Entering the Bone Zone

Amazing idea. I have contemplated this marathon myself, but it seems awfully daunting. How jarring is it to get from the original to Furious 7 in one weekend? In the original Brian O'Connor got guff from his superiors about the cost of replacing the souped up drag racing Honda Accords (or whatever) he was losing. In 7 the gang appears to have a nearly unlimited travel, car, and weapon/gadget budget courtesy of either The Rock's government group or Kurt Russell's government group. In the first half-ish of the series the gang is pursuing criminal activities of some kind or on the lam for them, but now they are directly in the employ of Uncle Sam and apparently are not responsible in any capacity for the collateral damage inflicted upon Rio, London, and now Los Angeles. That said, Furious 7 is a movie comprised almost entirely of boss fights (Statham v Rock, Statham v Diesel, Walker v Jaa, Rodriguez v Rousey, most of the crew v Hounsou) and beautifully crafted if implausible set pieces in the Caucus Mountains, Abu Dhabi, and Los Angeles. There is very little exposition, and it is glorious. My hope is that with 8 - do away with any naming conventions, switch to simply numbers, and force the world to reckon with the fact that this is the defining movie series of our time, perhaps all time - the scale is pulled back a bit. You can't get bigger and boss fightier than the masterpiece we got this year. Less is more, Vin.

The blogger points out that (s)he watches the movies in a group setting, so I think that is seriously impacting these choices. I found Safe Haven to be the most boring movie I have seen in ages, and agree with the blogger's point about the total absence of charisma and chemistry... which is why it would be found at the bottom of my list. Watching that movie alone is a violation of the Geneva Convention, I think. In a group with booze - maybe Duhamel's inert blandness becomes sublime?

-Are you having a party in there? -Mom, no! -Are you building an interocitor? -No!!!!!!

Why on Earth was this taken off the market??

The real bitch of it all is that Leonardo doesn't really have a personality to speak of, even in the cartoons. Donny is the nerd, Raph is the cutup, Mikey is the bro, Leo is the... leader? The movie reducing Leo's only known character trait (aside from a love of sweet, sweet pizza pie) to a debated footnote is not its narrative high point. Only history can decide what that high point will ultimately be. I vote for the ultra hip Bogie references.

Tragedy + time = comedy. They have mined the 9/11 truther stuff for laughs in about half a dozen episodes, this was hardly the first time. And the joke is not about the victims of 9/11, it is about the batshit insane subculture of people who use the internets as a forum for conspiracy theories and such.

RIP, JYD

I do agree that feet are kinda gross and sandals are best utilized at the beach or pool, particularly for men. And of course we must acknowledge that Zooks was doing a bit. That said - adults telling other adults what to wear, how to drink their cocktails, how to eat their food... Just. Stop. This happens all the time and I find it to be the zenith of pretentious behavior. You aren't Maxim magazine, and frankly you probably aren't very bright, so just drink your shit neat and I'll take my ice cubes and everyone should just focus on how to not be the worst humans ever for five seconds a day and we'd all be happier.

You guys and your fancy aluminum and plastic containers... all the Chinese food I have ever gotten here in The Middle (previously Chicago, now Omaha) either came in the boxes pictured or good, old-fashioned environment-hating styrofoam. Midwestern values, guys.

Stalemate. But I have to ask, what virtues are you finding in plot and character? Well I will grant you that much. But to me ambition is substituted for execution in JA, so I give no milk and cookies. On behalf of the internet, insert ad hominem attack here.

Sorry for being an e-jerk. This is an internet message board! But I still take umbrage with this as a credible comparison. In another post I just went into the idea of scope as a false beacon of quality, so I won't repeat it. Suffice to say I disagree that the comparison is valid. I think the Matrix comparisons are only made because JA is from the same filmmakers - and frankly I think the quality of the Matrix is the clear outlier in the Wachowskis body of work. The idea of the Chosen One coming from a humble beginning was not created by the Wachowskis by any stretch of the imagination. The Matrix is the only film where they take the well-established storytelling device and execute it successfully. Samesies. You are just taking a softer stance on the matter than I am. And I agree - in fact we had some back and forth on the minisode post about the Lucas-y vibes.

I could not disagree more, and this is our disconnect I think. If you remove character building and plot construction you no longer have a movie, you have a computer science project with a professional art director at the helm, so we cannot just dismiss those flaws as if they are only a small part of the equation. I prefer the gritty look of Star Wars to the glossy sheen of JA (or Phanton Menace, Clones, etc) everyday of the week and twice on Sunday, as I think the look of SW is an integral part of why it is such an awesome film. Fair enough, but it would take a monumental cult push to ever move a film like this into the pantheon of SW for my money. Becoming a back door favorite like Labyrinth is hardly the same as being in the team picture of most influential films of all time. I do think it is ludicrous You can defend the movie to a point - I think you are doing some serious mental gymnastics to circumnavigate plot inconsistencies and wooden, undeveloped characters by making assumptions about what the Wachowskis may or may not have intended. This idea of scope to me is pretty nebulous, particularly as a merit badge when discussing the quality of a film. Scope is meaningless if you don't understand the basics of constructing a narrative. I could write down the names of 45 planets and 150 characters I just made up, draw a picture of a space ship and say that my "movie" is similar in scope to Star Wars. This is essentially what this film is. The idea of a story without an actual story. That's not a movie. And remember that my beef was with the 2nd opinion dude saying this movie "worked on the level of Star Wars." Can I get a definition of "worked"?

I am all for the notion of "How can it be bullshit to state a preference?" And of course film is subjective and tastes vary... but come on. By any quantifiable logic - box office, cultural influence, impact on the art and craft of movie making, QUALITY - these are on opposite ends of the furthest ranging spectrum a movie watcher could find. To make such a statement and then attempt to defend it is to basically offer the opinion that there is no truth, there is no right or wrong, there is no scale upon which things can be measured... and in order for a person to believe these things, they would have to somehow exist ABOVE such a scale, above the notions of right or wrong. They would have to be a deity. I am respectful of opinions that are credible. You can enjoy this movie all you like, but this is not a debate.

Can we address that the live 2nd opinions dude made the claim that this movie somehow worked on the same level as Star Wars? And the statement was not challenged AT ALL by the gang? This is the equivalent of saying a half eaten Big Mac from a dumpster works on the same level as the finest high end steak served at the finest high end steak house. Yes, I suppose they are both carbon-based foodstuffs that provide calories to the consumer. Both Star Wars and JA are theatrically released movies. But they simply do not work on the same level. Not now. Not ever. Not after 1,000 beers. I found this to be a profoundly troubling statement that should have ended the 2nd opinion on the spot. Zouks simply says, "leave the studio now" and we all go on with the podcast. This aggression cannot stand, man.

I think they may be running out of the goodwill that got Jupiter Ascending green lit, as you point out. For the record, I thought Cloud Atlas was an awesome idea that was not put on the screen in a successful way. From BoxOfficeMojo (all grosses domestic, as who actually makes money off international distribution rights is a murky, impossible to know quagmire), here are the numbers: Matrix - 63 mil budget, grossed 171.5 mil - huge hit Matrix Reloaded - 150 mil budget, grossed 281.5 mil - hit Matrix Revolutions - 150 mil budget, grossed 139.3 mil - failure Speed Racer - 120 mil budget, grossed 44 mil - massive failure Cloud Atlas - budget unknown, grossed 27.1 mil - massive failure Jupiter Ascending - 176 mil budget, grossed 47.4 mil - massive failure The rule of thumb is the studio makes ~55% of the gross take, so you need to double your production budget to be a profitable movie in the US, and that is not accounting for marketing dollars spent. Granted this does not factor in DVD sales, TV rights, merchandise, tie-ins with corporate sponsors (get those Wolfie Bic Mac Meals while they're hot!), etc.