Diesel and Walker Sign for Fast and Furious 5

[Stoudman]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I think you answered it right there, some folks just go to the movies to escape from reality.

What better way to do that than a movie that's thin on plot but has lots and lots of pretty cars in it?

Escapism doesn't have to be done in such a trailer trash form. It can be done artfully and still succeed on every front. There are plenty of better ways to escape than a movie that's got nothing but pretty cars in it. I think a lot of people go to the movies to escape from reality, but the point I would make is that whether you realize it or not, this is one of the most pointless and easiest to pick apart "fantasy worlds" created by a movie. I don't really have a problem with Diesel as much as I do every other actor/actress. Being a pretty face does not mean you can act.

Movies are a business. Pure, simple, not hard to figure out, but there you have it.

If that's how you simplified what I was saying than you missed the entire point of what I was saying. My point was that it is films like this that people support so heavily that gives hollywood the idea that they can get away with making bad movies so long as they are "thrilling" in some small way. I won't apologize for being a purist, here -- special effects are meant to add to a film, not to be the ENTIRE POINT behind a film. The reason Die Hard was so good is because it had good acting from all fronts, it had good music, it had great dialogue, so the action that came with it was a natural edition that came seamlessly with the rest of the movie. Could you really say the same about the first Fast and the Furious?

Depends on the movie, some times folks are in the mood for Pride and Prejudice, sometimes they want Fast & Furious.

I'm not talking about the "moods" of movie goers. I'm talking about the fact that more people are going to movies just for cheap thrills instead of a good story. I mean for pity's sake, if you're paying $10 or more for a ticket, you aught to be able to get a good story out of it, but if people are spending over $100 million on Fast & Furious in the first two weekends, that tells me they don't care about that and they just want to look at pretty cars.

I'm sorry, but that to me kind of reminds me of the de-evolution of film predicted in IDIOCRACY. Shouldn't we care who's ass it is doing the farting?

Business try to make money? Really? Anyone know when exactly THAT started happening...?

Again, you miss my point entirely....I'm not chastising hollywood, I'm chastising the people who give hollywood the reason to think that we want more action and less actual story. The entire point I'm making is that it is the support of movies like that which gives Hollywood the reason to assume they can go even further with removing the story from the film and adding even more special effects and pretty cars instead, which would make the film even more boring in the end and I DOUBT anyone would be happy with that result. This is the whole reason that sequels rarely ever work -- film studios never stick to the formula, they keep assuming they should follow the trends that the audience APPEARS to like and ditch even the most important of aspects to a film, such as PLOT and STORY.

What I'm trying to say is....DON'T REJOICE SO DAMN QUICKLY...if such a hasty decision was made to give these guys a contract, it tells me the studio just wants to milk it for all its worth and the fans will more than likely be disappointed at the result as THIS IS SADLY THE CYCLE that film history has shown over the last 20 years to follow.

Dear god, PLEASE let someone understand what I'm saying...it's not that hard to comprehend.

Actually that concept started with these newfangled moving pictures that folks keep telling me about, but hogwash I say.

I award you zero points for cuteness. This trend needs to die, and I'm simply upset that it continues, and worse yet....moviegoers not only stoke the flames of the horrible fire, they chant in support of it!

People keep paying for them, Hollywood keeps makin' em.

Until they run it into the ground because of the cycle I discussed earlier that needs to be stopped and can only be stopped by the moviegoer -- by not supporting bad films.

Again, that depends on who you talk to.

I doubt I could find anyone who would call this movie the pinnacle of all films. =/

I changed my mind, now I enjoy the movie, thanks for reminding me that Hollywood is escapism and a business.

Logan

Thanks for being a smartass....who's the one trying to sound like he's "better than you" here?

I'll admit, I read this article Fast and quickly became Furious as a result, because I saw this cycle of running the film series into the ground continuing, after I thought hollywood had finally learned their lesson on that front. I no doubt said a lot of unfriendly things, but I feel the overall point I was trying to make still stands. No, I don't think I'm better than you, and no, I don't think this is the worst movie of all time. I'm simply saying that it is the kind of film that stokes the flames which continue to suggest to hollywood that if they make a movie chock full of action and nothing else, it will sell. That's how mistakes like BATMAN & ROBIN happened. Do you really want to see that cycle continue and produce even more HORRIBLE flops in the box office? I'm simply a firm believer that the cycle can be ended, and with a positive result as well. When that copy of X-men Origins got out the other week, there were plenty of people who saw it and said it was good enough that they now want to see it in theaters when it comes out. This goes to show that if you make a good film, you don't have to worry about losing money from illegal pirating, people will support it no matter what.

However....what the hell does it show Hollywood when you're supporting even the not so good ones simply because it has a lot of action?

Can't we just leave the action in the cheesy 80's films where it belongs?