Friday, May 30, 2008

And Now: The Ranting Mexican

You know what steams my pickle?

When people are like "the stuff that happened in that movie is TOO unbelieveable!" Like "Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". Everybody questioned everything in that movie.

"How did Indy survive an atomic blast in a fridge?"
"How did they go over 3 waterfalls without dying?"
"How did Shia Labouif or whatever do that Tarzan thing?"

And last but not least "What?? ALIENS??"

It's like people will buy a box full of God that melts your face if you look at it, a guy ripping out the heart of another guy and NOT leave a hole in his chest, and a 900 year old guy sitting in a mountain, alive, with a bunch of cups when the first visitor he had in a billion years shows up and actually chooses the right cup, but throw in ALIENS and people are like "FUCK THAT!!"

What's so hard to believe that Indy Jones could come across aliens? I mean SOMETHING did crash in Roswell in 1947. SOMETHING is in Area 51. And Jones, in the movie universe, was there for both events, so why not?

And then I'm reading all this negetive stuff for the upcoming movie "Wanted".



Can you believe out of ALL OF THAT, the number one thing I been reading was "Uh...bullets can't curve. And Angelina Jolie isn't tattooed."

Ok, no one says the second thing. But I don't understand. Don't we, the movie lovers of the world, watch movies to escape reality? To be entertained? To turn off our brain for two hours and go "Huh huh huh...pretty..."? Why does everyone want realism? Why does everything in a fictional movie have to be based on fact? Do these same people think the plot/storylines for "Lord of the Rings" or "Narnia" are stupid and silly?

Everybody in the freakin' world (including me) loves James Bond, but does anybody go "Uh, wouldn't he have like AIDS or an STD by now?" Nope, they buy that he can bed a thousand women per film, but aliens showing up in an Indiana Jones film is TOO FAR OUT, MAN!!

And what's up with Shrimp-ola Cola?
-Jason

5 comments:

Fletch said...

Not to get into my religious beliefs or lack thereof, but yeah, people will buy supernatural stuff when it comes to religion because they've been fed hocus pocus all their lives. Are the elements you mentioned from the earlier movies outlandish? Sure, but the rest of the movies, and the action in particular, are still grounded in reality.

Watch Raiders again and tell me what parts of the action seem unbelievable. I'll grant that the films got dumber as they went from sequel to sequel (the raft and mine ride from Temple come to mind), but that only reinforces the point that the 4th is so dumb.

The alien stuff was really about the least of my worries - it only really sucked because it left so many more questions than answers, but you probably don't want to hear about those.

As for the Tarzan thing - I haven't heard or read one person asking how he did it - it's why the f would he do that (meaning, why would Spielberg do such a lame gag)? It was beyond retarded, and the CGI monkeys weren't helping.

Look, The Matrix isn't "believable" or "realistic" either, but the movie ain't exactly grounded in reality (and there were explanations properly given for the action), so the audience bought it.

Jason Soto said...

First, Fletch, I just wanna say I wasn't targeting your or anything. I always respect your opinions with movies and stuff, so I hope you didn't think I was calling you out or anything.

The only thing from Raiders that I can think of that would be unbelieveable, as in it wouldn't happen in real life, is when he's running from the giant rock ball. And maybe the whole leaping onto the plane part. But like I said I don't really question stuff like that cause it's action and action stuff in movies, 99.9% of the time, is totally unbelieveable stuff.

So in the 4th when they fell off three waterfalls, I turned my brain off for that and didn't go "Oh that can't happen". Same for the atomic bomb stuff.

Yet again, I respect opinions and stuff, it's just I thought Indy 4 was an awesome movie and was on par with the other films, so to keep reading (from other people) that it's nothing like them confuses and mildly irritates me.
-Jason

Adam Blank said...

I agree that aliens are much more believable than Box o' god, Cup of God, or glowing plant-growth inducing rocks of gods. Unfortuantley, they did such a half-ass job with the alien plot that I never got too into it.

As for the other stuff, I disagree with you...sort of. I expect a couple over-the-top action sequences and death-defying escapes in an Indiana Jones movie, but this movie had too many of those moments. Instead of doing something with the characters, they focused on doing things to the characters.

The nuking the fridge scene was just stupid. But even worse, it wasn't necessary. We had just suffered through a chase scene that was way too long to begin with. IOndy had already gotten away. Then they added that scence, which added nothing to the movie and was just stupid.

Same goes for the waterfalls. Wouldn't one have been enough? Why did they have to have three? Were the second and third any more exciting than the first? Did we think that after surviving the first or second waterfall, the characters would die going over the third?

Also, when Indy pulled the rocket launcher out of his ass and blew up the Jungle-chooping truck, how the hell did they have an epic chase scene through the jungle? There wouldn't have been a path carved after that truck was destroyed. Now, you can say that this didn't matter because it wasn't that type of movie. But if you're going to have a 15 minute chase scene, then you have to make me think the characters might actually be in danger. I never felt like that because the film-makers spent too much time adding needless crap rather than focusing on the characters. That's why I'm so critical of this movie.

And those monkeys were another insult to the collective intelligence of the viewers. I'm just happy that George Lucas didn't insist they be Ewoks.

Movies don't have to be realistic, but they have to abide by the laws of the reality they create. This Indiana Jones movie didn't completely fit into the universe they created for the characters.

But anyway, I think you're way wrong about watching films just for their entertainment value. I'm not going to turn my brain off and passively watch a movie. Some movies I take less seriously than other, but even the cheapest schlock might be saying something beyond the surface of the plot.

Jason Soto said...

Hm ok. Maybe not EVERYBODY should, or does, or needs to turn off their brain when they watch a movie. I guess I do. Granted, I do see things where I'm like "Oh there's NO WAY that would happen" like, well, majority of the scenes in "The Transporter" and "Transporter 2". I dunno if you seen those (probably not) but a lot of stuff is hard to believe. So maybe I'm guilty of the whole "OH COME ON" thing too.

On the other hand, I still liked Indy 4 and I really can't see anything wrong with it. I guess I'll just have to just accept that 99% of the population don't for whatever reason and just leave it as one of those movies we agree to disagree on.
-Jason

maldevane said...

To me, it's about the placement of the characters -- if everything is already over the top and "ridiculous" then it doesn't matter.

But to me, in the case of 'Wanted' you have a semi-serious/realistic "we are professional assassins": but then really, don't act like assassins, and resort to silly 'weapon tricks' like curving bullets.

If I'm going to not have my suspension of disbelief broken, then the writers/directors/"the movie" needs to show me that someone did at least enough research about firearms to not base it's trailer/opening gambit around something that is essentially IMPOSSIBLE. Especially since the characters aren't in The Matrix. At least I don't think so...