Mission: Impossible III : 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
1
2
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
The cinematography is definately not my cup of tea.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
Fair enough.
It's not a Jesse James.
It's not a Jesse James.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
story structure?
-
Then can u explain what the rabbit's foot is?
-
This movie is so crap, the editing, cinematography, pace made it look cool, and hip. I am watching mi123 marathin right now. And do you know what the sucking part of mi3?it's sucking di colorcorrection, everyones lips painted into rose.
-
And as far as the story, structure, you better watch mi1 instead.
-
Btw are u really a film student?
If we stay the course, we are dead! WE ARE ALL DEAD!
-
Then can u explain what the rabbit's foot is?
-
This movie is so crap, the editing, cinematography, pace made it look cool, and hip. I am watching mi123 marathin right now. And do you know what the sucking part of mi3?it's sucking di colorcorrection, everyones lips painted into rose.
-
And as far as the story, structure, you better watch mi1 instead.
-
Btw are u really a film student?
If we stay the course, we are dead! WE ARE ALL DEAD!
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
Alright here i come with another way too long post, i'm just hoping some wiseass movie-fanatic will read this and see my point someday.
Here we go. So you are one of those, you mean that to not explain what the rabbit foot is, is defining this as bad structure? It's quite the opposite i would say. The rabbit foot is another great thing about this film. Every other blockbuster action movies follows the same typical unwritten rule, they always use way to much energy to explain stuff like that because the "the movie needs the plot to be explained". I find it great that MI3 throw this cheating narrative away, and trust the tension in the rest of the story, the film sort of mock the typical "explaining-blockbuster-plot" by not explaining anything.
The editing and cinematography in MI3 is quite good, the fact that you call it crap makes it hard for me to take you seriously. Of course the edit and cinematography can't compare to Stephen burum's work in MI1, but it's not suppose too - anyone can see that. MI1 has a very distinct style in both color, editing and cinematography.
Tom Cruise's whole idea with the Mission Impossible franchise is to make every movie a new project, with a different style in both directing and cinematography. That's what is fascinating about this franchise compared to other blockbuster franchises, you don't know what to expect.
And i got to be honest with you mate, if you honestly believe that MI1 is the better example as far as cinema-structure and tension, then you don't know what you are talking about.
You can say that MI1 is a better movie in general, fitting your taste and style. - That i agree on, Mi1 is better movie in every aspect, for me that is.
But i am talking about the hollywood structure, tension and dramaturgy.
You need to see the difference between personal taste and general movie facts.
Do you want MI3 to be a replicate look-wise to MI1? MI3 is such an underrated movie, it was released at the wrong time and as a part of the wrong movie franchise. Serious film critics and audiences over the world keep hating the movie because of it's lack of unique style and tone. Therefore no one see it's true potential, what people need to understand is that not all films need to try and be something unique and different. It's much better to see a simple movie triumph then to see a "weird" movie fail. Do every directors need to show off and try being unique? Sometimes they should just make a story come to life, and use the right tools to make this happen.
That's the keyword, tools. MI3 uses the right tools, not any unique or special tools, but the perfect tools to make a perfect story. As silly as that might sound. And again, this is not my typical movie to like, it's not a personal fav of mine, but as a filmmaker i really appreciate the work that have been done, i see the script and the tools used to make this happen.
Can't people stop acting like pro film weirdos for once and just enjoy easy storytelling? Be honest with yourself for once. This ain't the "Avatar perfection" even though someone might think so. By Avatar perfection i mean that MI3 and Avatar share similarities in trying to be the perfect easy script based on tension and no weirdo *beep* but they cant compare. Avatar is *beep* MI3 is a masterpiece.
And no i'm not a student anymore, working with directing tv, movies, commercials.
Here we go. So you are one of those, you mean that to not explain what the rabbit foot is, is defining this as bad structure? It's quite the opposite i would say. The rabbit foot is another great thing about this film. Every other blockbuster action movies follows the same typical unwritten rule, they always use way to much energy to explain stuff like that because the "the movie needs the plot to be explained". I find it great that MI3 throw this cheating narrative away, and trust the tension in the rest of the story, the film sort of mock the typical "explaining-blockbuster-plot" by not explaining anything.
The editing and cinematography in MI3 is quite good, the fact that you call it crap makes it hard for me to take you seriously. Of course the edit and cinematography can't compare to Stephen burum's work in MI1, but it's not suppose too - anyone can see that. MI1 has a very distinct style in both color, editing and cinematography.
Tom Cruise's whole idea with the Mission Impossible franchise is to make every movie a new project, with a different style in both directing and cinematography. That's what is fascinating about this franchise compared to other blockbuster franchises, you don't know what to expect.
And i got to be honest with you mate, if you honestly believe that MI1 is the better example as far as cinema-structure and tension, then you don't know what you are talking about.
You can say that MI1 is a better movie in general, fitting your taste and style. - That i agree on, Mi1 is better movie in every aspect, for me that is.
But i am talking about the hollywood structure, tension and dramaturgy.
You need to see the difference between personal taste and general movie facts.
Do you want MI3 to be a replicate look-wise to MI1? MI3 is such an underrated movie, it was released at the wrong time and as a part of the wrong movie franchise. Serious film critics and audiences over the world keep hating the movie because of it's lack of unique style and tone. Therefore no one see it's true potential, what people need to understand is that not all films need to try and be something unique and different. It's much better to see a simple movie triumph then to see a "weird" movie fail. Do every directors need to show off and try being unique? Sometimes they should just make a story come to life, and use the right tools to make this happen.
That's the keyword, tools. MI3 uses the right tools, not any unique or special tools, but the perfect tools to make a perfect story. As silly as that might sound. And again, this is not my typical movie to like, it's not a personal fav of mine, but as a filmmaker i really appreciate the work that have been done, i see the script and the tools used to make this happen.
Can't people stop acting like pro film weirdos for once and just enjoy easy storytelling? Be honest with yourself for once. This ain't the "Avatar perfection" even though someone might think so. By Avatar perfection i mean that MI3 and Avatar share similarities in trying to be the perfect easy script based on tension and no weirdo *beep* but they cant compare. Avatar is *beep* MI3 is a masterpiece.
And no i'm not a student anymore, working with directing tv, movies, commercials.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
Can you explain this further?
Structurally, I'm curious why MI3 would be considered better than any other random blockbuster. At face value, I don't see it.
I rated the film a 6/10 having just seen it. I thought it was enjoyable, but forgettable. I do like JJ Abrams and am indifferent toward Tom Cruise. I did like Phillip Seymore Hoffman quite a bit in this film.
I felt that opening with Tom Cruise and his wife was kind of lazy, as circling back to it didn't really add much value to the narrative. Perhaps had she been truly shot (or otherwise had been a story of peril), I would have had a different reaction.
But i am talking about the hollywood structure, tension and dramaturgy.
You need to see the difference between personal taste and general movie facts.
Structurally, I'm curious why MI3 would be considered better than any other random blockbuster. At face value, I don't see it.
I rated the film a 6/10 having just seen it. I thought it was enjoyable, but forgettable. I do like JJ Abrams and am indifferent toward Tom Cruise. I did like Phillip Seymore Hoffman quite a bit in this film.
I felt that opening with Tom Cruise and his wife was kind of lazy, as circling back to it didn't really add much value to the narrative. Perhaps had she been truly shot (or otherwise had been a story of peril), I would have had a different reaction.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
And as far as the story, structure, you better watch mi1 instead.
Both Mi1 and 3 are structured just fine. What we all should examine is the plot. The first film is very equivocal. The driving force should be the betrayal that Ethan experiences, but because there are jumps in logic, its difficult to clarify exactly whats going on. Ethan discovers it, but how he figures is out is forced and it tramples the character's emotional journey. Its not able to take hold.
Mi:3 on the other hand is a little tighter on plot, and thats what makes it better. Sure his whole dilemna is the kidnapping of his wife, which is a very typical damsel in distress trope. Yet, even though its been done before, the character's motive is clear and thats something that is lost on heroes in movies these days. This trumps you're complaints about the cinematography, which I can totally understand. If not for its narrative flaws though I would consider the first movie the best.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
After some contemplation I have come to believe that I don't believe your story.
"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several
"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
What i would say is, how does following the rules make this film better ?
I mean, Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Rashomon are all considered masterpiece because of their script and none of them follow the rules established by Hollywood.
So tell me, why is it so different than all other Hollywoodian blockbusters ?
I mean, Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Rashomon are all considered masterpiece because of their script and none of them follow the rules established by Hollywood.
So tell me, why is it so different than all other Hollywoodian blockbusters ?
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
Dont mix movies like Citizen Kane and Vertigo into this, thats my point : These films are considered masterpieces because they dont follow the rules established by Hollywood, they are original and unique.
Hollywood movies are simple, its 3 basic ground rules: character, his desire, conflict. But writing a successful hollwood movie is a damn fine art, much more difficult than writing a Terrence Malick-type movie. And I do love Terrence Malick.
Mission Impossible 3 is the opposite of original, it follows all the typical rules of storytelling that should make all kinda audiences give it a thumb up and enjoy the ride of the movie. From age 12 to 60, from wiseass Kubrick fans to dumbass Michael Bay fans.
Its such an easy and lean story, the movie has no real subplot, its just an emotional, intense ride of a man trying to save his wife. The suspense is at the top from start to finish, there is no confusion and there is a clear goal. Its all so simple and tight at the same time, it never wanders down side roads of subplots, the audience is kept in sustained suspense until the very end.
Almost every other action based blockbusters try the same structure, but few of them manage to keep this up throughout the movie. Sometimes they manage a glimpse of it at one point in the story, either in the beginning of act 2, or the passing from act 2 to 3. Its never completed throughout the movie.
And the whole irony of not having a subplot in MI3 is so well mocked in the story by the whole rabbit foot thing. It tells us so simple that this story wont cheat you and make up some *beep* just to have more story too it, they already have established a clear storyline, and the irony of the rabbit foot being an unknown subplot never answered is brilliant I think. Of course the real purpose of the rabbit foot is to give the bad guy (Hoffman) a reason to be bad.
And talking about badguys, this movie has one of the best ever made. This is not really what I was going to talk about, but I got myself started:
There are 3 types of villains in a Hollywood blockbuster story:
1: The villain we can relate to and understand because we know his backstory and motive (This is the most used villain in that people appreciate most) Examples in high rated blockbusters: Green Goblin, Loki, Doc Oc, Gollum, General Zod)
2: The mysterious villain, we dont know his backstory and the reason we enjoy the villain is because of our curiosity. (The Joker, Anton Chigurh, Tom Cruises Vincent in Collateral, Hoffman in MI3)
3: The pure evil villain, that dont need a motive other than greed. (Saruman, Sauron, The Emperor in SW, Voldermort, tons of Bond badguys, the Avatar villain, Darth Vader (before ep 3, now Vader is category 1 villain)
My point being: Hoffman Davian in MI3 is a category 2 villain, the film follow all the rules of a category 2 villain, and they admit that they use the rabbit foot simply as a tool to give him a motive, not to give the audience a motive.
Im so tired of fake subplots. When you write a thriller you should examine what story you want to tell, what is the plot, what is the subplots, does the subplot help the plot? Do they work well together? Does it distract or enhance the experience? Or just delete it all and make it easy, as in MI3.
Another good example of a blockbuster that does this well is the movie Taken. Taken and MI3 is similar in many ways, except that Taken gets way to much credit for it, when MI3 did it 3 years earlier in a much, much smoother way
But Taken is a simple story, clear goal; the point of the movie is action, pacing, tension and emotions. The creators know this, they dont hide it, the make it a strength instead of a weakness. Delete all stupid subplots and make the audience join the easiest storytelling-ride possible.
And of course that aint a good thing if you are a Hitchcock and Kubrick fan only, but if you are able to not take yourself so seriously, and enjoy an easy and well written Hollywood structure, then do that. I am a fan of unorthodox storytelling that dare to go its own path and not follow the rules, but as a fan of storytelling in general (complex storytelling, bad storytelling, easy storytelling etc) people should soon appreciate the strengths of Mission Impossible 3.
I hear a lot of people say that Ghost Protocol is a better and more worked-on script then MI3, and it breaks my heart.
I mean seriously, its very easy to spot, watch the movie and read the rules of screenplay-structure next to it, analyze it and tell me what it do wrong. If you people dont have books then google it. The 3 acts, the 5 key turning points, the establishing and identification of the character and the movies motive, basically everything. Compare it to other blockbusters you like and dislike, be professional and honest, no prejudging. Tell me again why MI3 is not a top 10 blockbuster of all time, what makes it so bad? I would love to read that.
Earlier comments was just "not my cup of tea, it's not original, what is the rabbit foot?" Please explain to me in depth, prehaps you can make me change my mind, im open to suggestions.
Of course analyzing art like that is silly, either you like it or you dont, no need for more research then your first intuition, but every now and then there is a movie so underrated because of reasons that have nothing to do with the art of moviemaking. It has to do with rumors, what movies were popular the date it came, or you dislike the director before even seeing the movie, and so on.
Somehow I cant make these comments short, I do appreciate your input and questions. The fact that you guys even read my opinions of a outdated 2006 movie is much appreciated.
Quote from gorgsharpy:
"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several
You don't believe my story about the teacher bringing MI3 up as an example of perfect storystructure? What's that not to believe? why would i even use my energy on writing that crap if not true.
Hollywood movies are simple, its 3 basic ground rules: character, his desire, conflict. But writing a successful hollwood movie is a damn fine art, much more difficult than writing a Terrence Malick-type movie. And I do love Terrence Malick.
Mission Impossible 3 is the opposite of original, it follows all the typical rules of storytelling that should make all kinda audiences give it a thumb up and enjoy the ride of the movie. From age 12 to 60, from wiseass Kubrick fans to dumbass Michael Bay fans.
Its such an easy and lean story, the movie has no real subplot, its just an emotional, intense ride of a man trying to save his wife. The suspense is at the top from start to finish, there is no confusion and there is a clear goal. Its all so simple and tight at the same time, it never wanders down side roads of subplots, the audience is kept in sustained suspense until the very end.
Almost every other action based blockbusters try the same structure, but few of them manage to keep this up throughout the movie. Sometimes they manage a glimpse of it at one point in the story, either in the beginning of act 2, or the passing from act 2 to 3. Its never completed throughout the movie.
And the whole irony of not having a subplot in MI3 is so well mocked in the story by the whole rabbit foot thing. It tells us so simple that this story wont cheat you and make up some *beep* just to have more story too it, they already have established a clear storyline, and the irony of the rabbit foot being an unknown subplot never answered is brilliant I think. Of course the real purpose of the rabbit foot is to give the bad guy (Hoffman) a reason to be bad.
And talking about badguys, this movie has one of the best ever made. This is not really what I was going to talk about, but I got myself started:
There are 3 types of villains in a Hollywood blockbuster story:
1: The villain we can relate to and understand because we know his backstory and motive (This is the most used villain in that people appreciate most) Examples in high rated blockbusters: Green Goblin, Loki, Doc Oc, Gollum, General Zod)
2: The mysterious villain, we dont know his backstory and the reason we enjoy the villain is because of our curiosity. (The Joker, Anton Chigurh, Tom Cruises Vincent in Collateral, Hoffman in MI3)
3: The pure evil villain, that dont need a motive other than greed. (Saruman, Sauron, The Emperor in SW, Voldermort, tons of Bond badguys, the Avatar villain, Darth Vader (before ep 3, now Vader is category 1 villain)
My point being: Hoffman Davian in MI3 is a category 2 villain, the film follow all the rules of a category 2 villain, and they admit that they use the rabbit foot simply as a tool to give him a motive, not to give the audience a motive.
Im so tired of fake subplots. When you write a thriller you should examine what story you want to tell, what is the plot, what is the subplots, does the subplot help the plot? Do they work well together? Does it distract or enhance the experience? Or just delete it all and make it easy, as in MI3.
Another good example of a blockbuster that does this well is the movie Taken. Taken and MI3 is similar in many ways, except that Taken gets way to much credit for it, when MI3 did it 3 years earlier in a much, much smoother way
But Taken is a simple story, clear goal; the point of the movie is action, pacing, tension and emotions. The creators know this, they dont hide it, the make it a strength instead of a weakness. Delete all stupid subplots and make the audience join the easiest storytelling-ride possible.
And of course that aint a good thing if you are a Hitchcock and Kubrick fan only, but if you are able to not take yourself so seriously, and enjoy an easy and well written Hollywood structure, then do that. I am a fan of unorthodox storytelling that dare to go its own path and not follow the rules, but as a fan of storytelling in general (complex storytelling, bad storytelling, easy storytelling etc) people should soon appreciate the strengths of Mission Impossible 3.
I hear a lot of people say that Ghost Protocol is a better and more worked-on script then MI3, and it breaks my heart.
I mean seriously, its very easy to spot, watch the movie and read the rules of screenplay-structure next to it, analyze it and tell me what it do wrong. If you people dont have books then google it. The 3 acts, the 5 key turning points, the establishing and identification of the character and the movies motive, basically everything. Compare it to other blockbusters you like and dislike, be professional and honest, no prejudging. Tell me again why MI3 is not a top 10 blockbuster of all time, what makes it so bad? I would love to read that.
Earlier comments was just "not my cup of tea, it's not original, what is the rabbit foot?" Please explain to me in depth, prehaps you can make me change my mind, im open to suggestions.
Of course analyzing art like that is silly, either you like it or you dont, no need for more research then your first intuition, but every now and then there is a movie so underrated because of reasons that have nothing to do with the art of moviemaking. It has to do with rumors, what movies were popular the date it came, or you dislike the director before even seeing the movie, and so on.
Somehow I cant make these comments short, I do appreciate your input and questions. The fact that you guys even read my opinions of a outdated 2006 movie is much appreciated.
Quote from gorgsharpy:
After some contemplation I have come to believe that I don't believe your story.
"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several
You don't believe my story about the teacher bringing MI3 up as an example of perfect storystructure? What's that not to believe? why would i even use my energy on writing that crap if not true.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
Well, one reason for you writing it is obvious - your obsession with the movie.
Apart from that I can easily agree to the fact that the movie is basic structure. I call that mediocre and routine craftmanship in my book. Could we leave it there?
"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several
Apart from that I can easily agree to the fact that the movie is basic structure. I call that mediocre and routine craftmanship in my book. Could we leave it there?
"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
No we can't leave it there.
You seem decent, I could easily respect your judgement if it wasn't for your top 7 director list, and the movies you've rated 10.
You make my theory a reality. A person with those fav directors and that opinion about MI3.
Not saying i am an old wiseass next to you, but a few years ago i would have said the exact same thing. "I call that mediocre"
Lynch is one of my favorite directors too, it is actually through him i have started studying all aspects of storytelling. I don't have an obsession for MI3, i have an obsession with storytelling.
- This is where we can leave it:
You find this a mediocre film because of its basic structure, - because you personally want a deeper and more interesting structure in a story.
I cant argue on that.
You seem decent, I could easily respect your judgement if it wasn't for your top 7 director list, and the movies you've rated 10.
You make my theory a reality. A person with those fav directors and that opinion about MI3.
Not saying i am an old wiseass next to you, but a few years ago i would have said the exact same thing. "I call that mediocre"
Lynch is one of my favorite directors too, it is actually through him i have started studying all aspects of storytelling. I don't have an obsession for MI3, i have an obsession with storytelling.
- This is where we can leave it:
You find this a mediocre film because of its basic structure, - because you personally want a deeper and more interesting structure in a story.
I cant argue on that.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
I haven't read the whole thread. But I think a 6.8 is a fair rating for a movie like Mission: Impossible 3. I think a lot of similar movies are simply overrated, for whatever reason (maybe because their director or main star is more "hip", or their tone is darker, or because they contain intense battle scenes, or because they're British or whatever).
Also, having a perfect story-structure alone doesn't make a movie special. I'd say many of Michael Bay's movies from the 1990s are rather perfect in structure too (e.g. The Rock, Armageddon). But these blockbuster movies don't offer much more beyond a very basic theme and simple "popcorn fun"; which is not wrong or anything, but in my eyes is not enough to grant a rating of 9 or 10.
______
last listened to: Michel Fugain - Une belle histoire
http://y2u.be/qFWv3g4y2Pg
Also, having a perfect story-structure alone doesn't make a movie special. I'd say many of Michael Bay's movies from the 1990s are rather perfect in structure too (e.g. The Rock, Armageddon). But these blockbuster movies don't offer much more beyond a very basic theme and simple "popcorn fun"; which is not wrong or anything, but in my eyes is not enough to grant a rating of 9 or 10.
______
last listened to: Michel Fugain - Une belle histoire
http://y2u.be/qFWv3g4y2Pg
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
Thanks for the input, fair enough.
But to compare Mission Impossible 3 to The Rock and Armageddon in terms of the perfect story-structure is very wrong I believe.
I do agree that The Rock and Armageddon have what is needed to make a perfect blockbuster movie for the avarage retard audience, and that these two movies should not be rated higher then a 6. But i am talking about the "adult" version of the perfect hollywood structure.
Examples of this is:
The Gladiator, Inception, Dark Knight, Braveheart, Jason Bourne, Taken.
Like i said before. Hollywood movies are simple, its 3 basic ground rules: character, desire, conflict. But writing a successful hollwood movie containing these rules is an art. It's a tough job, much tougher then writing a Coens or Tarantino script. (those being my favorite directors, but as a storyteller enthusiast i am proud to admit that i know the difference between personal taste and professional work)
Let's take Gladiator, it's a good example. It is a perfect and safe story, with no "daring Tarantino moves". But still the script of Gladiator is so tight and still adult enough to be on a much higher level then Armageddon (Armageddon also using the same basic hollyood structure with a "perfect script") When you see The Rock you think: "this movie follow the rules, what a clich, lets give it a 5 outta 10". When you see The Gladiator you think: "Great movie, a 9 outta 10" - But the fact is that the Gladiator still follow the same clich rules, but they manage to hide it. That is the hard part about sceenwriting, creating something and then hiding it for the audience again. Make them believe that they are smarter than the film creators, make them believe we didn't fine tune this script in such a perfect way.
Do you see the difference in terms of professinal script work? The difference between Gladiator and The Rock, or the difference between Inception and Avatar. They all use the same ground rules, exept the first named movies have much more work and thoughts from much smarter storytellers.
I believe that Mission Impossible 3 is one of these movies, it can be used as an example of good story structure same as The Gladiator. It is safe enough to follow the basic likeable hollywood rules, but adult enough to aim for the "smarter" part of the audience as well.
Like i said before, it is not a "Citizen Kane", but that ain't a ment to be-perfect script either.
Do you see the difference between a movie like The Rock and Braveheart in terms of serious work even though they both follow the same rules?
But to compare Mission Impossible 3 to The Rock and Armageddon in terms of the perfect story-structure is very wrong I believe.
I do agree that The Rock and Armageddon have what is needed to make a perfect blockbuster movie for the avarage retard audience, and that these two movies should not be rated higher then a 6. But i am talking about the "adult" version of the perfect hollywood structure.
Examples of this is:
The Gladiator, Inception, Dark Knight, Braveheart, Jason Bourne, Taken.
Like i said before. Hollywood movies are simple, its 3 basic ground rules: character, desire, conflict. But writing a successful hollwood movie containing these rules is an art. It's a tough job, much tougher then writing a Coens or Tarantino script. (those being my favorite directors, but as a storyteller enthusiast i am proud to admit that i know the difference between personal taste and professional work)
Let's take Gladiator, it's a good example. It is a perfect and safe story, with no "daring Tarantino moves". But still the script of Gladiator is so tight and still adult enough to be on a much higher level then Armageddon (Armageddon also using the same basic hollyood structure with a "perfect script") When you see The Rock you think: "this movie follow the rules, what a clich, lets give it a 5 outta 10". When you see The Gladiator you think: "Great movie, a 9 outta 10" - But the fact is that the Gladiator still follow the same clich rules, but they manage to hide it. That is the hard part about sceenwriting, creating something and then hiding it for the audience again. Make them believe that they are smarter than the film creators, make them believe we didn't fine tune this script in such a perfect way.
Do you see the difference in terms of professinal script work? The difference between Gladiator and The Rock, or the difference between Inception and Avatar. They all use the same ground rules, exept the first named movies have much more work and thoughts from much smarter storytellers.
I believe that Mission Impossible 3 is one of these movies, it can be used as an example of good story structure same as The Gladiator. It is safe enough to follow the basic likeable hollywood rules, but adult enough to aim for the "smarter" part of the audience as well.
Like i said before, it is not a "Citizen Kane", but that ain't a ment to be-perfect script either.
Do you see the difference between a movie like The Rock and Braveheart in terms of serious work even though they both follow the same rules?
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
In other words: it takes more than merely perfect story-structure to make a movie special. Which is exactly what I wrote in my previous post.
Do you see the difference between a movie like The Rock and Braveheart in terms of serious work even though they both follow the same rules?
Mission: Impossible 3 is well-made, may have perfect story-structure, but isn't that special. The story is paper-thin, we have seen it all before, many people consider it as an feature-length episode of "Alias". (I have to give it special kudos though for those brilliant scenes where Ethan is "disguised" as Owen Davian, and for the stunt-work that Cruise did himself.) A 6.8 is a fair rating. I think Armageddon and The Rock deserve about the same.
By the way, Inception and The Dark Knight are way overrated. And Gladiator is highly rated (and rightly so) because Gladiator, despite having in essence a simple classic storyline, re-defined the template and style for modern epic movies with battle scenes (and set the bar for many similar movies in its wake). It's not because of supposed "clever hiding of a story-structure", because there is no hiding.
______
last listened to: Michel Fugain - Une belle histoire
http://y2u.be/qFWv3g4y2Pg
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
I haven't seen MI:1 or 2 in years so I can't really comment on them, but in comparing 3 to 4 I can see how structure helps. So lets talk about it.
First, let's examine what movies are supposed to do. They're supposed to manipulate an audience, not just to think or feel but to believe that whats up on the screen is really happening. Its a magic trick goddamnit and you're supposed to fall for it which, we all usually do.
As far as structure is concerned, there's pros and cons to use and disuse in this regard. If a film is too structured, you might notice how well the pieces fall so perfectly into place that you can no longer suspend your disbelief. You might think "oh, only in a movie would A, B, and C fall in line." A movie without structure seems more random and lucid and therefore is more reflective of life. C would come before A and then there would be no B because "hey, *beep* happens". Also, lacking structure can make a movie seem more original.
I actually don't like a movie tha lacks structure because it has the opposite effect for me. I become very concious of the writing in this case and therefore cannot suspend my disbelief. Here's why:
If you don't adhere to structure, writing becomes a more subjective format. It becomes more about the writer's creativity than the story. I've known lots of writers and I'll watch something and think to myself, 'so and so would have written this'. Even worse I might think, 'I would have written this'. Structure takes out the subjectivity of a writer by keeping the content focused. Everything thats needed for a well-rounded story is there, everything superfluous is left out.
Its harder to adhere to structure than some people like to give credit for, and to abandon it can seem lazy. A writer might have a really good concept in his head but if it does't fit into the framework he needs to scrap it or save it for something else. In this way I sense that the writer really deliberates to meet the needs of the story and not merely concerned with expressing his creativity. He was keeping in mind how a movie should be paced, where the action should be heavy and when it should die down. He preserves a rhythm.
A structureless story can be good, but it works better if its intended experience is to reflect that lucid or voyueristic feel. The Mission Impossible series doesn't have these aspirations, therefore structure is necessary.
continued
First, let's examine what movies are supposed to do. They're supposed to manipulate an audience, not just to think or feel but to believe that whats up on the screen is really happening. Its a magic trick goddamnit and you're supposed to fall for it which, we all usually do.
As far as structure is concerned, there's pros and cons to use and disuse in this regard. If a film is too structured, you might notice how well the pieces fall so perfectly into place that you can no longer suspend your disbelief. You might think "oh, only in a movie would A, B, and C fall in line." A movie without structure seems more random and lucid and therefore is more reflective of life. C would come before A and then there would be no B because "hey, *beep* happens". Also, lacking structure can make a movie seem more original.
I actually don't like a movie tha lacks structure because it has the opposite effect for me. I become very concious of the writing in this case and therefore cannot suspend my disbelief. Here's why:
If you don't adhere to structure, writing becomes a more subjective format. It becomes more about the writer's creativity than the story. I've known lots of writers and I'll watch something and think to myself, 'so and so would have written this'. Even worse I might think, 'I would have written this'. Structure takes out the subjectivity of a writer by keeping the content focused. Everything thats needed for a well-rounded story is there, everything superfluous is left out.
Its harder to adhere to structure than some people like to give credit for, and to abandon it can seem lazy. A writer might have a really good concept in his head but if it does't fit into the framework he needs to scrap it or save it for something else. In this way I sense that the writer really deliberates to meet the needs of the story and not merely concerned with expressing his creativity. He was keeping in mind how a movie should be paced, where the action should be heavy and when it should die down. He preserves a rhythm.
A structureless story can be good, but it works better if its intended experience is to reflect that lucid or voyueristic feel. The Mission Impossible series doesn't have these aspirations, therefore structure is necessary.
continued
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
In truth though, all the MI movies are structured. Probably 75% of movies every year have structure, some are just tighter than others. The real difference between MI3 and MI4 is that 3 is more focused.
From the opening scene your introduced to the driving force of the film which is the main character's need to protect his wife vs. his need to serve MIF. This conflict is constantly built upon, straight up until the end. The film is relentless in its focus on this one thing. On the mission to kidnap Phillip Seymour Hoffman it seems to pushed to the side, but the mission culminates in the villain threatening his wife. He tempts the monster so to speak.
Now this may seem formulaic to some people and therefore predictable and unoriginal, but I think this seperates it from the rest. Each MI movie is the same. Bad guys steal something or kill someone good guys investigate and find out that the bad guy plots to destroy the world good guy intervenes in plan plan fails good guys get another shot and they triumph. At some point the main character will be dropped from up high and suspended on a wire.
But at least 3 lets us know that much of this isn't important. We're given no details about the villain's plot and what the Rabbit's foot does because it doesn't matter. We're not shown how the main character acquires it because it serves only to beef up the action. The film never deviates from its central conflict.
In contrast MI4's central conflict doesn't take center stage and the consequences of Ghost Protocol aren't given as much weight. Instead half way through the film it introduces the idea that the main character's wife died and focuses on this conflict instead. A much better conflict would have made the two work mutually or excluded one entirely for the other. This would have kept up the focus and the suspense. It doesn't and so as I watch it I think, 'where is all this going, and why are they introducing this now?' and then I'm conscious of the fact that it was written poorly, that the filmmakers didn't know how to work around elements introduced in the third movie, and rather than figure it out, they moved on because its a franchise moneymaker afterall and not a piece of art.
Still though its fun to watch. My pick is MI3 though.
From the opening scene your introduced to the driving force of the film which is the main character's need to protect his wife vs. his need to serve MIF. This conflict is constantly built upon, straight up until the end. The film is relentless in its focus on this one thing. On the mission to kidnap Phillip Seymour Hoffman it seems to pushed to the side, but the mission culminates in the villain threatening his wife. He tempts the monster so to speak.
Now this may seem formulaic to some people and therefore predictable and unoriginal, but I think this seperates it from the rest. Each MI movie is the same. Bad guys steal something or kill someone good guys investigate and find out that the bad guy plots to destroy the world good guy intervenes in plan plan fails good guys get another shot and they triumph. At some point the main character will be dropped from up high and suspended on a wire.
But at least 3 lets us know that much of this isn't important. We're given no details about the villain's plot and what the Rabbit's foot does because it doesn't matter. We're not shown how the main character acquires it because it serves only to beef up the action. The film never deviates from its central conflict.
In contrast MI4's central conflict doesn't take center stage and the consequences of Ghost Protocol aren't given as much weight. Instead half way through the film it introduces the idea that the main character's wife died and focuses on this conflict instead. A much better conflict would have made the two work mutually or excluded one entirely for the other. This would have kept up the focus and the suspense. It doesn't and so as I watch it I think, 'where is all this going, and why are they introducing this now?' and then I'm conscious of the fact that it was written poorly, that the filmmakers didn't know how to work around elements introduced in the third movie, and rather than figure it out, they moved on because its a franchise moneymaker afterall and not a piece of art.
Still though its fun to watch. My pick is MI3 though.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
A great read, thanks.
I agree with alot. My writing have infected 3/4 of this thread so i will try not to repeat myself and write another one.
Franchise moneymaker yes, but sometimes you have to work more with storytelling to make a moneymaking-movie then a Charlie Kaufman movie.
I agree with alot. My writing have infected 3/4 of this thread so i will try not to repeat myself and write another one.
Franchise moneymaker yes, but sometimes you have to work more with storytelling to make a moneymaking-movie then a Charlie Kaufman movie.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
What a tired and uninspiring pile of used up cliches. I'm talking about the movie. Just horrible.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
Even if you perfect mediocrity it's still mediocrity. I can enjoy a simple movie if there is a hint of originality in it. If that spark is missing I can't be bothered. Life is short and there are literally thousands of other movies I could watch instead.
Personally I was never a big fan of the Mission Impossible franchise, although I really enjoyed parts of the first one. Personally I thought the lowest point was the second one - I later became a fan of John Woo after watching some of his masterful Hongkong movies, so his Hollywood outings still baffle me. As for the third, I barely remember watching it at all and was a bit shocked to realize JJ Abrams had directed it. A good friend has later recommended the forth film as returning to form, but I found myself uninvested throughout the entire flick and should reevaluate the people I take recommendations from.
Anyway, MI3 is airing on tv right now, so I might give it another shot, but you seem unnaturally obsessed with this flick, and I find it hard to detect credibility in your ramblings.
Personally I was never a big fan of the Mission Impossible franchise, although I really enjoyed parts of the first one. Personally I thought the lowest point was the second one - I later became a fan of John Woo after watching some of his masterful Hongkong movies, so his Hollywood outings still baffle me. As for the third, I barely remember watching it at all and was a bit shocked to realize JJ Abrams had directed it. A good friend has later recommended the forth film as returning to form, but I found myself uninvested throughout the entire flick and should reevaluate the people I take recommendations from.
Anyway, MI3 is airing on tv right now, so I might give it another shot, but you seem unnaturally obsessed with this flick, and I find it hard to detect credibility in your ramblings.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
If you dont find credibility in my ramblings then you haven't read what i wrote. I told a true story, and my opinion on the film. As easy as that.
If you people have read what i wrote, given the film a rewatch - and still dislike the film then that is your truth.
But please tell me your opinion after seeing it tonight.
And i gotta say im so tired of the "MI4 being better" *beep* MI4 is an easy, badass, kinda silly, and fun movie, yeah. But well made like MI3? No.
If you people have read what i wrote, given the film a rewatch - and still dislike the film then that is your truth.
But please tell me your opinion after seeing it tonight.
And i gotta say im so tired of the "MI4 being better" *beep* MI4 is an easy, badass, kinda silly, and fun movie, yeah. But well made like MI3? No.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
Even if you perfect mediocrity it's still mediocrity
Yes, but that still makes it better than every other movie that gets made which should earn this film a higher score and more respect.
You gripe that MI:3 doesn't have even a hint of originality but I count a helicopter chase through wind turbines, capsules exploding inside heads, a firefight on freeway bridge against commandos and a drone, and the ability to read mouths, none of which have ever been done elsewhere. SO there's a couple of hints for you.
And to be honest I don't really give a twat for originality. Anyone can get themselves stranded in a desert while going on a drug-induced binge and come up with some crazy ass concepts that people who claim they want originality would appreciate, but without structure, pacing, and logical flow, its pretty much crap.
Is the damsel in distress plot cliche? Sure but it gives Ethan Hunt an emotional conflict with real motivation which was severely lacking in MI:2. It also improves on the first Mission Impossible by having clarity and consistancy. With MI:3 there's no logical gaps and the dramatic arc isn't merely an afterthought.
As for MI:4, you will see that it is as good if not better than 3. However, the main conflict is a little underplayed and the main character isn't affected by it emotionally. And regardless of Tom Cruise's stigma these days, in MI:3 he still delivers a pretty good emotional performance.
Above all, I think what I like most about it is that it isn't pretentious. It isn't an action thriller for the sake of being an action thriller. It doesn't try to capitalize off of conceptualizations which Hollywood pays millions of dollars to its writers to come up with by dropping acid.
It does do something other films fail to do. It makes an otherwise extraordinary character more relatable, an amazing feat considering the conceited nutball they have playing him.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
I have to say, after watching MI3 on tv today, maybe the 5th time to see it, I'm still shocked at the low score.
It does what it does simply, ad very satisfyingly. Number 4 was tremendous fun to watch, amazing set pieces, but I think it was missing that drive that MI3 has. I completely agree with the OP. Stands out from the franchise. I can't really word my reasoning much better than has already been done on this thread, but I thought I'd just voice my agreement anyway!
It does what it does simply, ad very satisfyingly. Number 4 was tremendous fun to watch, amazing set pieces, but I think it was missing that drive that MI3 has. I completely agree with the OP. Stands out from the franchise. I can't really word my reasoning much better than has already been done on this thread, but I thought I'd just voice my agreement anyway!
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
I rewatched it and it's probably better than Meet the spartans which is almost a back-handed compliment, definitely not something worth wasting praise over. Like the whole franchise it just feels tired and unengaging. The first one had the gimmick advantage of translating a cult series everybody used to like until they rewatched it onto the big screen with some arguably good parts. But in a world of greater spy flicks from decades passed to recent ones the mission impossible franchise sits at the kids table.
Want some moonshine with your strawman?
There's a space between viciously boring, scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel-until-you-tunnel-into-Satan's-gimp-dungeon tripe and pretentious art-school farts placed benevolently between our mom's bosom and sold as air refreshener by people who pay too much for bad coffee. This space is inhabited by the movies usually referred to as good, great or "not a disposable Tom Cruise ego-trip hellbent on jerking him off in every shot (aka MI:2 syndrome)" to be perfectly blunt.
Drugs are boring. Real creative work required to achieve originality is real hard work. If all you needed to be hunter s. thompson is a head full of substances the drugged deadbeats rotting in our cities would be lauded artists instead of cautionary tales and we might have more interesting entertainment media. Structure and polish are easier to achieve than creativity. All you need is money and a template which is all Mission Impossible 3 could offer me.
And to be honest I don't really give a twat for originality. Anyone can get themselves stranded in a desert while going on a drug-induced binge and come up with some crazy ass concepts that people who claim they want originality would appreciate, but without structure, pacing, and logical flow, its pretty much crap.
Want some moonshine with your strawman?
There's a space between viciously boring, scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel-until-you-tunnel-into-Satan's-gimp-dungeon tripe and pretentious art-school farts placed benevolently between our mom's bosom and sold as air refreshener by people who pay too much for bad coffee. This space is inhabited by the movies usually referred to as good, great or "not a disposable Tom Cruise ego-trip hellbent on jerking him off in every shot (aka MI:2 syndrome)" to be perfectly blunt.
Drugs are boring. Real creative work required to achieve originality is real hard work. If all you needed to be hunter s. thompson is a head full of substances the drugged deadbeats rotting in our cities would be lauded artists instead of cautionary tales and we might have more interesting entertainment media. Structure and polish are easier to achieve than creativity. All you need is money and a template which is all Mission Impossible 3 could offer me.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
If all you needed to be hunter s. thompson is a head full of substances the drugged deadbeats rotting in our cities would be lauded artists instead of cautionary tales and we might have more interesting entertainment media.
This would be true if the drugged deadbeats could communicate cogently and Hunter S. Thompson could barely do that. What he had was style and prose which made him unique, but I daresay he was original so much as he wrote about the times around him.
Structure and polish are easier to achieve than creativity. All you need is money and a template which is all Mission Impossible 3 could offer me.
Structure and polish are necessary tools to reign in the excess of ideas that creativity can spew out.
I've seen a lot of creativity in Hollywood in the past couple of decades, but what I've missed is some adherence to formula. Everybody scoffs at the idea of formula, but formula has its purposes. Its a system of checks and balances. The challenge is not just to be creative, but to be creative while working in rigid framework designed by the conventions of writing and storytelling. They're there for a reason. Yes rules can be broken, but not without tough deliberation, and it takes a good writer to know when.
Does Mission Impossible follow some of the old routines. Why sure, but it creates new ones as well. And no one is calling this a masterpiece by the way. We're just pointing out how underrated it is a phenomenon we mostly attribute to anti-Cruise bias.
This movie has a 6.8 but at the very least it should be a 7.2.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
And no one is calling this a masterpiece by the way. We're just pointing out how underrated it is a phenomenon we mostly attribute to anti-Cruise bias.
I'm calling it a masterpiece of action filmmaking. Or close to it anyway.
7.2? Try 9.3 on for size, you'll find it fits better.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
Easy buddy, I said at least a 7.2. I might one day even go as high as a 7.6, but I really don't know what that would do to you.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
I've seen a lot of creativity in Hollywood in the past couple of decades, but what I've missed is some adherence to formula. Everybody scoffs at the idea of formula, but formula has its purposes. Its a system of checks and balances. The challenge is not just to be creative, but to be creative while working in rigid framework designed by the conventions of writing and storytelling. They're there for a reason. Yes rules can be broken, but not without tough deliberation, and it takes a good writer to know when.
no use debating the ocean with a frog who has never left its pond
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
no use debating the ocean with a frog who has never left its pond
Why go out for hamburgers when I could have steak at home.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
The movie is a rollercoster ride
"I'm a contradiction"
"I'm a contradiction"
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
I agree, OP! MI3 is definitely the best entry in the M:I series. How it gets a 6.8 is beyond me. Having rewatched it again this weekend has renewed my faith in J.J. Abrams as a director. I think it's safe to say that the Star Wars saga is safe in his very capable hands.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
Why can't people watch movies in an honest way? Why do you lie to your self?
It's good that you went to film school because you obviously wouldn't have gone far in any field that needed logic. Maybe that's why the movie is top notch for you. Leaps of logic don't matter much to you.
And that brings me back to my point: you assume that everyone likes movies for the reasons you like movies. They don't. It's asinine to imagine that everyone thinks of one mind on anything, especially entertainment, and quite puerile to assume that if people don't agree with you, they must be wrong, prejudiced or in denial.
Some people like movies for the escapism they provide. Some like movies that challenged them. Some like movies that keep them on the edge of their seats. Some like clever dialogs, complex characters, action, relationships.
You do not hold the Ultimate Truth of what makes a great movie just because you went to Film School. So yeah you *are* arrogant. But hey, don't worry, it's not an uncommon trait these days.
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
Reply |
Did you even read my messages or did you only take the arrogant lines i wrote out of context to make me fit the description of me being only arrogant?
I assume everyone likes movies for the reason i do? What makes you say that? How can i make myself clearer?
I hope all common people agree on the obvious fact that people are different, and therefor enjoy different movies. There is no universal truth. That's what ive been trying to write in these posts as well. Like with music; no one can tell you what is good or not, but there is still basic rules, structures and skills that make basic facts in music as well. That is what the human species do in all aspects of life, we act all smartass - and we create our own rules and facts.
The normal human society follow all these basic rules, whether you like it or not.
Why do people always get so hostile? Like you act now. (i'm saying "act" instead of "are", a statement i was missing in your post and your judging of me)
What i am saying is that this movie follow the real basic rules of film making, which a lot people should notice and enjoy.
The reason for me to create this thread is that i am so tired of all the hatred online, people being awfully quick at judgement, and awfully quick at spilling out all negative opinions online.
What this movie needs is more people saying some positive things after seeing all these douchey ones already here, especially when the positive things for once is the "truth."
In danger of being misunderstood yet another time, i will explain that by "truth" i mean the truth based on the film system and rules created by us.
I'm not saying people should agree with personal opinions and enjoy something you personally don't actually enjoy. I am not saying my personal opinion is the "ultimate truth", i am saying the ultimate truth is.
Like a murder case in a court, if you have the evidence there aren't room for personal opinions.
With movies there are room for personal opinions, obviously, but its a big shame when those opinions leads to this kinda hatred.
And when that is said;
Why can't people enjoy a good conversation? What we all have in common is that we clearly love film, and something made us enter this board. Why do we have a bad argue instead of a good discussion? I'm sure there are tons of subjects and people out there to have negative argues with. Like politics. Do we enter this boards to win a war or to learn something? That's why i created this thread in the first place, maybe a good learning conversation would come out of it.
Whenever i read an article like this; where people try to see the bright side of something and have a discussion i tend to enter the "being interested mode" instead the "defense mode".
A bad attitude will surely find bad people. Like in this case, whenever you see me having a strong opinion about something, and in the same context you see "film school", and suddenly that's a bad thing and i'm an arrogant prick. I mean, what?
I'm trying to share positive thoughts about a piece of art, (which sadly is rare these days online) if you don't agree,- fine, if you want to discuss then discuss.
I assume everyone likes movies for the reason i do? What makes you say that? How can i make myself clearer?
I hope all common people agree on the obvious fact that people are different, and therefor enjoy different movies. There is no universal truth. That's what ive been trying to write in these posts as well. Like with music; no one can tell you what is good or not, but there is still basic rules, structures and skills that make basic facts in music as well. That is what the human species do in all aspects of life, we act all smartass - and we create our own rules and facts.
The normal human society follow all these basic rules, whether you like it or not.
Why do people always get so hostile? Like you act now. (i'm saying "act" instead of "are", a statement i was missing in your post and your judging of me)
What i am saying is that this movie follow the real basic rules of film making, which a lot people should notice and enjoy.
The reason for me to create this thread is that i am so tired of all the hatred online, people being awfully quick at judgement, and awfully quick at spilling out all negative opinions online.
What this movie needs is more people saying some positive things after seeing all these douchey ones already here, especially when the positive things for once is the "truth."
In danger of being misunderstood yet another time, i will explain that by "truth" i mean the truth based on the film system and rules created by us.
I'm not saying people should agree with personal opinions and enjoy something you personally don't actually enjoy. I am not saying my personal opinion is the "ultimate truth", i am saying the ultimate truth is.
Like a murder case in a court, if you have the evidence there aren't room for personal opinions.
With movies there are room for personal opinions, obviously, but its a big shame when those opinions leads to this kinda hatred.
And when that is said;
Why can't people enjoy a good conversation? What we all have in common is that we clearly love film, and something made us enter this board. Why do we have a bad argue instead of a good discussion? I'm sure there are tons of subjects and people out there to have negative argues with. Like politics. Do we enter this boards to win a war or to learn something? That's why i created this thread in the first place, maybe a good learning conversation would come out of it.
Whenever i read an article like this; where people try to see the bright side of something and have a discussion i tend to enter the "being interested mode" instead the "defense mode".
A bad attitude will surely find bad people. Like in this case, whenever you see me having a strong opinion about something, and in the same context you see "film school", and suddenly that's a bad thing and i'm an arrogant prick. I mean, what?
I'm trying to share positive thoughts about a piece of art, (which sadly is rare these days online) if you don't agree,- fine, if you want to discuss then discuss.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
I really would have appreciated your "arthouse style" of replies if you had made it those into MI-1 board than sucking MI-3. The thing is, you kinda misunderstood the concept about JJ's MI3 which is a (in natural common word) "PIECE OF CRAP". There is nothing artistic about this "RUSHED OUT", "DEVELOPMEN HELL", "TOM CRUISE ACTION STUNT VEHICLE".
-
You make an overrated assumption about this sequel when your FILMSCHOOL teacher recommended this "P.O.C" (short term for 'PIECE OF CRAP' in-case you don't understand) to his entire class.
-
It's OK I understand, the reason 'The Rabbit Foot' was left-off is only because the concept was half boiled/rushed. The plot device is just plain and simple = Create a 2hr thriller movie in which an aged TOM CRUISE can RUN FAST, JUMB HIGH, DO COOL STUNTS IN ORDER TO SATISFY His " GIANT EGO". JJ provided exactly what Tom intended.
_
If you didn't know several directors had walked out from this project because of "Creative Difference" with CRUISE.
-
Even director Joe Carnahan video taped himself when he walked out of the project.
-
The problem is you people find a material, gives a high value to it, and make it public as it is some sort of ICONIC MOVIE, which you shouldn't
-
Tell your teacher (if he's still around) "MI3 SUCKS, it is a PURE GARBAGE". I wonder how he reacts to that, I bet it'll be in "ART-HOUSE manner"
If we stay the course, we are dead! WE ARE ALL DEAD!
-
You make an overrated assumption about this sequel when your FILMSCHOOL teacher recommended this "P.O.C" (short term for 'PIECE OF CRAP' in-case you don't understand) to his entire class.
-
It's OK I understand, the reason 'The Rabbit Foot' was left-off is only because the concept was half boiled/rushed. The plot device is just plain and simple = Create a 2hr thriller movie in which an aged TOM CRUISE can RUN FAST, JUMB HIGH, DO COOL STUNTS IN ORDER TO SATISFY His " GIANT EGO". JJ provided exactly what Tom intended.
_
If you didn't know several directors had walked out from this project because of "Creative Difference" with CRUISE.
-
Even director Joe Carnahan video taped himself when he walked out of the project.
-
The problem is you people find a material, gives a high value to it, and make it public as it is some sort of ICONIC MOVIE, which you shouldn't
-
Tell your teacher (if he's still around) "MI3 SUCKS, it is a PURE GARBAGE". I wonder how he reacts to that, I bet it'll be in "ART-HOUSE manner"
If we stay the course, we are dead! WE ARE ALL DEAD!
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
Mission Impossible III is one of the best action movies in the last 15 years, up there (or superior to) The Matrix, X-men 2, Blade, Bourne, and surpassed only by Apocalypto, which is equally underrated.
Film lovers understand this. The rest is just white noise.
Film lovers understand this. The rest is just white noise.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
i was so disappointed with this movie in the cinema. A few years later i gave it an other chance and loved it. I've watched it 3 or 4 times since.
yesterday i watched MI4 'cause i really disliked in on the first view - i thought i'd do the same as MI3. But sadly didn't like it again. So today i'm watching MI3 to restore the MI balance :P
yesterday i watched MI4 'cause i really disliked in on the first view - i thought i'd do the same as MI3. But sadly didn't like it again. So today i'm watching MI3 to restore the MI balance :P
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
Rewatched this last night. My initial 7/10 rating dropped to a 5/10.
It has great set pieces joined together by very thin contrivances.
Why does Musgrave ask Hunt to rescue Farris? As the movie progresses we find out Musgrave had set Farris up, why not follow procedure and get current on the field agents to rescue her? What does he gain by using Hunt?
Why does Brassel detain Hunt, Hannibal Lecter style? What was Hunt's crime?
Why does Musgrave go to Shanghai personally? Why reveal himself to Hunt?
You want to talk about story and structure the smartest choice would've been to have Hunt discover that Musgrave was behind everything. The biggest twist of the movie comes without any help from our hero.
It's not a bad movie, but it's not smart.
It has great set pieces joined together by very thin contrivances.
Why does Musgrave ask Hunt to rescue Farris? As the movie progresses we find out Musgrave had set Farris up, why not follow procedure and get current on the field agents to rescue her? What does he gain by using Hunt?
Why does Brassel detain Hunt, Hannibal Lecter style? What was Hunt's crime?
Why does Musgrave go to Shanghai personally? Why reveal himself to Hunt?
You want to talk about story and structure the smartest choice would've been to have Hunt discover that Musgrave was behind everything. The biggest twist of the movie comes without any help from our hero.
It's not a bad movie, but it's not smart.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
You want to talk about story and structure the smartest choice would've been to have Hunt discover that Musgrave was behind everything. The biggest twist of the movie comes without any help from our hero.
Plot!!! Your are critiquing the plot!!! it is not the same thing as story or structure.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
Why does Musgrave ask Hunt to rescue Farris? As the movie progresses we find out Musgrave had set Farris up, why not follow procedure and get current on the field agents to rescue her? What does he gain by using Hunt?
Ethan and company were supposed to get blown to smithereens by the bomb in agent Farris' head.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
Funny, this is pretty much exactly what I think of Mission Impossible 1.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
I think I know EXACTLY what you mean and I have felt the same in a lot of ways. Even when this movie first came out I felt it was a perfectly balanced film. IMO it contains all the best elements of every Mission Impossible film that came before and after it and uses them perfectly. It has a solid plot and story, it has fantastic action sequences and stunts which are well placed and keep the film from ever getting stale. A good ensemble cast and extra characters. Also a wonderful villain who manages to standout unlike most villains in summer blockbusters. Oh and a wonderful score. The thing that really helps set this film apart IMO is the personal element added by Ethan getting married and his wife getting involved. And having the film open with his wife being threatened really gives the film a nice touch.
But yeah, the tone and pace of the film make it perfect. There's no dragging and no unnecessary filler, the film does exactly what it needs to and keeps you entertained throughout.
Look at that turtle go bro!
But yeah, the tone and pace of the film make it perfect. There's no dragging and no unnecessary filler, the film does exactly what it needs to and keeps you entertained throughout.
Look at that turtle go bro!
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
I agree. MI3 made me change my opinion about Mission impossible franchise (which I didn't like before).
It's really a great movie and by far the best in the series. And also the smartest of them.
It's really a great movie and by far the best in the series. And also the smartest of them.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
Don't you have a mind and opinion for yourself? Why did it take a man with certain qualifications for you to "know" that this is a well crafted movie? Don't let somebody with "respectable" film qualifications tell you what's good or not. You should be able to articulate why it's a good movie on your own.
And on that note, why is it hard for you to believe that people don't like this movie? They have opinions too. Why do you believe that there is an objective good or bad when it comes to film? Sure, there are some things that are objective. The film has a good plot line, they use tools laid out by Hitchcock to play out the suspenseful scenes almost perfectly (even to the point where they use an item that serves as like THE definition of a MacGuffin), and everything looked just fine from camera work to the mise-en-scne. But with that said, it's still mostly subjective. I can see somebody thinking that the acting is cheesy, that the plot is too simple or too complicated, the camera was too shaky, not enough action for an action movie, etc etc. It may be well crafted, but that doesn't mean it's everybody's cup of tea.
For example, The Lord of the Rings trilogy objectively are good films. They are well crafted with magnificent special effects and tells its story visually remarkable well. However, I don't like them. I think the characters are quite boring, and the plot is too complicated for me to follow. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, as I'd watch the movies several times in order to register everything that is going on, but I don't find it worth it because, as I said before, I feel the characters are boring which makes the movies boring which makes me feel that it's not worth my time. Objectively, they're good films, but that doesn't mean I like them, nor do I have to applaud them to pretend that they're a great movies. For the most part, if somebody asks what I think of that trilogy I tell them that they suck.
With all this said, I agree with ya that Mission: Impossible 3 is underrated and should have a higher rating on IMDb.
And on that note, why is it hard for you to believe that people don't like this movie? They have opinions too. Why do you believe that there is an objective good or bad when it comes to film? Sure, there are some things that are objective. The film has a good plot line, they use tools laid out by Hitchcock to play out the suspenseful scenes almost perfectly (even to the point where they use an item that serves as like THE definition of a MacGuffin), and everything looked just fine from camera work to the mise-en-scne. But with that said, it's still mostly subjective. I can see somebody thinking that the acting is cheesy, that the plot is too simple or too complicated, the camera was too shaky, not enough action for an action movie, etc etc. It may be well crafted, but that doesn't mean it's everybody's cup of tea.
For example, The Lord of the Rings trilogy objectively are good films. They are well crafted with magnificent special effects and tells its story visually remarkable well. However, I don't like them. I think the characters are quite boring, and the plot is too complicated for me to follow. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, as I'd watch the movies several times in order to register everything that is going on, but I don't find it worth it because, as I said before, I feel the characters are boring which makes the movies boring which makes me feel that it's not worth my time. Objectively, they're good films, but that doesn't mean I like them, nor do I have to applaud them to pretend that they're a great movies. For the most part, if somebody asks what I think of that trilogy I tell them that they suck.
With all this said, I agree with ya that Mission: Impossible 3 is underrated and should have a higher rating on IMDb.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
I know this is an old thread but I thought I'd chip in.
I've always rated this film highly. It is well made, and I agree with the OP that structurally and script/story wise it is a very underrated example. Most big-budget action films recently seem to jump from set piece to set piece with no justification other than to create big bangs and thrill audiences (MI4 is a perfect example).
But emotionally, this film carries so much. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was perfectly cast and does a superb job as the villain, he really does. Tom Cruise gives one of his best performances of his career too. The way the story plays out works very well as we are emotionally attached to Ethan/Julia's relationship. We really root for Ethan to save his wife and the tension builds especially towards the end.
It's not going to go down in history as a cinematic great like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, Lawrence of Arabia etc.
But as an action movie, it certainly goes against the grain and gives A LOT more to the viewer than simply explosions and flashy camera moves.
8/10.
Personally I rate the first film slightly higher, so something like:
1. M:I
2. M:I 3
3. M:I 5
4. M:I 4
5. M:I 2
I've always rated this film highly. It is well made, and I agree with the OP that structurally and script/story wise it is a very underrated example. Most big-budget action films recently seem to jump from set piece to set piece with no justification other than to create big bangs and thrill audiences (MI4 is a perfect example).
But emotionally, this film carries so much. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was perfectly cast and does a superb job as the villain, he really does. Tom Cruise gives one of his best performances of his career too. The way the story plays out works very well as we are emotionally attached to Ethan/Julia's relationship. We really root for Ethan to save his wife and the tension builds especially towards the end.
It's not going to go down in history as a cinematic great like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, Lawrence of Arabia etc.
But as an action movie, it certainly goes against the grain and gives A LOT more to the viewer than simply explosions and flashy camera moves.
8/10.
Personally I rate the first film slightly higher, so something like:
1. M:I
2. M:I 3
3. M:I 5
4. M:I 4
5. M:I 2
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
it's 2015 you're gonna lose a lot of your intended audience with the long-winded dissertations but i agree.
btw, the chesapeake bridge set piece is still one of my favorites in film history.
btw, the chesapeake bridge set piece is still one of my favorites in film history.
Re: 6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film scho
Reply |
People hated it simply because of the prejudices relating to Tom Cruise.
I've seen this movie, and I think it's easily the best in the series. And quite possible one of the best action blockbusters ever made in Hollywood.
I've seen this movie, and I think it's easily the best in the series. And quite possible one of the best action blockbusters ever made in Hollywood.
1
2
▲ Top
6.8? Underrated movie - example on story-structure used at film school.
True story.
This movie have always been facinating to me.
MI3 is by far the best in the series, possible one of the best action movies out there.
- The script, the acting, the villain, the suspense and tone. Pretty much the everything. (Exept for the lame chopper chase) Still a 10/10 though.
This is also Cruise best performance since Minority Report.
Since i stepped out of the theatre back in 06 i've always had this movie as a perfect example of how a movie should be made.
I was literally shocked when i saw what the world wide web's audience had to say about the film.
Since then i've tried really hard to see the film with new eyes a ton of times, tried to find out why the heck people don't appriciate this. But i have always gone back to my first opinion. And believe me, i have really puzzled this script into pieces to find all flaus based on the rules of structure and dramaturgy in a story.
So i've kept my opinion, and used this movie as a test to fellow film enthusiasts, see if they prejudge movies based on the wrong opinion. If they say they hate it, that for me means they prejudge.
And the answer is always the same; film enthusiasts that claim to be into storytelling and movies dislike the film, and the normal audience who don't know what to expect enjoy the film alot, people with no pre-opinions on the MI series, on Tom Cruise or on J.J Abrams actually enjoy the intense ride alot.
I'n 2008 i started at a decent film school, all the students, me included, had serious "know-it-all" talks regulary. About movies in different genres and storytelling. This is where i tested out my "MI3 test" on other students a couple of times, everybody hated it of cource, some hated the series in general, and some loved the two first, and despised the third. I had to stop bringing the film up, before i got the "Mission Impossible-dude" rumor. Wich by my personal taste is far from my kinda movies. But the reason why i brought MI3 up is because it's not about personal taste, it's about the rules of film, story and structure.
My highlight of this way to long message is this:
In 2010 i ended up as one of the few lucky students to study as a film director.
We had alot of wonderful teachers from all around the world, wich all the students had the greatest respect for. It's always the same 50 movies that comes in as examples on how a film should be made.
We had this one teacher from Italy for a year, the schools most respected teacher.
One day during class, we talked about suspence, drama and structure, he says the following:
"There is one very underrated movie, wich is the perfect example of this: Mission Impossible 3"
i was like: BOYAKA!
Finally, after all my years through a confusing hell, i got a payoff. All the other students was looking at me, this was my moment of triumf. We told the teacher about our previous discussions regarding MI3, and he told us that he has experienced the exact same thing since he saw the movie in 2006, no one noticing it. But with him being a higly respected filmman, what he says matteres to people, so he had changed many minds when using it as an example earlier.
He even had the movie with him, and the next day we saw it as a curriculum. The proudest two hours of my "career" at that point. After this, the other students agreed, even though this guy said the exact same thing about MI3 as i did earlier.
What im getting to is this.
Why can't people watch movies in an honest way? Why do you lie to your self?
I felt the same thing when i saw Martin McDonagh's In Bruges. A very well made screenplay and film, and i predicted that people would not see the potential in this neither. But they did, people actually noticed the same aspects of it that i did.
Does that mean that the rules is different with a huge blockbuster film? You come to see the MI film with wrong expectations, and also some hatred for Tom Cruise and Abrams. You have already made up your mind on what kinda movie and story this is, so you cant go in the depth of the story and notice the potentcial?
If anybody actually read through this, im sure there will be a ton of hate.
"You arrogant *beep*, MI3 is nothing special"
But if someone actually believes me, keeps calm and get my point. Then i'd be glad if you let me know.