I don't that is why I despise the Tim Burton Batman films, the Star Wars prequels and Superman Returns.
Printable View
I don't that is why I despise the Tim Burton Batman films, the Star Wars prequels and Superman Returns.
Tim Burton's Batman films are great. 'Nuff said.
Also, it depends on my mood. I like heavy dramas and all sorts of other stuff, but sometimes I just feel the urge to watch a lame comedy movie or a big and loud action movie. There's a genre and movie for every kind of mood out there, and that should just be enjoyed.
A story doesn't necessarily need to be complex in order to be good. A simple story, well-told, can be emotionally rewarding and intellectually stimulating.
Short answer is yes.
Thin plots can be amazing.
I agree that Tim Burton royally biffed the batman series with his movies. They were interesting, but above all else, lame-as-hell.
You should see my dvd collection. ;)
And I don't agree with the comment about Tim Burton messing up Batman. They were the first decent Batman movies out. Joel Schumacher smurfed them up.
I thought Tim Burton only did Batman Returns which to me was the best one of the 90's era. 300 had a flat plot too as do a lot of action movies, but if the action is good, I can bypass that.
Starship Troopers isn't exactly Dostoyevski. Starship Troopers is massive win. So yes.
He did Batman and Batman Returns. Schumacher did the rest until Nolan took over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Depression Moon
So I take it you didn't have a problem with Spider-Man 1? Because that film kind of had a paper thin plot. Peter and MJ's relationship wasn't very deep and meaningful in my opinion I think it was about as deep and meaningful as Bruce and Vicki's relationship in the 1989 Batman film...which wasn't very deep and meaningful at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Napoleon Dynamite ftw.
I don't mind them at all, like people have said Starship Troopers, 300, many great action and comedy movies have paper thin plots but the other areas more than make up for the plot.
I agree with this. Also, sometimes plots are nothing more than ways to string along concepts. I just watched "Shoot 'Em Up" last night, which has a plot that's barely there, but it works pretty well for what it was trying to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
So as long as the plot isn't profoundly stupid, I think simple stories can work.
One of my long-time favorite movies is Armageddon, so I'll let you think about that.
If someone is going to make a movie with a paper thin plot they need to make sure the characters are interesting and the film is edited well. One of my favourite movies of all time is Mad Max 2 and I didn't love it for the story, it was the well presented action and cool characters that made it so good. So in answer to your question, no the plot of a movie doesn't have to have much depth or meaning for it to be good.
Oh and Burton's Batman's were incredibly well done if I don't say so myself. I understand what your saying about Burton movies in general but he puts so much emphasis on the characters and sets that his movies are always worthwhile.
Nobody has defended the Star Wars prequels or Superman Returns yet so I guess I won the agrument with those films.
Superman Returns sucked but I don't see how you can say the Star Wars prequels had paper thin plots. Poor acting and over reliance on CG, sure, but the plot threads between all three films were pretty good with sufficient depth, considering the scope of the Star Wars universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_912
The plots were paper thin because they weren't very epic, the original trilogy was more epic than the prequel trilogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu
Also I consider the plots in Tim Burton's Batman to be really paper thin because those films are showing their age there's not a lot going on in Batman 89 like there was in TDK.
The creation of the Clone Army, destruction of the Jedi Order, and usurping of power in the Republic by Palpatine isn't epic?
Poor acting and direction may have made the movies seem lame but I don't understand how you can feel the story wasn't epic.
Basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Althought "Wanted!"'s story just killed the movie for me xD
Well, first of all I hope that you don't mean that a film has a paper-thin plot if one of its subplots doesn't get enough development. Spider-Man's plot is more complex than just the Peter & MJ drama (which was also nice in the way it was shown in the film, particularly the touching finale). After all, you have Peter's character development in quite many ways (with all the tragic circumstances as well as finding out what it takes to be a hero), and you have Norman Osborn's stuff, Harry, and various other things going on. Sure, Spider-Man isn't the most complex film out there, but I don't think that it has a paper-thin plot.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_912
Well, the Star Wars prequels aren't thin on plot. There's quite a bit going on in the films even if it's sometimes presented in a jumbled way. Even if the plot could've worked out better on screen, it still has quite a few things going on in it. After all, Anakin's character arc (as well as his relationships with various people), Palpatine's gradual rise to power and the Sith manipulation of events as well as the conflict itself are just some of the many plots that take place in the prequels.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_912
As for Superman Returns, although its plot isn't the most complex one out there, it does offer many character arcs in it, and I like how Superman gets some development and how the plot does offer subtle nuances that make it richer. There are quite a few things going on in the film, although the most important thing is obviously the issues between Lois Lane and Superman as well as the "savior" parallels.
Similarly Tim Burton's Batman films aren't really paper-thin as far as plot is concerned. Sure, some of the things they present might be straightforward, but there's so much going on in both films (particularly in Batman Returns) that I can't really see the plots being paper-thin. Others have already pointed out some things that show that Burton's films aren't "thin" at least as far as plot is concerned.
I'm not really a big fan of any of the six Star Wars movies but Ill agree with Hsu that what made the prequels extra bad was the dull dialogue. You really couldn't care about any of the characters when they were given such lifeless personalities.
Because there's no epic scenes with the three primary characters. (Anakin, Obi-Wan and Padme.) The special effect scenes were great but they didn't have any memorable dialogue and they reused dialogue from the original trilogy instead of creating new dialogue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu
That's my problem with the prequel trilogy the dialogue...the bad acting can be over looked if the script is well written.
Depends on the movie :p
It depends on my mood, sometimes if I just want to sit back and relax, a simple movie with virtually little plot can be enough for me. Heck, I watched Charlies Angels about three times this week, for that reason. xD
I didn't say I like movies because of thin plots, nor did I say I like all thin movie plots by default. All I'm saying is that it's possible for a movie to have a story that lacks complexity, while still being a good film. They're not mutually exclusive, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_912So I take it you didn't have a problem with Spider-Man 1? Because that film kind of had a paper thin plot. Peter and MJ's relationship wasn't very deep and meaningful in my opinion I think it was about as deep and meaningful as Bruce and Vicki's relationship in the 1989 Batman film...which wasn't very deep and meaningful at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
The only thing Burton ever did right was The Nightmare Before Christmas.
And even that ended up being ruined by the emogoth circle of cancer.
And oddly, he didn't even direct that one - the characters and ideas were his, but not the movie itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
We have Disney to thank for that ;)
That's not an argument it's a statement, and it's wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_912
The whole plot of Kill Bill Volume 1 was to kill two people and it's so good it gives me sparkly eyes.
YouTube - The Machine Girl trailer
Best movie ever and almost no plot whatsoever.
None of that has anything to do with plot, it has to do with acting, writing, and the bad direction that a movie takes.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_912
Just because there aren't any epic 'scenes' in no way can say that the plot of a movie isn't epic. Dialog, filming, camera angles none of that has anything to do with plot. Sure, they can make the delivery of a plot bad, but saying that the plot itself was bad due to these flaws in presentation makes you look like you know little about movies.
Yeah, one of the most brilliant movies.. EVAR!Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctiluca
I sorta liked 300... reason being is that it had a story and really pretty visuals and action choreography/soundtrack...
I didn't love it though, I feel a big need for character development...
Indeed. And if you've got a hardon for plots, there was a little bit in the second one. Also no sword deaths in the second one. The five-point-palm death at the end was a nice twist that filled in a blank or two about Bea's awesomeness.Quote:
Originally Posted by BreineYeah, one of the most brilliant movies.. EVAR!Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctiluca
300 did have a bit of a thin plot but everyone still loved it. The funniest thing, though, is the amount of testosterone fuelled guys going to see it and coming back more testosterone fuelled, only to later discover that the actual Spartans of ancient Greece were mostly bisexual and totally hot for each other. Already knowing this, I regarded 300 as the ultimate Bi Pride movie.
lol @ Japanese Planet Terror ripoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rengori
Amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rengori
Yeah I like movies with thins plots, at least if you watch my DVD shelf.
Prequel Star Wars were all good, well second one was bit lame. I actually hate some movies which try to have too complicated plot when much more simpler would fit better, good example is Pirates of Caribbean 3. I disliked that movie first time when I saw it because it was trying to be too cool, luckily second time I watched it, it wasnīt so bad.
And yeah for movies plot ainīt most important aspect unlike in books. I bought Transformers-movie mostly because that one woman is so hot. It is OK movie but that Megan Fox ( now I checked it finally, didnīt know her name ) is really pleasure for eyes.
No, but I (usually) don't like things that are too complex either, I'm not very bright and can't keep up with things.
And on the rare occasion I do, nobody else gets it. I'm a very backwards person. I prefer to stick to comedy and get laughs out of it, the plot usually isn't too deep in those.
I think you're throwing around the words 'paper-thin' without actually knowing what they mean. You can argue that Spider Man and Star Wars I-III were bad movies but their plots were anything but paper thin. Poor execution of a movie does not equal paper thin plot.
I can forgive thin plots if the movie is made with style and energy.
I don't care about the plot if I know I'm not going into the film for it. So things like pron or mindless action/gore movies can be enjoyable to me.
I don't understand the term "paper-thin plot". Can someone explain it to me?
I take it to mean a shallow plot that over-relies on cliches and the characters are portrayed as types instead of individuals.
My childhood was made by kung fu movies with shocking english dubs and virtually no plot, so I totally love that.
I watch different movies for different reasons. Sadly, I'm rather jaded and will be honest when I say that I do not watch anything from Hollywood for the plot. Occasionally something comes along that surprises me but overall, I just show up for mindless fun cause that's all it has to offer anymore.
Also, I feel the Burton films are awesome. They had much better characterization and pacing than the Schumacher films. Their even closer to the source material than the Nolan films. I hardly consider them paper-thin.
As for the Star Wars prequels, it was a combination of factors that made those films lame. Bad direction, heavy use of cinematics, terrible acting, terrible dialogue. I felt they were doomed to fail. George Lucas is a good idea man but his directing skills are terrible when it comes to certain types of film and even then I feel his skills are terribly rusty. Even A New Hope showed signs of his inability to direct something of Star Wars magnitude.
The only reason why Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were so good was because Lucas did not direct either of them and he had his script rewritten and organized by professionals who were brought in for their talent in writing deep and meaningful dialogue and character growth. When the prequels were made, it was pretty much all Lucas.
If every movie out there had a complicated plot that weaved together countless idea's then I would not want to watch movies anymore. It's always good to watch something toned down and simple, even if it's just for a breather from the complex stuff.