 |
The Gamer's Quarter
A quarterly publication
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rf
.
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 23
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
What I was trying to say about KB is that, as I very hazily remember it, it shifts tone too often, and the individual segments of tone seem justified by homage value rather than by the story.
It's like this: the various movies (or, insert any other medium here) that I like each evoke very different moods, with equal power, through good stylistic choices. I enjoy each of those moods and the styles that make them possible, but I don't think combining too many of them in a single movie would work out very well. Especially if the shifts in style weren't justified by the plot as much as by the recognition that they're all evocative on their own, and the (erroneous) conclusion that they'll be even more evocative in succession. KB seemed too much like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lockeownzj00
.
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see your point, rf. I would agree with you, but I question KB's inconsistency. Isn't it essentially a badass revenge tale? I'm thinking back to all the scenes, but I really can't think of one that feels egregiously out of place.
I'd also like to offer that I liked KB2 more than 1. The common complaint that it had less action was a positive for me, for whatever reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
helicopterp
.
Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Taking my argument a sentence at a time is counter-productive, especially when you leave out the two most important ones for my point. For the discussion's benefit, and for the desire to act like a shitcock, I'm going to paste that paragraph with the important sentences--you know, the ones you left out of your dissection--in italics.
| Quote: | | I think art is deeper than taking something you like and making something else that resembles it and presenting it to somebody so that they will like it, too. A musician preferring to play a genre because it pleases him is not art. A filmmaker styling his movies after other things he likes is not art. Art could occur if somebody takes a genre and works within it or subverts it and this particular application of that genre works toward a broader theme. But surface-level stylism is not art, even if other people enjoy it. Enjoyment can in many cases be a by-product of art, but is a pretty lousy objective. |
I guess I could have made myself a lot clearer by injecting the word 'merely' into the first three sentences, although I thought the phrase 'surface-level' was enough to carry the idea.
And though I thought the general continuity of discussion sufficed to string my posts together, I should have done a better job linking my original argument and this most recent one. So I'll say it plainly: Kill Bill (Volume 1) is masturbatory in that it is a mash-up of homage and style created because those things being given homage to and that style give Tarantino a hard-on. The film does not use its vibrant style or its genre bases to propel it toward any goal except pleasure. It is shallow and dull in this regard. Although art is certainly meant to be shared, Kill Bill (Volume 1) is not art and I question whether or Tarantino should be sharing his own private fantasy tale (for it is nothing more than that) with us, regardless of whether or not we like his fantasy's style. I am sure that art needs an audience, but I am almost as equally sure that masturbation does not.
I don't think I have said anything particularly unintelligent here, so try not to be so obscenely incredulous in your response. I am not dense, nor am I particularly proud, so I would love to see you explain to me why Kill Bill (Volume 1) is art. I only watched it once, and there is enormous potential that you have seen something in it that I have not. Just show me what that is.
And I never believed you resented me.
Oh, and finally:
| Lockeownzj00 wrote: | Jeff Mangum, of Neutral Milk Hotel, is playing his music the way he likes it because he wants to--while he's not saying 'MAI MOOZIKA IS THIS AND THATS WUT I LYKE 2 PLAY," he is obviously fond of a certain style, or aesthetic*, and he enjoys playing it (otherwise, he would not still be a musician). Now--his music is released and purchasable by the public at large. He is playing it because he likes it, and he hopes other people will too.
Explain to me how that's not art? |
Here you have me baffled. That particular paragraph describes nothing that resembles art. A musician has chosen a style that he enjoys playing, and because that music is for sale and he wants other people to like what he is doing, it is art? It's like you had this great idea to name-drop Neutral Milk Hotel and then forgot that a description of how the music business ideally works is completely irrelevant to what art is or isn't. I mean, Neutral Milk Hotel are great and all, but this doesn't make any sense to me beyond that.
_________________
Like you thought you'd seen copter perverts before. They were nothing compared to this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dark steve
.
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 1110
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You totally can't come to my house and watch norifumi suzuki movies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lockeownzj00
.
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough. I would like to clarify, however: I do not try to take your quotes out of context. Rather than paste your entire post, I try to take the sentence(s) within a paragraph that best represent what I think the point you're making is. I really have no interesting in "smearing" you or your argument--if I do so, it is unintentional.
| Quote: | | Art could occur if somebody takes a genre and works within it or subverts it and this particular application of that genre works toward a broader theme. But surface-level stylism is not art, even if other people enjoy it. |
I question whether there is anything below surface-level in regards to HK-action cinema. It's not a treatise on humankind--it's beating shit up in a certain way.
| Quote: | | So I'll say it plainly: Kill Bill (Volume 1) is masturbatory in that it is a mash-up of homage and style created because those things being given homage to and that style give Tarantino a hard-on. The film does not use its vibrant style or its genre bases to propel it toward any goal except pleasure. |
I see where your criticism is coming from, but being that Kill Bill actually is cohesive, nothing was sacrificed by this stiffy of Tarantino's. I think it's something like, "Marlon Brando is an astronomical douche, but he's a damn good actor." In order to still fail in this respect, the work of art has to be self-serving and alienating. Tarantino doesn't alienate the audiences. Nobody feels dumb not knowing that Pai Mei is a classic HK character. Even if you boil it down to "just" an action movie, Kill Bill's flavor of biting action is indeed much more gratifying than standard Western action fare. For this alone it should be given credit.
| Quote: | | . It is shallow and dull in this regard. Although art is certainly meant to be shared, Kill Bill (Volume 1) is not art and I question whether or Tarantino should be sharing his own private fantasy tale (for it is nothing more than that) with us, regardless of whether or not we like his fantasy's style. I am sure that art needs an audience, but I am almost as equally sure that masturbation does not. |
Bolded for emphasis.
So even if we enjoy it, it's just on principle? This logic breaks down somewhere, but it's hard to pinpoint.
On masturbation--especially since Kill Bill is not a little b it visceral, I think a "porn" analogy might do well here.
I think there's another fundamental misunderstanding here: you keep using the term art as if it also implicitly means "quality." If this is what you have been saying the whole time, there may have been a gross miscommunication. Strictly speaking (and I would defend this notion), art does not imply "edifying;" art is the body of human expression; Dumb and Dumber is as much art as Schindler's List is--clearly, they are on two diametrically opposite sides of the spectrum, but insofar as I am labelling a piece of entertainment 'art,' that is what I mean.
| Quote: | | It's like you had this great idea to name-drop Neutral Milk Hotel and then forgot that a description of how the music business ideally works is completely irrelevant to what art is or isn't. I mean, Neutral Milk Hotel are great and all, but this doesn't make any sense to me beyond that. |
Two things:
1) We already have art elitism in this thread, let's not bring in music, too. I "dropped" NMH because I chose what was in my playlist at the time of writing. Notice, I didn't opt for some obscuro name--I tried to use something other than a high-profile/radio artist.
2) I think you miss the point in the analogy. First, the "explanation of the music business" served the purpose of showing that artists desire their music to be heard.
Again, this goes back to my previous point about the definition of the term "art." It's funny that three letters could connote so much, and it is clearly all-too-easy for it to become muddled through consistent malapropisms and the like. But NMH is most certainly 'art;' it is expression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cycle
Mac daddy
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 2767
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well I don't know what art is, but I enjoyed Kill Bill when I saw it for the first time the other night. Such style in the action, direction, sets and costumes... I thought it was pretty wonderful. I really loved the use of colour, every set was a joy to look at. The characters and story were also pretty interesting and it kept me watching till the end. I don't know if it would stand repeated watchings, but I sure enjoyed it. Now I gotta go rent part 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Also, @ dhex - yeah, that's a really good way of putting it, but I think the daughter aspects throws a big wrench in the whole shtick. I'm not sure exactly how, though. What do you think? |
well, that's where the egoism lies - the basic desire of eye for an eye, my pain for your pain. it's not rooted in a sense of justice or any other appeal to some higher truth - her daughter was hers, and that injury was to be repaid. conan is even more stark in this regard - to hell with the gods and everyone else, for vengence was to be his for the sake of his vengence. his sacrifice on the tree is to himself (and ties into the older germanic mythos of odin hanging himself from the tree of knowledge and sacrificing part of his body to gain metaphysical knowledge and strength) and he is rescued for his own sake, not because it was the right thing to do.
all of the modern anti-hero type films that i enjoy generally hinge on a kind of amoral self-interest. which has its own code of honor. (which i appreciate having been raised in a variant on it) some are about saving the townspeople or populace from even badder guys, as it were, but they generally hinge on a personal kind of justice, a personal kind of virtue that's strictly not very virtuous in any understanding of the term. they're left hand path films - my will be done.
of course, i believe everyone is motivated by self-interest, even when doing truly good works of "selflessness" so my analysis may be flawed. i also have horrible taste in films, so i probably zero in on the most egoistic and crass kinds imaginable and then invent all sorts of glosses by which to avoid conflict with lovers of cinema, who seem to make up a ridiculous amount of the people in my life. this way everyone goes home happy and i can watch kickboxer for the 14th time.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
player 2
.
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 585
Location: Madison, WI USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
But it was his baby, too!
If all we were supposed to see was, "oh man, here is the brute woman warrior coming to claim vengeance and extract what 'is hers'" we not only see egoism but a sense of property. If the child is her property because the baby's hers, then the baby's also Bill's property.It convolutes the whole thing because, well shit, this is her daughter's father but it's also her revenge.
It's not coincidence that the movies are bookended by death of parents. The series began with one mother being killed with her daughter told that the mother's killer was fair game. Then the series ended when a father was killed. The obvious answer is egoism, but there's something else in there that's more than just egoism. If BB's still "feels raw" about her loving father dying, should Beatrix be waiting for her, too? Were there any other ways to solve the problem?
Kill Bill 2 is definitely the more heady of the two movies. Bill 1 is all flash and pizazz, but Bill 2 explores some interesting characters. Also, it's not entirely EGOISM as much as it is HONOR. I think there's a distinction to be made because things like Elle not killing Beatrix in the hospital upon Bill's request, Hanzo doubling back on his request, and Elle's betrayal of Pai Mei all conclude on the side of honor instead.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653
"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If the child is her property because the baby's hers, then the baby's also Bill's property. |
that's the dead end of egoism. you always have to be ready to establish lines of ownership. (often with violence) she walked away, and shit, the baby was inside of her. he ripped that shit out of her body after trying to kill her, you know? his amorality was met by hers, and then exceeded and so she won.
that's more or less the story of history without any real cynicism. pol pot died very comfortably in a house, with no torment or guilt. (according to nate thayer, who risked malaria and death by ak47 to be the last person to interview him and the last westerner to see him alive) henry kissinger probably feels the same way and will probably die in a similar manner. the only way to outgun stuff like that is to either outgun it or create enough shame that the potential for future outgunning becomes too large to ignore.
we notice it now because a) we are ignorant of history and its stunning brutality across all cultures and countries and b) we can see it in a way we couldn't 100 years ago. or even 25 years ago. there are more cameras than people now.
| Quote: | | If BB's still "feels raw" about her loving father dying, should Beatrix be waiting for her, too? Were there any other ways to solve the problem? |
first part: yes
second part: no
that beatrix accepts the first part and says that to the little girl is her acceptance of the honor of the will to power made flesh or whatever you want to call this kind of egoism. fair is fair.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harveyjames
the meteor kid
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 3636
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kill Bill is a lot like videogames in how most of the characters are little more than a cool look, weapon and a phrase. It's like Dead Rising or something.
That clown with the chainsaws, or the obese lesbian cop, or Paul, the guy with the bombs whose crotch sets on fire, all have about as much screen time and depth as 90% of the characters in Kill Bill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
player 2
.
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 585
Location: Madison, WI USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it was honorable for Beatrix to kill Bill for killing her husband and stealing her child more than egoism. It's obvious that the ego could live on its own without going on a murdering rampage. And it was obvious that it would have been better for Elle to kill Beatrix in the hospital. Budd pretty much gives up, not because he's a worse fighter than her, but because he feels bad. That's not egoism. For some reason I feel that honor is the intended output, but egoism is the Western interpretation.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653
"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i mean egoism in the stirner sense.
as far as honor, well...she was a for pay assassin. and surprise surprise, she became a victim of violence. there's really no honor there except eye for an eye.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ketch
.
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 420
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| player 2 wrote: |
If all we were supposed to see was, "oh man, here is the brute woman warrior coming to claim vengeance and extract what 'is hers'" we not only see egoism but a sense of property. If the child is her property because the baby's hers, then the baby's also Bill's property. |
Also, she doesn't know that her daughter is alive, so it is more a quest for vengeance over the "death" of her baby and the slaughter of the people at the chapel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lackey
.
Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 1107
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In order to still fail in this respect, the work of art has to be self-serving and alienating. Tarantino doesn't alienate the audiences. Nobody feels dumb not knowing that Pai Mei is a classic HK character. |
Heh, funny you mention it because I was going to say before that I found the movie profoundly alienating. I mean it's foggy in my memory but most of the time I was just thinking 'why is this happening?' with no answer forthcoming. Watching it was a lot like mildly chuckling at a punchline you didn't hear the setup for.
I have two questions dhex, because you keep mentioning it; what makes the movies you like bad? And have you seen Cyborg?
_________________
| Little bird fighting against a bat sect game | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | what makes the movies you like bad? |
well, they're not good movies. they're generally one dimensional and shallow. often with large explosions and/or catchphrases. they require no patience and ask only for your attention.
| Quote: | | And have you seen Cyborg? |
yes. however, it does not make it in to the top three. (kickboxer, lionheart and bloodsport, in that order) it's just not as good as these three.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lackey
.
Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 1107
Location: Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
ahh. good point. but his redemption is basic and physical. conan physically and spiritually ends a religious order and a way of life. he came bearing a sword, to be sure, and did separate mother from son and father from daughter (i.e. the cult)
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tablesaw
.
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 303
Location: LACAUSA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dhex wrote: | | Quote: | | what makes the movies you like bad? |
well, they're not good movies. they're generally one dimensional and shallow. often with large explosions and/or catchphrases. they require no patience and ask only for your attention. |
Of course, the best of the "bad" give you much more for the attention they ask for. My favorite examples are Demolition Man and Under Siege because each, in its own way, surprises its audience with the bizarre while still moving relentlessly forward with the predictable.
_________________
It's the saw of the table! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, hey, Quentin Tarantino is a hack and his dialogue sucked ever since, surprise, surprise, his uncredited high-school buddy ditched him. The Kill Bill movies are pretty tame murky morality play duologies. Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects did it better. So did Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Heat, The Proposition and noir movies in general.
To talk of honour in the Kill Bill films is pretty fucked up all on its own.
NBK is the only really good Tarantino movie, and mainly because he didn't direct it and his screenplay was heavily and extensively edited so as to not be poseur, admire-my-large-balls-I-worked-in-video-rental low-grade filth.
And, well, video games have been exploring such things for quite some time now. Even the God awful GTA series has all the bad versus worst machismo you can stomach. The only anti-hero, manly desperation game I can say I'm looking forward to as of late is IO Interactive's Kane and Lynch. Its going to be a spiritual successor to Freedom Fighters, one of their best, and seems to be heading down the Michael Mann road to crime-thriller, with that peculiar IO weirdness and detached edge. It's intent on exploring the two main characters not get along as they're supposed to co-operate in aiding a fanatical mercenary organisation get money back from a botched job. Their motives? Kane, being responsible for the botch, saves his family, though his own death sentence is irrevocable, while Lynch, a subdued psychopath, gets the promise of Kane's job after the fact. This twisted relationship, less of neccesity, more of begrudging duty, is intriguing to me not only because of the Mann-like combined character charisma and cool (I'm a big Mann fan, if you can't tell) but because such a set-up leaves promising grounds for story-telling methods, as we're unaware of the characters' pasts. Another next-gen experiment I'm curious to see unfold.
P.S. RoboCop for cyborg Jesus.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dark steve
.
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 1110
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, it worked for Second Sight.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
helicopterp
.
Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: | | Michael Mann road to crime-thriller |
As far as I am concerned, Collateral is one of the three seminal L.A. films, with Chinatown and Blade Runner. And it is one of the five best films of this decade so far. (That I have seen. And I try to see most of the good ones, even if I have been lax over the last few months.) Talk about style based on substance.
Of course, any game using Collateral's themes would be irrelevant because Crazy Taxi already predates the damn thing.
_________________
Like you thought you'd seen copter perverts before. They were nothing compared to this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Collateral's ontological discourse was solid until the twist towards the end and the last quarter of an hour or so. I like the movie a lot, and I do think it's one of Cruise's only good roles, not to mention a good sign of Mann's evolving experimental style, but it doesn't reach the state of grace Heat did because of the way things played themselves out.
If you haven't seen Heat, you should. The existential conceit in that film is more subtle than in Collateral, the story and its details more realistic and besides anything else, you get to see Al Pacino fight Robert DeNiro. The shoot-outs in Heat have less visceral style than in Collateral, where it's a close-quarters and heated affair, I suppose, but they still pack a solid punch and it helps that they really wanted the gunplay to be tangibly real and accurate. I have yet to see the Miami Vice movie, but I'm told it's a case of exemplary style with mechanical, inconsequential dialogue, making a plot, though smart in nature, ultimately fall flat, which honestly doesn't surprise me. I'll still want to see it, of course, if only because the trailer made, God help me, a Linkin Park song sound cool.
A game based around Collateral's themes wouldn't really work, at least I don't think so by this stage in gaming's dramatic artistic development, because, as you put it, it would translate as a race-against-time primarily, and switches between a shootist and some half-assed stealther. Like The Getaway: Black Monday, though potentially cleverer, but just as ham-fisted.
What IO are doing with Kane and Lynch is have you only play as one of the protagonists, the more stable one and the one with the highest, more personal stakes in the matter, Kane. This means that the other protagonist, whose motives, and methods, are somewhat deranged and shady, are left as a plot point and advancable character chemistry, though a second player can control him in co-op mode. As you progress through the game, you control more and more operatives as part of your little mercenary hit squad, but Lynch remains a constant dog at your heels. I'm hoping that their abrasive, distrustful relationship will make the game a thinking man's journey into seediness, much like a Mann L.A. flick. It's also simply good to know they're trying to learn from the lessons of Freedom Fighter and push it a step further. The Hitman series is compelling, but ultimately, every episode has felt lacklustre to me for some awkward reason. I'd like to try the latest game in that series, but I can't say I feel that compelled to shell out as a result.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"
Last edited by Dracko on Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplicio
.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1091
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm agreeing with Dracko regarding Collateral here; the whole thing isn't worth watching after the night club scene really, but that seen does provide ample evidence as to why Tom Cruise generally makes many millions of dollars per film.
I really ought to see Heat again. I remember it being kinda long and meandering, with some seriously extraneous henchman business.
Michael Mann is one of those guys who so consistently comes really close while still missing the mark that it's hard for me to invest myself in his work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRumblefish
.
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 258
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: | | [ The shoot-outs in Heat have less visceral style than in Collateral, where it's a close-quarters and heated affair, I suppose, but they still pack a solid punch and it helps that they really wanted the gunplay to be tangibly real and accurate. I have yet to see the Miami Vice movie, but I'm told it's a case of exemplary style with mechanical, inconsequential dialogue, making a plot, though smart in nature, ultimately fall flat, which honestly doesn't surprise me. |
I really can't believe there is another fan of Mann's works on this planet. This is great news. Heat is the magnum opus of his work, it is everything it set out to do, and always compelling upon every viewing. Aside from Taxi Driver, it is also quite possibly Robert DeNiro's best role of all time.
As for Miami Vice, I will tell you that straight up, you hit the head of the nail with your depiction of the film. It's smart, it's brutal and passive at the same time, but falls flat. For a better term, or worse it "Drops the ball" half way throught the film. More importantly if does pick the pace back up, figuratively speaking of course. Why Mann's gunplay scenes always work and anyone that is remotely interested in Firearms will most likely name drop Heat for it's realism, is because of Mann being a firearm instructor himself. It makes for a sense of realism that doesn't distract from the matters at hand. It's incredible to watch, but most of all hear the M-4's in Heat. It's just brutal by every sense of the word.
Also, his characters always use 45.acp handguns, and Miami Vice is no exception. Good to know that there are others who greatly appreciate these selct films.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
heat was cool.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| simplicio wrote: | | I'm agreeing with Dracko regarding Collateral here; the whole thing isn't worth watching after the night club scene really, but that seen does provide ample evidence as to why Tom Cruise generally makes many millions of dollars per film. |
Cruise is pretty good when he plays a fringe psychotic. Kind of like how Brad Pitt, who is a good actor, really shines when he's a crazy motherfucker, à la Tyler Durden, Jeffrey Goines and, hopefully, Jesse James in the upcoming The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (It's like Australian film directors are getting their thumbs out of their rear and trying to get it on international recognition. Just saying because John Hillcoat's The Proposition is one of the most brilliant films this year, a genuinely focused and lucid exercice in moral murkiness, and also, I just love Nick Cave).
Mann action sequences are more compelling than anything The Matrix or Equilibrium, and their ensuing flood of rip-offs had to offer. Honestly, I hate, really hate, the mainstream action films of the last decade. They have no real identity, are stuck in perpetual, meaningless pretense and philosophical droppings of a flattering and shrivelled nature, and in their worst instances are just plain propaganda (V for Vendetta being the most recent example I care to recall), and boast a style that's just plain cold and airport waiting lounge in inspiration and nature.
I truly hate these, and I'm glad to see there's some livelihood trying to burst through in the past few years. I hate them almost as much as I hate Joss Whedon. And I really hate Joss Whedon.
I'm just glad now that next-gen is here (And in this instance, next-gen is genuinely significant), games are starting to take more notice of these sorts of films.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lackey
.
Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 1107
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I hate them almost as much as I hate Joss Whedon. And I really hate Joss Whedon. |
Ha, I've been meaning to ask about this. You bring it up all the time, seemingly without connection.
_________________
| Little bird fighting against a bat sect game | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe I'm just vocal about it because I don't stop hearing about him ever since I've come back to university, whether it's offline or online.
For one, he desecrated the Aliens franchise. He's now busy molesting the X-Men one. I don't even like the X-Men at all, yet his writing is so ham-fisted and tragically wannabe Jap in its nerdy angst that it irritates me.
He's made a career out of tired, rehashed archetypes, some of the worst that the 90s produced, seemingly incapable of developing, let alone going beyond, them, thereby forcing them on every intellectual property he gets to write. Same goes for his basic concepts. High school full of vampires? Space opera with zombies? Demon hunting sci-fi? Am I still stuck in the early 90s? His dialogue demonstrates no wit whatsoever. It's forced, petty and is simply jarring and not proper character development. Antics and sardonics do not make a character compelling (This kind of goes for House too. Too much of a good thing. The writers should learn to pace themselves.). It's all posturing, and very likely expressive of underage sexual frustration on his part.
And all that is just an introduction to his religious and political pretenses, stroking all the lowest common denominator morons into thinking they're so rugged because "omgosh religion is just social control" or "govermint is evil and so are corporations". He's a hack with no redeeming talent whatsoever, much like the Wachowskis, and it doesn't make my life any easier when some twit with a white belt and a beanie quotes Firefly during a political debate or seminar.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"
Last edited by Dracko on Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And all that is just an introduction to his religious and political pretenses, stroking all the lowest common denominator morons into thinking they're so rugged and because "omgosh religion is just social control" or "govermint is evil and so are corporations". |
what the fuck, man? i don't like josh wheedon.
har har!  
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, but at least you don't fake it like some kind of proto-mall-goth in need of a sub-educated lay.
I hate Samizdata too for their love of the guy. Actually, I just plain hate Samizdata because they're pretentious bourgeois twats and bigots acting like libertarians.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dark steve
.
Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 1110
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dracko, is this all because some sub-educated lay did you wrong?
(also hey it's bourgeois to use the word bourgeois) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dark steve wrote: | | (also hey it's bourgeois to use the word bourgeois) |
I never claimed to be anything other.
It's also very bourgeois to want to distance yourself from your middle-class and relatively well-off parents, which is why I find "alternative" teenagers amusing.
P.S. No.
EDIT: Going back to the original bad vs. badder idea and how the thread branched on to Spaghetti Westerns: Wouldn't a game that plays like The Great Silence be a potentially better shot at subtle emotional manipulation of the player? Think of the ending and the lead, mute character, who is, more or less, an attempted force of justice in the game. You could play with the mute main protagonist motif games have been picking up on recently, and totally spin the moral role you take on its head. Or have you play as the victorious villain, but that's a less appealing notion. Anti-heroes have been done, and don't get me wrong, still contain a lot of potential, so long as they grow beyond the standards recently set, but a game where playing a good guy who honestly doesn't stand a chance in light of the sheer vengeful cruelty of the villains would be interesting. More interesting still would be to incorporate a subtle system by which, if you really wanted to survive, you'd have to become potentially just as bad, if not worse, as the antagonists.
Also, you know, Utah Western. BioShock is messing around with water. When can we get realistic snow, and just picture the visual appeal you'd get by being able to affect it, footprints, blood and otherwise?
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Yeah, but at least you don't fake it like some kind of proto-mall-goth in need of a sub-educated lay. |
if you don't know me by now, you will never ever ever knowww meeee, ooooooohhhhh whoooaooohhhhhhh.....
i coulda used a bunch of those in college. and high school. dear lord, high school...there's something about a classic mid 90s goth thing that just warms the cockles of my heart. it's right up there with the mid 90s college hippie girl outfit (virtually indistinguishable from the hash dealer's girlfriend outfit playset except with more showering/shaving) in terms of nostalgiosity.
anyway:
are there any games that allow you to play as a genuine villian? (outside of dungeon master and the evil genius game? well, and d&d and i guess the kotor titles...) not just the might makes right types, i mean - which is most of history and everything in between - but someone who is out and out a bad (wo)man (TM)?
the western fps that's coming out isn't very interesting (judging from the demo) but call of juarez + this sort of evil fuck gameplay could = gold. plus you could have reactions to your relative badness - the more evil you are, the more you attract might makes right types, but if you get too evil people less evil than you will leave you, the gubmint will come getcha, bounty hunters will have more of a reason to hurt you, etc.
but if you can find a way to skate such evilness, like the mob (relative community support, robin hood type pr work, bribery, not killing children and old ladies, hunting down rapists and those who step beyond your blood for money ideals, etc) you can become super successful. plus coalitional gameplay lets you pit various factions against each other, and genuine "good guys" in the modern term would be completely unplayable.
i call this amoral egoist simulator "history." nah, i mean something like "dead and buried" or "baditude" or "how the west was actually won."
with that hbo show this might not be such a hard sell.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
College. Don't talk to me about college. I'm stranded there and it really just feels like High School 2.0 where the cliques are more vocal and advertised and want to spread the word.
But hey, better alcohol, educational resources and book shops, so one makes do.
| dhex wrote: | | are there any games that allow you to play as a genuine villian? (outside of dungeon master and the evil genius game? well, and d&d and i guess the kotor titles...) not just the might makes right types, i mean - which is most of history and everything in between - but someone who is out and out a bad (wo)man (TM)? |
I haven't touched it, but would God of War count? Or is there still a degree of justifiability due to fate and religion and all that? Not an easy answer as far as I can tell, actually. Even the brutal arrogance of Kain was tempered by his role in destiny.
And honestly, would it be that interesting? Traditionally, what makes heroes (and anti-heroes) compelling are their goals to me. Most of the time in a game, personality doesn't help: It breaks the feeling of immersion a litte. I don't need to use the Gordon Freeman example to remind you of this (Though he is an unwitting "hero", forced by circumstance and manipulation. Could you do the same for a villainous character? Villains typically need some form of insight in a global situation to push their vices. A game where you play a manipulated one would be highly intriguing, but difficult. Though I suppose Manhunt falls under that. You do play a man on deathrow used as a puppet by a snuff director, after all.). What goals can you give to a villain? You can't really say religious/poltical/humanist motives, because that skirts with anti-heroes. Could you really present a situation and incentive so gratuitous to a player that the game doesn't fall apart?
Or, you know, maybe I'm not entirely certain what you're getting at.
| dhex wrote: | | with that hbo show this might not be such a hard sell. |
Even if there weren't a Deadwood (Absolutely amazing TV series, by the way), I don't think it would be that hard a sell, really. If you just give the impression you're handling an anti-hero, not a villain. That said, I'm not seeing a Hannibal Lecter sim any time soon.
Come to think of it, where do you draw the line? Anti-heroes have seen everything from mobsters to psychopaths. How do you differentiate them from villains, beyond narrative focus, I mean?
EDIT: What about those dubious concentration camp sims?
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRumblefish
.
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 258
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: | College. Don't talk to me about college. I'm stranded there and it really just feels like High School 2.0 where the cliques are more vocal and advertised and want to spread the word.
Though I suppose Manhunt falls under that. You do play a man on deathrow used as a puppet by a snuff director, after all.). What goals can you give to a villain? You can't really say religious/poltical/humanist motives, because that skirts with anti-heroes. Could you really present a situation and incentive so gratuitous to a player that the game doesn't fall apart?
Or, you know, maybe I'm not entirely certain what you're getting at. |
I mentioned Manhunt somewhere in this thread. In seriousness after spending so much time with the game itself, Cash is more then anything a villian. Think of how many people he kills throughout the course of the game without even thinking twice. He represent the survival instinct in all of us through a metaphor for violence, but still as a character he is a villian. I can't elaborate further on this, even though I wish I could. There was an NSTC-K article that went really in-depth with Manhunt as a whole and was a very good read.
Also College, yeah a lot of High School 2.0 going on for me as well. I still love it though.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Survivalism in itself isn't wrong, though it does become a matter of moral debate, which I honestly don't care to hear for.
The reason Cash is a villain isn't his urge to survive, or even the lengths he's pushed at to do so. You could easily imagine a scenario where someone from a more clean background would be forced to commit atrocities because his life is on the line. Rather, what's indicative of Cash's perfid nature is how easily he manages to commit them, revealing potentially a lifetime of exercice in the domain. He's a deathrow convict, and very likely charged for all the right reasons. No set-ups here. Finally, the last thing that really speaks of his disgusting character is his vengeful motivation, especially towards the end. He doesn't, needn't, think twice of hunting down his torturer. Simply put, he's a crude mass murderer. No elegance to speak of, no style, no real reasoning behind it all. He just does it. But that in itself is still anti-hero material. I really think it's the way he motivates himself to go on that really shows us he's, well, filth. You're not even really supposed to sympathise with his situation, and there's nothing redeeming about it: In the end, it all becomes a matter of settling scores among scum, and the ending as foot-note is indicative of how little his experience truly meant.
That all said, Manhunt made for an intriguing curio, but it didn't feel altogether significant to me. Perhaps that was the point, but I'm still not sure that's the sort of scenario dhex is suggesting with his notion of villains.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
