What was the last movie you watched?

[sharkman]

I wasn't really a fan of the series before this new movie. I wasn't even aware it was happening until a few weeks ago, and I wasn't really interested in seeing it until the incredibly positive reviews started coming in. I've never heard of an action movie getting such enthusiastic reviews. I think it's almost unprecedented for an action film to get such an overwhelmingly positive response.

I suspect the original movie was mostly a cult favorite. ...

-k

I was surprised to see the reboot as well and it's a shock that it's so good. I agree with your sentiments on the movie industry and their stubborn tendency to keep coming out with the retreads. This movie was a really big risk, and the budget was huge. Looks like more sequels are in the works.

[cybercoma]

I'm surprised to hear you guys are surprised. This thing has been in the works since I believe around 2003.

[msj]

That's not at all what I said. All I was trying to get at is that the situations in the plots exist without his influence. He's a vehicle for telling the story and conflict of others. He rarely changes or grows as a character. He's just there to advance the plot and create a focal point. It's the other characters who grow and evolve in the stories. I didn't say he was "a drooling idiot." I'm just saying he's more of a plot device than a character who evolves and grows throughout the story, as the main protagonist in stories usually does.

I agree it was not all that you said.

However, I find it funny that you deny my admittedly exaggerated claim of what you think of Max as a character and then proceed to essentially make the claim.

Any drooling idiot can be "just there to advance the plot and create a focal point."

Edited June 4, 2015 by msj

[cybercoma]

A drooling idiot could, but that's not what he is nor is it what I said. You're choosing to call the character that, not me.

[GostHacked]

I was surprised to see the reboot as well and it's a shock that it's so good. I agree with your sentiments on the movie industry and their stubborn tendency to keep coming out with the retreads. This movie was a really big risk, and the budget was huge. Looks like more sequels are in the works.

This trend started in the 80s with sequels and prequels. Star Wars and Star Trek were just good stories that needed multiple movies.

But there are a load of other movies that were bad off in the first place, but then they decided to make another one. Not because the movie was good, but because enough interest or revenue was made to start producing the next one.

But then it plays into the psychology of it all. People will go watch another movie in the same 'universe' because it is familiar and they like it. And yet there will never EVER be a Serenity 2. In a way that is good as it keeps Serenity as one of my fave 'sci-fi-fantasy' movies. The whole Firefly Series was great, but was cancelled. Booooooooooo Hollywood ... boooooooooooo.

[cybercoma]

Capitalism thrives on the predictable and reproducible. George Ritzer describes the theory behind this (borrowing from Weber taionalizaiton theory) as the McDonaldization of Society, which relies on 1) Efficiency, 2) Predictability, 3) Calculability, and 4) Non-human technologies (taking skills away from people and building them into technology). That's why movies began suffering in the 80s. Sure you might be able to make millions doing something wildly creative and unique, but you also might lose millions. Capitalist markets are about mitigating risks, contrary to the belief that with great risk comes great reward. Business doesn't want to gamble. They want sure bets. And this is why capitalism is lousy for art. It's why we end up with countless sequels and recreating already popular comics or books. It's why Michael Bay can make crapfest film after crapfest film and still make millions. Look at the features of the rationalization of society–efficiency, predictability, calculability–and think about what that means for art and culture then think about how those relate to the economy. That's why we end up with Big Macs instead of gourmet burgers.

[msj]

Yes, because "socialist realism" is just a better way to make art.

Nothing like making art by approved political committee.

What's that?

Capitalist countries tend to be free and allow artists to make any art they want to the extent that they can afford to make it?

Oh, right, maybe that's why Picasso's sell for $179 million. Who would have predicted that in 1955?

[Guest]

Capitalism thrives on the predictable and reproducible. George Ritzer describes the theory behind this (borrowing from Weber taionalizaiton theory) as the McDonaldization of Society, which relies on 1) Efficiency, 2) Predictability, 3) Calculability, and 4) Non-human technologies (taking skills away from people and building them into technology). That's why movies began suffering in the 80s. Sure you might be able to make millions doing something wildly creative and unique, but you also might lose millions. Capitalist markets are about mitigating risks, contrary to the belief that with great risk comes great reward. Business doesn't want to gamble. They want sure bets. And this is why capitalism is lousy for art. It's why we end up with countless sequels and recreating already popular comics or books. It's why Michael Bay can make crapfest film after crapfest film and still make millions. Look at the features of the rationalization of society–efficiency, predictability, calculability–and think about what that means for art and culture then think about how those relate to the economy. That's why we end up with Big Macs instead of gourmet burgers.

But we don't. We end up with Big Macs and Gourmet Burgers. It's true that there is enough money to keep mindless action and gross out comedy flicks coming ad nauseum, but there are also some very good films being made. And I daresay the television being put out in the last decade or so is as good as it has ever been.

And the crap wouldn't keep coming if people stopped paying for it. They don't know much about art, but they know what they like, or something like that.

Edited June 6, 2015 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

Yes, because "socialist realism" is just a better way to make art.

I never said anything about some better alternate system. You're the one just making up crap now for no reason. As for Picasso's art selling for millions. I can also get $0.50 Picasso coasters today produced by computer print out.

[msj]

As for Picasso's art selling for millions. I can also get $0.50 Picasso coasters today produced by computer print out.

Yes, ain't capitalism grand?

[msj]

I never said anything about some better alternate system.

Of course you didn't.

The easy road is paved with crap people say about capitalism.

The fact is that capitalism tends to associate with more freedom which allows people to pursue creative endeavours they may not otherwise be able to pursue if they are back home working the fields, then working elsewhere just to put food on the table and shelter overhead.

However, I give credit to communism and other forms of tyranny since many great artists do come out of traumatic events.

In Ireland it may be the tyranny of the Church and their abuse, for Picasso Spain and the fascists are important, in Russia you can hear it through the music of Shostakovich, and Cuba? Well, maybe someday soon ....

[kimmy]

Yes, because "socialist realism" is just a better way to make art.

Nothing like making art by approved political committee.

But the studios are pretty much the same, making art by committee.

I recall reading about Guillermo del Toro's experience making "Hellboy". He talked about being pressured to add in things like a cute animal sidekick named "Helldog", and a "Hell-mobile" for Hellboy to drive around in. They wanted him to put in stuff that would appeal to little kids, and they wanted to put in stuff they could license out as action-figures. He told them that if they insisted on Helldog, he was quitting.

There are lots of movies where studio meddling compromises the art. They screen movies for focus-groups. "The General's Daughter" got a fake-feeling ending because focus-groups found the original ending depressing and the studio thought it would make more money with a happy ending. They replaced Tim Burton on the Batman series because they thought his movies were too dark and gloomy, and replaced him with Joel Schumacher. There's plenty of examples... pretty much any movie where there's a "Director's Cut" is an example of a movie where the studio over-ruled the director on what made it to the theatres.

Studio execs have strong opinions about what's going to make money, and they're willing to over-rule and even fire directors who won't co-operate with them.

-k

[msj]

Kimmy, you and CC get no argument from me about how Hollywood works.

However, I think capitalistic societies are more likely to produce better art than tyrannical societies because generally people are free to pursue artistic endeavours thanks to political freedoms that tend to associate with capitalism (I know there are exceptions blah blah blah).

I also think that Hollywood committees are better than their political counterparts and generally better than the eclectic tastes of some King or Despot.

Sure, most of the time they create crap.

On occasion that crap can lead to someone self producing "art" - some diamond in the rough. It happens - I can't think of an example right now because I suspect you would know better anyway.

[cybercoma]

Of course you didn't.

The easy road is paved with crap people say about capitalism.

The fact is that capitalism tends to associate with more freedom which allows people to pursue creative endeavours they may not otherwise be able to pursue if they are back home working the fields, then working elsewhere just to put food on the table and shelter overhead.

However, I give credit to communism and other forms of tyranny since many great artists do come out of traumatic events.

In Ireland it may be the tyranny of the Church and their abuse, for Picasso Spain and the fascists are important, in Russia you can hear it through the music of Shostakovich, and Cuba? Well, maybe someday soon ....

Ok. Let's try this again. I'm no talking about Communism or Socialism. I'm talking about how rationalization influences art and how that relates to our capitalist economy. Are you denying that studios push films that fit into Ritzer's McDonaldization concept of efficient, predictable, and calculable? With the shift away from practical effects, you can even add in non-human technologies replacing human skill. This form of social organization doesn't solely affect films, but every other aspect of our lives as well.

I didn't say anything about socialism or communism. I never claimed it would be better or that it doesn't have its own set of problems. I'm simply making an observation about the world we live in right now and you're here trying to start some stupid argument about communism.

[cybercoma]

Kimmy, you and CC get no argument from me about how Hollywood works.

However, I think capitalistic societies are more likely to produce better art than tyrannical societies because generally people are free to pursue artistic endeavours thanks to political freedoms that tend to associate with capitalism (I know there are exceptions blah blah blah).

I also think that Hollywood committees are better than their political counterparts and generally better than the eclectic tastes of some King or Despot.

Sure, most of the time they create crap.

On occasion that crap can lead to someone self producing "art" - some diamond in the rough. It happens - I can't think of an example right now because I suspect you would know better anyway.

Who said anything about tyrannies? Where do you get advocacy for tyrannical government out of any of this? You're talking like a crazy person, who's seeing things that aren't there.

[kimmy]

I watched Fury Road again this week, this time by myself and in 3d. It's the first movie since Watchmen that I've paid to see twice in the theatre.

There were a few details I caught this time that I missed the first time. The imaginary girl calls Max "Papa" at one point. Watching Furiosa's face in the moments before she takes the rig off-course, you can see the doubt in her. "Am I going through with this? Am I really doing this? Ok, I guess I'm doing this..." And Max's vocal mannerism of interjecting a "hrm" into his dialogue, at moments where it seems like he wants to say more, but can't find a word.

I also enjoyed the quieter moments in the film more than I did the first time. The look on Max's face as he watches Furiosa in the moment where her dream has been shattered. The scene where the young women meet the old ladies for the first time. The passing of the satchel of seeds from the old lady to The Dag. Nux introducing Capable to his friends Larry and Barry. Things like that, that somehow flesh out these characters, even in a movie where very little time is spent directly explaining any of the characters.

I really liked Nux. So many movies-- including this one-- are full of these expendable mooks who are just cannon-fodder for the heroes. With Nux, they put a human face on one of those mooks, explain his point of view in a way that makes perfect sense. As one of Immortan Joe's War Boys, Nux is part of the elite in his society... he's kept fed and watered, he has a place of honor in the Citadel. And yet, he's as much a commodity as the breeders. Their only value is as a uterus, and Nux's only value is as a cog in Joe's war machine. All Nux can hope for is to die in such a way that he gets to "walk shiny and chrome" in Valhalla. He's much like a suicide bomber. He's got no hope in this life but he's been promised great things in the next life, provided he dies for the cause. Only once his dream of getting his 72 virgins is crushed does he find some meaning in his life.

-k

[msj]

Yes, you made an observation and I have furthered the discussion on it in a different way. BFD.

I'm also not strictly talking about communism - I am talking about other ways to organize society that would impact how art is created.

I think freedom (expression, political, religion [ugh], artistic and economic) leads to better outcomes in most things.

Which is not to say that great art has not been created under great tyrants (although usually as a result of tyrants or in spite of tyrants).

I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that if most art is going to get created it is going to require funding - either from a benefactor (usually a tyrant) or self-funded (including "sweat equity"), or through the promise of ROI.

ROI is a better slave master than most tyrants but perhaps the self funding method produces the "best" art in the long run.

I dunno.

I just don't think our current system is all that bad. I don't think there is a shortage of "good" art in this world while there is always an infinite amount of "bad" art but that is the same as it ever was and will be.

[msj]

Who said anything about tyrannies? Where do you get advocacy for tyrannical government out of any of this? You're talking like a crazy person, who's seeing things that aren't there.

Ah, yes, there is the ad hominem again.

Can we have a discussion without you leading straight to that technique?

[kimmy]

A drooling idiot could, but that's not what he is nor is it what I said. You're choosing to call the character that, not me.

I think I get what you're saying. They could have told this story without Max at all. They could have called it "Furious Furiosa: Fury Road" and told it in a way that Max is an expendable character or not there at all.

However, I think there's a long literary tradition for this sort of character. From TV series like "The Pretender" and "The A-Team" and "The Littlest Hobo", to cowboy movies like "Pale Rider" and "Josey Wales", to Japanese stories about ronin who wander the land seeking a worthy cause.

And we do see Max evolve. He starts as an animal who's concerned solely with his own survival. But later we see him fighting tooth and nail for a cause that isn't his own. And it happens so organically that it seems completely natural. When he consoles Furiosa, saying "you know, hope is a mistake... if you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane..." he's telling us what happened to him, and the voices in his head make him spend the last half of the movie ignore his own advice.

I think it would be great to spend more time in this world, and I think there are stories that could be told that don't involve Max at all... a Furiosa back-story for example.

If they did make a Mad Max movie that didn't have Mad Max in it... would it still be called "Mad Max"? I imagine they'd want to put Mad Max in the title just to get the attention of franchise fans. Kind of like how they called the Agent Carter miniseries "Marvel's Agent Carter", even though it had only the most peripheral connection to the Marvel franchise, or the series is called "Game of Thrones" even though that was only the first book.

-k

[overthere]

But we don't. We end up with Big Macs and Gourmet Burgers. It's true that there is enough money to keep mindless action and gross out comedy flicks coming ad nauseum, but there are also some very good films being made. And I daresay the television being put out in the last decade or so is as good as it has ever been.

And the crap wouldn't keep coming if people stopped paying for it. They don't know much about art, but they know what they like, or something like that.

Agree. There are plenty of quality movies made and distributed, and they make just enough money to keep them being made. Increasing I find myself unable to bother watching the serial action blockbusters. They are loud and wild, but ultimately just kind of boring overall. Walking or driving home from the theater, what is there to do but yawn? And they have something in common besides big budgets: they are not very good on TV when they eventually hit cable. No plot and small screen= sleepytime.

You're also right about the quality of television- it has never been better and there is zero credit due to the traditional networks for that reality. Like recorded music a generation ago, and book publishing to a lesser extent, broadcast TV is undergoing a massive business shift. Hello, Internets.

[msj]

Why? Clearly "complex" is both relative and subjective to ones own tastes.......odd that you would offer comment on the character of a movie you've yet to see...

Well, after seeing "the character" in 3 out of 4 movies I bit the bullet and have now seen him (it?) in 4 out of 4.

Hasn't changed my opinion of him. No complexity to any of the characters whatsoever.

Explosions, car chases, cliche here, cliche there, oh yet another person falling from a moving vehicle and walking away without even a bruised rib.

BFD.

But perhaps I'm "talking like a crazy person" again....

Edited June 7, 2015 by msj

[msj]

I think I get what you're saying. They could have told this story without Max at all. They could have called it "Furious Furiosa: Fury Road" and told it in a way that Max is an expendable character or not there at all.

-k

Raiders of the Lost Ark is a movie with a character who is really fun but completely redundant.

The Nazi's would have found the Ark, opened it and died without Mr. Jones per Amy from The Big Bang Theory.

Without Max, Furiosa would have been dead at the hand off.

One movie with a character who is unnecessary and another movie with one who is necessary but not a character.

[poochy]

Sometimes a movie is just a movie, i look forward to seeing it.

[msj]

Sometimes a movie is just a movie, i look forward to seeing it.

Agreed.

And sometimes a movie is just plain stupid.

[Bryan]

I saw Entourage on monday. It was a pretty fun movie, better than I expected.

Much faster pacing than the TV show had, better character development, and also more Hollywood excess (for good and for bad). The story was self contained, so you did not have to have seen the show to understand everything that was happening. Ronda Rousey was particularly good in it, she had a much bigger role than I thought she would. Seeing Haley Joel Osment as an all grown up, scruffy, not very nice guy was pretty neat. It's not going to win any awards, but it's definitely worth seeing.

The ending was pretty gay.