quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
Something that it *isn't*....you mean....a movie?

---

No. I mean JP3 isn't trying to be an Oscar-caliber film. It's not trying to be a movie with a "message". It's not trying to be something it isn't.

PEARL HARBOR, on the other hand, IS trying to be an Oscar-caliber film (or so they want us to think). It IS trying to be a movie with a "message". Unfortunately, it ISN'T.

That's what I mean. Some films know they're just a movie made for entertainment purposes, and PEARL HARBOR (in reality) is just that - but it's trying to be something else - something it isn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:

Who else then alienated patriotic dorks would care to see such an obvious ill crap?
Thanks for reinforcing my point.

---

I don't know if you ever bothered to learn how to read English, Lux (your grasp of writing it being tenuous at best), but nothing about my post reinforced your anti-American sentiments. I said PH was made so that the studio could turn a profit, nothing more.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Lux, but you clearly want to be an American so badly, the only way you can deal with not being one is to rage endlessly about how we are all capitalistic stooges. Get a green card, fella. Start the process. You, too, can be an American in no time flat. Spare us your anti-American rantings... they are tiresome, ignorant, and about as transparent as used neutragena.

Have you ever been to the States? Or do you just take the tripe that "journalists" like yourself trowel out as gospel? Have you ever fostered a thought that wasn't handed to you by someone else?

While you are certainly entitled to your opinions, I just can't ever see Michael Bay as anything but a shameless panderer of "cool sh*t". To me, his movies are crass, loud, and devoid of anything remotely resembling substance. To me, their hyperactive camerawork and near-subliminal cutting are the cinematic equivalent of getting raped and battered.

Sure, he can compose a pretty shot... but that is hardly worth giving someone the moniker of "good filmmaker". It isn't even half the battle.

Bay can't direct actors one iota. Frankly, he seems terrified of them (as well he should be). He is content lining up ten or twelve cameras around a performer and rolling more film than Abel Gance on a good day. Then, when he realizes that he has had NO control over their performance, he decides to cuisinart their work in post-production insofar that there is NOTHING of substance left over. I can't tell you how hollow his films leave me.

There is definitely a time and place for "cool sh*t."

However, if we've got something like Bay to compare against Zemekis, then at least it allows us to understand the vast differences (substantial, commercial, technical) between the two.

quote:

---

Honestly JJ, have you ever used the term "Japs" as a casual way to refer to either the Japanese or Japanese Americans.

---

no because in this day and age, you're liable to get sued for anything you do, much less say. It's not even part of modern day vernacular. And I realize that some people will take it as an offense.

I have German heritage - hell, my 93-year-old grandmother STILL speaks German; they settled in Nebraska.

call me Kraut if you wish. Call me "damn Beer-guzzling, sausage eating kraut" is you wish. It's called being easy going.

True story:

I told a guy I worked with once that I had German roots (I was taking a German language class in college at the time, and using some of my newly learned phrases), and he goes:

"What, are you a {bleeping} goose-stepping Nazi, dude?"

truthfully, that WAS offensive, as far as I can be offended that is.

At least the Japanese have a proud ancient heritage and continue to do themselves right, and didn't murder 6 million+ people in the war.

German people have to live with the Hitler stigma forever, whether or not they were actually alive or not at the time.

Indeed, Germany I believe pays more money to Israel in aid every year than any country on Earth.

soon, if the Taliban keeps up their latest shenanigans, muslim and arabic people will be stereotyped somehow.

I say because...

If you don't know, the Taliban are separating people out by religion, saying certain minority groups must wear an identifying tag. This is history repeating itself.
Remember, Hitler said that Jewish people must wear those yellow stars....scary, scary stuff.

and they've already gone through and blasted away 1,000 year old Hindu statues.

sorry, seems as if I've gone Daniel 2 on yo' collective ass again.

I apologize for being too lengthy.

It's true that Bay's films have been successful--$900 Million dollars worth.

It's also true that with two pretty boys in uniform for young girls to watch and lots of exploding ships for the guys that this is probably another hit for Bay.

But, Lance, are you insane? I order you right now to see 3 major films from the following directors to atleast start to have a clue of what really great cinema is all about: Hawks, Ford, Wilder, Kurosawa, Ozu, Renoir, Forman, Tarkovsky, Tourneur, Lubitsch, Von Stroheim. Those guys just for starters. Then come back and talk to me about weaklings like Spielberg and losers like Bay.

It's true that movies are a visual medium, a musical one too, and of course, they tell the modern day myths that are such a deep part of our social psyche [I'll never get out from under the influence of that damn class on Jung I took]. That translates as cool sh-it can be great. But when money and talent are brought together in a world where $140 million dollars can feed a lot of starving people, it sure would be nice if the results, the overall cultural benefit, were more fulfilling than a cheap caffeine buzz.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lou Goldberg:
weaklings like Spielberg

---

I'd say SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN would, for what they set out to do, hold up against any of your aforementioned (and admittedly quite illustrious) list of filmmakers, Lou.

Not to mention his older stuff, like JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, RAIDERS, and E.T. to name a few.

Okay, so he has made some turkeys. Like LOST WORLD and AMISTAD. (God, how the first 25 minutes of AMISTAD were amazing... and the rest... so utterly NOT amazing.)

That being said, just what do you mean when you say weakling?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
There is definitely a time and place for "cool sh*t."

---

I agree... and I think the best movies give us exactly that, in addition to a great story and memorable characters.

But I do agree wholeheartedly with your theory on Zemeckis' canon of work... he is a modern master of his art.

I think, and I would venture to say Zemeckis might agree with me, that movies should first and foremost try and actually move us. Doesn't matter which way to me, frankly. I'll take the horrors of SE7EN as much as I'll take the offbeat romance of HAROLD & MAUDE. Both of them really have something to say, something to contribute to this world. I applaud them and movies like them.

Not to end on a negative note, but what good has any of Michael Bay's movies done for the world? About the most anyone could ever say is that his movies offer an escape from the real world... a necessary part of life, and a basic function of entertainment, yes. But a little disturbing when he starts tackling grave subjects with deep historical roots and asking us to turn off our brains for it.

Don't worry, I hope this will be a relatively short post....

Yes, those John Ford westerns are great, I still laugh at Some Like it Hot, I love Kagemusha, and particularly (surprise, surprise) The Hidden Fortress (which I hear is being released in a Criterion edition DVD....ala Mr. Burns/Bill & Ted, "excellent")

I love those early pioneer filmmakes. Not all of them, but I do love what they have done. Well...what do you think they were inspired by? Books, music, the real thing (at least in Ford's case.) Now we have a generation of filmmakers who, in such a way, "standing on the shoulders" of those who came before. Yes, they're using those images that were captured by someone else as inspiration for capturing their own images. And now, a whole generation is feeding off that generation---so you've got images inspired by images, inspired by images....

It's impossible for anyone to be original. Just forget it--get over the stigma. If you go out there and expect to find something that's never been concieved of, in any small form, or hinted at in the most insignificant of manuscripts--forget it. Somewhere, in some distant myth, or some politically incorrect fairy tale, some lost ballad, there it'll be. I think the last original film I saw was Jim Henson's "The Dark Crystal"--when I was 10. (But even Jim Henson was inspired by Maurice Sendak and Brian Froud...)

Maybe you've never seen an episode of "Dawson's Creek", but I actually gave it a shot, a while ago. There was an episode--(and I'll spare you the details and cut to the chase)--where the point was made: "If all you love is movies, then all you'll make are movies about movies."

So, what does all of this mean? Give up? Don't bother? I know it's disappointing, and it's particularly lamented by myself, but Kurosawa is dead. I'm only 25...I've *just* begun to appreciate his body of work. (My parents didn't push the VCR up to the crib.)

I appreciate the predecessors of today's filmmakers. But I love the work of what's being done today. I don't think it's very useful, however, to say "Nobody makes movies like they did 20/40/60 years ago..."

We're just on the brink of the digital age, and what's to be accomplished in the next hundred years of filmmaking. (Hard to see--always in motion is the future.) Will we have a lot of crap? Hell yes. (Goethe: In a society with mass literacy, you will have an abundance of bad literature.)

How many kids are signing up for film schools because they want to party with the Hollywood crowd and eat $20,000-a-plate dinners? Will we get maybe ONE truly great movie out of all of that?

Spielberg is out there, pushing his art, (and also trying to be a useful member of society, at the same time--The Shoah Foundation.) And Bay is out there. Zemekis, and Kevin Smith, and Robert Rodriguez, James Cameron, and Roland Emmerich, Quentin Tarantino. Do some of them get caught up in the commerical pitfalls? Sure...it's a common hazzard these days. But they keep doing it.

Nobody makes films the way they did 20 years ago. Doesn't mean I'm gonna sit at home hoping somebody will. It gets smelly around here, when someone doesn't open a window on a new day....

[Boy I hope no one caught that "It gets smelly around her" error before I caught it....]

I think that there is always a chance for originality in movies. One could argue that every idea has been done over and over a thousand times, sure... but (and I don't mean to get all "Free To Be You And Me" on ya here) there is only one you. And only one me. Even if ideas aren't terribly 'original' per se, how we tell them can certainly be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lou Goldberg:
But he's a Titan in comparison with Michael Bay.

---

Amen to that.

Always remember, idiots, that that power and the blood America shed was for the right thing. Never forget, if we had decided to get a Hitler world domination bug up our ass, that your country that appears now like "America's backyard" could easily BE AMERICA'S PARKING LOT. We displayed this power by ending the war. It might have been dwindling down, but America ended it through shear display of power...but power used for the right reason, power used to thwart oppression, killing and tyranny that wsould have lasted for years to come had it gone unchecked. You have to shake up the world in order to do that. You have to make some examples. You have to bulldoze.

Now to segway into the movie. Dan...in a war movie people have to die and die graphically and in great numbers. THAT'S THE IMPACT OF A WAR MOVIE. IT'S A WAR. You people bitch about the realism of these movies and then say assinine comments like this. "And then it went back to a bunch more guys dying, and then more guys died...graphically. I hated it." What do you think war is? Hide behind the shed and have a sucker? Jesus.

Next, Michael Bay verses James Cameron in regards to director credibility? I'll first off say I like Cameron. That said...on to the argument. Cameron...TITANIC...accepts an Academy Award for editing, because why? Because he supervised edit sessions? That's the kind of director he is verses Michael Bay who payed $25,000 of his own money to get a final shot that Columbia Pictures wouldn't pay for on BAD BOYS. That's a director, that's a man who loves what he does and does it well, well enough to gamble his own fees on. And this was his first film, the big test to sink or swim as a director. By the way, he handles actors just fine, telling Sean Connery and Martin Lawrence to "**** off" with their attitudes and commanding the respect of Bruce Willis (who is infamous for taking over movie sets from weak directors.)

I've argued here before fruitlessly about his shot composition and his visuals, so why waste my breath. I'll just say that's it's easy for us to say he's nothing like Kurasowa, Truffaut, Stroheim. But I must ask, are you really going home and saying "I'd like to watch a movie tonight. Let's see, 400 BLOWS or CITIZEN KANE?" or are you just trying to legitimize your love of film because these are the names on the syllabus or so and so's top movie list of all time?

Lucas got Star Wars made....after that, he had so much sucess, he was virtually independent of the studios. Lucas has made it possible for people to make movies the way they want them made--he's financed ILM, THX....He's literally changed the way movies are made. I don't think he has anything to make up for. He pays for his own movies, and he makes them the way he wants them to be made.

I think Michael Bay had the same small scale success--I've just finished watching the Spec. Ed. "Bad Boys" with the commentary, just to remind me that yes, this guy takes himself with a grain of salt when it comes to movies, and he's quite aware of when he's making a movie simply to entertain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightborne:
Dan...in a war movie people have to die and die graphically and in great numbers. THAT'S THE IMPACT OF A WAR MOVIE. IT'S A WAR. You people bitch about the realism of these movies and then say assinine comments like this. "And then it went back to a bunch more guys dying, and then more guys died...graphically. I hated it." What do you think war is? Hide behind the shed and have a sucker? Jesus.

---

Wow. I have never seen someone so completely miss my point. I never said I hated the violence, or was shocked by the graphical nature of it all.

I'm saying that in PEARL HARBOR, Michael Bay does little to convey the devistation of what the attack did to our Pacific Fleet, or to show the "results of war". Showing dead people in the water with an American flag isn't going to stress that point, but Bay apparently thought by showing some dead people floating, the horrors of war would come across. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When they show the Arizona explode, NOTHING in the film indicates that 1,100 people DIED.

I'm not bitching about the realism in the film; I'm bitching about the LACK of realism.

I saw SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, FULL METAL JACKET, etc. etc., and PEARL HARBOR is the WEAKEST depiction of war that I've seen in a while - even if the action sequences are (technically) cool.

Try to understand my position before trying to preach to me. PEARL HARBOR had NO impact as a "war film". Have you seen it? Until you have, don't talk to me about the "impact" of the film.

Dan

If you understand what Bay set out to make, you wouldn't have any misguided notions of Pearl Harbor being a war film. You bitch about the lack of realism. Bitch all you want. No one's home. Bay's clearly said he's not going after realism. He's seen movies like Tora! Tora! Tora! and thought the by-the-book accuracy and realism of the film was without emotion, cold even. Sure, the attack and other action sequences meet with your approval, because they mostly give you what you expected from the film.

Understand that I am not trying to tick you off here. The hypocritical "don't preach to me until you've understood my sermon" is quite a demand most people don't react to very well.

Based on my reading, here are some relevant answers I've found:

When talking about how the film treats Japanese, Michael Bay says "There's reverence on both sides. We tried to treat everyone with dignity."

Hans Zimmer says he tried to use music to make the Japanese seem ominous without being inherently evil. "There are generations of Japanese citizens who had nothing to do with the war," he says. "And we don't want to create any negative feeling toward them now. I understand, being born in Germany, how it feels when your country is disregarded as, 'Oh, you Nazis ...'"

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
you gotta quit with the "my thoughts about the movie are the ultimate truth" bit. All the evidence you use to make your point (which is a little unclear as it is) suggests you went to see the film with a certain expectation in mind, and was severely let down.

---

Peter,

Everything I post here is my OPINION. I shouldn't have to reiterate that every single time I make a post.

Yes I was "let down" by the film - but I had very little expectations for it (as I keep indicating, I read the script over a year ago, and knew how badly written it was).

The lack of realism was never my main complaint. I'm sure you'll realize that if you go back and read my posts. (It was that it was a BAD movie....)

quote:

---

Understand that I am not trying to tick you off here. The hypocritical "don't preach to me until you've understood my sermon" is quite a demand most people don't react to very well.

---

Uh, I don't think it's too much to ask people to understand what I'm saying if they're going to reply to it. If it's hypocritical, well, no one's perfect. But Lightborne was pretty adamant in his post, and I just wanted to make it clear that he wasn't getting what I was trying to say. (If it's because the way I type is convoluted, then I apologize.)

quote:

---

All I am saying is this: Based on how you are reacting to the film, you are clearly upset by it, simply because it's not the war film you wanted it to be. Hey, not everyone leaves the theater happy, but again, if you understood the movie as it was intended, you would know this film is, at its essence, not a war film.

---

Peter,

I never expected PEARL HARBOR to be a war film. Again, I read the script over a year ago. I knew the whole story, including the "surprise ending". I knew going into the theater that it wasn't going to be a WAR film. Given that, it just wasn't a good film. THAT is my point.

To reiterate (my opinion): PEARL HARBOR was not a good film.

I hope that clears things up!

Too often I've noticed that folks, not just here on the board, preconceive their notions and judge (albeit even subconsciously) the film. Statements such as "Michael Bay sucks" or the immediate disdain that stems when considering a film that is obviously commercially driven have no real bearing.

Movies are entertainment, an idea that has been lost somewhere along the way. If a studio/director makes a film that appeals to the overall medium, but one that illicits the disdain of film buffs and movie critics...he has succeeded. Most movies are not made to satisfy film purists...the collateral invested simply does not allow it.

And it seems like I'm not alone in that viewpoint (that Pearl Harbor was a bad movie):
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie-1108389/

With 49 reviews tallied, and only NINE of them positive, that's a pretty bad sign for this film. (And the 49 doesn't include my "film review"....)

Anyways, it's obvious that if you have your heart set on seeing the film, you'll see it anyways, regardless of this discussion. But don't say we didn't warn ya!

Wow. I have never seen someone so completely miss my point. Showing dead people in the water with an American flag isn't going to stress that point, but Bay apparently thought by showing some dead people floating, the horrors of war would come across. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What???? What would then??? The camera dollying in on a fallen soldier on the beach with the ebbing tide lapping at his body with dead fish all around? This was SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and I thouhgt that was pretty effective. A ship being destoyed is a ship being destoyed. You don't need a side screen tally of how many people died in the explosion. You think numbers matter in war, Dan? The effectiveness of war and depiction of war is how it effects the individual or a small group. This is a microcosm of the many that you don't see, but assume are suffering just the same. Numbers are just that numbers. We can't even fathom the tens of thousands that died at Antietem Creek, but the individual stories of experience make the horror of this day ring true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightborne:
The camera dollying in on a fallen soldier on the beach with the ebbing tide lapping at his body with dead fish all around? This was SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and I thouhgt that was pretty effective. A ship being destoyed is a ship being destoyed. You don't need a side screen tally of how many people died in the explosion.

---

I never said I needed a tally; I said I needed something to show the effect devistation. Look. We can both agree that SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a great example of a war movie that shows the effects of war.

Have you seen PEARL HARBOR yet? When you do, please tell me if you think that PEARL HARBOR is an effective example. I just didn't think it was.

Based on your Antietem Creek example, Michael Bay would show us 20 dead folks and then cut to Kate Beckinsale (looking like Liv Tyler) with a blurry lens. Basically what he does in PEARL HARBOR. Now I'm sorry, but for _ME_ (remember, ALL of this is my opinion), that was ineffective.

quote:

---

...verses Michael Bay who payed $25,000 of his own money to get a final shot that Columbia Pictures wouldn't pay for on BAD BOYS. That's a director, that's a man who loves what he does and does it well, well enough to gamble his own fees on.

---

Cameron spent $60,000 of his own money to get the 'laser-scanner' gag during the opening 5 minutes of ALIENS. You just don't hear him bragging about it.

And he doesn't 'supervise' editing. He has always co-edited his pictures... and finally the editors union let him join and take credit where credit has always been due.

quote:

---

By the way, he handles actors just fine, telling Sean Connery and Martin Lawrence to "**** off" with their attitudes and commanding the respect of Bruce Willis (who is infamous for taking over movie sets from weak directors.)

---

Just because someone knows how to stay out of the way of egotistical movie stars does not mean he commands their respect. Willis works with him because he is a doormat for ole Bruno's 800 pound gorilla opinions.

quote:

---

But I must ask, are you really going home and saying "I'd like to watch a movie tonight. Let's see, 400 BLOWS or CITIZEN KANE?"

---

Sure we are. I personally watched Wilder's THE APARTMENT a few days ago, and Hal Ashby's HAROLD & MAUDE the next night.

quote:

---

Quentin Tarantino once said ... that you should make movies that you'd go ... see, not movies about yourself. Nobody gives a **** what you think. You are telling a story for an audience and you're a member of that audience.

---

Right... so if you are a member of the 'great global moviegoing audience', it sure as h*ll DOES matter what you think. Hackmeisters like Bay spend way too much time trying to guess what other people want to see, and never bother asking themselves what might be good storytelling. Actually, that requires that a director know HOW to tell a story... so I guess Bay's off the hook on that one.

quote:

---

Just like people hate being around people who are self indulgent and just talk about themselves all the time.

---

Clearly, you have never shared a room with Mr. Bay. If you did, by your own words you would be hating his guts in about three minutes.

quote:

---

If you want to rip on a director, rip on your beloved Lucas. Georgy has got a lot to make up for

---

Is he our beloved? He has made some amazing movies, but certainly some stinkers too... did any of us in any way defend him? You have presupposed quote a bit about us, whoever you are.

And leave Dan Goldwasser alone. Just because a person doesn't give a page long preamble as to how these are 'only his own opinions' doesn't make them any less so. I find it oh-so tiresome when people want me to constantly qualify my thoughts with 'hey, it's only me'-type sentiments. OF COURSE IT'S ONLY ME! Are you so godd*mn insecure that you can't accept that people feel differently than you, and shouldn't have to apologize for it?

I for one am just sick of the aesthetic that so-called "filmmakers" like Michael Bay have slowly foisted on the world. I am sick that audiences have accepted his crap as a substitute for real entertainment. For they are not filmmakers at all. As you and so many others are quick to point out in defending their like, they are merely "shotmakers". That's all.

As far as storytelling goes, jackasses like Bay couldn't string together popcorn for a Christmas garland.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Bear:
Originally posted by Lightborne:
Quentin Tarantino once said ... that you should make movies that you'd go ... see, not movies about yourself. Nobody gives a **** what you think. You are telling a story for an audience and you're a member of that audience.

---

(Obviously Lightborne never saw JACKIE BROWN.... oy!)

quote:

---

Clearly, you have never shared a room with Mr. Bay. If you did, by your own words you would be hating his guts in about three minutes.

---

I know plenty of people who worked with Bay, and would agree with you in a flash.

quote:

---

[b]And leave Dan Goldwasser alone. Just because a person doesn't give a page long preamble as to how these are 'only his own opinions' doesn't make them any less so.[B]

---

THANK you, Matt, for being one of the few sane voices of reason in this murky room.

I have most of your sentiments, and maybe a few more, for sentimentalities' sake, but I think if John Ford rose from the grave and made "Pearl Harbor" somebody, somewhere, would still have something crummy to say about it, y'know.

The first hour and a half is really a love triangle story that interrupts the other two movies. Then you have the movie about the actual bombing of Pearl Harbor. Then you have a movie, oh it was called "Destination: Tokyo" a few years back.

What could it have been like? Well watch a classic like, "The Longest Day", or even "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930s version).

Or look at something like "Tora, Tora, Tora", or even "Midway".

As to the music, it at least did not sound too much like some past Zimmer outings, less electronic enhancement. In some respects, it is in keeping with the idea of downplaying the military parts of a war film. I was surprised though that there was no stand-alone set piece like a march for this film. It shows how anachronistic form pieces are these days. The Faith Hill attachement is an abomination and completely out of context for anything in the film.

From a cultural point of view, there were chilling "messages" for the younger generations watching this film about what a "hero" is and how to be one. As a GenXer, I can only say that I shudder to think what great "conflict" may force the generation below mine to address.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightborne:
First of all, to address the historical idiocy of the crowd. Most assuredly the USA was the only force that would rise up to defend a bleeding world against the Nazi empire. We could have chosen to stay out of the war, avoid sparing our boys, the thousands of innocent lives in order to appease ignorance like Andre's. But then it would have just been America and the Nazis left on the planet. How far down the list of Hitler's conquests do you think we fell? Probably last. You know why? Power. Patiotic Power. He knew we were the last to screw with because of our might.

Always remember, idiots, that that power and the blood America shed was for the right thing. Never forget, if we had decided to get a Hitler world domination bug up our ass, that your country that appears now like "America's backyard" could easily BE AMERICA'S PARKING LOT. We displayed this power by ending the war. It might have been dwindling down, but America ended it through shear display of power...but power used for the right reason, power used to thwart oppression, killing and tyranny that wsould have lasted for years to come had it gone unchecked. You have to shake up the world in order to do that. You have to make some examples. You have to bulldoze.

---

For someone who has the gall to group his audience under the collective heading of 'historical idiots,' you, sir, have a disturbingly skewed view of the world and of events surrounding WWII. In as far as that war, If the US was out to save lives and defend our 'bleeding world,' then why wait until late 1941, and Pearl Harbor, to do anything about it? You can preach all you want about Americans thwarting oppression and ending tyranny, but where were the Americans to defend the Polish? The Danish? The Norwegians? The French? The US sat and watched the Nazis stomp through Europe, and didn't do a thing about it. Self-defense, the US did well. Counter-attack, they did well. Revenge and retribution, no problem. Defending innocents? Not until they were directly and unavoidably involved. And as for being the only force that would rise up against the Nazis? I suppose what the allies were doing all through 1939-1941 and afterwards counts for nothing with you. I suppose that the British continuing to help defend other countries even while their own was being bombed and raided is irrelevant. And what, pray tell, is 'patriotic power?' Surely you don't presume to tell me that the US's military might at the time stemmed from their superior self-love? Let me tell you, sir, Americans do not own the patent on patriotism and never have.

As for your domination bug comments, I highly reccomend you think several times before ever asking anyone to thank you simply because you have not conquered them. Noble sentiment, indeed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightborne:
If you want to rip on a director, rip on your beloved Lucas. Georgy has got a lot to make up for.

---

People here have the right to 'rip on' any director they want, for whatever reason. Simply because you feel that Lucas has done worse things than Bay does not mean that we should leave Bay alone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightborne:
America ended it through shear display of power...

---

Is that, like, what a wool farmer does to one of his sheep?

Just had to throw that in on behalf of all us 'idiots'.

Now...I have seen Pearl Harbor and yes, of course, liked it as I knew I would. Zimmer has written better scores, but it works nicely with the film. Yes, the John Schwartzman photography was beautiful and important. Shot composition and execution is very important because you know why ? Because this medium is "the movie picture" See, a picture is a still image you look at . And movies are the progression of thes images, so I would guess they are pretty important. As important as the story, since they essentially,along with the editing, tell the story. It's a very visual experience. If it's too pretty for you, like a Sprint commercial, then you don't understand photography., That's why PEARL HARBOR is the feature story in this past month's AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER. I guess the people in this profession consider the movie and its images worthy enough to make a feature story out of.

Now onto the history lesson. Yes, you as well as I should be very, very thankful that America, thus far the most powerful nation on Earth, has this checks and balances thing that avoids a single person rising to power with all of that strength at his/her disposal. See examples A,B,C, (Marilyn Manson, Britney Spears, Tom Green) You don't think this country could easily be convinced by a charasmatic someone to really become IMPERIALISTIC and seriously press on in a new Manifest Destiny. We have become ratther somewhat of the policeman for the world. When we get involved with foreign affairs, there's bitching. When we stay out of foreign affairs (ie your World War II) argument) there's bitching. The U.S.A. ended World War II. That is a fact. That does not disqualify those other participants of the Allied powers. They fought bravely and hard, with no less sacrifice. But on the flip side, was our sacrifice no less great, because we weren't in concentration camps? Have you read accounts of our survivors of the POW camps of Japan where starving Japanese began to eat Americans alive? Not even killing them, just ripping flesh from their screaming bodies. Now relate to me the resentment you have for us retaliating against an aggressive movement. We didn't have to send our boys to fight the Germans. We could have just dealt with Japan and moved on. But no, we joined the fight and ended it.

And when war survivors qualify a depiction of their experience in history (ie the veterans recounting Pearl Harbor) who the hell are you to question or scoff at that. I think they would know best. **** the books or what you think you know. These are people who lived it. God help us if such an incident ever occurred again. We wouldn't even want to take the pacifiers out of our mouths to mount any kind of defense. "Cause in our world, nobody gets hurt. Murders, aggressors and rapists are people, too. And they all have the same rights as we do. I'd rather string up Hans Zimmer than Timothy McVeigh." Laughable. The brats out there should be more thankful for what they have. I don't see you rushing to Africa to live or for that matter, Brazil.

My final comment is this, concerning the movie and it's score. Ask yourself, if you hate Michael Bay, Bruckheimer, and Zimmer, why do you pay to see their movies and purchase their scores? If you didn't you would be here on this particular post discussing it. Or does that $8.00 for the film and $15.00+ for the score somehow purchase you the right to bash them once again? Why do the same people keep coming back "having seen the film" and "having purchased the score"? And don't give the "I thought I'd give them one more chance" idiotic statement because that automatically disqualifies you from discussion, I think. I don't go out and buy Eminem because i hate him and I dislike his music in order to be able to qualify my hating of him. That rationalization is moronic.

Now go find the typoes, children.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lightborne:
I mean look at our current president. He makes some mistakes in his speeches. It's nothing like cheating on your wife in the very office of the most respected position of this country. Or stealing furniture from that very office.

---

Yeah, it takes quite a bit of smarts to pull those latter stunts off... and you know what? The sonofab*tch almost got away with it. Lightborne, you pseudo-intellectual chowderhead, I only took you to task on ONE of your typos. Did you bother to read the laundry list I posted of legitemate criticisms of the tripe you posted here? It's easier to defend the typos, I suppose.

quote:

---

Shot composition and execution is... as important as the story, since they essentially, along with the editing, tell the story.

---

How praytell is something that is subservient to, even predicated on, the story as important as the story? I'm very glad you liked the pretty pictures, Lightborne. But good movies are a hell of a lot more than that. I'm sure John Schwartzman himself would agree with me.

quote:

---

That's why PEARL HARBOR is the feature story in this past month's AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER. I guess the people in this profession consider the movie and its images worthy enough to make a feature story out of.

---

Oh, sh*it man... the ASC did a cover story on it? I'm so sorry... my bad. I stand corrected. Seriously, though... you've got it half right... they don't care very much at all about the movie itself over at the ASC magazine... only the photography. Jesus pleasus, the ASC did a cover story on MISSION TO MARS.

quote:

---

And when war survivors qualify a depiction of their experience in history (ie the veterans recounting Pearl Harbor) who the hell are you to question or scoff at that.

---

Get off that high horse before it bucks you, dude. No one's scoffing at the vets. Not remotely. We are collectively saving up our scoffs for Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer, two low-rent Barnum & Baileys who are trying to convince themselves and the world at large that they had altruistic intentions with PEARL HARBOR.

quote:

---

The brats out there should be more thankful for what they have. I don't see you rushing to Africa to live or for that matter, Brazil.

---

After all the great things I've heard about Brazilian people on this board, I decided to cancel my flight. Make no mistake, Lightborne... I am very thankful for the sacrifices American vets have made on behalf of this country. I just don't see how PEARL HARBOR... the movie that came out last weekend... has much to do with them at all. Give me SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, or other films like it. They show the vets respect. Bay was more interested in absurd POV 'bomb-cam' shots than what the soldiers went through.

quote:

---

...if you hate Michael Bay, Bruckheimer, and Zimmer, why do you pay to see their movies and purchase their scores?

---

Don't forget... people like me and Dan would never pay to see a Michael Bay debacle. That's what advance screenings are for.

quote:

---

And don't give the "I thought I'd give them one more chance" idiotic statement because that automatically disqualifies you from discussion, I think.

---

Uh, whatever you say, boss. I lost my rule book.

quote:

---

Now go find the typoes, children.

---

Well, you mispelled 'typo', for starters.

I could go on and on about your little love letter, Lightborne... but you have successfully indicted yourself so many g*ddamn times, I don't think I need to.

Just do me a favor... stay the h*ell out of show business... there are too many jackasses like you here already.