Luckylighter said:
. . .But, as it's been said ad nauseum here and elsewhere, the film had an amazing visual style that is sorely lacking in what is passing for blockbuster entertainment today--"Fast and the Furious", I'm looking in your direction.
People say today's youth market is more sophisticated than ever. [. . . ]
If anything, I think today's youth market is more childish. I think they are less sophisticated than ever. Our parents grew up with the B Movies that we admire today. And they loved those movies despite and because of the low tech special effects. Because they relied on their imaginations to make the FX into something grander. Kids nowadays don't have to imagine anything because the work is already done for them.
Lucky,
Part of me really agrees with you (there's something wrong with a movie like
2 Fast 2 Furious where they start shooting before they have a script), but I gotta say that I'm conflicted on this point. I like both
Fast And The Furious movies (heck, I even liked
Torque). So I can't outright condemn the styling in these films or the preferences of younger people because I get the appeal of these movies: the comaraderie is sincere, the stars (Monet Mazur, Jordana Brewster, Michelle Rodriguez, and Eva Mendes) have a visual style all their own, and the action is kickin. Plus, having the action unfold in today's sprawling ex-urbs is relevant because it has to make the action seem more real to young viewers than a film featuring some guy in a fedora skulking around some set made to look like an ancient ruin. And lastly, one could even argue that the rebel amibiguity in Paul Walker's character is just as compelling that the ambiguity seen in Indiana Jones in
Raiders.
That said, I still prefer the period film because it has history, requires more creativity and it's just plain more thought-provoking.
As for sophistication, I agree with you but it's not so clear cut. Which movie has more sophisticated humor: the original
Freaky Friday or the remake with Lindsay Lohan?