A-Team, movie... thing. Discussion and Spoilers

[DarthPipes]

Because the no-killing rule is ridiculous, especially considering these are elite soldiers.

 

[Christopher]

^Yes, of course! The A-Team was supposed to be ridiculous. Like I said, it was a cartoon. The whole series was essentially a lampooning of the ultraviolent action shows and films of the period, and was little more than an excuse for four goofball eccentrics to do their shticks every week. Having all these bullets and bombs go off without anyone getting hurt was part of the joke, the mockery of the sanitized violence of '80s TV. The ridiculousness was the whole point.

 

[Admiral2]

I gave it an A. It was just as fun and frenetic as the original, which I watched religiously. I think they nailed it, probably because Stephen J. Cannell is one of the exec producers.

They found the "A" team!

 

[doubleohfive]

^Yes, of course! The A-Team was supposed to be ridiculous. Like I said, it was a cartoon. The whole series was essentially a lampooning of the ultraviolent action shows and films of the period, and was little more than an excuse for four goofball eccentrics to do their shticks every week. Having all these bullets and bombs go off without anyone getting hurt was part of the joke, the mockery of the sanitized violence of '80s TV. The ridiculousness was the whole point.

Which they do send up in the film. However, it's also a film that was made in 2009/2010, adapted from a television series made in the 1980s. Surely you of all people recognize the compromises that must be made when adapting from one media to another... I'd suggest checking it out before condemning it wholsesale.

 

[Christopher]

^Only on the Internet would a criticism of or disagreement with a single specific factor of a story be assumed to be "condemning it wholesale." I mean, really, how does that make the least bit of sense? Why bring that kind of hyperbole into the discussion?

Of course I understand that adjustments need to be made, but that doesn't mean I'm required to agree with every single adjustment. I simply do not like heroes who kill. I don't think there's any reason why I should have to defend or justify that preference.

 

[doubleohfive]

I never meant to suggest that you couldnt' disagree with the film or the choices the filmmakers made. If that's what came across from my post, you have my apologies for the confusion.

However, this choice alone did not ruin the entire film, at least for me. I'd still suggest you try to see it and then make up your mind. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

I'm sensing a Miami Vice movie reaction here.

Those who want a retro tribute, even it becomes basically satire of the original, and those who expected a different take on the premise, which risks not feeling true to the source material.

 

[Trekker4747]

Won't get a chance to see this movie this weekend like I planned, will likely go see it next weekend.

I may go see The Karate Kid this week, however.

 

[WeAreTheBorg]

I thought it was great. I never watched the TV series so I don't know if that makes me like it more amazing or less amazing, but I thought it was really fun, funny, cool, explosiony etc.

Didn't know about the cameos after the credits.. damn I walked out before that.

 

[DarthPipes]

Rapid fire editing should be outlawed. Period. It's terrible filmmaking and directors who do it are not brilliant.

 

[Christopher]

Rather, it should be saved for contexts where it actually serves a purpose. The reason cinematic cliches like shakycam and quick-cut editing become cliches is because they start out being used in a context where they make sense and serve a specific purpose very effectively, and people are impressed by it and want to emulate it, but mistakenly focus on the technique itself rather than realizing that the reason it worked was because of the narrative purpose it served. Divorce the technique from the purpose, use it for its own sake, and it becomes gratuitous.

Case in point: Batman's debut scene in Batman Begins. There, the frenetic, quick-cutting, closeup-heavy editing style worked perfectly at conveying the gangsters' confusion and terror as this mysterious figure struck at them from nowhere. As I've ofte said before, it was like a horror movie scene with Batman as the monster. In a context like that, not being able to tell what's going on is an asset, because it conveys exactly the intended feeling. But that doesn't mean it's a good technique to use for action scenes in general. Something can be the right tool for one job but the wrong tool for another, something filmmakers lose sight of when they become too enamored of a tool for its own sake.

 

[StarTrek1701]

A+++

Great action, fun story, plot moved fast and the cast truly gelled together! Don't know why people are complaining about it. It certainly is a great summer action flick, light years better than that stupid Iron Man sequel. Yet this is doing bad business.. I truly cannot understand the movie going public choices sometimes.

 

[Dac]

Loved it, for what it was as a cheesy action movie, it lived up to its promise. Although I will say, I don't agree with the suggestion that Hannibal convinced BA that killing people is right, just the opposite in fact - if there is no other option, if the person you are confronting will not see reason then if the only option left is to kill you must take it to preserve the life of others. Basically, a long drawn out version of Mal Reynold's rule of life no.1: "If someone tries to kill you, you try and kill them straight back."

 

[IndyJones]

Loved it, for what it was as a cheesy action movie, it lived up to its promise.

That sums up my thoughts on it. It wasn't high art, but it was hi-larious.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I think the A-Team only killed a few of the really bad guys...if you watch the start, in Mexico, they did it just like in the TV show...a lot of bullets flying and the bad guys falling down and jumping out of the way etc.

I saw in the credits that Dirk Bennedict had a cameo as some prison guard or something and Dwight Schultz was a doctor in the psychiatric hospital, but I didn't catch them in the movie.

 

[doubleohfive]

^^ There's a scene after the credits where both Benedict and Schultz appear.

 

[God Magnus]

I think the A-Team only killed a few of the really bad guys...if you watch the start, in Mexico, they did it just like in the TV show...a lot of bullets flying and the bad guys falling down and jumping out of the way etc.

Yeah, actually the whole "Mexico" sequence felt like it was right out of the original series (the appearance of the van helped that impression too). Did some guys die? Yes, but in the context of the scene it was wonderfully ludicrous and kept the spirit of the show even if it broke the "no kill" rule. Indeed, I was expecting a higher body count despite its roots. At times it felt like they were going out of their way not to kill.

 

[Christopher]

At times it felt like they were going out of their way not to kill.

That's encouraging. As is the "ludicrous" part. If the action hadn't been ludicrous, they would've been doing it wrong.

 

[Gryffindorian]

Posted by darthpipes:

-My main complaint was that the story was hampered by a completely incoherent storyline. It was hard to follow just what the fuck was going on at times. Some storyline stability, a few minutes cut off the run time, and a few other changes would have greatly improved the movie.

It got confusing to me at first until I realized that there was this "conspiracy," but I knew that Agent Lynch was in on it, too.

Posted by doubleohfive:


Did anybody catch the TNG reference in the film?

When Murdock is in the mental institution (the second time) and is about to be rescued, just before Sosa (Biel) and her boys show up, the credits on the 3D film being screened cam be clearly seen. One of the names? "Reginald Barclay"

I think I was the only Trek fan in the theater who actually got that joke.

 

[doubleohfive]

^
Someone had to point out the District 9 reference to me yesterday because it completely flew over my head.