Crni Vuk said:
Though what do you guys think makes a good "post apoc movie" anyway ?
I guess what makes a good
film makes also a good
post-apocalypse film.
Older films (Mad Max, Planet of the Apes, A Boy And His Dog + way back) tend to be better in my eyes, because back then a lot (if not most ? I should probably read some books on the history of filmography, werevoof could probably lend us a hand here ?) films were still made to be art. Filmmaking was an art form - nowadays we have a bunch of artists, more than ever really, working on a single film, but the end result tends to be a goodlookin' package with very little content. Lately a very expensive packaging gets slapped onto any cheap over-recycled piece of writing
So for me a good post-apocalyptic film would be one, where
a) the setting is interesting (well written
world) and also
b) well executed art-wise (be that props -
Waterworld/
Mad Max/
Planet of The Apes, just awesome scenery -
Postman or CGI -
Final Fantasy) then we get to
c) well written characters (
Mad Max) and
d) interesting ideas acted out by the characters (
A Boy And His Dog)
And aren't the best post-apoc films really just Indie films ? People who had a vision and really wanted to make something new - like George Miller and his
Mad Max films, although in my eyes a lot went missing between Road Warrior and Thunderdome, even though Thunderdome added heavily to the Mad Max universe and is awesome because of that. Mainstream filmmakers tend to be forced to follow what the main
stream wants - and that is far from anything intelligent.
Ugh. [/rant]