Miami Vice

[Emher]

I'm a big Miachel Mann fan so I always like seeing him doing films. That being said, "Miami Vice" is quite good, but far from his best work. I LOVED the look of the film, since it continued that look from "Collateral" (my favorite Mann film), and Mann has always been great at selecting music, and I can't not love the action and realistic portrayal of what would happen if two guys in a car got hit with .50 cal bullets.

But it's not a great mesh. It's got great elements in it, but the whole thing just doesn't mesh as well it it can. So far it seems that Mann peaked with "Collateral". I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Captaindemotion]

And again, that's not what I mean.

So what DO you mean? Because it seems I'm not the only one who doesn't get it.

 

[the G-man]

And again, that's not what I mean.

So what DO you mean? Because it seems I'm not the only one who doesn't get it.

This.

 

[Forbin]

Can't explain it any better, but I sure didn't expect the discussion of my thoughts to be self-serving condescending insults.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Well, perhaps you ought to formulate your thoughts better, before posting them on a public forum.

 

[Forbin]

^Not quite as condescending and insulting as the original reply to my post, but a good example.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I actually liked the movie. I agree the plot was not memorable, but the visual style of the film was really lush, Mann is really a great director. I found the subdued nature of the characters interesting as well. It definitely felt like a modern take on a classic Miami Vice plot, with a more modern Miami surrounding.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^Not quite as condescending and insulting as the original reply to my post, but a good example.

And just as unhelpful in explaining what you're talking about as your others posts. Perhaps if you spent as much time explaining your views as you did in criticising those who've responded to them, you wouldn't be so condescended to or 'insulted' (though where the insults are, I fail to see).

 

[Forbin]

^Not quite as condescending and insulting as the original reply to my post, but a good example.

And just as unhelpful in explaining what you're talking about as your others posts. Perhaps if you spent as much time explaining your views as you did in criticising those who've responded to them, you wouldn't be so condescended to or 'insulted' (though where the insults are, I fail to see).

Um - you do know that the original was just a series and that the 80s-set episodes didn't actually happen?

Do you walk around avoiding interviews with Don Johnson, just in case they spoil the illusion too?!

^The very FIRST response to my thoughts, not generated by any of my follow-ups comments.
How is that not condescending and insulting?
Not exactly a springboard for pleasant discussion, nor encouraging of further conversation. Just a simple-minded, self-satisfying bully's response.

In any case - consider it a philosophical experiment. You have a tv show made decades ago. The characters therefore "existed" in that time, for those 5 years the show was on. I enjoyed the show and the characters a great deal, and their portrayals by those specific actors. Now 30 years later, along comes a remake. The remake shows those characters existing, supposedly at the same time period of their own lives, but 30 years later. Not 30 years older. frozen in time, as it were. What is the producer saying? Is he trying to supercede the original with this new universe? Is he saying, "those characters did NOT exist in 1984, they exist NOW"? How shall I interpret the film, and suspend my disbelief that these are actors, so I may get into it and enjoy it, when, to me, Sonny Crockett looked like Don Johnson in his 30s and worked the Miami Vice unit in 1984? All I see is Colin Farrell in his 30s doing an impression of Don Johnson's Sonny 30 years later.

I have the same reaction to the new 5-0 series.

And no, movie remakes of other movies don't affect me this way - that's just the same one-shot story being retold around the campfire.

I didn't say it was logical, it's just the way I think. And I probably still haven't been able to explain it exactly.

I await your next attempt to show your emotional superioriority.

 

[the G-man]

In any case - consider it a philosophical experiment. You have a tv show made decades ago. The characters therefore "existed" in that time, for those 5 years the show was on. I enjoyed the show and the characters a great deal, and their portrayals by those specific actors. Now 30 years later, along comes a remake. The remake shows those characters existing, supposedly at the same time period of their own lives, but 30 years later. Not 30 years older. frozen in time, as it were. What is the producer saying? Is he trying to supercede the original with this new universe? Is he saying, "those characters did NOT exist in 1984, they exist NOW"? How shall I interpret the film, and suspend my disbelief that these are actors, so I may get into it and enjoy it, when, to me, Sonny Crockett looked like Don Johnson in his 30s and worked the Miami Vice unit in 1984? All I see is Colin Farrell in his 30s doing an impression of Don Johnson's Sonny 30 years later.

I have the same reaction to the new 5-0 series.

And no, movie remakes of other movies don't affect me this way - that's just the same one-shot story being retold around the campfire.

I didn't say it was logical, it's just the way I think. And I probably still haven't been able to explain it exactly.

Given that Miami Vice is a movie remake of a TV series, no, it doesn't come across as very logical.

I understand that you may or may not have an emotional or visceral reaction to a remake, ie, "it aint the original and so I don't like it." That simply a matter of taste. No biggie.

But if you are going to advance an argument to justify your taste you must assume that people might want that argument to make logical sense.

 

[Forbin]

Oh, no problem with that, as long as there's a polite discussion. Wise-ass remarks do not a polite discussion make.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Look, it was not my intent to be bullying. I'm sorry if you took offence, I genuinely mean that. I was aiming for humour and flippancy, not excoriation.

I do think your original point was a bit, well, silly, and that's as much as I can say about it. And MV is just a tv series/ movie, the characters are imaginary, none of it ever happened. I just didn't and don't get the point you're making, but fair enough, it's how you feel. But you have to remember also, this is a public forum, when you make a point, you have to expect a reaction and you can see that I was far from alone in how I viewed your point there. Taken to its logical extreme, you would have to go around dodging news about Don's bankruptcy or avoiding his role in Eastbound and Down, lest they also spoil the illusion.

I've said things on the BBS that people have taken the piss out of and no doubt I will again; it's all part of it. But maybe we should all move on now.

 

[Forbin]

Okay, thanks for that.

Well, the thought is not something that keeps me awake at night, though it does sometimes keep me from fully enjoying a rebooted show like 5-0 or movie like Vice. And again, it's just a thought, not a psychosis. We'll see about the A-Team movie - I didn't really have an emotional investment in that show. And Galactica - well, I recognize the original was crap in the first place, and the reboot was better by far, so I enjoyed the hell out of the reboot.


Back to our regularly scheduled prgramming.