Even if it was all the same people it would be wait and see. Not that I wouldn’t be excited, but it’s such an insane movie it’s hard to imagine they could pull it off at all, much less twice.
But with George Miller, it’ll be a must-see regardless.
Yeah, looking at Miller’s directing list on IMDB, there are a couple in there that I didn’t see(Pig in the City), but of all the rest, I pretty much enjoyed all of them and loved the hell out of most of them even when I didn’t think I would (eg, Babe).
So I’m in.
Pig in the City is the Fury Road of Babe movies.
LOL! Accurate. It’s sheer madness.
This is indeed correct.
I sometimes wonder if Babe: Pig in the City is in fact a sci fi film Miller managed to make using popular characters from Babe. Like it takes place in a parallel reality, alternate timeline, or in some sort of simulation that is run in the world from the first movie. The incongruity between the two films is marvelous. Somewhere, there’s a super secret version of the script that explains all of this in detail. Predictably, Miller hid it away, content with this work and being the only person who really understands how it fits together.
I say all of this as a compliment, and as someone who quite liked the first.
Uh, ok, I get that it’s weird as hell, but it’s just a terrible, terrible, terrible movie.
I still remember the handicapped dog (almost) drowning by getting stuck on a bridge and having his head stuck in the river.
Siskel and Ebert beg to differ. “Enchanting” - Ebert. “A magnificent, towering achievement” - Siskel.
Good for them!
George Miller is capable of making divisive movies but not terrible ones. Challenging movies that defy our expectations might seem terrible at first glance but stating a strong opinion like that as a conversational dead-end is probably worth avoiding.
I know we’re not in the business, but I love this anecdote from John Krasinski on what he learned from Paul Thomas Anderson…
“I’ll tell you a big life lesson. Paul was over at my house, I think it was my 30th birthday party, and I had just seen a movie I didn’t love. I said to him over a drink, ‘It’s not a good movie,’ and he so sweetly took me aside and said very quietly, ‘Don’t say that. Don’t say that it’s not a good movie. If it wasn’t for you, that’s fine, but in our business, we’ve all got to support each other.’ The movie was very artsy, and he said, ‘You’ve got to support the big swing. If you put it out there that the movie’s not good, they won’t let us make more movies like that.’
Krasinski turned 30 in 2008. Twighlight came out in 2008. Anderson obviously thinks of Twilight as artsy.
Okay, I get the sentiment, but the movie contains Extended Scenes of Intense Clown Pants. 'nuff said.
Another prequel?? Bleh
Yeah, I’m not sure what PTA’s fine advice for someone trying to work in a fairly small and well-connected industry has to do with random people talking about movies on the internet. Nobody’s going to stop funding a certain type of movie because a few people on QT3 say, “it’s not good.” Honestly I’m pretty sure they’re not going to do it because PTA says , “it’s not good,” either. More likely they stop doing it because that kind of movie isn’t making money.
Sure, that’s why I acknowledged that we’re not in the business! But I think the relevant section of the quote would be, “If it wasn’t for you, that’s fine.”
In my day job, I work with film-loving teenagers who are in that phase of life where we often defined ourselves more by what we hated than what we loved. So I’m sensitive to the way strong, negative opinions bluntly stated as fact can lead to conflict or conversational dead-ends. I love the way John K. embraced the advice and shared it with the world and I appreciate that Woodlance got the sentiment too.
Personally I think it’s entirely possible to recognize that a movie (or other work) is well made or poorly made without that requiring you to feel positively or negatively about the movie respectively. Like, Fernando Mireilles’ movie Blindness is gorgeous and full of great acting and I fucking hate it because I think it’s an exercise in wallowing in human misery and suffering to no actual purpose. Or like, probably The Craft isn’t actually very good in any real sense, but I’ve watched that stupid movie like ten times and it occupies a deep and profound place in my heart.
So what age is this supposed to be? There’s an age where you define yourself around what you hate more than what you love? And it’s sometime in the teen years?
Yep. I think it’s pretty common. (But, of course, not universal.) I was that way when I was in high school and college. I didn’t connect with kids my age who were into Bob Marley or The Doors or The Grateful Dead so I went around saying Bob Marley sucks and The Doors suck and The Grateful Dead suck. I grew out of it and realized it was me, not Bob Marley, The Doors, or The Grateful Dead.
I see this kind of thing with my students pretty often. Taking pleasure in hating certain movies doesn’t sit right for me in a film school classroom environment. You can share why a film didn’t work for you but I don’t want to hear dead-end comments like ‘it sucked.’
And don’t get me started on spoilers! I got triggered so hard a few years back when I was about to screen a clip from The Graduate and a student raised his hand to ask if it was a spoiler and, if so, could he step outside. Let’s just say I didn’t handle it well. So now my syllabus includes a little section on spoilers.
I see. At least what you’re saying makes sense to me.
It hated certain things as a teen and heck, even as an adult, but I would not say it defined more than I loved or treasured or in some cases darn near worshiped. That’s the part that puzzles me, but thank you for explaining it. Evidently I haven’t spent enough time around teens that were not already defined by other things to see this as an obvious behavior.
I rarely understand this response other than there are some people who express how they feel, and by that I don’t mean express well just… express at all. For that group, getting an “it sucked” is at least better than the dreaded… shrug.