A slight redemption of Jerry Bruckheimer

Started by Jeremy Blackman, June 29, 2003, 03:29:26 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

Jeremy Blackman

June 29, 2003, 03:29:26 PM
Just kidding.

But a lot of people are rethinking their Bruckheimer grudges because of CSI (the "crime scene investigation" TV show, and its spinoffs). I think this is dangerous.

I've seen one episode of CSI, and I wasn't impressed. The twist was actually predictable. I'm also unable to sympathyze with (or be interested in) pretentious crime scene investigators who think they are the cleverest people in the world (and the writers who write them). My general impression is... bleh. What has the world come to when something like this is critically acclaimed? Come on people.

Black Hawk Down was good, but it might have been propaganda...

sphinx

#1
June 29, 2003, 03:32:44 PM
i know people that believe CSI exists exactly like it appears on the television show.  they have also claimed numerous times that they would like to be a part of CSI.  watch them find out who shot JFK in the last episode

Sleuth

#2
June 29, 2003, 07:06:11 PM
CSI is ridiculous.  The setup is every scene you find a clue, and one of the investigators makes a bad pun, and you're onto the next scene.
I like to hug dogs

SoNowThen

#3
June 29, 2003, 09:01:10 PM
Yes, thank goodness you folks say this. I can't stand CSI. I love the main actor, but that show is shlock. And everyone in my home town loves it because of the technical mumbo jumbo that (loosely) covers the shit plot and dialogue.

But I don't mind Bruckheimer. BHD was cool, I get a kick out of the Rock, for all his faults, he produces some half-decent action flicks.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

MacGuffin

#4
June 29, 2003, 09:08:12 PM
Ummm... Jerry Bruckheimer isn't a director.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

SoNowThen

#5
June 29, 2003, 09:42:29 PM
That's why I said "produces".

He, more so than any other producer that comes to mind nowadays, seems to be what I'd call a Creative Producer who is VERY actively involved in most of the process...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Jeremy Blackman

#6
June 29, 2003, 09:46:57 PM
Quote from: MacGuffinUmmm... Jerry Bruckheimer isn't a director.

Close enough...

(besides, this had to be in the same forum as the Solondz thread)

Gold Trumpet

#7
June 29, 2003, 09:54:12 PM
His entertainment movies were pretty bad. CSI doesn't interest me at all but not much on tv does. My thinking for this show is that it is typical in devoting its entire episode to a crime and going through all the cute details of it that can be interesting, but not for this purpose...... with a minor human drama behind that is nothing more than anything seen and given time, will amount to who is fucking who.

Black Hawk Down is wonderful though. My number 1 movie of 2001. Curious JB, specific ideas on how it can be propagandic? I can kinda see it and I'm not disagreeing, but I'm not agreeing either. Maybe a discussion of sorts can come from this besides more post on obvious Bruckheimer bashing. I think what you call possible propaganda may really be just a choice in storytelling for the movie.

~rougerum

Cecil

#8
June 29, 2003, 10:27:45 PM
i watched a few episodes of csi. thought it was average at best. i dont like bruckheimer, but i will see his films. even though i usually really hate them, there may be some worthwhile moments.

Jeremy Blackman

#9
June 30, 2003, 12:30:35 AM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetCurious JB, specific ideas on how it can be propagandic? I can kinda see it and I'm not disagreeing, but I'm not agreeing either. Maybe a discussion of sorts can come from this besides more post on obvious Bruckheimer bashing. I think what you call possible propaganda may really be just a choice in storytelling for the movie.

Like the need to have a conventional ending? Yeah, that could be. And it was the end that bothered me. All the action, free from politics, with only the blood, sweat, and tears of soldiers in survival mode, fascinated me, and I thought it was great. The end (like any recent Spielberg end) was completely wrong. Look! Heroes! These guys are friggin' heroes! Cheer for them as they march triumphantly, and cheer for America! Look at the American flags! Just look at them! I don't think it was a coincidence that this movie was released during the war on Afghanistan. Obviously it wasn't made at that time, but its editing (toward the end) and the timing of the release couldn't have been accidental.

life_boy

#10
June 30, 2003, 02:35:11 AM
I redeemed Jerry after going back and watching Flashdance.

Gold Trumpet

#11
June 30, 2003, 03:07:13 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetCurious JB, specific ideas on how it can be propagandic? I can kinda see it and I'm not disagreeing, but I'm not agreeing either. Maybe a discussion of sorts can come from this besides more post on obvious Bruckheimer bashing. I think what you call possible propaganda may really be just a choice in storytelling for the movie.

Like the need to have a conventional ending? Yeah, that could be. And it was the end that bothered me. All the action, free from politics, with only the blood, sweat, and tears of soldiers in survival mode, fascinated me, and I thought it was great. The end (like any recent Spielberg end) was completely wrong. Look! Heroes! These guys are friggin' heroes! Cheer for them as they march triumphantly, and cheer for America! Look at the American flags! Just look at them! I don't think it was a coincidence that this movie was released during the war on Afghanistan. Obviously it wasn't made at that time, but its editing (toward the end) and the timing of the release couldn't have been accidental.

Hmm....I thought you would bring up other points, but fine. Actually, I didn't mind the ending and really don't think it went to down to promotion of the idea American soldiers are just heroes in general and everything is fine. Actually, the point that was being made was that they were ordinary guys put into situations where they may be called heroes but aren't going to go around telling other people that because no part of their experience made them feel like heroes. I liked this idea because it what was Sam Fuller spoke greatly about in his book when being a soldier by saying no one is hero, but sometimes do things that make them look that way by others. There may have been a little pandering at the end, but the message I got really wasn't that. And also, considering friends of mine who speak from a pure socialist view point, the eye is so much hungrier to search these little quibbles out and scream heresy and such. As much as I like them, I wish they would calm down more on these things because there is so much one can change. All in all, I think the camera may have illusioned to these things and some scenes showing a little patriotism and all, but I don't think that was the main point in it all.

~rougerum

Jeremy Blackman

#12
June 30, 2003, 09:05:09 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAll in all, I think the camera may have illusioned to these things and some scenes showing a little patriotism and all, but I don't think that was the main point in it all.

Yeah. I don't mean to say I hate the movie, or that I believe it was all propaganda. It could be. The ending, though it makes me queasy, seems tacked on and completely separate from the rest.

It's those failed attempts to say "this is what this movie was all about" that annoy me...

modage

#13
June 30, 2003, 09:08:44 PM
jeremy, why cant i see your avatar? x
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Jeremy Blackman

#14
June 30, 2003, 09:11:29 PM
Quote from: themodernage02jeremy, why cant i see your avatar? x

I don't have one. Neither does Picolas. Don't worry, that will soon change. Dr. Xixax stole them from us.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions