You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   133-157   158-182   183-207 
 208-232   233-257   258-282   283-307   308-326      
 
Author Message
25 new of 326 responses total.
edina
response 158 of 326: Mark Unseen   Jun 2 01:51 UTC 2000

They weren't doves - they are pigeons.  It's a John Woo thing.
richard
response 159 of 326: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Jun 2 04:31 UTC 2000

I thought pigeons _were_ doves.
happyboy
response 162 of 326: Mark Unseen   Jun 2 11:35 UTC 2000

air-rats
flem
response 163 of 326: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Jun 4 13:31 UTC 2000

They show several.
ric
response 172 of 326: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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?  
mdw
response 175 of 326: Mark Unseen   Jun 4 23:32 UTC 2000

Does Australia have *any* castles (above or below ground?)
spooked
response 176 of 326: Mark Unseen   Jun 4 23:52 UTC 2000

No idea - it's top secret I imagine (=
ric
response 177 of 326: Mark Unseen   Jun 5 01:38 UTC 2000

They looked like they were in some kind of dungeon, too me, with "portable"
DNS-analysis tools.  Didn't you notice that the tool they used was sitting
on a fairly plain looking table and there was no other "equipment" in the room
nor any noticeable storage cupboards or anything like that.

I contest that it was not any kind of Biotech facility.
mcnally
response 178 of 326: Mark Unseen   Jun 5 02:26 UTC 2000

  I'm going to have to concede your point -- it was not a biotech facility..
  My guess is that it was a movie set, and not a particularly thoroughly
  thought-out one..  

  Other things I'd like to know: what were all of those gas cylinders
  doing there?  Were they there just in case Tom Cruise or McGyver launched
  a commando raid on the place? 

  And what is the facility used for when it's not hosting negotiations with
  bio-weapon terrorists?  It seems like the personnel costs in security
  alone would make it a white elephant if you weren't storing some sort of
  bio-weapon or similarly crucial object there.  Certainly the corporation
  might've been better advised to use some of those security to protect their
  main facilities, which both the M:I team *and* the villains had simply
  waltzed into not 24 hours before..  But then it's probably pretty hard to
  staff a place with the sort of ask-no-questions security guards who will
  give up their lives to protect the property of a company that's getting
  ready to kill millions of their fellow countrymen, especially in today's
  hot job market..


  ;-p
jazz
response 179 of 326: Mark Unseen   Jun 5 03:22 UTC 2000

        Dru, I hated "True Lies" too, and, if I'm reading what you wrote
correctly, we hated it for the same reasons.  I'm not really sure what the
difference is between a good mindless action film and a bad mindless action
film - it could be the sensible kinetic and visual language behind a good
mindless action film which is enough to defray the logical understanding of
the rational language of the plot until after it's over, or it could just be
that it's pretty and the soundtrack matches the action of the characters, to
lull the audience into a trance.  
senna
response 180 of 326: Mark Unseen   Jun 5 05:18 UTC 2000

I don't particularly like True Lies.  They put Arnold into a movie, added
pyrotechnics, and expected it to work.  It didn't, so they included Jamie Lee
Curtis and lingerie.  Apparently, deadlines prevented them from making it
good...
mcnally
response 181 of 326: Mark Unseen   Jun 5 05:31 UTC 2000

  I actually liked "True Lies" except for the creepily sadistic part where
  Arnold is psychologically torturing Jamie Lee..  But that was enough to
  kill the pacing of the movie and introduce issues that distracted greatly
  from the entertainment value of seeing things get "blowed up real good."
goose
response 182 of 326: Mark Unseen   Jun 5 15:25 UTC 2000

Mike, in MI:2 they mentioned that the castle in question was a storage
facility.

IFO also liked "True Lies" despite my aversion to Arnold.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   133-157   158-182   183-207 
 208-232   233-257   258-282   283-307   308-326      
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss