[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29912381]Actors, directors, everybody really had much higher standards back then[/QUOTE]
wtf? so ur saying this movie is good if you lower your standards?
that's really backwards thinking and i refuse to do it
[editline]19th May 2011[/editline]
and that's total bullshit anyway, there are way more bad movies than there are good in the 80's-90's, you just don't know about them because they're shit. if anything we have higher standards now
No, I'm saying that just because it doesn't stand up to one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time doesn't mean it's bad, especially when you factor in that now people would rather focus on the visuals than the rest of the movie.
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29912460]No, I'm saying that just because it doesn't stand up to one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time doesn't mean it's bad, especially when you factor in that now people would rather focus on the visuals than the rest of the movie.[/QUOTE]
I was just using that as an example of what it means to have actor chemistry, something that foreheads mcgee completely lacks
[QUOTE=Rusty100;29912478]I was just using that as an example of what it means to have actor chemistry, something that foreheads mcgee completely lacks[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;29864437]I know my chemistry too, there are a lot of movie greats with astonishing lead actor chemistry. I just saw Aliens at the cinema since they were showing and the relationship Ripley builds with newt is almost tangible.
Water For Elephants is so far off this to say it had good chemistry baffles me[/QUOTE]
No, you directly compared the two. You're holding it to the same standards as a movie that was made when the people who worked on it had MUCH higher standards for what they were doing.
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29912555]No, you directly compared the two. You're holding it to the same standards as a movie that was made when the people who worked on it had MUCH higher standards for what they were doing.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, the higher standards thing is total bullshit and not even a legitimate argument even if it wasn't. You can't say something is good if you have to lower your standards, because then it isn't good. Standards are important.
Second of all, are you seriously saying that just because I used an example I directly compared the films? I had seen it recently at the cinema and it was still stuck with me, that's how strong film chemistry CAN BE IN FILMS and not just ALIENS. Water for Elephants doesn't even have just okay chemistry - it has none. The emotion the movie tries to convey is all for naught if the characters do not share a realistic relationship with eachother, without the chemistry the whole thing falls apart. Yeah, I used an example from Aliens. Yeah it's got good chemistry. But so do a lot of other films. I can't list them all so I just used an example of good chemistry - I wasn't directly comparing the two films as a whole - just that one has good chemistry and one does not.
If you give me the higher standards thing again, I'll bust a nut. That's total bullshit, it's like you haven't seen 90% of 80's movies or something. High standards my ASS, that has nothing to do with it. And even if it did you can't say 'Well our standards aren't as high now so it's good for todays movies', that's bullshit for so many reasons, the first of which being that there are a lot of good movies that come out these days with fantastic character chemistry, just as there are a hell of a lot of old films with terrible chemistry. You're pulling that standards card straight outta your ass.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.