Just saw "I AM LEGEND" last night

[Douglas]

Got to agree with rp33 somewhat, I liked the movie but they somewhat ruined it with that ending! It just seemed so pulled out of their ass...other than that tho good movie.

Yes, instead of killing himself, he should have pulled the string out of the grenade, tossed it at the mutants, and then jumped in the coal chute with the woman and boy and all 3 of them would have survived. Another thing they could have added was showing them get the hell out of the city and to the town at the end. That would have made the movie just a bit longer (as it is kind of short).

i didn't think the movie was short as a whole, but the ending was too quick..

you had will smith living his life on a daily basis and tons of his daily life was shown throughout the movie.. and then BAM the ending hits and everything happens.. this made the movie seem short because the time frame of the first part of the movie seemed dragged, and the ending was too quick..

the book is completely different.. there is a love interest, and she is one of the vampires (btw they're VAMPIRES not MUTANTS or ZOMBIES or anything else people are calling them).. the love interest vampire convinces him to take this pill at the end of the book which kills him..

in the movie they humans have no communication with the vampires and if i remember correctly that bitch and her son weren't even in the book.. completely different..

Sounds like the book was better. What about the older movie? Was it better as well?

[RP33]

Yes, instead of killing himself, he should have pulled the string out of the grenade, tossed it at the mutants, and then jumped in the coal chute with the woman and boy and all 3 of them would have survived. Another thing they could have added was showing them get the hell out of the city and to the town at the end. That would have made the movie just a bit longer (as it is kind of short).

i didn't think the movie was short as a whole, but the ending was too quick..

you had will smith living his life on a daily basis and tons of his daily life was shown throughout the movie.. and then BAM the ending hits and everything happens.. this made the movie seem short because the time frame of the first part of the movie seemed dragged, and the ending was too quick..

the book is completely different.. there is a love interest, and she is one of the vampires (btw they're VAMPIRES not MUTANTS or ZOMBIES or anything else people are calling them).. the love interest vampire convinces him to take this pill at the end of the book which kills him..

in the movie they humans have no communication with the vampires and if i remember correctly that bitch and her son weren't even in the book.. completely different..

Sounds like the book was better. What about the older movie? Was it better as well?

in "Last Man On Earth" the doctor's role is played by Vincent Price who i'm a huge fan of.. it's real similar to I Am Legend with a few differences.. I thought this was the best of the three.. "The Omega Man" has Charlton Heston in it, and it's set in the future, and is the most different of the 3.. this was my least favorite..

I'd check out Last Man On Earth if you had a chance clubber, it was cool.. and while you're at it, watch the original House On Haunted Hill with Vincent Price cause it was awesome

[Douglas]

i didn't think the movie was short as a whole, but the ending was too quick..

you had will smith living his life on a daily basis and tons of his daily life was shown throughout the movie.. and then BAM the ending hits and everything happens.. this made the movie seem short because the time frame of the first part of the movie seemed dragged, and the ending was too quick..

the book is completely different.. there is a love interest, and she is one of the vampires (btw they're VAMPIRES not MUTANTS or ZOMBIES or anything else people are calling them).. the love interest vampire convinces him to take this pill at the end of the book which kills him..

in the movie they humans have no communication with the vampires and if i remember correctly that bitch and her son weren't even in the book.. completely different..

Sounds like the book was better. What about the older movie? Was it better as well?

in "Last Man On Earth" the doctor's role is played by Vincent Price who i'm a huge fan of.. it's real similar to I Am Legend with a few differences.. I thought this was the best of the three.. "The Omega Man" has Charlton Heston in it, and it's set in the future, and is the most different of the 3.. this was my least favorite..

I'd check out Last Man On Earth if you had a chance clubber, it was cool.. and while you're at it, watch the original House On Haunted Hill with Vincent Price cause it was awesome

Will do.

[BoxingGorilla]

watch the original House On Haunted Hill with Vincent Pric

I thought the old lady was creepy as hell, but my overall opinion of the film is quite low.

[RP33]

watch the original House On Haunted Hill with Vincent Pric

I thought the old lady was creepy as hell, but my overall opinion of the film is quite low.

haha that old lady house keeper? yeah that was creepy.

cmon, you didn't like it? I was with my girl and we were renting some classic films and there was some deal where if you rent a movie you get 2 at some silly price so we were just looking for a "bad" movie to watch and entertain ourselves.. so i rented the original House on Haunted Hill thinking i was going to laugh at it, and we both were amazed at how well done it was.. Of course it was real cheesy but it was still well done especially for the 50's..

It also becomes about 439498423 times better if you've seen the remake of House on Haunted Hill which was an abomination....

[:::PSL:::]

watch the original House On Haunted Hill with Vincent Pric

I thought the old lady was creepy as hell, but my overall opinion of the film is quite low.

haha that old lady house keeper? yeah that was creepy.

cmon, you didn't like it? I was with my girl and we were renting some classic films and there was some deal where if you rent a movie you get 2 at some silly price so we were just looking for a "bad" movie to watch and entertain ourselves.. so i rented the original House on Haunted Hill thinking i was going to laugh at it, and we both were amazed at how well done it was.. Of course it was real cheesy but it was still well done especially for the 50's..

It also becomes about 439498423 times better if you've seen the remake of House on Haunted Hill which was an abomination....

LOL!

IMO, it's more fun to watch these kinds movies when you are stoned. I'd get more paranoid and jumpy. The more thrills, the more fun.

[Wayne]

That was a kickass movie if I've ever seen one. The suspense will just about drive a person insane.

will smith was great

but i hated the movie..

they RUINED the book, which was awesome..

the movie suffered from a few bad cheesy modernizations.. The Omega Man and The Last Man On Earth were both better movies..

If you remake a remake of a remake, and then add cheesyness to it, you're bound to fail.. hence I Am Legend..

like, oh, of course, the night that they all come to your house, you've finally realized that you FOUND THE CURE.. I mean come on, a 7th grader can write that shit..

Anyone who liked the movie i encourage you to read the book and then reevaluate your thoughts.. the book is completely different and superior.

C'mon, The Omega Man was the ultimate in Cheese. Being cool with black people must have been nouveau riche back in the 70s as evidenced by Heston's black girlfriend in the flick. And that ending... he died standing?

I can understand if you think "I am Legend" was a poor adaptation of the book, but it was just as good, if not better, than "The Omega Man". It was not a remake but a different adaptation just like with "The Thing". That was a second adaptation of the source material. They couldn't have remained faithful to the novella; nobody would be interested in that as a feature film. The ending was so anti-climactic. With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored.

Will Smith was excellent and at times his performance was almost on par with Tom Hank's in "Castaway". The CGI was godawful; I wish they had just used real actors. They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience.

[RP33]

That was a kickass movie if I've ever seen one. The suspense will just about drive a person insane.

will smith was great

but i hated the movie..

they RUINED the book, which was awesome..

the movie suffered from a few bad cheesy modernizations.. The Omega Man and The Last Man On Earth were both better movies..

If you remake a remake of a remake, and then add cheesyness to it, you're bound to fail.. hence I Am Legend..

like, oh, of course, the night that they all come to your house, you've finally realized that you FOUND THE CURE.. I mean come on, a 7th grader can write that shit..

Anyone who liked the movie i encourage you to read the book and then reevaluate your thoughts.. the book is completely different and superior.

C'mon, The Omega Man was the ultimate in Cheese. Being cool with black people must have been nouveau riche back in the 70s as evidenced by Heston's black girlfriend in the flick. And that ending... he died standing?

I can understand if you think "I am Legend" was a poor adaptation of the book, but it was just as good, if not better, than "The Omega Man". It was not a remake but a different adaptation just like with "The Thing". That was a second adaptation of the source material. They couldn't have remained faithful to the novella; nobody would be interested in that as a feature film. The ending was so anti-climactic. With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored.

Will Smith was excellent and at times his performance was almost on par with Tom Hank's in "Castaway". The CGI was godawful; I wish they had just used real actors. They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience.

liquid if you read one of my other posts i elaborated on the Omega Man.. and i said that it was my least favorite of the 3 book adaptations.. I guess i was just remembering my anger after watching I Am Legend when i first posted..

I also said that Will Smith did a great job in the movie..

ANYWAY

Whether you meant to or not, you basically posted the general idea of WHAT IS WRONG with film today..

"With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored."

"They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience."

So basically what you're saying is that intelligent people read books, and that if you're going to watch a movie it MUST have action in it so that you're not bored.. That's the BIGGEST JOKE i've heard in a while.. This is the problem with film today.. anything "crafted" to fit the main stream audience is horrible, hence those aspects in I Am Legend.. As i said in my original post, if you make a remake of a remake and then add the mainstream elements to it, then it's bound to be horrible.. Sure it will satisfy the "mainstream" audience, which you unintentionally explained as NEEDING action to not be "bored" with a movie.. but the real film lovers will laugh at this movie..

See the problem with society today is reflected in the types of entertainment we choose.. Listen to the radio.. nowadays it's all about "pimps" and "hoes" and "rims" and "ice".. Compare that to older decades where the music could actually be considered "ART".. You know, it actually had some meaning behind it.. Whether it was political or not, it had substance.. Today there are very few kids/teenagers growing up that will appreciate music as it truly should be.. You went from saying "hey mom, i want to learn how to play guitar like George Harrison" to "hey mom, check out how i can shake my ass like those girls in that video"..

The same goes for film.. I think it's funny how many people say "I've never even heard of that film" when all of the films nominated for best movie come out.. It's cause they were too busy watching Bring it on Again 10..
The other current movie thread about No Country For Old Men, which won best picture, is about a film that has substance to it.. YES there was action in it, but it was necessary action.. it wasn't put in the movie as a reason to go see the movie, it just happened to be NECESSARY to the story..

To say that you need to ADD action to a "sci-fi" movie because otherwise it would be "boring" is a joke..

[Wadeb_21]

I have seen "I am Legend" and thought it was a pretty good movie, However I have talked to many that have read the book and tell me the movie is shite compared to the book. I guess the book was written in the 1950's and the story takes place in the 70's if I remember correctly. I'm gonna try and read the book someday if I ever have time.

[Wayne]

will smith was great

but i hated the movie..

they RUINED the book, which was awesome..

the movie suffered from a few bad cheesy modernizations.. The Omega Man and The Last Man On Earth were both better movies..

If you remake a remake of a remake, and then add cheesyness to it, you're bound to fail.. hence I Am Legend..

like, oh, of course, the night that they all come to your house, you've finally realized that you FOUND THE CURE.. I mean come on, a 7th grader can write that shit..

Anyone who liked the movie i encourage you to read the book and then reevaluate your thoughts.. the book is completely different and superior.

C'mon, The Omega Man was the ultimate in Cheese. Being cool with black people must have been nouveau riche back in the 70s as evidenced by Heston's black girlfriend in the flick. And that ending... he died standing?

I can understand if you think "I am Legend" was a poor adaptation of the book, but it was just as good, if not better, than "The Omega Man". It was not a remake but a different adaptation just like with "The Thing". That was a second adaptation of the source material. They couldn't have remained faithful to the novella; nobody would be interested in that as a feature film. The ending was so anti-climactic. With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored.

Will Smith was excellent and at times his performance was almost on par with Tom Hank's in "Castaway". The CGI was godawful; I wish they had just used real actors. They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience.

liquid if you read one of my other posts i elaborated on the Omega Man.. and i said that it was my least favorite of the 3 book adaptations.. I guess i was just remembering my anger after watching I Am Legend when i first posted..

I also said that Will Smith did a great job in the movie..

ANYWAY

Whether you meant to or not, you basically posted the general idea of WHAT IS WRONG with film today..

"With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored."

"They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience."

So basically what you're saying is that intelligent people read books, and that if you're going to watch a movie it MUST have action in it so that you're not bored.. That's the BIGGEST JOKE i've heard in a while.. This is the problem with film today.. anything "crafted" to fit the main stream audience is horrible, hence those aspects in I Am Legend.. As i said in my original post, if you make a remake of a remake and then add the mainstream elements to it, then it's bound to be horrible.. Sure it will satisfy the "mainstream" audience, which you unintentionally explained as NEEDING action to not be "bored" with a movie.. but the real film lovers will laugh at this movie..

See the problem with society today is reflected in the types of entertainment we choose.. Listen to the radio.. nowadays it's all about "pimps" and "hoes" and "rims" and "ice".. Compare that to older decades where the music could actually be considered "ART".. You know, it actually had some meaning behind it.. Whether it was political or not, it had substance.. Today there are very few kids/teenagers growing up that will appreciate music as it truly should be.. You went from saying "hey mom, i want to learn how to play guitar like George Harrison" to "hey mom, check out how i can shake my ass like those girls in that video"..

The same goes for film.. I think it's funny how many people say "I've never even heard of that film" when all of the films nominated for best movie come out.. It's cause they were too busy watching Bring it on Again 10..
The other current movie thread about No Country For Old Men, which won best picture, is about a film that has substance to it.. YES there was action in it, but it was necessary action.. it wasn't put in the movie as a reason to go see the movie, it just happened to be NECESSARY to the story..

To say that you need to ADD action to a "sci-fi" movie because otherwise it would be "boring" is a joke..

You're one of THOSE old fogies. Anytime people say things that begin with "The problem with music today..." you've turned into your parents, who turned into their parents, who turned into their parents, all the way back when the first caveman banged two rocks together and his mother grunted at him. The "problem" with music, movies, teens, etc. today is that the prior generation just doesn't get it. The same thing was said of the Beatles, the Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Ray Charles, Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jackson Pollock, non-rhyming poetry, tattoos and all other forms of art. Art will always be diverse in that it is tailored to fit the tastes of the current age as well as having a minor independent streak that defies the social norm. There is nothing wrong with a movie being tailored to fit a mainstream audience when producers sink MILLIONS into it. They actually would like to make their money back on it plus a profit so they'll be able to make your "Michael Claytons", "There Will be Bloods" and "No Country for Old Mens". Those movies don't make money, but you'd probably describe them as being what is "right". Sounds counterintuitive, right? In order to have that you have to have movies that are formulaic in nature (which are still not guaranteed to make money) to put butts in seats. That's why I stated a sci-fi movie with vampires HAS to have action in it. That type of movie begs for a big budget and the source material is epic in nature. If I described such a movie idea to you would you not imagine that there would be SOME CG in it? Of course you would.

I loved "No Country for Old Men" but I liked "I am Legend" too. Sure it had its problems, but because it wasn't an artistic film up to your standards doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. I like to eat healthy food, but sometimes I just want a #9 from McDonald's. There isn't anything wrong with that and the fact they have over several BILLION served means there's a place for them. Ya-ya's (don't worry, it's only in Michigan and Florida) is healthy for you but no way can they put up those kinds of numbers. Let it be. Just realize that when you say, "(insert your complaint here) these days," it says more about you than anything else.

[RP33]

"With a storyline that involves sci-fi and vampires you HAVE to inject some action, otherwise audiences will be bored."

"They crafted this movie to be right up the alley of a mainstream audience."

You're one of THOSE old fogies. Anytime people say things that begin with "The problem with music today..." you've turned into your parents, who turned into their parents, who turned into their parents, all the way back when the first caveman banged two rocks together and his mother grunted at him. The "problem" with music, movies, teens, etc. today is that the prior generation just doesn't get it. The same thing was said of the Beatles, the Stones, Jimmy Hendrix, Ray Charles, Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jackson Pollock, non-rhyming poetry, tattoos and all other forms of art. Art will always be diverse in that it is tailored to fit the tastes of the current age as well as having a minor independent streak that defies the social norm. There is nothing wrong with a movie being tailored to fit a mainstream audience when producers sink MILLIONS into it. They actually would like to make their money back on it plus a profit so they'll be able to make your "Michael Claytons", "There Will be Bloods" and "No Country for Old Mens". Those movies don't make money, but you'd probably describe them as being what is "right". Sounds counterintuitive, right? In order to have that you have to have movies that are formulaic in nature (which are still not guaranteed to make money) to put butts in seats. That's why I stated a sci-fi movie with vampires HAS to have action in it. That type of movie begs for a big budget and the source material is epic in nature. If I described such a movie idea to you would you not imagine that there would be SOME CG in it? Of course you would.

I loved "No Country for Old Men" but I liked "I am Legend" too. Sure it had its problems, but because it wasn't an artistic film up to your standards doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. I like to eat healthy food, but sometimes I just want a #9 from McDonald's. There isn't anything wrong with that and the fact they have over several BILLION served means there's a place for them. Ya-ya's (don't worry, it's only in Michigan and Florida) is healthy for you but no way can they put up those kinds of numbers. Let it be. Just realize that when you say, "(insert your complaint here) these days," it says more about you than anything else.

first off, my friend.. im TWENTY TWO years old..

you don't realize it, but you constantly are giving me perfect examples of how "dumbed down" wahtever you want to call it, society has become..

i suggest you watch the movie Idiocracy if you have not yet, and you'll see what i'm getting at..

anyway, here is the point man.. just like you said with the mcdonalds analogy, PERFECT example.. Now you have healthy food that you can eat when you want, because it's good for your health etc, wahtever reason you want to eat healthy.. then you have Mcdonalds.. it's cheap, fast to get, and it tastes good? what's wrong with that? well besides the fact that there was a documentary called Super Size Me on all of the effects of eating this type of food, there is plenty wrong.. This is the perfect example of instant gratification.. you constantly say "well i only have a few bucks and not a lot of time, let me get a few things off of the dollar menu".. compare that mentality to that of someones taste in movies.. you don't want to think about the movie, you don't want to relate it to life or anything, you just want some quick action and gore while you're out with your date on a friday night, and then you'll talk about something else on the ride home..

if that's the type of shit that you dig, then GREAT.. all i'm saying is that you're not even scratching the surface on the art in film and the awesomeness that goes along with it..

Bottom line is that you shouldn't even be debating with me because clearly we have different likes/dislikes when it comes to entertainment.. I was a film major for 2 years, i took a few technical courses at a school near my house, i've written screen plays, and i currently do independent film production.. clearly i just have a love for the art.. If you think that you need blood and gore for a story like "I Am Legend" then that's awesome.. that's your view on the art.. but you have to understand that if someone came on the main board on this site and started saying how boring boxing is and how you need a KNOCKOUT and blood for a fight to be entertaining, then he'd get owned by ICB, Mick, Spicoli, Bilbo within 10 minutes..

ANOTHER THING..

no country for old men made plenty of money, especially after it won the awards.. obviously not as much as lets say, I Am Legend, but what does that exactly mean? All that it means is that the general public, felt more enticed to go see I Am Legend.. does that mean it was a fantastic film? or does that mean that it had a larger appeal.. whether it be that Will Smith was in it, or because teenage girls wanted to get scared by vampires, or whatever.. bottom line is that it was a highly marketed film, and because your friend saw it, and maybe liked it, you went to see it..

I work at a bookstore, and i don't know how familiar you are with Oprah Winfrey, but she has a "book club".. she "releases" a title every few months and basically the whole fucking state comes in and buys the book.. the latest one was a book called " A New Earth" by Eckhart Tolle.. It's a metaphysical type of book that would not have 1/48948923 the sales if it wasn't on Oprah's show.. so not only did we sell hundreds of thousands, but at least a thousand people took the effort to come back in and return it..

what does that tell you about our society?

in a nutshell, it shows me that people are spoon fed what they should like and what's "good" if you will..

now how does that transpire into our topic, film? well i'm sure you can figure it out, but the bottom line is that a good film is a GOOD film..

here's an example.. try to stay with me on this one because this is something you need to understand if you want to continue this conversation...

I liked the movie Punch-Drunk Love.. i know a lot of people who hated it, but i also can understand why they hated it.. It was pretty off-beat, and it was slow moving.. but you don't hear anyone say, "it didn't make sense" or "there were a lot of holes in it".. because it was a complete movie, that told a story, that was just plain and simple without needing to satisfy a specific audience.. NOW when someone sees, lets say the movie "Saw".. i actually liked saw but that's besides the point.. someone may love the movie, you know "oh man it had tons of GORE!!" etc.. someone else may say, "there was unnecessary gore, and there were some holes in the continuity of the story.. and even a few things unexplained".. I mean, the point is that there were holes in the story, the acting was BAD, so i can really hear people when they say the did not like it.. BUT for the people who did like it, they don't care about the holes in the story, because the Gore and the SHOCK VALUE ending covered all of that up and made it so that it didn't matter..

point is i like to go see a movie, enjoy the acting, enjoy the writing and dialogue, enjoy the cinematography, and enjoy the directing.. if all of those aspects meet a certain level of enjoyment, then i'd like it.. I mean, i don't go into the movie theater and take notes, these things are just embedded in my head because of my experiences with film.. i feel that i may appreciate a certain shot that someone else may not even notice, that's just my view of it.. Some people want to go to the movies strictly for entertainment and see some explosions and sex and gun fire, and that's fine with me, but i don't think that person would be getting into a film discussion..

all i'm asking if for you to #1, hear where i am coming from, #2 read your posts/thoughts and pretend that you're me, or coming from my perspective.. that may help you understand what i'm trying to say.

[RP33]

sorry, i just re-read your post again, and some things that you say are kinda silly..

if you don't think it's pretty SAD that movies need to be made with a formula to put butts in seats then you're missing my point.

[Wayne]

I understood fully what you were trying to say. You're being presumptuous to assume I didn't. I would presume that you're not the one understanding me.

First off, I was midway through reading this post when I started laughing. You actually tried impressing me with your resume. a) your "qualifications" don't make your opinions any more valid than anyone else's and; b) so what? It wreaks of desperation and snobbery when you pull that card.

Are you seriously suggesting that the only people who should debate are the ones who AGREE with one another? You stated that I shouldn't debate with you because we have different likes and dislikes. Read that over and consider it a bit.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with eating McDonald's occasionally. If you'd understood what I meant you wouldn't have mistaken me. I've seen Supersize Me (and I don't really need you assigning me homework) and there's a vast difference between what that guy did and what the average person with common sense would do. Guess what happens if you consume too much of any one food? It'll make you sick because you need MODERATION. McDonald's one time a week won't give you anything like what that guy had. He was almost on death's door by the end of that documentary from eating McDonald's for breakfast, lunch & dinner every day for several weeks straight. Try that with baked fish and you'll get Mercury poisoning (but fish is healthy, right?)

Working in film production I'm amazed at how little you understand regarding "politics" in movies. You can't just make art film after art film and expect to have a profitable company. If they all did that the industry would go belly up. But going by the food analogy, "art" films are healthy, right? That's actually where the analogy is turned on its head. The mindless actioner that lowest common denominator flocks to is what drives the industry; the reason people complained about this year's Oscars was because hardly anyone saw the "big" movies that were nominated.

Sure, YOU may have seen them, but to suggest that your opinion is somehow more valid than others is not only elitist, but it shows how willingly out of touch you are. I loved "No Country" and plan on seeing "There Will be Blood" as soon as it comes out on DVD but I can enjoy a film like "I am Legend" simply for what it is, even when I've already read the novella it's based on. I even liked "The Omega Man". All four movies have their place and because a movie like "I am Legend" gets made a movie like "Juno" can be made. That's not just me saying it, someone who really works in the industry, George Clooney, said it. He said he'll make a movie like "Batman & Robin" so the studio will in turn fund a movie they won't make money on like "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind".

Why would I see where you're coming from? What would compel me to do that? Because you've seen where I was coming from? OK, let's give that a shot. Movies like "I am Legend" are shit because producers are too busy trying to make risky, multi-million dollar endeavors appealing to a mass audience. No, no, they should keep making movies that only critics will like or see because an Oscar is due compensation in place of the money they never earned.

Yes, that makes absolute sense to me now.

And your age has nothing to do with you being a generation behind. You hearken back to music or movies from yesteryear and that only underlines today's music is not meant for you. There isn't anything wrong with that--I'm 31 and I don't like majority of the music I hear on the radio. But I didn't like majority of the music I heard in the 80s, either. That's why I don't make the mistake of saying things like music, movies or teens these days. Generation for generation none of the three are any worse.

point is i like to go see a movie, enjoy the acting, enjoy the writing and dialogue, enjoy the cinematography, and enjoy the directing.. if all of those aspects meet a certain level of enjoyment, then i'd like it.. I mean, i don't go into the movie theater and take notes, these things are just embedded in my head because of my experiences with film.. i feel that i may appreciate a certain shot that someone else may not even notice, that's just my view of it.. Some people want to go to the movies strictly for entertainment and see some explosions and sex and gun fire, and that's fine with me, but i don't think that person would be getting into a film discussion..

This paragraph sums up your arrogance perfectly. I can see a movie and enjoy all those same things (as well as a good story which you forgot about) and I can go see a movie strictly for sex, explosions and gun fire. I don't base any of my criterion for enjoying a movie on something I noticed that someone else may have missed. I enjoy it simply because I saw it- to somehow assert your perceptions over a theoretical someone else is again, arrogant. But it's great that you approve of people wanting to see a movie for reasons beneath what appeals to you, but those people also have valid opinions on film that simply can't be ignored despite how dismissive your attitude is.

Why don't you just see it from my side a moment and see how obnoxious your opinion is?

PS- Transpire was the wrong word. Coincide would have been better. But that's just me, I was an English major for 4 years until I got my BA (by the way, I'm being quasi-facetious).

Also, you completely undermined your entire argument by admitting you saw a movie you stated had holes in it, Saw. You can't on the one hand say one movie with holes in it is the problem with movies today and then proclaim another movie with holes in it was good.

So let's recap the things you did wrong here. You assumed you knew things about someone you didn't, you were drenched with a holier-than-thou attitude and worst of all you called someone "friend" you have no clue about, again, another sign of arrogance. Again, this is facetiousness on my part because I really don't care if you do any different in the future. In fact it makes it all the more easy to put you in proper context if you don't.

[Wayne]

sorry, i just re-read your post again, and some things that you say are kinda silly..

if you don't think it's pretty SAD that movies need to be made with a formula to put butts in seats then you're missing my point.

I'm starting to think I don't care about your point, but thanks Dad.

[RP33]

liquid.. let's get one thing straight..

with my post regarding what you'd call my "resume" was I in no way trying to either impress you or anything to that extent.. all i'm trying to explain is that THIS is the perspective i'm looking at things from.. never once did i say, or imply that my opinion was "correct" or anything to that extent.. all i'm saying is that we're looking at things from different perspectives..

clearly you're taking this personally, which you shouldn't, and i tried to avoid making you feel that way by saying that we're just coming from two different perspectives.. leaving neither of us right, because there is no right "opinion".. that would be contradicting..

you're taking my post out of the wrong context, clearly.. while when i said what i like to enjoy in a movie, i never said that you don't enjoy those things also.. i merely said that "other people" meaning the VAST majority of the public, who go to the movies once a week, twice a month, however so often, wanna see blood, guts and gore..

you refer to making "art film after art film" and how it is impossible to be successful that way.. well i completely agree, i never said it was possible.. if you remember my original post was mainly referring to adding action into a sci-fi movie to make it less "BORING".. If you saw my movie collection, there are plenty of movies that stray quite far from being considered an "artsy" film.. Boondock Saints, The Big Lebowski the name two that i can see from here.. Those movies are fantastic, for different reasons.. They're mainly character driven flicks with either action or comedy as their genre..

and liquid, i do clearly understand where you're coming from, and i understand you're looking at the "business" of film..

again, as i said, i love plenty of films that aren't "artsy" i just need something with substance that isn't the same formula from another movie, or just made to make money.. look at film in the "art" sense.. you know, the same as a painting or a song or what have you..

The best way i can explain what im trying to say is relating it to music.. Look at let's say, i do'nt know, Green Day? They released Dookie, Nimrod, i think Insomniac it was called, all back in the 90's.. Now they were almost a sort of.. well i don't wanna say pioneers, but an experimental type of pop/punk on those albums.. They weren't really fitting any sort of mold or anything like that, they were releasing songs they wanted.. granted they had a record label who had influence on them, but more or less with your first few albums, it's not completely fabricated nonsense, it's actually the guts of the band.. what they really wanna play.. So they release those CD's.. and they were moderately successful.. and now look what they've released today.. some American Idiot nonsense.. music that sounds completely different then their real sound.. Now i know that musicians mature and that times change, but they just became SO mainstream as opposed to their non-mainstream sound back in the day, that they'd be considered a "sell-out" now.. Now fitting in with your theory, you can't make artsy album after artsy album and expect them to sell, of course.. but that's where you as a band are tested.. Do we want to play the music that we really love, that we actually can consider "art" because it is coming from within us? Or do we want to make something that will sell and that we could become famous off of.. Well there is no right or wrong answer to that, but if you were a fan of the band when they made their original albums, and then they start making these nonsense albums, then chances are that you're going to be a little turned off..

So you can consider those hardcore fans as i guess the "artsy" movie lovers.. and as soon as their artist "sells out" and adds violence and blood and sex and gore to their "art" then it's a turn off to the "purists" i guess you could say..

What i'm trying to say is that art comes from within the song writer or cinematographer or whatever the art form is, not from what the general public wants to see/hear..

so if you're a film maker, and you love making films, if you have a passion for writing plays and bringing them to motion picture, then why are you going to let anyone else influence how you make your film?

these are the type of artists i can appreciate, the types of artists who many appreciate.. and sometimes what they do may leak into the mainstream, maybe like quentin tarantino sometimes.. but do you really think he gives a rats ass who likes his movies? Hell no.. he's a pompous guy who knows he is a good writer, and loves his films, he doesn't care who DOESN'T like his films.. and that's why he is awesome, because he has a passion for what he does.. Now when Tarantino makes some CGI movie that has Hayden Christensen and Jessica Alba as the leads in it, that revolves around action and sex, then i'd look at him in a different light..

there is a large spectrum of genres and types of movies.. and they all appeal to different audiences, obviously.. it just so happens that we're on different positions of the spectrum.. that doesn't make any of us better than the other, we just enjoy different things.. and believe me, i am quite used to people not having the same likes as me, and i'm fine with that.. i'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong, or that you have bad taste, don't take it the wrong way "friendo"..

and you're an English graduate, that's great.. correct all of my posts if it makes you feel better.. i'm a CIS major who could write a virus that i could make you run without even knowing it, without even talking to me, or clicking anything, that when you took it to the computer store to have it repaired it would just keep showing the computer technician the middle finger when they tried to re-install windows (or whatever OS you use) making it impossible to repair.. but what do i care? what are we comparing who's dick is bigger?