The Island

Anyone plan on seeing it in theater?

McGregor, Johansson, Hounsou, Bean, Buscemi, Duncan, looks like an awesome cast until you see Bay is the one behind the camera :p .

The trailer kinda reminded me of Minority Report visually. But instead of a blue overtone we have a more golden hugh.

- EXTERNAL LINK -

It's been a while since The Rock, Bay's due for a good flick isn't he?!?!?! I'll probably end up seeing it in theater. If anything I'm sure my ears and eyes will leave satisfied.

I really have no motivation to see it. I read Ayn Rand's "Anthem" when I was a freshman in high school, and "The Island" looks like a grossly expensive version of that story, except I could bet that the book is better, even though I hate to compare books with movies. Anyway, I don't think that Michael Bay is too hot of a director.

hmm...i don't know. i like michael bay movies. although they are all visual effects & action, they keep me on my toes. maybe i am just too easy of a critic, but the movie looks okay. nothing extraordinary, but a summer flick that is entertaining & has a good cast.

i thought the trailer looked pretty good. i am curious to see the tiwsts, if any, that the movie may bring along.

The movie has to have some hope; after all, you really can't do worse then "Pearl Harbor".

Tim, don't ever doubt Michael Bay's ability to suck like nobody has sucked before, including himself.

OK, that sounded dirty but it's nothing compared to what I actually want to say about Michael Bay.

Chris, I feel your pain and galdy agree with you when it comes to Bay. I just figure, "Pearl Harbor" has to be one of the worst American films ever made, a "one" on our DVD town scalse, so I just figure "The Island" can't be worse.

And speaking of "The Island", I hear many people making comparisons to "Minority Report", "The Sixth Day", and "I Robot", well, at least this is the hub-bub I'm getting from people I work with. When I saw the previews, I thought it reminded me of an old Sci-Fi with Micheal York called "Logans Run". If anyone is familiar with this film then you might know what I'm talking about and why I find subtle simularities. Then again, most of you are too young to remember such a mediocre sci-fi from the mid 70s, eh?

Don't worry, they're remaking "Logan's Run" supposedly for next year, so we'll all be treated to the "hip, cool" update from the original thinkers in H'wood.

Chris, you just made me laugh for the first time in a few days.
Don't even get me started on Bay's work on a live action Transformers movie.

I myself thought it was Logan's Run when I first saw the previews, and strangely enough many people around me in the theatre whispered the same thing to each other, so perhaps the "mediocre sci-fi film from the mid 70's" isn't so forgotten after all, granted it still sucks.

"I hear many people making comparisons to "Minority Report", "The Sixth Day", and "I Robot""

if they are comparing it to MInority Report, i wouldn't mind. i thought that movie was really good. but, the oterh comparisons make me more apprehensive.

given that i haven't seen anything similar coming out that weekend, i think this will probably fare well in theaters.

i'm not familiar with logan's run?
is the storyline the exact same as the island?

As I watched this preview, I thought the film looked great. McGregor and Johannson are awesome, as well as the supporting cast and the visuals looked sweet. Then the screen flashed, "directed the Michael Bay" and I was instantly not interested anymore. With the exception of The Rock, I do not admire this man's films at all and am sure that he cannot deliver a real original or thought-provoking film. Even the image of all the people dressed in white running down the desert hill reminded me of THX 1138. Bay's recent films include Bad Boys II and Pearl Harbor. How good could it be?
By the way, I enjoyed Minority Report and I, Robot to a somewhat lesser extent but the Sixth Day is more what this film will probably come to resemble. The Sixth Day does not suck but it is pretty average and not worth repeated viewings.
Logan's Run is a great film. I highly reccomend it.

I'm surprised to see IGN's review give it a 4 out of 5.

- EXTERNAL LINK -

I caugh the sneak preivew the other night. Most people who know me know my HUGE contempt for Michael Bay, who claimed he really wanted to make a true summer popcorn film with this movie (does he do anything else that I'm not aware of?). I went in with VERY low expectations and although it's not nearly as bad as Pearl Harbor it's still pretty bad. There are moments where the action seems like it's going to elevate itself over the usual trifle he comes up with, sadly it never does. Nor do plot elements quite gel together as they should. A lot of great opportunites are missed with this one.

I'm still trying to figure out why I went to this one... oh yeah Scarlett Johanson yummy.8)

Just a little side-note, the reason why the advertisements in Minority Report work so well is becuase they do sell their product, but they are meant to show you the world within the characters live. The inhabit a realm with so little privacy that they can indeed by selectively targeted through retinal scans to have ads played especially for them! The fact that they simply are desensitized to this lack of privacy is a statement on the future of mankind, that eventually we will have a camera in every room making sure we do or say nothing bad. The same applies to the spider scene.

Anyways, back to The Island...

Spielberg did it to a much lesser degree in "Minority Report". To be quite honest, the only one I can remember in "Minority Report" was a GAP reference, with the great Duke Ellington song, "Solitude" playing in the background (which by the way is the second time Spielberg has used that song, the first time was in "Saving Private Ryan", with Mellish faintly singing the lyrics "I sit in my chair, filled with despair..."). I excuse him for the GAP advertisement though, because the film was quite well done, but all of Bay's work is crap. NO PARDON FOR BAY!

I haven't seen the film, but I think it's interesting that yellowjacket621 was able to remember all of those advertisements, given the nature of the story. Ironic. For all I know, Bay may have put them into the film to make the story better, although I highly doubt it.

But you remembered the companies advertised, and so the goal of the marketing trick was fulfilled.

I'd give the movie a 6/10. I saw one of those "sneak previews" of it a few days ago. It's a decent action flick that doesn't do anything new (THX 1138/Equilibrium/Logan's Run). One huge flaw is how the movie is a 2 hour commercial. These are the companies being blatantly advertised:

American Express
Amtrak
Apple
Aquafina
Ben and Jerry's
Cadillac
Ford
GMC
Mack Trucks
Michelob Light
MSN
Nokia
Reebok
Sisco
Xbox

It was either that or Fantastic Four...[:.(]

Willingly attending a premiere for a Michael Bay film is grounds for dismissal, buddy.

John wrote:

**In fact, it has always been the big, name-star films that have driven the movie industry, with small, independent or "art" films holding on to niche audiences, at least in America. In Europe, smaller films have been the norm only because their film industries have been smaller, but big American films still rule even there. **

With all due respect, this sidesteps the relevant issues. What has changed is the distribution situation in America - in fact, it has gone back much to the 1940s/50s model but now has extended globally as capitalism continues to flow unabated in all directions, destroying all else in its path. Just as chain stores continute to obliterate mom and pop stores across the nation, so too do the multiplexes which are beholden (if not directly owned by) the major studios lead to the ongoing homogenization of film distribution both in America and abroad. None of this could have happened without Ronnie Raygun's dergulation which gave a free pass to killer corporations to gobble up everything in site unabated.


**I believe that anyone who loves film (as a possible art form) must embrace all film, not just a limited type or genre: big-budget, small-budget, foreign, domestic, big-studio, or independent.**

I don't agree with this either. Later you make the same comparison to music. I have always that someone who says "Oh, I like all kinds of music equally" is either a liar or a moron. Not that I'm accusing you of saying something like that. :) But discrimination is a good thing as is being judgmental.

**I'd wager there are just as many "small" films that are unwatchable as big films. **

Undeniably. There's tons of indy crap and foreign crap (oh god don't ever make me watch another French sex comedy). Difference is the big budget crap still plays on 3,000 screens and demands that people talk about it simply because of the money it commands.

**The secret, it seems to me, is to seek out the best in every field, rather than go with what everybody else is watching or doing or listening to.**

Yes, but who does this? Who can do so in a society where 80% of the screens in the country play the same 10 movies? And that percentage leaps much higher once you move out of a few metropolitan centers.

Hollywood can now guarantee a huge weekend for even the weakest of films simply by sheer force of capital. And it's only getting worse with every merger in the industry.

DVDs are a major corrective measure that combats this situation. As awful as the theatrical distribution scenario is, it is reasonable to say that for the first time ever we have a huge chunk of the world's (at least the Western nations) cinema available to us. This fills me with great hope, but doesn't remedy the theatrical situation.

**I've got news for you. At least where I am from, big-budget films ARE the norm now.**

You seem to be missing the fact that you are making my point for me over and over again.

This is what I am saying the problem is!!!!

You list a handful of films that are probably taking up 80% of the screens around you. Yet for each of them, there are 20 other ones out there that get muscled out of the multiplexes. These films are NOT the norm - they are the tiny, tiny minority of films made but since the 1980s the Paramount decrees which prevented studios from acting as virtual monopolies have gradually been undone and the distribution situation has become an absolute nightmare. If you don't live near NY, LA, Chicago or a few other major cities, you don't even hear about them.

This is the whole point I am making (and which, in all due respect, I don't think you bothered to even read) - that the marketing clout determines what people hear about, read about, and ultimately see in their multiplexes. The Island is not on 3,000+ screens on merit - it is on them because of money and it is because of money that people are wasting their time and their lives talking about crap like this. Money makes it "important."

You might just throw your hands up in the air and say "Oh well, what did you expect, money talks?" but it was not always this way and does not have to be this way, and even if it did that doesn't mean we should all be giddy with delight at the wonderful gruel Hollywood chooses to slop into our troughs.

If you want to understand a little more about this issue, I recommend "Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media Limit What Movies We Can See" by Jonathan Rosenbaum.

I also have "Dead Alive" in my personal Top 100, by the way.

While filmmaking is an art form, it is also an escape from reality. If every film was ultra-realistic like a documentary than it would no longer be entertainment. If filmmaking is a reflection of society, than it must include ALL of these aspects. The blockbusters (at least the good ones) show great parallels and morals that are pertinent in today's culture.

"You consider big budget films the norm and other films the "refreshing and original break." - Christopher Long

I've got news for you. At least where I am from, big-budget films ARE the norm now. Look at what's out right now; Batman, Star Wars III, Fantastic 4, Madagascar, Herbie Fully Loaded, War of the Worlds, Charlie and the Choc. Factory, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, etc. I look at all the posters in my theater and it is a signal of more big-budget flicks to come: Zorro 2, Ice Age 2, King Kong... We are talking about Michael Bay because we are discussing upcoming films; something this board is meant for. Are we ONLY supposed to discuss small films that no one has heard about, or ponder over the big ones that more people are likely to see?

"A whole nation drools as Scholastic rings the bell and shovels out another dose of Harry Potter." -Christopher Long

This comment is just dreary and overdramatic. "Society is just a bunch of rats in a cage following a food pellet..." WAKE UP! People buy books, movies and other crap because they choose to. You even admit later that the books are good. Maybe that's why people like them. I agree that there are many better books, but somehow this struck a chord with people. Fads die out eventually. In any case, I believe that the people that let "big bad society" determine what media they should assimilate is a minority. I love GOOD big budget films and smaller Indie flicks. I have Dead Alive and The Godfather on the same shelf.

*Apologies to Christopher Long. I meant no harm or insult in my comments.

"Cinema used to be a reflection of society." --S Coaster

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we've always had big, popular movies that were meant to entertain the masses (like me). Among the first "big-budget" films were the sci-fi thriller "A Trip to the Moon" (1902) and "The Great Train Robbery" (1903). These were state-of-the-art for their day and the public clearly loved them.

In fact, it has always been the big, name-star films that have driven the movie industry, with small, independent or "art" films holding on to niche audiences, at least in America. In Europe, smaller films have been the norm only because their film industries have been smaller, but big American films still rule even there.

I believe that anyone who loves film (as a possible art form) must embrace all film, not just a limited type or genre: big-budget, small-budget, foreign, domestic, big-studio, or independent. And the fact is, as Eddie used to say, most films of any kind aren't very good in any case. I'd wager there are just as many "small" films that are unwatchable as big films. The same goes for music; same with architecture; same with games; same with clothes; same with everything.

The secret, it seems to me, is to seek out the best in every field, rather than go with what everybody else is watching or doing or listening to. And neither turn your back to nor wholeheartedly endorse any particular form or style out of sheer ignorance or conformity or stubbornness.

John

Just to be clear, I'm not launching a specific attack on big-budget films. That would be like attacking fast food. I mean OK, there are reasons to attack but we all like to indulge in it from time to time and some of it is tasty.

The problem comes from the way that these films with massive promotional campaigns dominate shelf space and push all other films out. Now we have a situation where your only choice for every meal is either McDonald's or Burger King. Add in the fact that most audiences will, perhaps understandably, not spend any time or effort to look beyond their local multiplexes and you get an audience that doesn't even know there are other choices than McDonald's and Burger King.

I think movies today are GREAT. But the distribution and exhibition situation, aided and abetted by Reagan-era deregulation, is a crying shame.

The net result is not merely that film culture in America (and several other countries) is in decline - I am not sure it even exists at all anymore.

Big budget movies are just that. Big budget. Millions of dollars spent on a project that is full of CGI images and fast paced action. Now, as a realist i understand that big budget films are the ones that make the "smaller wheels" turn because they bring in money but i refuse to accept that this genre of films can be considered as Art. Filmmaking, for those who don’t know, Is an ART FORM.
Take a look at murder ball. A Very strong "slap" at everything that "Hollywood hero" stands for. Instead of going into a theater and watch a bunch of people with powers that are, plainly put, impossible to acquire (Spiderman, batman etc) you see the real heroes of modern society. Quadriplegics that are fighting to conquer life. These, my good readers, are indeed heroes. Away from shooting spider-nets into walls, or calling their batmobile, they simply rely on their two hands and their bare soul to achieve what most healthy people are not worthy of. A Place in society, a Place in life it self. What we have for granted these people miss day by day, month by month.
Cinema used to be a reflection of society. Now, with all the pop-corn CRAP most people watch each year, they are only wishing for more of the same with a different package.
I Said it before, and I’m saying it again! Don’t look for the decline of cinema in bad production companies or bad directors. Search for it in bad audiences.

Yep, but here we are talking about Michael Bay even though nobody likes him, and we're just talking about him because he makes big budget movies and all big budget movies must, by definition, be important, no matter what they are. We let importance be dictated to us by publicity departments. A whole nation drools as Scholastic rings the bell and shovels out another dose of Harry Potter. Not that the Potter books aren't good, they are, but there are dozens of other equally or far more exciting ones also recently released but the one with the most money behind it simply must be talked about.


Even your choice of language reveals the bias. You consider big budget films the norm and other films the "refreshing and original break."

Now that's just crap. Say what you want, but there are many great big-budget flicks. Recently, there was Batman Begins, War of the Worlds and Sin City among others. Spider-man 2, Minority Report, etc. Indie films are great too but what makes indoes so special is that it is a refreshing and original break from Michael Bay-like crap, but big-budget films are also big-budget because word spreads that they are GOOD. A lot of blockbusters suck, but many are great.

I think that the atmosphere of the United States since 9/11 has a little to do with these "leave your brain at the door" kinda films. The average American moviegoer isn't generally going to the cinemas to see a movie that might be a little challenging, or thought-provoking, or anything like that. They just want something that will be accessible and entertaining, and that's completely fine. But others want to see something a little more inspiring, or erotic, or avant-garde when they go to the cinemas and that's completely fine also.

Well, so far the film is picking up some very good reviews, so I’m not going to join the bandwagon of Michael Bay haters just yet. Granted many of his films I can’t stand, including “The Rock”. I enjoyed Sean Connery in it, but other than that, I thought it was most overrated by many. I did enjoy “Armageddon” on the level of a simple summer, sci-fi action film and I’ve always felt that the film has taken a severe beating by many others then it really deserved. However, for me, it worked because I simply like Bruce Willis in just about anything the guy does. Where the film did annoy me was Ben Affleck, but other than that it was a typical summer film with plenty of cool effects and mindless, implausible action. In my honest opinion, I have seen far more campy movies in comparison, such as “Starship Troopers” and “Independence Day”. Given that, I’d take “Armageddon” over any of those films any day of the week; however, that really isn’t saying much. And I have said this many times but “Armageddon”, even to this day, is still one of my most barrowed DVDs amongst friends and family. Go figure.

I have taken notice that Bay really has not done as much work as many other directors out there today, but I will agree that the guy, so far, has a terrible track record. His focus is obviously for the mindless, general audience attendee, but even that is no excuse to deliver trash every time. However, to point the finger at him as though he were the only one out there with this problem is ridiculous. Perhaps “The Island” might be his turning point into better territory, and as one artist to another, I have to have at least a little faith that he can pull something out of his hat that will finally work. I mean, look at Kevin Costners’ track record; the guy makes a huge hit with “Dances with Wolves”, makes a very decent Western with “Open Range”, but like Bay, most everything else the guy has done has been a complete disaster.

In all honesty, I really prefer not to point the finger at the director as much as I would rather blame the CEO’s of the major studios for granting and producing much of the garbage we get. I just don’t think everything can be attributed to the director when studios feel it’s much better to give us a plethora of old TV show remakes and trying their damnedest to make sure every DC or Marvel comic book has a movie made. I just can’t believe that there are literally no writers out there in this great-big-world without any fresh and creative ideas for films. It’s quite obvious that if there are any fresh ideas they are snubbed in favor of the almighty cash cow. Granted it is a business, but it has become so heartless to even the most simple minded audience member. I mean look at how many of us are comparing “The Island” to other past films that seem to have similarities. It just shows you that even within genres, Hollywood can’t manage to create something new and would rather give us something old with a new twist.

Oh, I know some of you might say, “hey Tim, try the route of independent and foreign films”. Well, being a critic, of course I watch plenty of those films in the many genres they have to offer. And I will say they at least have the guts to try new avenues and provide films that have more heart, art, and thought provoking movies than most tinsel-town films today. However, that is not to say that I have not seen my fair share of duds in the independent film market. Yes, they too have their hits and misses, but at least they make an effort to try and that I will give them credit. Nevertheless, I feel if Hollywood is ever to make a change for the better it will take the average movie buff to stop buying into “place your brain at the door” films. As it stands, I don’t foresee that little revolutionary idea happening anytime soon and it’s sad to think there is a possibility that the general audience might have the IQ of a ten-year old.

Regardless of my rant, “The Island” does appear to be interesting and is probably your typical summer popcorn flick. However, on the flip side of that coin, it doesn’t appear to offer anything new, fresh or creative to the genre of action sci-fi. Well, I guess we’ll all see in another week. ;)

Tim :D

What I find most frustrating is that I look at the new films in theaters and see a ton of potentially interesting movies out there: Saraband, Yes, Me and You and Everyone We Know, Murderball, March of the Penguins, The Beautiful Country, even Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But here we are wasting bandwidth discussing the next big budget mess from a hack director. Why? Because it's a big budget film and that therefore makes it IMPORTANT. Bleh.

Resist the capitalist running dogs!!! :)

"I mean, look at Kevin Costners’ track record; the guy makes a huge hit with “Dances with Wolves”, makes a very decent Western with “Open Range”, but like Bay, most everything else the guy has done has been a complete disaster."
- Tim David Raynor

Not to defend Costner too much, but what about the Untouchables, JFK and Robin Hood? I liked those movies a lot.

Chris,

You mustn't believe everything your teachers tell you. Trust me; I know.

John

**I don't think there are any better or any worse films being made today than at any time in cinema history. We just tend to glorify the past, thinking everything was so much better "back then" when we were young or when the industry was young or whatever.**


On this subject, I agree (though I point out nobody said anything like this so it's an unrelated issue). I find classical Hollywood just about as insipid and boring as contemporary Hollywood though one might add that at least they didn't spend the annual budget of an average town to make each of them (with a few exceptions). The only reason we can point to so many "great" classical Hollywood films is that they made so many more films back then. Law of large numbers - if even the same percentage of them were good, we'd have a lot more of them around.

But let us not stumble into that hoary old bit of nonsense: "Things never change." I would nominate this for the stupidest thing that people say on a regular basis, but I guess that's an awfully stiff competition. Things change all the time.

"'Things never change.' I would nominate this for the stupidest thing that people say on a regular basis." -Christopher Long (Staff)

Just wondering, what kinda people have said "things never change" to you? I've never encountered anyone who has said something that stupid in my life. :o

Some things, in fact, do remain the same: Love, kindness, human relationships, human nature, human misery, human unkindness, war, peace. To suggest any absolute (like "things don't change" or "things always change") is to invite valid argument. The only thing for certain in the world is "Maybe."

John

**The only thing for certain in the world is "Maybe." **


Oh, you know the surest way to my heart is a good aphorism. How can I possibly argue with you now? :)

Well, we can always discuss the relative meanings of the word "maybe." It's all in how you define "maybe."

Well, maybe.

John

John,

I enjoy healthy debate with an intelligent guy like you, but if you ever recommend a book by the loathesome movie-hating David Thomson again, I will be forced to add you to my enemies list, right ahead of Eddie. :)

Michael,

As with TGP, you seem to seem to be responding to something I am not even saying at all. I didn't say anything about a "hatred" of big budget filmmaking. That's not relevant. Didn't say a word about it, don't care either way if that's what people like. So let's stick to what's actually being discussed.

I can and do choose not to see most of these films. Because I live near L.A., I have the choice to see other movies. Most people do not have this choice at all. Again, here's the statistic: 80% of the screens in the country play the same 10 movies. This is not the way it used to be or has to be. It is only this way because of deregulation. Deregulation, not changes in audience taste, is why an art-house circuit that flourished in the 60s and 70s, has all but ceased to exist.


Just a few years ago, Godzilla made waves because it was released on an unthinkable 3,000 screens. Now 3,000 isn't even a big release and a few films have cracked the 4,000 mark. This isn't because so many more screens have been built either.

The 30-screen multiplex near me is showing 18 total films. The 25-screen complex down the road from it is showing 16 films. The 25-screen multiplex is showing precisely 2 films that the 30-screen is, and I think this is unusually good because this multiplex seems to commit one screen to a slightly smaller film.

If I were still living back home in the suburbs of Philadelphia, my choices would be: Batman, Bewitched, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Cinderella Man, Dark Water, FF, Herbie, Madagascar, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, War of the Worlds and Wedding Crashers in one multiplex or Batman, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Dark Water, FF, Madagascar, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, War of the Worlds or Wedding Crashers at the other multiplex or, if I drove a little further out, Adventures of Shark Boy, Batman, Charlie, Dark Water, FF, Land of the Dead, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Rebound, War of the Worlds at the next one or Batman, Charlie, Cinderella Man, Dark Water, FF, Herbie, Madagascar, War of the Worlds at the other multiplex within a half hour drive.

Yes, this is why I moved. The Walmart-ization of the distribution and exhibition sectors is simply ruinous. "Free markets" are, of course, anything but.

Chris,

You certainly make some very valid points that I agree with. And from what you’re explaining, this is why we end up getting the same recycled big-budget crap year after year. Thus the rant that I was going on about, your rant seems to complement the exact point I was trying to make.

I too enjoy big-budget films but I also enjoy the choices of deciding on Jack in the Box or Taco Bell. :D You see, my major complaint is not so much the money and power but rather the lack of fresh, new and intelligent ideas. 80% of what we see in big-budget is simply recycled ideas done with new twists, but from what you are explaining, it only makes sense that we keep getting this unoriginal crap because it’s the powers that be that cram it into 3000+ Cineplex’s out there.

I think for most people, myself included, it’s easy to get trapped into the big marketing void. I often find myself like the next zombie in line shelling out the cash to see a film just because of the basis of “big-budget”. You are right because it literally is shoved down our throats and we all easily condition ourselves into thinking all high-dollar films are more important than others. It really is an unfair practice among many studios, but the real change has to come from the audience members in conditioning themselves to stop buying into it. Unfortunately, that will most likely be a long way off or may never happen.

Tim

Just for the record, "Sin City" was actually NOT considered a Big-Budget film. It was estimated at a 45mill budget which is actually pretty low when you consider major high-dollar films on a budget of 180 to 200mill.

Sad thing from my perspective is that nobody went to go see the one genuinely GOOD Hollywood action flick of the summer so far: George Romero's "Land of the Dead". In large part, I would suggest, because it simply didn't get the same promotional push that other garbage like FF got. I think about 4x as many people went to see FF opening weekend as saw Land of the Dead - I'd be willing to bet the majority would prefer the Romero film. There's wide release and then there's saturation release - shove FF onto 10% of the screens in the country and, well, there you go.

Mr. pUCCIO- You know i respect you very much, but on this i have to dissagree.
Older does not mean better. Melie's Trip to the moon introduced trick photography into filmmaking and "The Great Train Robbery" introduced intercutting. What i am trying to say is that you can fill a screen with characters and plot instead of visual elements. As for europe, there are quite a few big production companies (located in france mostly) that try to copy the US Studio system. I, as a viewer, prefer to leave the theater and have something to think about when i go home. From time to time, i like to watch action packed films. I mean, take a look at my collection (it hasnt been updated for a while).
And even if i was an action-movie FAN, there are no good ones anymore. They are all the same with the same recipe: "dillema, bad guy appearing, Action-reaction, Explosions-climax, ending, fade out"
TGP: About the freedom of choice thing.
Did you ever really had the idea that you were trully free? You live in a country that is actually a large market. Everything is based on Marketting. You hear the buzz about something and when you watch it you think is good. Yes, people buy books and music etc etc because they want to. The problem is, their choices are limited due to "marketting-sales" reasons.

Who knows. If your hatred of big-budget films ever becomes too much to handle, you could just decide to NOT see them in the cinemas. That's part of the capitalist free-market economy, buy what you want or don't buy what you don't want. I love great films, like "Million Dollar Baby" or "Pulp Fiction" or "Psycho". But I'm not going to get my underwear all tied up in a knot because people like to see crap. It's their loss. Just because I really dig reading Faulkner's stuff doesn't mean that I going to go out in the streets and protest against the latest book by Janet Evanovich. People have the choice to decide whatever the hell they watch or read or eat or love or hate.

If suddenly we didn't have these big-budget movies or any other crappy kinda movies, it would be pretty rough. Imagine if every movie that you saw was great. Your definition of "great" would loose its value. Quite frankly, I would rather see two or three terrible films before I get to the great film. After you see that great film, you instantly forget those other three, like taking a sip from yr first cup of gourmet coffee, after years of drinking Starbucks crap, in the morning, ah. :)

S Coasster,

I think we're more in agreement than not. "Older does not mean better." My whole point. I don't think there are any better or any worse films being made today than at any time in cinema history. We just tend to glorify the past, thinking everything was so much better "back then" when we were young or when the industry was young or whatever. Picture for picture, I believe there was just as much junk coming out of the old Hollywood factories as there is today. Remember George Raft? He was one of WB's biggest stars of the 30s and 40s. He was offered the lead in "Casablanca" but turned it down. But he made a whole series of mediocre films, the kind of stuff WB churned out a rate of two or three a week.

When I was a kid growing up in a middle-sized, middle-income town, we had three movie theaters to choose from. That was it: three movies that played at least a full week. Today in the same community there are three multiplexes showing a total (I counted them in this morning's paper), of about twenty-five different movies. (I'm not saying they're any better movies, but there are more of them.)

Today, Hollywood follows the same rule of thumb for promoting movies it always has, just bigger: What do they think will sell? It was always about money; it is still about money, and plenty of it. Read David Thomson's new book, "The Whole Equation." And viewers have even more choice today (as Chris says with DVD) than viewers had fifty years ago.

But, people, some of you are not talking about choice in films here: You're talking about people's tastes. Some of you like one kind of film, some of you like another. And you're trying to dictate what other people ought to like, using your own (perhaps more discriminating) taste to force it down their throats. You all know that film can be like religion: We all have have our personal beliefs and sometimes we want everyone else to have the same ones. And people have historically been willing to go to war to force their beliefs on others.

After having taught English for almost forty years and having tried valiantly to get students to appreciate good literature as opposed to, well, as opposed to not reading at all, I'd have to admit that you can't force people to like something. You can only lead them to the well, which is what we have today in the movie industry: More diversity in filmmaking than ever before and more choices in types of film, via DVD especially. The fact that a lot of sheep are unwilling to seek out the best is their misfortune.

Well, OK, today is Sunday. We're allowed a little sermonizing.

John

Hey Josh, he just said "ass" and he didn't say "hairy ass" as I would have. :D

Tim :p

Michael B2004,

How about we keep the content "clean" here. DVD Town does have rules for posting on the message board. "Family oriented" is an idea we try adhere to. Please help us keep the message boards clean.

Thanks.


- Josh

Eddie, I think your standards might be a bit too high. I see what you mean about Garner, but Johannson is gorgeous. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it seems like you proclaim actresses as ugly every time I turn around. Usually the complaints are the other way around, saying that the ridiculous beauty of actresses inspires bad things in teenage girls. Oh well... (end of rant)

Eddie,

Welcome back! I was afraid for a while we'd lost you somewhere among the English pubs. I was also afraid we were only going to have Tim and Chris to kick around the Hollywood establishment, but now we've got the fearsome threesome reunited. Go team!

John

Soon, Bay will be remaking reality television shows for the bigscreen, with an evil guy who wants to take over the world, and lots of sex, and lots of guns, and lots of commercials, and lots of people wasting their money to go see it.

Just wondering, Eddie: You kinda have a nack for relatively (in my opinion) sexy little girls, first Katie Holmes and now Scarlett Johansson. I admit that they are not extremely beautiful, but I wouldn't necessarily say they are ugly. Johansson's ass was pretty nice in "Lost in Translation" though.

Why is there a need to drag my name into a fight even when I have no vested interest in it???

Anyway, since my name has appeared in this thread, I'm going to declare the following:

1) I won't see "The Island" because I'm through with Michael Bay. Even if the guy winds up making the greatest movie ever later in his career, I won't see another Bay production.

2) Peter Jackson's "LOTR" project is just about the most overrated thing in cinema during the past 10 years, even if the first third was really wonderful and transporting.

3) Scarlett Johansson looks deformed.

And I'd like to point out that Lord of the Rings isn't really a Hollywood film, it's just Hollywood money. Jackson made it as an "independent blockbuster." Heck, it really should be considered a foreign film. Which probably explains why it was so surprisingly good!

Tim,

As you are well aware, "Hollywood" and it's business of film making, is like any other business. They're in it for the $. I saw a news report this evening that said "the box office draw has been steadily declining" for some years now. Hollywood is going to have to figure something out soon, or see even lower profits on multi-million dollar films. Hmm, here's a novel thought... PAY WRITERS WELL FOR THEIR EFFORTS! Actually, I don't know that they aren't paid well. Logically, it's the only thing I can come up with.

All of this rehashing of ideas, and remakes, got old a long time ago. Even though I really liked "Batman Begins", I was still sort of disgusted at the idea that it's being remade AGAIN! And yet, we have even more on the way. Superman is coming soon, and if you can believe it, a live action version of "Trans Formers" as well! Will it never end? What's next, a theatrical version of "The Odd Couple"? Or how about "Bosom Buddies"? Granted, there are exceptions to the rule. Sometimes we do need a "check your brain at the door" film. However, not all the time! Hollywood should be ashamed right now. Even with the advent of such hits like "Spiderman 2", "The Lord Of The Rings", "The Matrix", "Shrek", "The Bourne Identity", and "Saving Private Ryan", there probably aren't as many hit's per year, or per decade for that matter, as compared to the 80's and earlier. it's sad that we haven't had a really good Sci-fi/Horror film that could even come close to contending with "The Thing", or ANY of the "Alien" series!

In any case, you're right Tim. We all need to be far more selective in which movies we throw our money at. Unfortunately, anymore, I believe we wind up settling for the one that's going to suck the least. Which should speak for itself as to how awful films have been as of late.

Will we ever hear "hooray for Hollywood" again?



- Josh

You know, I kind of started this whole debate with that rant on Hollywood some posts ago and yet nobody has jumped my case about anything. I love some good confrontation once in a while, damn it! Why am I being ignored? :o

Tim ;)

The problem with that is, (to my understanding) Henning is a VERY busy guy. I believe he's informed when something needs to be delt with on the site. I've just made mention of the need for rules listed somewhere on the site to the staff.

I'm not sure if they have time to do something like that, but, let's hope. ;)



- Josh

Josh,

I could definitely see how the usage of my three-letter word could be considered "offensive". Sometimes my everyday speech with friends outside of DVD-Town can SLIP into DVD-Town.

It really is a good standard to have a no cursing policy on these message boards. Whether or not you think that it is IMMORAL to curse, I don't know. But that doesn't matter and I don't really care. I will use "clean" words from now on. It would also be good if you guys could make up a list of words that are "obscene" or "indecent" or "anti-family values" or "inappropriate". It's not that I don't have good judgement on "appropriate" language, I just need to know HOW restrictive DVD-Town is on this issue. 8) Great websites need to be governed by Great Rules! ;)

--Miguel (That's "Michael" in Spanish and Portuguese!) ;) :)

Michael,

Don't misunderstand me. You're welcome here just as much as I am, or anyone else for that matter. I understand that colloquialism can, and does occasionally bleed across boundries. What I initially wrote to you was more of a suggestion or plea, not an order, or demand.

Also, don't mistake "morals" for rules. They are two entirely different things. It wasn't just your usage of the "three lettered word", but the context in which you used it. "Family values" was a term used by the staff to describe the spirit of the rules, if I remember correctly.

I think great web sites are not unlike great towns, cities, or countries. A site is only as great as the members and staff. One of the things that makes DVD Town great, is that a lot of people DO care, and want to continue to have it be a great place to visit.


Anyway, no offense meant.

DVD Towners,

As the officially assigned (OK, I was dumb enough to volunteer) guardian of the Reader Comments and Message Board, let me just say this about that (Nixonese). I never used to post rules for conduct in my classroom; I just told my students to use common courtesy, common sense, and common decency. I almost never, ever, had a problem with anyone getting out of line. I'd like to see the same thing applied here.

If I find anything patently offense, derogatory, or strongly profane, I will delete it (as I have done in the past). If Josh wants to remind us from time to time that we're all in this community of Mankind together and we need to respect everyone around us, that's his right, and, frankly, I welcome it. But, otherwise, I think we can all manage to behave without too many guidelines that we all understand anyway.

Finally, if anyone sees anything he or she feels is a candidate for deletion, please just e-mail me (puccioj@comcast.net). From there, you'll have to trust my judgment.

John

Holy F-ing S@#t! If all we have to have is common curtains, then I'm f@%king in! Woo Hoo! I think Josh must have been an M.P. in the military, he's always so f@#king uptight. :D:D:D:D

Tim ;)

Yes, yes, I was an MP. Ya wanna make somethin' of it?! Don't make me come over there and cuff your a... uhhhh, buttocks Rayner! ;) :D

Josh,

Please read my updated post. I think we should get in touch with Henning regarding rules. I will definitely give my input.

--Ranjan

Ranjan,

You're right, I do tend to repeat myself, but, it's only because the same issues keep creeping up.

Really, I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops. I just don't want my favorite place on the net to turn into a foul mouthed playground, where anything and everything goes.

It's nice to be able to have intelligent discussions, with intelligent people, that don't have to curse, or use inappropriate descriptions and topics to get their points across.

I spent 7 years in the military, where almost every other word was literally the "F-word". It's stupid, but that's how it was. After thinking on it a while, I realized that it's just the most lazy unintelligent way to express yourself, or your thoughts. If you (figurative you) can't think of a better way to bring emphasis across in how you speak and or write, other than to curse, you've lost the whole point of cursing in the first place, other than to be controversial, vane, or just plain want attention.


Anyway, as you said Ranjan... "end of rant".



- Josh ;)

Josh,

I get your point. You repeat the same thing over and over again as you have done in the past. You tend to make an issue out of the post even when it is not. That is why I said, you need to relax a bit :). If there is anything offensive on these forums, I am sure Henning will take necessary action. One cannot sit on these forums and police every word written. Having said this, it is also our judgement call to see if something obscene or offensive is written. Oh well end of rant, I did not post anything obscene/offensive:)

"Firstly, just because rules aren't listed here at DVD Town, doesn't mean there aren't any. " - Josh
I said in my previous post also where we had this debate. Where are the rules? It certainly cannot be based on an assumption that it is somewhere. If we are really want to follow through this, maybe we reader/staff should work on creating rules for posting on the forums. It will be a good start as rules will be created by regular readers and staff members.

--Ranjan.

Tim,

You are one! J/K. ;) :D


Ranjan,

Firstly, just because rules aren't listed here at DVD Town, doesn't mean there aren't any. You obviously missed the original thread, which escapes me at the moment, where all of this surfaced. The rules, and "spirit" behind the rules were laid down by the staff.

Secondly, you've more than likely heard the phrase "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile", yes? This idea applies here. Once a little slip in inappropriate subjects, or language starts, the next thing you know, we've turned into IMDB's boarads, or RT's boards. Personally, I really like the fact that we seem to have a higher class of people here at DVD Town, than anywhere else on the net. With the possible exception of our resident "Raynman" ;) :D

Seriously though, why turn our boards into everyone else's boards? People love coming to the DVD Town message boards because everyone is courteous, helpful, and we actually try to adhere to our own standards. I won't get into the whole arguement that led up to talking about the rules here, but, suffice it to say, DVD Town is not a Democracy, it's a privately owned site. That being said, every one of us that wants to post here, needs to adhere to the rules established by it's owner, and the staff here.

Maybe we can get Henning to list the rules for posting at DVD Town on the "Home" tab, or, at least somewhere on the page.



- Josh

tim,

Are you again having Jack Daniels ? Its too early and hot for that.

--Ranjan;)

Josh,

Assssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss . . .
Big Giant Asssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss . . .
Super Size Me Assssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss . . .

Tim :p :D:D

Josh,

This is not a family oriented site for sure. There are DVD reviews from Playboy mansion. Yes the idea is to keep obscenity away from these forums. Like I have said before, if you have rules for posting here at DVDtown, please share it:D. You just need to chill out and relax a bit.:).

--Ranjan

Let me try again:

Johansson's gluteus maximus was pretty nice in "Lost in Translation" though. ;) :)

Hey, let's get Eddie to see it! Eddie won't like it, he hates everything! :D:D:D

Tim (Think the ole Life Cereal commercial and you'll get the joke)

Well, back on topic here. I just came back from "The Island", and despite what a lot of people may think about it, I liked it a lot. It had elements of "THX 1138", "Logans Run", "The Matrix", and "Speed" throughout it. It wasn't horrible at all. It was quite a good movie going experience. This movie is non stop action from front to back, which is where I associate it with the movie "Speed". Any further associations between the two movies end there, however. If you're an action flick fan, I'd highly recommend it. This movie is one of the better Sci-fi's to come along in a quite a while.



- Josh 8)

12 million opening weekend, OUCH. Bay lost touch with the general public finally?

John,
I think we should look at deleting that skspence guy. He's pretty useless anyway...

Sean (he really freaks me out, too...)