www.indiewire.com
Climate change is now woke? Is this really a hill you want to die on?Director Lee Isaac Chung Didn’t Want ‘Twisters’ to Be ‘Preaching’ About Climate Change
Director Lee Isaac Chung didn't want 'Twisters' to be 'preaching' about climate change.
Good guy DEI hire director makes surprise anti-woke movie? Regardless, this looks like an old fashioned blockbuster like the ones I grew up on so I'll be watching it in IMAX.
What are the twister’s pronouns?
Woooooooooosh
If there are people that unironically reject and dismiss climate change activism in art, because it's too "purple haired screeching WOKE", and they don't want to be caught being one of those lameos, I believe they genuinely need to seek therapy.
You've not seen what some Lefty loons tried to push under the guise of fighting climate change...
But Jennifer Laurance said tornados were nature's wrath for Hilary Clinton not winning the election!
Many celebrities are not very smart.
Director Lee Isaac Chung Didn’t Want ‘Twisters’ to Be ‘Preaching’ About Climate Change
Director Lee Isaac Chung didn't want 'Twisters' to be 'preaching' about climate change.
Good guy DEI hire director makes surprise anti-woke movie? Regardless, this looks like an old fashioned blockbuster like the ones I grew up on so I'll be watching it in IMAX.
You shut it. I need more disaster films worth a damn. Last good one was The Day After Tomorrow (2004). This one is crap like so many other rehashes.
I think the 'problem' is that we see SPECTACLE in everything now. Those older ones had effects we've NEVER seen, buildings falling, planes sinking into the sea, lava flowing down streets. But with CGI even a silly romcom can do that stuff, so it has become humdrum, especially if the effects have the same blah look so many films have today. Cameron can still deliver, but so few other directors can frame CG action as if it were real action, instead we get this swooping camera that spoils the illusion.
I mean, it's a movie about tornadoes. It's not A Beautiful Mind.
I was always more invested in the human drama, mass panic, and makeshift solutions to overwhelming problems. CGI is not a problem if used well, but the focus has to be human plight and ingenuity in the face of overwhelming odds.
The plot of the first one is that an old colleague is recruited by a rag-tag team of scientists obsessed with tornadoes after his theoretical device for tracking them is successfully prototyped. Upon further testing the prototype fails in its intended purpose. After a close run-in with a powerful tornado the colleague has an epiphany about an alteration that would make the prototype work. In the end they succeed and have groundbreaking new data about the dynamics of tornadoes. It had nothing to do with stopping tornadoes and everything to do with improving prediction technologies to minimise casualties.
That sounds like id hate it even more. You guys enjoy hard pass from me.
It's drove them round the twist...er.
This sequel is tonedeaf. As much as I was entertained by the original, it was carried by the fantastic cast and their onscreen chemistry. This does not have any of that based on the trailer.
No, the point was about him not wanting to make cinema that's preaching a message. Which is what woke movies do and what pre-current era movies didn't do. The sooner we return to this the better. For the record I am also not a proponent of conversative preaching in movies.
I'm not basing this off nothing. Look at the guy's filmography. He's made 3 micro budget indie films and one break out A24 film and then they give him a gigantic budget. This has been a trend with Hollywood, giving small time, usually minority background indie directors huge breaks instead of having them work up the ladder like before. I mean good for him no doubt but it is what it is.
Very well said. But let's face it, MOST disaster flicks were pretty bad with the 'human drama' and were all about the effects, back in a time when that stuff was unprecedented and very difficult to do. Even something like Independence Day, with those MASSIVE sets they blew up, had some merit just on purely visual WOW basis.
No, see my latest post above.
All I remember about the first one is that it had SO MUCH BASS that you could hear it 2 theaters down the hall! Between Twister and The Rock it was so hard to sit and enjoy Cable Guy, Mission:Impossible, The Phantom, Eraser, The Nutty Professor, Dragonheart, The Craft, or Barbwire (YES, all these films were released in May/June 1996!!) with all the BOOM BOOM BOOM going on
He has a bigger and more prestigious director filmography than Jan de Bont did when he made the original Twister...
Jami Gertz in her absolute pomp, Paxton and Hunt were perfectly cast and had great on-screen chemistry, Cary Elwes as the smarmy villain, Phil Seymour Hoffman, the guy who played Cameron in Ferris Bueller, etc. I think I've talked myself into watching it again for the first time in 20 years.
WHAT
I was only going by his director credits, which were selected by default on IMDB:WHAT
THE
FUCK
are you on about? DeBont did SPEED before Twister....SPEED! A classic action film! And as cinematographer/DP here is a bit of his stuff prior to Twister.
just LOOK AT THAT LIST! The guy had chops for a big budgets special effects visual feast like Twister.
I got nothing against Chung but here is his director list.
An episode of Mando up against SPEED! as directoral pre-req.......yeah, gonna go with JDB.
You owe Jan an apology, you basically said he was some insignificant director who got lucky when the buzz at the time (of Twister) was that he was a visionary cinematographer who was gonna deliver a lot of visual effects, which he did, in an era when this was hard to do, not something you just outsourced to a computer farm. THAT was the appeal of Twister back in the day. Chung brings none of that anticipation, and I suspect Twisters is gonna suffer by comparison.
Eh, I can draw a line from Twister back through Speed and then DP on a bunch of massive action films waaaaaaaay more easily than I can with Chungs films. As mentioned earlier, it seems oddly trendy for these CG effects laden turds to hire an "arty" director to do the "people talking" bits because all the CG stuff, usually 70% of these films, has been pre-rendered and is already being done well before any humans show up on set. In these cases the director is largely irrelevant to the final product and IS often hired more for their appearance than their actual body of work. Not sure if this is the case with Chung, certainly some great action directors have come from out of nowhere, but it's not a crazy leap that he was hired more because he wasn't white than because he was THE GUY getting this project off the ground (could be wrong, of course).
