Independence Day vs. War of the Worlds

quietdriver3 said:Does every single movie need to be a dramatic masterpiece with perfectly polished characters just to be considered good?😕

Is, for example, Evil Death II a good movie?😕

You’ve really gone out of your way to misunderstand everything I said. No—a film doesn't need to be some dramatic tour de force with flawless character arcs to be good. In fact, it’s incredibly grating when a director decides to focus on "deep" character motivations at the exact moment they should be running for their lives from rampaging dinosaurs/Nazis/aliens/time anomalies/zombie hordes/genetically modified eggplants—simply because they have this desperate need to be viewed as an "artist." And those supposedly "deep" motivations usually end up being about as profound as a copy of "Psychology for Beginners" published by Jesenski Publishing or Turk.

quietdriver3 said:Is, say, Evil Death II actually any good?

Of course it isn't!

It's a GENIUS FILM! 👍

northerncrane4 said:It honestly feels like you went out of your way to misunderstand everything I just said. No, a movie doesn't need to be some dramatic masterpiece with perfectly polished characters to actually be good. In my opinion, it’s pretty annoying when a director decides to focus on "deep" character motivations right when they should be running for their lives from rampaging dinosaurs, Nazis, aliens, time glitches, zombie hordes, or genetically modified eggplants, just because they feel the need to prove they're some kind of "artist."

And those subplots you keep seeing in his movies? They aren't much more than little vehicles used to move the main plot from point A to point B. I mean, wouldn't those movies be kind of unwatchable if they were nothing but action scenes and characters who exist just to fill up the background? (I guess a documentary style might work there, but that's getting into experimental territory). Aren't those "deeper motives" just an excuse for the necessary downtime—which happens in all parts of life, including movies like these—where you're really just watching for the fun, the adrenaline, and those unforgettable visuals??

quietdriver3 said:Wouldn't those movies be a little hard to watch if they were just pure action sequences and characters who exist solely to fill out the background?

Actually, no—that would make for the perfect action movie! If someone ever actually made one (which isn't happening), I’d happily call it the greatest blockbuster of all time.

But this is how it goes: 👎disastrous plotlines in disaster movies!

northerncrane4 said:It’s like you went out of your way to misunderstand everything I said. Look, a movie doesn't need to be some dramatic masterpiece with perfectly polished characters to actually be good. It really bugs me when a director decides to focus on "deep" character motivations right when they should be running for their lives from rampaging dinosaurs, Nazis, aliens, time glitches, zombie hordes, or genetically modified eggplants, just because they have this desperate need to feel like an "artist." And half the time, those "deep motives" are about as profound as some cheap copy of Psychology for Beginners from Jesenski Publishing or Turk.

Man, if everything bothers you that much, just go watch Mortal Kombat. 🙄

quietdriver3 said:Those subplots you spot in his movies are nothing more than little vehicles used to move the main plot from point A to point B—wouldn't those films be a bit unwatchable if they were just pure action scenes and characters serving no purpose other than filling out the set? (Maybe a documentary approach would work, but that’s getting into experimental territory). Aren't those "deeper themes" just an excuse for the necessary filler—in all aspects of life, including movies meant for entertainment, adrenaline, and spectacle?

I just don't see how Spielberg's vehicles differ from Emmerich's.

northerncrane4 said:I just don't really get how those Spielberg vehicles are any different from Emmerich's.

if Spielberg's characters feel like they're reading Psychology for Beginners, then Emmerich's characters are basically just fortune tellers 😉

Fine, I’m glad I (for now) took the win for WotW, but this whole debate is pointless and stupid. Both movies suck.

And regarding the discussion about Spielberg—that feels off too. He’s a director for the masses, plain and simple. He knows exactly when to drop a movie to grab global attention. Combine that with a massive marketing machine, and you've got a nightmare combo. It all just depends on which themes hit you. Talking about him like some high-brow artist and comparing him to Bergman is a total miss. That was never his goal; he’s always been about the money. I'm not saying all his films are trash, but most of them are...

slywolf9 said:Talking about him like he’s some kind of high-brow artist and comparing him to Bergman is a total joke. That was never even his goal; he’s always been about the paycheck. I’m not saying all his movies are trash, but most of them definitely are...

Any filmmaker who approaches a movie purely as "art" is basically begging for financial ruin. Movies aren't just art—everyone knows that. To me, all the artistic quality in the world doesn't mean a thing if the movie isn't entertaining or engaging enough to keep me from falling asleep.

nimblemarlin17 said:A filmmaker who approaches a movie strictly as an artist is basically asking for bankruptcy. I mean, everyone knows movies aren't just high art. To me, all that artistic quality doesn't really matter if the film isn't actually fun or engaging enough to keep me from nodding off.

👍

Art without entertainment is like foreplay without the main event.

quietdriver3 said:Art without entertainment is like foreplay without penetration.

I agree, but I don't quite get why you're such a fan of Stanley Kubrick then. His movies aren't exactly "entertainment" in that sense... 🙂

nimblemarlin17 said:Any filmmaker who treats movies like high art instead of business is basically begging for bankruptcy. It's common sense. I don't care how much "artistic merit" a movie has if it's boring enough to put me to sleep.

Exactly... stop nitpicking over every little thing. People love to complain that characters aren't deep enough or everything is too cliché. Look, if they kill off enough people, blow up enough buildings, and the theater is packed... then it works. Just accept them for what they are: popcorn flicks. No need to treat them like masterpieces.

redowl90 said:I get that, but I don't see why you're into Kubrick then. His movies aren't exactly "entertainment"... 🙂

More nonsense...🙄

Jose Miller17 said:More nonsense...🙄

True... If all the Stanley Kubrick fans had been buried along with him, one of Hollywood's saddest stories would have been laid to rest and forgotten long ago...

redowl90 said:I get that, but I don't really see why you're into Stanley Kubrick then. I mean, his movies just don't really have that entertainment factor... 🙂

sometimes you just don't have the energy for penetration

but I guess that doesn't mean you'd turn down a smoke 🙂

well, that's just how Kubrick is, his movies are basically a blowjob

redowl90 said:Facts... If all the Stanley Kubrick fans had just been buried along with him, one of the saddest Hollywood tales would have been laid to rest long ago...

The only thing that could possibly compete with how much you don't know is your sheer, stubborn commitment to talking nonsense...

Jose Miller17 said:The only thing that can actually compete with how much you don't know is just how consistently you keep talking nonsense....

😁 😁

he he I didn't even catch that Hollywood part

quietdriver3 said:😁 😁
haha, I didn't even catch that Hollywood

redowl90 still doesn't get it... and he never will...😁😁

slywolf9 said:Fine, I'm glad I (for now) came out on top regarding WotW—but honestly, this whole debate is pointless and stupid. Both movies are garbage.

What exactly did I write back on the first page of this thread?

Man, you guys... Once you grow up, you'll finally understand Stanley Kubrick...