Favorite Movies

[Vadrosaul]

Well since George Lucas has said that it is based on current affairs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that's the case then I say shame on George Lucas. I find that his prequel trilogy makes too many compromises to appease to audiences, like his childish Jar Jar character for the kiddies...UGH!!!

 

Star Wars original trilogy (non special edition) is timeless. The prequel screams of pop culture and product placement and allegory, blech

[obscurus]

The original trilogy has just as much allegory as the prequel trilogies, but it is a bit more subtle about it. I think the technological limits of the day that were imposed the original trilogy forced GL to spend a bit more time getting a decent story out of it, while in the prequels he has obviously gotten carried away with the visual elements over the characters and story that made the originals work so well.

 

Personally I don't mind allegory in movies, as long as it is a bit subtle. Most movies can be interpreted as an allegory, because when people write a story, consciously or subconsciously we make allusions to aspects of our own lives that affect us. LoTR can be interpreted as an allegory of Catholic mysticism, even though Tolkien was adamant that it was merely a means of fleshing out his invented languages, and nothing more.

 

Subconscious allegories tend to be a lot more subtle than the obvious points GL was trying to make in Star Wars. That said, I thought the obvious allegory to the mechanics of political power in the prequel trilogy was very pertinent (and timeless as well) - if a bit of pop culture can open people's eyes even fractionally to the dangers of giving popliticians too much power, then all the better.

 

Personally I still like Star Wars as a full hexology, in spite of its many flaws and mistakes. If you look past the shoddy dialogue and overused special effects, there are a lot of layers to it, and I respect GL for having the balls to run with his own independent vision for the film, rather than the usual committee driven rubish hollywood churns out.

 

By the way, GL had product placement in mind from day one of Episode IV - he traded his director's salary in exchange for all merchandising and sequel rights, so arguably every single Star Wars episode could be seen as a big advertisment for wookie figurines, toy lightsabers and video games etc. But being an indie film maker making big budget films out of his own pocket, he needs to get money from somewhere so I'm not going to hold it against him...

[sparhawk]

I never realized that Star Wars (the latter episodes) were NOT Hollywood rubbish.

 

I tried to watch Star Wars on DVD and after 15 minutes I turned off, something I rarely do. A collegue watched it in the theater and was very excited about it. Funnily enough he watched it on TV a few weeks after and guess what. He also turned it off after 15 minutes, which says a lot about teh special effects and the story. He said in cinema it was better because the effects worked well. In TV they didn't work so well, which pushes the story more to the foreground and then you realzie what a crap movie this is. It's like Jurrasic Park. A case study for special effects.

[Maximius]

I burnt out on the first Star Wars trilogy years ago, an old roomate was a fanatic and I must have watched each one a dozen times over. They had their time, but to me its long past.

 

As for the prequels, they sucked, royally. There was a lot of apparent racial stereotyping going on for one thing, many here in the States read Jar Jar as a sort of Rastus character and the evil merchant consortium sounded distinctly Asian. The story lines were dull, the situations predictable, blah blah blah. I watched the first one and refuse to watch the last two as a result. To hell with Lucas, and he can take that hack Speilberg with him too.

 

Sparhawk to address your points about Disney, I agree, Disney is horrible. Their storylines are clones of last years big blockbuster, their characterizations are by the numbers (idealistic hero, comically villainous villain, quirky offbeat sidekicks, sound familiar?) The Disney company played an interesting role in the development of American business culture, between Walt and Ray Kroc of McDonalds they re-wrote the book of business in terms of marketing, product development, and distribution. You may have heard of the term "McDonaldization" well you could also use "Disneyfication." Even more chilllingly, Disney has been a huge conduit for spreading cultural propaganda (still is!), especially in South America in the mid 20th century where Disney comics helped to reinforce capitalist ideology amongst the poor and generally illiterate populations.

 

Sounds far fetched? I thought so too until I read one of Daffy Ducks comics from the late fifties, for sale in Argentina I believe, in which Daffy and Daisy have to fight off two buzzards named Marx and Engels. There are plenty of other examples, less explicit but compelling in their quantity. For impoverished households across S. America, the appearence of inexpensive, entertaining, and +North American+ comic books were probably a cause for celebration.

 

Sexism, classism, lots of good stuff going on with Disney. Whats the famous line from Cinderella, when a male character attempts to sew the wedding gown? A female character comes out and chides him "This is womens work, silly!" or something similar.

 

I lived in Orlando for a few years and I can assure you Disney is despised by the locals. They own the local government, the joke was that Orlando was Disney's biggest sideshow. I never went myself, the majority of people who I knew and who went regularly were usually flying sky high on something or other so as to really enjoy the experience. Some folks love Disney, you can even live at Disney when you purchase a home in Buena Vista, the Disney town. But don't put up a basketball hoop, or own a beat up car, or a vegetable garden, cause there are strict rules and regs about appearences.

Edited September 8, 2005 by Maximius

[sparhawk]

Sparhawk to address your points about Disney, I agree, Disney is horrible.  Their storylines are clones of last years big blockbuster, their characterizations are by the numbers (idealistic hero, comically villainous villain, quirky offbeat sidekicks, sound familiar?)

 

Well, this is not really the worst. I can uinderstand that the target audience needs such stereotypic illustration to better be able to cope with it. But they could be much more subtle abou tthem. And honestly. If you wath Ariel, Hercules, and that supposedly chinese movie (don't remember the name) they didn't even bother to come up with new characters. They reused the same models. It happened to me several times, when I saw some characters from Hercules I thought this is Arielle and only noticed it because of the context. And of course, the major point that I hat is this extreme "american has the one and only true moral" stance that shows through on a lot of movies. Not only from Disney. I noticed the same trait in Shrek as well.

 

Even more chilllingly,  Disney has been a huge conduit for spreading cultural propaganda (still is!), especially in South America in the mid 20th century where Disney comics helped to reinforce captialist ideology amongst the poor and generally illiterate populations.

 

Yes. That's it. Cultural propaganda is the perfect term for what I mean.

 

 

Whats the famous line from Cinderella, when a male character attempts to sew?  A female character comes out and chides him "This is womens work, silly!" or something similar.

 

LOL.

[Maximius]

There is a good book "Spreading the American Dream" about cultural imperialism and its historical roots. In a related vein, have you ever heard the term "toxic culture?" Its used to refer to U.S. consumer culture, which has been deemed "toxic" not only by social critics and activists but by actual medical doctors and health professionals. Cheap, nutritionless food, entertainment that turns both the mind and body into Cheez-Whiz, and a constant drumbeat of Consume and Work! is actually poisonous both literally and figuratively.

[Domarius]

... And honestly. If you wath Ariel, Hercules, and that supposedly chinese movie (don't remember the name)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mulan.

 

Heh, don't forget that supposedly American Indian movie, Pocohontas, which had almost nothing to do with the historical event - apaprently Pocohontas was 11 at the time she saved the soldier's life (a fully grown male) so there was no chance of a romance, but it seems every Disney movie must have a romance.

 

If you want to talk about Disney stereotypes; it just seems like every second Disney movie stars a under-appreciated hero who has ideas outside of what everyone else is thinking, but no one listens to in the beginning but realise the error of their ways and celebrate him in the end. Oh, and gets a girl. Makes me think the nerdy writers are living out their fantasies or something.

[sparhawk]

Well, Hollywood stories are usually down with a formula. Unknown underappreciated hero recognizes something but nobody believes him or he is to week. Then he trains, hist first attempt fails, somebody who suddenly believes him and helps him trhough the second run either actively or passively by getting hurt/killed, and then he overcomes the villain.

 

Mulan was it, yes. Now that you mention Pocahontas you are right. I only saw the ads for Mulan and Poca, but even from this I thought they are doing ads for the other ones. They are absolutely interchangeable.

[Maximius]

Similar to a bad video game, it must save bundles for an animated movie producer to simply copy and re-color huge chunks of the settings and characters. The "McDonaldization of Disney"!! The "Disneyfication of Disney"!! A cow has borne a Black Dog!! Comets and Wheels of Fire in the Sky!! What does it all mean?!?!

 

Edited September 8, 2005 by Maximius

[obscurus]

I never realized that Star Wars (the latter episodes) were NOT Hollywood rubbish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I didn't say they weren't hollywood rubbish, just not the usual hollywood rubbish. George Lucas's special brand of rubbish. I still enjoy watching SW, much more so the final four episodes (III - VI), but it is a pretty crappy set of movies, really. I set my expectations bar pretty low before I watch it. I think I like the idea of what the movies could have been more than what they actualy are...

 

I can't stand any of his buddy Spielberg's films... my little sister used to watch Titanic over and over and over again, it drove me insane.

 

The only Disney film I ever liked was Pulp Fiction, which is far from the usual drivel that Disney churns out. Of course cartoons, and childrens programming in general, is propaganda to introduce and reinforce the values and beliefs of those currently in power. And would seem to be quite effective too. Personally, I think a lot of children's cartoons should be given an R rating because of the potential to fuck their little minds up.

 

I do like the Simpsons - takes the piss out of American culture on so many levels, but it is definately not a cartoon for kids, too much stuff kids won't understand.

[sparhawk]

I can't stand any of his buddy Spielberg's films...  my little sister used to watch Titanic over and over and over again, it drove me insane.

 

Actually this was the first and only movie where I went six times ina row in the theater. I was pretty surprised about that myself. When I saw the prescreens I thought what a crap this is, making hype with just the name, and then a friend dragged me into the theater. After that I was hooked.

 

The only Disney film I ever liked was Pulp Fiction, which is far from the usual drivel that  Disney churns out.

 

Pulp Fiction is DISNEY?? I would never have thought that.

 

And would seem to be quite effective too.  Personally, I think a lot of children's cartoons should be given an R rating because of the potential to fuck their little minds up.

 

As long as they are protraying values of friendship and such I don't mind. But IMO many of them do much more, which is what I don't like.

 

I do like the Simpsons - takes the piss out of American culture on so many levels, but it is definately not a cartoon for kids, too much stuff kids won't understand.

 

Definitely. But it's funny, because the general tendency seems to be that everything that is cartoonish is suitable for children. I always thought that Simpsons (and a few others as well) are not really good for kids.

[Domarius]

That tendency is dependant on culture. Manga in Japan has never had that stigma, even as it was being developed throughout history - it was always just another art form.

[pakmannen]

Um..

Titanic = NOT Spielberg

Pulp Fiction = NOT Disney (where the hell did you get that idea from?)

[sparhawk]

Titanic = Director James Cameron, but that doesn't mean that Spielberg couldn't have (Co)Produced it. AFAIk Cameron had to finance the rest himself, because the sponsors didn't want to risk it anymore after the movie getting more and more expensive, longer and not finished. I'm not sure, but I think he even purchased the rights off of the original sponsors because they wanted to drop it. Best investment he probably ever did.

 

Pulp Fiction = Quentin Tarantino, same here. Though Disney doesn't want to get it's name involved with such "unclean" movies. I think they have a seperate label for producing more violent movies, though.

[obscurus]

Um..

Titanic = NOT Spielberg

Pulp Fiction = NOT Disney (where the hell did you get that idea from?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Oh, whoops, you are right about Titanic, it is a James Cameron film... It still sucks, though I do like a few of his movies.

 

Believe it or not, Pulp Fiction is published by Disney, don't know why they picked Tarantino's ultra-violence as something they would want to put out, but when you watch the film, there it is, one of the first logos you see, Disney, and they are all over the credits.

[Domarius]

Now that is a strange coupling.