The off topic thread 4.0

Bojan KantKick

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 5, 2014
20,343
18,227
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Manchester United, Stevenage FC
In what way? My point is it's not an original stylisation of a film so I'm not quite sure why some are losing their minds over it.

Most Oscar bait movies include gimmicks to make themselves seem cutting edge. If the plot and premise grabs me when I see it I'll still think it's a great movie, but things like that aren't ground breaking anymore.
The film was beautifully shot and the way it was shot certainly added to the film as opposed to being a gimmick to try and win an oscar. What really stood out to me was the tension throughout the film. War films with repetitive violence bore me after a while whilst 1917 was gripping imo. WW1 films are difficult for a number of reasons and Sam Mendes absolutely nailed it.
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
91,205
51,567
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
The film was beautifully shot and the way it was shot certainly added to the film as opposed to being a gimmick to try and win an oscar. What really stood out to me was the tension throughout the film. War films with repetitive violence bore me after a while whilst 1917 was gripping imo. WW1 films are difficult for a number of reasons and Sam Mendes absolutely nailed it.
Oh for sure, I'm sure it's very nuanced and I'm sure I'll love it, I'm incredibly keen to see it, don't get me wrong. I suppose my labeling of the 'single shot' style as a gimmick is because it sucks in people like WR who have never seen it before and think it's some amazing groundbreaking feature when it isn't.
 

WealstoneRaider

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 8, 2015
16,011
8,719
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Oh for sure, I'm sure it's very nuanced and I'm sure I'll love it, I'm incredibly keen to see it, don't get me wrong. I suppose my labeling of the 'single shot' style as a gimmick is because it sucks in people like WR who have never seen it before and think it's some amazing groundbreaking feature when it isn't.
Lol you are such a numpty. I told you I’ve watched Hitchcock Rope which was a single take movie made in the 50’s. The single shot thing hasn’t been done in a war movie though, and certainly not to the level that we’ve seen in 1917. You are just talking shIt as per usual
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
91,205
51,567
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
Lol you are such a numpty. I told you I’ve watched Hitchcock Rope which was a single take movie made in the 50’s. The single shot thing hasn’t been done in a war movie though, and certainly not to the level that we’ve seen in 1917. You are just talking shIt as per usual
Oh ok so because it hasn't been done in a war movie it's groundbreaking? Tenuous.
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
91,205
51,567
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
And because it’s not been done so spectacularly before. It was brought to a whole new level.
And that's a fair enough response. I mean if you'd just started by saying that when I asked you what was groundbreaking it would have avoided all of this. I look forward to seeing it and amazingly, after watching both I might think 1917 should have won Best Picture. I haven't actually offered an opinion on who should have won because *gasp* I haven't seen either.
 

WealstoneRaider

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 8, 2015
16,011
8,719
AFL Club
Hawthorn
And that's a fair enough response. I mean if you'd just started by saying that when I asked you what was groundbreaking it would have avoided all of this. I look forward to seeing it and amazingly, after watching both I might think 1917 should have won Best Picture. I haven't actually offered an opinion on who should have won because *gasp* I haven't seen either.
You’re the one who gets unnecessary tetchy. Just chill your beans and things will be smoother. What’s the point in being angsty all the time? Absolutely none, you’ll just give yourself a premature death
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Buckleys Jocks

Club Legend
Jul 7, 2014
2,131
2,703
AFL Club
Collingwood
Maybe I just don't like that style of show, I dunno. I mean, I loved 95% of The Sopranos, and I'd say that's a similar-ish show? (Gangsters/thugs/cops etc.) so who knows.
Not really TBH. They're my two favourite shows and are similar in that they deal with crime but that's it really.

The Wire is completely unique in that it is made to be as gritty and realistic as possible, almost with a journalistic style. Visually it is deliberately unspectacular and it has a massive ensemble cast largely based on real people, and often played by "actors" who actually lived these roles. The dialogue is simple and authentic with no eloquent or emotive monologues. This is both the biggest strength and the biggest weakness of the show IMO. It is brilliantly done but compared to something like The Soprano's or Breaking Bad which are carried by such strong protagonists (and top class actors) it can be really hard to get into for a lot of fans.

The Wire isn't really a crime story though. I'd failed to get into it when I treated it as a crime story. It was only after I went to uni and it would constantly pop up in lectures and reading material that I could view it for what it really is; a social commentary.

It uses a drug investigation to explore all of this but it is about so much more than criminals and cops. There's a scene early in the first season where one of the characters explains how Chess works: "The King stay the King, a'ight? Everything stay who he is". This is the show in a nut shell. It explores the many factors and elements of society, government, education etc which create these conditions.

From memory you've seen a fair bit of it, yeah? I reckon it probably would have clicked for you by now if you were going to get into it. There isn't much middle ground with The Wire, if you're into it then it is the GOAT but if you're not it can be a real struggle to follow.

For me it is the GOAT but even then, I have to be in the right mood to watch an episode. Whereas with The Soprano's I'm always up for an episode.
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
91,205
51,567
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
Not really TBH. They're my two favourite shows and are similar in that they deal with crime but that's it really.

The Wire is completely unique in that it is made to be as gritty and realistic as possible, almost with a journalistic style. Visually it is deliberately unspectacular and it has a massive ensemble cast largely based on real people, and often played by "actors" who actually lived these roles. The dialogue is simple and authentic with no eloquent or emotive monologues. This is both the biggest strength and the biggest weakness of the show IMO. It is brilliantly done but compared to something like The Soprano's or Breaking Bad which are carried by such strong protagonists (and top class actors) it can be really hard to get into for a lot of fans.

The Wire isn't really a crime story though. I'd failed to get into it when I treated it as a crime story. It was only after I went to uni and it would constantly pop up in lectures and reading material that I could view it for what it really is; a social commentary.

It uses a drug investigation to explore all of this but it is about so much more than criminals and cops. There's a scene early in the first season where one of the characters explains how Chess works: "The King stay the King, a'ight? Everything stay who he is". This is the show in a nut shell. It explores the many factors and elements of society, government, education etc which create these conditions.

From memory you've seen a fair bit of it, yeah? I reckon it probably would have clicked for you by now if you were going to get into it. There isn't much middle ground with The Wire, if you're into it then it is the GOAT but if you're not it can be a real struggle to follow.

For me it is the GOAT but even then, I have to be in the right mood to watch an episode. Whereas with The Soprano's I'm always up for an episode.
Yeah that's why I said similar-ish. I'd also say the episodic nature is quite similar, in that the plot can be quite tangential and doesn't follow a clear through line.

I've watched all of it, and I did really enjoy the school season because I enjoyed the connections with kids and the efforts of teachers to reach children in need.
 

Buckleys Jocks

Club Legend
Jul 7, 2014
2,131
2,703
AFL Club
Collingwood
Yeah I wouldn't mind reading the book, I might enjoy that more.
I watched the show first and enjoyed it but didn't think it was anything spectacular. The book is very different and much more interesting though.

Have you read much alternative history?
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
91,205
51,567
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
I watched the show first and enjoyed it but didn't think it was anything spectacular. The book is very different and much more interesting though.

Have you read much alternative history?
Outside of "normal" Sci Fi, no I haven't, I think I would enjoy it a lot though.
 

ADL9798

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 18, 2009
11,967
13,387
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool
Not arguing that Parasite isn’t a good film, but I’m sorry but when you lobby for a perceived lack of diversity every five minutes then the consequences are many people will make an assumption that lip service is being paid when awards are given. 1917 is one of the best films in years. Parasite sounds cool having read the plot but I’m not going out of my way to see a film that I can only follow by reading the subtitles.
And when you make assumptions like this, you undermine yourself. It makes me question the value of your opinions. If you think it’s a good movie or a shit movie, that’s fine, call it as you see it, but is it too much to ask you at least watch it first before confidently stating it was a token award?

What about “I haven’t seen Parasite yet but it would have to be an incredible movie to beat 1917”. Simple.
 

Top Bottom