Diesel and Walker Sign for Fast and Furious 5

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by BirdManJr

Well when something tends to make Millions of dollars....You make it again....and again....I think making money is the whole point..
And if it made ALL that money...I think people went and paid to see it...As they will the next one.

I loved the new one...was hoping to see tyrese at the end when they driving off...but he probably is busy with transformers 2 lol...maybe he will make a appearance in the next one...walker..diesel and tyrese would be cool.

The car chase scene and explosion at the start of the movie will be soooo cool when i have it goin thru the surround sound here

I was hoping to see Tyrese get run over as they drove off.

Logan

[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?

[xtop]

wow people in this thread are simply amazing. its a freaking MOVIE

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Stoudman

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.

It's not even remotely a 'trailer trash form'

Once you get into the 4th installment of any movie, it's being made for the profit and not the art.

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?

The first one yes, there are a few special effects and they're neat add-ons like showing the flow between Diesel and the car through the gear shift.

You might think you're a purist but it's coming off wrong IMO, there's a difference between purism and knowing what you're talking about, you're complaining about the 5th installment in a franchise that wasn't exactly art to begin with, if it were a movie like Lord of the Rings 5 you'd have a legitimate beef, but it's not, it's Fast and the Furious.

The entire point behind a film is to make money for the studio, and that's exactly what you're complaining about.

I'm not talking about the "moods" of movie goers.

Then why are you talking?

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.

Did you miss the part where I talked about escapism? Entirely?

Are you even reading the conversation I'm typing out here?

People want to escape from reality, and as I said sometimes it's Pride and Prejudice, other times it's Fast and the Furious, quality is in the eye of the beholder.

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?

Did you even watch Idiocracy? Apparently you missed the part where it wasn't about de-evolution of film, it was about de-evolution of man as a whole.

You obviously haven't had any electrolytes today.

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.

Plot and story aren't exactly the staples of a good crowd pleaser, take a look at Watchmen, awesome movie, and after years and years of Comic fans *****ing and whining about staying true to the comic books origins, they got EXACTLY what they wanted, but I've heard from some comic fans that didn't like it and refuse to watch it again because it was plot heavy.

In short, you can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time, it's a scary reality.

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.

When you say stuff like "over the last 20 years to follow" you're not making any sense, that might be part of the problem.

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!

It depresses you that much?

I only have two words to respond to something like that...

"seek therapy"

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.

It's a business, Hollywood does what makes them money, it's that simple.

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

I doubt anyone made that claim.

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.

As I tend to repeat myself over and over, sometimes there's Pride and Prejudice and sometimes Fast & Furious, not everyone is wanting to see a black and white art haus film ALL of the time, it's scary, but I hope we can all come to terms with that reality in the future.

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?

It shows them that they can make money doing so.

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

Then we'd never have action movies again, and that would suck.

Logan

[Stoudman]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

It's not even remotely a 'trailer trash form'

Once you get into the 4th installment of any movie, it's being made for the profit and not the art.

Perhaps if you were making the argument that film series with this many installments don't set precedents you might have an argument. By this, since you seem to be incapable of deciphering what I'm saying (amazingly), I mean to say that one might think that a film in a long standing series will not affect the way studios make films which are perhaps not in said type of series in the future, but I disagree with this idea. I think if Film Studios see a trend that makes money, they'll add it to whatever big movie they have coming out, even if the movie doesn't need it and suffers as a result of this. More often than not the result of following trends in the film industry has not been to MAKE money, but has actually resulted in studios LOSING RECORD AMOUNTS of money. Even from your own standpoint that studios will do whatever it takes to make money, you FAIL to comprehend the idea that following trends DOES NOT MAKE THEM MONEY. It only pisses off fans of the franchises, loses them money, and makes moviegoers disinterested in said films.

Of course, this is not at all what you were saying, but since nothing you said was really in response to anything I said since you failed to understand the point I was trying to make even after I laid it out as simply as possible....*catches breath*...I simply gave up and decided to add something to the argument myself.

You might think you're a purist but it's coming off wrong IMO, there's a difference between purism and knowing what you're talking about, you're complaining about the 5th installment in a franchise that wasn't exactly art to begin with, if it were a movie like Lord of the Rings 5 you'd have a legitimate beef, but it's not, it's Fast and the Furious.

I get what you're saying, but it's still not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the historical precedent set that films like this have had an overall negative aspect on the film industry for years following its release. I'm not saying this is art, and I'm not saying it should be -- I'm saying that if hollywood gets the idea that all you want is action, that's exactly what you'll get, and sometimes it will end up in the most awkward of places. Every time I mention this you come back with "of course, hollywood will do what it takes to make money" -- refer to the argument I just made that hollywood actually LOSES money on this concept, as it results in films that are sometimes so bad that even the people that supported films like these hate them with a passion.

I recall one of my favorite scenes in the film "The Majestic" in which Jim Carrey's character is sitting in a board room watching and listening as his film script gets ripped apart by studio execs. "A Boy and his Dog, there's nothing more touching!"....

my argument is that pretty soon it will be "suddenly morgan freeman starts racing with little miss daisy in the back screaming her head off! IT'LL SELL MILLIONS!"

Do you really want to see that?

The entire point behind a film is to make money for the studio, and that's exactly what you're complaining about.

Actually, I'm complaining about filmgoers giving hollywood the idea that this could make them money, because studio execs are dumb enough to follow any lead, even this one.

Did you miss the part where I talked about escapism? Entirely?

Did you miss the part where I responded to that idea? I'm of the school of thought that Escapism works best when well crafted throughout a film using all aspects of storytelling that can be used in film. Choosing to use simply ACTION and nothing else....is to me a trailer park version of that, the bastard child of escapism.

Are you even reading the conversation I'm typing out here?

Yep, you just don't seem to be able to comprehend the rather simple terms I am using to explain myself, which is....interesting, to say the least.

People want to escape from reality, and as I said sometimes it's Pride and Prejudice, other times it's Fast and the Furious, quality is in the eye of the beholder.

Broken record?

Quality is in the eye of the beholder, but my argument is not against opinion, it's against the idea that not only do films like this affect future films negatively, but they also as a result produce Losses rather than Profits for film studios. Yet they continue to follow the same dead route.....I'm the crazy one, always remember that!

Did you even watch Idiocracy? Apparently you missed the part where it wasn't about de-evolution of film, it was about de-evolution of man as a whole.

You obviously haven't had any electrolytes today.

Okay you get two points for cuteness this time. My argument was not that the entire film was about the de-evolution of film, and never once did I even say anything that would suggest that. However, what I did say was that one particular part of the film discussed the de-evolution of film as well as many other things. I chose that one scene to attempt to explain myself further, but apparently metaphors fall upon deaf ears here.

Plot and story aren't exactly the staples of a good crowd pleaser, take a look at Watchmen, awesome movie, and after years and years of Comic fans *****ing and whining about staying true to the comic books origins, they got EXACTLY what they wanted, but I've heard from some comic fans that didn't like it and refuse to watch it again because it was plot heavy.

In short, you can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time, it's a scary reality.

Those are just picky bastards. More often than not, plot and story will produce a film that people will pay to see. The formula is more varied without the two than it is with the two. Good direction is also essential, and acting and music and all sorts of other little things can add enjoyment to a film and make it something that people will pay to see. I guess that's behind the entire reason I'm upset that the moneymaker this film turned out to be has already started influencing studios to make what could be horrible films. I mean, this is an action driven film. That's probably the one thing that sold this film so well, and that annoys me because that could easily suggest to the people in charge that in fact they don't need a plot, or a story, or acting, or anything like that to drive a movie...they just need ACTION and LOTS OF IT! Nothing against action films, I'd just rather see them with good acting, good story and plot than without. Like you said yourself, this is far from "high art", it's not meant for anything but action.

No doubt your response will be "sometimes pride and prejudice, sometimes fast and furious".....because no doubt you still don't get what I'm saying. Gah, I give up.

When you say stuff like "over the last 20 years to follow" you're not making any sense, that might be part of the problem.

You didn't read what I wrote correctly, did you? "follow" was in reference to the film studios following the cycle I discussed. Pay attention, man!

It depresses you that much?

I only have two words to respond to something like that...

"seek therapy"

I doubt I would use the word "depression". It just irks me.

It's a business, Hollywood does what makes them money, it's that simple.

Hollywood does what they think will make them money, and fails more often than they succeed. Their few successes are what keep them alive. If they want to thrive, they need to stop following bad ideas and start following the paths which have lead to TRUE success in the past.

As I tend to repeat myself over and over, sometimes there's Pride and Prejudice and sometimes Fast & Furious, not everyone is wanting to see a black and white art haus film ALL of the time, it's scary, but I hope we can all come to terms with that reality in the future.

Nobody has to want to see black and white art films, LOL. I'm not saying I want that, I'm simply saying this is a bad decision which could possibly lead to more negative outcomes than positive outcomes.

It shows them that they can make money doing so.

Once in a blue moon, maybe. Last I checked on RT this movie had a 23%. big $ doesn't always spell success, but this time around the studios have decided it does. That could turn out to be a bad decision for them, and could result in an otherwise good film being ruined if they take the idea far enough. That's my whole point.

Then we'd never have action movies again, and that would suck.

Logan

Apparently Sarcasm falls on deaf ears as well.

Oh well, I'll just take my spot as chicken little and sit in my little corner saying "the sky is falling" until Disney proves me right in an unlikely turn of events.

WHAT A TWIST!

[ckent22]

To be honest, I'm surprised Diesel and Walker signed on for the fourth after the tokyo drift disaster. I'm surprised Diesel actually showed his face in that. Big fat checks help a lot though.

Doesn't surprise me that they'll make a fifth. They'll keep going as long as people pay money to see it. It stinks because apparently we're gonna keep coming to the Diesel convict story.

I personally wish they'd stop, but there is an audience for these, so good for them for continuing to make money.

[pacificvibes]

This thread as run its course. No one is going to be able to get along. People trying to tell people not to see movies because its just a pointless movie with cars is just idiotic. Who cares! Its a movie that some people find very fun and entertaining. Not every movie as to be Oscar worthy. Get over yourselves and your unintelligent point of view.

[pacificvibes]

Hollywood does what they think will make them money, and fails more often than they succeed. Their few successes are what keep them alive. If they want to thrive, they need to stop following bad ideas and start following the paths which have lead to TRUE success in the past.

Are you kidding me?!?!?!
If Hollywood makes money off any movie, good or bad; they do not fail.

[tarik]

Diesel said in a recent interview that they asked him to do the cameo in tokyo drift and that if he did they would give me production on the 4th film to take in what ever direction he wanted. something along thos lines anyway!

[Stoudman]

Originally Posted by pacificvibes

Are you kidding me?!?!?!
If Hollywood makes money off any movie, good or bad; they do not fail.

How often does hollywood make money off of a movie anymore? The budgets for these things are outrageous nowadays. It pretty much has to be a blockbuster hit for it to actually MAKE money. Since the "blockbuster hit" has become a relative rarity in the past few years, they have been losing money on all of the films that did not reach the plateau they set for them. This cannot be considered a success -- only a failure.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by tarik

Diesel said in a recent interview that they asked him to do the cameo in tokyo drift and that if he did they would give me production on the 4th film to take in what ever direction he wanted. something along thos lines anyway!

Actually, the idea for the 3rd film was to go to Tokyo where he was hiding out and have him be the original lead, but similar to XXX State of the Union he dropped from it, or at least that was shared.

[xtop]

Originally Posted by ckent22

To be honest, I'm surprised Diesel and Walker signed on for the fourth after the tokyo drift disaster. I'm surprised Diesel actually showed his face in that. Big fat checks help a lot though.

Doesn't surprise me that they'll make a fifth. They'll keep going as long as people pay money to see it. It stinks because apparently we're gonna keep coming to the Diesel convict story.

I personally wish they'd stop, but there is an audience for these, so good for them for continuing to make money.

as a car lover, this is the best we have. so i say keep going.

sure its dumb and not realistic 90% of the time..but its a movie..who cares

[pacificvibes]

Originally Posted by xtop

as a car lover, this is the best we have. so i say keep going.

sure its dumb and not realistic 90% of the time..but its a movie..who cares

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


People just dont get that its a freaking movie!

If people didnt believe that, they would think that they could climb walls like Spiderman.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by pacificvibes

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


People just dont get that its a freaking movie!

If people didnt believe that, they would think that they could climb walls like Spiderman.

Yeah it's a film. I said there was an audience for it, so as long as they make money off it good for them. They're cashing in on what works.

But, I'm not that part of the audience. Mindless entertainment is fine in some cases, but some of us like to use brain power when we watch a film and for those of who like that we're just not gonna like these sequels.

[xtop]

Originally Posted by ckent22

Yeah it's a film. I said there was an audience for it, so as long as they make money off it good for them. They're cashing in on what works.

But, I'm not that part of the audience. Mindless entertainment is fine in some cases, but some of us like to use brain power when we watch a film and for those of who like that we're just not gonna like these sequels.

link to a car movie where you need to use your brain power please

[GreenScar]

Diesel and Walker's career were almost on life support. This movie gave them a lift. I read today that they might film the next movie in Brazil. They are really looking for the global dollar which is smart of course.

[xtop]

Originally Posted by jasonbird

Diesel and Walker's career were almost on life support. This movie gave them a lift. I read today that they might film the next movie in Brazil. They are really looking for the global dollar which is smart of course.

i preferred the europe rumor. i want me some german cars

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by xtop

link to a car movie where you need to use your brain power please

Link to a car movie that has better lines than "Ride or Die"?

Hmm...I think Death Race required more brain power than this one.

[xtop]

Originally Posted by ckent22

Link to a car movie that has better lines than "Ride or Die"?

Hmm...I think Death Race required more brain power than this one.

right

fact of the matter is, there's no such thing as a car movie that requires brain power. if its just because you hate car movies, stay away from them

[MCT]

I'm with the so-called complainers. But the fact is, this has been the business model for the new millenium, and possibly before that, and nothing has changed. It never will change. So while I agree with their points, the fact remains that Hollywood will continue to pimp franchises for every dollar they are worth before tossing the worthless hoe out of the car. So why bother?

I'm already looking forward to Fast & The Furious 9: Even Faster And Even More Furious: The Dominic Torreto Origin Story