Messages

The only ones I haven't seen theatrical screenings of are B66 and B89.

Yesterday I attended a theatrical screening of Walter Hill's The Warriors (1979), which was one of my favourite movies when I was a teenager. Now I have a ticket booked for a theatrical screening of another classic film tomorrow night: Batman: The Movie! I'm finally going to see Batman fight the exploding shark on the big screen!

Please report on how the audience reacts to West's reaction to Batman learning Catwoman's true identity. Have fun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj9s9KW7_T4

Eeek. That panel was rough to watch. Makes you yearn for a decent 4K release of the three films from Shout Factory with decent interviews where there's none of that "play up to the crowd" mentality these actors take while addressing  the audience. This is one of those bad examples of when you try to shove everyone into one room and tell them to talk. It's like The Goonies commentary where everyone was just talking over each other, like in the film, and you can't pick up on their anecdotes. One comment on the video said it best that they were disappointed that Elias Koteas wasn't there and grateful that Corey Feldman wasn't there.

Am I the only person who doesn't love this movie?

I thought I was the only one who didn't love it. I figured it was due to me overhyping Fury Road when it first came out by watching the first two before going in.

The whole George Miller unrestrained feeling felt just like when George Lucas felt unbridled to his vision for the Star Wars prequels. It seemed like everything I loved about the films were ignored for this new film. I never needed to see someone bite the head off of a two-headed lizard or flames shoot out of a guitar in a world where gas is supposedly a precious commodity.

It was also rather unintentionally comical to see Immortan Joe unleash all of that water to everyone with flat pans attempting to collect it, along with the women being rather wasteful with it posing for a wet t-shirt contest. It also frustrated me to see them stupidly place a mask over Hugh Keays-Byrne'a highly expressive face. The few traces of plot reminded me of National Lampoon's Vacation where the quest for the Green Place turns out to be a lost cause.

It might well be the case that most of the stunts were done practically, but a lot of it still looks computer animated in the final film. Because of this the action scenes lack the bone-breaking impact that made the stunts so impressive in the earlier movies, like when the guy gets hit in the head by his own bike in Mad Max 1, or when that gang member goes spinning through the air in The Road Warrior. You've also got to assess these films in the context of when they were made, and Mad Max 1 and 2 were simply more significant contributions to Australian cinema IMHO.

After seeing Furiosa this summer, I have a greater affinity for Fury Road looking much more realistic looking than Furiosa's obvious use of green screen. This was highly obvious when Furiosa ended with scenes from Fury Road. It is a shame when amazing practical effects like the ones in Fury Road get diluted with CGI add-ins and the yucky color pallet.

I often feel terrible praising the stunt work in these films, because they unfortunately caused a lot of pain for those who suffered from them. That's exactly why you won't see something like that with today's films so it shouldn't be considered a detriment to films today for wanting to avoid serious accidents or long term injuries. For example, they can't fly actors playing Superman like they did for Christopher Reeve anymore due to the back problems he later suffered from. It may look better, but it all comes at a price.

There's something to that. The theater experience does play a factor in how someone thinks of, or remembers a movie. Simply due to their own personal experience with seeing the film in a theater for the very first time. I mean, there are movies that I don't believe are particularly great movies, but did have a good theater experience with, and as a consequence, have since had some partiality towards ever since.

"The Haunting" from 1999 is one of these. Not something I've honestly had any interest in rewatching over the years, but I did have a very good theater experience with. Truth be told, the entire night after seeing the movie was fun as well, but the night got kicked off by that movie. So, subsequently, whenever I've seen something about that film pop up, I can't help but think about that night/theater experience. Definitely influencing my opinion about the movie for sure. I definitely can't deny that.

This part stood out for me. It makes me wonder if we should kick off a Fun Moviegoing Thread.

Not necessarily movie theater experiences. But positive experiences had while watching a film for the first time, whether it was in a theater or at home (or wherever).

One question I've always grappled with is to what degree is my affection for a given movie about the film itself and how much is it to do with the circumstances under which I saw the movie.

There's a lot to say, frankly. But before starting a Fun Moviegoing Experiences thread, I thought I'd at least float a trial balloon and see if anyone has any kind of interest in that.

To be clear, the criteria would be:

1- First time seeing a movie (theater or not)
2- What a positive experience that was
3- Is the movie objectively good? Or do you like it because seeing it that first time was such a vivid experience?

It could be that this is only interesting to me. But even so, I thought I'd ask.

That's a terrific idea! During COVID, I got bored one day and decided to make a complete list of every movie I ever saw at the theater by going through year by year on Wikipedia and compiling every movie ticket I've kept since I turned 20. Would be fun to reflect on them and hear from others.

It's time to return to Genesis. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is getting a 40th anniversary theatrical rerelease on June 14th. A new poster has been created by artist Matt Ferguson.

Here's the quad poster for UK cinemas.

I'm definitely going to catch a screening. I've always liked The Search for Spock, ever since I first saw it on TV back in the early nineties. Hopefully this rerelease will encourage more sci-fi enthusiasts and cinephiles to give it another chance. It's badly underrated IMO.

I wonder if this means we'll be getting a theatrical rerelease of The Voyage Home in 2026.

So far, there have only been indications of the UK getting this theatrical rerelease and none of the kind for an American release. I do hope that changes because this is my favorite of the trilogy of Star Trek films. There have been numerous rereleases of Wrath of Khan over the years and there was an opportunity to see Voyage Home back in 2021 in theaters, but to my knowledge, that hasn't been the case for Search for Spock.

The purple cowl, dress and cape ensemble has always been my favourite Catwoman costume. I don't know if it'd work in live action, but it looks good here.

I've always been a fan of this cosplay of this iteration that brilliantly used Yvonne Craig's Batgirl cowl for the mask.

https://pin.it/4nV55lvxl

I have never seen WW84, but from what I've read this picture was in the film. If that's so then I don't know what Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot were thinking. They went from talking about how the original plan of Diana leaving humanity behind is supposedly going against the character - to have her do nothing and let the Holocaust happen? It doesn't make any sense.

Absolutely correct. They were totally tone deaf on handling this character with what was established from earlier. Totally embarrassing that someone actually photoshopped that picture. It's so frustrating that they threw away a terrific opportunity to have an immortal character like Diana be the wisest and most seasoned superhero living and fighting through atrocities throughout the 20th century and how certain events could make her hardened towards humanity and how people like Superman and Batman could convince her that people are worth saving. Instead, they got too focused on how glamorous Diana should be that just draws unwanted attention and how a superhero like her suffers because a cab will stop for a man instead of her.

I can see him doing comedic parts, but I don't know about the darker stuff.
Robin Williams proved he could do both.

Watch him in Inherent Vice.

The reason I say she's self-centred is because she puts her emotions ahead of the cause that Paul and the Fremen have been fighting for and abandons Muad'dib at a difficult time when he could've used her support. This is the opposite of what she does in the novel. In the novel she's hurt by Paul marrying Irulan, but she accepts it as a necessary political move to legitimise his claim to the throne. Just as Jessica accepted her status as concubine with Leto, so Chani makes this sacrifice to help facilitate Paul's ascendancy.

The deal is that Chani in the book and other adaptations makes her a doormat character with hardly any purpose at all but to serve this truly dated sensibility of women simply accepting their place made by men. The bit from the book made me cringe when I first read it, especially how it was the final words of the book. It's necessary adapting this material to 2024 audiences to include a voice of reason to the circumstances Herbert wanted to convey about blindly following a prophecy, despite good intentions, which was an issue he faced after the first book was written and had to reiterate in the later books.

In the novel Chani puts the cause they've been fighting for ahead of her own pride or emotional satisfaction. In the movie she publically abandons Paul and seemingly rejects him out of jealousy of Irulan.

She has every right to be emotional after being told repeatedly that Paul doesn't believe in the prophecy and condemns it for the same reasons she did, only wanting to help free her people from their oppressors, and ends doing exactly the opposite of what he said. Chani isn't storming out because she's scorn over being rejected for another woman. She's upset over him betraying everything he's said he wanted to be be and causing the billions of deaths that will occur. They just want to be left alone with their way of life, not be whisked away to another to likely die over the holy war that has been started.

It's one of those changes from the source material that wouldn't have bothered me if I hadn't read the books. It works in the context of Villeneuve's version of the story. But I find it inferior and less subtle than the way Herbert ended the story. Having Chani stoically accept her lot because she loves Paula and believes in him is, for me at least, far more moving than having her run away in a rather blunt display of emotionality. But ultimately the cinematic Chani is a different character from her literary namesake. She doesn't have faith in Paul or his cause and she doesn't stand by him at the end.

I've spent many years trying to understand the wide appeal of the Dune saga and I freely admit that elements like Chani being a doormat really turned me off from it. This new adaptation is much more satisfying and I look forward to what's next. A character like Chani is more relatable than the protagonist, especially if you're like me, and totally lose your relatability when he accepts his role as their role as their prophesies savior.

I've seen some fans speculating that Chani's reaction will impact the next film, seeing as one of the central conflicts in Dune Messiah is the rivalry between her and Irulan. Some are even predicting that the ending of Part 2 is positioning Chani as the central protagonist in the next movie. Chani plays a crucial role in Dune Messiah, but she isn't the book's protagonist. Paul might be an antihero, but Dune Messiah is still his story. We'll just have to wait and see how Villeneuve handles the adaptation.

I think everyone's biggest fear is that they want Chani to be the true Muad'Dib in this adaptation. Whether or not that's worse than making it actually rain on Arrakis is all down to execution. Really hope that it isn't that predictable and we'll get a decent third part to this story that isn't as disappointing as something like The Dark Knight Rises.

I don't find the novel dated. Dune is set 20,000 years in the future. The values and customs depicted in it were never meant to reflect those of our modern western society, but rather a feudalistic Imperium that has more in common with various medieval cultures.

Right, but in our present, audiences are more interested in subversions of that system than playing it as it was. It really is dated to have the most powerful women of Dune be witches nobody can trust and that says a lot about the author's beliefs, which is a whole other rabbit hole to dive into. Thankfully, these changes have helped make this story appealing enough to be as big of a success it is now at $500 million and climbing!

The movie depicts Chani as less emotionally mature and more self-centred than her literary counterpart, and the final scene robs her of her self-sacrificing stoicism in accepting Paul's political marriage to Irulan.

I fail to see how "self-centered" Chani was depicted in this adaptation. She was clearly defined as part of the Fremen who didn't believe in the prophecies and was driven by their own lifestyle. By the end, everyone who didn't believe was either dead or blindly converted by the circumstances that unfolded, as Lady Jessica wanted it to be. I didn't find Paul to be "emotionally mature" to be barging in on the Fremen council meeting for that matter. These were all decent changes for an updated adaptation of the story, compared to the rather dated material of the original, like said acceptance of Paul and Irulan's marriage.

The Baron's death is anticlimactic. In the Lynch version he gets slashed across the face with a Gom Jabbar, poisoned, has tubes ripped out of his chest that somehow sets his antigravity harness haywire, gets blasted out of a wall into a sandstorm and is eaten by a passing worm. Now that's how a villain should get his comeuppance. By contrast, he gets off easy in the new film. The fact Paul kills him instead of Alia could also impact a future adaption of Children of Dune, since the Baron's vengeful haunting of Alia is an important plot point in that story.

The Baron in the '84 is grotesque and over the top and gets a death that warrants that. This Baron is depicted as a dangerous mass of flesh, largely reminiscent of Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now. His counterpart's death worked in that regard as well. It was very smart of Villeneuve to depict the character in this fashion, especially eliminating his pedophilic nature so that it wouldn't upset audiences seeing the only homosexual depicted in the series being represented by the villains. It also has been brought to light that Frank Herbert didn't take too kindly to his own homosexual son.

The whole absence of Alia is a result of the decision to streamline the story from years to months and was another welcome change that definitely leaves questions for how this will hopefully lead to the eventual sequels. They definitely are utilizing the laid out storylines of the books for these films instead of confining to just the individual books for their adaptations. The whole lineage of Lady Jessica with the Harkonnens came later on but was brought forth here.