Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

The film or The fans?

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> The film or The fans? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The film or The fans? - 21/11/2012 4:11:21 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 4/3/2012
I was thinking recently that the aspect of a film which could cause the most dislike of a film isn't the film itself but it's fans. I really, really do not like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I think their the definition of lazy film-making. Only doing the minimum attempt because they know they're going to make a billion dollars. But the thing that makes me really hate them is the fans, the ones which go to see the pieces of shit, which leads to it being a billion dollars and go to see it just cos it has johnny depp in and go crazy whenever he's in it

Then I think of the Nolan Batman films, what's more to dislike. The films and whatever criticisms you have of them? Or the crazy fanboys who go mental whenever someone bad mouths the films (the sending the death threats to the reviewer who gave it it's first bad review especially) who have to shit on other superhero films just to try and establish some superiority or suggest Christopher Nolan for every single franchise film out there or think the best way for a film to be is 'dark and gritty'?
I'm a big fan of these films, they're my favourites but whenever I see these mentalists spouting bollocks on an internet forum I think 'oh calm the fuck down man'. It's also really hard now to defend the films in an internet environment without being labelled a Batjihadist or a Nolanite. The Dark Knight Rises especially was the worst because of the problems people had with the 'plot holes'. Whenever I would try and offer a explanation for one of these 'plot holes' I would get treated as if I was one of the asshole fanboys.

So I ask you, what's the more negative aspect of the films we dislike? The films? Or the fans?
Post #: 1
RE: The film or The fans? - 21/11/2012 4:15:12 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14562
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
The fans, by some considerable distance.

A bad film I can happily forget.

Internet fans I could happily set alight.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 2
RE: The film or The fans? - 21/11/2012 7:02:54 PM   
rich


Posts: 5037
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
The former can be forgotten and lost to time without the latter

_____________________________

Meanwhile...

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 3
RE: The film or The fans? - 21/11/2012 7:34:57 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12182
Joined: 30/9/2005
I think I'd have to go with obnoxious fans. A bad film is relatively easy to forget, but some fans can be impossible to ignore.

Saying that, I think a lot of fans get unfairly lumped together when really it's only an outspoken minority that's the problem. If I was surrounded by Trekkies for example I'd probably go insane, but at the same time I can admit to having a great affection for someone willing to show such passion for a particular subject.

It's really only when people argue that I don't like something because my expectations were too high, that I think "Go fuck yourself"

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 4
RE: The film or The fans? - 22/11/2012 10:39:14 AM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 4438
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock
If a film is bad then yes it can be forgotten but when fans take it over the line then it gets serious. I like the Transformers movies but i know there are people out there that hate them and I respect there opinion even if it copy of Mark Kermode's opinion. What I find silly is the Twilight fans crying because the films have now finshed or people getting upset because Transformers 3 was nominated for three Technical Oscars.Fans who wish for people to die if they hate the film are stupid but some times haters of a film can just be a bad.

_____________________________

Trench: I'll be back.

Church: You've been back enough. I'll be back.

[leaves]

Trench: Yippee-ki-yay.


The Expendables 2 (2012)

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 5
RE: The film or The fans? - 22/11/2012 12:35:27 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

I really, really do not like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I think their the definition of lazy film-making. Only doing the minimum attempt because they know they're going to make a billion dollars.


I dont really have much to add regarding the fans of films, but \i'd love to comment on this particular point here.

Now, I can totally understand why someone may not like these films as finished products and pieces of entertainment, in particular the rather lacklustre fourth outing. However, I think to label them as 'the definition of lazy film-making' couldn't be any further from the truth. Yea, they may have bloated run times, they may have issues with over plotting and performances or any other aspect of the film that could come across to a viewers subjective opinion as poor, but lazy? Really?

They were some of the more audacious big budget movies of recent times, huge sets, groundbreaking CG, lots and lots of in camera stunt work and (initially anyway) some very good performances, not least from Depp. I can think of a single element of the original three movies, from score, script, effects, direction, preformance to production, that doesnt succeeed in some part or that ever feels 'lazy'. Even the poorest movie, On Stranger Tides, throws a whole lot at effor and craft at the screen for the viewer, it may not all work, but to call them lazy cash ins feel wholly inaccurate. Films such as 'Superhero Movie' or 'Epic Movie' are what I would define as lazy film making. They're productions that have in mind nothing other than latching onto a cinematic craze, and loosely putting something together for as small a budget as possible, safe in the knowledge that it will find an audience to make back some (and in a few cases, lots) of profit. No artistic merit at all. That's not to say the people involved aren't working hard at their craft, but is an approach to the film making process that I would class as laziness.

The PotC movies may not always come together successfully into great all round movies, but its clear there is an artisict vision that the crews are working towards, and a huge amount of effort and craft is being used to make those visions a reality on film, lazy it is not. In fact when it was first announced the initial thoughts were 'this cant work, a film based on a theme park ride, what are they doing?!', and the great thing that came out of it was that it DID work. That first movie was a great success, not just financially, but in the eyes of critics and the general audience. A sequel cash grab would've been more of the same, but the direct sequels tried to improve things, make things bigger, more spectacular and to expand the mythology of the Pirates 'world'. It really isn't a 'lazy' franchise. We saw similar criticisms of Prometheus earlier this year...'it's lazy film making by Ridley' etc. It may not be wholly successfull, but really, its anything but lazy.

I really hate the use of 'lazy' when being critical of films, it really feels like its never used accurately and it feels, to me, like the most empty pointless type of critique. It's like when 'experts' on reality tv shows are asked for advice for contestants and they say 'just go out there and have fun'. Really? Thats the best you can do? Have fun? Are you fucking kidding? It's so empty and meaningless. If I was asking a singer for advice on how to best approach my singing performance, and they said 'just go and have fun', I'd be fucking livid. If I wanted to go and just 'have fun' I'll trot out and take a shit on stage. I'd be having a lot of fun, not sure Tulisa is going to be too chuffed though. Fucking pointless. Apologies....... I digress.....




_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 6
RE: The film or The fans? - 22/11/2012 1:22:04 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 4/3/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

I really, really do not like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I think their the definition of lazy film-making. Only doing the minimum attempt because they know they're going to make a billion dollars.


I dont really have much to add regarding the fans of films, but \i'd love to comment on this particular point here.

Now, I can totally understand why someone may not like these films as finished products and pieces of entertainment, in particular the rather lacklustre fourth outing. However, I think to label them as 'the definition of lazy film-making' couldn't be any further from the truth. Yea, they may have bloated run times, they may have issues with over plotting and performances or any other aspect of the film that could come across to a viewers subjective opinion as poor, but lazy? Really?

They were some of the more audacious big budget movies of recent times, huge sets, groundbreaking CG, lots and lots of in camera stunt work and (initially anyway) some very good performances, not least from Depp. I can think of a single element of the original three movies, from score, script, effects, direction, preformance to production, that doesnt succeeed in some part or that ever feels 'lazy'. Even the poorest movie, On Stranger Tides, throws a whole lot at effor and craft at the screen for the viewer, it may not all work, but to call them lazy cash ins feel wholly inaccurate. Films such as 'Superhero Movie' or 'Epic Movie' are what I would define as lazy film making. They're productions that have in mind nothing other than latching onto a cinematic craze, and loosely putting something together for as small a budget as possible, safe in the knowledge that it will find an audience to make back some (and in a few cases, lots) of profit. No artistic merit at all. That's not to say the people involved aren't working hard at their craft, but is an approach to the film making process that I would class as laziness.

The PotC movies may not always come together successfully into great all round movies, but its clear there is an artisict vision that the crews are working towards, and a huge amount of effort and craft is being used to make those visions a reality on film, lazy it is not. In fact when it was first announced the initial thoughts were 'this cant work, a film based on a theme park ride, what are they doing?!', and the great thing that came out of it was that it DID work. That first movie was a great success, not just financially, but in the eyes of critics and the general audience. A sequel cash grab would've been more of the same, but the direct sequels tried to improve things, make things bigger, more spectacular and to expand the mythology of the Pirates 'world'. It really isn't a 'lazy' franchise. We saw similar criticisms of Prometheus earlier this year...'it's lazy film making by Ridley' etc. It may not be wholly successfull, but really, its anything but lazy.

I really hate the use of 'lazy' when being critical of films, it really feels like its never used accurately and it feels, to me, like the most empty pointless type of critique. It's like when 'experts' on reality tv shows are asked for advice for contestants and they say 'just go out there and have fun'. Really? Thats the best you can do? Have fun? Are you fucking kidding? It's so empty and meaningless. If I was asking a singer for advice on how to best approach my singing performance, and they said 'just go and have fun', I'd be fucking livid. If I wanted to go and just 'have fun' I'll trot out and take a shit on stage. I'd be having a lot of fun, not sure Tulisa is going to be too chuffed though. Fucking pointless. Apologies....... I digress.....





I say lazy because while the first film is okay, the later sequels realised that they could do any bollocks they wanted and it didn't matter because they would make tonnes of money because Johnny Depp's was in it.
There is zero character development throughout the entire series for Jack. Look at him in the fourth one and he's exactly the same in the first. The only difference being he's more of a dick in the 2nd and 3rd.
They try to be epic for epic sake, just look at the whole sub-plot with the voodoo woman, That's about half an hour of film over the two films and it ends with her getting big and becoming a whirlpool.
They didn't even have the script for the 3rd film finished when they started filming the third part.
The fourth is where the laziness really comes to the forefront with the action sequences being lifeless, Depp is in full 'i'll just prance about and wave my hands about and earn this pay cheque mode'.

I will admit they have good production design and some occasionally good ideas but they're just wasted in the laziness and complete paint by numbers direction.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 7
RE: The film or The fans? - 22/11/2012 1:22:26 PM   
Super Hans


Posts: 2397
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Watford
It's probably what was meant anyway, but I think it's more 'fanboy/girls' than mere 'fans' that are the real nuicance! The folks who, as mentioned, get aggressive over reviewers/other peoples' views on a film or franchise, who obsess about the stars outside the realm of the fictional films they appear (the who Twilight thing) and people who just generally get het up to a ridiculous degree over things which, in the grand scale of things, don't really matter.

_____________________________

"Its staring at you in the face Mark, there's only one more sex to try..."

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 8
RE: The film or The fans? - 22/11/2012 3:08:12 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

I really, really do not like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I think their the definition of lazy film-making. Only doing the minimum attempt because they know they're going to make a billion dollars.


I dont really have much to add regarding the fans of films, but \i'd love to comment on this particular point here.

Now, I can totally understand why someone may not like these films as finished products and pieces of entertainment, in particular the rather lacklustre fourth outing. However, I think to label them as 'the definition of lazy film-making' couldn't be any further from the truth. Yea, they may have bloated run times, they may have issues with over plotting and performances or any other aspect of the film that could come across to a viewers subjective opinion as poor, but lazy? Really?

They were some of the more audacious big budget movies of recent times, huge sets, groundbreaking CG, lots and lots of in camera stunt work and (initially anyway) some very good performances, not least from Depp. I can think of a single element of the original three movies, from score, script, effects, direction, preformance to production, that doesnt succeeed in some part or that ever feels 'lazy'. Even the poorest movie, On Stranger Tides, throws a whole lot at effor and craft at the screen for the viewer, it may not all work, but to call them lazy cash ins feel wholly inaccurate. Films such as 'Superhero Movie' or 'Epic Movie' are what I would define as lazy film making. They're productions that have in mind nothing other than latching onto a cinematic craze, and loosely putting something together for as small a budget as possible, safe in the knowledge that it will find an audience to make back some (and in a few cases, lots) of profit. No artistic merit at all. That's not to say the people involved aren't working hard at their craft, but is an approach to the film making process that I would class as laziness.

The PotC movies may not always come together successfully into great all round movies, but its clear there is an artisict vision that the crews are working towards, and a huge amount of effort and craft is being used to make those visions a reality on film, lazy it is not. In fact when it was first announced the initial thoughts were 'this cant work, a film based on a theme park ride, what are they doing?!', and the great thing that came out of it was that it DID work. That first movie was a great success, not just financially, but in the eyes of critics and the general audience. A sequel cash grab would've been more of the same, but the direct sequels tried to improve things, make things bigger, more spectacular and to expand the mythology of the Pirates 'world'. It really isn't a 'lazy' franchise. We saw similar criticisms of Prometheus earlier this year...'it's lazy film making by Ridley' etc. It may not be wholly successfull, but really, its anything but lazy.

I really hate the use of 'lazy' when being critical of films, it really feels like its never used accurately and it feels, to me, like the most empty pointless type of critique. It's like when 'experts' on reality tv shows are asked for advice for contestants and they say 'just go out there and have fun'. Really? Thats the best you can do? Have fun? Are you fucking kidding? It's so empty and meaningless. If I was asking a singer for advice on how to best approach my singing performance, and they said 'just go and have fun', I'd be fucking livid. If I wanted to go and just 'have fun' I'll trot out and take a shit on stage. I'd be having a lot of fun, not sure Tulisa is going to be too chuffed though. Fucking pointless. Apologies....... I digress.....





I say lazy because while the first film is okay, the later sequels realised that they could do any bollocks they wanted and it didn't matter because they would make tonnes of money because Johnny Depp's was in it.
There is zero character development throughout the entire series for Jack. Look at him in the fourth one and he's exactly the same in the first. The only difference being he's more of a dick in the 2nd and 3rd.
They try to be epic for epic sake, just look at the whole sub-plot with the voodoo woman, That's about half an hour of film over the two films and it ends with her getting big and becoming a whirlpool.
They didn't even have the script for the 3rd film finished when they started filming the third part.
The fourth is where the laziness really comes to the forefront with the action sequences being lifeless, Depp is in full 'i'll just prance about and wave my hands about and earn this pay cheque mode'.

I will admit they have good production design and some occasionally good ideas but they're just wasted in the laziness and complete paint by numbers direction.


We'll agree to disagree, 'cos I can't agree with the majority of what you say.

The fact the script and story across the second and third films was aiming high for an epic, mythology expanding tale kinda shows they weren't just expecting to do 'any old bollocks'. There is a genuine, if not always successful, attempt to create a huge world with an epic feel and a story that crosses realities and incorporates a huge amount of new PotC mythology. Like I saw, not always working, but certainly trying to. Does a character have to have development? The Jack Sparrow character is at his very best when he is kinda secondary to the overall story, and it's one of the reasons I think On Stranger Tides feels a little off. Sparrow's character is a drinking, shagging, gold loving pirate with no real care or love for the people around him, as he often reiterates, he's a pireate cos he loves the pirate life. There are hints at a deeper character with more noble intentions (saving Elizabeth, diving head first into the Kraken etc) but is generally at his best when he's a throw-away scoundrel without much in the way of character.

The whole Tia Dalma/Davy Jones sub-plot is a bit bloated and feels like it doesn't really get the room to be explored, but it's hardly a 'lazy' idea for a story. It clearly shows the writers were trying to incorporate other elements and expand on the world and characters, they just didn't do it all that successfully. It isn't a case of laziness. As I say, use of the word lazy I think is all wrong, it feels like a hollow criticism.

The fourth film is the least successfull of all the movies, and it is the one where Depp feels like he's having less fun, but it doesnt really feel like he's just turning up. I think part of On Stranger Tides problem is the fact that the script needed Jack front and centre, the others had a better supporting cast of characters to give some relief from Depps hamming, which in fairness is there in all four films. The direction in the fourth film feels more pedestrian than in Gore Verbinski's original trilogy and the action scenes had a more choregraphed feel to them, like a dance number, rather than the more slapstick, stroke of luck style scrapes Sparrow blundered through in the originals. Uninspired, almost static direction maybe, but not lazy or 'paint by numbers'. I'm not even sure what you mean by paint by numbers, really. Verbinski's direction, particularly in the second and third films is at times superb, with some really great visual moments (the submerging of the Flying Dutchman being particularly good). I really can understand why people have issue with them, I like them but they're far from perfect, they throw too many ideas out and too few stick being my main issue. But, at least they were trying to do something with the franchise and they weren't just happy to ick out any old nonsense. It's one of the more original genre franchises in recent memory and I'd take a Gore Verbinski directed PotC film over most of the big summer bullshit we get these days.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 9
RE: The film or The fans? - 28/11/2012 11:02:31 PM   
Powka


Posts: 132
Joined: 2/12/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

I was thinking recently that the aspect of a film which could cause the most dislike of a film isn't the film itself but it's fans. I really, really do not like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I think their the definition of lazy film-making. Only doing the minimum attempt because they know they're going to make a billion dollars. But the thing that makes me really hate them is the fans, the ones which go to see the pieces of shit, which leads to it being a billion dollars and go to see it just cos it has johnny depp in and go crazy whenever he's in it



How can you call Pirates of the Caribbean a lazy-film making?! It's a good piece of cinematography, rated well by fans, critics and general public. As for Johnny Depp, his performance was Oscar-worthy in this one. Again, what are you talking about?

_____________________________

Well suck me sideways!

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 10
RE: The film or The fans? - 29/11/2012 4:16:27 AM   
giggity

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 4/3/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powka

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

I was thinking recently that the aspect of a film which could cause the most dislike of a film isn't the film itself but it's fans. I really, really do not like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I think their the definition of lazy film-making. Only doing the minimum attempt because they know they're going to make a billion dollars. But the thing that makes me really hate them is the fans, the ones which go to see the pieces of shit, which leads to it being a billion dollars and go to see it just cos it has johnny depp in and go crazy whenever he's in it



How can you call Pirates of the Caribbean a lazy-film making?! It's a good piece of cinematography, rated well by fans, critics and general public. As for Johnny Depp, his performance was Oscar-worthy in this one. Again, what are you talking about?


As I said above the first one is okay and the production design is good but it's the sequels which were the big culprit of the laziness. if you would have read my reply to porntrooper you would see my reasons why.

Anyway this is going off topic. This thread is not about pirates of the Caribbean.

(in reply to Powka)
Post #: 11
RE: The film or The fans? - 29/11/2012 11:13:38 AM   
UTB


Posts: 9870
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

I really, really do not like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I think their the definition of lazy film-making. Only doing the minimum attempt because they know they're going to make a billion dollars.


I dont really have much to add regarding the fans of films, but \i'd love to comment on this particular point here.

Now, I can totally understand why someone may not like these films as finished products and pieces of entertainment, in particular the rather lacklustre fourth outing. However, I think to label them as 'the definition of lazy film-making' couldn't be any further from the truth. Yea, they may have bloated run times, they may have issues with over plotting and performances or any other aspect of the film that could come across to a viewers subjective opinion as poor, but lazy? Really?

They were some of the more audacious big budget movies of recent times, huge sets, groundbreaking CG, lots and lots of in camera stunt work and (initially anyway) some very good performances, not least from Depp. I can think of a single element of the original three movies, from score, script, effects, direction, preformance to production, that doesnt succeeed in some part or that ever feels 'lazy'. Even the poorest movie, On Stranger Tides, throws a whole lot at effor and craft at the screen for the viewer, it may not all work, but to call them lazy cash ins feel wholly inaccurate. Films such as 'Superhero Movie' or 'Epic Movie' are what I would define as lazy film making. They're productions that have in mind nothing other than latching onto a cinematic craze, and loosely putting something together for as small a budget as possible, safe in the knowledge that it will find an audience to make back some (and in a few cases, lots) of profit. No artistic merit at all. That's not to say the people involved aren't working hard at their craft, but is an approach to the film making process that I would class as laziness.

The PotC movies may not always come together successfully into great all round movies, but its clear there is an artisict vision that the crews are working towards, and a huge amount of effort and craft is being used to make those visions a reality on film, lazy it is not. In fact when it was first announced the initial thoughts were 'this cant work, a film based on a theme park ride, what are they doing?!', and the great thing that came out of it was that it DID work. That first movie was a great success, not just financially, but in the eyes of critics and the general audience. A sequel cash grab would've been more of the same, but the direct sequels tried to improve things, make things bigger, more spectacular and to expand the mythology of the Pirates 'world'. It really isn't a 'lazy' franchise. We saw similar criticisms of Prometheus earlier this year...'it's lazy film making by Ridley' etc. It may not be wholly successfull, but really, its anything but lazy.

I really hate the use of 'lazy' when being critical of films, it really feels like its never used accurately and it feels, to me, like the most empty pointless type of critique. It's like when 'experts' on reality tv shows are asked for advice for contestants and they say 'just go out there and have fun'. Really? Thats the best you can do? Have fun? Are you fucking kidding? It's so empty and meaningless. If I was asking a singer for advice on how to best approach my singing performance, and they said 'just go and have fun', I'd be fucking livid. If I wanted to go and just 'have fun' I'll trot out and take a shit on stage. I'd be having a lot of fun, not sure Tulisa is going to be too chuffed though. Fucking pointless. Apologies....... I digress.....





I say lazy because while the first film is okay, the later sequels realised that they could do any bollocks they wanted and it didn't matter because they would make tonnes of money because Johnny Depp's was in it.
There is zero character development throughout the entire series for Jack. Look at him in the fourth one and he's exactly the same in the first. The only difference being he's more of a dick in the 2nd and 3rd.
They try to be epic for epic sake, just look at the whole sub-plot with the voodoo woman, That's about half an hour of film over the two films and it ends with her getting big and becoming a whirlpool.
They didn't even have the script for the 3rd film finished when they started filming the third part.
The fourth is where the laziness really comes to the forefront with the action sequences being lifeless, Depp is in full 'i'll just prance about and wave my hands about and earn this pay cheque mode'.

I will admit they have good production design and some occasionally good ideas but they're just wasted in the laziness and complete paint by numbers direction.


We'll agree to disagree, 'cos I can't agree with the majority of what you say.

The fact the script and story across the second and third films was aiming high for an epic, mythology expanding tale kinda shows they weren't just expecting to do 'any old bollocks'. There is a genuine, if not always successful, attempt to create a huge world with an epic feel and a story that crosses realities and incorporates a huge amount of new PotC mythology. Like I saw, not always working, but certainly trying to. Does a character have to have development? The Jack Sparrow character is at his very best when he is kinda secondary to the overall story, and it's one of the reasons I think On Stranger Tides feels a little off. Sparrow's character is a drinking, shagging, gold loving pirate with no real care or love for the people around him, as he often reiterates, he's a pireate cos he loves the pirate life. There are hints at a deeper character with more noble intentions (saving Elizabeth, diving head first into the Kraken etc) but is generally at his best when he's a throw-away scoundrel without much in the way of character.

The whole Tia Dalma/Davy Jones sub-plot is a bit bloated and feels like it doesn't really get the room to be explored, but it's hardly a 'lazy' idea for a story. It clearly shows the writers were trying to incorporate other elements and expand on the world and characters, they just didn't do it all that successfully. It isn't a case of laziness. As I say, use of the word lazy I think is all wrong, it feels like a hollow criticism.

The fourth film is the least successfull of all the movies, and it is the one where Depp feels like he's having less fun, but it doesnt really feel like he's just turning up. I think part of On Stranger Tides problem is the fact that the script needed Jack front and centre, the others had a better supporting cast of characters to give some relief from Depps hamming, which in fairness is there in all four films. The direction in the fourth film feels more pedestrian than in Gore Verbinski's original trilogy and the action scenes had a more choregraphed feel to them, like a dance number, rather than the more slapstick, stroke of luck style scrapes Sparrow blundered through in the originals. Uninspired, almost static direction maybe, but not lazy or 'paint by numbers'. I'm not even sure what you mean by paint by numbers, really. Verbinski's direction, particularly in the second and third films is at times superb, with some really great visual moments (the submerging of the Flying Dutchman being particularly good). I really can understand why people have issue with them, I like them but they're far from perfect, they throw too many ideas out and too few stick being my main issue. But, at least they were trying to do something with the franchise and they weren't just happy to ick out any old nonsense. It's one of the more original genre franchises in recent memory and I'd take a Gore Verbinski directed PotC film over most of the big summer bullshit we get these days.


Off Topic, but I absolutely agree.

The first 3 movies are anything but lazy, though there's no doubt that 2 and 3 are overblown, overcomplicated and too different in tone to the first.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 12
RE: The film or The fans? - 30/11/2012 1:21:34 PM   
mclane1


Posts: 370
Joined: 7/2/2009
And thus this has become a POTC thread.
My view is gore verbinski would do a fine job with star wars episode seven. Given the whole POTC franchise could have easily been set in space with pirates substituted for space adventurers. Sparrow is clearly Han, will turner is sky walker etc. etc.

_____________________________

If the cash is there, we do not care.

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 13
RE: The film or The fans? - 4/12/2012 12:58:58 AM   
Darth Marenghi

 

Posts: 3217
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester

quote:

ORIGINAL: mclane1

My view is gore verbinski would do a fine job with star wars episode seven.



Finally, someone else who think this one!


_____________________________

Invisible Text for SPOILERS: "color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color" , then change the quotation marks to square brackets.


(in reply to mclane1)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> The film or The fans? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094