Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 143
- 1
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Last week @Lizzardspawn asked why none of the sequels to the first two Terminator or Predator movies have been any good. Having only seen the first Predator and Terminators 1 and 2, I wasn't really in a position to comment on the inferiority of the sequels, but offered my two cents anyway based on my secondhand knowledge of Terminators 3-6. This got me thinking about Terminator 2 and I ended up reading the entire Wikipedia article (and the sub-article dedicated specifically to its special effects). Last Friday we sat down to watch a torrented version of the rerelease for Blu-ray which includes all of the cut scenes. It still looks great, although annoyingly there were a few points in the first half of the movie in which the colour grading would change dramatically in consecutive shots (I don't mean consecutive scenes: I mean consecutive shots in the same location), which was distracting and a rather glaring oversight for a rerelease apparently overseen by Cameron himself. It also ends with the corny, sentimental ending I criticised last week, rather than the "open road" ending from the theatrical release. But all that aside, the film still holds up, many of the visual effects still look positively jaw-dropping thirty-five years later, and the film is a true landmark in action films.
This got me thinking about my favourite action films, in no particular order:
Are there any recurring patterns here? Nostalgia obviously plays a major role: several of these films (Speed, The Rock, Terminator 2) were films I watched repeatedly on VHS as a child. Relatedly, there are no entries from this century (excepting the marginal case of The Matrix Reloaded, which I'm counting under The Matrix). Every film is also American: I've heard great things about Asian action cinema, but both times I tried watching Hard-Boiled I turned it off about half an hour in.
What would you say your favourite action films are? Are there non-American action films that I really must see? Are there any from this century that I really ought to check out? (Before anyone mentions John Wick: I will concede that its action sequences are expertly choreographed and filmed, but when I watched it a few years ago I came away feeling distinctly underwhelmed, finding it stylistically confused and at odds with itself.)
*Rumour has it that no other than Ellen deGeneres was the frontrunner for the role. I feel quite confident that, had they gone with this, it would have derailed the entire film.
I don't really like action, I like thrillers, but action movies, not really. But you people also say that Princess Mononoke is action film, which I did not see coming, but here is my brief action list.
*Castle of Cagliostro *. I actually like it for other reasons, but I hear the film buffs used to call the car chase scene the best car chase ever on film. If you don't like a romantic heist movie, perhaps skip the rest.
Pacific Rim. I sort-of liked Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein, so I decided to check out his other work ... which I had dismissed for reasons I no longer remember. One thing I did learn, he is massive anime nerd and somehow managed to make the best real robot action movie of 2010s, in Hollywood. Shonen tropes served with overload of cheese, but it is the finest mozzarella.
Dredd. As far as I remember Dredd as 2000AD character, the comic has silly plots and is supposed to make satirical commentary about America, the man, and the authorities, like all 80s British comics are ... but it is drawn gritty, nearly seriously. In film medium, it works when it looks like a serious, gritty film. Well executed, too.
Not exactly a recommendation but possibly worth consideration: Craig-era James Bond. Gadgets and hacking are too silly and plots disappointed me given how "serious" it attempted portray Bond, but I think the action scenes had je ne sais quoi, class?
Funny, I've never seen this one but reading the name jogged my memory. I think I saw a trailer for it on my Ghost in the Shell DVD years ago.
The only one I saw was Casino Royale and I did enjoy it (breath of fresh air after the silliness of the Brosnan era). Probably more of a spy thriller than an action film.
I've never watched a mecha film, or TV series, or anything (watched the first few episodes of Evangelion before giving up on it, may try it again). This one piqued my curiosity primarily for featuring my one-time celebrity crush, Rinko Kikuchi, who starred in the excellent film adaptation of my favourite novel of all time, Norwegian Wood. The only films of del Toro's I've seen were Pan's Labyrinth (decent, but didn't really love up to the hype) and Hellboy II (bland forgettable capeshit slop). As far as the three big men of Mexican cinema goes (del Toro, Cuarón and Iñárritu) I think he's the weakest link.
Evangelion starts with a too whiny main character and unbelievable premise, I never got far with it either. Some of Gundam is OK.
Pacific Rim is also nonsensical and silly, but del Toro is very good at distracting you with giant mechas fighting Kaiju and destroying scenic cities in process.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link