CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE (Gareth Edwards, 2016)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE (Gareth Edwards, 2016) - Page 24

post #1151 of 4021

Such bland flavor!

post #1152 of 4021

About as emotive as Aaron Taylor-Johnson.

post #1153 of 4021

Aaron Taylor Johnson-brand sawdust cookies

 

you'll swear there's something in your mouth!

post #1154 of 4021

The Bryan Cranston ones come free, but they don't last long.

post #1155 of 4021

I still don't get the whole 'Johnson was bland in Godzilla' thing.  Well I guess I do, but I make no fetish of huge emotion.  In fact its kind of refreshing to see it put in the background.  I maintain that he's doing more than you think with his face, in a big screen subtlety kind of way, and doing quite a  bit with his body too.

Every little pause and hesitation stacks up as a guy who is 'feeling it' in these huge situations.  This counts for a lot in a movie with little dialogue.

And really, Cranston's character was so unhinged you wanna be careful what you wish for with more of him in the movie.

Sure the bro-tastic position is everyone wants to see Heisenberg versus Godzilla "Dude that'd be so fuck'n awesome!"  and it was false advertising, man, having him in the movie  and we wuz robbed(did anyone go and see Red Tails based on this?  They wanted Heisenberg versus the Nazis but only got some racist asshole officer. Booo!).  But the man is occasionally called on to play other characters even though they tend to look similar.  And that character wasn't going to come down from his crazy yelling any time soon, even though he was right about everything.

 

Anyway, as I've said before, I was with Johnson all the way.  I don't dispute the flaws in the film necessarily.  But it carried me along despite them, characters and all.  I know this is the apologism dished out to every shitty blockbuster, but I like to think I'm harder to please than that.  But I don't really know.

 

Between Godzilla and Monsters I do think Edwards might underestimate how strong the connection to his characters and the audience is, in the use of this lighter touch.  But it's not yet a deal breaker.  Just maybe holding the films back a little at worst.

post #1156 of 4021

What made Edward's Godzilla work so well is the fact that Godzilla and the Mutos are treated like a force of nature, there's no heavy plotting and it's just about those characters reacting to the monster. It's sort of like if Alfred Hitchcock did Godzilla. It's all about slow pacing and deliberately building up suspense and it worked so well because that is a rare quality in cinema these days. These days it's all about flashy, in-your-face action, with cookie cutter plots with very typical (or "zany") characters at the cost of absolutely no sense of dread or suspense, which are elements you can't possibly have in your film if you don't slow down, deliberately pace things out and when it comes to your characters keep the audience on a strict need to know basis. You have to keep the audience in the dark.

The fact is that people who hated (for the most part, because yes the characters were weak I'll admit) this movie were expecting in-your-face typical nonsense, which might be understandable because we're talking about Godzilla here, but truthfully this movie had much more in common with the original classic than any of them since and for me and a lot of other people it was just refreshing and bold to see something that really tried to break the mold.

post #1157 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsnotatumor View Post
 

there's no heavy plotting and it's just about those characters reacting to the monster. It's sort of like if Alfred Hitchcock did Godzilla. It's all about slow pacing and deliberately building up suspense and it worked so well because that is a rare quality in cinema these days.

oh man, it's not at all Hitchcockian.  If it was actually by Hitchcock, there wouldn't be heavy plotting, but there would be PRECISE plotting.  And characters wouldn't just react.  The drama of their situation would be very very clear.

 

I admire the showmanship of slow pacing and building up suspense... but hoooooo-boy, did I not feel the suspense in this movie (probably because of Johnson's non-character).  I felt the slow pacing though!  Good mood too.

post #1158 of 4021

Shush Nooj. We Godzilla 2014 fans not only outnumber you, but are already formulating plans to hide your car again!

 

This time you will never find the Noojmobile! [Insert evil laugh here]

post #1159 of 4021
even Edwards has forgotten about his dullzilla

moved onto more star war pastures
post #1160 of 4021

post #1161 of 4021

If Godzilla shows up in Rogue One, I'm going to laugh my fucking head off.

post #1162 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcjsavannah View Post
 

If Godzilla shows up in Rogue One, I'm going to laugh my fucking head off.

 

SPOILER:

 

post #1163 of 4021
MichaelM, Your use of...Godzilla The Hanna-Barbarian, is...Epic!
post #1164 of 4021
Godzookie or GTFO.
post #1165 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsnotatumor View Post
 

What made Edward's Godzilla work so well is the fact that Godzilla and the Mutos are treated like a force of nature, there's no heavy plotting and it's just about those characters reacting to the monster. It's sort of like if Alfred Hitchcock did Godzilla. It's all about slow pacing and deliberately building up suspense and it worked so well because that is a rare quality in cinema these days. These days it's all about flashy, in-your-face action, with cookie cutter plots with very typical (or "zany") characters at the cost of absolutely no sense of dread or suspense, which are elements you can't possibly have in your film if you don't slow down, deliberately pace things out and when it comes to your characters keep the audience on a strict need to know basis. You have to keep the audience in the dark.

The fact is that people who hated (for the most part, because yes the characters were weak I'll admit) this movie were expecting in-your-face typical nonsense, which might be understandable because we're talking about Godzilla here, but truthfully this movie had much more in common with the original classic than any of them since and for me and a lot of other people it was just refreshing and bold to see something that really tried to break the mold.


Then who were you feeling suspense for?

 

Because usually suspense comes from getting to know the characters and hoping they come out okay. Sadly, the one could have hung our hat on, feel into a fucking hole and died on a helicopter. Thanks, production company, for only affording him for so many hours. 

post #1166 of 4021
I feel like I'm going to have to watch Dullzilla just to figure out this thread.
post #1167 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED!!!

 

You SHOULD watch it, Lightning.  You might enjoy it!

post #1168 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightning Slim View Post

I feel like I'm going to have to watch Dullzilla just to figure out this thread.


You should because its awesome! Edwards, much like Spielberg did with Jaws, evaluated B movie material to make an A level movie. Now I'm not saying Godzilla will go down as a classic, but it will be looked back on as a great movie.


Edited by Chaz - 7/21/16 at 6:13pm
post #1169 of 4021
I think it's stellar. But around here it seems to depend on how long you can stare into The Abyss:



Nooj fell in upon his first viewing. His mind has yet to mend.
post #1170 of 4021
I was underwhelmed the first time. I went to see it again the next week to see if it played better.

I fell asleep.
post #1171 of 4021
You contributed to the BO more than I did!

Still down for the multi-monster sequel? I'm sure Lick-Ass won't be around.
post #1172 of 4021
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is an expert MILF hunter.
post #1173 of 4021
That because his eyes are rophenol.
post #1174 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Aaron Taylor-Johnson is an expert MILF hunter.

Everyone gets one talent.
post #1175 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynis View Post

I think it's stellar. But around here it seems to depend on how long you can stare into The Abyss:



Nooj fell in upon his first viewing. His mind has yet to mend.

I think he's a terrible actor, but I can't deny that the dude is dreamy as fuck.

 

He also happens to have a terrific ass. Seriously, his butt is astonishing. 

 

I'd see him as #buttgoals, but my ass is nicer than his. I AM brazilian, after all.

post #1176 of 4021
I have no feelings for him one way or the other.
post #1177 of 4021

Yeah, despite my constant criticism of his character in Dullzilla (because I think the script does him no favors), I mostly just don't consider him at all.

post #1178 of 4021
I honestly don't remember him in the movie other than a look he may have had in a shot.
post #1179 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

I have no feelings for him one way or the other.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

Yeah, despite my constant criticism of his character in Dullzilla (because I think the script does him no favors), I mostly just don't consider him at all.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

I honestly don't remember him in the movie other than a look he may have had in a shot.

You wouldn't be saying that if you'd seen his butt in "Anna Karenina".

post #1180 of 4021
We get it. You want to grind him up.
post #1181 of 4021
That's my big saving grace for him: KARENINA is where it's at, and he's good in it!
post #1182 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynis View Post

That's my big saving grace for him: KARENINA is where it's at, and he's good in it!

No, he's not. 

 

 

But his butt is.

 

 

He was the worst part in that, otherwise very good film. He never showed anything other than "being handsome (with a great butt)" that would make a woman like Anna abandon everything.

 

 

The novel paints both characters as smart, complex people. In the movie, the whole tragedy happens because Anna sees him and wants to bang him. 

 

I'll never forget the british couple behind me after the film ended (why they were watching this film during their brazilian holiday is beyond me):

 

The woman just turned to her boyfriend and said, "wait, this is one of the greatest novels of all time? It's just a story about a horny c**t who leaves her husband for another horny c**t."

post #1183 of 4021
When it comes to adaptations, I tend to completely severe my ties and expectations from the source material and judge them on their own merits, what they are trying to do. Five minutes into that fucking movie and you know this isn't some die-hard, faithful production of this literary masterpiece.

This is a storyteller having fun by bringing something lush, textural, operatic, and wild in ambition. It's similar to seeing a ballet from a renowed director: You're watching them go wild within a tried and true tale, not necessarily exploring all of its themes or subtext. In that respect, nothing more is needed from the actors in Wright's adaptation. To say they did a bad job, just because he was written that way is a bit short-sighted. To be a handsome and suave motherfucker is all that was needed. And he delivered in spades.
post #1184 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynis View Post

When it comes to adaptations, I tend to completely severe my ties and expectations from the source material and judge them on their own merits, what they are trying to do. Five minutes into that fucking movie and you know this isn't some die-hard, faithful production of this literary masterpiece.

This is a storyteller having fun by bringing something lush, textural, operatic, and wild in ambition. It's similar to seeing a ballet from a renowed director: You're watching them go wild within a tried and true tale, not necessarily exploring all of its themes or subtext. In that respect, nothing more is needed from the actors in Wright's adaptation. To say they did a bad job, just because he was written that way is a bit short-sighted. To be a handsome and suave motherfucker is all that was needed. And he delivered in spades.

Oh, I LOVE Joe Wright AND his work in this film (which I like a lot, too). I just don't think he provided Anna with enough depth to be this amazing woman or Vronsky with enough depth to make this supposedly amazing woman leave her husband. It was just a "hot married woman meets a hot man who is not her husband and ruins her life" story. They basically reduced the book to a sexy, "Twilight"/"Fifty Shades of Grey" type romp for said audience whenever it came to the main love story. If the film had lacked the supporting characters and/or the theatre styling, one would think it'd been based on one of those paperback romance novels with a painting of Fabio on the cover. The bits between Domhnal (surely that's not spelled right) Gleeson and Alicia Vikander are utterly fantastic. The theatrical framing device worked really well, too.

Also, "I tend to sever", not "severe". (sorry, English teacher mode coming through ;)

post #1185 of 4021
I get that completely. It was a bit jarring when the film had begun. If only because with the previous adaptations that Wright had done, I felt he really nailed the pathos and machinations, as well as being outright beautiful visually. And with KARENINA he threw all that shit out of the window and basked in a beautiful, but slightly vacuous experience. But I set my brain accordingly and ate it up.

And thank you, I appreciate corrections. But I am fiercely drunk.
post #1186 of 4021
The...Best news is...Gareth Edwards is not continuing to Reign in Godzilla in part 2!
post #1187 of 4021

I'm mostly team nooj on this.

 

I mean, aesthetically, I totally agree, Godzilla is often the bomb diggity, I completely appreciate the perspective, philosophy, sensibility, craft, execution...all that shit. It was a great way for Edwards to approach the size and action and scale of the movie he was making and he and his crew really deliver on a technical level. If in its story it had been less conventional and character-focused and had a broader POV or maybe even just if Cranston's character had been the protagonist, I'd be labeling the thing a triumph and an awesome subversion of this genre's place in Hollywood and how it is usually handled.

 

but instead after Cranston exits, the story still stays very much focused on its characters and those characters are just as boring and lifeless and clichéd as they are in many modern disaster movies (because, make no mistake, it's very much a disaster movie). maybe even moreso.

 

I'm excited for Rogue One, though, because as long as it has some decent characters that don't all die in the first act and the story's got a bit of oomph to it, I have no doubt in Edwards delivering on the aesthetic and setpiece execution. it'll probably have more real vision in one action scene than JJ's got in half his oeuvre.

post #1188 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

oh man, it's not at all Hitchcockian.  If it was actually by Hitchcock, there wouldn't be heavy plotting, but there would be PRECISE plotting.  And characters wouldn't just react.  The drama of their situation would be very very clear.

 

I admire the showmanship of slow pacing and building up suspense... but hoooooo-boy, did I not feel the suspense in this movie (probably because of Johnson's non-character).  I felt the slow pacing though!  Good mood too.

Oh come on, I did not say it was exactly like a Hitchcock film I said it was "sorta like if Alfred Hitchcock did Godzilla". Your mileage could absolutely vary on that. But if you do not feel some comparison to that style of filmmaking is warranted here, and if you just weren't feeling suspense (perhaps not in the sense of a nail-biting Hitchcockian suspense/thriller) in 2014 Godzilla, I have to say that I think you're just being unfair to this film and utterly exaggerating what is meant by suspense because what that's really all about in terms of film language, is simply about setting up audience expectations, it is about the pacing, it is about playing up an audiences fears against what they actually see, of course it works much better when you care more about the characters but that's subjective. Objectively, Edwards was absolutely inspired by films like Jaws and Alien (insofar as the aspects of those films which were directly influenced by the Master of Suspense) in terms of how they portrayed the monster. His restrained approach, used to build up audience anticipation, the way the plot actually is deliberately paced and the story plays out is very much in the fashion of a high suspense thriller. 

The film I watched definitely played out as a suspense thriller/monster movie hybrid. Whether or not the human drama worked for you doesn't change that, whether or not the movie had you in suspense doesn't change that either. Did you ever see Disturbia?

You can't just claim that Edward's wasn't even going for that and expect to be taken very seriously just because he's not as precise and skilled at it as the absolute master of the artform, and there are numerous Hitchcock knock-offs one could cite which were much less successful in this regard. Just the very idea of hiding this gigantic monster and not having it in your face all the time, was an idea worth exploring on film. 

And I would argue in this day in age, was exactly what it took to make the monster work again. Aaron Taylor Johnson's performance notwithstanding.

Hell I'll even go so far to say the movie on the whole didn't really work for me either, that it is certainly no classic, and that it is a film I probably won't revisit, but what did work for me is the fact that Hitchcock does Godzilla (with dashes of other filmmakers/genres) was what  Edward's attempted to make here. For even trying to do it and being as successful as it were, and managing to make Godzilla cool again and redefining what you can do in a blockbuster for modern audiences (i.e. the exactly opposite of shit shows like Jurassic Park 4 or anything produced by Michael Bay) in an age where it's all about the toys, Edward's is deservedly praised for the film and people are anticipating what he does next.

Given his most recent outputting, I for one am very much looking forward to Rogue One. It will be fun to see the Death Star playing a role not entirely too dissimilar from Godzilla's monsters. 


Edited by Itsnotatumor - 7/18/16 at 8:53am
post #1189 of 4021

So wait…Rogue One is about a bunch of wooden characters that we aren’t invested in that go looking for the secret plans to a giant lizard that destroyed the planet that our beloved Bryan Cranston lived on?

So confused…

post #1190 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sincanaguaca View Post
 

So wait…Rogue One is about a bunch of wooden characters that we aren’t invested in that go looking for the secret plans to a giant lizard that destroyed the planet that our beloved Bryan Cranston lived on?

So confused…

No but I bet you good money that the Empire makes some last ditch effort to unleash the weapon in the film and the characters find a way to temporarily shut it down. 

post #1191 of 4021

Will the AT-ATs (or whatever the hell they are called in this one) end up having sex at a gas station?

 

Is the mysterious figure in the bacta tank in the teaser Bryan Cranston? 

 

Will Bryan Cranston have sex with an AT-AT at a gas station?

 

 

Did anyone ask these questions of the panel?

post #1192 of 4021
Yeah I think I took your reference to Hitchcock accurately.

I don't get any sense of Hitchcock in Dullzilla. Not even a little. Whatever my sense of what Hitchcock would do with a Godzilla movie, it wouldn't be this at all.

Probably more Spielbergian in terms of the terror/awe it really wants to go for... but in a way that may overly fetishize the restraint (the way Abrams fetishizes propulsive delight!).
Edited by mcnooj82 - 7/18/16 at 9:39am
post #1193 of 4021

You're right, Alfred Hitchcock would not have borrowed a play out of his own book and killed the main heroine off early in the movie.

post #1194 of 4021
Oh right!

Yeah, the transference between leads is not done well at all between Cranston and Johnson. And Cranston mostly comes off as prologue because of it.

Psycho puts us fully in Marion Crane's shoes for half the movie, kills her... and then puts in the due diligence in putting us in the shoes of a new character that cleans up her body. It's all about that scene where he's waiting for the car to sink. You WANT it to sink!
post #1195 of 4021

I didn't say it was done well.

post #1196 of 4021
But you're right. Because I DID think of Psycho in regards to the killing of Cranston.

I didn't think about it in terms of Hitchcock though. Just Psycho. Hahahah
post #1197 of 4021

I was actually thinking of Binoche's death, but Cranston's is even more analogous to that. 

post #1198 of 4021
Oh man, I don't know how you thought of that with Binoche first! She's barely a character!

Oh! I didn't realize you'd written "heroine".

Binoche is more of the mom at the beginning of Finding Nemo or any kind of Disney movie about a kid who lost a parent.
post #1199 of 4021
If a thread doesn't devolve into a conversation about "Godzilla" (2014), can it even be considered a thread?
post #1200 of 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

If a thread doesn't devolve into a conversation about "Godzilla" (2014), can it even be considered a thread?

We should start a thread called "Why does Godzilla infect everything at CHUB?"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE (Gareth Edwards, 2016)