DISQUS

Reebee7 · 3 months ago

I absolutely agree, but I'd like to give a bit of my thoughts. I'm all for rather mindless, fun entertainment. I think the movie I've seen the most would be Dumb and Dumber. I find something new to laugh at almost every time (I most recently got the 'salmon of Capastrano' joke). But I most certainly wouldn't consider it the best movie I've ever seen; not even close. So there's something to say about enjoying Live Free and Die Hard, an action movie nowhere near its predecessor in quality but a very fun ride. Fun movies are great.

What bothers me is the mindlessness that has been going into supposed 'fun' entertainment lately, and the masses that go to see it. Just because a product is, by all accounts, just 'fun entertainment' doesn't mean it should be stupid. But it bothers me that Transformers II made so much money. The movie was critically panned, and people went to see it multiple times. Granted, I'm sure most were males age 11-16.

Now, most people defend the film as, as you've stated, just dumb fun entertainment. But this film was a 'dumb, fun' movie made, well, dumbly. It takes intelligence to make a dumb movie work, and I think many films claiming to be dumb fun have forgotten that. People defend Transformers by saying 'can't I shut my brain off and be entertained by big explosions?' Perhaps, but is that really all it takes to entertain you? Senseless violence and explosions? If I showed you a slideshow of explosions would you be able to sit through it and have 'dumb fun?' That's some Brave New World shit right there, where people are entertained by the absolute, most basic, mindless forms of enjoyment. Aldous Huxley predicted the future far better than George Orwell did, and though I respect both of their novels, it was Huxley that saw the dumbing down of entertainment that brought the viewers immense happiness.

justadude · 3 months ago

*tear* Rob, you speak the gospel. 'Transformers' rocked my world and blew the panties off my girlfriend. Fun does not come any more entertaining than that.

But I cannot believe this discussion section. 'Fun isn't fun unless it is done smart.' What the hell does that even mean? You guys are really trying to argue that 'Transformers' and 'GI joe' are just sacks of CGI with no plot. Bull. Every movie has some sort of plot, even if it just serves as a scaffold for the action. And even then, these movies aren't the worst culprits. Do you want to know the worst plot ever, that you guys cream over: Lord of the Rings. Talk about a scaffold for epic action sequences. (Hold up, I'm a huge LOTR fan, so haters just sit down.) Fan or no fan, it is very easy to admit that the story of LOTR was simply the journey of two hobbits throwing a ring into a volcano with a ton of action in between. It took them 3 movies and 12 hours to put a ring into Mount Doom and save the world. At least 'GI Joe' had the decency to keep thier weak plot to just 2 hours. 'Oh but Dude, there were so many human elements and messages about right and wrong weaved into the story.' Oh, blow yourself. One, that's no excuse for a weak plot, and two, I don't want messages or drama in my fun, I want awesome and entertaining.

Okay, let's step away from LOTR before someone has a heart attack. How about 'District 9'? Do you remember the part when there was 30 minutes of people blowing up and robots owning things? No where in that 30 minutes was there a plot. Sure the action was part of a whole, but isolated it was just fun and exlposions. When you put the action back into context it's a lot less fun. After all, 'District 9' wasn't a particularly fun movie; it was a drama. But everyone is willing to forgive 'mindless fun' when it's in the middle of something oscar worthy. Is that what you mean by 'intelligent fun', mindless action that is plopped into the middle of something with substance? I want someone to give me an example of something that they thought was fun, that wasn't oscar worthy? (aka the fun that isn't 'mindless') 'Live Free or Die Hard' is my jam, but you can't tell me just becuase there were hackers in it that the movie was sophistocated. The entirety of that plot was ridiculous and obviously served as a scaffold for the action. The only difference I can see between 'GI joe' and 'Die Hard' are the kid's jokes (which were intentional).

Reebee7 · 3 months ago

I never said every movie had to be sophisticated. I said it takes intelligence to make a dumb movie work. Dumb and Dumber is utterly ludicrous, and there is a substantial amount of juvenile poop jokes. But it's done somehow, there's a je ne se qua there, that makes that poop joke work than those presented in the infinitely abysmal "Year One." Just like there's something about the dumb entertainment in "Live Free or Die Hard" or "Speed" that make them successful "dumb entertainment" films where "Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li" just don't work. And the line where people are entertained by something stupid is getting lower all the time, otherwise there wouldn't be so many "[Spoof] Movies" getting made.

And I'm all for the dumb movie, when it's clear that there was intelligence behind it. I love seeing explosions in a movie when they suit the plot, I hate seeing movies made to show explosions (Transformers) because that seems to me like basic entertainment, made with puerile intentions for an increasingly large audience that see the film in droves, and defend it as 'fun.' Where does 'fun explosions' stop?

As I asked, if I showed you a slideshow of explosions, would you sit and say 'Aw, awesome.' 'Wow, cool.' if there was no substance there? Of course you wouldn't, not yet, but when movies like Transformers, that most people acknowledge (even those that like it) as having the most miniscule traces of substance, make tons of money and have people defend it as 'dumb entertainment' I fear at how low the 'dumb bar' can be acceptably set.

your_kidding · 3 months ago

i am utterly speechless. you used LOTR and District 9 to defend GI Joe and Transformers on the subject of plot. im trying to wrap my mind around this. you used four really great films to defend two really awful films. next time you are arguing your point try and use other examples that drive your point home. not create more controversy with what could only be called rabid stupidity.

to answer your question in paragraph two, yes, people will always forgive mindless action when its in the middle of something oscar worthy, because something oscar worthy may have that little something called a story. believe it or not films can actually be bolstered with great action instead of babbling nonsense built around explosions and running (Michael Bay filmography for examples.) speaking of Michael Bay and an example of something that was mindless fun, BAD BOYS!!! i love that movie and it's beautifully awful and mindless, but im not going to defend Bad Boys by saying it had an equally silly plot like Citizen Kane because that movie was just about a kid longing for his sled. im not going to say that because that makes me an idiot and well lets face it, the movie is about much more than that. some food for thought. good day sir.

justadude · 3 months ago

Sir, there is no denying that you are right. There is no denying that my examples were obnoxious. However, you may have missed my point (or just prefered to shut me down). I was trying to explain that most movies actually don't have a dense, mind bending plot. Few do. The reason a movie is amazing is attributed to the way the story is told; things like character development, innovative cinematography, and deep, subtle motifs about humanity('Citizen Kane'). A movie doesn't actually have to have a plot in order to have great direction. 'GI Joe' and 'Transformers' lack most of the above cinema elements, which makes thier plot stand out as the only element that attempted to be there that we can attack. I like my 'fun' movies despite thier obvious short comings, but I wouldn't put them in the garbage because they 'lack plot'. 'GI Joe' has the same plot as numerous loved movies of the past, but the reason it sucks is because it has one dimensional characters, awkward dialogue, mis-used CGI, and was made for kids. If Nolan had made this movie with the same plot but his style of directing, you would be shouting oscar. Do you get what I'm saying?

your_kidding · 2 months ago

i agree with you but i think we can both agree that Nolan wouldn't have made this movie with this script.

Reebee7 · 2 months ago

It's not plot that makes a movie dumb (well, not always), it's execution. The simplest plots can make great movies. And sometimes interesting plots get demolished by other factors.

yankeesrule587 · 2 months ago

he dont get what youre saying, people like him never will. this new internet generation because of annonymity is suddenly all story and CG experts. they missed all the horrible films of the 80s and early 90s, god knows what they would have said...i agree that transformers and gi-joe were both awesome, but i think the acting was decent and the plot was definetly there and quite strong for that matter...aimed at kids ? wouldnt say that...maybe us kids in our 30s, but not the younger kids, especially the runts that had to suffer through barney and thomas the tank engine. oscar worthy movies, plain and simple, make u want to suffocate yourself with how slow and boring they are and their plots make less sense than transformers or gi-joe..."no country for old men" is a good example...oscar worthy...had no clue what was going on or why, and the ending was super anticlimactic...at least in most NON oscar movies, i know whats going on....and ive NEVER , EVER, EVER went to a movie expecting a masterpiece....i go only to have fun and escape into fictional worlds where robots beat each other up and super ships trash our friendlies...awesome...if i want realism ill watch CNN.

chille · 3 months ago

I think people still like fun movies, they just expect more from them than just fun. You can't really say people don't like fun despite the generally good reception from 300, Sin City, Grindhouse etc. Hell, even most critics who hated ROTF acknowledged its fun factor.

silent_jay · 3 months ago

I agree with Reebee7 100%, GIJoe was "a 'dumb, fun' movie made, well, dumbly"

Fun is not the dirty word, most people, including myself, love a film thats fun. the problem is how the "fun" is written/filmed.

The fun in, say, Wall-E, was great, because the fun was well written, aimed at kids but adults could enjoy it also.

The "fun" in GIJoe, or transformers was rubbish because it was aimed at kids, yet also felt as if it was written by kids, covered in cheese..............not the good kind,

but speaking more specifically about GIJoe and transformers, and why people wanted dark is simple. The *main* people that were waiting for these movies were fans of the original shows 1st time round, and yes while the shows themselves were in reality light-hearted, and goofy 'splosion fun, thats not how they were remembered. they were remembered as ninja/spy/robots gritty ass kicking fun......dark

we got junk

(oh, and where i live, GIJoe isn't being advertised as fun, its being advertised as bad ass ninja action, this would add to the bad taste in peoples mouth after seeing it ,no doubt)

ERoBB · 3 months ago

Call me a snob, but when "fun" is used to be the saving grace of a shitty movie, I get off the bus.

Matt · 3 months ago

I posted a similar rant in 2007 when everyone was whining about 300, Transformers, etc. despite them being big blockbusters with decent starting reviews. It's too bad that a bunch of wannabe "film buffs" with sticks up their butts have ruined "fun" cinema, but as always: f*ck 'em.

ilkazapata · 3 months ago

I love dramas, but I also like comedy, but good comedy. I like good cinema: good dramas, good comedies. I expect something else, not just an empty movie filled with CGI. I expect something more: a good story. It does not matter if it makes me screen, laugh or cry. I also think comedy is overrated. I was disappointed by the fact that "In Bruges" was taken lightly by the Oscars. It was a very good movie. So funny and dramatic at the same time.

Cole_Abaius · 3 months ago

My new favorite hobby: reading 35-year olds complain when movies are aimed at kids.

silent_jay · 3 months ago

good point, but all the same, the 1st time round fans aint kids, most kids dont even know what the hell GIJoe is, apart from this film

so in a way, they missed the mark,

Rohith · 3 months ago

Any movie with a decent story that make sense is good enough to have fun. A movie doesn't have to be like Dark Knight to be liked. I am saying this because I liked Transformers 1 and hated Transformers 2 and I wasn't comparing the second movie to the Dark Knight.

I haven't watched G.I Joe yet since I was too busy and couldn't find time for it so I won't comment on it.

nextronaldo10 · 2 months ago

hmm....
well rather than speakin of the difference between fun and serious, i think its more of a good vs. fun discrepancy.

Lookin at cinema as a medium and a art versus pure entertainment.
and i actually did have fun watchin the dark knight. and i thought it was well-made.
Same with inglourious basterds. i thought they couldve made it a "pure-fun" flick by puttin in more scenes of nazis gettin their heads bashed and whatnot, but instead QT went with a more reserved, plot-driven approach.

There are some movies that are just fun and not good. and i guess this is all personal preference. call me an idiot but i enjoyed the pink panther which was trashed critically. i still watch it from time to time.

now for g.i. joe i just thought it couldve been so much better. im not gonna say it sucked, but i just cant help thinkin in parts i couldve done somethin better.

interestin article though

//wat im tryinto say is that there is a difference between a good movie and a fun movie. A good movie isn't necessarily fun and vice-versa.

Ket · 2 months ago

People use the "The Dark Knight" as an example because it had explosions, and violence, and sadism, and a villain who was so delightfully evil, yet charismatic, that when he was on screen, you just had to pay attention to him. Many of the things he says are so catchy that they're destined to become pop culture one liners. Some might argue that it really didn't have that great of a plot, but a plot was there that was worth more than just 2 or 3 sentences of discussion. People use "The Dark Knight" because it raised the bar.

You can have your explosions, and car chases, and all that other fun stuff and still have a story that makes you think. I can say I judge a movie by how well it can hold my attention. And the only way for it to do that is if it is just as engaging during the non-action scenes as it is during the action scenes. It's not just the new Batman movies. The Spider Man movies too (and they were much more light hearted than the Batman movies, it doesn't have to be dark). What these movies did was raise the bar. It's not as if fun and intelligent can never co-exist. With ticket prices fast approaching 12 dollars, don't you want to be able to say you saw a movie and not a 2 hour toy commercial?

EDIT: I saw an attack on LotR saying its plot was simplistic. Maybe so, but the characters were much more interesting than the likes of "Transformers". In "Transformers" the world could've exploded at the end, or Megan Fox's character could've died some horrific death on screen, and quite frankly, I wouldn't have cared. Characters are part of the plot too.

0KEN0 · 2 months ago

"You can have your explosions, and car chases, and all that other fun stuff and still have a story that makes you think. I can say I judge a movie by how well it can hold my attention. And the only way for it to do that is if it is just as engaging during the non-action scenes as it is during the action scenes. It's not just the new Batman movies."

Exactly.

People who love shitty movies seem to think that "explosions" are the universal language for "fun". EVERYONE likes explosions right? Well... kind of.

It all depends on what you consider fun, or entertaining. A movie that has nothing going for it BUT explosions is boring as f*** to me. If you've seen one explosion, you've pretty much seen them all, and for the most part, I only consider them truly entertaining when coupled with a solid story.

Not to beat a dead horse, but The Dark Knight is a excellent example of how you can have your cake and eat it too. You get the kick ass action with a great story and awesome acting.

However, some people seem to think that "story and character" and "action and explosions" are like water and oil. They can't coexist, and therefor one has to be sacrificed for the other. Unfortunately, this just isn't true, and in fact, there's NO reason why story and explosions can't harmoniously coexist in EVERY movie.

I'm so damn tired of hearing phrases like "it was good for an action movie" or "well, it's an action movie, so explosions are good enough". Excuse me, but I was under the impression that "story and character" where prerequisites for ALL movies; when did that change? I must have missed that. What exactly does one have to do to get their genre of film omitted from the expectations that other genres have to live by?

And for the record, by "story and character" I don't mean it has to be "dark" like TDK. Just saying, you CAN have a great story AND explosions, so why wouldn't you want that? Why wouldn't you expect that?