|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 326 responses total. |
danr
|
|
response 150 of 326:
| 
Jun 1 14:59 UTC 2000 |
re #148: The last James Bond movie was exactly the same. I think it's
that special effects are getting to be too easy to produce, while well-
written scripts are getting harder to write. And on top of that, most
people that go to movies like MI2 don't really care about plot.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 151 of 326:
|
Jun 1 20:45 UTC 2000 |
I agree that viewers don't demand excellent plots, but I think that
most still appreciate it when at least a little bit of thought is given
to the issue.. Take, for instance, "The Matrix".. Even a little bit
of critical examination reveals the fact that the plot is skeletal
(at best) and the scenario ludicrous (Okay: even if we grant that the
AIs need "bio-energy" to power things, why don't they get it from cows
and save themselves a lot of potential trouble?)
But "The Matrix" was enjoyable because it paid at least enough lip service
to the idea of plot and narrative structure to keep you from being jolted
out of your suspended disbelief while watching the movie. Once you walked
out of the theater it didn't take long before the illusion of plot, so
carefully constructed out of clever pacing and eye candy -- smoke and
mirrors, basically -- began to dissipate. But -- and this is the important
part -- *while* you were watching you didn't start to shift in your seat
or scratch your head at what was going on on-screen..
Mission:Implausible simply asks too much.. Once I've swallowed the
idea that Tom Cruise is a super-sophisticated secret agent with nerves
of steel and superhuman reflexes, and have accepted that germ warfare
researchers are willing to smuggle a deadly virus by injecting it into
themselves and then getting on a plane and *hoping* they'll arrive at
their destination on time to take the cure, it's unfair to further
burden my overtaxed credibility by halfway through the movie having
everyone behave like idiots just because it leads to some cool stunts.
This movie doesn't just want me to suspend my disbelief, it asks me
to vaporize it..
|
mooncat
|
|
response 152 of 326:
|
Jun 1 21:23 UTC 2000 |
Mike- maybe the bio-energy provided by an occupied mind (occupied by
the Matrix, doncha know) was greater than that provided by cows...
<grins> Just a, yanno, thought...
|
jazz
|
|
response 153 of 326:
|
Jun 1 21:54 UTC 2000 |
I'd think they'd do something like what NASA has researched, using very
primitive bacteria for that purpose. It's the most efficient food, and in
all likelihood far better at producing energy as biomass. Of course, there's
that whole fusion and fission thing ...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 154 of 326:
|
Jun 1 21:59 UTC 2000 |
I'm not trying to poke holes in "The Matrix".. For what it's worth,
my opinion is that the filmmakers of "The Matrix" gave the viewer just
enough expository and explanatory mumbo-jumbo to keep things moving along.
It wasn't tightly written enough to stand up to analysis after the movie
was over, but it was never intended to do so. The point is, that in
"The Matrix", or any other successful action movie, the plot is well
enough constructed to at least last for two hours or so before simply
disintegrating under the weight of its own implausibility.
In my opinion this is definitely not true of Mission:Impossible 2,
which is the primary flaw which ruined my enjoyment of the movie.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 155 of 326:
|
Jun 1 22:44 UTC 2000 |
Mike... I'm just teasing. <grins>
One of the things I liked was every time it looked like they were going
to throw in a 'mandatory love scene' they didn't. <grins>
|
ric
|
|
response 156 of 326:
|
Jun 2 01:26 UTC 2000 |
IMO, plausability does not necessarily a good movie make.
Most of the time, I don't really give a damn about plot flaws. Realism and
plausability has absolutely no meaning to me when I'm watching a movie. I
go purely to be entertained, and neither realism nor plausability of plat
affects that entertainment value for me.
Thus, I enjoyed Mission Impossible 2
|
mcnally
|
|
response 157 of 326:
|
Jun 2 01:39 UTC 2000 |
Would you enjoy watching a 90-minute reel of stunts with no connecting
plot line? Because that's the way action movies seem to be headed..
|
edina
|
|
response 158 of 326:
|
Jun 2 01:51 UTC 2000 |
They weren't doves - they are pigeons. It's a John Woo thing.
|
richard
|
|
response 159 of 326:
|
Jun 2 01:59 UTC 2000 |
how can they bring back Battlestar Gallactica when Lorne Greene is dead?
I mean sheesh! (what are they going to do next, Bonanza: The Movie?)
|
ric
|
|
response 160 of 326:
|
Jun 2 02:45 UTC 2000 |
re 157 - well, some plot is required, and MI2 had a plot. The plot itself
wasn't implausible, though many parts of the story were very VERY loosely
connected.
Hey, porn movies don't have plots, why should action flicks? :)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 161 of 326:
|
Jun 2 04:31 UTC 2000 |
I thought pigeons _were_ doves.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 162 of 326:
|
Jun 2 11:35 UTC 2000 |
air-rats
|
flem
|
|
response 163 of 326:
|
Jun 3 21:08 UTC 2000 |
I tend to think of the plots of action movies like MI2 and Bond flicks as
"stylized". Yes, they don't stand up to analysis, and yes, they require
perhaps inordinate amounts of suspension of disbelief, but there are those
who like that sort of thing. And, judging from box office results, they are
not few. Personally, I don't see it as being any worse than the stylized
plots, characters, animation, etc. one finds in Disney movies.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 164 of 326:
|
Jun 4 02:43 UTC 2000 |
Saying that it's "stylized" implies that at some point someone made a
conscious decision to make it the way it was, rather than it winding
up that way because of laziness, incompetence, or some unfortunate
convergence of conflicting artistic priorities.
Besides, I'm not sure that I agree whether the issue of whether something
is done in the style of an action movie and whether or not its plot makes
even a little sense as a work of narrative fiction are at all linked.
Granted, it seems like a lot of modern filmmakers seem to think they are,
and obviously those people spend a much greater portion of their time than
I do thinking about action movie issues, but I would argue that the
existence of at least moderately plausible films which are still undeniably
action movies is a powerful counterargument.
I guess what it comes down to is that I don't believe that sometime during
scriptwriting (or at any other point in the production) the writer sat down
with the director and producer and said something like: "OK, guys, here's
the deal.. I can either write you an action movie, *OR* I can write you a
movie where the story makes sense. Which will it be?"
|
gelinas
|
|
response 165 of 326:
|
Jun 4 02:54 UTC 2000 |
Rather, I think at some point the director/editor makes a decision to include
something, or drop something else, because of the "cool factor" rather than
to advance the story.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 166 of 326:
|
Jun 4 03:51 UTC 2000 |
There are certainly elements like that in M:I2. For example the only
explanation for the otherwise inexplicable birds fluttering around the
bio-tech facility is that director John Woo has some gratuitous fixation
involving fluttering birds (if you have the temerity to doubt me, punish
yourself by watching his previous Hollywood movie, "Face Off", which will
amply illustrate Woo's pigeon fetish..)
I think, though, that MI:2's problems go much deeper than an expository
scene or two left on the [literal or metaphorical] cutting-room floor.
Essentially the supposedly super-comptetent characters just make puzzlingly
dumb decisions, decisions which are so obviously stupid, even at the time,
that the viewer is jolted out of the story. They're like big drum crashes
out of rhythm.. I can't conceive of any scenes or chapters that might've
been left out that would explain why the characters choose to act as they do.
At the same time, though, I probably *could* come up with reasons for them
to engage in all of same motorcycle chases, rope stunts, and gun fights
they get into. Those reasons would be pretty contrived, but they'd at least
keep things moving along..
--
I don't want to beat this to death. Nor do I want to single out M:I2,
the problems I'm describing are sadly not unique to this particular film.
I just wonder: do even action-movie audiences *really* care so little
about plot? Maybe they do -- certainly if there's one thing I'd count
on the studios to get right it'd be to understand as much as possible
about what brings people into movies, and a zillion dollars of action
blockbuster earnings at the box office certainly suggests they know what
they're doing. But maybe, just maybe, there's room for both a vestigial
plot *and* the usual complement of explosions, harrowing aerobatic stunts,
and kung fu..
(yeah, I know.. that *does* sound pretty farfetched..)
|
krj
|
|
response 167 of 326:
|
Jun 4 04:03 UTC 2000 |
Heh. I suppose I should mention that I had to whisper to Leslie tonight:
"Stop thinking!" We were watching "Shanghai Noon" at the time...
we both thought it was a lot of fun, just don't analyze the plot
too much.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 168 of 326:
|
Jun 4 04:56 UTC 2000 |
I actually thought about following up #166 with a note clarifying that
contrary to what one might guess from my recent writings in this item
I often really enjoy the totally off-the-wall "plots" of Chinese action
movies, perhaps because they rarely even pretend to make sense. Maybe
what I object to is when a movie tries to act like it should make sense
and simply fails completely..
|
senna
|
|
response 169 of 326:
|
Jun 4 07:25 UTC 2000 |
I concur. Action flicks that attempt to take themselves seriously and fail
to be serious are painful to watch. Action movies, or anything else, that
looks at itself with a bit of an amused eye, are much more watchable.
|
iggy
|
|
response 170 of 326:
|
Jun 4 12:03 UTC 2000 |
i like jackie chan movies...
do they show all the out t akes at the end of shanghi noon?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 171 of 326:
|
Jun 4 13:31 UTC 2000 |
They show several.
|
ric
|
|
response 172 of 326:
|
Jun 4 15:21 UTC 2000 |
Was that "final" scene really a biotech facility? I don't think so. It
looked like some kind of old castle that they chose as a meeting place. The
pigeons would not be exactly out of place there.
|
void
|
|
response 173 of 326:
|
Jun 4 17:23 UTC 2000 |
i gave up on action movies years ago because they have no plots.
the last one i saw (was dragged to, having nothing better to do with
my $7.50 that day) was "true lies." yuk. nobody could understand why
i hated it. then when i explained that i prefer movies with
intelligible plots and a cast capable of *ACTING*, the people i was
with were incredulous. apparently, action movies are a genre whose
subtleties, if there are any, i am incapable of grasping. or maybe
it's just that i can recognize the difference between suspension of
disbelief and a plot which lacks internal consistency.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 174 of 326:
|
Jun 4 23:20 UTC 2000 |
re #172: I'm not sure how many underground castles Australia has, but
the number of them with DNA-analysis tools must be pretty low, wouldn't
you think?
|
