Um...Author: SoulTaker ()
Date: 2000-04-13 00:00:00
"That's why when I mention typical Hollywood crap, I always bring up names of movies that piss me off, like Titanic and Braveheart. Let's take a look at Titanic, for instance: Here's a movie that had a teen heartthrob, a movie with big flasy special effects and production values, a movie that took a lot of money to make, a movey made by an egotistical director who produces the same sort of movies over and over and over and over, and a movie with a plot so unrealistic that my head almost spun when I was watching it. Do you think what happens between Jack and Rose can be applied to real life? That would never, ever happen. Mark my words. Yet, a gigantic ship did actually sink! I believe the name of that ship was the Titanic. Strange how that's the subplot of the whole freakin' movie. And before you say, "I'd like to see you do any better!" let me tell you that I can do better. Trust me on this one. Being a director is my ultimate dream. Well, a director/writer/producer, since I wouldn't trust anyone to make my movie with my vision. I'd need to do it all myself, and if I had the actors (good ones, not Hollywood actors), the cash, and the production team (a compitent one), I could make some damn fine movies...though not everyone would like them. Not everyone would pay attention and get them. Not everyone would really see the deeper aspects of the plot. Kinda like Magnolia."
You want to be a director? Aww, cool =)
OK, back to the subject: We can agree that Titanic is unrealistic. Your problem with Titanic seems to evolve around the lack of realism, and the fact that the film sold well because it had flashy effects and made young girls cry.
Well, I will now utter the magic words which will you give an unsurpassed hatred for me and which will have you offically pronounce vendetta on my family:
I actually liked Titanic.
Well, agreed, it wasn't original at all. It was just the same boy-meets-girl story which we've seen a thousand times before. But it didn't bother me that much. I admit it: I liked the movie because of it's flashy effects and production values. There, I said it. And I'm not even ashamed of it. Because, sometimes, something unoriginal can be good too, if it's done right.
For example, Doom 2. The game rocked, and is actually still very playable. But there is no gameplay difference whatsoever between Doom 2 and Doom. And the only gameplay difference between Doom and Wolfenstein 3D was a bunch of triggers and some sectors changing elevation. On the graphical side of things, it was an enormeous breakthrough, though.
My point is that while a movie may be unoriginal, it does not mean that it sucks.
Now, onto Braveheart. The movie may have been unrealistic, I don't know. I don't know the "True true story" of William Wallace. If the movie is as unrealistic as you say, I would be somewhat disgusted. Not because of the quality of the movie, but because it said it was realistic, but wasn't.
I see why you may not have liked Braveheart, if it was truly as unrealistic as you say. I wouldn't feel right if, when I saw the movie first, I knew that it was a totally unrealistic portrayal of history.
But let's just ignore the unrealism for a moment. When I watched the movie first, I didn't even know who William Wallace was. I didn't know anything about Scotland's history. For me, Scotland was just a place with lots of sheep and a funny accent.
So when I watched the movie, I liked it. Why? Because it has a good plot and good acting. The main character may have a girl, but the movie is still good.
"And when I look at Braveheart, I see the same damn thing. I could have made a generic film like Braveheart, and if I could, I'd probably make a few just to get rich. But I'd prefer to make serious, real films that have some semblence of quality attached to them. Anyone who has done any real research on the real William Wallace knows for a fact that they totally screwed up history and his character in the film. So why make a movie about a real event as opposed to making a film that's totally fictional and do the same damn thing with the entire plot? I get really f'n pissed off at these sorts of films that totally take a serious aspect of history and screw it all up just so they could have some typical Hollywood formulatic crap. See where I am going with this?"
It seems to me that you bash Braveheart and Titanic for their lack of realism and the fact that the main characters had sex, while you ignore other good aspects of the movies.
We can agree that Titanic was a cash-in, and people (including me) liked it mostly because it had those really flashy effects and huge production values.
But I don't think this is the case with Braveheart. It's a good movie with a good plot and good acting. It may not be realistic, though.
Why I hate Braveheart and Titanic. [I want feedback!] - SM_007 - 2000-04-12 00:00:00
-Die! - BandWidth - 2000-04-13 00:00:00
-Um... - SoulTaker - 2000-04-13 00:00:00
-why I liked them. - Tridus - 2000-04-12 00:00:00
-Uhh you're saying Braveheart is generic? - styx - 2000-04-12 00:00:00
--That was your response?! - SM_007 - 2000-04-12 00:00:00
---Yes it was. - styx - 2000-04-12 00:00:00
----I wouldn't have been able to reply to your points if I hadn't seen your point of view. - SM_007 - 2000-04-12 00:00:00
--You can hate Titantic for all I care though :P - styx - 2000-04-12 00:00:00
---Hehehe. *Stabs Leo DeCaprio to death with a spork.* - SM_007 - 2000-04-12 00:00:00