Newt and Hicks being dead are part of what makes part 3 so good.
I didn't really mind Newt and Hicks, to be honest (Michael Biehn was pretty badass, despite his character being a generic grunt). Aliens was a glorified action movie with good character writing for ONE character (Ripley), but that's fine with me 'coz I had fun. However, the fact that the fanboys outraged over the deaths of two not so well-written characters (Newt was practically a walking plot-device), it just shows how credible Internet fanboys really are.
__________________
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what." - Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005
I like Hicks and Newt, I like Aliens, and I like the idea of the three of them living happily ever after. But I also like Alien3, and I don't mind that it completely screws over Aliens' happy ending. I think you're right when you say that it is Ripley in purgatory (or hell, maybe), battling to survive and redeemed in the end by her sacrifice. I like that there's a different tone to all of the first three Alien movies.
The Plague of Superhero Movies Sigh. Another day, another rant against ignorant fanboys...
Look, I loved superheroes - past tense - I really did. They used to have such potential to tell rich stories in the books, such as political thrillers, existential crisis, religious debates, or even just a little humble Aesop. But you know what? Enough is enough! Superhero movies suck!
Sigh. I just... I just had to get that out of the way. Sorry.
Yes, I know I'm being incredibly biased and generalizing with that statement. It's just me venting, blowing off steam. No, not all superhero movies suck, but there remains an underlying problem that everyone seems reluctant to address whenever I come across these YouTube comments. Superhero movies have become a genre in itself, with their own cliches so distinctive that they've became as much a genre as the horror genre, the bottom-feeder of all movie genres nowadays.
First and foremost, let's talk about the main reason I'm here - character deaths. This often happens in superhero stories, and it's been addressed by Cracked recently, the main reason why my current rant exists in the first place, because the comment section just pisses me off with their illogical evaluations, not to mention a thorough disrespect for the movie medium.
I understand the idea of an opinion, but claiming that "characters deaths being cheap bluffs" is somehow okay because they are "superhero movies" is really insulting to my intelligence. Yes, this happens a lot in comic books - but these are not comic books! These are movies! When you adapt a story from one medium to another, the general idea is that you follow the rules of that medium!
And you know what the funny thing is? It's not even a rule that's restricted within movies only! It's a storytelling trope that's considered a cliche in all forms of stories, be it literature, movies, video games, and even comic books! It's called "Deus ex Machina", and it's generally agreed that this is one of the weakest way of telling a story, considering that it's a contrived plot-device that rescues a character for the sake of progressing a plot. It's lazy, and it loses tension the more times you do it! How is "losing tension in the story" a subject of opinion?! HOW?! It's a writing technique, for Christ's sake!
Sigh. Pardon my French. It's just... so insulting, these fanboys. God, I'm getting a headache.
You know, it's been ongoing for many years now, my gradual detest for superhero movies. I mean, after Iron Man 2, if Winter Soldier didn't come along, I would have given up much sooner. But it's just ridiculous, the kind of mentality these superhero movies are breeding in movie-goers. I actually want to watch Citizen Kane, and Casablanca, and other great movies that you people watch instead of watching these casual mainstream movies after talking to these people. I mean, really, movies as a medium have excellent storytelling throughout history, and somehow, superhero stories, one of the lowest denominator in the realm of stories, is going to change that history of tradition?
But you know what's the worst part? They are 'entertaining' to people... whatever that means. Transformers was entertaining too, I guess. Whenever I mention that franchise, people would say, "Oh, but superhero movies are critically acclaimed!" No, it's not! Except the few exceptions like Guardians and Winter Soldier, 7 or 8 out of 10 times, you'd have a generic storyline about some superpowered hothead beating the crap out of bad guys! This is Bond movie material! It's as shallow as that! I'm surprised there isn't a super villain stroking a cat on his lap!
And because of these poorly conjured excuses, people are going to keep paying for these bad movies, and what's going to happen to actually good movies like Birdman, Whiplash, and Nightcrawler (coincidentally titled after comic book superheroes) in the future? Sure, they are fine now, but with Marvel announcing 20 movies per year or decade, who knows what's going to come for the movie industry in the future. Am I, as a movie fan, going to have to deal with these casual movie fans who thinks that the best movie ever was Guardians of the Galaxy? Seriously? Screw that! I'm going to watch The Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption!
And you know, it isn't just character deaths. It goes far, far worse than that. Do you know that certain people are saying "It's okay to have an entire movie composed of one-liners"? I mean, sure, an action movie that's stupid do that every now and then, granted, action movies being a genre on its own, but with the filmmakers recently commenting on how "superhero" isn't a genre, the results are surprisingly different from their hypocritical views. You don't see one-liners in drama movies, or romance movies. You get punchlines in comedies, sure, but one-liners that make the characters look cool? That's a trope that's present mostly in action and superhero movies, and it gets terribly annoying after a while. And really, which writing guide online will tell you that "one-liners for the sake of one-liners" is a good thing? Is that even a real storytelling technique?
Of course, it doesn't end there. Generic character archetypes are okay too, because they are adapting from the same generic source that's the books themselves. So we are no longer telling a good story; we are selling promotional movies for the comics. Got it.
It doesn't end there, no. Generic storylines about the hero saving the day. When uh, who's that guy... *Googles* Joseph Campbell, that's right. When good ol' Jo' came up with the monomyth technique, you know what some writers said? They said that it's a dangerous technique that shouldn't exist, because it makes writers think that they should just follow a formulaic pattern with this so-called 'Hero's Journey' instead of creatively making their own stories. You know who supported 'The Hero's Journey'? The same guy who made the Star Wars prequels, George Lucas himself. Yeah, that's right. In terms of superhero movies, there exists a very formulaic pattern that repeats itself very often. The hero meets villain and defeats him, the end. Yes, I know that there are exceptions, hence the use of the word 'often' not 'always', but generally, the storyline often goes like that. And that's just lazy writing.
There are plenty more cliches out there in the superhero genre (yes, I'm going to call it that from now on), such that these movies have become a plague that's almost as bad as slasher movies. Worse than slasher movies, however, they make money. That's the terrible part. Also, critics are starting to appreciate them as real movies, when there were standards to follow. In fact, there have always been standards in the realms of literature, iron rules on what trope is bad, what storytelling technique is ineffective in conveying tension and emotion, etc. Let's not let a bunch of teenage superhero nerds ruin that for us.
Thank you.
Edit: In case my speech didn't get to you, hopefully, a second opinion will:
Also, yes, this kind of insistence on you getting the point means that my war on superhero movies has officially started. I'll grab every source of evidence I can get if I have to prove that superhero movies are abominations that need to be put down like a rabid dog.
+rep for the rant because I love a good rant, but a couple points of contention. The first might be a bit of a contradiction because I was just saying in another thread how I would like to see higher stakes in superhero movies. While that is true I do also understand that these movies have basically become the action flicks of our generation. If you took them away you would be likely to say where have all the action movies gone. I say all that to say the action movies of the 80's and 90's were not high stakes either. We basically knew how things were going to play out before the first scene. Many people like this style of story, I personally mostly find it boring. Unless you can find a way to get me into the characters. Nolan did this in a wonderful way for me and Marvel does an adequate job for my tastes, occasionally knocking it out of the park. So while I agree in part, in other ways I actually prefer this new generation of action films.
The second point that disagree with and have talked quite a bit about around here. Is that somehow these films are killing cinema. On this point I couldn't disagree more. I think that there is more then enough room for everyone in the pool. Movies are consistently breaking records every year. Yet Oscar season is still overflowing with films to choose from. There are tons of independent films being made every year and we have more ways to access them then ever. Some people will always only go to see a couple movies in the theater a year, some will only watch the smaller films, and some will partake in everything. It is the way it always has been and probably the way it will be for many many years.
@Seanc Yeah, I know I overreacted there, somewhat. It's just that I couldn't get my point through so many people that it's became a frustration for me.
Anyway, yes, some of these Marvel movies have some stakes... somewhat, except for Loki not dying, Coulson not dying, Fury not dying, Tony Stark not actually struggling with alcoholism like he did in the comics, the Guardians of the Galaxy saving the world with the power of friendship... never mind.
I guess there are some stakes and tension in your perspective, and I'll respect that. I just feel that they are playing it quite safe, aside from a few very exceptionally rare moments that take place in a single movie, maybe every 2-5 years. Yeah... Okay, I'm being snarky and annoying, sorry. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
On that note though, it does remind me that there are more than just Marvel superhero movies out there, like Fox's X-Men franchise, which I do agree that there are considerable stakes that aren't too predictable... even if everyone was saved in the end of Future Past as Bryan Singer single-handedly wiped out Brett Ratner's mistakes. Darn it, I'm being snarky again. Sorry.
Fox shows promises, especially with the upcoming Fantastic Four movie that actually looks like a movie in general, not a superhero movie. That's all I'm asking for. A single movie that doesn't remind me that I'm watching a superhero movie with superhero cliches. The capes and deus ex machina are getting old, folks, almost as old as YA movies (The 50 Twilight Hunger Games of Grey, though I guess 'Shades' is 'mommy-porn').
On the point of killing cinema... That's a good point. I guess I was just being reactionary towards the onslaught of Marvel movies coming out. It's honestly a bit intimidating. Hopefully, you're right, and this would be a passing phase that doesn't affect movies in general anymore than slashers and YA movies do.
Okay, now, see, this is an interesting story and concept, and not because it has some film festival logo attached to it. This genuinely looks like an interesting story, in terms of stories and literature in general. Exploring new territory with the zombie genre has always fascinated me, and this looks like a very character-driven movie.
Too bad Marvel couldn't hope to do the same because they are too busy making money.
Considering that I'm the "Mainstream Dude" whose favorite movies are T2 and Aliens, not some elitist movies like 2001 or Twelve Angry Men... yeah, I think I'm pretty lighthearted.
Wow! The trailer is awesome. I hope they use music like this in the movie as well. The Grey for example uses beautiful music that enhances the experience. The music from the trailer reminded me of this film for some reason. I like the zombie theme and, of course, Arnie is super cool. This is a movie I might enjoy!
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.
Directed by John Lasseter
Released on November 24, 1999
Starring Tom Hanks as "Sheriff Woody" and Joan Cusack as "Jessie"
If there's a movie that made me feel great to be a kid again, it's any of the Toy Story movies.
I've always enjoyed Pixar movies, but only The Incredibles and all three Toy Story movies were able to make me feel exhilarated no matter how many times I watch them, and only Toy Story 2 was able to engage me both intellectually and entertainingly. Toy Story 3 came very close, but Toy Story 2 just had so many great moments that one-upped the first movie that I'm, as Syndrome put it, "still geeking out about it!"
Just saw Toy Story 2 for the first time and I have to admit that I didn't like it as much as the first one just because I think the story was overly complex...there was just too much going on...the story of Woody and the television show was enough to make the movie work and the rest of what went on just made the film confusing and hard to stay invested in. I haven't seen the third one yet.
I don't think it's that confusing. There's a lot to take in for sure, but it wasn't convoluted, considering that the themes do relate to each other to form a big picture and tell a single story, which is the abandonment both Woody and Jessie felt. The themes of immortality conveyed by Stinky Pete (living forever behind a glass case) was just another part of that argument on whether if toys are better off without their owners. It's all one big philosophical discussion, but a coherent one at that.
The third one actually manages to deliver the concluding punchline to that discussion by amplifying Stinky Pete's point of view up to eleven through Lots'o.
There were not really that many unnecessary parts, aside from the scenes inserted for comedic purposes. Scenes that were made for dramatic purposes were all connected in one way or another, which is something quite amazing for a trilogy, as not many creative teams were able to achieve that in movie trilogie
Continuing my campaign on the criticism of superhero movies, here's another article I found that I thought was rather interesting, so I felt like sharing it with you guys:
I think my favorite point made by the article was this:
"I’ll quote Roger Ebert’s review of Thor: “Here is a film that is scoring [77%] on Rotten Tomatoes. For what? The standards for comic book superhero movies have been established by Superman, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2 and Iron Man. In that company, Thor is pitiful.”
I've shared Roger's view on the skewed perspective for a while now, ever since Guardians of the Galaxy was given its 'top-notch' and 'superb' rating. And you know, it's not just Guardians, which can be excused for being very funny, but even movies like Thor and Thor 2 get a free pass from movie-goers, being described by many as "it was a good movie".
Really? I could understand if you tell me it's a "mediocre" or "average" movie, as opposed to "a ****** movie", but "a good movie"? I mean, I would even take "it's an okay movie". Just saying. I'm flexible.
Meanwhile, horror and slasher movies, with equally shallow plot but nevertheless entertaining, have continued to receive the sledgehammer blow of 20% or 30% ratings as they've always had, despite some of them being more rich in storytelling than Generic Archetypes of the Galaxy. Hm. That's peculiar, huh?
Reply to Topic
