This would be great. Take one subject or series of events and fully flesh it out. For such a long film, it felt rushed because they were trying to cram so much material into it. I bet the first cut was 3 or 4 hours.aTmAg said:
Like I said.. given the run length, I don't think they could have done a better job. They really need to do a 10 part miniseries to make it perfect.
Reagan movie is pretty good.
9,676 Views |
91 Replies |
Last: 3 mo ago by HarleySpoon
Sapper Redux said:Philip J Fry said:
Probably didn't want to touch it since Obama and Biden gave Iran billions of dollars instead of old weapons.
May want to look up where that money came from and why it was released. Us holding it was against international law and it's still being managed for very specific purposes. Quite different from actively arming the mullah to provide money for death squads that slaughtered civilians.
The fungibility of money would like a word.
Head Ninja In Charge
Joined:
Oct 10, 2005
Posts:
18,976
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They really thought they were having their Oppenheimer moment with this I am crying pic.twitter.com/Jrv0CD5ANO
— Ali 🇵🇸 (@AliTheFern) September 4, 2024
This...this can't be the movie you guys are talking about...right?
Wow.
This happens with Star Wars, Marvel, etc too, but I sometimes forget that there are certain audiences who deem something "good" simply because it included the big thing they wanted to see/hear. No matter how hammy, cringe, terrible, or poorly executed, as long as Glup Sh*tto or Captain Phantasma or whoever did the thing from the cartoon or said the thing from the comic book, that's all that matters. The filmmaking itself could be absolute crap, and beyond parody, like it is in that clip, and it either wouldn't matter or they wouldn't notice, as long the "yep, that happened" box is checked. And look, more power to those people. It's when they double down and insist that the thing is actually good/well executed, as opposed to simply being a series of plot points that satisfy the syllabus in their head, that I push back.
This happens with Star Wars, Marvel, etc too, but I sometimes forget that there are certain audiences who deem something "good" simply because it included the big thing they wanted to see/hear. No matter how hammy, cringe, terrible, or poorly executed, as long as Glup Sh*tto or Captain Phantasma or whoever did the thing from the cartoon or said the thing from the comic book, that's all that matters. The filmmaking itself could be absolute crap, and beyond parody, like it is in that clip, and it either wouldn't matter or they wouldn't notice, as long the "yep, that happened" box is checked. And look, more power to those people. It's when they double down and insist that the thing is actually good/well executed, as opposed to simply being a series of plot points that satisfy the syllabus in their head, that I push back.
Head Ninja In Charge said:They really thought they were having their Oppenheimer moment with this I am crying pic.twitter.com/Jrv0CD5ANO
— Ali 🇵🇸 (@AliTheFern) September 4, 2024
This...this can't be the movie you guys are talking about...right?
I was assured
Quote:
The cinematography was great, really gave the feel of the era. So difficult to tell what was real footage and what wasn't.
Oh. Someone doesn't like a movie about an icon of conservatives.
I'm shocked.
I'm shocked.
I read the book about the writing of the speech (by the speech writer himself). In it, it describes that there were many heated arguments about whether or not to include that line. James Baker and others were adamantly opposed and demanded the writers take the line out. On different revisions of the speech the line kept being added and removed by different sides. When Reagan made the speech, the writers had no idea if Reagan would actually say it or not. Since Reagan liked the line, he basically said "F-it" and said it. That is why the writers were celebrating. Because the big guy sided with them over the pansies in the admin.Head Ninja In Charge said:They really thought they were having their Oppenheimer moment with this I am crying pic.twitter.com/Jrv0CD5ANO
— Ali 🇵🇸 (@AliTheFern) September 4, 2024
This...this can't be the movie you guys are talking about...right?
In this scene, the guys celebrating are the writers. And yes, this did actually happen.
And, for the morons who would like to claim "it's just a speech". it should be mentioned that transcripts of Reagan speeches were secretly passed around among Soviet and other eastern block citizens as they found them inspirational. There is a reason this one is considered one of the greatest presidential speeches of all time.
Girl with Palestine flag in her X profile, who definitely did not live through the rampant fear of the 1980s Cold War, posting a bootleg clip of 45 seconds of a movie she definitely didn't see and taking a dump on it.Head Ninja In Charge said:They really thought they were having their Oppenheimer moment with this I am crying pic.twitter.com/Jrv0CD5ANO
— Ali 🇵🇸 (@AliTheFern) September 4, 2024
This...this can't be the movie you guys are talking about...right?
Who ****ing cares what she thinks?
Have you seen it?TCTTS said:
Wow.
This happens with Star Wars, Marvel, etc too, but I sometimes forget that there are certain audiences who deem something "good" simply because it included the big thing they wanted to see/hear. No matter how hammy, cringe, terrible, or poorly executed, as long as Glup Sh*tto or Captain Phantasma or whoever did the thing from the cartoon or said the thing from the comic book, that's all that matters. The filmmaking itself could be absolute crap, and beyond parody, like it is in that clip, and it either wouldn't matter or they wouldn't notice, as long the "yep, that happened" box is checked. And look, more power to those people. It's when they double down and insist that the thing is actually good/well executed, as opposed to simply being a series of plot points that satisfy the syllabus in their head, that I push back.
odds are no.
TCTTS said:
Wow.
This happens with Star Wars, Marvel, etc too, but I sometimes forget that there are certain audiences who deem something "good" simply because it included the big thing they wanted to see/hear. No matter how hammy, cringe, terrible, or poorly executed, as long as Glup Sh*tto or Captain Phantasma or whoever did the thing from the cartoon or said the thing from the comic book, that's all that matters. The filmmaking itself could be absolute crap, and beyond parody, like it is in that clip, and it either wouldn't matter or they wouldn't notice, as long the "yep, that happened" box is checked. And look, more power to those people. It's when they double down and insist that the thing is actually good/well executed, as opposed to simply being a series of plot points that satisfy the syllabus in their head, that I push back.
Are you not doing exactly the opposite by basing your opinion of the movie by a single clip?
If you have seen it, apologies.
Which is ironic and hypocritical since he repeatedly bashes people who criticize a movie that they have not yet seen.Furlock Bones said:
odds are no.
And it's also noteworthy since many movies that he praises here are absolute crap. I've learned to use him as a contrary indicator.
Passengers. The greatest movie script ever written.
aTmAg said:Which is ironic and hypocritical since he repeatedly bashes people who criticize a movie that they have not yet seen.Furlock Bones said:
odds are no.
And it's also noteworthy since many movies that he praises here are absolute crap. I've learned to use him as a contrary indicator.
First time dealing with the left?
ElizabethtownFurlock Bones said:
Passengers. The greatest movie script ever written.
Transformers 1-100
Before you pile on TC (oops, too late), the real problem here is the polarization of movie fans.
Those who want it to be art first and fun second look down on the ones who cheer when 75-year-old Han Solo says "never tell me the odds" or Garfield gets his "save the girl" moment in No way Home.
Those who want it to be fun first and don't worry about how well made it is think the ones who do so are too uppity and snooty to enjoy a movie for what it is.
Neither side is going to convince the other, ever.
I haven't seen the RR movie due to time constraints, but I bet that scene plays pretty well in the context of the whole film because by then you're believing Quaid is Reagan and the stakes have been laid out.
TC is a different breed of movie fan. He and I are way different in what it takes to enjoy a movie.
Both opinions are OK.
Those who want it to be art first and fun second look down on the ones who cheer when 75-year-old Han Solo says "never tell me the odds" or Garfield gets his "save the girl" moment in No way Home.
Those who want it to be fun first and don't worry about how well made it is think the ones who do so are too uppity and snooty to enjoy a movie for what it is.
Neither side is going to convince the other, ever.
I haven't seen the RR movie due to time constraints, but I bet that scene plays pretty well in the context of the whole film because by then you're believing Quaid is Reagan and the stakes have been laid out.
TC is a different breed of movie fan. He and I are way different in what it takes to enjoy a movie.
Both opinions are OK.
I don't have any opinions about the movie but seeing the word hagiography mentioned more times on this thread than its entire previous existence on all of TexAgs is hilarious to me.
Aggie journalist calls it hagiography and then two other journalist websites also called hagiography. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but can we just be original in our disdain for something is all I ask.
Aggie journalist calls it hagiography and then two other journalist websites also called hagiography. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but can we just be original in our disdain for something is all I ask.
I assumed a hagiography would be about someone like Broom Hilda.RikkiTikkaTagem said:
I don't have any opinions about the movie but seeing the word hagiography mentioned more times on this thread than its entire previous existence on all of TexAgs is hilarious to me.
Aggie journalist calls it hagiography and then two other journalist websites also called hagiography. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but can we just be original in our disdain for something is all I ask.
Yeah, that would have been ideal for Reagan.Ryan the Temp said:This would be great. Take one subject or series of events and fully flesh it out. For such a long film, it felt rushed because they were trying to cram so much material into it. I bet the first cut was 3 or 4 hours.aTmAg said:
Like I said.. given the run length, I don't think they could have done a better job. They really need to do a 10 part miniseries to make it perfect.
I really enjoyed The Kennedys miniseries from several years back with Greg Kinnear as JFK, Katie Holmes as Jackie, and Barry Pepper as RFK. They were able to go more in depth than a single movie, and I think that gave it more breathing room to humanize them and explain their complicated history.
I feel like that's more common than a single film for theater because there's so much to unpack with political figures.
RikkiTikkaTagem said:
I don't have any opinions about the movie but seeing the word hagiography mentioned more times on this thread than its entire previous existence on all of TexAgs is hilarious to me.
Aggie journalist calls it hagiography and then two other journalist websites also called hagiography. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but can we just be original in our disdain for something is all I ask.
There has to be some media word of the day calendar that everyone in the industry uses.
I agree with this post and It is a microcosm of society today, but this particular exchange is definitely influenced by the pure visceral joy that TCTTS and atmag experience when discussing polarizing topics with each other.
Hell, the entire board loves the warm embrace of an atmag exchange.
Hell, the entire board loves the warm embrace of an atmag exchange.
I'm actually one of those who is even more critical on movies or shows based on things I care about. The last thing you will see me doing is blindly fist-pumping something that aligns with my beliefs simply for the sake that it aligns with them. Quality is quality and **** is *****
I haven't seen the movie, but I simply cringe at the concept of anything in the movie being cringeworthy. Not going to watch that clip above because I do want to see the movie, eventually, and really hope it is good.
I haven't seen the movie, but I simply cringe at the concept of anything in the movie being cringeworthy. Not going to watch that clip above because I do want to see the movie, eventually, and really hope it is good.
Going tomorrow with a watch party so we're definitely homers. But I hope it's not a cheese fest. I'm ok with some campiness, but nothing like a Hallmark movie.
Btw, my wife and I loved the Passengers. My key to happiness with movies is to disregard opinions ahead of time unless you really know the reviewer is aligned with you. I don't even look for reviews unless I'm struggling for an idea to watch.
Btw, my wife and I loved the Passengers. My key to happiness with movies is to disregard opinions ahead of time unless you really know the reviewer is aligned with you. I don't even look for reviews unless I'm struggling for an idea to watch.
The scene they are calling cringe is an accurate portrayal of something that happened in real life as documented in a book by one of the participants. So there is that.
Sea Speed said:
I agree with this post and It is a microcosm of society today, but this particular exchange is definitely influenced by the pure visceral joy that TCTTS and atmag experience when discussing polarizing topics with each other.
Hell, the entire board loves the warm embrace of an atmag exchange.
aTmAg said:Which is ironic and hypocritical since he repeatedly bashes people who criticize a movie that they have not yet seen.Furlock Bones said:
odds are no.
And it's also noteworthy since many movies that he praises here are absolute crap. I've learned to use him as a contrary indicator.
Please show me in my post where I critiqued the movie itself.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
With that out of the way, what I do rail against on this board is when certain people jump to conclusions / ***** and moan about entire movies they haven't yet seen, months before those movies hit theaters, based on limited information, the need to pre-label everything "woke," etc.
Which is not at all what I'm doing here.
I'm simply reacting to the scene in front of me, which is a final product being projected in a movie theater. I'm critiquing this clip, and this clip alone, then using it to make a broader observation about "fan" culture, be it Star Wars, Marvel, or politics. What I'm not doing anywhere in my previous post is using this clip to make any kind of judgement call on the movie as a whole.
maroon barchetta said:aTmAg said:Which is ironic and hypocritical since he repeatedly bashes people who criticize a movie that they have not yet seen.Furlock Bones said:
odds are no.
And it's also noteworthy since many movies that he praises here are absolute crap. I've learned to use him as a contrary indicator.
First time dealing with the left?
For the 400th time, I've voted Republican in every election in which I've been eligible to vote, since 2000, save for the years Trump has run for president. In other words, just because I work in Hollywood and can't stand Trump, specifically, doesn't mean I'm a liberal, or a hypocrite, or whatever other reductive, ill-informed nonsense you guys are always assuming/spouting about me. Then again, considering your continued obsession with showing up in every last thread in which I post, to add to the pile-on, this is par for the course, and I'm not all surprised.
aTmAg said:
The scene they are calling cringe is an accurate portrayal of something that happened in real life as documented in a book by one of the participants. So there is that.
Across multiple posts now you've done exactly what I was referring to in my initial post. Just because something is accurate, and checks the desired historical boxes, doesn't automatically mean it's good. Or, rather, it doesn't automatically make it immune from criticism. Because what I'm commenting on in that clip is the filmmaking… i.e. the acting, the editing, the cinematography, the hammy, cloying vibe, etc. The clip simply reeks of Hallmark cheese from a filmmaking standpoint, which has absolutely nothing to do with historical accuracy. If historical accuracy is enough for you, great. Again, more power to you. Just don't try to convince me that the clip I watched is quality cinema / that historical accuracy automatically = good filmmaking.
You post in every thread about a movie. And this board doesn't have that many users. We are all gonna cross paths on multiple threads.
Why don't you like Trump? You are both narcissists.
Good grief, man. Everything isn't about you.
Why don't you like Trump? You are both narcissists.
Good grief, man. Everything isn't about you.
In a post in which aTmAg responded to ME, and called ME a hypocrite, you responded to him by saying, "First time dealing with the left?" In other words, your post was LITERALLY about me, assuming I'm on the left. There's no other way to interpret that.
In return, I simply defended myself.
This is yet another move from the same old playbook. Often when I respond to something clearly about me, you and a handful of others immediately go into gaslight mode and pull the cliched, "lol, not everything is about you, narcissistic." After hundreds of instances just like this, I'm beyond used to it, but it doesn't make it any less obvious or hilarious.
In return, I simply defended myself.
This is yet another move from the same old playbook. Often when I respond to something clearly about me, you and a handful of others immediately go into gaslight mode and pull the cliched, "lol, not everything is about you, narcissistic." After hundreds of instances just like this, I'm beyond used to it, but it doesn't make it any less obvious or hilarious.
Who is Finn? Are you secretly FN 2187?
It's a terribly shot sequence with a soundtrack that's trying to blow your ears out and perfectly capped by an absurdly acted Margaret Thatcher line.aTmAg said:
The scene they are calling cringe is an accurate portrayal of something that happened in real life as documented in a book by one of the participants. So there is that.
aTmAg said:Which is ironic and hypocritical since he repeatedly bashes people who criticize a movie that they have not yet seen.Furlock Bones said:
odds are no.
And it's also noteworthy since many movies that he praises here are absolute crap. I've learned to use him as a contrary indicator.
It's why I've completely ignored any opinion he's given on movies. I learned my lesson
This thread is typical F13 fodder. Never change, boys.
I like how guys talk about TC like he can't read the board or he's dead. Buy some stars so you can trash people in DMs like the rest of us!
Featured Stories
See All
21:35
21h ago
4.6k
Buzz Williams' Ags are proving why experience, continuity still matter
by Luke Evangelist
13:15
23h ago
3.0k