GTX0 successfully deep-cleanedNewpost / newreply revamp Part 1Easy easy post formatting
GTX0 AnnouncementsFeedbackHelp | SandboxNewest Posts | Replies | Hottest
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds



So, I think enough users here know enough about me to realize I do not like cynic flicks, the "realism" excuse, or any movie that fails to reach its full potential. La La Land is then a curious case of both successfully having the power to circumvent those modern pitfalls but choosing instead to fall right through them while also achieving its full potential. Let me explain.

The film starts off with a massive, ambitious, song-and-dance number: arguably the greatest way to start any musical (or any movie, really). The story follows the pipe dreams of a waitress dreaming to become an actress as she meets a struggling jazz musician dreaming of owning a jazz club. As expected they are shown struggling to achieve their dreams with ups and downs, but curiously the story avoids letting them fall in love too quickly or stay together for too long.

So, the film shows us it's not actually the grand, magical spectacle we saw in the intro: rather, it's a sobering reminder of how reality comes in the way of screwing our dreams into something else. I applaud the secondary characters in this film: Keith, the music, and the numerous shots of rundown LA. This film intends to show that part to us: how dreams get turned by the tides of reality. And it succeeds in that very well. But was that really the greatest endeavor?

In the middle, that's when the movie really gets dull. It would be nice to have a hint of actual reality that isn't so heartbreaking, but this is a movie on a mission and nothing can stop it. Don't worry, the pacing picks up towards the end with the final audition and its "Broadway Melody" moment (look it up), but ultimately what made those old musical classics great was the great characters and hope that carried you through. I didn't find myself wanting to cheer for these characters. Perhaps it was their flaws, or the grip they lost, or the lack of context (Mia moreso than Sebastian), but if a movie is going to focus almost entirely on the relationship between two characters, those characters need good personalities, and the relationship needs more substance. Ultimately, while we completely understand their struggles and are given the logical reasons to care, the dulling down of the writing prevents us from doing so. It would be fine to have disappointment, but the writing throughout shows us nothing but constant disappointment and pulls the light away from the tunnel too fast.

It truly is the making of a great musical when you leave humming the music. If only the middle of the movie could match the magic of its bookends. Better balance could've fixed these issues and truly made this a film for the ages. Instead, it's just a movie for now.

settingsOptions
There are 25 Replies

Film for the ages


What movies fulfill this criteria

Posted December 26th, 2017 by So.o.h.
So.o.h.
 

The film starts off with a massive, ambitious, song-and-dance number: arguably the greatest way to start any musical (or any movie, really).


Is this a joke?

Posted December 26th, 2017 by nullfather

Come on Null! Schindlers list would have been infinetely better had there been a song and dance number performed by Hitler and the SS in the first 10 minutes of the film! /s

Posted December 26th, 2017 by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

Schindlers list would have been infinetely better had there been a song and dance number performed by Hitler and the SS in the first 10 minutes of the film!


I was thinking more about how A Scanner Darkly (a film about paranoia, psychosis, addiction, systematic abuse, deceit and corruption) would be improved. I was rewatching it over the weekend and thinking about how the opening scene with Charles Freck having a hallucination of bugs crawling all over him would be spruced up with a musical number.

Posted December 26th, 2017 by nullfather

now that I think of it a musical number should be included in other forms of media as well. Why limit it to just movies? The Halo franchise for instance could do with a good musical number.

Posted December 26th, 2017 by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

I quite liked the middle part that everyone seems to consider dull. I think part of it was that the film felt less like a traditional musical as much as it was about music. Music never stops being central to the story, characters, and the film; it just deviates from song and dance routines to more jazz-oriented sequences. And I think we needed that shift in focus because we needed to see how pursuing the relationship caused both characters to forego their own dreams and set them aside. The musical aspect is set on the back burner because Emma Stone was diving into Ryan Gosling's world due to their romance. So I think people talking about the middle part being boring sort of miss the mark a little bit, seeing only part of the film but not the whole of it.

I don't think the film is so much about "reality getting in the way of our dreams" as much as it is about the difficulties balancing what we want in life. By the end of the film, both characters have essentially gotten to where they want to be, but at the cost of their relationship. Their relationship wasn't meaningless, and both sacrificed a great deal of their own personal desires for the sake of it, because they both valued it and thought it important enough to dedicate themselves to. But it also became clear that they couldn't both commit to the relationship and get to where they each individually wanted to be if they felt at all restricted to considerations of the relationship.

It was definitely also trying to be subversive to the musical genre. Classic Hollywood would dictate that these two wind up in their desired careers, pursuing their creative dreams, and maintaining a loving, committed relationship. Obviously this goes against the grain by having them both creatively successful, but in new relationships or feeling melancholy or regretful. Moreso than something like Singin' in the Rain, La La Land was truly more about Hollywood in earnest, but it speaks to a larger situation many of us have to consider: the balance of relationships and career ambitions. Many people seemed to think it was going to be something else, or wanted it to be something else, so I sometimes feel like critics haven't exactly been fairly judging it for what it is and what it is trying to be.

I had to watch it a couple of times to fully appreciate it. Still thought Moonlight was easily a better film overall, and I liked his previous film Whiplash just a tad more (in that I thought it was better - it's definitely less "enjoyable" though). But I think we need more stuff like La La Land getting made. It was way better than The Artist, at any rate, if we're judging it as a "quasi-retro style movie about Hollywood."



Posted December 27th, 2017 by Jet Presto

Guys, the musical number thing was a joke. SARCASM - does not translate well over the internet.

While music does play a role in the middle, every song in the middle is basically a downer:

  • I Ran - Mia acts snarky towards Sebastian because she knows he hates playing pop songs. Also, this sung is physically sung by someone who embodies a lot of what Sebastian hates.
  • A Lovely Night - The whole song is how Mia and Sebastian don't actually like or care about each other. And by the end of the song, they still pretty much don't.
  • City of Stars - Seb being sad on a pier.
  • Acoustic Session - More of what Seb hates. Right afterwards, this is when Keith makes a point by telling him Jazz needs to change with the times.
  • Start a Fire - The song was stolen away from Seb. Obviously he does not like it. Mia doesn't like it, either.

    And at both ends of this playlist, Seb+Mia's love theme in the beginning, and the Audition at the end, you have are rather somber/dramatic songs. They just hold up very well, so, I didn't include them. The only truly happy songs are the first two openers "Another Day of Sun," "Someone in The Crowd," and the "fake" ending "Epilogue." Everything else is a sad song about how things don't always work out. By driving this bittersweet flavor full force for the entire film, you don't have much in the middle to really lift up the film. Everything that's uplifting is from an imagined reality, not actual reality. So, it drags. And drags. And drags. And an hour and a half later, it stops dragging and becomes somber, but dramatic and well done. Then it gets happy in an imagine spot, and then crashes down again. Even for a subversion of the musical, this is not properly imbalanced.

    Does it subvert the Hollywood musical? Yes, to hell and back. Does that make it a good movie? No. With some tweaks and better balancing to lighten the mood/lift up the scenes it could've been perfect. But in my eyes it will always fall short.

    My first viewing of a movie is always the one I judge them from. Your first view is always the harshest and most critical because you're not prepared for anything: if a scene comes and it irks you, something was not done right. If the movie is over and your impression was it's imbalanced, that needs to be fixed.

    What movies fulfill this criteria

    A movie that can be watched now and is still fulfilling and wholesomely appreciated. Spirited Away, Singin' In The Rain, The Godfather, Citizen Kane, The Lord of The Rings, The Green Mile, Pulp Fiction, The Wizard of Oz, and while I haven't seen one in its entirety a Hitchcock film like Rear Window could easily fit the bill. I'd argue that Misery definitely should.

    Some of the movies that are frequently cited I feel don't deserve that same honor: Blade Runner (drags too long), The Third Man (not that impressive), Casablanca (all conversation, practically no action), The Wizard of Oz (not as impressive nowadays), Forest Gump (a lot of storytelling, but not enough purpose). Most other movies on top 100 lists have pacing issues and do not take storytelling efficiency and purpose as a serious requirement. Titanic does not belong on anyone's top 100 list for that reason. I only give The Godfather a pass at its length and slower pace because it is so purpose-driven you can't take your eyes off it. That bogging down is usually what makes a movie drag, and that's not as accepted now as it used to be. True brilliance is nigh-on impossible to find.

    At the same time, a lot of movies with great purpose, resolve, and pacing that should be considered true classics are usually incredibly popular, but not considered for all time best lists: Ratatouille, Disney's 1991 Beauty and The Beast, Kiki's Delivery Service, Mrs. Doubtfire, Sister Act, The Naked Gun, etc.

  • Posted December 27th, 2017 by mariomguy

    It was a joke


    I really doubt that it was.

    forest Gump not enough purpose

    A character like forest Gump doesn't need to have a purpose though. He's a regular guy who ends up partaking in incredible events.

    Casablanca no action

    I've never seen this film but why does it need any type of action? Silence has no action but it's one of the best movies of this decade. The movie Locke starting tom Hardy has no action, has only one character and is set in a car yet it's one of the most gripping performances of the decade.

    Edited December 27th, 2017 by S.o.h.
    S.o.h.
     

    Forest Gump (a lot of storytelling, but not enough purpose)


    What do you mean? The purpose of the film was to follow a man through his life, seeing the influence he has on others without realizing it. It's a comfy, long-burning film designed to remind you that you have an impact on things and a connection to the world, whether you realize it or not. It does this by showing you the cycle of a man's life from childhood to parenthood. There is a lot of purpose there. It's not fantastical drama or a big ethical or moral statement. It's about life. Like life, it's both more mundane and less predictable.

    It's one of my favorite films. I've seen it more times than I can remember. Less times than The Matrix, though.

    Posted December 27th, 2017 by nullfather

    Does it subvert the Hollywood musical? Yes, to hell and back. Does that make it a good movie? No. With some tweaks and better balancing to lighten the mood/lift up the scenes it could've been perfect. But in my eyes it will always fall short.


    This continues to be your major problem: you view every piece of art through the lens of what *you* prefer and want, and give virtually no credence whatsoever to the goal and intention of the filmmaker or creator. La La Land was pretty clearly never meant to be a "pick-me-up" film, so why should Damien Chazelle concern himself with "balancing to lighten the mood"? That isn't the tone he is going for. It's certainly fair to argue that deconstructing a genre or subverting expectations do not inherently make a good film, but you appear to - once again - be judging it based on what you prefer rather than as an actual film independent of you and with a creator whose intent matters substantially more than your preferences when judging it as a piece of art.


    My first viewing of a movie is always the one I judge them from. Your first view is always the harshest and most critical because you're not prepared for anything: if a scene comes and it irks you, something was not done right


    This is pretty nonsense, and is kind of a totally messed way to view films and, really, art as a whole, and is another staple of how your approach to art is actually extremely limiting and depressing.

    First, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that your first view is always harshest. Sometimes it can be. For example, I kinda felt very "meh" about Star Wars: The Last Jedi. I was overly critical of it. Conversely, I quite enjoyed the first Transformers movie when that came out, because it surpassed my expectations, and I had fun with it. I clearly took a more lax approach to watching Transformers than I did The Last Jedi. Or another example: I felt pretty indifferent to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz when I first watched those. Flash forward a few years, and those are two of my all-time favorite movies and I watched them seriously multiple times every year. Conversely, I really liked The Hangover when I first saw it. Thought it was really funny. Watched it again recently, and man. I do not think it has aged well.

    I think the idea that your first viewing is, in any way, the definitive viewing of the film, and that all that can be said about the movie can be taken from that first experience is absolutely fundamentally flawed, and misses so many aspects of cinema and art in general that you completely fail to take into account.

    First, you as a viewer change (or least, you possess the ability to). I grew to love The Shining as one of my all-time favorites, and Stanley Kubrick as a director, because as I got older, I watched more films. My visual literacy developed, and my intellectual maturity grew, too. Things that I didn't get when I first watched it, I understood more upon later views, in part because *I* changed. The movie itself did not. (Unless that movie were Blade Runner...)

    As I began making film-viewing more of an active interest of mine, I also became aware of more filmmaking techniques. I always liked Jaws just fine, for example, but I became obsessed with it when I started noticing things like that one-shot on the ferry, or how they cleverly use the technological limitations of the time to increase the sense of fear or intensity of a scene. In the case of Shaun of the Dead, I just didn't notice in the theater all of the structural things and callbacks of it during my first view. And literally every time I watch it, I catch something new, all because my visual literacy has grown and I have become a more aware and observant film viewer. That wasn't Edgar Wright changing or Shaun of the Dead changing. That was *me* changing.

    The same thing is true on the reverse. I'm not so in love with Return of the Jedi today as I was when I was younger, for similar reasons. I generally don't just watch a movie and judge it based on how it made me feel. Sometimes, I definitely forgive flaws if I had a good time (which I definitely did for Baby Driver, which has some issues, I easily forgive because I just had such an amazing time watching it five times in theaters). Sometimes I'm a bit less forgiving, but still flexible, like the new Ghostbusters, which I quite enjoyed when I watched it. I liked it, but didn't find it *soooo* fun that I felt any urge to really revisit it. One time was good enough for me. I'll probably revisit it some time eventually, and I wouldn't call it a bad movie. (But I wouldn't call it a good movie. Just a fun one that I enjoyed.) And sometimes, I'm not forgiving at all (Days of Future Past, for example, which I still despise).

    This idea that you can tell the quality of a film from just your initial viewing is just a pretty closed-minded and arrogant approach to experiencing art. You, especially, would benefit from taking a step back and re-examining things later, since the only measuring stick you seem to have to judge films is how much it adhered to your personal tastes. (Like here, how you are essentially claiming La La Land isn't a good movie, but half of your reasoning is explicitly, "It wasn't what *I* wanted it to be.")

    Or another perfectly arrogant and asinine criticism of a classic film:

    Casablanca (all conversation, practically no action)


    Right. It was never supposed to be about action. Again, you're judging a film because of what you *want* it to be rather than what it is and what it is trying to be. (You also don't factor in production elements when judging these films. It seems pretty evident from your list of classic films that you find over-rated takes virtually no stock in the time the films were made, or the context of which these films came out in. Something like Blade Runner hardly seems that special today, but it was a hugely influential film because there was nothing like it at the time it came out. And really, in terms of atmosphere and tone, there hasn't really been anything like it since.)



    Posted December 27th, 2017 by Jet Presto

    My first viewing of a movie is always the one I judge them from. Your first view is always the harshest and most critical because you're not prepared for anything: if a scene comes and it irks you, something was not done right. If the movie is over and your impression was it's imbalanced, that needs to be fixed.


    I didn't catch this on my first read-through.

    That's kinda silly. There are some films that you can get a pretty good hold of on the first watch, but there are some that are pretty complex and feature a lot of deep structure that you're probably not going to fully appreciate on first watch.

    While they're different media, this is perfectly equivalent to my experience with music albums. There are certain albums that I literally did not understand the purpose of on the first listen and which required multiple relistens to grasp the underlying structure of. Colors by Between the Buried and Me is a perfect example of this. I thought it was OK on first listen, but about the seventh or eighth time I listen to it, it finally "clicked" for me. It was almost like a religious experience - I saw the whole picture instead of what I was listening to from second to second.

    Posted December 27th, 2017 by nullfather

    I really doubt that it was.
    Maybe it would've been funnier if you watched the introduction to La La Land.



    A character like forest Gump doesn't need to have a purpose though. He's a regular guy who ends up partaking in incredible events.

    The movie is just that, though: Forest Gump is a mentally handicapped person who stumbles through an extraordinary life that, while incredible, is also devoid of meaning, leaving the story as far more shallow than the nostalgic filmmaking leads us to believe.

    I've never seen this film but why does it need any type of action?

    The entire movie, like 95% of it, takes place through conversation. No special effects, no camera work, just two characters on opposite sides of the screen talking. That's 95% of Casablanca.

    Posted December 27th, 2017 by mariomguy

    Forest Gump is a mentally handicapped person who stumbles through an extraordinary life that, while incredible, is also devoid of meaning, leaving the story as far more shallow than the nostalgic filmmaking leads us to believe.


    In no way is his life devoid of meaning.

    You're acting like a robot again.

    Posted December 27th, 2017 by nullfather

    How is his life devoid of meaning?

    The man falls in love, engages in varies hobbies, develops friendships, risks his life for those friendships, etc etc.

    Edited December 27th, 2017 by S.o.h.
    S.o.h.
     

    Forest Gump is a mentally handicapped person who stumbles through an extraordinary life that, while incredible, is also devoid of meaning

    this made me chuckle

    Posted December 27th, 2017 by Brandy

    That's kinda silly. There are some films that you can get a pretty good hold of on the first watch, but there are some that are pretty complex and feature a lot of deep structure that you're probably not going to fully appreciate on first watch.

    Ideally you should be able to tell a movie is amazing from the instant you see it, and from there it should get better with repeated viewings. Films that require multiple viewings to understand never reach the heights of movies that are instantly gripping and don't let go.

    I can attest, after a few days of rewatching some of the musical numbers (especially The Audition), La La Land does have the grip of an awesome film, but not the bite. My immediate reaction to watching it was it SHOULD'VE been better.

    How is his life devoid of meaning?

    He ran. For no reason. He founded a shrimp company with a guy. For no reason. He sort of fell in love, but not really. He went to the army, for no reason. Stuff just happens to him, he doesn't have the fortitude to lead his own life. When the main character doesn't have a grip on their destiny, it makes the movie lose purpose and meaning. It is satisfying to watch him go through this adventure of a life, but you don't really feel like that life was his. Stuff happened to him and around him, but he didn't really make sure it happened one way or the other.

    Posted December 28th, 2017 by mariomguy

    Ideally you should be able to tell a movie is amazing from the instant you see it, and from there it should get better with repeated viewings. Films that require multiple viewings to understand never reach the heights of movies that are instantly gripping and don't let go.


    So? Ideally, yes. That doesn't make anything I said wrong, however, and it doesn't make the idea that you can make an decent assessment of a film on the first impression correct.

    He ran. For no reason. He founded a shrimp company with a guy. For no reason. He sort of fell in love, but not really. He went to the army, for no reason. Stuff just happens to him, he doesn't have the fortitude to lead his own life.


    Just because you don't understand his motivation for anything doesn't mean he didn't make those choices.

    You really seem to have a hard time with subtle things when they're out of your field of expertise.

    Posted December 28th, 2017 by nullfather

    The entire movie, like 95% of it, takes place through conversation. No special effects, no camera work, just two characters on opposite sides of the screen talking. That's 95% of Casablanca.


    For those who are unfamiliar with Casablanca, it is worth noting that the film was made in 1942.

    There are no special effects, because it was a character drama, not a war film, made in 1942.

    There is actually quite a bit of impressive and innovative camera work, provided you recall that the film was made in 1942.

    It's just two characters on screen talking to each other, because it was a film...made...in...1...9...4...2

    (Seriously, if there's anything more annoying than hearing film criticism from someone who refuses to even attempt to see what a filmmaker was going for, it's hearing someone apply modern standards and expectations to a film that is literally 75 years old...)

    Posted December 28th, 2017 by Jet Presto

    He founded a shrimp company with a guy. For no reason. He sort of fell in love, but not really. He went to the army, for no reason. Stuff just happens to him, he doesn't have the fortitude to lead his own life.

    He lived out his best friends dream.

    How did he not fall in love? Do you even know what love is? Have you ever been in love?

    army no reason

    pretty sure he signed up because he needed a job

    stuff just kinda happens to him

    stuff happens to every one. thats a part of life. some times you dont have to take charge for stuff to just happen to you. my most memorable life experiences happened because I was in the right place at the right time. I only took charge because I got out of bed that day.



    Posted December 29th, 2017 by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Stuff just happens to him, he doesn't have the fortitude to lead his own life.


    I get that conventional wisdom is that a story should be about characters taking control, but it is absolutely fine to tell a story that involves a character reacting to stuff. This idea that every story has to be about a character *leading* the action is extraordinarily limiting, especially for the medium of film.

    Posted December 29th, 2017 by Jet Presto

    I really doubt that it was.


    You guys just can't resist making every mariomguy thread a shitstorm can you?

    Posted December 29th, 2017 by KnokkelMillennium

    So? Ideally, yes. That doesn't make anything I said wrong, however, and it doesn't make the idea that you can make an decent assessment of a film on the first impression correct.

    Yeah, some films grow on you. But there are REASONS the initial impressions might be less than stellar. For La La Land, the film just forgot to give just a little touch to the moments that portray reality. Reality is always a harsh mistress, and fantasy always glorious. Excellent for portraying purpose, but since most of the film is set in reality, that makes it terrible for entertainment.

    You really seem to have a hard time with subtle things when they're out of your field of expertise.

    No, I just like characters to have purpose in their life. To strive to achieve something. If your main character doesn't want anything, then they themselves are not interesting. What's happening to them may be interesting, but for all intents and purposes the character is dead.

    There are no special effects, because it was a character drama, not a war film, made in 1942.

    HA! This was made in 1941:



    Seriously, if there's anything more annoying than hearing film criticism from someone who refuses to even attempt to see what a filmmaker was going for, it's hearing someone apply modern standards and expectations to a film that is literally 75 years old...

    And THIS is 78 years old!



    I get that conventional wisdom is that a story should be about characters taking control, but it is absolutely fine to tell a story that involves a character reacting to stuff. This idea that every story has to be about a character *leading* the action is extraordinarily limiting, especially for the medium of film.

    Then call me a traditionalist. You see how just having stuff happen to characters is not as interesting as characters actually deciding to do things and then following through on them? Forest Gump is a Hollywood Epic in reverse: the hero doesn't set out to do much, stuff just happens to him.

    One of my favorite scenes in The Godfather. No fancy camera work, no over-the-top violence or action, but it is the key and pivotal moment where Michael Corleone decides to take charge and do something about the attack against his father. Now imagine if everyone else in the scene decided Michael should do this. Every now and then it's good for the hero to go through trials, but when the hero decides to put themself through a trial we're watching them power through their own journey rather than just letting destiny carry them out to shore. It's much more interesting to see a live character on the screen, not a dead, weak, or wishy-washy one.



    Edited December 29th, 2017 by mariomguy

    You guys just can't resist making every mariomguy thread a shitstorm can you?


    With mariomguy you just never know.

    Posted December 29th, 2017 by S.O.H.
    S.O.H.
     

    Yeah, some films grow on you. But there are REASONS the initial impressions might be less than stellar


    And you do not think - at all, in any capacity - those reasons could not be specific to the film itself, but rather to you as a viewer? (I'm assuming you avoided everything I wrote, given I kind of explained exactly how changes in *me* caused a completely different view of films I adore.)


    Re: Citizen Kane & The Wizard of Oz

    Somehow, I'm not that surprised that you would cherry-pick two all-time classic films to make some point about how filmmaking was more advanced than what you see in Casablanca. But there are a few things worth keeping in mind. The first is that Orson Welles was a rare breed of filmmaker, even by today's standards. It is worth noting, though I'm sure you will not, that my argument here isn't that Casablanca is a better movie than Citizen Kane (definitely isn't). However, the existence of more experimental and amazing artists does not suddenly mean that a good film is not a good film. There are actually a number of sequences in Casablanca that were innovative at the time with the ways they used dolleys. Apart from the fact that a film doesn't need to have groundbreaking cinematography, as Welles often tried (because he is an all-time great), the cinematography in Casablanca is actually pretty advanced for 1942. If you want to shit on it because you can name a couple films that were better, that's you prerogative. It's a shitty way to view art, but fine. You do you. Lighting and framing play a key role in the film, and to act like it doesn't do anything because the camera doesn't do a whole lot at a time kind of highlights the lack of understanding you actually have regarding cinema.

    And as for the Wizard of Oz, that is a *completely* different film from what Casablanca is. It looks great for the time! It's amazing what they could pull off at as early a time as they did. It's not any different than going back to watch King Kong (1933) or The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926). Those films look like complete garbage today, but are super impressive for their times. (Many imitators arose for King Kong; none came anywhere close to matching its special effects for the time.)

    But you cannot compare a character drama to a fantasy or sci-fi monster feature. There's nothing about Casablanca that looks bad, and to act like special effects is a check box that needs to be marked in order for a film to be considered "a great film" is incredibly narrow-minded. (You also ignore that the Wizard of Oz had a *substantially* larger budget than Casablanca. Its budget was nearly three times more. And that was pre-war as well, when cost of goods didn't skyrocket because of rationing.) Bottom line: quality films that relied on special effects were once in a while because they cost an ton more to make. The entire reason you see knock offs of The Lost World feature lizards in costumes rather than stop motion is that it was cheaper to produce. (And that's why, generally, The Lost World is considered a classic and the others are considered specifically enjoyable genre flicks.)

    Are there movies from the period that were better than Casablanca? Absolutely! Yes! Do those few examples you can note suddenly mean Casablanca is not a good film or an all-time classic? Hardly. And why are you still so hellbent to ignore what the film *does* and what it *is*?


    You see how just having stuff happen to characters is not as interesting as characters actually deciding to do things and then following through on them?


    Sometimes. I know you don't like having to think about context and intention of creators, but it depends on the story and the purpose of the film. I tend to lean on the original Godzilla as a perfect example of how a story about characters that are just reacting to stuff happening to them can make for super compelling stories, however.

    Posted December 30th, 2017 by Jet Presto

    No, I just like characters to have purpose in their life. To strive to achieve something. If your main character doesn't want anything, then they themselves are not interesting. What's happening to them may be interesting, but for all intents and purposes the character is dead.


    Right, because Forrest Gump never wanted anything...get real. Did you even watch Forrest Gump? How many times? Because it's less than I have.

    Posted December 30th, 2017 by nullfather
    Reply to: La La Land
    Enter your message here

    Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
    GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on