Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is a hotly contested topic, and we all have our opinions..... but I now feel vindicated that I was right all along!




I love this film, own it, and watch it twice a year. Each time I come away with something new and applicable to my own life.

The transitions in this movie are second to none.... the best I have ever seen.....

I just saw the notification for this video. Whether I agree with his conclusions or not, his videos are almost always worth watching…unless they’re about trains.


Easy E, have you seen House (1977), aka Hausu? It’s full of creative transitions and edits that were way ahead of their time, and still way ahead of most standard film techniques.

I have not seen it, but can try to track it down.

I think an argument could be made that the Wachowski's are the best film-makers of their generation? Yeah, take that Christopher Nolan!

We saw it on Tubi, I think.

Now I’m just sad we never got a Nolan-style Jupiter Ascending…

I might make an argument for something in the Star Wars Sequel trilogy.

It was important in that it marked the beginning of the end of the Star Wars franchise in particular, and big franchises in general.

I think there's still 75% of the century to go?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I think there's still 75% of the century to go?

And none of us have seen Jared Leto as Skeletor. So we can't make this important decision until we know for sure.

Also, I’m not convinced three films which all grossed well over $1,000,000,000.00 can be said to have killed anything.

I'm also not sure Star Wars anything can be said to be "important"

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm also not sure Star Wars anything can be said to be "important"

Except for the way it changed independent movie making in the world.

Lucas was essentially the most critically successful independent filmmaker with Star Wars.

I recommend the documentary, "Empire of Dreams." It really goes into detail on the effect Star Wars had on the movie industry.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I think there's still 75% of the century to go?

While true, I think the intent was 'the most important film of the 21st century so far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, I’m not convinced three films which all grossed well over $1,000,000,000.00 can be said to have killed anything.

Then tell me how successful all the films AFTER them have been.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm also not sure Star Wars anything can be said to be "important"

Star Wars and Jaws created the summer blockbuster. Star Wars created the blockbuster franchise. Given the total domination of the 2010s by the Marvell franchise, I'd say that's of at least SOME importance.

There..there haven’t been any other films since Rise of Skywalker?

Tv shows, yes. And a decent amount. But no films. Mando and Grogu is next up.

Star Wars was the 20th Century......


I think it is interesting that Speed Racer came out the same time as Iron Man.

I am also excited to see the commentator calling out just how subversive the movie actually is.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, I’m not convinced three films which all grossed well over $1,000,000,000.00 can be said to have killed anything.

They certainly killed any lingering enthusiasm I had for the franchise.

As for Speed Racer I didn't like the television show so I wasn't really inclined to the movie. Interesting on a technical level but found everything else incredibly grating.

I'd say Innocence of Muslims was the most important film of the 2000s so far. It's the only recent film I can think of that led to over 50 people dying and 700+ injuries just due to its content alone.

It is so controversial that you can't even find a legitimate copy of it online anymore. Not that you'd want to. The film's production values and acting are absolute garbage even if you are very critical of Islam.

For influence I'm going to toss in Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring to the arena floor.

While no one died from watching it, it did change people's outlook of what Fantasy can be, and really helped mainstream the genre.

Matrix was 1999 I think, can I grandfather it in?

There's a case for Iron Man, maybe RRR if it mainstreams Indian films the way Akira did anime.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
For influence I'm going to toss in Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring to the arena floor.

While no one died from watching it, it did change people's outlook of what Fantasy can be, and really helped mainstream the genre.

I think LotR also changed film making culture; it showed that you could split a story across multiple films and trust that people will turn up for each installment, that people have the patience & appetite for something more than a 90-120 minute stand alone story. Hitting just as DVD’s were becoming a thing also helped, as you had truly high-quality home media for the first time, allowing people to catch up or rewatch.

I’m going to be controversial and say that the other most important film in the 21st century isn’t a film at all; it’s Band of Brothers. Which is coming at the same thing from the other direction, showing that you can use big-screen production to produce something for the small screen, but, again, allowing you more space to tell the story.

I think these two really presaged a lot of the modern media landscape; the idea of something like the MCU with all of it’s interlinking storylines and characters spread over both films and TV could only really have happened because those barriers had started to be broken down.

The original Star Wars trilogy forever changed both culture and the way films are produced and approached. Now IP, franchise, and ,merchandising are the driving forces behind pretty much anything being greenllt. The story as corporate product found its purest distillation and marketing its most efficient way to insinuate product as part of your personality/lifestyle.

SCARY MOVIE.

No matter what film you see...no matter the decade or century...Brenda will ALWAYS be with us. Especially if that film happens to be Shakespeare in Love...

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Matrix was 1999 I think, can I grandfather it in?

Music often falls into the mistake of assuming that artists decide to invent culture defining works on a 10 year schedule. The Matrix absolutely defined the films of the decade to follow.

Calbear wrote:
I'd say Innocence of Muslims was the most important film of the 2000s so far. It's the only recent film I can think of that led to over 50 people dying and 700+ injuries just due to its content alone.

It is so controversial that you can't even find a legitimate copy of it online anymore. Not that you'd want to. The film's production values and acting are absolute garbage even if you are very critical of Islam.

I have a copy. It's history after all. And you're right, It's barely public access tv level trash at best.

Better quality anything from Slave Pit inc.
My entry would be ... Skullheadface. " What do you know of my fate. Will I always be . . . Large? " - Beefcake the Mighty.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There..there haven’t been any other films since Rise of Skywalker?

Tv shows, yes. And a decent amount. But no films. Mando and Grogu is next up.

Rather being the point. Star Wars was a license to print money, and the sequels put a stake through it's heart. That's a fairly important shift in the movie world.

You can make similar arguments about the lack of success of the MCU movies past Endgame, although there's no single movie that can be pointed at that was the death knell there.

I suspect you’re being deliberately obtuse here.

Did the OT kill the franchise?

I mean, there was 16 years between ROTJ and TPM.

Thats significantly longer between ROTS and TFA.

STUPID OT, KILLING ITSELF FOR 16 YEARS!

Also, you are aware that the money behind Star Wars has never been the movies, yeah? But the ongoing merchandising rights. Which Disney also own these days.

Every X-Wing ship from the Old EU bought by Neckbeards Of Limited Comprehension to “stick it to Disney” lined….Disney’s pockets, yeah?

Every TCG. Every TTG. Every console game. Even those branded erasers and pencil sets? All money in the Disney Bank.

And in the past 10 years, we’ve had more Star Wars media than the previous nearly 50 years?

Yeah?

You still there?

Vulcan?

Oh. He’s wandered off. Stupid facts, eh?

A little less smugness, please. Disney has invested a lot in animated and live action shows after Rise of Skywalker, and what they all have in common is that they don't build on the sequel trilogy. With one exception they all build on the prequel and original trilogy, and that exception still has nothing to do with the sequels but with the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise High Republic tomfoolery. The announcement of that flyboy movie from a few weeks ago is the first concrete thing that builds on the sequels. With how much Disney is leaning into milking the good old days it's hard unwarranted to question if the sequel trilogy did them any favors.

In the case of Marvel I'd argue the ultimately detrimental turning point was Endgame. Not because it's a bad movie* but because it concludes the infinity stone story arc and ends two popular main characters. It's a natural breaking point after which whatever follows has to woo the audience on its own merits instead of relying entirely on established interest.




*Of course it's a bad movie. Time travel ruins everything it touches.

The thing about Lord of the rings that sets it apart from other series or movies that should have been epics sagas based on well loved books (I'm looking at you wheel of time) is Peter Jacksons very clear mandate that the movies were for J.R.R. Tolken to tell his story. not to taint or embellish it with current day cultural influence.

The real tale of greatness is how well a film or film series stands the test of time. how likely people will watch it more than once, those still stand out today rather it was gone with the wind, the original star wars trilogy, star trek II, most James Cameron films, the 5th element, blade runner, the matrix and so on from the 20th century. similarly things like lord of the rings (and yes the band of brothers series even though not a normal "film"), the Harry Potter series Etc....

I think most of us here on the forums likely have some level of nerd tendencies that bias us as well, so while we may want to pop on and re-watch aliens, the last samurai, the 13th warrior, V for vendetta, etc... because they were great films...when the general public also joins in the sentiment with some of the films/series mentioned above. then it becomes a classic.

 aphyon wrote:
the movies were for J.R.R. Tolken to tell his story. not to taint or embellish it with current day cultural influence.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 Geifer wrote:
A little less smugness, please. Disney has invested a lot in animated and live action shows after Rise of Skywalker, and what they all have in common is that they don't build on the sequel trilogy. With one exception they all build on the prequel and original trilogy, and that exception still has nothing to do with the sequels but with [s]the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise[/] High Republic tomfoolery. The announcement of that flyboy movie from a few weeks ago is the first concrete thing that builds on the sequels. With how much Disney is leaning into milking the good old days it's hard unwarranted to question if the sequel trilogy did them any favors.

I don't think anyone would deny that Disney did some course correction after both Last Jedi and Rise. But to claim that they killed the franchise flies in the face of reality. The correct focus may be more on D+ series than cinema releases, but the franchise is on a fantastic place for content right now.

 insaniak wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
A little less smugness, please. Disney has invested a lot in animated and live action shows after Rise of Skywalker, and what they all have in common is that they don't build on the sequel trilogy. With one exception they all build on the prequel and original trilogy, and that exception still has nothing to do with the sequels but with [s]the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise[/] High Republic tomfoolery. The announcement of that flyboy movie from a few weeks ago is the first concrete thing that builds on the sequels. With how much Disney is leaning into milking the good old days it's hard unwarranted to question if the sequel trilogy did them any favors.

I don't think anyone would deny that Disney did some course correction after both Last Jedi and Rise. But to claim that they killed the franchise flies in the face of reality. The correct focus may be more on D+ series than cinema releases, but the franchise is on a fantastic place for content right now.

If by "fantastic" you are referring to volume, then agreed. I'm not convinced of the quality or narrative benefit of most of it.

To try and get us back on-track, I think the Wachowskis could make an amazing Star Wars movie, probably the most important Star Wars movie of the 21st Century!