What I've Been Watching: The Catch-All Film Thread

I find the classic Bonds far easier to watch than the current ones. Man, they were sooo good back in the day!!!

Carnifex said:

I find the classic Bonds far easier to watch than the current ones. Man, they were sooo good back in the day!!!

Click to expand...

They're very laid back and naive with the plot they usually have. Very lighthearted and campy, as oposed to the current ones which take a more realistic look at the character of Bond. Personally, I like Daniel Craig as a Bond hero. I just like his acting and face. He's got something particular.

But I'm no fan of Bond movies in general, so don't take my opinion too seriously. I just like them, but I wouldn't call myself a fan.

I like Craig as Bond actually, I just think the stories he got handed are crap, save for Casino Royale. He can pull off the ruthless part of Bond very well imo, the only other one that ever did that was Connery.

danutz_plusplus said:

They're very laid back and naive with the plot they usually have. Very lighthearted and campy, as oposed to the current ones which take a more realistic look at the character of Bond. Personally, I like Daniel Craig as a Bond hero. I just like his acting and face. He's got something particular.

But I'm no fan of Bond movies in general, so don't take my opinion too seriously. I just like them, but I wouldn't call myself a fan.

Click to expand...

You remember how George Lucas' original concept for Star Wars was to make a homage to the old 1930s-1950s serials like Flash Gordon and Zorro and the like, James Bond is in a similar vein. Its meant to be a campy, highly fictional scenario where the hero overcomes the scheming machinations of a super-villain and always gets the girl with lots of action along the way.

Back in those days they even had book and tv serials called things like "boys own adventures", all of which have similar themes. Girls had their own similar series' as well.

Everything you see that you mark down as cliche or sexist or any other modern interpretation would have been both par for the course and actually expected back then. That was the pulp fiction standard in those days.

As you note, as the 60s progressed, this started changing radically and if you watch each Bond movie in date-order you'll notice them constantly trying to adapt to the latest 'cultural shift' with each successive movie. Some date better than others in this regard, but none of them should be watched solely using one specific current-day lense.

lackblogger said:

Some date better than others in this regard, but none of them should be watched solely using one specific current-day lense.

Click to expand...

Of course, and I have no issue doing that. But I'm in a position of priviledge, as a man. I can easily understand women feeling offended by the portrayal. Just as I imagine black people would be offended at seeing the original 1930s King Kong.

danutz_plusplus said:

Of course, and I have no issue doing that. But I'm in a position of priviledge, as a man. I can easily understand women feeling offended by the portrayal. Just as I imagine black people would be offended at seeing the original 1930s King Kong.

Click to expand...

No, one should never assume offence on other people's behalf. That is, in itself, a form of offensiveness.

lackblogger said:

No, one should never assume offence on other people's behalf. That is, in itself, a form of offensiveness.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the basis of human empathy? Being able to place yourself in other's shoes, and attempt to try and feel what they would feel?

danutz_plusplus said:

Isn't that the basis of human empathy? Being able to place yourself in other's shoes, and attempt to try and feel what they would feel?

Click to expand...

Yes, but to do so from multiple perspectives, not just from one specific one. So, for example, when you watch an old movie, one is imagining oneself in the shoes of the people who lived then, not merely abstractly viewing the piece as if it had been made yesterday and then putting yourself in the shoes of someone who might be offended by something that has a long-time since become offensive.

In effect, everything old is automatically offensive, it's impossible for it not to be, because change only happens when people react to their current, and as soon as they react and change, the old instantly becomes... old, and therefore offensive.

Then you get into the whole problem of offense not being something that is democratically and uniformly accepted, different people can and will maintain different standards. One does not wake up one day and everyone has miraculously decided that the next Bond should be a transgender neutral female to male ethnically diverse person of small stature with a speech impediment and learning difficulties, one wakes up to a conversation about that.

Bond in the 1960s was a misogynist pig because society expected men to be misogynist pigs back then, even most women. However, just like today, after each movie there would be discussion and the next movie would try to adapt to that discussion.

They are all equally perfectly suited to their time, and that is the aspect that requires empathy.

lackblogger said:

Bond in the 1960s was a misogynist pig because society expected men to be misogynist pigs back then, even most women. However, just like today, after each movie there would be discussion and the next movie would try to adapt to that discussion.

They are all equally perfectly suited to their time, and that is the aspect that requires empathy.

Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but you're forgetting that when you say society expected men to this way, and women to be another way. You're not talking about society as a whole; but a subset of society which has the economic and political power to ensure that is what is expected.

So when you say to empathize with "society" for what it was at one point, you're actually saying empathize with the influential people that set the trend to what was beneficial for them. And then the rest of the people who followed, either because it benefitted them or because they were tricked, or because they were oppressed and their voices didn't matter.

To take it to an even more extreme example, are you saying empathize with both nazis and the jews they opressed?

Personally, I have no issue with someday society deciding that what I'm doing now, for example participating in over-consumption in this capitalist system, is morally wrong and that I should have fought against it, not go along. I don't need to be excused. Some people do need to be excused, especially the poor who have absolutely no say in this, but I would by no means say society needs to be understood. Because society is filled with a lot of influential people who definately don't need to be empathized with, and a lot of people that could've done differently but didn't because it was easier to just go along. Who I would be empathetic are the people who truly have no other choice, or the people who have been brainwashed/tricked into it.

Anyway, I feel a long debate itching to start from this, but I'm not sure I have the energy for it. So let's just say we'll agree to disagree, if that's ok with you.

No, no long debate needed, you're clearly vastly over-thinking this.

It's some pulp fiction from 60 years ago, who's primary function is action entertainment. The fact that some small scenes wouldn't get made today in the same way is really quite immaterial to the whole.

Empathising doesn't equal agreeing with. It just means "I'm going to watch an old movie now, therefore I will adjust my expectations regarding my new normal and just enjoy the thing for what it is, what it was, and maybe have a little chuckle at the really out-dated stuff".

Most of what you said there is also incorrect, but, in that regard, yes, that would be a politics and religion thread discussion. You could use your post above to start that discussion in the appropriate forum & I'd happily reply, but let's keep it to movies for this thread.

lackblogger said:

Most of what you said there is also incorrect, but, in that regard, yes, that would be a politics and religion thread discussion. You could use your post above to start that discussion in the appropriate forum & I'd happily reply, but let's keep it to movies for this thread.

Click to expand...

I don't see how it's incorrect, but doesn't matter.

Anyways, speaking about older movies, I started watching an old tv series that I keep hearing about, Gilligan's Island. It feels like a live-action cartoon most of the time. Most of the jokes are pretty meh, but for some I find myself smiling. The Skipper in particular is very likeable. Anyway, not sure if I'll continue with it, as it feels like a waste of time, but it was an interesting experience.

The reason I tried it was that I was looking for media about being stranded on an island. Anyone have any recommendations for this? The only ones I know around this topic are Cast Away and LOST. Anything else worth watching?

There are Robinson Crusoe movies. I've only watched the one with Pierce Brosnan and it's pretty meh. Apparently there was also a TV series Crusoe.
As a kid I watched Blue lagoon movies but you'll have to torture me to watch that now.
Not quite your classic stranded on island theme, but there's also Mysterious island (the old Harryhousen one and Hallmark TV series with Patrick Stewart, both enjoyable).
Worth mentioning - the survival series with Ed Grills episode where he does a couple of weeks alone on an Pacific island.

Mysterious Island (1961) is a good fun ride, has lots of cool monsters in it all animated by the stop-motion legend Ray Harryhausen.

Journey 2 Mysterious Island is a modern remake starring The Rock Dwayne Johnson which uses CGI instead and is more slapstick.

Lord of the Flies (1969) is an intellectual classic about a group of boys stranded on an island. There are other versions as well, but I think people still call this one the better one.

The Blue Lagoon (1980) is a cinematic oddity and was popular in its day, but intellectuals don't like it.

Hell in the Pacific (1968) is another cinematic oddity which pairs Lee Marvin with Toshiro Mifune as two wartime shipwrecks on an island in the pacific, both unsure whether to kill their only 'friend/enemy' on the island. Mifune was the actor most famously associated with Akira Kurosawa.

If I think of any more I'll post them tomorrow, off to bed now, just a few off the top of my head.

Thanks. I think I saw Lord of the Flies.

Surprising that there’s so few around this premise. And even fewer big budget ones. You’d think it’s a gold mine of creative possibilities.

danutz_plusplus said:

Thanks. I think I saw Lord of the Flies.

Surprising that there’s so few around this premise. And even fewer big budget ones. You’d think it’s a gold mine of creative possibilities.

Click to expand...

Oh, there's hundreds of movies set around being stuck on an island, it's a very popular theme for fiction writers because you can limit your cast and preclude the option of them just getting up and moving out when the going gets rough.

Jurassic Park is a stuck on an island film, as is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (many versions), Treasure Island, the first Sinbad movie and lots of others, but it depends on the definition of stuck and whether the core of the drama revolves around dealing with being stuck on the island or whether the core of the drama is something else entirely, which, in these last few, it certainly is.

Swiss Family Robinson is another very famous and iconic stuck on an island franchise with a gazillion variations beyond the 1960 movie. The Lost in Space tv series and film are based on SFR, but they're about being stuck on a desert planet rather than a desert island, basically the same thing.

Red Dwarf and its ilk are based on similar themes, stuck in a space-ship, it's the same as stuck on an island really, same with Alien/s, and The Thing, either version are again similar in vein to the concept.

So you'd need to really narrow down the specifics to get a really good short-list.

lackblogger said:

Oh, there's hundreds of movies set around being stuck on an island, it's a very popular theme for fiction writers because you can limit your cast and preclude the option of them just getting up and moving out when the going gets rough.

Jurassic Park is a stuck on an island film, as is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (many versions), Treasure Island, the first Sinbad movie and lots of others, but it depends on the definition of stuck and whether the core of the drama revolves around dealing with being stuck on the island or whether the core of the drama is something else entirely, which, in these last few, it certainly is.

Swiss Family Robinson is another very famous and iconic stuck on an island franchise with a gazillion variations beyond the 1960 movie. The Lost in Space tv series and film are based on SFR, but they're about being stuck on a desert planet rather than a desert island, basically the same thing.

Red Dwarf and its ilk are based on similar themes, stuck in a space-ship, it's the same as stuck on an island really, same with Alien/s, and The Thing, either version are again similar in vein to the concept.

So you'd need to really narrow down the specifics to get a really good short-list.

Click to expand...

Indeed, I wasn't specific enough. I think I was looking for something gritty/survival oriented/fighting with the elements/hunger/loneliness/etc. Cast away did it perfectly, but I've seen that too many times. LOST was also great for that, since they took that premise and ran wild with it.

I think I have a certain memory that I am very fond of, from when I was a child and was reading Jules Vernes's Mysterious Island. I loved the whole setup of them trying to grow crops/vegetables and establishing their hideout in those caves in the cliff face. I was thinking of trying the movie adaptations of the book, but having seen the trailer to one of them it felt too much like a campy B movie to be worth spoiling my memory. Do any of them do justice to the book?

No, I haven't read the book for that one I'm afraid.

I tried watching the new Bruce Willis sci-fi movie, Breach. I wasn't expecting much, but damn… This is like a film-school project, utterly incompetent and cheap on every level. It reminded me of one of those old VHS movies you'd pick up one evening when pickings were slim, thinking, "Maybe." Then you'd realise you'd got what you deserved.

Didn't get past the half hour mark.

Ripper said:

I tried watching the new Bruce Willis sci-fi movie, Breach. I wasn't expecting much, but damn… This is like a film-school project, utterly incompetent and cheap on every level. It reminded me of one of those old VHS movies you'd pick up one evening when pickings were slim, thinking, "Maybe." Then you'd realise you'd got what you deserved.

Didn't get past the half hour mark.

Click to expand...

If you want to see a bigger analysis of Willis’s latest years in film and the disaster that he turned into.

https://youtu.be/fP47VQTxufM

The way he’s churning them out you’d think he’s Nicolas Cage trying to make money as fast as possible to avoid going to jail for tax evasion.

Just over halfway through Thunderball, and I think this might be my favorite of them so far. It feels like the plot is the most thoughtout of them. Even though there are still plenty of hardly believable elements. I even liked that SPECTRE asked for diamonds and not cash in exchange for the nukes.