this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
1353 points (98.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

5714 readers
3048 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Maybe I'm in a minority, but I thought Titanic was a bunch of melodramatic crap when there were more interesting true stories that the movie could have been about.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's fair. But it's worth watching even just for the effects and set work.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I guess I'm one of those people who would rather watch a low-budget movie with a good story than a big-budget movie with a lot of spectacle but a bad story. But I do understand people going to see a movie just for the spectacle. I've done it before. I just usually regret it.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think it is a kind of spectacle that just doesn't exist anymore. For example, going to a Marvel movie for the effects is sort of like watching a video game. When everything is pure CGI, it loses the appeal (for me).

But Titanic was right at the cusp of that. There is CGI, but there's also bigatures and miniature work and practical effects, etc etc etc. In many ways it is James Cameron at his peak.

But totally agree that the plot is pretty corny and it could have been much better as a more historically-focused film which didn't spend most of the time on a relatively generic love story.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The last movie I went to purely for the spectacle was Dunkirk and I was pleasantly surprised that it was an enjoyable film as well, so I guess sometimes it's worth it even in more recent times.

[–] Juvyn00b@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Christopher Nolan is one of the few that can nail big spectacle as well as story telling.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I guess I’m one of those people who would rather watch a low-budget movie with a good story than a big-budget movie with a lot of spectacle but a bad story.

Might I make a suggestion?

The Man From Earth

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thank you, I have seen it and I really love it! I hear there is a sequel, which seems needless so I never watched it. But I've seen that one twice.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I watched the sequel. It wasn't as special as the first one, had probably twice the sets as the first one. (:O) Worth a watch, I'd say.

It was available for free for a while some years ago, iirc. Don't know about now though.

First one great, second one still good, although it's been a while since I saw it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Good to hear it doesn't suck, but eh. I don't need to know any more of his story.

I'd like to see the movie done as a play.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd like to see the movie done as a play.

Ooooh, I've never thought about that. Yes, that would be great. Who would you cast? I just started thinking of British actors and the first ones to pop into my mind, Ian McKellen — but he's obviously too old to play John Oldman (but perhaps the skeptic Doctor?) — and Tom Hiddleston. On second thought, I don't know if David Tennant could be good as well. He's definitely played a young-ish looking ageless man before... He's better in roles that require high energy, whereas Hiddleston has a sort of cool about him that might be fitting.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wouldn't care about big names unless it was remade as a movie. Honestly, I'd be happy to see it done by the local repertory theater company. Unless the play was filmed while it was on Broadway or at the Old Vic or whatever, I probably wouldn't see it with someone like Tom Hiddleston. I think David Tennant might be just about the right though. John was played by David Lee Smith, who was 44 at the time. Tennant is 53, but looks younger. Basically the guy needs to look old enough to be an established professor but young enough to still be attractive to grad students.

Incidentally, it was written by Jerome Bixby, who also wrote four TOS Star Trek episodes, including the famous mirror universe episode. That was the initial draw to me. That and John Billingsley from Star Trek: Enterprise. What can I say, I'm a sucker for Trekkie bait.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

True enough.

I just haven't any local theaters that could be capable of doing that so I'm imagining like a play in London. Something like this

Yeah I saw the other credits of the writer to see if there's any other works I haven't seen. I was sad to see his passed in the late 90's.

Oh yeah Billingsley is great. Although I only started properly watching ST several years after having seen The Man From Earth.

I'm a sucker for Trekkie bait.

Me too.

[–] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

It has that annoying James Cammron thing where the working class gets blamed for the actions of the rich.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

It's reached Rocky Horror Picture Show in my household.

It's silly. You quote lines. You laugh at motives if you think about it.