I don't think this thread has been made yet.
I still have no clue why so many people complain about Unbreakable not having enough action. They are completely missing the point. Also, it's my favorite M. Night film, even though I admittedly remember little from the other films of his that I have seen. lol
I only really like M. Night's three films for Disney. Sixth Sense is a good paranormal thriller, Unbreakable is a good Superhero story, and Signs is an entertaining alien invasion story. I haven't liked anything else he's done.
As for the thread, I don't think Temple of Doom is a film totally without merit and it gets way too much guff. It's not as good as the other two films, but it's enjoyable nonetheless. Though I don't think it gets nearly as much hate anymore with Crystal Skull existing and all.
Well, it kind of seems like the same thing as "Unpopular Opinions," based on your first post, which we do have a thread for. :P
As for me:
-Among plenty of other biases, I can't stand how foreign feature-length animated films that are NOT directed by Miyazaki or at least Studio Ghibli films are pretty much guaranteed to get snubbed by the Oscars. I mean, I can say with certainty that any of Hosoda's 3 original movies were at least as good as any of the other nominations from their respective years, but good luck getting the Academy to acknowledge that. The same goes for stuff from other great anime film directors, as well as any great animated films from other countries in general.
-I feel like marketing for big-budget films has gotten into the bad habbit of showing off too much stuff in advertisements, to the point where when I actually go to see the movie, a lot of the best scenes have already been spoiled for me, and don't hold the same impact that they would have had it been left a surprise to the audience.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on March 25, 2015, 05:46:52 PMI only really like M. Night's three films for Disney. Sixth Sense is a good paranormal thriller, Unbreakable is a good Superhero story, and Signs is an entertaining alien invasion story. I haven't liked anything else he's done.
As for the thread, I don't think Temple of Doom is a film totally without merit and it gets way too much guff. It's not as good as the other two films, but it's enjoyable nonetheless. Though I don't think it gets nearly as much hate anymore with Crystal Skull existing and all.
Agreed on both counts.
Meh, it bothers me a lot. :bleh:
I watched Sixth Sense when I was a kid and some of Signs around that time. I think I've heard a lot of people say that can't take signs seriously.
I still think animation shouldn't have a seperate category in Oscars. It's a medium not a genre. It also seems that most foreign films get shoved into one category. (I could be wrong, I don't keep up with the Oscars) I think that's just stupid.
I think that it's fair to give animation its own category in order to give great animated works more exposure. And it's not like they are ineligible to be nominated in some of the same categories as live-action movies. Movies like Beauty and the Beast and Up have been nominated for Best Picture before, for example.
Signs is the first to show cracks in his style, but other than the water thing the movie is fairly well done. Starting with The Village, however, it just gets way too predictable and boring.
I watched a tiny bit of The Village as well. I'll just skip rewatching that. :sly:
The #1 thing that bothers me about the movies: When pieces of shit make more box office $$$ than good films with effort put into them.
So, some people complain that Ant-Man looks a bit too stale. Well, I can understand that, but at least it looks competent. You see, I just watched the new Terminator Genisys trailer, and all of a sudden I find it hard to complain about something like Ant-Man. That trailer was awful, and it looks like it's going to be the worst Terminator movie yet, which is saying a lot. I can't even begin to comprehend the story. It looks like one huge convoluted mess of a fan-fiction.
I think some of us might be spoiled since we don't look at too many trailers and few of them are actually any good. That said, if the worst you can say about the Ant-Man trailer was that it's "too plain" then I probably wouldn't have seen any of Nolan's Batman films. Because those trailers were awful.
Yeah, I distinctly remember not really caring that much about The Dark Knight from the trailer. I wasn't sold on Heath Ledger as The Joker, and the movie just looked like an uninspired and predictable by the numbers sequel....based on the trailer. I only even watched the movie a couple of days after opening night because a friend dragged me along and insisted that I must watch it. Needless to say, I went in with very moderate expectations and was in for quite the surprise.
I just watched a few commercials, I think. I forget. Anyway, I was pretty hyped to see the movie based off of what I heard. I was not convinced that Ledger could hold a candle to Nicholson's performance at all but boy was I wrong. Probably my favorite superhero movie now.
I still haven't seen any of the trailers for Kingsman, but apparently they make it look like a children's movie. Come to think of it, Kick-Ass had the exact same problem...
Y'no, I'm working on a film festival around here right now, and we had to watch the trailers for a lot of movies before we got to know more about our duties. Some of them are pretty bad, even though the movies are great.
Like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOMWASyKX4Y), for example. This was one of the best received films of the festival, but it doesn't look like anything, does it? And this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPBCOlK9ss8) is too boring to get across the weird but funny horror comedy that this flick is. This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk_CZ9DCHUg) is easily the best trailer that we got to see, since it actually gets across the kind of movie we're working with, and contains good moments. The others, not so much.
Sometimes, the advertising department doesn't get it right. It doesn't help that in this case, though, these are smaller movies that rely on the directors and editors themselves to make a trailer.
I just saw the new trailer for Jurassic World.
Ugh.
Can't we either just have a new adaption of the book or a new franchise now? Like Terminator, this franchise has run out of gas long ago.
Can we get someone to actually do a GOOD adaptation of Congo or Timeline as opposed to another failed Jurassic movie?
The worst part is that most of Michael Crichton's books would easily transfer into good action adventure sci-fi movies.
And yet about none of them have been. What a waste.
I just remember Congo creeping me out as a kid.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on April 21, 2015, 01:25:07 PM
I just saw the new trailer for Jurassic World.
Ugh.
Can't we either just have a new adaption of the book or a new franchise now? Like Terminator, this franchise has run out of gas long ago.
That reminds me that I need to read the Jurassic Park novel.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on April 21, 2015, 09:32:04 PM
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on April 21, 2015, 01:25:07 PM
I just saw the new trailer for Jurassic World.
Ugh.
Can't we either just have a new adaption of the book or a new franchise now? Like Terminator, this franchise has run out of gas long ago.
That reminds me that I need to read the Jurassic Park novel.
It's a very good adventure story. It even has elements of sci-fi, horror, action, and good suspense.
Anyone who likes the movie is doing a disservice by not reading it.
I've heard it's very different from the movie, though of course I couldn't say how. But I love the movie and consider it something of a modern classic.
And yeah, I'm not particularly interested in Jurassic World. Maybe I would if I had two sequels to convince me I should be excited... Well, I have two sequels. But they ain't fulfilling the excitement duty.
The general plot is the same but the characters are all not which changes a lot of events around. The lawyer in the book, for instance, is a much more three dimensional character than the film version, and John Hammond is not a very nice guy. At all. It's almost a completely different story.
I honestly don't know why they don't just adapt the book if they want another JP film especially considering the reboot mania going on. Nobody wants another sequel.
Good point. But people are still trying to go with the "bigger=better" bull. They should try telling a better story.
What do you think is the worst of the two sequels so far?
Personally, I've only seen all of III. All I remember is dinosaurs only killing people at the start of the movie and not being a threat for the rest of the film. That movie bored me as a kid.(teen? I forget.)
Jurassic Park III is definitely worse, IMO. Both movies suck, and even though there was a sequel book called The Lost World, the movie didn't really have anything to do with the source material (even less so than the first movie), but it at least had an entertaining scene or two. JP3 was just flat-out boring, in addition to being incredibly stupid with the plot and characters.
I also tend to think The Lost World tried a little bit more. I mean, it didn't work out, but I do get the feeling like they wanted to make a movie that wasn't a total rehash of the first one, particularly with the scene at the end when the T-Rex is brought to civilization. I don't get that feeling from Jurassic Park III. It just seems content with following the same beats as the first movie, only with less heart and, well, quality.
I honestly liked JP3 a bit more as a kid, but I was very young and still hated both of them back then.
They're both bad. I just have a bit more respect for Lost World.
Lost World is probably the better film. For one, I've met people who actually liked it. Can't say the same for 3.
I think I heard even one person say they like it more the the first. The III? Nothing even close to that.
III also seems to have worse special effects. Or maybe not. It might just be that it uses more CGI and less animatronics than the first two movies. The first Jurassic Park did an utterly fantastic job at using CGI, and I think it hasn't been beaten to this day.
I'm still in awe at that movies CG. How the hell was it so good?
Through careful usage. When you see a T-Rex standing out in the middle of the night, with rain pouring down, you can't really notice the technical limitations of it, especially since it's mixed with shots of animatronics. But when you see the same dinosaur out in broad daylight, in a big fight with a Spinosaurus in III, you can see that it's just CG.
Once again, GBF explains it very well: https://youtu.be/34yKiPq0kCs
I would totally watch a movie called "Karate Turnip," BTW.
How much blood can you get out of it?
Yes, they really are out of ideas. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2015/09/14/disney-mary-poppins-movie/72269872/)
This one hurts. The original is perfect as is. There's nothing that a new version can do to support it.
Honestly, the only two of these abundant Disney reboots that I'm "somewhat" interested in are The Sword in the Stone and The Jungle Book. The former because I like the book and animated movie and feel that the story of King Arthur's childhood has some true potential for a great modern children's fantasy movie. The latter because it's being directed by John Favreau (Elf, Zathura, Iron Man), and most of the the people who saw the exclusive test footage at D23 swear that it looked absolutely amazing (with very minimal reliance on CG), and that based on what Favreau said at that panel he's planning to take the movie in a very intriguing and creative direction. Furthermore, if you've ever seen Elf or Zathura, you'd know that Favreau knows how to make a good kid's movie.
All of the other numerous Disney reboots planned either sound pointless or atrociously bad (mostly both). Mary Poppins is already a timeless film. There is absolutely no need to update it.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 14, 2015, 09:34:26 PM
Quote from: gunswordfist on September 07, 2015, 02:59:22 PM
How much blood can you get out of it?
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whoateallthepies.tv%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2Fdancing.jpg&hash=67bd426e38c3d09558a07e7486655fc35caad547)
I'm all for new children's fantasy movie so I hope the new Arthur movie pan out well.
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2vK95P6.jpg&hash=ccddfc420398aefcd02a53741512c657ca52ecc9)
I need a version of E.T. where E.T. calls out Elliot for being a cis white boy now.
Has anyone seen the Hobbit re-cut, "There and Back Again, A Hobbit's Tale"? It apparently edits the three movies down to a single three hour and ten minute film. I've been interested in seeing it.
Because, obviously, I thought it could have used some heavy duty editing.
That sounds interesting. It must have cut out 75% of the third movie.
I assume almost all of the non-book stuff is cut which means, yeah, the third movie is probably nearly gutted. Hopefully the more ridiculous fights are, anyway.
You better not be referring to the barrel fight. :srs:
I feel like I would have trouble getting through a rewatch of The Hobbit trilogy. None of the three movies go far above "okay" to me.
I watched all of them once and I just can't get myself to watch them again. I can't say the same about the LOTR films (or books) but this trilogy is too overstuffed with needless padding. There is some great stuff in there (like the scene where Bard takes down Smaug) but there's a ton of stuff that should never have made the final cut.
And I haven't even seen the extended editions. I can't imagine how much fluff was added to those.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 23, 2015, 10:45:59 AM
Has anyone seen the Hobbit re-cut, "There and Back Again, A Hobbit's Tale"? It apparently edits the three movies down to a single three hour and ten minute film. I've been interested in seeing it.
Because, obviously, I thought it could have used some heavy duty editing.
Oh, cool, it's finally out! Better check that later. :)
The Lord of the Rings trilogy, I have rewatched countless times and it hasn't lost an ounce of its glory.
The scene where Smaug dies was good but I still think they should have just put that in the second movie. Such a frustrating cliff hanger the second movie ended on, only to be revealed as pointless, and thus, becoming even more frustrating.
The second movie ended on a pointless cliffhanger instead of simply getting rid of a lot of the antics of Smaug chasing them which was really unneeded and not even in the book. It would have closed out that aspect of the story and then they could have moved on to the final part clean. no idea why they did it that way, but it was awfully lame.
Well, to be honest, I did like a lot of the scenes of them dealing with Smaug in the palace, if only because of how amazing Smaug was. He was really the crowning element of those movies.
But yeah, I would have sacrificed some of it in order to keep Smaug's death in the second movie. Or better yet, cut some other filler like that awful romance between that dwarf and the girl elf.
I'm sure most of the cuts will come from Gandalf's plot. Let's be honest, it didn't really tie into the main story very well at all and was way too CGI focused.
That was just came up with to tie into the Lord of the Rings movies, right?
These prequels would have been so much better if they just did two films directed by GDT, like was originally planned. He left the project, though, because they were taking forever to get it off the ground, and some big-shot executive said: "ZOMG! U GUYZ! Let's make 3 movies, cuz more MONEYZZZZ!!!!" And Peter Jackson basically had to milk these movies out for content, most of whuch was filler.
I don't mind them expanding on the source material a little bit in this case since the book was kind of thin and a lot of important characters were left underdeveloped, but making three films was just beyond ridiculous.
I'm certainly interested in checking out that fan edit, though.
Quote from: talonmalon333 on September 23, 2015, 01:09:44 PMThat was just came up with to tie into the Lord of the Rings movies, right?
Not entirely. The basis of a lot of that was pulled from Tolkien's extended work, including bits from The Silmarillion and other supplementary material, and even some of his unpublished notes on Middle Earth lore. They still took liberties with it, of course, and used those elements to try and connect The Hobbit to TLOTR movies, which isn't quite what they were written for in the first place.
A lot of the events were in Tolkien's works and notes, but of course they were never meant to be used the way they were in the movies. As interesting as it was to see what Gandalf was doing in the story since the book didn't show it, I would prefer if the edits would just excise it. It's Bilbo's plot that should be important here. That is, after all, the reason it is called "The Hobbit" and not "Lord of the Rings Zero" or "Uncharted: Legolas Edition" or whatever.
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on September 23, 2015, 01:24:28 PM
Not entirely. The basis of a lot of that was pulled from Tolkien's extended work, including bits from The Silmarillion and other supplementary material, and even some of his unpublished notes on Middle Earth lore. They still took liberties with it, of course, and used those elements to try and connect The Hobbit to TLOTR movies, which isn't quite what they were written for in the first place.
Right, I almost forgot about The Silmarillion and all that other stuff. Tolkien really made a full universe out of Middle Earth.
Quote from: Spark Of Spirit on September 23, 2015, 01:32:56 PM
A lot of the events were in Tolkien's works and notes, but of course they were never meant to be used the way they were in the movies. As interesting as it was to see what Gandalf was doing in the story since the book didn't show it, I would prefer if the edits would just excise it. It's Bilbo's plot that should be important here. That is, after all, the reason it is called "The Hobbit" and not "Lord of the Rings Zero" or "Uncharted: Legolas Edition" or whatever.
That's a very good point. Bilbo kind of got lost in the crowd, I feel. In particular, he just kind of hung out in the third movie.
Everything here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXjz_G6FUrg)
And as funny as these can be, I don't always agree with everything even if I dislike the movie in question.
This one? No, they're 100% correct.
:'( + :D
A thing that bothers me about movies nowadays: Everything Needs a Fucking Cinematic Universe
It makes sense when Marvel (and maybe DC, if it works) does it. They want the movies to be similar to the way comics have their crossovers.
Sony announcing a Ghostbusters cinematic universe earlier this year seems iffy after their recent attempt to expand Spider-Man failed.
And now Universal announces... THIS. (http://deadline.com/2015/11/universal-plans-to-expand-fast-and-furious-with-spinoffs-prequels-1201625887) :wth: Fucking really?
How the fuck is VD's old ass going to prequel anything?
Yeah, it does seem like a lot of franchise runners are trying to mimic Marvel's success without realizing that a shared Universe is something that works with the nature of comic books and comic book movies/shows, as well as the fact that to even pull off one successfully requires careful planning and years of groundwork to build up a Universe.
Marvel has it down thanks to having Kevin Feige as its head producer for their film division, and the Greg Berlanti-produced DC shows pull it off to great effect as well, but those are the results of being run by people who are actually fans of the material that they put out in the first place, and who know what they are doing, and know how to recruit other talent who know what they are doing to make their content.
Comparatively, other big companies that own big franchises are just trying to shoehorn in a big cinematic Universe just because they perceive it as the "hip" thing, now, but really have no clue what they are doing. This has critical and financial disaster written all over it.
I saw a video a while back that asserted that the whole Cinematic Universe thing is very limited. Only certain properties can do it. Specifically Marvel and DC because they're built for it.
Unfortunately for DC, they've got a whole other problem of holding their universe back because of petty feuds. Not least of all that their movie division refuses to acknowledge their TV division at every turn.
They are apparently also planning a Universal monster movie universe.
Well, to be fair, at least the Universal Monsters have an established history of crossover films. :sly:
Quote from: Dr. Ensatsu-ken on November 18, 2015, 12:15:38 PM
Well, to be fair, at least the Universal Monsters have an established history of crossover films. :sly:
True, but that's countered by their track record with monster movies. :thinkin:
Superhero cinematic universes can work because the comics are already like that, but in the case of other works, I think it's smarter to go the William Faulkner route of having every story take place in the same universe with few of them specifically connected to each other in any meaningful way.
I'm becoming increasingly irritated at this growing mentality that the superhero film genre is "killing cinema" and that modern blockbusters only cater to the lowest common denominator.
To be clear, I'm fine with people who just don't like most superhero or comic book movies. Several of my friends and most of my family fall into this category. What irritates me are the film snobs who insist that the oversaturation of the genre somehow hurts the wellbeing of the more artistically crafted films that they admire.
Firstly, the idea of "dumb" action movies which rake in huge box office dollars is not exactly unique to this genre, and has been going on in Hollywood since Star Wars. This generation, superhero films just happen to be really popular. After a while, some other genre will take the mantle. The thing that won't change is that more people will go to more accessible movies that interest more people in going to see them in the first place.
That doesn't mean, and has never meant, that people don't watch other stuff too. If the superhero genre primarily rules the Summer season, then arthouse films have their time in the spotlight too: it's called Oscar-season and it takes place between the Fall and Winter. Sure, these movies don't exactly break a billion dollars, but they still turn out sizable profits in proportion to their budgets, and while the audience might be more nitch, tons of people still go to see them.
So when people bitch and moan about the superhero genre stifling the creative market of Hollywood, I just have to roll my eyes because Hollywood has always had this problem in one form or another, and the more stand-out films have always been so few and far between. It's their infrequent occurrence that makes them so special in the first place.
At any rate, my point is that I don't see how one really popular genre of film is somehow running the medium in general. If you don't tend to like these movies, then don't watch them. There are still numerous movies being made that cater to other audiences, including critics and film snobs, and it's not like big-budget blockbusters are actually stopping them from being made or preventing people who want to see them from seeing them.
Also on that note, I hate the notion that if you like certain big blockbusters, most of them have to be seen as just "dumb" fun action movies that are guilty pleasures. If a movie is genuinely entertaining for doing a great job of being what it sets out to be, then that's because a lot of genuine talent and effort went into its development in order to make it as good as it was. The only stupid thing is the notion that you should have any reservations about enjoying them just because they aren't some deep or profound exploration of some theme or the other.
For the record, I love plenty of well-written, more deliberately paced films that tend to be critical darlings. In fact, most of my favorite films are composed of movies of that nature as opposed to action flicks. But that doesn't make me appreciate well-written and directed blockbusters any less when they really nail down what they set out to be.
Action movies as a whole haven't been that great recently. Partly due to the shaky cam obsession, but also due to lackluster writers (See the last Terminator movie, for crying out loud) and uninspired ideas. John Wick and Dredd were great, but they're in the minority. Superhero films, DC aside, have been on a roll for a few years now. If you want a good, fun action movie, well, you're gonna get it from a superhero film these days.
As for other genres of movies? There have been action movies since film began. They didn't stop any other genre from making their own films before, so why would they now? Just because Marvel chooses to make Civil War doesn't mean the kid that saw it would have gone to see the new Coen Bros. film if Civil War didn't exist. Audiences see the films that they want to see.
Not that I particularly care about the whiners. I haven't seen a single movie all summer, and that's not Marvel's fault. It's Hollywood's.
Simple answer? Make better movies that people want to see.
Honestly, I just thought that this was kind of funny more than anything else: http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/28/scholar-stephen-kings-it-is-bad-because-its-full-of-white-straight-able-bodied-males/
Ew, Ian Miles "Tails" Cheong is working for the Daily Caller now? A match made in hell. I don't care to read the original article he's referencing but that guy has never written a single piece of actual journalism in his life so he probably deliberately twisted her words to make her sound stupid(er). He's been doing this since his "turbofeminist" days at Gameranx where he acted like the stereotypical SJW long before he pivoted to being an alt-right incel when he read a negative review of The Witcher 3.
Anyway, I don't know much about the original It novel but I'd say if anything makes it offensively bad it'd be the child orgy scene.
Which is why it's so funny to read his shit, even if unintentionally so. :humhumhum:
Quote from: Foggle on August 29, 2017, 01:28:21 PMAnyway, I don't know much about the original It novel but I'd say if anything makes it offensively bad it'd be the child orgy scene.
It's genuinely amusing to see Andrés Muschietti awkwardly react to interview questions inquiring whether he included that scene in the movie. It's like his eyes dilate in a way that says "are you fucking shitting me?" before he remembers to politely say no and then completely dodge the subject of even talking about it any further.
:il_hahaha:
(https://animationrevelation.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkkGapOQ.jpg&hash=30e422390c07a39899c402c35cc825f87c916387)
It's simultaneously funny and disturbing that she can crack that joke. :sweat:
Why does that 1 kid not have ice cream?
Quote from: Daxdiv on August 29, 2017, 08:49:16 PM
Why does that 1 kid not have ice cream?
Because he already got a lick.
I've been thinking a lot about the growing complaints that people have about MCU movies and the superhero genre in general. I may elaborate more on this subject later, but as it stands here are my thoughts on the subject:
Yes, there are certainly valid criticisms that can be said about plenty of superhero flicks, and yes, Marvel Studios is not above making some dumb decisions from time to time (particularly in how they've over-controlled or outright turned away some of their creative talent in the past); Kevin Feige has even willingly admitted some of their past mistakes and more importantly shows a desire to improve from that.
No, these movies aren't "killing cinema," or actively making people dumber. The more I hear these accusations and look into their corresponding arguments, the more baseless hypocrisy I notice. Hollywood as an industry has a lot of problems, but the MCU itself is not one of them. Numerous head executives of competing studios trying so hard to replicate Marvel's hard-earned success without grasping the concepts of what makes their business format work (namely, actual good movies with heart to them) is definitely a problem, but then again, Hollywood executives trying to cash in on whatever's popular without getting the point has been going on for about as long as the industry has existed, so I don't quite understand how that's Marvel's fault for being among the few studios to actually do their job right.
In short, I'm just getting tired of all of the bashing that I feel the genre at large (and particularly the MCU) undeservedly gets. I can understand bashing a movie like Batman V. Superman individually for being a piece of shit all on its own. But this logic doesn't make much sense to me on movies like Guardians of the Galaxy or The Winter Soldier.
Anyone who makes the argument that the MCU is killing cinema are bitter snobs that prop themselves up as pristine film buffs the same way a Yelp critic deludes themselves into thinking they're a food connoisseur. And besides, most of these people complaining are usually from /tv/, the 4chan board that even other boards think is garbage.
It's more annoying specifically when it comes from people within the film industry, though, like Alejandro González Iñárritu or Jodie Foster, along with other like-minded individuals. While I don't have any particular issues with people expressing their opinions on a genre, whether I agree with them or not, what bothers me in these cases is that their comments of their distaste in the superhero genre and how it ruins cinema is just that: comments without basis. Neither of them or their like-minded peers ever offer up anything in the way of actual arguments or examples of how the existence of the genre as it is has stopped the kinds of movies that they prefer from being made or being successful in their own right. What bothers me more than that, though, are the droves of pretentious, mindless idiots that blindly agree with everything that they say.
Also, I don't get why people act as if superheroes changing blockbuster cinema is a bad thing. For the most part, blockbuster cinema has always been hit or miss. Do people really want to go back to the days when films like Independence Day and Liar Liar dominated the box office? Arthouse cinema, foreign films, and indie flicks still exist today and aren't being harmed by the presence of superhero films, so complaining about it is nonsense.
:srs: There's nothing wrong with Independence Day or Liar Liar.
While I maybe rag on some of the MCU films a bit too much, I would argue that they're actually doing the opposite of "killing cinema." While I'm not a huge fan of every Marvel release, the fact that blockbuster movies which are overall positive and fun are super popular right now makes me happy. I love artistic and experimental cinema but I love popcorn films and campy B-movies just as much. I harbor no ill will toward Snyder or his fans but I'm sincerely glad that Batman v. Superman and its ilk aren't the face of mainstream cinema right now.
I don't remember much about Independence Day but I did love it as a kid.
On top of that there's also the fact that Marvel has been giving lesser-known and more talented film-makers the reigns to break into the mainstream by directing entries in the MCU, which has made phase three in particular a marked improvement in quality for them.
Yes, they did make the mistake of over-controlling the creative freedom of directors in the past, which in particular negatively affected Joss Whedon in making Age of Ultron and outright turned away directors like Edgar Wright. Kevin Feige even admitted that this was a mistake and changed things up to allow directors to have more input on future films, which has been proven recently. I honestly couldn't see other big studios entrusting big IPs to directors like James Gunn, Taika Waititi, or Ryan Coogler given their relatively limited filmographies before their Marvel debuts, yet each of these choices was a big success both critically and commercially. And you can't tell me that a movie like Black Panther feels anywhere close to tonally similar to something like Thor or Guardians. Each of these directors brings a sense of authorship to their respective movies that make them stand out despite being part of the same shared Universe. However, it annoys me that people are somehow either so quick to forget this fact or just outright ignore it. The MCU is far from perfect, but Marvel Studios has done a damn good job of finding ways to continuously improve themselves and stay relevant, which is something that very few other film franchises can boast.
Also, I don't care if it falls under the category of "just another dumb comic book movie" or whatever you want to call it; I'm excited for Avengers: Infinity War not because I just want to see tons of blatant fan-service, but because Marvel has made me a fan of their heroes and Universe by carefully crafting it over the past ten years, and the prospect of this and part four (next year) being the official conclusion to this era of MCU films feels well-earned to me. I mean, yes, phase four and onward will obviously happen, but all of their original IPs will be definitively over by next year to make way for new series in their canon.
I stopped taking MCU criticism seriously when I noticed that 90% of the negative reception I saw came from rambling headcases complaining about SJW propaganda and how Marvel's promoting white genocide and the emasculation of American culture. If those kind of people are getting mad at superhero movies, then keep the capes coming.
Quote"The Avengers: Infinity War" isn't just a gussied-up mediocrity being widely mistaken for a good movie. It's also, at least arguably, a dangerous movie for anyone who cares about the future of American cinema.
https://www.salon.com/2018/04/27/the-avengers-infinity-war-not-just-a-mediocre-muddled-mess-but-possibly-a-dangerous-precedent/
See what I mean? Regardless of what anyone thinks of the film, we get bung-holes with this seriously misguided notion that really just irritates me to no end. And yes, I actually read the article in full and the thing that I don't think the reviewer gets is that this movie isn't being advertised as a stand-alone feature nor is it meant to be. It's the culmination of several movies, and thus it's plot threads are really built off from those films, rather than being outright rushed.
Now to say that one doesn't care for a movie of this nature is fair. It's personal opinion and that's absolutely fine. To say that it's a "dangerous precedent" that will "ruin cinema" is fucking stupid. And the notion that people "mistakenly" call this a good movie just reeks of condescension from the reviewer, as if any opinions disagreeing with his own are invalid and come from people "not smart enough" to discern true quality.
People with this mentality can go shove their opinions up their ass for all I care.
This guy The New Yorker writes as if this were the first MCU movie he's ever watched. (https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/avengers-infinity-war-reviewed-the-latest-marvel-movie-is-a-two-and-a-half-hour-ad-for-all-the-previous-marvel-movies) And he inexplicably thinks the movie is an allegory for American foreign policy.
So, to lay it out straight, I hate SJW-shenanigans as much as anyone else with a sane mind does. That said, I'm noticing an increasing crowd of fanatics who are rallying against big blockbuster Hollywood franchises like Marvel and Star Wars for what they perceive to be pushing SJW propaganda and that this is what's ruining the industry. On the one hand, yes, there are definitely cases of stupid BS politics making their way into all kinds of fiction in various mediums, including film. On the other hand, it's like some of this crowd is so lacking in self-awareness that they don't realize that they themselves are being just as soulless and mindless as any SJW in how they try to view entertainment in extremes.
Like, it's alright to dislike The Last Jedi all you want (I personally think that it's a decent movie with some big flaws), but for all of it's perceived issues, Kathleen Kennedy and Rian Johnson trying to push politically correct views on Star Wars fans isn't one of them, because....you know....that isn't actually a thing.
Obviously, anybody who thinks a mainstream Hollywood movie is out to promote Marxism or far-left agendas, when in reality they're meant to make money and continue a franchise which is about as antithetical to those ideas as you can get, has a screw or two loose. Casting a woman or a black guy in a lead role isn't the radical political statement they like to think it is. Or those guys who think Star Trek Discovery is too political correct when it's less diverse than Deep Space Nina or Voyager.
Weird alt-right dudes on YouTube and Twitter have poisoned credulous people's minds in the exact opposite way the social justice warriors of old on Tumblr and Gawker did five or so years ago. Internet sycophants have flipped from accusing Nintendo of being hateful for having a fat boss monster in Zelda to accusing Nintendo of being, uh, Marxist for making Samus' zero suit less overtly sexual. These days it's very rare to see a classical "SJW" in the wild, and even most social justice advocates will make fun of them. Outrage culture has changed, baby.
The amount of people who think Star Wars is pushing a communist agenda because it features an Asian woman and Laura Dern with purple hair in prominent roles is absolutely embarrassing. Strictly speaking, you are almost never going to see a film rooted in propaganda come out of Hollywood unless it's pro-CIA or something more explicitly political - usually in line with the beliefs of our government at large, because it would be funded by them. The Last Jedi is just an easily-marketable fun space adventure, same as all the previous films. It includes more female and non-white characters because producers are realizing that the core demographic of Hollywood blockbusters is much more diverse than they used to believe; that's it, really. I think it's a good thing, and it certainly isn't making our movies worse.
There's always going to be the annoying leftist who defeats their own message. The Jonathan McIntoshes. The MTV Decodeds. But as of late, for every single instance of that, there's been a hundred examples each of far-right whining. Videos getting mad at Doctor Who for casting a female lead. Essays hissing at the size of She-Ra's breasts. Those twitters losing their minds over Zombieland Saga having a trans character. And at least with the former, I can understand and agree with some of the opinions even if I heavily disagree with the execution. Whereas with people complaining about Star Wars or something having a leftist agenda, it always comes from xenophobic assholes who foam at the mouth at seeing a single non-white guy on the big screen.
The massive fan backlash at a female Thor movie is fucking stupid. I mean, as bad as SJW culture has gotten, we now have an equally idiotic group of anti-SJWs that will hate on anything that casts a female or person of color or varying sexuality in a dominant role.
It WOULD be understandable if people were concerned of Natalie Portman being the person in question cast in the role, since she notoriously joined in her performance in the first two Thor movies and walked away from the MCU essentially making it clear how low she thinks of the genre. Kind of odd that she would come back to something she was never truly committed to before, and it would be valid to be worried if she will truly make an effort here.
But, you know, I've hardly heard a mention of that. It really wouldn't matter who they cast. Female hero automatically equals bad for some reason, despite it coming from Jason Aaron's critically acclaimed run in the comics and the fact that Chris Hemsworth is still cast in the movie. Keep in mind that a lot if these people were also probably fans of Ragnarok, which was directed by Taika Waititi, who also directed the upcoming very un-SJW Jojo Rabbit (in which he casts himself as an imaginary friend version of Hitler), who is also directing Love and Thunder. How does that automatically make this an SJW movie when his prior work has been anything but that?
I'll grant you that Marvel's very shallow attempt to diversify their character roster while still relying on pre-existing brand recognition lead to a lot of mediocre to bad runs, but that doesn't automatically make every run bad, like Kamala Khan as Ms. Marvel.
And for the record I found Captain Marvel to be fairly boring aside from a few interesting scenes, I couldn't get into the Spider-Gwen comics despite slogging through four volumes of them before giving up on the series, and I found the A-Force shot in Endgame to be rather pandering (though it honestly didn't bother me since the movie was full of fan-service, anyways).
The problem I have with hating on these movies or comics so blindly because of their perceived SJW status is because it doesn't take into account any of the work or effort put into making any kind of art or the qualities and nuances of good writing and directing and what separates it from bad writing and directing, or good or bad performances.
If you aren't a fan of Taika's style or take on the Thor character and mythos, and are not happy about him returning to direct this movie, than fine. It's also fine to be pessimistic about it if it's an adaptation of a run that someone may not like but has actually read to properly critique. However, 99.9% of the hate is from angry ass-holes that just care about the most base, shallow, outward appearance of something. The true irony of all of this is that both the SJW and anti-SJW communities have become perfect mirror images of each other. They may take stances on opposing sides, but they are completely the same in judging anything and everything on a purely external basis, completely out of context rather than on the quality of the actual content itself.
Media discourse is so chaotic that anyone with a youtube channel can scream about the gender or race of a character and somehow accumulate a large audience. It doesn't even matter if the thing is aimed at them, like when that one youtuber spent video after video getting mad at the She-Ra reboot. And it sucks. Some of these people just aren't mentally well. They think stuff like a black Ariel or a female Thor are indications of a huge propaganda movement going on, and not just the director or producer hiring someone they liked for the role. It's insane.
The term "SJW" devolved into a meaningless boogeyman for YouTube clicks around the time GamerGate went into full swing. Everything is supposedly SJW these days. Wolfenstein is SJW because killing Nazis is considered communist propaganda now. Marvel is SJW for making movies starring women and people who aren't white, but firing James Gunn for tweeting edgy jokes was actually good and based because he doesn't like Trump. If motherfucking Aliens or Terminator 2 were made today, and were the exact same films with no differences whatsoever, there would be at least 500 YouTube videos apiece dedicated to explaining how James Cameron is part of a propaganda campaign to eradicate white men or some shit. It's pathetic.
It's best to just never, ever look up what other people (outside of your friends, family, and this board I guess :P) think about media these days, go in blind, and draw your own conclusions. No one with an obvious political agenda on YouTube or social media - and this not only includes, but especially applies to people who call themselves "apolitical," as that is almost always either a right-wing dogwhistle or a cowardly excuse used by corporations - can be trusted. I doubt many of these folks actually believe the vapid shit they're spewing and I'm sure they're all 100% in it for the ad revenue and Patreon subs, but that doesn't make things any better because they've completely ruined all art discourse and criticism for the foreseeable future.
The initial run of Spider-Gwen (the one collected in the TPB labeled "Vol. 0") was extremely good IMO, but the series lost steam fast due to being interrupted by Secret Wars, and I dropped it soon after the re-launch because it felt like a completely different book despite retaining the same creative team and not actually being affected by the event in any meaningful way. Those first few issues were creative, lean, and let the excellent artwork do a lot of the heavy lifting, but when it came back it became bizarrely text-heavy despite having a less-interesting story to tell. There were these gigantic info dump pages explaining important things about the characters once an issue that took longer to read than the rest of the fucking pages combined. I tapped out after Vol. 1.
Oh, and trust me, pundits will find a way to paint Jojo Rabbit as an SJW movie (though maybe they won't bother since it's an indie film). It has an anti-racism message and portrays Hitler in a negative light, after all. This alone is proof that Taika Waititi is a Stalinist who wants to enact sharia law in the US and sterilize all white people.
Quote from: Foggle on July 28, 2019, 03:34:31 AMThe initial run of Spider-Gwen (the one collected in the TPB labeled "Vol. 0") was extremely good IMO, but the series lost steam fast due to being interrupted by Secret Wars, and I dropped it soon after the re-launch because it felt like a completely different book despite retaining the same creative team and not actually being affected by the event in any meaningful way. Those first few issues were creative, lean, and let the excellent artwork do a lot of the heavy lifting, but when it came back it became bizarrely text-heavy despite having a less-interesting story to tell. There were these gigantic info dump pages explaining important things about the characters once an issue that took longer to read than the rest of the fucking pages combined. I tapped out after Vol. 1.
I read Vol. 0-3, and while it was never my kind of series, I do agree that Vol. 0 at least laid out a good foundation for the series, but that potential was soon squandered. I really like the character herself, though, and am glad that Spider-Verse did her justice. Also, yes, Robbi Rodriguez's artwork is so unique and rich in colors that just pop out at you. It's fucking gorgeous to look at. And Spider-Gwen"s costume design is one of the best from the current era of superhero books. As for Marvel series getting derailed after Secret Wars, Ms. Marvel suffered a similar fate, as did Miles Morales Spider-Man after Civil War II, though the current run by Saladin Ahmed is actually quite good so far, IMO. It's funny because I actually liked the Secret Wars book itself (Jonathan Hickman has been a pretty good writer from what I've read of his work so far), as it's one of the few event books to actually hold my interest with a coherent and easy enough to follow story. That said, it is a good indicator of how forced events can fuck up the momentum of other good runs that would be better off if they could just ignore the major events of a shared Universe.
So, I saw Knives Out last weekend and had mixed feelings on it. As usual Rian Johnson's directing is pretty well-executed and visually appealing. The writing on the other hand has several plot issues that I can't help but notice and holds the film back from really being great in my eyes, which is especially unfortunate for a murder mystery that hinges on a logical series of circumstances. That said, I still enjoyed watching it well enough. Really, this is pretty much how I've felt about all of RJ's movies so far.
The reason I'm bringing it up on this thread, though, is despite not being his biggest fan, the amount of whiney Star Wars fanboys that are vocal about never seeing this or any other RJ movie because he "killed" Star Wars is insufferable. Even worse are the haters who did see it only to bitch about how it's "more woke propaganda" (which is fucking ludicrous if you've actually seen the movie and can grasp the most basic of themes). Again, this is coming from someone who has had criticisms and mixed feelings on all of his movies, including The Last Jedi. It's perfectly understandable to not like that movie or his particular style and say it's not for you. But it gets outright stupid when you are treating boycotting any future movie he makes as some kind of campaign against him. Just don't see it then. What's the use of vocally bitching about a movie that you admit you will never watch anyways?
That part of the Star Wars fandom is pretty miasmic and two-faced. They spent decades screaming at George Lucas like he killed their firstborns, but now they act like he's a helpless victim of Disney's machinations (ignoring that he liked TLJ and gave some notes for the sequels). But what I don't like the most about the Rian situation is it's likely gonna turn off some potentially interesting and ambitious filmmakers from touching SW because they don't want to deal with awful fanboys attacking their character. And the worst case scenario is we'll get another incident like what happened to Jake Lloyd.
I've kind of been in this weird internal divide on how I feel about the criticism of movies produced by Disney in the modern era. On the one hand, I pretty much agree with most people that Disney, as a corporation, has been pretty abysmal in how they conduct their business, especially on the movie end of things. For instance, there was that incident where they threatened a famous theater chain that they wouldn't let them show Star Wars: The Force Awakens in any of their theaters unless they extended their showing of it at a premiere venue of their's, which they tried to refuse since they had already made a deal to use that time to debut Tarantino's newest film at the time, The Hateful Eight. Disney was basically telling them to dishonor their deal to make a few extra bucks for them. I think Tarantino still got to have his debut honored as originally planned when the story went public and Disney wanted to avoid bad publicity, but the fact that this was even a situation that came up to begin with is horrendous. And that is just one of many instances of modern Disney throwing their weight around and abusing their money and power in pretty unethical ways. Their handling of the James Gunn situation also comes to mind when I think of why I can't stand their business sense. Again, they may have rectified the situation, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it even came up in the first place.
On the other hand, I feel like this has lead to a very one-sided mind-set in this day and age that anything produced by Disney is automatically bad or part of the corporate factory. I tend to agree that most, if not all, of their live-action remakes are pretty atrocious. Likewise, a lot of their products due have the sense of feeling on the more hollow and safe side of things. That said, I get a bit aggravated when this criticism in and of itself, ironically becomes a black and white monotonous mindset that many critics will use to apply to anything that is under the Disney brand, completing ignoring the actual hard-working talent that works on each individual product. This also gets applied to MCU films, Star Wars, and anything produced by Pixar from the last decade or so. To be fair, I do think that there is a legitimate complain to be had about Disney's corporate design limiting creative freedom and leading to subpar movies. On the other hand, I think this criticism can be unfairly overblown at times and used as a way to deny some genuinely good movies of being recognized as anything more than a "soulless factory product" as so many people like to claim. People of this nature will scrounge for any rationale that they can to try and make any of these movies seem worse than they actually are. Sort of like how YMS retroactively lowered his scores for Guardians of the Galaxy and Spider-Man: Homecoming (despite clearly initially liking them) or every other YouTuber going on about how these movies are nothing more than passably forgettable.
It really irks me because I feel like that ends up encouraging people to overlook some genuinely great movies. I say this as someone who loves film in general and watches a shit-ton of movies from classic films to indie films to foreign films. I think more than anything it's disrespectful to the people making the movies who, themselves, are not really part of the corporate structure that people hate so much. It also feels like a way to peer-pressure fans of these movies and other people in general to turn on them because it's "uncool" to like something produced by the big corporation, regardless of the quality of the individual product itself.
It's just really annoying for me at this point. There are definitely a lot of modern Disney movies that I do feel deserve to be bashed as much as they have been. But there are others that I feel unfairly get lumped up in the mix for honestly pretty bad reasons. Just my two-cents, there.
It does seem like a broad stroke that's only applied to Disney over the other studios. You rarely hear people boycott NBC shows because of Comcast's practices, and a whole generation understands the people who make Fox movies and shows have nothing to do with the guys running Fox News. But for some reason, folks believe your average MCU director is in close contact with the guy who threatened to sue a family over a Spider-Man tombstone.
Since Francis Ford Coppola's back in the news for myopically calling Dune and No Time to Die the same kind of movie while betting $100 million on another one of his passion projects, I have to ask what was his last good film? I got curious and saw a little of Twixt, and thought "The guy who made The Godfather directed this? It looks like a DTV movie." And I know film buffs have grown on his Dracula, though I watched it a couple years ago and thought it was interesting but average.
I've kind of learned to take everything that a lot of these big name directors say about modern films with a huge grain of salt. Like, I totally get that they just can't connect with these big modern Hollywood epics, and to be fair, a lot of them these days are pretty heavily filtered to meet corporate standards and desires. That said, there are of course genuinely great movies as well to the point where I think you'd have to either be blatantly ignorant and not actually watch the content in question, or be so out of touch that much of what these movies do so well is lost on you as a viewer. I tend to feel that Coppola is an example of the latter. Both Dune and No Time To Die are fundamentally different stories with different intents and messages to the point that you'd have to not find any meaning in their content to call them essentially the same thing.
Honestly, of all of these directors bashing the modern state of Hollywood in one way or another (mostly singularly focused on superhero movies), I'll say that Terry Gilliam probably had the most tact about it, IMO. He mostly criticized Marvel on a lack of variety (which even as a fan, is somewhat of a fair criticism) while still admitting that they were technically well made. I can at least respect that viewpoint whether or not I agree with it.
And the other thing is at least Gilliam still makes good movies. At least Scorsese still makes good movies. And you can understand their problems with Hollywood. Meanwhile, Coppola can hardly be considered the underdog when he's one of the richest directors of all time and his family is full of successful creators like Sofia Coppola, Jason Schwartzman, and Nicolas Cage. I mean, spending $100 million of his own money to make a film because studio don't want to finance it sounds shitty on the surface, but how many directors have $100 million to spare in the first place?
I'm too lazy to check, but Coppola has to be trailing only Spielberg as the richest director alive, right? He must have made more money with his wine than from any of his movies.
And I really like his Dracula in terms of production, but as an adaption, it's just fine. No better or worse than Universal or Hammer's versions IMO.
There's Lucas, but Coppola's up there.
Didn't know where else to put this, but Bruce Willis is retiring due to aphasia making it hard for him to communicate. (https://people.com/health/bruce-willis-has-aphasia-stepping-away-from-acting/)
Was thinking about this on Twitter a few days ago, when was the last we got a really bad mainstream movie that everyone universally agreed was shit and became the next The Last Airbender or Meet the Spartans? The latter especially, because I saw a tweet talking about how the one of the few positives in modern Hollywood is the lack of those shitty spoof films, but I kinda miss the camaraderie that happened from everybody united in hating those movies. Everybody from superhero movie fans to arthouse film buffs to even fans of lowbrow comedies teamed up to despise the "Movie" Movie parodies. I haven't seen that kind of reaction in a while, when the entire film community had a common enemy. Nowadays, all the bad movies that come out in theaters are just unremarkably bad, have a few good elements so defenders pop up, or not bad enough to be interesting to talk about months after it came out. Cats seemed like it was going to be that kind of movie, but then it disappeared from the public spotlight even before the pandemic happened.
And it's not like awful movies no sane person would defend don't exist anymore, but they're mostly pushed into direct-to-streaming or ignored because nobody knows about their existence, instead of any of them gaining the same status The Room did.
It occurred to me that Everything Everywhere All at Once is only the 3rd sci-fi/fantasy film to win Best Picture, after Lord of the Rings and Shape of Water.
Also, the fucking Oscars forgot to put David Warner in their In Memoriam segment. The BAFTAs apparently forgot too. It's not like Warner's an obscure actor, he's been in movies normal people have watched like Titanic and The Omen.
So Indiana Jones 5 apparently sucks, like "Maybe we were too harsh on Crystal Skull" sucks. Which is a shame because Mangold has some hits under his belt. But I guess he was more in his The Wolverine mood than his Logan one.
I'll be honest, I was never as big on Indiana Jones as some people, so the news that the newest (and presumably final one) sucks doesn't really sting all that much, especially because the original trilogy in and of itself had a perfect ending to it.
Still, I was hoping it would be good especially because of James Mangold's pretty strong pedigree, but it looks like it just didn't click this time, for whatever reason.
As someone who didn't grow up watching the Indiana Jones franchise and only saw the movies as an adult, I have to say that I don't think the world would be a worse place if Raiders was a stand-alone film. Temple of Doom is dumb and uncomfortable and the other two, while more fun, are largely Raiders retreads.
This one isn't looking any better, but I'm not worried about Mangold. Everyone's entitled to a miss.
Captain Obvious has chimed in regarding Miyazaki. (https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2023-09-08/studio-ghibli-vp-junichi-nishioka-the-boy-and-the-heron-is-not-hayao-miyazaki-final-film/.202134)
So Tarantino's ditching The Movie Critic, (https://deadline.com/2024/04/quentin-tarantino-final-film-wont-be-the-movie-critic-scrapped-1235888577/) and what's stopping him from letting go of his "10 movies and I'm done" rule? Because I know why he started the rule in the first place, since he looked at De Palma's filmography, saw him go from making all-time classics like Carrie, Scarface, The Untouchables, to making something like Domino (I haven't watched the entire movie, but I've seen enough to be confused at how he made Nikolaj Coster-Waldau sound as if he's never acted in his life before), and went "Not gonna let that happen to me!" But it's obvious Tarantino's got ideas for another dozen movies like his own Star Trek or Kill Bill 3 or another kung-fu film, and his self-imposed barrier is more of a frustration than a safeguard. Like how many Tarantino projects went unrealized because he just couldn't let go of his 10-movie plan?
Besides, I thought Death Proof was a stinker.
While to contrast, you've got Coppola about to release his new movie, and I've seen reviews go "Maybe we should ditch definitions of 'good' and 'bad' and take this film all in as a unique experience". And that's another discussion about great directors who fall off vs great directors who keep churning out art well into old age. Like how for a while, I remember Spielberg was considered the former before he started making movies people liked again. Same with Shyamalan of all directors, and I don't really get it there.
I get the impression Tarantino is thinking more about the old masters, whose careers more often than not fizzle after a couple of decades. But a lot of those, like Ford, Hawks and Wyler were more studio hands than true auteurs, and they some of them have all-timers much later. Hell, Hitchcock was 30 years in when he did his impeccable run of Vertigo-North by Northwest-Psycho, but of course QT isn't a big fan of Hitch. Nowadays, we have Spielberg and Scorsese making all-timers 50 years into their career, there's no reason to think he can't still pull them off for another decade or two.
Also, he's technically already made 10 features, unless he counts Kill Bill as one or disqualifies Death Proof for some reason.
I assume he counts Kill Bill as one. I mean, I do.
And of course, Tarantino's well known for being... eccentric, so maybe there's more to it. Although it is ironic how he thinks directors eventually decay when I remember a few recent interviews where he said he liked The Irishman and the recent West Side Story. Hell, one of his favorite movies of all time is Battle Royale, and that film is Fukasaku's swan song in a long career of directing dozens of works.
Or maybe fatherhood's changed him. I'd get wanting to spend more time raising the kids, instead of going off and burning years on directing a movie while missing parental milestones.