Anatomy of a bad SF movie: Precisely what made it fail? by chrisisall

Case #1:

Robocop 3

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) Peter Weller did not reprise the roll.
B) The movie 'looked' different.
C) The final fight was l*a*m*e.

Analysis:

A- Weller was doing 'Naked Lunch' at the time. Robert Burke did a fine job interpreting the role, he looked right in the suit & had the robo-moves down well. Replacing an actor in a movie series is never easy.

B- A budget slashed from the get-go makes things difficult. The DOP had to set up shots & lighting quickly as a result, so the movie lost some of that bigger-than-life cinematic look.

C- It appears to me that the final fight was filmed in its entirety, but it was expected that a second unit with stunt peeps would shoot pick up shots to make it more intense & exciting. It's my theory that with money & time running out, they went with what had shot with the principle actors as a last minute decision (I can find no documentation to back this up, but judging as an amateur film-maker, this seems to be THE ONLY excuse for that slow-motion mess). Again, mainly a budget issue.

In the end, it had Basil Poledouris music, a tight script, and a breathless pace, three things its predecessor DIDN'T have.

So, be kind to this dud. It's really not as bad as it seems IMO.

You got a case for us?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 2, 2010 1:08 PM

Case #2:

Matrix Revolutions

Apparent causes of Suckitude-

A) It's long, and it SEEMS that way.
B) The digital animation looks... digital.
C) "No, no, kill you all! Die! Make you suffer!"

Analysis:

A- It wallows in its own self-importance.
Post 9-11, the 'Matrix' game changed. The enemy of humanity (The Machines) morphed into an understandable menace we could come to terms with to support our mutual existence. What a nice real-world message, but one that has no place in an action-adventure-SF where the WORLD has been ENSLAVED by silicon chips!!!
And the endless battles....*yawn*

B- Comic books should look like comic books, not Epic SF flicks.

C- When trying to be all Shakespearian & Neo-biblical & important, remember to kill most of the main characters- it make peeps cry.
Or feel CHEATED of a good story.
Feel bad when Wash died? Think if Joss went where MR went!!!

So, Matrix Revolutions certainly WAS epic, but was it entertaining? Or merely psuedo-philosophical & visually tiring? An individual call, I guess.

Next case... ?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 2, 2010 1:27 PM

Case #3:

Superman IV: The Quest For Peace

Apparent causes of Suckitude-

A) No real epic quality to this Man of Steel entry.
B) How the bad guy (Nuclear Man) was ultimately vanquished.
C) Mark Pillow (Nuclear Man)'s hair.

Analysis:

A- Virtually no budget to this flick assured its lameness; a Superman movie DEMANDS the bucks to deliver on a grand scale. Cheap sets, cheap director, cheap FX...

B- Oh, and cheap writers.

C- I blame this on society.

So, a good idea and a villain with a bad hair week does not a good movie make, clearly.

Next case?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 2, 2010 1:52 PM

Case#4:

I Am Legend

Apparent causes of Suckitude-

A) The 'infected' are, like, animals... that can set effective traps???
B) Was there a musical score? I don't remember...
C) Was there a meaning or point to the story? I must have missed it...

Analysis:

A- The director's needs for the particular scenes superseded the need for an internal logic. Plus: Why wasn't Neville better armed in his ride & home? With ANYTHING at your disposal & all...

B- JAMES NEWTON HOWARD usually delivers, but either they didn't use much, or the MOVIE distracted...

C- No, we didn't miss it; it wasn't there. The book was about fitting in (or not) in a world radically changed. The Omega Man was a straight up social commentary with a classic Christ-sacrifice ending (Thank you, Charlton Heston)- this was just a mish-mash of both, with a dumb finale (they should have at least gone with the alternate ending; it was less offensive).

So, GREAT FX, we all like Will, but a big *meh*

Next case (someone else for a change)?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:53 PM

Case #5:

Robocop 2

Apparent causes of Suckitude-

A) It's long, and it SEEMS that way.
B) What is the message?
C) Where is the Robotheme from the first film??

Analysis:

A- What a script nightmare. Frank Miller's was essentially shredded & reworked to come up with this mess. Not that his was any better
http://www.stomptokyo.com/scott/blog/C4482399/E20060427223748/index.ht
ml

B- Message? Life sucks? Peeps are mean by nature? WTF?

C- Missing entirely, and replaced by a generic Star Trek IV-ish score.

So, nice FX, and a very mean & looong movie. Oooops!

Next case?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:16 AM

CORTEXOVERRIDE

Nice work, but don't forget about:

1.Star Wars Prequels(1999-2005)
^I'm still crying myself to sleep
2.Battlefield Earth(2000)
^Travolta, WTF man?

3.Star Trek:Nemesis(2002)
^Just another epidoe of ST:TNG
4.Alien Ressurection(1997)
^I know this inspired Firefly, but still sucked
5.Avatar(2009)
^Pocahontas in space, but worse dialogue
6.Lost In Space(1998)
^I'm not even gonna try

(((tO sPARK tHE mOVEMENT)))

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Case #2:

So, Matrix Revolutions certainly WAS epic, but was it entertaining?

I certainly think so.

I think both Matrix sequels made the mistake (from a business perspective) of not giving the audience the movie they wanted to see, but they are ambitious and make an effort at being more than just flashy action flicks.

It's funny, but people complain about everything in Hollywood being repetitive.... but look what happens when someone tries something different - people freak, and flock to the generic stuff again.

It's not the funnest flick out there, but it's not bad. Certainly not on the level of shittiness of the other flicks mentioned on this list.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:54 AM

MUTT999

I Am Legend

For me, the biggest fail of 'I Am Legend' was the use of CG infected. It just looked bad, fake. Why couldn't they have just used real actors? Take '28 Weeks Later', (a great, great movie), they used real actors, not CG, and it was infinitely better than 'Legend'. So basically, sometimes, CG just sucks.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

It's funny, but people complain about everything in Hollywood being repetitive.... but look what happens when someone tries something different - people freak, and flock to the generic stuff again.

It was the change in direction the movies took from the first. In the first flick, Neo died, and Trinity held on to the end, and Neo came back.
THAT makes it seem like a fantasy quality is being weaved into the fabric of the story.

THEN, Trinity dies, AND Neo dies, and we have a frikin' Greek Tragedy in place of an adventure SF film.

Sorry, that's NOT what the first movie implied from a film-making standpoint.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mutt999:

I Am Legend

For me, the biggest fail of 'I Am Legend' was the use of CG infected.

Yes, it was cartoon time, once again.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 7:59 AM

Been a while since I've seen any of the movies in question, but in most cases, the problem likely starts with the script and/or the development process.

There is a great similarity between all 5 cases:

1) All 5 have a "superhero" as their protagonist.

2) 4 of the 5 are sequels, with the 5th being a remake/"re-imagining."

While there are certainly exceptions, in general, superhero sequels are bad. And there are reasons for that.

At the core of most good movies, there's is a protagonist who has a story arc that allows for meaningful change. "Superheroes" are antithetical to this, because meaningful change destroys the franchise.

Superheroes are generally allowed only so much change, and that is typically in the origin story--which is usually the first movie in the series/franchise. If a man/machine, for example, reclaims a measure of his humanity in the first movie, where does he go in subsequent movies? If he reclaims "more" of his humanity, it's just more of the same, derivative. If he doesn't change, then the protagonist, while perhaps cool, is stagnant, and has no driving conflict. The story then devolves into "Superhero must defeat supervillain," which is (usually) a little lame, because it doesn't bring with it meaningful change.

I would like to present two alternate structures for comparison.

Exhibit A: The original Star Wars Trilogy: While Luke is, like these characters, a "superhero," his evolution is cleverly spaced out across three movies, allowing room for constant growth and change. As his awareness changes, his driving goal changes.

--In A NEW HOPE, he lives in ignorance but dreams of becoming a hero (remember: he wants to be a pilot for the EMPIRE!). By the end, he has lost his old world, but acheived his goal... albeit with the help of his friends.

--In EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, he understands that he has a greater destiny than just being a hero. He is also to be a Jedi. By the end, he is well on the road to that, and is in a position where he can try to rescue the same friends who helped him. (Note that whenever we see Luke attempt something heroic before Dagobah, he is part of a larger group/assisted; after Dagobah, he is generally alone when he starts the effort).

--In RETURN OF THE JEDI, rocked by revelations about his father, his driving need becomes not only to defeat his enemies, but also to redeem his father. By the end of the trilogy, he has acheived that.

By constantly spinning Luke's worldview around, Lucas and his co-conspirators are able to give us satisfying and meaningful change in all three movies.

Now consider, exhibit B: The Indiana Jones Trilogy (I will forgo discussion of the most recent movie, because I feel it's too controversial):

--In RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, Indy begins as a non-believing loner with a closed heart. Through his adventures, he comes to believe in something greater than himself... and that allows him to open his heart to love. Although his capabilities are unchanged (unlike Luke), his perspective of the world has changed significantly. In the final moments of the movie, he is able to resist mystery and frustration to, instead, spend quality time with Marion (as is implied by the final stairway scene).

--TEMPLE OF DOOM offers retrograde evolution and shows us the particular danger of a superhero prequel (also seen in the Prequel Trilogy, but that's another story). We know where Indy will end up, so when he starts much the same, there's no room to grow. The growing relationship with Billie may be superficially quite different from what Indy has with Marion, but it's still derivative. Even the attempt to add a new element (a "son" in the form of Short Round) falls short, because it's just more of the same. We've already seen Indy come to trust others and open his heart. We don't need to see it again.

Some folk will tell you that TEMPLE OF DOOM fails (despite being pretty good as an action movie) because of the lack of Nazis. I disagree, and think that it is the lack of character evolution.

--LAST CRUSADE cleverly adds new dimension by introducing Indy's father. The two men must learn to open up to each other in a way that mirrors Indy's emotional evolution in RotLA without being completely derivative. Indeed, it is an excellent bookend to the series with Indy potentially falling prey to the "addiction" (the thrill of the hunt for artifacts without personal attachment) that plagued him in RotLA. His father is able to save him, and although Indy tries to save Ilsa from the same fate, he fails, leaving us with a cautionary tale of the man that Indy could have become if he never evolved, if he had chosen not to walk down those steps with Marion on his arm at the end of the first movie.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:

While there are certainly exceptions, in general, superhero sequels are bad. And there are reasons for that.

At the core of most good movies, there's is a protagonist who has a story arc that allows for meaningful change. "Superheroes" are antithetical to this, because meaningful change destroys the franchise.

Superheroes are generally allowed only so much change, and that is typically in the origin story--which is usually the first movie in the series/franchise. If a man/machine, for example, reclaims a measure of his humanity in the first movie, where does he go in subsequent movies? If he reclaims "more" of his humanity, it's just more of the same, derivative. If he doesn't change, then the protagonist, while perhaps cool, is stagnant, and has no driving conflict. The story then devolves into "Superhero must defeat supervillain," which is (usually) a little lame, because it doesn't bring with it meaningful change.

Very nice analysis, GWEK.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 8:32 AM

Case #6:

Supernova

Apparent causes of Suckitude-

A) It felt very disjointed.
B) It was almost as if I were watching a Walter Hill movie, almost.
C) See A

Analysis:

A- You BET it felt disjointed, it was edited & re-edited at the behest of the suits.

B- That makes sense, since Walter Hill made the flick, then took his name off it as they mangled his footage.

C- Look at the deleted & alternate scenes on the DVD & you can imagine what it might have been had the PTB let Hill finish it his way. The alternate ending is especially interesting.

So, the money peeps step in where they weren't needed, and a fascinating film becomes merely a bargain bin DVD. Huh.

Next case.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

It's funny, but people complain about everything in Hollywood being repetitive.... but look what happens when someone tries something different - people freak, and flock to the generic stuff again.

It was the change in direction the movies took from the first. In the first flick, Neo died, and Trinity held on to the end, and Neo came back.
THAT makes it seem like a fantasy quality is being weaved into the fabric of the story.

THEN, Trinity dies, AND Neo dies, and we have a frikin' Greek Tragedy in place of an adventure SF film.

Sorry, that's NOT what the first movie implied from a film-making standpoint.

Seriously? You thought they'd be Immortal? I don't recall the first implying that. I don't really see that as a change in direction, as an evolution of the story and characters.

I appreciate and admire the films for trying to be more than just adventure films.

You seem to have wanted them to fall into the same "Hero v Villain" trap that you just agreed torpedoes most superhero sequels.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Seriously? You thought they'd be Immortal? I don't recall the first implying that.

Very funny.

Quote:

You seem to have wanted them to fall into the same "Hero v Villain" trap that you just agreed torpedoes most superhero sequels.

Okay, let's say you just don't want to acknowledge the silliness here...
Neo Dies, is revived by Trinity.
Trinity dies, is revived by Neo.
Trinity dies FOR REAL, then Neo gets blind & dies FOR REAL.
What? Were their first deaths just 'dry runs'????

Oh, and the machines are evil.
But later, only Smith seems to be evil, the rest of the machines can be aiight. Go ahead, harvest our energy, as long as you give up some peeps that wanna go... we know you'll keep your part of the bargain, especially since Captain Neo has vanquished Galactus Smith!!!

Puhleeeeeeze.

I don't deal well with (pardon my humour) OVERKILL.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 10:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Seriously? You thought they'd be Immortal? I don't recall the first implying that.
Very funny.
Quote:

You seem to have wanted them to fall into the same "Hero v Villain" trap that you just agreed torpedoes most superhero sequels.
Okay, let's say you just don't want to acknowledge the silliness here...
Neo Dies, is revived by Trinity.
Trinity dies, is revived by Neo.
Trinity dies FOR REAL, then Neo gets blind & dies FOR REAL.
What? Were their first deaths just 'dry runs'????

Again, because they survived death once, they're supposed to be immune to it?

Two things you seem to be willfully ignoring. One - they both "died" in the Matrix, where Neo had a degree of power that let him bend the rules. Their "real" deaths were both in the "real" world. A rather important distinction I'm surprised you would gloss over so emphatically.

Two - It's a mythic character arc. Bringing them back when they did served a story purpose, as did their deaths. Neither was arbitrary.

Quote:
Oh, and the machines are evil.

That was never stated. Machines were the enemy, yes. But evil is rather subjective, and it was set up pretty well in the first film that the machines did what they did purely out of self preservation. This was covered in Morpheus' expository speech when he lays out the truth for Neo, and then was furthered by the Animatrix shorts.

Quote:
But later, only Smith seems to be evil, the rest of the machines can be aiight. Go ahead, harvest our energy, as long as you give up some peeps that wanna go... we know you'll keep your part of the bargain, especially since Captain Neo has vanquished Galactus Smith!!!
Puhleeeeeeze.

Yes, damn them for presenting an enemy that's not pure evil, and has shading to their motives.

Pardon me, but I kinda prefer layers to mustache-twirling villainy.

And Smith didn't just become evil either, he had a fairly clearly drawn arc that started out in the first film.

Hell, even your final little complaint - that "we know you'll keep your part of the bargain" part, is rather nonsensical, since characters flat out say on screen right there at the end that it probably wont last.

But I also think you're touching on a bigger issue. I think most people wanted to see Neo free everyone from the Matrix, vanquishing the machines entirely - a big happy, simple story. Thing is, this wouldn't make much sense given what established, again, in the first film. Okay, sure, he could conceivably have set them all free - an army of weak, helpless people with atrophied bodies falling en mass, by the millions, into the mucky waters Neo was scooped from, to die hopelessly. Or, even if they had survived, to die of starvation amidst a nascent society not equipped to handle such a population.

The first film, while a fun action-adventure, did set up a complex world that required complex solutions (and thus storylines for the sequels). The seeds for all the things you're complaining about were established for the most part, in the original.

Not saying they're perfect or even great. They do have their flaws (I personally get more frustrated by the 2nd one). But they're hardly train wrecks or awful films as some claims. And referring back to an earlier conversation, I will gladly choose a film that strives for greatness and falls short (as I feel these do) than one that aims for mediocrity and nails it (like say, Iron Man 2).

Like I said, it's not the story many WANTED - a big simplistic adventure - but that's to a degree, their problem. The films established a complex world with complicated issues, ideas and themes, and the sequels followed through on what the first film actually established, not the comic book people wanted them to be.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Two - It's a mythic character arc. Bringing them back when they did served a story purpose, as did their deaths. Neither was arbitrary.

Okay, here's my final word on it (unless you respond or something), why give us cool martial arts in the flicks? Big guns with unlimited ammo would have sufficed. Giving us martial arts combined with mystic quasi-Buddhist philosophy set me up for the expectation that it would have a philosophical & adventerous ending, not an 'everyone dies' one. And when Trinity died, I was MAD, not sad. It didn't make me fear that Neo would die- at that point I ASSUMED it. And again, I was MAD to be correct. Just like in I Am Legend, I KNEW before the end they were gonna kill him. When movies are predictable to the point of frustration, I don't like them, or the experience. And I gave MR 3 tries.
But, I actually quite like Robocop 3 as a superhero flick (despite its Suckitude), so if you like MR, more power to you.
Maybe I need to get stoned to watch it to let my notions of what I need from a movie to drop away, eh?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:33 AM

CYBERSNARK

I love looking at bad movies and seing where they went wrong --it's great exercise both as a writer and filmmaker.

I'll agree that the Matrix sequels went off the rails but had the germ of a good idea. I would've made the Matrix itself less like a deathtrap that had to be escaped and more like a coccoon that had to be transcended.

I would've made the second and third movies about Neo trying to teach others how to become like him (just as Smith was doing by force). Neo and Trinity wouldn't have "died," they would've Ascended, becoming part of the Matrix itself --neither human nor machine, but both.

My contribution, (going more for "bad" in terms of quality; this movie was far more financially successful than it should've been):

Transformers

Apparent causes of Suckitude-

A) Visually incoherent.
B) Failed to make use of the source material.
C) What the Hell, Heroes?

Analysis:

A: Michael Bay is a mediocre director at best, and a terrible writer(*). He represents the epitome of the modern "Music Video Generation" of directors, in that he directs set-pieces --huge, spectacular action sequences-- and uses the script only to connect those self-contained vignettes to each other. Rather than direct what's best for the story, he takes his trademark style (sunsets, explosions, and a constantly-wandering handheld camera) and applies it to whatever's in front of him, like ketchup at a black tie dinner.

B: When the TF movie was first announced (years ago), the producers billed it as the film that would reinterpret Transformers as a serious sci-fi franchise. Let's take a moment to note that this "kids' show" has already set up narrative devices that allow it to discuss mortality, religion, dualistic philosophy, physics, biology, consciousness, artificial intelligence, racism, politics, loss of culture, slavery, forced relocation, sex and gender, family, and the psychological pressures of leadership. If any childrens' toyline could be turned into an adult sci-fi series, it's Transformers.

Instead, we got pee jokes, masturbation humour, Transformers with less personality than the cars they turned into, and inanimate objects being rebuilt into sophisticated alien robots at a sub-molecular level (yet the TFs themselves are made of ordinary metal and need to transform by shifting large chunks of themselves around by brute force. Except when they can inexplicably reformat themselves on the fly with no ill effects

).

Again, this is Michael Bay's search for punchy, dynamic set-pieces with no regard for narrative logic or intelligence.

C: Okay, so, after securing the Allspark (that they know the Decepticons are after), the heroic US military (and their alien sidekicks) remove said Allspark from the safe and secure military facility in the desert. . . and into the middle of a crowded city at rush hour. Said city is then demolished to an extent we haven't seen since September 11 2001 --most of it by the Autobots themselves, either missing targets, employing human(-filled) shields, or deliberately destroying the area (apparently to give themselves room to move). These are supposed to be the good guys?!?

We are also then led to believe that this cataclysm is completely covered up and forgotten about (perhaps everyone who actually saw the giant alien robots ended up dead. That would certainly stop the spread of information).

This one I honestly can't explain; it's not like a battle in the desert (or an iconic duel atop the dam, as seen in three different G1 continuities) would've been less spectacular. It's not that Bay wanted to play up the human collateral damage --most of the people in the city were just human scenery anyway (and like I said, we never see the consequences). I can only assume that Bay's idea of "Awesome" is sufficiently tasteless to require as many innocent bystanders getting pulped as possible.

(* Whether a director has a writing credit or not, I feel that all directors must have enough "story sense" to be able to communicate positively with their writing staff. Everything I've heard from behind-the-scenes says that Michael "What writer's strike?" Bay considers screenwriters to be little more than chimps with typewriters.)

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
I would've made the Matrix itself less like a deathtrap that had to be escaped and more like a coccoon that had to be transcended.

I would've made the second and third movies about Neo trying to teach others how to become like him (just as Smith was doing by force). Neo and Trinity wouldn't have "died," they would've Ascended, becoming part of the Matrix itself --neither human nor machine, but both.

Now THAT would have been amazing AND something that had rarely been seen!
AND then it would have been my all time favourite trilogy!

BTW, I concur with your Transformers analysis. The only Bay flick I ever liked at all was Armageddon.

(the reason the movie made so much teenage dough)

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Two - It's a mythic character arc. Bringing them back when they did served a story purpose, as did their deaths. Neither was arbitrary.

Okay, here's my final word on it (unless you respond or something), why give us cool martial arts in the flicks? Big guns with unlimited ammo would have sufficed. Giving us martial arts combined with mystic quasi-Buddhist philosophy set me up for the expectation that it would have a philosophical & adventerous ending, not an 'everyone dies' one.

It did have a philosophical ending. And middle, for that matter.

I don't know why martial arts can't have sad or trajic endings. And "everyone" didn't die. 2 characters did. The rest were fine (there's another example of them being different - EVERY other movie would have had the mentor die and the hero live.... even Serenity. But they tried something different).

But basically, you still seem to be complining that they didn't do what you wanted. Which I already knew.

Quote:
And when Trinity died, I was MAD, not sad. It didn't make me fear that Neo would die- at that point I ASSUMED it. And again, I was MAD to be correct.

It worked for me. One's mileage will varry.

Quote:
Just like in I Am Legend, I KNEW before the end they were gonna kill him.

Well, setting aside that the book is decades old and has been done before.... sometimes you're supposed to see these things coming. Building inevitability is just another tool (and really, would you expect a happy ending to a movie about the extinction of the human race?)

Quote:
When movies are predictable to the point of frustration, I don't like them, or the experience. And I gave MR 3 tries.
But, I actually quite like Robocop 3 as a superhero flick (despite its Suckitude), so if you like MR, more power to you.

And no more needs be said. Other than.... I kinda feel sorry for ya right now.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:

I would've made the second and third movies about Neo trying to teach others how to become like him (just as Smith was doing by force). Neo and Trinity wouldn't have "died," they would've Ascended, becoming part of the Matrix itself --neither human nor machine, but both.

My interpretation of the ending was that Neo did become part of the Matrix. They just didn't spell it out.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Well, setting aside that the book [I Am Legend] is decades old and has been done before.... sometimes you're supposed to see these things coming. Building inevitability is just another tool (and really, would you expect a happy ending to a movie about the extinction of the human race?)

Did you see I Am Legend? There was no inevitability to Neville's death. Just look at the alternate ending...

Quote:

And no more needs be said. Other than.... I kinda feel sorry for ya right now.

LOL, My friends call me Murphy. You call me Robochris!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

My interpretation of the ending was that Neo did become part of the Matrix. They just didn't spell it out.

MY interpretation is that a bunch of weird little respectful 'bots carried him away to be liquified even as a virtual statue of Neo got designed from scans of his body.

The cat at the end was the nicest touch in the movie, though.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

My interpretation of the ending was that Neo did become part of the Matrix. They just didn't spell it out.

MY interpretation is that a bunch of weird little respectful 'bots carried him away to be liquified even as a virtual statue of Neo got designed from scans of his body.

Well, sure, if you want to be overly pedantic.

Otherwise, you are talking about his body. Which he wasn't really inhabiting at the time he died.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Did you see I Am Legend? There was no inevitability to Neville's death. Just look at the alternate ending...

I did. And golly, somehow I saw a movie about a desperate, lonely, nearly crazy man alone in a world filled with creatures who wanted him dead.

You're right, I should have just assumed he was gonna make it.....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Well, sure, if you want to be overly pedantic.

I specialize in pedantic. Once in art school I was laconic.

Quote:

Otherwise, you are talking about his body. Which he wasn't really inhabiting at the time he died.

Yeah, I actually thought about that, but poor Trinity is forever lost.

Story, you are tenacious and state your case well. I really *wish* I could like MR as much as you do.
In any case, I really do respect your opinion on, well, almost everything. Even as I sometimes yank your chain.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

You're right, I should have just assumed he was gonna make it.....

Snarky monkey!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

I specialize in pedantic. Once in art school I was laconic.

LOL.

Quote:

In any case, I really do respect your opinion on, well, almost everything.

On what don't you???? I need to know, so I can beat you into total submission. Muahahahahaha!

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

On what don't you???? I need to know, so I can beat you into total submission. Muahahahahaha!

Yours is an evil laugh.

Sidebar:
Richard Matheson is my favourite writer, so I Am Legend was read more than once by me. When I saw Last Man On Earth

way back, I felt it captured a good deal of the book (Matheson did the screenplay), but the casting of Vincent Price took me aback some, and the production was sort of on the cheap.
The Omega Man cast Heston

who I found to be much more like the character in the novel, but the story particulars had been radically changed.
I had such high hopes when I found out they were making a movie entitled "I Am Legend" because I thought it'd be close to the novel, but it turned out being a CGI-filled remake of Omega Man... with a few more elements from the novel (specifically the dog, NYC- sort of- whatever).

So, Last Man captured the horror, Omega Man captured the character, and I Am caught basically neither very intensely IMO. All three missed the meaning of his death.

Ah well, we still have the book.

To date, the best movies made from his novels are Legend Of Hell House, Incredible Shrinking Man, and Somewhere In Time, in that order IMO.
/sidebar

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 1:47 PM

It is odd that the alternate "He Lives" ending of IAL actually captures the spirit of the book better than the one where he dies.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
It is odd that the alternate "He Lives" ending of IAL actually captures the spirit of the book better than the one where he dies.

If I could get a copy of the flick with that ending, I would definitely own it. Smith did a really good acting job there. And he had a Mustang...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 2:28 PM

Case #7 (or is it 6? Okay eff the format):

Cherry 2000

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) It kinda looked low budget...
B) Lead actor was kinda bland.
C) It was so 80's...

Analysis:

A- It WAS!!!
B- He was, but it kinda fit in an everyman sort of way.
C- Like Logan's Run WASN'T SO 70's???

So, actually, this wasn't a bad flick...
Was it?

Next case...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 3:33 PM

Case # whatever:

Minority Report

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) The ending sucked.
B) The rolling eyeballs.
C) What's in the fridge.

Analysis:

A- Give the peeps what they want, regardless of the movie's integrity. Happy end for Tom, even though his Son is missing presumed dead, and the psychics get a fuzzy home.

B- How exactly do eyeballs roll when internal blood pressure TO them is terminated?? We're talkin' deflated balloons here.

C- Eat a putrefied sandwich & then down turned milk??? Can you spell OVERKILL??

A near perfect SF flick imploded by nonsense.

Next case?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 3:50 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Really good analysis Gwek. Really good, bravo.

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 4:16 PM

Case #10:

Waterworld

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) A 'gill' man evolving in such a short time???
B) He can stand crazy underwater pressure, but can't bend puny bars???
C) A human chick CAN stand those crazy underwater pressures????

Analysis:

A-C: Silly silly British writers.

So, Waterworld makes The Postman look like Lawrence Of Arabia....

Next case?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 4:44 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Seriously? You thought they'd be Immortal? I don't recall the first implying that.
Very funny.
Quote:

You seem to have wanted them to fall into the same "Hero v Villain" trap that you just agreed torpedoes most superhero sequels.
Okay, let's say you just don't want to acknowledge the silliness here...
Neo Dies, is revived by Trinity.
Trinity dies, is revived by Neo.
Trinity dies FOR REAL, then Neo gets blind & dies FOR REAL.
What? Were their first deaths just 'dry runs'????

Again, because they survived death once, they're supposed to be immune to it?

Two things you seem to be willfully ignoring. One - they both "died" in the Matrix, where Neo had a degree of power that let him bend the rules. Their "real" deaths were both in the "real" world. A rather important distinction I'm surprised you would gloss over so emphatically.

Two - It's a mythic character arc. Bringing them back when they did served a story purpose, as did their deaths. Neither was arbitrary.

Quote:
Oh, and the machines are evil.

That was never stated. Machines were the enemy, yes. But evil is rather subjective, and it was set up pretty well in the first film that the machines did what they did purely out of self preservation. This was covered in Morpheus' expository speech when he lays out the truth for Neo, and then was furthered by the Animatrix shorts.

Quote:
But later, only Smith seems to be evil, the rest of the machines can be aiight. Go ahead, harvest our energy, as long as you give up some peeps that wanna go... we know you'll keep your part of the bargain, especially since Captain Neo has vanquished Galactus Smith!!!
Puhleeeeeeze.

Yes, damn them for presenting an enemy that's not pure evil, and has shading to their motives.

Pardon me, but I kinda prefer layers to mustache-twirling villainy.

And Smith didn't just become evil either, he had a fairly clearly drawn arc that started out in the first film.

Hell, even your final little complaint - that "we know you'll keep your part of the bargain" part, is rather nonsensical, since characters flat out say on screen right there at the end that it probably wont last.

But I also think you're touching on a bigger issue. I think most people wanted to see Neo free everyone from the Matrix, vanquishing the machines entirely - a big happy, simple story. Thing is, this wouldn't make much sense given what established, again, in the first film. Okay, sure, he could conceivably have set them all free - an army of weak, helpless people with atrophied bodies falling en mass, by the millions, into the mucky waters Neo was scooped from, to die hopelessly. Or, even if they had survived, to die of starvation amidst a nascent society not equipped to handle such a population.

The first film, while a fun action-adventure, did set up a complex world that required complex solutions (and thus storylines for the sequels). The seeds for all the things you're complaining about were established for the most part, in the original.

Not saying they're perfect or even great. They do have their flaws (I personally get more frustrated by the 2nd one). But they're hardly train wrecks or awful films as some claims. And referring back to an earlier conversation, I will gladly choose a film that strives for greatness and falls short (as I feel these do) than one that aims for mediocrity and nails it (like say, Iron Man 2).

Like I said, it's not the story many WANTED - a big simplistic adventure - but that's to a degree, their problem. The films established a complex world with complicated issues, ideas and themes, and the sequels followed through on what the first film actually established, not the comic book people wanted them to be.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

I'm loving this debate; first because The Matrix is one of my all-time great sci-fi movies (I'm talking Top 10)

But here it goes: For me The Matrix is damn-near the perfect movie - it works both as a stand-alone movie and as part of a trilogy second only to the original SW Trilogy IV,V & VI.

Perfect in the sense that it sets up the entire world within the Matrix saga (although it somewhat loses it's way in the sequels); both the hero and the rules and it's players are established in a most unique way. It is told from the POV of Morpheus, the believer. Okay, I know I don't need to recap the story, but who's Bible and philosophical references create an almost magical undercurrent hooking the audience as they simultaneously dazzle them.

Bullet-time, myth, action and the sci-fi man-is-its-own-worst-enemy scenario develops a familiar, yet sligthly askew vision of the world destroyed by the machines created by - man. Self-aware machines who revolt and bite the hand, etc. It took me 3 tries to figure out exactly what was going on - who were the bad guys and why were they chasing "our heros." Clues are dropped both obvious and cryptic as to what is the Matrix. Until the reveal. It was a well though out, well scripted and brilliantly staged adventure that was almost doomed to fail because it was so brilliant to begin with.

Matrix: Reloaded - The concepts and philosophies were not as well developed and set up as in the Matrix, but it did manage to expand the universe (although some of it was a bit heavy-handed - The CGI Hurly-Burly fight scene with Agent Smith for example). The myth of the One almost was an afterthought within the story, Morpheus as spiritual leader almost took a back seat and the fabled Zion became a soft core porn commercial (unitentionally I hope).

That almost ruined a great sci-fi story that began with the Matrix.

(Sorry fellas must continue another day. Took a painkiller - due to minor knee surgery and it just took effect)

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
Really good analysis Gwek. Really good, bravo.

SGG

Tawabawho?

Thanks. I'm glad a few people saw it within the larger discussion of the MATRIX. :)

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
A: Michael Bay is a mediocre director at best, and a terrible writer(*).

While I don't disagree with you about TRANSFORMERS (When I saw it, it was actually forgetting about the movie AS I WAS WATCHING IT), I think Michael Bay has his moments, especially his earlier movies. ARMAGEDDON is nothing short of brilliant, and I think THE ROCK is only slightly behind. The first BAD BOYS movie is also close to excellent.

It's funny you should refer to Bay as the epitome of the music video generation of directors because he did, indeed, start out directing videos. His Meat Loaf videos are nothing short of brilliant, and include "I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)," "Objects in the Rearview Mirror (May Appear Closer Than They Are" (much of which presages many of the backstory elements of PEARL HARBOR), and "Rock and Roll Dreams Come Through" (featuring a young Angelina Jolie).

Bay has also, by the way, said that his favorite movie is "West Side Story" (and, in retrospect, you can see the impact it has had on his visuals).

But I digress. What I wanted to say initially is that I once read an article that pretty much summed up Michael Bay's style perfectly. The quote went something like this:

"Michael Bay doesn't direct movies. Michael Bay direct moments."

When he does a GOOD movie, it's because he's working with a script strong enough to weather his style intact.

Quote:
(* Whether a director has a writing credit or not, I feel that all directors must have enough "story sense" to be able to communicate positively with their writing staff. Everything I've heard from behind-the-scenes says that Michael "What writer's strike?" Bay considers screenwriters to be little more than chimps with typewriters.)

Which is, sadly, an attitude quite prevalent in Hollywood. Even the most successful writers often get to see their scripts gutted by producers, development exectutives, directors, actors, and other writers--often including people who will never actually work on the finished product.

While I agree that they SHOULD have enough story sense, the sad truth is that sometimes the director will never even meet with the guy who wrote the story.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 3, 2010 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Case #10:

Waterworld

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) A 'gill' man evolving in such a short time???
B) He can stand crazy underwater pressure, but can't bend puny bars???
C) A human chick CAN stand those crazy underwater pressures????

Analysis:

A-C: Silly silly British writers.

So, Waterworld makes The Postman look like Lawrence Of Arabia....

Next case?

The laughing Chrisisall

Seriously? You're not even trying anymore!

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:

Transformers

Apparent causes of Suckitude-

A) Visually incoherent.
B) Failed to make use of the source material.
C) What the Hell, Heroes?

As bad as the first one was, the sequel is such a festering pile of go se that it makes the first look like a classic.

Now those are bad sci-fi movies, not generally solid flicks with some flaws like... someone... is obsessing over. ;)

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 6:31 AM

MENDUR

Okay. This was sort of glossed over but someone mentioned "Avatar" and I'm curious as to: how are you all interpreting "what made it fail"?

Does it have to be a box office failure? If not, and obviously "Transformers" was not and "Avatar" was not, how are we defining "failure"?

If it's just one person's opinion, then let me ask: Does anyone here think "Serenity" failed? If so, I'd love to see the analysis of that (and I *have* encountered people who loved "Firefly" and hated "Serenity").

The Codex Menduri: http://mendur.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 7:11 AM

Case #10:

Serenity

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) Who ARE these people? The flick starts out like we should know...
B) There was a weird 'western' vibe running through it- but isn't this a SF movie?
C) The bad guy, a vicious KILLER, turns good at the end? That's sooo 'Vader'.

Analysis:

A- It's the new thing in movies; start in the middle of a story (you never saw Pulp Fiction?).
See the series it's a continuation of, you idiot!

B- And "Alien" had a horror vibe running through it; Be flexible, and you will be Renewed!

C- This movie contained not only blacks & whites, but shades of gray, redemption, character evolution... touch of reality. Makes some nervous, I conjure.

So, it failed at the box office, but I submit it succeeded as a refreshing change of pace from the glut of same 'ole nonsense out there (the second Transformers movie just came out on DVD for you Hero/Villain comfort-addicts

).

Next case...?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 7:14 AM

CLJOHNSTON108

Well, I myself can't stand Roland Emmerich's work (with a couple of exceptions, like Stargate), and I could only make it a third of the way through 2012.
At least Michael Bay's films have some good cinematography and dialogue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 7:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:

Seriously? You're not even trying anymore!

When I started the analysis of Waterworld, I found I did not want to write a whole BOOK on why it failed- I don't care enough about the flick. Sorry.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 7:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cljohnston108:
Well, I myself can't stand Roland Emmerich's work

I kinda liked The Day After Tomorrow.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 7:19 AM

JONGSSTRAW

This always bothered me about the "great Star Wars trilogy".....

The last Jedis, Obi Wan and Yoda split up the twins of Darth Vader (Annakin Skywalker) so that neither Darth or the Emperor would ever know of their existence. Then they drop Luke off with Annakin's stepbrother Owen Lars, on Annakin's home planet of Tatooine, and he gets raised as Luke SKYWALKER. Might have been a wise idea to change his name, right? Before the modern-day "rebellion" what was Darth Vader doing anyhow? One trip to Tatooine would have revealed the truth about his son, but apparently he never went.

Also, in the first Star Wars, Leia is captured and brought on board Vader's ship. He physically touches her and holds her as her planet is being destroyed, but feels nothing from her? Cannot feel that she's his daughter? Sorry, that just don't fly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 7:29 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by cljohnston108:
Well, I myself can't stand Roland Emmerich's work
I kinda liked The Day After Tomorrow.

The laughing Chrisisall

You a fan of Art Bell?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by cljohnston108:
Well, I myself can't stand Roland Emmerich's work
I kinda liked The Day After Tomorrow.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 8:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Before the modern-day "rebellion" what was Darth Vader doing anyhow? One trip to Tatooine would have revealed the truth about his son, but apparently he never went.

He was RIGHT OVER IT in the first movie!

Quote:

Also, in the first Star Wars, Leia is captured and brought on board Vader's ship. He physically touches her and holds her as her planet is being destroyed, but feels nothing from her? Cannot feel that she's his daughter? Sorry, that just don't fly.

The Dark Side typically 'blurs' The Force's more esoteric aspects. Without intentional concentration & focus, many things more openly felt by peeps on the 'good' side can whiz right by those with a focus on evil.

Geeze, I thought EVERYONE knew that!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:03 AM