MovieChat Forums > Dalton
avatar

Dalton (296)


Posts




Replies


Now THAT'S funny. I saw it on a flight from Chicago to Los Angeles. It was so bad I nearly walked out. What really makes the opening theme interesting is that (after the portent of doom announced by the horns and tolling bell) in musical terms it's literally an upside down march, with the melody (representing the survivors) rising, halting and then rising again repeatedly. Sometimes things like this come off as too "on the nose", but John Williams pulled it off convincingly and it doesn't seem forced. People tend to forget that, yes, Williams was creating fine movie scores prior to Jaws and Star Wars. It was a model. I think it still exists and is on display somewhere in So. Cal. It's fairly obvious watching now on blu-ray that the ship is about a 15 foot long model. The one thing they can never get right when using model ships in movies is that water doesn't scale down and move right. The sfx crews typically add soap to the water to reduce surface tension and shoot at a higher frame rate, but it still doesn't look convincing. However I can tell you I was impressed enough seeing it in the theater in 1973 as an 11 year-old. The opening lumbering theme music seemed to psychologically add size and weight to the model. If there's a point other than making a profit, I guess you could argue it might get a relative handful of stubborn people who would never watch an "old cartoon" into the theater to enjoy the same story. (There are also people who won't watch black and white films or won't tolerate classical acting.) But I'd argue all these Disney animated movie stories are rather simplistic - in fact specifically chosen for that reason - and were only enlivened and made worthy of fresh attention by the creative animation. Why cater to unimaginative fools who demand everything "look real"? It's the 4th film in the "In Theaters" list - front and center every time I come to the site. Eventually, it will be off the list and no one will be tempted to come to this board to post because they'd have to remember the title and type it in. Unless you want to be a smart ass and post a comment every 10 minutes so the poster remains visible on the Trending list. Actually, I think that's a good idea and you should do it. It would be a very good use of your time. Anyone who denies this blatantly obvious fact is either a liar or a cuck. The thing that gets me is that, even overlooking Feig (who is an obvious cuck: [url] https://twitter.com/mombot/status/826365800009265153[/url]), everyone in position to greenlight and oversee production of this travesty was so hellbent on the misandry that they let it override their desire for profit. They KNEW it would fail and did it anyway. And that seems to be the rule in Hollywood these days. They haven't learned the lesson yet - that even stupid, ignorant, Neanderthal males don't like to be constantly insulted, maligned and hectored under the guise of "entertainment". My guess is there are a hell of a lot of guilty men in Hollywood - true misogynists and sex criminals - that they are willing to do anything to cover their tracks. Everyone knows what the term "casting couch" means. There is no industry more guilty of unrepentant misogyny than Hollywood. And no more hypocritical industry either. What better way to avoid scrutiny and placate activists than to establish their "feminist ally" bonafides by making a male-bashing film like this? Um, that's not the impression I'm getting from the reports. Daniel Craig is leaving, and this woman is taking the 007 code name. That does NOT imply the producers plan on her only being a supporting or one-time character. Otherwise they'd introduce her as 005 or 003 - or something other than 007. They do seem to be hedging their bet by making this a pass-the-torch movie. But make no mistake. If Bond 25 does well at the box office, the producers will take it as a sign that the audience is accepting of the new direction and they'll run with her as the new "alpha male" of the series. And the funny thing is, they're doing it ostensibly because James Bond is this egregious example of "toxic masculinity" but the black woman will likely behave the same way (or worse) but then be seen as an example of a "strong independent woman". I take offense at the term "gender swap" to describe what Hollywood has been doing to the movies the last few years. It implies they're also changing characters and roles that were originally female to male - that Hollywood isn't specifically engaged in promoting a feminist, anti-male agenda. Can anyone show me one well-known, long-running, iconic female character that has been changed to male or one franchise meant to appeal primarily to a female audience that has been retooled to appeal to men? I'm sure some smart ass will come up with one obscure example. But overall it isn't happening. Which makes all your examples (Wonder woman, Lara Croft, Snow White) especially ridiculous. Hell, if someone suggested the next Bond would be a black woman even 5 years ago it would have been considered just a dumb joke. View all replies >