What was the last movie you watched?

PJ_Soul

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

John Wick Chapter 2

Pretty damn tone deaf. 

What do you mean? I saw it in the theatre, but can't remember it well enough to get what you're referring to. I know I liked it though, even though I prefer the Jack Reacher films over John Wick.

Um, mass shootout/shooting at a concert. Whatever, as long as it entertains, I guess.

Oh. Okay, I see. Yeah, I don't really go for that kind of thinking when it comes to films. It just feels like emotional censorship or over-sensitivity to me TBH. I don't think current events should lead to avoiding topics or events in film. On the contrary, actually. I think it makes the films more relevant.

Much more relevant to anyone with PTSD--that's for sure.

No, much more relevant to everyone. Obviously it would be pretty fucked up for filmmakers to start making their films to accommodate all the various mental illnesses or to eliminate all the "trauma triggers" that people have. Can you imagine how many subjects that would rule out?? No, I really think that sort of thinking is a seriously slippery slope. I mean, with that kind of thinking, we shouldn't have any violence in movies whatsoever, which is, of course, a very silly idea. No more war movies, no more movies dealing with violent crimes, nothing.

The Juggler

Mr. Mom

dankind

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

John Wick Chapter 2

Pretty damn tone deaf. 

What do you mean? I saw it in the theatre, but can't remember it well enough to get what you're referring to. I know I liked it though, even though I prefer the Jack Reacher films over John Wick.

Um, mass shootout/shooting at a concert. Whatever, as long as it entertains, I guess.

Oh. Okay, I see. Yeah, I don't really go for that kind of thinking when it comes to films. It just feels like emotional censorship or over-sensitivity to me TBH. I don't think current events should lead to avoiding topics or events in film. On the contrary, actually. I think it makes the films more relevant.

Much more relevant to anyone with PTSD--that's for sure.

No, much more relevant to everyone. Obviously it would be pretty fucked up for filmmakers to start making their films to accommodate all the various mental illnesses or to eliminate all the "trauma triggers" that people have. Can you imagine how many subjects that would rule out?? No, I really think that sort of thinking is a seriously slippery slope. I mean, with that kind of thinking, we should have any violence in movies whatsoever, which is, of course, a very silly idea. No more war movies, no more movies dealing with violent crimes, nothing.

We can agree to disagree.

I wrote my thesis on the aesthetics of violence in film, so I'm not in any way suggesting this imaginary slippery slope fallacy that you and every other AMT poster like to bring up; I'm merely stating that the filmmakers were a little delinquent (or just willfully ignorant) for either filming that scene after Bataclan or leaving it in the film after Bataclan. (And if Vegas happened before the film was released, well, then, they were just plain heartless.) The reason being that it took me out of the film completely for its duration. Director's cuts and deleted scenes are fun, and that's where I think a scene such as this belonged considering the timing of its release. I'm sure that it was well choreographed and all other kinds of awesome, but my mind certainly went elsewhere while the scene played out. And I imagine that other viewers were taken out of the scene as well.

Plus, John Wick is more badass when he's kicking ass unarmed. Duh!

I'm in no way advocating less violence in film--hell, Bad Boys II is one of my all-time favorite films specifically because of its hilariously nihilistic disregard for basically all human life (and death!)--my argument is that it's just bad filmmaking to include a scene that easily distracts your audience from your art. Unless, of course, your art is political/topical, but this is a John Wick movie we're discussing.

KC138045

The Juggler said:

Mr. Mom

2/20 2/21 whatever it takes  

dankind

KC138045 said:

The Juggler said:

Mr. Mom

2/20 2/21 whatever it takes  

:rofl:

The Juggler

dankind said:

KC138045 said:

The Juggler said:

Mr. Mom

2/20 2/21 whatever it takes  

:rofl:

Forgot how much I loved this movie back in the day. Jack Butler is an American Hero.

eeriepadave

The Juggler said:

dankind said:

KC138045 said:

The Juggler said:

Mr. Mom

2/20 2/21 whatever it takes  

:rofl:

Forgot how much I loved this movie back in the day. Jack Butler is an American Hero.

i had (maybe still have that on VHS) and I never have seen it.

KC138045

eeriepadave said:

The Juggler said:

dankind said:

KC138045 said:

The Juggler said:

Mr. Mom

2/20 2/21 whatever it takes  

:rofl:

Forgot how much I loved this movie back in the day. Jack Butler is an American Hero.

i had (maybe still have that on VHS) and I never have seen it.

I have it on DVD and its been on HBO lately.  Its a must watch every time it comes on.

"Victor? How could it be Victor, he had a vasectomy.  It didn't take?"  :rofl:

PJ_Soul

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

John Wick Chapter 2

Pretty damn tone deaf. 

What do you mean? I saw it in the theatre, but can't remember it well enough to get what you're referring to. I know I liked it though, even though I prefer the Jack Reacher films over John Wick.

Um, mass shootout/shooting at a concert. Whatever, as long as it entertains, I guess.

Oh. Okay, I see. Yeah, I don't really go for that kind of thinking when it comes to films. It just feels like emotional censorship or over-sensitivity to me TBH. I don't think current events should lead to avoiding topics or events in film. On the contrary, actually. I think it makes the films more relevant.

Much more relevant to anyone with PTSD--that's for sure.

No, much more relevant to everyone. Obviously it would be pretty fucked up for filmmakers to start making their films to accommodate all the various mental illnesses or to eliminate all the "trauma triggers" that people have. Can you imagine how many subjects that would rule out?? No, I really think that sort of thinking is a seriously slippery slope. I mean, with that kind of thinking, we should have any violence in movies whatsoever, which is, of course, a very silly idea. No more war movies, no more movies dealing with violent crimes, nothing.

We can agree to disagree.

I wrote my thesis on the aesthetics of violence in film, so I'm not in any way suggesting this imaginary slippery slope fallacy that you and every other AMT poster like to bring up; I'm merely stating that the filmmakers were a little delinquent (or just willfully ignorant) for either filming that scene after Bataclan or leaving it in the film after Bataclan. (And if Vegas happened before the film was released, well, then, they were just plain heartless.) The reason being that it took me out of the film completely for its duration. Director's cuts and deleted scenes are fun, and that's where I think a scene such as this belonged considering the timing of its release. I'm sure that it was well choreographed and all other kinds of awesome, but my mind certainly went elsewhere while the scene played out. And I imagine that other viewers were taken out of the scene as well.

Plus, John Wick is more badass when he's kicking ass unarmed. Duh!

I'm in no way advocating less violence in film--hell, Bad Boys II is one of my all-time favorite films specifically because of its hilariously nihilistic disregard for basically all human life (and death!)--my argument is that it's just bad filmmaking to include a scene that easily distracts your audience from your art. Unless, of course, your art is political/topical, but this is a John Wick movie we're discussing.

Imaginary slippery slope fallacy? FYI, I'm actually not generally believer in the slippery slope theory either; I don't think it applies to most subjects, assuming logic is applied in the execution of regulation. I just think that it applies to this one theoretically because okay, people are offended by this.... So what's keeping filmmakers from constantly considering that factor?? Nothing much, if that's what the public comes to expect. And you know what, I don't generally give a damn about people being offended by things. I think the state of being offended is given way too much credit. I guess the same would apply to those who feel taken out of the film because a scene reminds them of some upsetting event (no offense, lol). Hell, I would think the most prevalent feeling for those who thought about real concert shootings at all by watching would be for it to have a stronger emotional impact, which is a good thing.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

John Wick Chapter 2

Pretty damn tone deaf. 

What do you mean? I saw it in the theatre, but can't remember it well enough to get what you're referring to. I know I liked it though, even though I prefer the Jack Reacher films over John Wick.

Um, mass shootout/shooting at a concert. Whatever, as long as it entertains, I guess.

Oh. Okay, I see. Yeah, I don't really go for that kind of thinking when it comes to films. It just feels like emotional censorship or over-sensitivity to me TBH. I don't think current events should lead to avoiding topics or events in film. On the contrary, actually. I think it makes the films more relevant.

wasn't there a Schwarzenegger film that was pushed back for that? was it the title or the content? Collateral Damage I think?

edit: it was b/c of 9/11. 

The September 11, 2001 attacks affected the release and editing of the final film. The original trailer was scrapped because it showed a major bomb attack in the United States. The film was originally scheduled to be released on October 5, 2001, but it was postponed due to its terrorism theme and eventually released on February 8, 2002. The premiere was held four days earlier.[1] Collateral Damage was also supposed to include Colombian actress Sofía Vergara in the role of an airplane hijacker; however the scene where Vergara would hijack a plane was cut from the film.[2] The film made $78 million worldwide against its $85 million budget.[3] Warner Brothers released the DVD in the United States on July 30, 2002.[4]

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

John Wick Chapter 2

Pretty damn tone deaf. 

What do you mean? I saw it in the theatre, but can't remember it well enough to get what you're referring to. I know I liked it though, even though I prefer the Jack Reacher films over John Wick.

Um, mass shootout/shooting at a concert. Whatever, as long as it entertains, I guess.

Oh. Okay, I see. Yeah, I don't really go for that kind of thinking when it comes to films. It just feels like emotional censorship or over-sensitivity to me TBH. I don't think current events should lead to avoiding topics or events in film. On the contrary, actually. I think it makes the films more relevant.

wasn't there a Schwarzenegger film that was pushed back for that? was it the title or the content? Collateral Damage I think?

I don't know, sounds likely. I remember after 9/11 some movie that involved planes into buildings got scrapped altogether or something like that. I also remember that I'm Your Man by Leonard Cohen was pulled from NYC retailers because First We Take Manhattan is on it. That frustrated me a lot.

F Me In The Brain

dankind said: 

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

John Wick Chapter 2

Pretty damn tone deaf. 

What do you mean? I saw it in the theatre, but can't remember it well enough to get what you're referring to. I know I liked it though, even though I prefer the Jack Reacher films over John Wick.

Um, mass shootout/shooting at a concert. Whatever, as long as it entertains, I guess.

Oh. Okay, I see. Yeah, I don't really go for that kind of thinking when it comes to films. It just feels like emotional censorship or over-sensitivity to me TBH. I don't think current events should lead to avoiding topics or events in film. On the contrary, actually. I think it makes the films more relevant.

Much more relevant to anyone with PTSD--that's for sure.

No, much more relevant to everyone. Obviously it would be pretty fucked up for filmmakers to start making their films to accommodate all the various mental illnesses or to eliminate all the "trauma triggers" that people have. Can you imagine how many subjects that would rule out?? No, I really think that sort of thinking is a seriously slippery slope. I mean, with that kind of thinking, we should have any violence in movies whatsoever, which is, of course, a very silly idea. No more war movies, no more movies dealing with violent crimes, nothing.

We can agree to disagree.

I wrote my thesis on the aesthetics of violence in film, so I'm not in any way suggesting this imaginary slippery slope fallacy that you and every other AMT poster like to bring up; I'm merely stating that the filmmakers were a little delinquent (or just willfully ignorant) for either filming that scene after Bataclan or leaving it in the film after Bataclan. (And if Vegas happened before the film was released, well, then, they were just plain heartless.) The reason being that it took me out of the film completely for its duration. Director's cuts and deleted scenes are fun, and that's where I think a scene such as this belonged considering the timing of its release. I'm sure that it was well choreographed and all other kinds of awesome, but my mind certainly went elsewhere while the scene played out. And I imagine that other viewers were taken out of the scene as well.

Plus, John Wick is more badass when he's kicking ass unarmed. Duh!

I'm in no way advocating less violence in film--hell, Bad Boys II is one of my all-time favorite films specifically because of its hilariously nihilistic disregard for basically all human life (and death!)--my argument is that it's just bad filmmaking to include a scene that easily distracts your audience from your art. Unless, of course, your art is political/topical, but this is a John Wick movie we're discussing.

This makes total sense.
As far as John Wick vs Jack Reacher?
Tom Cruise is unwatchable at this point, for me.  That first Reacher movie was so awful I will never watch another.  
As Charles Barkley would say - turrble 

F Me In The Brain

I was thinking about going to the movies tonight but the movies at the pimp theatre near me (recliners are a must) are ones I have already seen or don't care to.  Jurrasic Suck doesn't interest me.  Boring.

Hobbes

F Me In The Brain said:

I was thinking about going to the movies tonight but the movies at the pimp theatre near me (recliners are a must) are ones I have already seen or don't care to.  Jurrasic Suck doesn't interest me.  Boring.

Going Solo, again?

dankind

Hobbes said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I was thinking about going to the movies tonight but the movies at the pimp theatre near me (recliners are a must) are ones I have already seen or don't care to.  Jurrasic Suck doesn't interest me.  Boring.

Going Solo, again?

New Sicario movie is out.

F Me In The Brain

Lol.  Yes, solo again.

I saw Sicario is out.  I thought the first one was OK.  Perhaps will take a look at that.

dankind

If nothing else, Benicio del Toro is always awesome. 

Hobbes

dankind said:

If nothing else, Benicio del Toro is always awesome. 

Yup.

PJ_Soul

F Me In The Brain said:

dankind said: 

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

John Wick Chapter 2

Pretty damn tone deaf. 

What do you mean? I saw it in the theatre, but can't remember it well enough to get what you're referring to. I know I liked it though, even though I prefer the Jack Reacher films over John Wick.

Um, mass shootout/shooting at a concert. Whatever, as long as it entertains, I guess.

Oh. Okay, I see. Yeah, I don't really go for that kind of thinking when it comes to films. It just feels like emotional censorship or over-sensitivity to me TBH. I don't think current events should lead to avoiding topics or events in film. On the contrary, actually. I think it makes the films more relevant.

Much more relevant to anyone with PTSD--that's for sure.

No, much more relevant to everyone. Obviously it would be pretty fucked up for filmmakers to start making their films to accommodate all the various mental illnesses or to eliminate all the "trauma triggers" that people have. Can you imagine how many subjects that would rule out?? No, I really think that sort of thinking is a seriously slippery slope. I mean, with that kind of thinking, we should have any violence in movies whatsoever, which is, of course, a very silly idea. No more war movies, no more movies dealing with violent crimes, nothing.

We can agree to disagree.

I wrote my thesis on the aesthetics of violence in film, so I'm not in any way suggesting this imaginary slippery slope fallacy that you and every other AMT poster like to bring up; I'm merely stating that the filmmakers were a little delinquent (or just willfully ignorant) for either filming that scene after Bataclan or leaving it in the film after Bataclan. (And if Vegas happened before the film was released, well, then, they were just plain heartless.) The reason being that it took me out of the film completely for its duration. Director's cuts and deleted scenes are fun, and that's where I think a scene such as this belonged considering the timing of its release. I'm sure that it was well choreographed and all other kinds of awesome, but my mind certainly went elsewhere while the scene played out. And I imagine that other viewers were taken out of the scene as well.

Plus, John Wick is more badass when he's kicking ass unarmed. Duh!

I'm in no way advocating less violence in film--hell, Bad Boys II is one of my all-time favorite films specifically because of its hilariously nihilistic disregard for basically all human life (and death!)--my argument is that it's just bad filmmaking to include a scene that easily distracts your audience from your art. Unless, of course, your art is political/topical, but this is a John Wick movie we're discussing.

This makes total sense.
As far as John Wick vs Jack Reacher?
Tom Cruise is unwatchable at this point, for me.  That first Reacher movie was so awful I will never watch another.  
As Charles Barkley would say - turrble 

Well, I'm a huge fan of Tom Cruise movies - can't think of a single one that I don't enjoy. So I'm sure that helps. While I really enjoy the John Wick movies too, I find them a little lacking in terms of the storyline.

F Me In The Brain

I really like his older movies - I think the last one I loved was The Last Samurai.
Recent?
Mostly I cannot stomach them.  I guess Ghost Protocol wasn't too bad but that was a while ago.  He was great in Tropic Thunder but that was a small part.