Down in Front: - This week, SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD.

Discussion in 'Fan Films, Fan Audio & SciFi 3D' started by Teague, Apr 6, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: TCF-1138
  1. MasterZap Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2002
    star 4
    Well, I dunno, technically, the original Star Wars is about a boy that gets recruited by a bunch of terrorists, smuggles classified data and aids in blowing up a goverment military installation, killing thousands of soldiers, all because an estranged dad (with, admittedly, questionable management style) is seeking his lost son?

    In General, George seem to have problems getting bad guys actually do something. One of the few reasons we consider the bad guys "bad" is because we are told they are the "bad guys".

    Since I think "bad guy" is a flawed concept in itself (there is no such thing outside of fiction, and find it's overuse in fiction a bit predictable and boring), I really enjoy rethinking such scenarios with a more holistic moral view, flipping viewpoints around. Can be fun ;)

    /Z
  2. VaporTrail Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    I did hear a while ago someone was going to do a Robin Hood movie from the Sheriff of Nottingham's point of view. I hope that's still happening. "Bad guys" are defined as the ones who see differently from us. The Rebels were bad guys to the Empire. Middle Eastern terrorists are our culture's (current) bad guys, but how do you think we look to them?


    However, since we were supposed to side with the Rebels...
    The Empire blew up Alderaan. They tortured Princess Leia. Vader choked a guy to death, and Force-choked one of his own. They slaughtered soldiers on Tantive IV, and fired our heroes on more than one occasion.

    The Trade Federation blew up a peace envoy's transport, killing the crew. They tried to gas the 'ambassadors'. They invaded a planet. Apparently, they were putting people in camps and killing them, though we never saw this. The definitely shot at our heroes. A lot.

    The bad guys were bad, there shouldn't be any question about that.
    Offhand, the only movie I can think of where you're sympathetic towards both sides is Troy. Agamemnon himself was an evil warlord, but you find yourself sympathizing with Achilles, Odysseus and the soldiers under their command.
  3. elemental_fantasy Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2006
    star 4
    Well, within the first 5 minutes of the film, the Jedi went to sit and chat with the Vicroy to reach a peaceful agreement, the Vicroy didnt wanna go against them, under Sidious's control, he orders the Vicroy to kill the jedi. They blow up the Jedi's republic ship killing at least two innocent pilots, then the two jedi are almost murdered by at least 5 droids and two destroyer droids. Then the Trade federation ILLEGALLY invades Naboo and takes it over trying to force Padme (or Panda Bear, lol) to sign a treaty. It's not until half way through the film that Palp. makes what the Federation is doing legal. So, they kinda did do wrong almost instantly.
    The Jedi are the law enforcement in the galaxy.... thats my impression as they are the keepers of peace and justice I could be wrong...
    They didn't murder anybody, just broke and sliced some robots, and even that was after the jedi were attacked.

    But that's the only comments that I don't fully agree on. That and the fact they returned to the palace to capture the Vicroy, the only way to control the driod army. But either way, I agree, it's a wacky star wars flick. And was not a good story, almost completely pointless. Coulda been told in 10 minutes.

    Oh, and it's funny, if you want the actual theatrical release of EP1, you have to buy the VHS copy.
  4. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I think the issue might be that you don't live in America, where approximately half the population is exactly that way, without irony.

    That would probably also explain Verhoeven's perspective on it.

    That's a good example; I would say that the cue is the name itself. They're not even trying to pretend that it's serious, the title is the pitch.

    I actually didn't think it took the farce as far as I would have, and if they'd given it a serious name like they were going to I'm not sure it would have been satirical (in fact I'm not sure it was supposed to be satirical until the internets got wind of it and they did reshoots to pander), but as it was it was clear what it was trying to do.

    Nah, I'm gonna go with Swedish.

    I personally think it's more Zack Snyder than Michael Bay. Though to go fully in that direction would need a few speed ramps instead of pure slo-mo.
  5. MasterZap Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2002
    star 4
    My friend, you mail have nailed it. That could indeed be it.


    Actually, I am of what in Sweden is dubbed the "ironic generation". A whole slew of comedians of my generation sprung up that all had a very sarcastic/ironic style of comedy, and I find myself having every other sentence dripping with Sarcasm. It could be a Swedish thing. Or a not-US thing. I dunno.

    Exactly.

    I think "snakes on a plane" was unsuccessful as a parody, and honestly I almost don't see it as taking itself as a parody at all (except the brief reshoot scenes, perchance). Yet it is clear they tried to market it as parody, but IMHO it wasn't silly enough to be funny (or actually, it was plenty silly, just not the right kind of silly).

    Darn. You know, this is difficult. I can spot the difference between bad silly and good silly a mile away, but can I explain it? No.

    Rats.

    I hope you got that that itself was sarcasm? I left out the smiley intentionally. ;)

    /Z
  6. FX_guy Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 3
    Not to belabor the point, but let's be clear what I mean by "bad guy". I don't mean a vague concept like "The Empire" or "The Trade Federation", I mean an actual bad GUY for the hero to defeat. When the bad guy goes down, we the audience know that's our cue to say "yay!" and start looking for our car keys.

    Correct. And in all but one case on that list, we saw Vader and Tarkin commit these crimes. They actually happened on screen and we the audience witnessed them personally doing it. That's what makes them the bad guys. That's why we're happy to see them lose at the end of the movie.

    So YOU say. But I didn't see the Nemoidians or Darth Maul do any of those things. And as far as I can tell, those are supposed to be our "bad guys" in Phantom Menace. Instead, we're only told they were behind it all somehow, and that's not nearly the same.

    The saying goes that a well-made movie can be understood even with the sound off. Phantom Menace doesn't pass that test. With the sound off, you have no way of knowing why two guys are hacking their way across the galaxy to get to two other guys who haven't done anything except stand around and wiggle their lips at each other.

    I think that when you're 3/4s of the way thru a movie and the good guys have done all the killing, while the bad guys have only gone to meetings, there's a problem. Hell, even the supposed climax after the "good guys" fight a whole war to get to the "bad guys", what happens? They take another meeting!

    Maul, the secondary bad guy, finally becomes bad when he attacks Qui-Gon, but until then all he's done is make frowny faces. Meanwhile, Qui-Gon's killed half a regiment's worth of characters by that point, for reasons that are unclear. Apparently it's okay because he's a "good guy", but again, what's he done that's particularly good? I mean on screen, not something discussed in a meeting? Anyone?

    The best-drawn "bad guy" in TPM is Sebulba, because at least we see him do the things that make him bad. Unfortunately he's only a minor character in a subplot that is mostly filler.

    One of the reasons the original Star Wars was so refreshingly different was that it dared to go back to the melodramatic good guy/bad guy paradigm, while most movies of the late '70's were ambiguous about such things. More than one reviewer remarked on how adorable it was that Star Wars had an old-fashioned bad guy who literally wore a black hat. Vader's black hat was so big it covered his whole face, and then kept going all the way to his toes! It's just strange that TPM missed the mark so badly on giving us an obvious bad guy to hiss at.

    Or for that matter, a hero. Who's the "hero" in TPM? Nobody in the movie really qualifies as one.

    Subtract all the baggage of already knowing what Star Wars is about, and all the bonus points of "it's Star Wars!" and take TPM on its own merits, and it's a talky mess with no clear story to tell. The whole movie is just exposition for a story that hasn't started yet, and could have been covered in the opening crawl of Attack of the Clones.
  7. Teague Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2006
    star 4
    Hey folks, those of you subscribed in iTunes already know this, but the [link=http://www.downinfront.net/?p=61]Little Shop of Horrors commentary[/link] is up at downinfront.net.

    Oh my god, do we ever love this crap out of this movie. If you haven't seen it, it's your obligation to do so, and do so quickly. Anyone else in love with this thing like I am?
  8. doggans Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 31, 2002
    star 5
    Austin O'Brien is a family friend; I could see if I could get in touch with him and ask if he'd like to guest star for something like that. :p
  9. Lord_Charisma Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Feb 9, 2001
    star 4
    I watched Little Shop of Horrors. I'm not entirely sure why Dorkman and Teague raved over it - it's a funny musical and I watched it through to the end, and the puppet work was absolutely incredible - but I remember Dorkman referring to it as as close to a "perfect movie" as he's seen somewhere (don't quote me on that - I'm sure I'll be corrected or confirmed one way or another), but... really? It was hammy (yeah, I guess, that's part of the charm), and a lot like most other things Rick Moranis is famous for. I may watch it again with the aforementioned commentary, but I don't see it magically opening up the movie any more to me.

    I of course hate to speculate on such things (lol), but is LSoH a recent film for Dorkman and Teague, or one they watched when they were too young to discuss the physics of lightsaber optics?
  10. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Little Shop has been a favorite movie of mine since it came out in '86.

    It's important to note that I believe I defined what I consider a "perfect movie," which is one that fulfills all the promises it makes to the audience, and follows through on all the ideas it introduces. It doesn't have to have the best FX, the highest budget, or the most original plot. It's not being compared against any other movie to reach that (subjective) judgement. It's just that within itself, all the pieces fit together just as they should.

    It's what I consider "a" perfect movie, not "the" perfect movie.
  11. tumblemoster Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2000
    star 4
    The musical remake of Little Shop of Horrors is often panned as an inferior knockoff of [link=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054033/]the original[/link], which was not a musical. (I very much enjoyed both) You guys should consider doing a episode of the original, or wait for [link=http://www.cinematical.com/2009/04/15/non-musical-remake-of-little-shop-of-horrors-coming/]the coming remake.[/link]

    PS: Check out the [link=http://www.cinematical.com/2008/11/19/watch-this-original-ending-for-little-shop-of-horrors/]original ending of the 1986 musical[/link]
  12. Teague Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2006
    star 4
    [link=http://www.downinfront.net/?p=78]Holy crap![/link]
  13. Lrd_Radon Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 18, 2009
    star 1
    Hmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always perceived that the reason for the title being The Phantom Menace is because the main baddie was, in many ways, a phantom (i.e. it was unclear exactly how the main baddie was involved in this evil plot, but somehow, he was).
  14. VaporTrail Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    Right.
    I mean, I used to think "Phantom Menace" meant Maul (mainly cuz of that awesome poster with his face covering half of it)... but it probably means Palpy, or the Sith in general.

    It's not that the bad guys aren't being bad, it's that the good guys basically spend the first movie cutting through their lackeys. I don't know that the Trade Federation guys are even that evil, I think they're basically just victims of the whip, thinking they're in charge of somebody.


    Anyway.
    GHOSTBUSTERS! I'll be sure to listen in when I'm at my home station.
  15. elemental_fantasy Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2006
    star 4
    The Phantom Menace was givin that tittle for the character Ian played as Palp. in the film.
    And yes, I am gonna listen to GB as well as Little Shop of Horrors. Great film's IMHO!
  16. doggans Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 31, 2002
    star 5
    I guess they could do a commentary for the original, but I doubt it would ever reach the popularity of [link=http://www.rifftrax.com/dvd/little-shop-horrors-rifftrax-dvd]this one[/link].
  17. MasterZap Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2002
    star 4
    Nice work guys, but the Tunguska event was in 1908, not 1911 (nor 1909 as they say in the movie)

    /Z
  18. Darth_Bone Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Dec 29, 2001
    star 4
    Perfect timing guys. I was planing to watch Ghostbusters again for some time and now I've got a reason. Your show is excellent and fun listening to so keep it coming! Haven't seen Little Shop of Horrors yet but I'll definetely check it out soon.
  19. MasterZap Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2002
    star 4
    Wait, is this another film there exists people that "didn't understood it is a comedy". Really? REALLY!?!??!??!?

    /Z
  20. Teague Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2006
    star 4
    ...no? Where are you getting that?
  21. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    He's getting it from where I and Brian noted that it was only many years after first watching it that we realized it was a comedy.

    Zap, if you listen to the context of the conversation, the group of people that doesn't recognize it as a comedy right off the bat is generally referred to as "toddlers." And I don't mean intellectually, I mean literally three years old.
  22. MasterZap Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2002
    star 4
    Well, I have to be a bit like Trey (judging from his reaction); man... people who were toddlers in 1984, surely, these people are still in diapers, aren't they? ;)

    /Z
  23. FX_guy Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 3
    Yes, I was genuinely shocked to discover I was talking to someone who was one year old when Ghostbusters debuted.

    My lawn, get off it.
  24. Teague Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2006
    star 4
    This always comes up with me and people at work. I work with folks who are mostly ten or fifteen years older than me (and sometimes have to work to keep up with my stuff, I might humbly add), and they love to bring up how young I am.

    I love to bring up how I can literally eat delicious fast food and drink soda all day long and suffer zero bodily consequences - and in fact, look fabulous.

    That shuts 'em up.

    (Anyone who can testify that I do not look fabulous, leave this thread now.)

  25. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Fun fact: Fig does not dye his hair. He's just always bleeding from the scalp due to poor nutrition.
Moderators: TCF-1138
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.