Pixar

[Builtgypsy]

Originally Posted by PhilB

The Potter books were fun. My wife and I read them aloud to each other. I wouldn't say they were great literature, but they did do a pretty good job of capturing the feel of teenagers in large events -- who will whine and do dumb things and hope the adults can fix it and all of that. And they weren't insipid. I did have some issues with the fact that Rowling didn't work out her theory of magic well, and this created some poor plot turns -- the magic was subordinate to the plotline, and thus functioned at any given moment however it needed to, to move the story along, without enough consistency. But other than that, I enjoyed them. I certainly think it's an exaggeration to say they were "absolute shit". They were at least better than Dan Brown, for instance.

PhilB

The warning label on my mattress is better reading than Dan Brown.

I'd argue that something can be absolute shit and still be enjoyable. Transformers 1 & 2 were absolute shit, and yet they earned like a billion dollars. The Star Wars Prequels were abysmal shit, but I actually enjoyed the parts of the movies where acting actually happened. The Lion King? Absolute shit, but I still like the movie if I consider it a character study of how to make a crazy evil king out of a crazy evil lion child. Star Trek XI took a shit all over the franchise worse than Star Trek V, but Bones, Spock, the sexy green alien and the pretty pretty CGI means I'm buying the movie on Tuesday. That doesn't change the fact that it's absolute shit.

But absolute shit to me does not mean it's the worst thing I've ever read or seen. After all, I haven't included Two And A Half Men anywhere in this.

[bzb]

I thought Lion King was a pretty good take on Hamlet, considering the constraints they had to work with. Although, it's a total ripoff of Kimba, right down to characters. The only way I even knew about Kimba was because I always called one of my good friends (Kim) that nickname.

I liked JJ Abrahms' take. Sucks that he couldn't get along with the master thespian, but at least it makes sense, unlike many sequels.

And BG - that was EXACTLY what my wife said while watching Up for the first time the other day: "Holy shit, this is fucking depressing." Her grandmother died this month, 4 years ago, so it wasn't an easy movie for her to watch. Good flick, though, all the Pixar movies are pretty much instant classics.

Even Roy, during an interview, admitted to making bad movies in his career, but basically admitted that the Pixar team doesn't just shovel them out without really trying to make a masterpiece.

You should check out all the alternate endings of Charles to see what he meant (if you have the Up special features). They're pretty creative when it comes to getting their themes across, and they tend to stick to their rules of storytelling, no matter what movie it is.

[Builtgypsy]

Originally Posted by bzb

I liked JJ Abrahms' take. Sucks that he couldn't get along with the master thespian, but at least it makes sense, unlike many sequels.

Nothing about that movie makes any damn sense. No part of the plot makes any damn sense. The villain's motivation is maybe the worst I have ever seen in a movie (why doesn't he just, say, I dunno, go warn the damn Romulans when he goes back instead of waiting 25 years to LITERALLY DO NOTHING?). The magic red matter is treated as a convenient plot device instead of actually having any rules (does it destroy matter or send matter back in time?). George Lucas would be proud of how convoluted a road Kirk takes to becoming captain. Again though, I do like it, because what you do or not like is completely subjective, regardless of quality.

Originally Posted by bzb

And BG - that was EXACTLY what my wife said while watching Up for the first time the other day: "Holy shit, this is fucking depressing." Her grandmother died this month, 4 years ago, so it wasn't an easy movie for her to watch. Good flick, though, all the Pixar movies are pretty much instant classics.

Even Roy, during an interview, admitted to making bad movies in his career, but basically admitted that the Pixar team doesn't just shovel them out without really trying to make a masterpiece.

You should check out all the alternate endings of Charles to see what he meant (if you have the Up special features). They're pretty creative when it comes to getting their themes across, and they tend to stick to their rules of storytelling, no matter what movie it is.

I hope I didn't give the impression that any of the PIXAR movies were bad. I agree, they are instant classics. The stories are so well constructed and the characters so endearing that I can't tell how many times I've watched all their movies; and shorts, which are absolutely hilarious. I was just caught off guard after watching UP in realizing the really dark themes PIXAR seems to
repeat in each movie.

[bzb]

Originally Posted by Builtgypsy

Nothing about that movie makes any damn sense. No part of the plot makes any damn sense. The villain's motivation is maybe the worst I have ever seen in a movie (why doesn't he just, say, I dunno, go warn the damn Romulans when he goes back instead of waiting 25 years to LITERALLY DO NOTHING?). The magic red matter is treated as a convenient plot device instead of actually having any rules (does it destroy matter or send matter back in time?). George Lucas would be proud of how convoluted a road Kirk takes to becoming captain. Again though, I do like it, because what you do or not like is completely subjective, regardless of quality.

I meant why the characters don't look anything like the originals - it makes sense

I think it's a play on the black hole and the time travel thing. Was he even aware that he was back in time? He looks like the dude from Prison Break. Well, Dr. Manhattan completely destroyed my concept of what time is, so I don't know what makes sense anymore, anyway.

It's full of holes and inconsistencies, but that's why it's a movie and not a documentary. Even though, some historical documents are full of holes and inconsistencies...

[Builtgypsy]

Originally Posted by bzb

I think it's a play on the black hole and the time travel thing. Was he even aware that he was back in time?

The first ten minutes of the film sets up that he knows he's back in time. He asks the captain of the Kelvin where Spock is, captain says "Spock who?" And then later Spock himself says Nero waited 25 years just parked in place for Spock to come through the black hole (so the black hole either destroys all matter, sends matter back in time, or the same black hole sends matter back in time but decades apart? Wuzzahuh?).

Perhaps this would clear everything up: the two guys who wrote the script for Transformers wrote the script for Star Trek XI.