Jump to content

Movies


habs_in_the_blood
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sure, we don't know every detail. We don't know what exactly the aliens will do when they return, and we don't know if the main character will choose to transform back into a human or not. But ultimately, these questions don't have to be answered. We can guess. Showing us what happens might even ruin the open-ended situation that they have now.

Your opinion. Mine is that the entire movie is cheapened by not having an ending. The ending is the most important part of a story, so when the ending is not satisfying, the entire story loses value for me. I'm an answers oriented person, I like being right, but I at least want to know when I'm wrong. When I am left creating my own ending, it just isn't satisfying for me. I want to know if my vision is the same one the creators had or if I'm totally off base. As it stands, for all we know, Chris never made it home and everything that happened in the movie is all for not. With that as a legitimate possibility, I can't possibly get full enjoyment out of the movie.

Now let's stop talking about this. We already know we're on the opposite end of the spectrum. Do we really have to go through this every time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I hate agreeing with you because your ego is already too big, but this is essentially with Hollywood - the consumer's need for answers and closure. It's why literary is marginalized and mainstream is formulaic. The idea behind much of that which is labelled 'literary' has to do with forcing the consumer to think, to discuss, to question. Usually when I hear the words, "bad ending" it means someone didn't have all the loose ends tied up neatly and wrapped in a Hollywood bow.

So much of what culture produces today requires zero thought and zero input from the consumer that it's rather sad. That you have to actually think for this District 9 flick means it's risen above much of the rest of the chattle out there.

I'm not going to disagree with you on what you're saying...but I think you also run the risk of sounding like a pompous arthouse knob when you assume that "bad ending" = wasn't a hollywood ending.

People have been saying there isn't enough origininality in Hollywood movies for 4 decades...and the 2-3 decades before that just about everything was "original" since it was essentially the beginning of hollywood movies with talking pictures.

The problem with people crying about hollywood is that it ignores the fact that 90% of the population WANT to see that type of movie. People screaming for more "intelligent" movies ignore the fact that MOST people want to watch movies to simply escape reality. Most people have reality dull, routine, lives where the idealist crowd doesn't live...hence they want different things in their movies.

More often then not I want to see a relatively "mindless" movie like Braveheart...but sometimes I want to see one that makes me think/reflect past the movie. It doesn't mean either is bad/good. Both have their place and should be critiqued according to the intent of the movie. The real question is whether the director, and actors, accomplished what the movie was set out to do...any argument beyond that is simply about whether the concept was admirable. At that point you're arguing the merit of someone's "art"...and no one will have a right/wrong opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story has been resolved hence there's no need for a sequel (/cash grab).

Sure, we don't know every detail. We don't know what exactly the aliens will do when they return, and we don't know if the main character will choose to transform back into a human or not. But ultimately, these questions don't have to be answered. We can guess. Showing us what happens might even ruin the open-ended situation that they have now. It would be like the author telling us how the Chief winded up back in the institution at the end of Cuckoo's Nest (the book only) - we don't want to know! It's better when we're stuck picking between him being caught and returning of his own accord.

I agree and disagree.

While I certainly don't care if they do make a sequel (sequels, honestly, should only be for comic book movies or things like LOTR. Sources that already have a wealth of previous information. Thats just my opinion though, I understand the viewpoint that sequels aren't needed at all as well), I think that they left enough of a open-ending as a building point to where it wouldn't cheapen the first film or, as you said, be a cash grab like Transformers 2 was.

In your mind the story has concluded and you know what happened (which theres nothing wrong with) but in discussion, I've seen people come up with many different scenarios that theres a lot of ways Blomkamp can go with it (being helped by Peter Jackson doesn't hurt either) which I guess touches on Colin's point that the mainstream crowd needs everything wrapped up for them in a bow. That kind of ending is one of the reasons I liked The Wrestler actually but I guess that comes with being more of a creative person. Or even my favourite movie, Eternal Sunshine, was left to interpretation (sort of).

The discussion is kind of pointless though. We all know how Hollywood works and District 10 is inevitable. I'd be wary like I am with all sequels but it's got potential to be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree and disagree.

While I certainly don't care if they do make a sequel (sequels, honestly, should only be for comic book movies or things like LOTR. Sources that already have a wealth of previous information. Thats just my opinion though, I understand the viewpoint that sequels aren't needed at all as well), I think that they left enough of a open-ending as a building point to where it wouldn't cheapen the first film or, as you said, be a cash grab like Transformers 2 was.

In your mind the story has concluded and you know what happened (which theres nothing wrong with) but in discussion, I've seen people come up with many different scenarios that theres a lot of ways Blomkamp can go with it (being helped by Peter Jackson doesn't hurt either) which I guess touches on Colin's point that the mainstream crowd needs everything wrapped up for them in a bow. That kind of ending is one of the reasons I liked The Wrestler actually but I guess that comes with being more of a creative person. Or even my favourite movie, Eternal Sunshine, was left to interpretation (sort of).

The discussion is kind of pointless though. We all know how Hollywood works and District 10 is inevitable. I'd be wary like I am with all sequels but it's got potential to be good.

Which is why I said that they can make a District 10 - there is enough material there - but it isn't necessary. I'm sure Blomkamp would agree. The film works as a stand-alone film. It's "understood" what happens at the end of the movie, but that doesn't mean that they can't surprise us with a different ending, or simply show us the ending we're hoping for/picturing in our heads.

Best and most simple example of leaving stuff to the imagination is Tolkien's treatment of Sauron. Strongest and most evil guy in the world, we never meet him once. We never get his description, what he looks like, how he talks, or anything. It's left to our imagination, and, as a result, he's one scary, scary villain. If we see his face, even once, the character's whole mystique is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blomkamp? He was yammering about a sequel before the movie even came out. I think he'd disagree.

Personally I'd want him to turf it and get back to working on Halo. I loved his shorts but I guess he's pissed they cut him off and doesn't want to do it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why I said that they can make a District 10 - there is enough material there - but it isn't necessary. I'm sure Blomkamp would agree. The film works as a stand-alone film. It's "understood" what happens at the end of the movie, but that doesn't mean that they can't surprise us with a different ending, or simply show us the ending we're hoping for/picturing in our heads.

Best and most simple example of leaving stuff to the imagination is Tolkien's treatment of Sauron. Strongest and most evil guy in the world, we never meet him once. We never get his description, what he looks like, how he talks, or anything. It's left to our imagination, and, as a result, he's one scary, scary villain. If we see his face, even once, the character's whole mystique is gone.

actually, we see him at the very beginning when he lose his ring...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blomkamp? He was yammering about a sequel before the movie even came out. I think he'd disagree.

Personally I'd want him to turf it and get back to working on Halo. I loved his shorts but I guess he's pissed they cut him off and doesn't want to do it now.

Lucas wanted prequels. There was enough backstory there to make them. But they weren't necessary. No one would have whined about an incomplete story had he stuck with one trilogy. The story was resolved. Lucas could have gone either way. Same for Blomkamp. He could make a sequel, and it could work. Or he could not make a sequel, and the original still works by itself. He doesn't have to do anything.

By the way, I don't even think this movie's that great. Maybe an 8 on 10. I just think criticizing the ending for leaving some things to the imagination is silly (and not valid criticism).

actually, we see him at the very beginning when he lose his ring...

"Tolkien's treatment of Sauron"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucas wanted prequels. There was enough backstory there to make them. But they weren't necessary. No one would have whined about an incomplete story had he stuck with one trilogy. The story was resolved. Lucas could have gone either way.

Are we talking Star Wars here? When Lucas made the original trilogy he stated categorically that he wanted to later do the first three, then do the final three afterwards. It was supposed to be a ...er... nonology? I'm making that word up. It was supposed to be nine movies. That was the original intent. There was no going one way or another, this was Lucas's original intent. Not only were they necessary, but they were written and planned and sketched out in storyboard. (I'm sure they were altered quite a lot since then, mind you.)

Last I heard he was still interested in doing the final three flicks (the Thrawn trilogy) but that he'd probably consider more doing them with animation over live actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I heard he was still interested in doing the final three flicks (the Thrawn trilogy) but that he'd probably consider more doing them with animation over live actors.

I have such conflicting feeling about making the Thrawn trilogy into movies. On the one hand, it would be awesome to see those great stories adapted onto the screen. On the other hand, I don't want to see such fantastic stories butchered by Lucas' obsession with technology. There have been very few cases where movies have lived up to the books, and I don't trust Lucas to be able to pull off that feat.

Are we talking Star Wars here? When Lucas made the original trilogy he stated categorically that he wanted to later do the first three, then do the final three afterwards. It was supposed to be a ...er... nonology? I'm making that word up. It was supposed to be nine movies. That was the original intent. There was no going one way or another, this was Lucas's original intent. Not only were they necessary, but they were written and planned and sketched out in storyboard. (I'm sure they were altered quite a lot since then, mind you.)

Yeah, the reason he chose to go with the middle movies was because he thought those would be the ones he could best do with the technology at the time. Also, A New Hope was the best as a stand-alone, since he had no idea if it would go over well enough to convince the studio to let him make any others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucas wanted prequels. There was enough backstory there to make them. But they weren't necessary. No one would have whined about an incomplete story had he stuck with one trilogy. The story was resolved. Lucas could have gone either way. Same for Blomkamp. He could make a sequel, and it could work. Or he could not make a sequel, and the original still works by itself. He doesn't have to do anything.

By the way, I don't even think this movie's that great. Maybe an 8 on 10. I just think criticizing the ending for leaving some things to the imagination is silly (and not valid criticism).

Why are you replying to me? I never said he had to make one either. I'd look forward to it but I really don't care one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a sequel, it won't even come close to the origional. The ability to surprise is gone. The newness which comes with a a totaly origional idea is what makes it atractive, or at least helps it become more apealing. Like I said before, if there is a sequel, I will probably be disapointed. I will pay to see it in a theatre though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jets, I said Blomkamp would agree that a sequel isn't necessary, and then you said that Blomkamp would disagree. So yes you did say that he had to make one. Way to play it cool though.

Fanpuck, bah, forget it.

Are we talking Star Wars here? When Lucas made the original trilogy he stated categorically that he wanted to later do the first three, then do the final three afterwards. It was supposed to be a ...er... nonology? I'm making that word up. It was supposed to be nine movies. That was the original intent. There was no going one way or another, this was Lucas's original intent. Not only were they necessary, but they were written and planned and sketched out in storyboard. (I'm sure they were altered quite a lot since then, mind you.)

Last I heard he was still interested in doing the final three flicks (the Thrawn trilogy) but that he'd probably consider more doing them with animation over live actors.

Erm... yes, I know that he planned to do them.

That doesn't mean that the prequels were necessary. The series could have ended with only Episodes 4-6. Extra movies are just bonuses.

His original intent makes no difference. Case in point, where are the final three films? He may or may not still want to do them, but that's irrelevant - he clearly doesn't need to. The original six (/three) aren't cheapened by their absence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jets, I said Blomkamp would agree that a sequel isn't necessary, and then you said that Blomkamp would disagree. So yes you did say that he had to make one. Way to play it cool though.

I said Blomkamp HAS disagreed. I was telling you what his opinion is, not mine. Two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw The Abyss by James Cameron. I was surprised by how good it is. It ranks up there with Cameron's best.

Patrick Swayze August 18, 1952 – September 14, 2009

RIP

I was going to say the same thing. The celebrity death spree continues. (Bookies should start taking bets on who will go next).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presently kind of broke until I'm done paying my new oven-refrigirator so I can't really afford going to the theatre or rent movies.

It sucks.

However, a guy at my job burns DVDs and sell them to people he knows. He gave me 10 movies of the James Bond serie, 6 of them wich I never watched. Good timing to go through some 007 movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presently kind of broke until I'm done paying my new oven-refrigirator so I can't really afford going to the theatre or rent movies.

It sucks.

However, a guy at my job burns DVDs and sell them to people he knows. He gave me 10 movies of the James Bond serie, 6 of them wich I never watched. Good timing to go through some 007 movies.

You can't download them on your own? Or no DVD burner?

Finally got to see Away We Go this weekend. :clap: Sam Mendes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

As if Sum of All Fears wasn't bad enough, they're trying to screw with Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan once again. Chris Pine was great in Star Trek as Kirk, but he just isn't right to be Jack Ryan. They also are not going to base the movie on any of Clancy's books. With so many good ones to go from, why not use one? If they're so set on Chris Pine, they'd be much better served to let him be John Clark, instead of Jack Ryan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all you TMNT fans (of which, apparently, there are many):

"Viacom's Nickelodeon announced today it has acquired the global intellectual property rights to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles from The Mirage Group and 4Kids Entertainment. The purchase price was about $60 million. Nickelodeon also announced plans to develop a new CG-animated television series based on the popular superhero franchise for 2012. Also, in partnership with Viacom's Paramount Pictures, a new release of a new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles feature film is also planned for 2012. Nickelodeon has also acquired all merchandising rights to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and will continue to work with its original and long-standing toy partner, Playmates Toys, which has been the creative force behind the TMNT master toy program over the last two decades. The deal was done by Cyma Zarghami, the president of Nickelodeon/MTVN Kids and Family Group, and Adam Goodman, the president of Paramount Pictures."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...