Y'know, I see what you mean....

Posted by Jimmie from evrtwa1-ar8-4-65-018-194.evrtwa1.dsl-verizon.net (4.65.18.194) on Friday, August 30, 2002 at 2:56am :

In Reply to: Re: "follow you home in a quiet car"..... posted by Patterson from ? (66.123.147.146) on Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 5:25pm :

...but I guess I wasn't exactly clear, either. I think the INTENT is more damaging than the act...as you said (sort of), it all depends upon one's SPECIFIC definition. I tend to view "Darkness" in films as I semi-stated before : Dependant on the specific film. I came away from STRANGE DAYS feeling as if I needed a shower. Watching those scummy people move through that scummy world for better than two hours, all for an end that, while I despise the happy-go-lucky Hollywood cop-out, really wasn't worth it. That, to me, was *DARK*!! Not much violence, not much gore, just darn creepy people!!
While ToD, as hungry as I was for more Indy, went in a direction I hadn't expected, based on the "formula" of the first film. The *intent* of those people in ToD is horrible, nasty, brutal, and, in the words of my oldest, just plain yucky ^^;
I expected another, for lack of a better phrase, run-of-the-mill adventure, and was instead gob-smacked with the story of a cruel, cruel person who, by design, has resurrected a centuries-old cult-o-evil, and plans on taking over the world through the downfall of every major religion, replacing said religions with their own...but only through beatings, slavery, torture, sacrifice, and mind control. The movie could've been 2 hours of "I shall rule the world" speeches, but would have been less effective. SS *needed* to show us the nasty things these people were doing in the effort to attain said world domination.
Perhaps it feels less so to you BECAUSE it's an Indy film...beats me. I'm no psychologist :)

You were absolutely right in your definition of DARK....emphasis on YOUR DEFINITION. You get creeped out by thrillers, IE : Hitchcock films (and as well you should), whereas I get creeped out by characterizations...in any movie. M.Night DOES have the knack, but I get less and less creeped by his films as time goes by.I need a STARNGE DAYS, or a DONNIE DARKO, or a DARK BACKWARD or MEMENTO to get me feeling like I need to drive out of my way to lose the tail...so to speak.
HOWEVER, the things in ToD are obviously not for children. And in my reference to ToD being "dark", I measure it against the other two (VERY COOL ADVENTURE, and PHONE-IT-IN CLICHE), and against what my children are allowed to view, and how they will react. Presented as a set, which of the 3 will most likely give folks either the heeby-jeebies, or outright nightmares? ESPECIALLY to children. There's next to NO violence in SIGNS, yet I will not allow my oldest to watch it. The INTENT is to make us believe that these aliens are hostile - something I think is a great plot device : the ambiguity - but would be very damaging to my daughter. She LOVES aliens. In this regard, the film is too dark. ME? I loved the movie, as did my wife, but we both agreed that the structure *was* simply a plot device. Without the PERCIEVED threat of hostile takeover, there wouldn't have been any hiding, and certainly no damn creepy offscreen hijinks with the coal shute. Two very different movies with two very definitions of "dark"...

I said before that I wish LC could've been made about 5 years sooner than it had been. What an outstanding movie we could've had. Unfortunately, SS got a bit scared from the backlash ToD produced, and started trying to be "safe" (something I think he finally got past, BTW, with MINORITY REPORT)....Hmmm...I wonder what LC would've been like had ToD been readly EMBRACED as a bold picture...?

Anyway, enough of my rambling.....Sorry this is so long, but it's late, and this is stream-o-thought...

Good string indeed!!

Jimmie

Follow Ups: Re: Y'know, I see what you mean.... - Patterson 12:59pm 08/30/2002 See, and that's cool, 'cause... - Jimmie 4:41pm 08/30/2002 Certainly is a great string! - Brett Maverick Lambert 4:02am 08/30/2002 Re: Certainly is a great string! - Patterson 1:01pm 08/30/2002 Post a Followup Name: E-Mail: ( default ) Subject: Message: : ...but I guess I wasn't exactly clear, either. I think the INTENT is more damaging than the act...as you said (sort of), it all depends upon one's SPECIFIC definition. I tend to view "Darkness" in films as I semi-stated before : Dependant on the specific film. I came away from STRANGE DAYS feeling as if I needed a shower. Watching those scummy people move through that scummy world for better than two hours, all for an end that, while I despise the happy-go-lucky Hollywood cop-out, really wasn't worth it. That, to me, was *DARK*!! Not much violence, not much gore, just darn creepy people!! : While ToD, as hungry as I was for more Indy, went in a direction I hadn't expected, based on the "formula" of the first film. The *intent* of those people in ToD is horrible, nasty, brutal, and, in the words of my oldest, just plain yucky ^^; : I expected another, for lack of a better phrase, run-of-the-mill adventure, and was instead gob-smacked with the story of a cruel, cruel person who, by design, has resurrected a centuries-old cult-o-evil, and plans on taking over the world through the downfall of every major religion, replacing said religions with their own...but only through beatings, slavery, torture, sacrifice, and mind control. The movie could've been 2 hours of "I shall rule the world" speeches, but would have been less effective. SS *needed* to show us the nasty things these people were doing in the effort to attain said world domination. : Perhaps it feels less so to you BECAUSE it's an Indy film...beats me. I'm no psychologist :) : You were absolutely right in your definition of DARK....emphasis on YOUR DEFINITION. You get creeped out by thrillers, IE : Hitchcock films (and as well you should), whereas I get creeped out by characterizations...in any movie. M.Night DOES have the knack, but I get less and less creeped by his films as time goes by.I need a STARNGE DAYS, or a DONNIE DARKO, or a DARK BACKWARD or MEMENTO to get me feeling like I need to drive out of my way to lose the tail...so to speak. : HOWEVER, the things in ToD are obviously not for children. And in my reference to ToD being "dark", I measure it against the other two (VERY COOL ADVENTURE, and PHONE-IT-IN CLICHE), and against what my children are allowed to view, and how they will react. Presented as a set, which of the 3 will most likely give folks either the heeby-jeebies, or outright nightmares? ESPECIALLY to children. There's next to NO violence in SIGNS, yet I will not allow my oldest to watch it. The INTENT is to make us believe that these aliens are hostile - something I think is a great plot device : the ambiguity - but would be very damaging to my daughter. She LOVES aliens. In this regard, the film is too dark. ME? I loved the movie, as did my wife, but we both agreed that the structure *was* simply a plot device. Without the PERCIEVED threat of hostile takeover, there wouldn't have been any hiding, and certainly no damn creepy offscreen hijinks with the coal shute. Two very different movies with two very definitions of "dark"... : I said before that I wish LC could've been made about 5 years sooner than it had been. What an outstanding movie we could've had. Unfortunately, SS got a bit scared from the backlash ToD produced, and started trying to be "safe" (something I think he finally got past, BTW, with MINORITY REPORT)....Hmmm...I wonder what LC would've been like had ToD been readly EMBRACED as a bold picture...? : Anyway, enough of my rambling.....Sorry this is so long, but it's late, and this is stream-o-thought... : Good string indeed!! : Jimmie Optional Link ( default ) URL: Title: Optional Image Link ( default ) URL: This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com