Hi there, Angel :)
The thought of a Max Payne movie has got my head spinning for a while now.
I'd like to see it told from Mona Sax' point of view, starting with the death of mr. Payne (or is he really dead?), then telling the story up to his "death".
The movie would still be about him - as he's trying to understand his connection to and feelings for Mona, as well as bringing some semblance of order to his chaotic world - but we would get to know Mona better as it's seen with "her eyes" so to speak. Also, I think it would make for a great movie where you don't really sympathize with the main character. In fact I think it should be made by Oliver Stone, as he's done at least one really great movie that is similar in feel and character build up (U-turn, see it if you haven't allready).
As for bullet-time, the game "Perfect Dark" on Nintendo 64 was the first one.
The action scenes in Matrix was great in the technical sense, however I think the proper use of slow motion in a Max Payne movie could make for really nice, stylistic action scenes. While Matrix was built on the action scenes, I think the action scenes in a Max Payne movie could be built on the story. Have just a very few shoot outs, and make them important to the development of the story with a priority on the emotional impact they give. Sure, in the game you kill more bad guys than a minor civil war but in a movie the action part should be downplayed a bit to give room for more important elements.
I'm not familiar with "Under a killing moon" so I may just have been repeating your words in an overly longwinded way :P
... Solitare the movie? Preferably with the classic voiceover from 50ies documentaries and deeply philosophical, introspective monologues on the wim of the fates as the main (and sole) character draws an unwanted card? Heck, I'd pay to see that movie!
You mention hype and staying power yet fail to see (or so I believe) which made people see every movie Norris and company starred in.
Hype made peopel see every new movie starred by these guys (as well as lack of alternatives), the fact that neither I nor my friends can remember a single movie by Norris means they didn't have staying power. People are still bying DVDs of Bruce Lee's "Enter the dragon" because it's a classic. It has elements of quality in it that are hard to define by words yet obvious to the viewer.
Some movies, such a "Under siege" with Segal, fall into the 'classic' category. It's entertaining even today. Most movies with Segal, however, are not.
Sure, you could point out that there's allways someone who likes even the most unpopular Segal-movie, however this is worthless to the discussion, as the term "quality" would loose it's purpose.
As for The Matrix... Well, I guess I'd better stay out that can of worms, as my strongly negative opinions on the subject are likely to ruin the discussion .
The thought of a Max Payne movie has got my head spinning for a while now.
I'd like to see it told from Mona Sax' point of view, starting with the death of mr. Payne (or is he really dead?), then telling the story up to his "death".
The movie would still be about him - as he's trying to understand his connection to and feelings for Mona, as well as bringing some semblance of order to his chaotic world - but we would get to know Mona better as it's seen with "her eyes" so to speak. Also, I think it would make for a great movie where you don't really sympathize with the main character. In fact I think it should be made by Oliver Stone, as he's done at least one really great movie that is similar in feel and character build up (U-turn, see it if you haven't allready).
As for bullet-time, the game "Perfect Dark" on Nintendo 64 was the first one.
The action scenes in Matrix was great in the technical sense, however I think the proper use of slow motion in a Max Payne movie could make for really nice, stylistic action scenes. While Matrix was built on the action scenes, I think the action scenes in a Max Payne movie could be built on the story. Have just a very few shoot outs, and make them important to the development of the story with a priority on the emotional impact they give. Sure, in the game you kill more bad guys than a minor civil war but in a movie the action part should be downplayed a bit to give room for more important elements.
I'm not familiar with "Under a killing moon" so I may just have been repeating your words in an overly longwinded way :P
... Solitare the movie? Preferably with the classic voiceover from 50ies documentaries and deeply philosophical, introspective monologues on the wim of the fates as the main (and sole) character draws an unwanted card? Heck, I'd pay to see that movie!
Nystul,Feb 17 2005, 01:19 AM Wrote:How would you define "quality" with respect to movies? Most people go to movies to be entertained, so the ability of the movie to entertain them could be considered its primary quality.Though question. I have to agree that a movies ability to entertain can be considered its primary quality, however my point was that being the most entertaining alternative at the time doesn't make the movie great.
Advertising and publicity can greatly increase the amount of exposure a movie gets, but you can't sell a product forever based on hype alone. It has to have quality to have staying power. Norris, Van Damme, and Segal each had a pretty long run of success where people would go to see every movie they made. For a similar example, people are still buying DVDs of Bruce Lee's "Enter the Dragon". Publicity has very little to do with this, other than getting the ball rolling.  People still watch these movies, specifically because of the incredible action scenes. Of course, the standards for action scenes have changed a lot over time... any of the previously mentioned actors would be less of an icon now because their strong abilities in the martial arts can be mimicked so well with special effects. And that brings us to The Matrix, although it had a decent storyline to go with all of the effects.
[right][snapback]68251[/snapback][/right]
You mention hype and staying power yet fail to see (or so I believe) which made people see every movie Norris and company starred in.
Hype made peopel see every new movie starred by these guys (as well as lack of alternatives), the fact that neither I nor my friends can remember a single movie by Norris means they didn't have staying power. People are still bying DVDs of Bruce Lee's "Enter the dragon" because it's a classic. It has elements of quality in it that are hard to define by words yet obvious to the viewer.
Some movies, such a "Under siege" with Segal, fall into the 'classic' category. It's entertaining even today. Most movies with Segal, however, are not.
Sure, you could point out that there's allways someone who likes even the most unpopular Segal-movie, however this is worthless to the discussion, as the term "quality" would loose it's purpose.
As for The Matrix... Well, I guess I'd better stay out that can of worms, as my strongly negative opinions on the subject are likely to ruin the discussion .