiddies and doggies being burned to skeletons, their mouth open in a silent scream and then their skeletons being vaporized in split of second by cleansing power of the Holy Flame, all that shown in visually aesthetic slow-motion. After that I wanted to see dead cities falling apart, at night few unfortunate survivors covered in blood crawling out of their dusty holes through the rubble like dirty vermin. And then squadron of Terminators being risen out of thin air, marching in their characteristic unstoppable manner through the ruins of once superior human race, finishing off those pathetically begging organic worms, spreading the seeds of their final, slow lingering death - the beginning of the greatest racial cleansing the Earth has ever seen. Hard material? You bet. That's what I call "RESTRICTED". They don't call it
THE JUDGMENT DAY for nothing, right? Will I ever get such Terminator film? Barely probable. It was naturally more probable that Hollywood was about to deliver me aging Mr. Olympia who looks like bad copy of himself just on first sight, so not charismatic and confused leader of future resistance who as a boy was 300% sweeter than Furlong's impersonation and also some blonde Terminatrix pussycat changing the size of her bosom at will.
Bleh.
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
(although I agree with you that the Terminator becoming "more human" is the weakest part of T2)
Gotta say this is incorrect, the mold of T2 set the standard for T3, Terminator buddies up with humans against more advanced Terminator and through the Human-Terminator interactions adding a layer of humour etc.
Hmm. Well, if you examine many serious sci-fi's about robots, in many of them the humanization of a machine plays a central role. Where is the border between advanced thinking machine and conscious being, setting up moral values for it's own? That question is always worth of examination. If it helps to turm a common action film into something more to think about - what's wrong with that? I already seen a typical Terminator bastard with Arnold's face - why to see the same again? Let's examine other aspects of this arteficial intelligence. Any advanced AI should be able to learn something new and so it does. We realize it's a mind one can alter and so alter the destiny, the future. It is interesting to speculate how the Terminator understands the human things he learned. Does his AI really understand the value of human life and humor or is it just like any common computer, THUMB UP and HASTA LA VISTA at appropriate moment, just because it's CPU evaluated it would be a suitable time for such gestures?
I love the final metaphor Sarah Connor made : "If a machine, a Terminator can learn the value of human life, perhaps we can too."
Which is a perfect final nail in context of other points earlier in the films, and makes T2 more than just your ordinary summer blockbuster - which T3 obviously is. Funny though, T2 was basically a rememberable benchmark action film for the rest of 90s until The Matrix inherited this throne. Matrix films deal with the same theme of Rise of the Machines, but their humanist message remotely don't reach those of T1/2.
The mold? Two jerks from the future come back in time to kill/protect someone dangerous/hopeful. And later again. And later ONCE AGAIN. Besides that, Arnie was too famous and loved at the time of T2 not to play a bad guy anymore.
I agree that the humor in T3 is a disputable thing, but it's also a proof that the makers don't take that particular mold seriously anymore. T3 is on brink of parody of it's own theme. Which can be enjoyable in it's own terms, but is this the right way sequels of serious films should go?
Quote:
Er, did you just say that Quantum of Solace looks like a Bond
parody? Bizarre.
Well, for 007 the premise isn't overly serious. Dr. No film was arguably "serious", but you can't keep 007 stories serious for too long. In fact, I tend to enjoy humorous Bond films (such as Diamonds Are Forever) much more than those attempts for serious ones - they're usually failing in my book.
I'm not so sure what to think about re-boot with Casino Royale. It sure as hell tries to look serious. But was the re-boot necessary, did it add anything significant? While I see a good reason for re-booting of Batman as Schumacher totally threw it to trash bin, I see little reason for re-booting of 007. I don't argue about 007 much anyway - Casino Royale is a decent, but still very common Bond film.
1. ACTION
2. CREDITS
3. BLAH BLAH
4. PUSSY
5. ACTION
6. ALCOHOL
7. ACTION
8. POKER
9. ALCOHOL
10. PUSSY
11. ACTION
12. CREDITS
Connery was the first and the best Bond ever. Why? Just look at his eyes, as if you could read behind them "Look buddies, I stopped here along the way just for some fun and money, otherwise I don't give a shit about this circus, winkwink. Cheers!" And that's probably what made his 007 films so charming and witty. All other 007 actors took their role overly seriously and that's why they all can just crouch shamefully in Connery 007's shadow.
Matthew on 6/8/2008 at 09:52
That reading of Connery is wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin.
Thirith on 6/8/2008 at 10:09
It does sound more like a description of Roger Moore's Bond, that's for sure.
rachel on 6/8/2008 at 10:14
The Casino Royale reboot is probably the best Bond flick since Connery, even better than GoldenEye. Its dark mood brings a kind of Jason Bourne feel that suits it perfectly, giving it an edge that was missing in previous movies.
As they say in Spy Game, "Oh, yes it's a game. It's exactly what it is. And it's no kid's game either. This is a whole other game. And it's serious and it's dangerous. And it's not one you want to lose."
icemann on 6/8/2008 at 10:38
The sound effects were ALOT better in T2 than in T3 which was really sad. Take the Terminator dream in T3 for example with all the Terminators shooting with video game style laser shooting sound effects compared to the sounds of guns in T1 and T2.
That for me was a very early sign of the movie sucking absolute ass. Rest of the movie just dug the hole deeper and deeper sadly. The final nail in the coffin was Arnies line to how judgement day happened anyway, even though the dates had changed:
"Judgement Day is inevitable"
With no other explanation given, compared to the past 2 movies which had deep detailed back stories woven throughout the movies. Just a really fucked up dumb movie. World would have been alot better without it, and just waiting for Sarah Chronicles. Far superior to T3.
Rogue Keeper on 6/8/2008 at 11:01
Quote Posted by Matthew
That reading of Connery is wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin.
I can just look at this face and everything is clear to me. 007 is not Hamlet or Rasputin afterall.
Inline Image:
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3033/11292996078477oz9.jpg(ok, I'm not arguing about 007 movies, I'm not arguing about 007 movies...)
