Support NeoGAF

[brandonh83]

No, I'm pretty sure KotCS fucking sucks actually.

Just talking about the actual composition of the action sequences, not the movie in general. I know people hate it so I'm not going to go there, but I disagree that the action is bad.

 

[beelzebozo]

kotcs has the unexpected side effect of creating an excellent contrast to raiders, emphasizing how truly glorious, masterful, and rare such a movie is.

 

[badcrumble]

bland action? oh come on. hate the effects style and monkeys all you want, but the jungle chase was awesomely staged with incredible music. also the chase scene through the college campus was well done. Spielberg can craft great action even in his lesser films. I mean it had swordfighting on top of moving vehicles and it was still shot very well.

I know there's this trend to shit on Spielberg and Cameron these days but they still do better action sequences than 99% of these pale imitators. hate the movies all you want, that's cool, but the action is great in both Avatar and Skull.

The problem with the jungle chase is that it's exactly the mistake that Pirates of the Caribbean 2 made with its beginning chase on the cannibal island and the incredibly drawn-out sword fight on the rolling waterwheel at the end. Sure it's well-framed, well-choreographed action, but it's also a total fucking waste of the audience's time without excitement or suspense or emotional engagement.

Also, it's not shot very well and it has some of the worst/most obvious compositing I've ever seen from one of ILM's bigger efforts.

If you want to see a well-done extended complex action sequence from the Indy movies, the best one is easily the tank chase from The Last Crusade.

 

[brandonh83]

The problem with the jungle chase is that it's exactly the mistake that Pirates of the Caribbean 2 made with its beginning chase on the cannibal island and the incredibly drawn-out sword fight on the rolling waterwheel at the end. Sure it's well-framed, well-choreographed action, but it's also a total fucking waste of time.

It's an Indiana Jones movie. It's not a waste of time. It's the big action setpiece of the film. Every good action/adventure film has a couple of these. If you disagree with this then we're simply not on the same page and I'm willing to agree to disagree.

Tank chase is also great. So is the truck chase in Raiders. And the mine cart chase in Temple. They're all awesome to me.

 

[badcrumble]

It's an Indiana Jones movie. It's not a waste of time. It's the big action setpiece of the film. Every good action/adventure film has a couple of these. If you disagree with this then we're simply not on the same page and I'm willing to agree to disagree.

I don't have a problem with big action set pieces, but the goal of them should be "oh shit how are the main characters going to get out of this one" and not "look how ridiculously complicated this set piece is". Action without suspense is nothing.

 

[Major Williams]

No, I'm pretty sure KotCS fucking sucks actually.

That, and a robot with a big knife (avatar)? That's a good action sequence? Blegh. Suspension of disbelief my ass.

 

[Major Williams]

It's an Indiana Jones movie. It's not a waste of time. It's the big action setpiece of the film. Every good action/adventure film has a couple of these. If you disagree with this then we're simply not on the same page and I'm willing to agree to disagree.

Tank chase is also great. So is the truck chase in Raiders. And the mine cart chase in Temple. They're all awesome to me.

Okay, the whole Family Guy Peter vs big yellow chicken ISN'T just an excuse to waste time?

I literally fast forward past it and realize it takes up nearly 5 and a half minutes every time. That's 1/4 of the entire episode. I hate it when movies draw things out a bit too long. *Cue underground bar dialogue scene in Inglorious Basterds. What a waste of 45 fucking minutes.

 

[brandonh83]

I don't have a problem with big action set pieces, but the goal of them should be "oh shit how are the main characters going to get out of this one" and not "look how ridiculously complicated this set piece is". Action without suspense is nothing.

eh, in Indiana Jones I'm never exactly concerned about Indy dying. There were a few suspenseful parts though in the older ones, like when he's dangling by his pouch and almost gets minced against the oncoming rock wall. but generally speaking I just think they're fun action sequences without a lot of suspense because I know they're not going to kill him off.

Okay, the whole Family Guy Peter vs big yellow chicken ISN'T just an excuse to waste time?

pretty sure that was meant to be a jab at long action sequences in action films, but I don't think that's an entirely good comparison.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Okay, the whole Family Guy Peter vs big yellow chicken ISN'T just an excuse to waste time?

I literally fast forward past it and realize it takes up nearly 5 and a half minutes every time. That's 1/4 of the entire episode. I hate it when movies draw things out a bit too long. *Cue underground bar dialogue scene in Inglorious Basterds. What a waste of 45 fucking minutes.

Frankly, we're all tickled to hear you say that...

 

[WyndhamPrice]

Frankly, we're all tickled to hear you say that...

That is my favorite scene in the entire movie. (the bar, not the one from the picture, but that's pretty good too)

 

[Solo]

*Cue underground bar dialogue scene in Inglorious Basterds. What a waste of 45 fucking minutes.

Jesus H Christ.

sm-motherfucking-h

 

[Helmholtz]

Okay, the whole Family Guy Peter vs big yellow chicken ISN'T just an excuse to waste time?

I literally fast forward past it and realize it takes up nearly 5 and a half minutes every time. That's 1/4 of the entire episode. I hate it when movies draw things out a bit too long. *Cue underground bar dialogue scene in Inglorious Basterds. What a waste of 45 fucking minutes.

You have got to be kidding. That's probably the best scene from IB.

 

[Major Williams]

Jesus H Christ.

sm-motherfucking-h

Seriously? All of that pointless banter to raise 3 fingers and begin a shoot out? S-MY-H.

No character development, two dimensional conversations that went nowhere and tension that was based upon nothing other than lying, drinking, a card game, and a birth-day of a father. Sounds like something that IS interesting but can be conveyed in a matter of 10 minutes, not 45. It was just like the drawn out action sequences mentioned before.

 

[WillyFive]

What confuses me is that people only consider dialogue and plot progression to be worth their time.

That's stupid! A good action scene is just as much worth your time than any other scene.

Peter vs. the Chicken are the best parts of the episodes they appear in, and the chases from Pirates and Indiana Jones are reasons you go to see the movie.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

*Cue underground bar dialogue scene in Inglorious Basterds. What a waste of 45 fucking minutes.

Ho-ho-ho-holy shit.

 

[beelzebozo]

Seriously? All of that pointless banter to raise 3 fingers and begin a shoot out? S-MY-H.

No character development, two dimensional conversations that went nowhere and tension that was based upon nothing other than lying, drinking, a card game, and a birth-day of a father. Sounds like something that IS interesting but can be conveyed in a matter of 10 minutes, not 45. It was just like the drawn out action sequences mentioned before.

qfw

 

[Major Williams]

About 5 people have declared their love of this bar scene - I would appreciate some REASONS why you love this scene? Seriously interested, not looking to start a fight.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

I've seen some shit in my day...


but I ain't nevah seen nothing like this.

 

[brianjones]

qfw

quoted for wankery?

fucking star wars man.. 3 movies just to find out hes lukes father? what a waste of 6 hours

 

[DMczaf]

Hey guys what's going on in he....

 

[beelzebozo]

quoted for wankery?

i was thinking

but yes, wankery works too.

 

[WyndhamPrice]

About 5 people have declared their love of this bar scene - I would appreciate some REASONS why you love this scene? Seriously interested, not looking to start a fight.

For me it's because that scene (as with many parts of IB) is perfectly tuned to make you tense as hell for the entire duration. There are so many close calls and fake outs in terms of the Basterds being found out that the audience is basically squirming in their seats waiting for the shoe to drop, and when it finally does it's due to the last possible thing you could think of and the (relatively) brief explosion of violence at the end as a form of release is just sublime.

It helps that I am also a dialogue whore and Tarantino is firing on all cylinders the entire time.

 

[Nizz]

Fuck, I gotta tread lightly in this thread now. Saw the thread was still busy so I thought there'd be new news. Borderline spoilers for a couple of movies I haven't seen yet: Inglorious Basterds, Inception...

 

[brandonh83]

About 5 people have declared their love of this bar scene - I would appreciate some REASONS why you love this scene? Seriously interested, not looking to start a fight.

Because the performances are solid, writing is sharp, and it builds suspense like a motherfucker. Not that you really care what happens to some of the characters, but it still manages to be suspenseful because you're not quite sure when the scene is finally going to pop-- so you're left waiting for that.

 

[Futureman]

eh, in Indiana Jones I'm never exactly concerned about Indy dying. There were a few suspenseful parts though in the older ones, like when he's dangling by his pouch and almost gets minced against the oncoming rock wall. but generally speaking I just think they're fun action sequences without a lot of suspense because I know they're not going to kill him off.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that the new Indy had great action, but do realize you are in the minority, and I'm not just talking about GAF.

 

[effzee]

The movie was better than the book. And I had read the book beforehand. There you go.

Anybody that compares the level of exposition in Shutter Island (5 minutes at the end, identical to Psycho, a very evident reference in a movie full of them) to the one in Inception (EVERY single conversation with that phony "architect" character), and doesn't come to the conclusion that Nolan's storytelling was clunky cannot be trusted to judge any screenplay, really. It's as simple as that. You can like whatever you want about Inception, and I will give you that "opinions" line, as long as you're not saying that the exposition was "needed" or done in a tasteful way. That's not an opinion here. It's a ratio between normal lines in a dialogue and exposition ones. Inception has the worst exposition-to-real-discussion ratio I've ever seen in any movie.

Yup you got me. I can't be trusted to judge a screenplay.

Thank god I don't go to watch movies to judge screen plays.

 

[brianjones]

but yes, wankery works too.

 

[brandonh83]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that the new Indy had great action, but do realize you are in the minority, and I'm not just talking about GAF.

Opinions vary. Yeah, I've seen plenty of hate. But there are also plenty of people I know that liked it. It didn't even do terribly with the critics. IIRC Ebert was positive about it.

 

[WillyFive]

Opinions vary. Yeah, I've seen plenty of hate. But there are also plenty of people I know that liked it. It didn't even do terribly with the critics. IIRC Ebert was positive about it.

Critics and fans look at things differently.

Critics watch if the movie was well made (which it was), fans watch if the movie is like what they expected it to be (guess not).

 

[jtb]

What confuses me is that people only consider dialogue and plot progression to be worth their time.

That's stupid! A good action scene is just as much worth your time than any other scene.

Peter vs. the Chicken are the best parts of the episodes they appear in, and the chases from Pirates and Indiana Jones are reasons you go to see the movie.

Action for the sake of action is pointless. It's never the CGI wankery that goes on the screen that makes a good action scene good, it's the suspense, the stakes, the build up, etc. So if you have no build up, no stakes, no suspense, it's just the directors shouting "Hey look! I can direct an action scene too!". It's the reason why the Burly Brawl (which, ridiculously shitty CGI aside, is pretty well choreographed and shot) is almost universally shit on - Neo punches shit for 5 minutes then decides this isn't worth his time.

 

[Arucardo]

Seriously? All of that pointless banter to raise 3 fingers and begin a shoot out? S-MY-H.

No character development, two dimensional conversations that went nowhere and tension that was based upon nothing other than lying, drinking, a card game, and a birth-day of a father. Sounds like something that IS interesting but can be conveyed in a matter of 10 minutes, not 45. It was just like the drawn out action sequences mentioned before.

Wh-What is this? I don't even...

I'll be sure to not get any movie recommendations from you :lol .

 

[Major Williams]

For me it's because that scene (as with many parts of IB) is perfectly tuned to make you tense as hell for the entire duration. There are so many close calls and fake outs in terms of the Basterds being found out that the audience is basically squirming in their seats waiting for the shoe to drop, and when it finally does it's due to the last possible thing you could think of and the (relatively) brief explosion of violence at the end as a form of release is just sublime.

It helps that I am also a dialogue whore and Tarantino is firing on all cylinders the entire time.

Because the performances are solid, writing is sharp, and it builds suspense like a motherfucker. Not that you really care what happens to some of the characters, but it still manages to be suspenseful because you're not quite sure when the scene is finally going to pop-- so you're left waiting for that.

Thanks.. I can appreciate these. There was tension, and I can understand because a LOT of people love Tarantino for his dialogue. I personally can't stand his dialogue. I feel it goes nowhere fast and is very shallow, no matter who is delivering the lines.

I still feel he could have executed this in 10, even 15 minutes. Not 45 f-ing minutes. The second time I watched it I was able to go to the bathroom, go to the kitchen and eat something, and by the time I came back I still didn't miss anything. They were talking ABOUT THE RULES OF THE CARD GAME..... So lame.

Wh-What is this? I don't even...

I'll be sure to not get any movie recommendations from you :lol .

If you love that scene, then I'm not getting any from you either. That was pointless and elitist.

 

[effzee]

Also Hardy as Bullock chasing Batman would be awesome.

 

[brianjones]

Thanks.. I can appreciate these. There was tension, and I can understand because a LOT of people love Tarantino for his dialogue. I personally can't stand his dialogue. I feel it goes nowhere fast and is very shallow, no matter who is delivering the lines.

I still feel he could have executed this in 10, even 15 minutes. Not 45 f-ing minutes. The second time I watched it I was able to go to the bathroom, go to the kitchen and eat something, and by the time I came back I still didn't miss anything. They were talking ABOUT THE RULES OF THE CARD GAME..... So lame.

the fact that it keeps getting prolonged by unforeseen circumstances is what ups the tension in the scene though.

 

[WillyFive]

Thanks.. I can appreciate these. There was tension, and I can understand because a LOT of people love Tarantino for his dialogue. I personally can't stand his dialogue. I feel it goes nowhere fast and is very shallow, no matter who is delivering the lines.

I still feel he could have executed this in 10, even 15 minutes. Not 45 f-ing minutes. The second time I watched it I was able to go to the bathroom, go to the kitchen and eat something, and by the time I came back I still didn't miss anything. They were talking ABOUT THE RULES OF THE CARD GAME..... So lame.

Maybe it was an artistic decision.

I haven't seen the movie, but there have been instances that directors choose things that would normally be frowned upon into their movies for artistic merits, like the heavy use of lens flare for Star Trek, and the pulp comics color scheme for Crystal Skull.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

Where'd this Bullock rumor come from? We might actually have to steer this topic back to it's original point of discussion!

 

[DMczaf]

Where'd this Bullock rumor come from? We might actually have to steer this topic back to it's original point of discussion!

imdb, which means we're back to offtopic offtopic Batman thread!

 

[WyndhamPrice]

Thanks.. I can appreciate these. There was tension, and I can understand because a LOT of people love Tarantino for his dialogue. I personally can't stand his dialogue. I feel it goes nowhere fast and is very shallow, no matter who is delivering the lines.

I still feel he could have executed this in 10, even 15 minutes. Not 45 f-ing minutes. The second time I watched it I was able to go to the bathroom, go to the kitchen and eat something, and by the time I came back I still didn't miss anything. They were talking ABOUT THE RULES OF THE CARD GAME..... So lame.


If you love that scene, then I'm not getting any from you either. That was pointless and elitist.

If you can't stand Tarantino's dialogue in general then I don't blame you necessarily for not enjoying scenes like these. It's a valid complaint.

 

[JoeBoy101]

You have got to be kidding. That's probably the best scene from IB.

Farmhouse scene shits over the entire rest of the movie. I don't think the barroom scene was bad at all or too much, but the the opening scene of that movie was easily the best part. Bar scene was second best. Most of the rest was shit.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

Full article for those of us who are GRIPPED TO THIS THREAD FOR DEAR LIFE

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Coul...y-Bullock-In-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-21438.html

This morning's big news eliminated The Riddler from contention in Christopher Nolan's Batman sequel The Dark Knight Rises, but has only managed to make people more curious about who the film's main baddie will be. Killer Croc? Black Mask? Clay Face? Whoever the character is, most expect that the role will be played by Tom Hardy, who was mysteriously cast in the film two weeks ago to the day. The main challenge is figuring out the perfect bad guy that can both fit into Nolan's hyper-real universe and follow the plotline created at the end of The Dark Knight. IMDb may have a possible answer.

On the page, which has been updated with the new title, Hardy is now listed as playing Det. Harvey Bullock. While this could normally be written off as simple IMDb gossip (the site has posted Joseph Gordon-Levitt as The Riddler before), what makes it worth reporting is that it fits so damn well. First appearing in 1975, Bullock is a member of the Gotham Police Department and a crooked one at that. Though he has the entire force lying for him, the character has a streak of police brutality and has known connections to organized crime. At the same time, the man is tough as nails and an effective detective.

Could Bullock be the man that Commissioner Gordon brings in to hunt down the caped crusader? Hardy definitely has the skills for the part and would probably look damn good in a fedora and a trench coat. Though IMDb casts lists are known to be spurious and based on little-to-no information, there could be some reality here. Sound off in the comments section.

 

[WillyFive]

Judging from the past two movies, there might will be two supervillains, one will die at the end, while the other will live.

Ra's Al Gul died, Scarecrow lived, Harvey Two-Face died, Joker lived.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

Judging from the past two movies, there might will be two supervillains, one will die at the end, while the other will live.

Ra's Al Gul died, Scarecrow lived, Harvey Two-Face died, Joker lived.

Batman dies, Lucious lives.

 

[effzee]

Full article for those of us who are GRIPPED TO THIS THREAD FOR DEAR LIFE

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Coul...y-Bullock-In-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-21438.html

I like it. I like it a lot. Similar to what a lot people wanted to see with the Riddler working with Gordon to track down Batman.

Only problem is how would that sell? No iconic villain? People think of Batman and think of the Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, and other famous villains but not Bullock. If they do go with that angle, it would really show the complete trust WB has in Nolan because it means a Batman movie without a known villain and hopefully a movie dealing more with Bruce.

Also for the fans of the TAS Batman: Bullock was characterized really well. Some of my favorite episodes involved him.

 

[Major Williams]

I'm honestly hoping for a fight scene between Batgirl and Catwoman with mud involved.

"The Dark Knight's Pants Rise"

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

I'm hoping more for some Nolan directed shaky cam bread making scenes in the sequel, The Dark Knight's Yeast Rises.

 

[WillyFive]

I'm hoping more for some Nolan directed shaky cam bread making scenes in the sequel, The Dark Knight's Yeast Rises.

I don't associate shaky cam with Nolan, much. Not really his thing, even though he tends to ruin close combat with it.

I see him as the guy that does special effects, but for real.

 

[WanderingWind]

Vic Mackey is Detective Bullock. Same fucking character...which means, fuck yeah.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

I didn't think Bullock was crooked in the comics. In the ones I've read (mostly 90s Dixon and Grant comics) he's just a cop that hates Batman but he's still a good guy deep down.

 

[AlternativeUlster]

Hardy as Bullock would be nice but I would hope they wouldn't make him evil in any way though since I don't remember him being like that at all.

 

[WanderingWind]

He was a crooked cop, too. In fact, for a few years, he was kicked off the force. He only recently was allowed back.

Seriously. Vic Mackey is exactly like Bullock, save for the slovenly appearance.