Hellspawn28 wrote:GotengoXGodzilla wrote:The movie is from 1994. Cant expect TOO much.
Don't know why you hate 1994 when it was a fantastic year for films. Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump, Hoop Dreams, Ed Wood, the finale to the Colors Trilogy (Red), just to name a few. Probably the best year for movies from the '90s.
1994 seems to be hit or miss as well since 1994 give us a lot of shitty movies too like Blue Chips, Color of Night, Double Dragon, Junior, Neverending Story III, North, On Deadly Ground, The Specialist, Star Trek Generations, Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4: The Next Generation, and Wyatt Earp. 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995 and 1999 seem to be the best years of US cinema in my opinion.
wataru wrote:1982 had Blade Runner and that beats 1994 and 1939.
Im pretty sure today's directors, producers and writers arent being influenced by those movies, GxG. Theyre generational. Blade Runner is just as important to today's generation of film makers as Wizard of Oz was to the next 1-2 generations.
...Blade Runner is just a better film.
wataru wrote:As you claim to be a filmmaker, please link me to any website or iMDB of any film you've made?
wataru wrote:Interesting. Why is it young film makers always want to most of eerie post-apocalyptic film? It's always some quiet, no-soundtrack bit of film with some small tidbit of good ol' boy knowledge (Petra's reason for not firing).
...Blade Runner is still better.
GotengoXGodzilla wrote: It's based off of a 1916 short film by D.W. Griffith, called "The Female Of The Species".
dogora wrote:GotengoXGodzilla wrote: It's based off of a 1916 short film by D.W. Griffith, called "The Female Of The Species".
i think i remember seeing this in school, but i have seen many silent films, nice vid thogh.
i saw v for vendeta again last night, anyone else seen it?
wataru wrote:No, I meant Blade Runner is better then Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind and Stagecoach. I dug you're short film. I actually LIKE post-apocalyptic features. Eastwood (from old TK) makes films too, I dig on his stuff though he has nothing out yet...
I find ALOT of the films from the early part of the 20th century very LACKING in real story and making up for it with visuals and star appeal.
It's a problem of today as well - in more then one type of media. Some films can blend it flawlessly, some just fail so hard it's sickening. As a major film buff, I cannot get behind movies like Gone With The Wind or Wizard of Oz because compared to the subject matter theyre based on theyre EXTREMELY flawed and wrong. The novels of Oz are not gay singing musicals of color. The Civil War and slavery was not a technicolor romance of beautiful belles and swashbuckling men.
Theyre not true to the subject. They're not even really adaptations. Theyre basically 'Look at this!' films. The base story is OK but they trample it..
wataru wrote:You want to see a historically accurate Civil War film? Watch Glory.
Wizard of Oz IS like Wonderland. But the movie is a technicolor shadow of the novels.
Are these films BAD? No. Are these films GOOD? Sure. Are these films accurate? Hell no. Is Blade Runner better? Yes. Why? Because it is what it is - a steampunk dystopian sci-opera semi-action drama. It's not Star Wars or Star Trek. It's not Hillstreet Blues, Blue Steel or Body Heat. It's a movie that IS what it IS and isnt some film maker saying "Let's just do this shit...",
Theyre just like what Lucas is doing (did) to his films. Story second, whateverthefuckwecanjamintomaketheaudiencesayWOW!
Proofpoochie wrote:I fail to see what this pointless arguement has to do with Superhero films but, whatever.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest