The MoFo Top 100 of the 2000s Countdown

This is the most disingenuous response yet, as your posts have always come from an elitist approach. You even brag about the amount of films you’ve watched compared to others, and brag even more about the obscure films you’ve watched.
You’ve made comments about this site being for “movie buffs, not for cinephiles”. It can exist for both, obviously.
You made a snide post about Holden’s top 100 of the past decade not being of any interest to you at all.
You constantly present your view as if it’s it is the only view that matters.
In fact, it’s almost like you just hang around just to drop these little Minio opinions just to remind everyone of this.

These are the posts of an elitist frame of mind.

I think the word "real" is probably obscuring whatever the underlying logic is here. It's not attempting to look photorealistic, but it's trying to look "real" even more than most fantasy, since it's depicting real things. For example, we can use your example:

Gollum is not real, and not even based on a real thing, so there's no gap between reality and fantasy to bridge. He can't fail to look like the thing he is the only example of. Remy in Ratatouille, on the other hand, is depicting a real thing. In that sense it seems to require more suspension of disbelief, not less, since you're being shown a thing that you know exists and doesn't actually look like that, versus being shown a completely invented thing.

Films that take place in the real world have to match the rules and nuances and subtleties of a reality we know extremely well, but the fantasy world is teaching us those things. To whatever degree we see it as unrealistic is, by definition, the degree to which we have smuggled reality and our expectations of it into the film.

I also feel compelled to note that Gollum is supposed to be hideous. I get why someone might not want to experience that, but that's not really about the fantasy aspect of the film, since it has obvious non-fantasy analogues (like drug addiction). That uneasy coexistence of disgust and pity is difficult and unpleasant, to be sure, but it's totally inseparable from the story.

I wonder if the introduction of the word "interacting" is getting at the real fulcrum of all this, though. That kinda suggests it's not about suspension of disbelief for any fantasy concepts, or even just CGI (since most films have some now), but really just about the relatively narrow case of animated beings interacting with non-animated ones.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King...I've not seen it. I did watch the first two and that was enough for me.

I think the only gripe that I have about the trilogy that it was too damn long, when rewatching the LOTR films for my favorite 2000's list, I only re-watched the first and 3rd film, felt like I didn't need to rewatch the 2nd film since it was my least favorite one.

I see why you had enough though because it was too long, I assume

__________________
Survive the Night: My Favorite Horror Movies Thread
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=71450

All the more reason why I fail to suspend disbelief. You have this really annoying thing that isn’t even based on anything real that you’re expecting me to believe is real in the context of the film’s world - which also includes elves, ents, hobbits, orcs, trolls, etc - and you’re doing so within a trilogy of epic films that take themselves too damn seriously.

Remy may not be an especially realistic looking rat, but he is recognizably rat-like in both appearance and movement. The animators at Pixar studied the behaviors of real rats and as someone who has spent over 20 years living with rats I can say they did a damn good job with their stylized representation of them, just like they did a damn fine job with their stylized representation of people. Also, Ratatouille is maybe not the best choice for argument since it has the unfair advantage of having a rat protagonist and I love rats and don’t love whatever TF Smeagol is supposed to be.

__________________

You just look at how that world's supposed to work and see if the movie completely matches that plausibility. If there are dragons, don't think of it as a movie that's bad because it's impossible. Such is essentially comparing LOTR to Mickey Mouse. LOTR works because all the characters do what they can with the world, setting and magic given them, and it perfectly fits without going too far out of what you'd expect the world to be like. But the reality itself comes from how you, as the audience, would handle that reality. Another example of a realistic movie would be a horror movie where the characters are making smart decisions, like The Descent which had strange humanoid monsters as opposed to a more plausible slasher where the characters do something dumber than hell before they're killed. Basically, the Ring drove Smeagol mad, and Smeagol did nothing to fight it, so for hundreds of years he became more insane. Multiple personality disorder was the least of his worries.

What, to you could, could be hypothetically done to make him more "real in the context of the film's world"?

So far you've said that he's ​"hideous," "obnoxious," and "annoying," but those don't have anything to do with suspension of disbelief. They're more like reasons not to wanna hang out with him, and I'm with ya' there.

Taking itself seriously is literally how you make an invented world feel realistic. This feels like a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario.

Exactly: it's not about what you're depicting, it's about how you depict it. Genre has almost nothing to do with it.

So what would the equivalent be for Gollum? Would you be persuaded if I told you they studied apes for the movement, or drug addicts for the eyes? I get why you don't like him personally (you're not supposed to), but not what about his depiction is unrealistic, except the fact that he's technically fictional.

That's kinda what I'm getting at, though: that there's a lot of stuff here influencing these reactions that aren't really about the films or how they're made.

I love dogs, but a movie that's just two hours of dogs being cute would not be a good movie. I also wouldn't watch a sci-fi film and say "terrible, 0/5, not enough puppies." Because if I did that, I'd just be talking about myself, not the movie.

He's a person who's been corrupted over time by the ring. What do you think that should look like?

A; Exactly. An audience member sometimes pictures him/herself in the scenario, so judging what could logically happen within the given rule and science is essentially what makes a good movie work. Without understanding the plausibility of its designated plot, it caves in on itself, much like the apparent time-travel rule breaking of About Time.


B:



I think most women would rather date Gurgi.

Okay, but when I talk about movies, I’m not really ever talking about the movies themselves, I’m talking about my experiences watching them. So I’m not really seeing what you’re trying to argue here.


A person, for starters….

I'm arguing that the problem is not really suspension of disbelief. I can't come up with a series of principles, from these answers, that would neatly encompass fantasy and sci-fi films but exclude a lot of other personal favorites, at least not without lots of ad hoc exceptions.

This is not really unusual: I think pretty much everyone has gut level reactions to things, and while it's possible (and very good, and very rewarding) to try to parse those out from our judgments about art, I admit it's never entirely possible. Sometimes we think "I just don't like X," and then we see film Y which has X, and we like it anyway. Sometimes we can figure out what we like and why, and sometimes it's a mystery even to us. I think it's pretty important to at least try, though.

The premise is that the ring corrupts people so that they are physically transformed over time. So you're just saying...the ring shouldn't do that? It's just inherently bad that there's a fictional story where that's possible?

I never said it was bad. I said I don’t like it. There is a difference. Also a person can be physically transformed by something yet still remain recognizably human, rather than looking like some weird alien/treasure troll hybrid with alopecia.

Have not seen Return of the King. I'd be willing to try the first movie again and watch the whole trilogy if I could get into the right frame of mind and I had the time.

Two films I've seen though neither made my list.




I was very impressed by the in-depth procedural aspect of Zodiac. Bypassing the hype of the murders, they place us on the investigative side of things and the obsession of said investigation and how it continued long past the case itself.




The movie that REFUSED to end!
I am a Tolkien fan, and I DO love the epic grandness that Peter Jackson created. I tolerate the extremeness of it all as well as respect the massive endeavor it took, not only to recreate J.R.R Tolkien's Middle Earth but to win over us quibbling, nit-picking Fantasy Geeks in the process. Which is an amazing feat all on its own.
So I will accept the faults as I applaud the accomplishments because it draws me in and amazes this lover of Fantasy Worlds whenever I sit through Jackson's grandiose representation.



Films Watched 68 out of 93 (73.11%)
1. Amélie (#16)
2. O Brother, Where Art Thou? (#21)
3. Ratatouille (#23)
4.
5. Gladiator (#40)
6.
7.
8. The Incredibles (#36)
9. V for Vendetta (#58)
10. The Dark Knight (#10)
11. WALL·E (#13)
12.
13. Memories of Murder (#27)
14. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (#76)
15.
16.
17. Mother (#96)
18. The Departed (#19)
19.
20. Memento (#11)
21. In the Mood for Love
22. Downfall (#28)
23. Quills (#67)
24. Oldboy (#22)
25. A Bittersweet Life (One Pointer)


One Pointers: 10 out of 38 (26.31%)

__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes

~Mr Minio

The Return of the King was the only LoTR movie that didn't make my ballot. It's still good, but it's so much weaker than the first two parts. The liberties it takes with the story don't fit, and the endings take far too long.

Seen: 50/93

My Ballot:
1. Let the Right One In (2008) [#29]
5. Watchmen (2009) [#87]
6. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) [#15]
7. Rambo (2008)[DNP]
8. The Descent (2005) [#80]
13. The Children (2008) [DNP]
16. Tideland (2005)[DNP]
18. Battle Royale (2000) [#77]
19. Chocolate (2008) [DNP]
22. Noroi (2005) [DNP]
25. Harry Brown (2009) [1-pointer]

__________________

Here's my list. There's only one more of mine to show yet. I included a few that didn't make it since others are doing that. I'll have ended up with 14/25, which is around the norm for me with these things.

Crash is a very hated film, but it's among my favorites. Really like how the film is constructed and love the entanglement of all the characters.

Inside Man has always been a favorite. The cat and mouse between Owen and Washington is great. Plummer and Foster do well too. Probably Lees favorite for me.

1.
2. Mystic River (2003)
3. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
4. Gladiator (2000)
5.
6.
7.
8. Iron Man (2008)
9. Casino Royale (2006)
10. Finding Nemo (2003)
11. Gran Torino (2008)
12. Crash (2004)
13. Lost in Translation (2003)
14. Inside Man (2006)
15. The Prestige (2006)
16. Up (2009)
17.
18. WALL·E (2008)
19.
20. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
21. The Dark Knight (2008)
22.
23. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
24. Sideways (2004)
25.

People, there's still about a week to go. No rush in revealing lists yet

__________________

The suspense is over, Alfred Hitchcock.

gonna post list anyway

01. Visitor Q (2001)
02.
03. Vital (2004)
04. I-Be Area (2007)
05. Noroi: The Curse (2005)
06. Noriko's Dinner Table (2005)
07. 3-Iron (2004)
08. Hana and Alice (2004)
09. Inland Empire (2006)
10. Tekkonkinkreet (2006)
11. Blue Spring (2001)
12. Cremaster 3 (2002)
13. Waking Life (2001)
14. Love Exposure (2009)
15. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003)
16.
17. Dogtooth (2009)
18. Trash Humpers (2009)
19. Rehearsals for Retirement (2007)
20. Big Bang Love, Juvenile A (2006)
21. The Fountain (2006)
22. Dancer in the Dark (2000)
23. I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK (2006)
24. Speed Racer (2008)
25. Funky Forest: The First Contact (2005)

Holy s***! How did I not realize until just now that you were the sixth Quills voter?! I love you, Ed!

Trivia

---

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King



Did you know that...

• Peter Jackson gave both Andy Serkis and Elijah Wood a prop ring used on the film? The thing is that he didn't tell one another, and both actors thought they had the only one.
• Jackson shot one brief scene months after the film's release and weeks after it won the Oscar? It was a shot done exclusively for the Extended Cut.
• according to an interview, Jackson hated the Army of the Dead? He kept it in because he didn't want to disappoint fans of the book.
• when Frodo is writing in the book towards the end, you can read that Sam was elected mayor of Hobbiton?
• this is only the second time a third film from a franchise is nominated for a Best Picture Oscar? The other was The Godfather Part III, which lost.