it was never good.
For a very brief amount of time it was. I fondly remember GoT mania in college.uziq wrote:
it was never good.
The first two or three seasons of GoT were top tier TV.
GoT was one of a few shows that consistently climbed in total viewership every season. But looking back I agree with Larssen that the show kind of lost it's wow factor after maybe season 4 or 5. Sure the set pieces were bigger and more dramatic but slowly all of the fun characters died off or were transformed away from what we loved abut them. And sure that's life and all. The show is realistic™ in that sense but realism doesn't automatically make for good television. Besides, what we perceive as realistic and authentic was always made up stuff anyway.
I was watching clips of Gladiator last night and that movie does not hold up over time as "realistic" as it got credit for at the time. I grant that it was influential in bringing that genre back into vogue, which elicited a bunch more, much worse movies, but it must've been a lot more entertaining for me when I was 10.
Last edited by DesertFox- (2020-12-13 08:39:54)
I can't watch Gladiator without thinking of the Sopranos sceneDesertFox- wrote:
I was watching clips of Gladiator last night and that movie does not hold up over time as "realistic" as it got credit for at the time. I grant that it was influential in bringing that genre back into vogue, which elicited a bunch more, much worse movies, but it must've been a lot more entertaining for me when I was 10.
I don't think Gladiator ever really was considered realistic, or well it shouldn't be. It was from start to finish a fictional 'historical epic' more focused on storytelling and drama than realism. There's also many parallels to kubrick's spartacus if you ever get around to watching that (I found it to be a bore and his least quality work).
In filmmaking if the subject of the film is set in a historical timeperiod you can usually throw fact out the window. Huge artistic liberties are taken, some necessary, to make history more palatable for today's viewers. Generally speaking, the filmmaking becomes more true-to-the-time the more recent the history is.
Having said so as far as Ridley Scott goes Kingdom of Heaven is a fantastic film if you watch the director's cut. Beautiful movie. Also not exactly true to life but less of an issue here because less of the history is known.
In filmmaking if the subject of the film is set in a historical timeperiod you can usually throw fact out the window. Huge artistic liberties are taken, some necessary, to make history more palatable for today's viewers. Generally speaking, the filmmaking becomes more true-to-the-time the more recent the history is.
Having said so as far as Ridley Scott goes Kingdom of Heaven is a fantastic film if you watch the director's cut. Beautiful movie. Also not exactly true to life but less of an issue here because less of the history is known.
Kingdom of Heaven is fun movie. One of my favorites. Total garbage as a piece on history.
Man Kingdom of Heaven was such a terrible movie. Fun, yeah I guess. I thought it was Ridley Scott doing a low effort Ridley Scott movie. I think it tried to be too many things at once.
Should've added xenomorphs.
A movie where the Crusaders and Muslims need to band together to defeat a Xenomorph invasion already sounds better than whatever Alien Covenant did.
I refuse to take to heart a franchise where a giant alien man suicide-dissolved into sperm to create life on earth.SuperJail Warden wrote:
A movie where the Crusaders and Muslims need to band together to defeat a Xenomorph invasion already sounds better than whatever Alien Covenant did.
Is Alien vs Predator close enough?SuperJail Warden wrote:
A movie where the Crusaders and Muslims need to band together to defeat a Xenomorph invasion already sounds better than whatever Alien Covenant did.
Fuck Israel
Disagree, but the cinema release was terrible. Director's cut is like an entirely different movie that adds far more depth to the story. Editors really did that one dirty.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Man Kingdom of Heaven was such a terrible movie. Fun, yeah I guess. I thought it was Ridley Scott doing a low effort Ridley Scott movie. I think it tried to be too many things at once.
The director's cut is like 3 hours long. The economics of movie theaters probably doesn't work with 3 hour movies on niche subjects.
that reminds me, I've been meaning to watch The Irishman, and I've dedicated Saturday night to it. Am I wasting my time?
it’s passable; i enjoyed it. not brilliant or a timeless classic. it’s pretty much exactly what you’d expect.
It's a good movie but also like watching a chess tournament of 70 year olds.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
that reminds me, I've been meaning to watch The Irishman, and I've dedicated Saturday night to it. Am I wasting my time?
Also keep in mind, it's mostly bullshit. The real life guy was a liar just like Chris Kyle the American Sniper.
next you're gonna tell me there was no pit of dispair at Thermoplyae. It's real to me, DAMNIT!
That's BS imo. Plenty of films being published with runtimes over 3 hrs. Pretty much every film by tarantino or nolan for example. Scott is a bigger name than both of them, there was no reason to butcher that movie like they did.SuperJail Warden wrote:
The director's cut is like 3 hours long. The economics of movie theaters probably doesn't work with 3 hour movies on niche subjects.
Weren't the lord of the rings movies 2.5-3 hours theatrical?
Never seen any of them
That is crazy how you managed to avoid them. I happened across them on TV when I still had satellite and now I'd never pass up an opportunity to watch them or learn more about its world. They hold up very well to this day. Alternatively, there's the memes.
Relevant for bf2s:
Relevant for bf2s:
Nolan and Tarantino are an order magnitude more famous than Scott. Nolan's Batman movies set records and Q.T. one offs make more money than Alien sequels made in this millennia. Both of those guys are arguably more creative directors too.Larssen wrote:
That's BS imo. Plenty of films being published with runtimes over 3 hrs. Pretty much every film by tarantino or nolan for example. Scott is a bigger name than both of them, there was no reason to butcher that movie like they did.SuperJail Warden wrote:
The director's cut is like 3 hours long. The economics of movie theaters probably doesn't work with 3 hour movies on niche subjects.