Zack and Miri Make [movies]

1606163656678

Posts

  • BobbleBobble Registered User regular
    Hedgethorn wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Gerwig didn't get a best director nom? Ugh.
    It is rare for a movie to recontextualize a book to make the book retroactively better and also be an entertaining movie (a period drama, no less) on its own merits. The idea of starting in the second volume of Little Women (the novel) and using the first volume as flashbacks to give context to that plot and those scenes is so fucking brilliant. Somehow, she made Dunkirk out of a 19th century novel about relationships and family.

    It's amazing how everything else about Little Women got nominated -- actress, supporting actress, screenplay, costuming, score, and best picture -- but no best director nom, when so far as I can tell Gerwig is what really set this adaptation apart.

    Turns out all of those amazing elements just came together naturally on their own. It's a miracle!

    wanderingKetarN1tSt4lkerAJRCouscousHedgethornFencingsax
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Every actor and actress must have gone to elementary school. Kids can be cruel so I idly wonder who got teased for their name? I bet Gary Oldman got it bad. "Gary, the old man" seems obvious. Adam Driver might have been called "A damn driver" once or twice. Judy Dench could have been Judy Stench when she was eight years old.

    Atomika
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Thirith wrote: »
    I really didn't like The Joker for many of the same reasons as the rest of you but you guys are mischaracterizing a fair bit of the film to a degree that actually kind of subverts your arguments. There's enough trash there without making things up.
    Wanna actually make the argument, then? It's very well possible that what you're saying is true, but argue your point. You just saying "That's not how it is" without saying *how* we're mischaracterising the film makes it difficult to have a discussion, to be honest. For instance, I don't actually know if you're responding to nexuscrawler, Atomika, me or anyone else.

    I'm not really interested in making any arguments for or against The Joker as it was a complete waste of time as a film imo. My point is that if you're going to criticize it do it based on its merits or lack thereof. I just don't see the need to make things up or go into hyperbole for something that's already pretty stupid in its own right. If people are doing this they will know.

    "You guys are all wrong but I'm not going to tell you why or how, just please stop being wrong" is not really a viable piece of discourse.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    Atomika
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Every actor and actress must have gone to elementary school. Kids can be cruel so I idly wonder who got teased for their name? I bet Gary Oldman got it bad. "Gary, the old man" seems obvious. Adam Driver might have been called "A damn driver" once or twice. Judy Dench could have been Judy Stench when she was eight years old.
    And as for Alan Tudyk...

    5z4ibbn0fcua.jpg
    flamebroiledchickenJazzemnmnmeHahnsoo1ElvenshaeJacobkoshInquisitor77NobeardKoopahTroopahSorceFencingsaxRhesus Positive
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Every actor and actress must have gone to elementary school. Kids can be cruel so I idly wonder who got teased for their name? I bet Gary Oldman got it bad. "Gary, the old man" seems obvious. Adam Driver might have been called "A damn driver" once or twice. Judy Dench could have been Judy Stench when she was eight years old.
    And as for Alan Tudyk...

    TychoAndSon.png

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    wanderingemnmnmeJazzHahnsoo1Dark Raven XStabbity StyleRingoBlackDragon480JacobkoshHedgethornNobeardKoopahTroopahCarpySorceFencingsaxTNTrooperRhesus PositiveklemmingBobbleKana
  • JazzJazz Fuck cancer. Un-UKRegistered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Every actor and actress must have gone to elementary school. Kids can be cruel so I idly wonder who got teased for their name? I bet Gary Oldman got it bad. "Gary, the old man" seems obvious. Adam Driver might have been called "A damn driver" once or twice. Judy Dench could have been Judy Stench when she was eight years old.
    And as for Alan Tudyk...

    What about the old NASCAR driver, Dick Trickle...

    N1tSt4lker
  • TexiKenTexiKen pumped up Registered User regular
    I remember this came up years ago and the only reason I remember this is because the winning worst actor name was a real doozy that showed clear parental abuse:

    Imogen Gay Poots

    BGtUpSc.jpg
  • JazzJazz Fuck cancer. Un-UKRegistered User regular
    TexiKen wrote: »
    I remember this came up years ago and the only reason I remember this is because the winning worst actor name was a real doozy that showed clear parental abuse:

    Imogen Gay Poots

    Marcia Gay Harden isn't far off.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Jazz wrote: »
    TexiKen wrote: »
    I remember this came up years ago and the only reason I remember this is because the winning worst actor name was a real doozy that showed clear parental abuse:

    Imogen Gay Poots

    Marcia Gay Harden isn't far off.

    Nah, if you don't use the her middle name it becomes Marcia Harden and then it becomes just a regular name, even more so if you don't tell people your last name.

    That is not to say it didn't have issues; Marcia, Marcia, Marica probably still follows her to this day, but nothing that a parent could forsee.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • Smaug6Smaug6 Registered User regular
    In defense of the Joker, I've never seen people talk so passionately about how good of a movie it was and how well acted. Granted this comes from a white collar office job and I haven't seen it, but there is definately a feeling amongst the public it moved them in ways it may not have moved those much more immersed in film such as those posting here. That alone is worth something and is something special.

    steam_sig.png
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Smaug6 wrote: »
    In defense of the Joker, I've never seen people talk so passionately about how good of a movie it was and how well acted. Granted this comes from a white collar office job and I haven't seen it, but there is definately a feeling amongst the public it moved them in ways it may not have moved those much more immersed in film such as those posting here. That alone is worth something and is something special.

    I am willing to give that idea its due, not every movie is made for movie buffs or people versed in cinema history. So having it tick boxes for people for whom Taxi Driver is an old word for Uber Driver(and you know that is what they are going to call the remake) is a plus I guess

    But the people that nominate these movies are supposed to be Movie buffs. Hell most of them are old enough to have seen Taxi Driver/King of Comedy and all the other movies its ripping off in theaters.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
    Gnome-InterruptusStabbity StyleKoopahTroopahFencingsaxBlackDragon480
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    Arthur is not the victim of the movie. He is ignored and lied to by everyone just about around him to the point he goes pretty crazy, and he has awkward mannerisms which causes people to stay away from him in general, he's a character that represents sadly a very large number of people on the fringes of society. Those people, those people are the victims. The Joker, or Arthur after he decides to kill folks, is more like a false idol for the disenfranchised.

    I don't think the movie at any point supports or cheers on Arthur. It shows the city is on the edge of dangerous riots not dissimilar to the LA riots back in the day. Arthur just happened to be at the right place and right time to be seen as a anit-hero, not a villain. I think the movie just depicts the events, the struggle of class warfare and those left behind by it. It's no one person's direct fault, it's a series of failures that produces Arthur.

    XB1/360 - Local H Jay
    PS4 - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
    Hexmage-PA
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Arthur is not the victim of the movie. He is ignored and lied to by everyone just about around him to the point he goes pretty crazy, and he has awkward mannerisms which causes people to stay away from him in general, he's a character that represents sadly a very large number of people on the fringes of society. Those people, those people are the victims. The Joker, or Arthur after he decides to kill folks, is more like a false idol for the disenfranchised.

    I don't think the movie at any point supports or cheers on Arthur. It shows the city is on the edge of dangerous riots not dissimilar to the LA riots back in the day. Arthur just happened to be at the right place and right time to be seen as a anit-hero, not a villain. I think the movie just depicts the events, the struggle of class warfare and those left behind by it. It's no one person's direct fault, it's a series of failures that produces Arthur.

    Joker
    It’s hard to believe that given:

    -Todd Phillips’ interviews in which he acts like an aggrieved victim of woke culture (even though his film made a billion dollars and got 11 Oscar noms)

    -Moments in Joker that distinctly lack empathy for Joker’s victims (for example, the awful sick joke about the little person)

    -Ambiguities that deliberately obscure other characters’ desires, motivations, and outcomes (is he actually Bruce’s half brother or is his mother deluded? What happened to the neighbor Fleck had an imagined relationship with? Who cares is the answer apparently because they only matter in terms of how they impact his life)

    Joker invites, and fails to live up to, a direct comparison with Taxi Driver, a movie that balances points of view such that we are continually reminded that we should not be fully identifying with Travis Bickle or his toxic masculinity and behavior. Its stylistic slips into Travis’ perspective are clear so we can properly contextualize, for example, his racist look at a black man in a diner or how he sees the women around him. Joker’s use of Fleck’s perspective is deliberately confused and hidden; it wants us to slip into his viewpoint, wonder if it is true or fantasy, and only seldom realize what’s happening.

    Another key difference conceptually is that Joker is by design an origin story; we want to see Fleck become the Joker because that’s the anticipated narrative arc, and because the form and pace of the movie contrasts the depressing, grinding experience of poverty, mental illness, and petty injustices with Fleck’s exciting, powerful bouts of violence. The whole schema of the film works toward us viewing a fully mad, fully murderous Joker as a cathartic answer to the broadly sketched social difficulties of Fleck’s life. This is no tragic, shocking descent into inhumanity; it’s the eager anticipation of gleeful anarchy.

    There’s a version of this film that could have worked as a critique of Fleck and his damaged, limited worldview, but that is not the movie they made.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    FencingsaxThirithBlackDragon480BobbleLegacy
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    I honestly think Todd's comments about woke culture have been exaggerated by the media, I think he may have said it as a joke almost but honestly, the work stands on it's own

    XB1/360 - Local H Jay
    PS4 - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
    AlphaRomero
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bobble wrote: »
    Hedgethorn wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Gerwig didn't get a best director nom? Ugh.
    It is rare for a movie to recontextualize a book to make the book retroactively better and also be an entertaining movie (a period drama, no less) on its own merits. The idea of starting in the second volume of Little Women (the novel) and using the first volume as flashbacks to give context to that plot and those scenes is so fucking brilliant. Somehow, she made Dunkirk out of a 19th century novel about relationships and family.

    It's amazing how everything else about Little Women got nominated -- actress, supporting actress, screenplay, costuming, score, and best picture -- but no best director nom, when so far as I can tell Gerwig is what really set this adaptation apart.

    Turns out all of those amazing elements just came together naturally on their own. It's a miracle!

    Half the best picture noms won’t be nominated for director.

    Actress noms are often not also nominated for director...or picture...because often the movies that are are light on strong female roles. That’s a gender issue, but a different one. It’s a category often filled out with lower profile or outright bad movies that at least have a good female performance in them (I’m assuming Kathy Bates is in this group this year, that movie looked like a pile). Point is, the actress categories often have several nominees that don’t appear in other top-line categories, for reasons.

    Costuming? Really?

    And finally, screenplay faces the same math problem as picture; at least half the nominees won’t be in the director category. They cannot be. There are ten.

    There are usually at least a couple directors in Gerwig’s position every year. Nominated in several important categories, but not for directing. Waititi is right there with her this year. Plenty of white males also sit in that position. And I think a large part is that director is a category that often loses half its slots to what I’ll generously call career nominations. I feel like Scorsese is probably at least one such nom this year, though I can’t be bothered to spend four hours finding out. Director, possibly more so than actor, tends to hand noms to a handful of big names just for bothering to make anything this year, which means realistically there usually aren’t even five spots up for grabs.

    That there are so few women in general vying for those remaining spots is an issue. As is the fact that no women are in the same auto-nomination club. But that Gerwig didn’t get the nod despite Little Women being recognized elsewhere? This is not uncommon.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I will say that from what I’ve heard here Little Women has actually gone into my watch list though. Otherwise it probably would have been a skip.

    BloodySloth
  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Every actor and actress must have gone to elementary school. Kids can be cruel so I idly wonder who got teased for their name? I bet Gary Oldman got it bad. "Gary, the old man" seems obvious. Adam Driver might have been called "A damn driver" once or twice. Judy Dench could have been Judy Stench when she was eight years old.

    In 6th grade, Natalie Portman dated a boy named David Toe and all the clever kids started calling them Portmanteau. It's true, you can look it up.*
    I can't back that up. But don't you want it to be true?

    Rhesus PositiveNobeard
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Every actor and actress must have gone to elementary school. Kids can be cruel so I idly wonder who got teased for their name? I bet Gary Oldman got it bad. "Gary, the old man" seems obvious. Adam Driver might have been called "A damn driver" once or twice. Judy Dench could have been Judy Stench when she was eight years old.

    In 6th grade, Natalie Portman dated a boy named David Toe and all the clever kids started calling them Portmanteau. It's true, you can look it up.*
    I can't back that up. But don't you want it to be true?

    I doubt the clever kids came up with that

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    Gnome-InterruptusCommander ZoomKoopahTroopahzepherin
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Every actor and actress must have gone to elementary school. Kids can be cruel so I idly wonder who got teased for their name? I bet Gary Oldman got it bad. "Gary, the old man" seems obvious. Adam Driver might have been called "A damn driver" once or twice. Judy Dench could have been Judy Stench when she was eight years old.

    In 6th grade, Natalie Portman dated a boy named David Toe and all the clever kids started calling them Portmanteau. It's true, you can look it up.*
    I can't back that up. But don't you want it to be true?

    no, because that's not even her real name. :P

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Every actor and actress must have gone to elementary school. Kids can be cruel so I idly wonder who got teased for their name? I bet Gary Oldman got it bad. "Gary, the old man" seems obvious. Adam Driver might have been called "A damn driver" once or twice. Judy Dench could have been Judy Stench when she was eight years old.

    In 6th grade, Natalie Portman dated a boy named David Toe and all the clever kids started calling them Portmanteau. It's true, you can look it up.*
    I can't back that up. But don't you want it to be true?

    no, because that's not even her real name. :P

    She was starring in The Professional at age 12 under the screen name! I've put a lot of work into this lie, let me have it! You have no idea how long I've waited for a famous Toe to ship her! I toyed around with Jonathan Toews, but it just doesn't work!

    Rhesus PositiveElvenshaeBlackDragon480PailryderKoopahTroopahNobeardLegacyzepherin
  • CoinageCoinage The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter Registered User regular
    For the longer version of the pro-Joker argument I recommend

    (Except for the brief digression about Todd trolling with SJW comments. Todd was just being a dipshit but Peter has a weird compulsion to interpret everything as performative)

    s586cu2r93hr.gif
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Is the video like... A really valuable watch in and of its own right? Can you summarize it?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I will say that from what I’ve heard here Little Women has actually gone into my watch list though. Otherwise it probably would have been a skip.

    I'm very interested in watching it, and I suspect it's a good movie on its own, but from what I've read it sounds like I won't be able to appreciate half of what makes it so special since I know fuck all about Little Women.

    Kinda like reading Watchmen having never read a comic book.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    KoopahTroopah
  • CoinageCoinage The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Is the video like... A really valuable watch in and of its own right? Can you summarize it?
    It's basically Local H Jay's post in video essay format, I'm not going to try to convince you to watch a half hour video if you don't want to!

    (Watch all video essays)

    s586cu2r93hr.gif
    Fencingsax
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    We just watched Joker. It was pretty dang good!

    Oh brilliant
    wanderingKoopahTroopah
  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Is the video like... A really valuable watch in and of its own right? Can you summarize it?

    His thrust is that the movie is critical of the system of capitalism, that the Joker isn't an incel power fantasy, he is the end result of capitalism. He is a critique of the system. Thus, the right adopts him in order to defang him, while the left shuns him, hoping to wish him out of existence, since both sides, politically speaking, are beholden to capitalism. Arthur is offered a glimpse by his therapist past the system, but because he is beholden to it, he cannot or will not take in the fact that everybody around him is as miserable as him. Basically, step outside the system and band together with all the other marginalized people. Instead, he opts to take his pound of flesh within the system, where only strength and the ability to defend oneself is important.

    I personally did not like the movie, but I don't value my time the way others do, so I don't mind dropping 30 minutes on a video on the off chance it can change my mind. I'm not sure the things he sees in the movie are there intentionally, but they might be. It's an interesting take at the very least, and if I ever feel like subjecting myself to the film again, I think I'll watch the essay again beforehand and see if there is more meat on that bone.

    Local H Jay
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Honestly, I don't think the script or the filmmaking of Joker is up to the task of presenting any coherent systemic critique. There may be traces of this, but whatever Joker says about society, it's pretty simplistic and definitely not what the film focuses on. What critique there may be of capitalism doesn't really go beyond "Rich people tend to be assholes", but then, that quality is by no means limited to the rich in Joker.

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
    BlackDragon480Gnome-Interruptus
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    I really didn't like The Joker for many of the same reasons as the rest of you but you guys are mischaracterizing a fair bit of the film to a degree that actually kind of subverts your arguments. There's enough trash there without making things up.
    Wanna actually make the argument, then? It's very well possible that what you're saying is true, but argue your point. You just saying "That's not how it is" without saying *how* we're mischaracterising the film makes it difficult to have a discussion, to be honest. For instance, I don't actually know if you're responding to nexuscrawler, Atomika, me or anyone else.

    I'm not really interested in making any arguments for or against The Joker as it was a complete waste of time as a film imo. My point is that if you're going to criticize it do it based on its merits or lack thereof. I just don't see the need to make things up or go into hyperbole for something that's already pretty stupid in its own right. If people are doing this they will know.

    "You guys are all wrong but I'm not going to tell you why or how, just please stop being wrong" is not really a viable piece of discourse.

    I didn't say anybody was wrong? In fact I said the opposite, I think it's a stupid movie. I just don't see the need to make things up about it because it's already impressively stupid in its own right. I was specifically referencing @Astaereth's post on the last page illustrating a scene that didn't happen in the movie. I agree with their post just not the hyperbole. It's really not a big deal.

    edit: in hindsight, I don't think this matters at all and I'm being too touchy. Let's all just agree that The Joker was a fucking stupid movie.

    SatanIsMyMotor on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I will say that from what I’ve heard here Little Women has actually gone into my watch list though. Otherwise it probably would have been a skip.

    I'm very interested in watching it, and I suspect it's a good movie on its own, but from what I've read it sounds like I won't be able to appreciate half of what makes it so special since I know fuck all about Little Women.

    Kinda like reading Watchmen having never read a comic book.

    That makes some sense. I guess because I have A-List I’ll risk my time on it. Probably going to replace an ironic viewing of Cats, which overall is probably the right choice.

    It was going to be a hard pass mostly due to being a worn out period piece based on a perennial high school reading list feature. But if it’s actually that good I guess I’ll give it a shot? I will say that yeah I’ve never read it and know nothing about it, so maybe I’ll still not love it.

    My Oscar movie watching list is pretty short this year, I caught most of them already. Mainly just Jojo Rabbit and Marriage Story are the ones I definitely want to check out. So I can fit Little Women in. The only real hard pass for me among major nominees is The Irishman.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited January 15
    Little Women requires no fore-knowledge of the book to be enjoyable. I had none and loved it to bits. The book is 750 pages long and has a (quite possibly sexist and undeserved) reputation as a bore in some circles, but I believe a reasonable amount of the bang up to the minute sounding dialogue is taken verbatim from the book so I am now planning to read it at some point.

    I suspect a common feeling about it is that it's something for women, and men can happily steer clear without missing anything they'd like. This is utter crap and the film is a joy for anyone - but, probably, especially women, as it's a film that is about the predicament of women in a patriarchal society and the interior lives of women and how they see each other than it is about how they interact with men.

    The ending is a delicious little kicker that feels all Gerwig.

    Bogart on
    BobbleThorn413Gnome-InterruptusHahnsoo1TheBlackWindwanderingKoopahTroopahPailryderFencingsaxHedgethornN1tSt4lkerJazzjimb213
  • DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    I really didn't like The Joker for many of the same reasons as the rest of you but you guys are mischaracterizing a fair bit of the film to a degree that actually kind of subverts your arguments. There's enough trash there without making things up.
    Wanna actually make the argument, then? It's very well possible that what you're saying is true, but argue your point. You just saying "That's not how it is" without saying *how* we're mischaracterising the film makes it difficult to have a discussion, to be honest. For instance, I don't actually know if you're responding to nexuscrawler, Atomika, me or anyone else.

    I'm not really interested in making any arguments for or against The Joker as it was a complete waste of time as a film imo. My point is that if you're going to criticize it do it based on its merits or lack thereof. I just don't see the need to make things up or go into hyperbole for something that's already pretty stupid in its own right. If people are doing this they will know.

    "You guys are all wrong but I'm not going to tell you why or how, just please stop being wrong" is not really a viable piece of discourse.

    I didn't say anybody was wrong? In fact I said the opposite, I think it's a stupid movie. I just don't see the need to make things up about it because it's already impressively stupid in its own right. I was specifically referencing @Astaereth's post on the last page illustrating a scene that didn't happen in the movie. I agree with their post just not the hyperbole. It's really not a big deal.

    edit: in hindsight, I don't think this matters at all and I'm being too touchy. Let's all just agree that The Joker was a fucking stupid movie.

    If you are saying people are making things up you are saying they are wrong.

    desc wrote: »
    ~ * ~ Week-Long Dance-a-thon Booty Ribbon ~ * ~
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Registered User regular
    Yes. Thank you for telling me what I'm saying.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Little Women requires no fore-knowledge of the book to be enjoyable. I had none and loved it to bits. The book is 750 pages long and has a (quite possibly sexist and undeserved) reputation as a bore in some circles, but I believe a reasonable amount of the bang up to the minute sounding dialogue is taken verbatim from the book so I am now planning to read it at some point.

    I suspect a common feeling about it is that it's something for women, and men can happily steer clear without missing anything they'd like. This is utter crap and the film is a joy for anyone - but, probably, especially women, as it's a film that is about the predicament of women in a patriarchal society and the interior lives of women and how they see each other than it is about how they interact with men.

    The ending is a delicious little kicker that feels all Gerwig.

    I should hope it goes without saying that my personal apprehension, and I’d assume that of most here, has little to do with it being a movie about women. Same for the book. Obviously that’s what the greater conversation is centered around, understandably (even if I don’t agree the snub was gender based). But *any* movie based on standard high school reading list fare, especially period pieces, is gonna be a hard sell for me. I’m not lining up to see an adaptation of Ethan Fromme either, even if it’s from a director I respect. I suspect I’m not alone in this. Lady Bird, on the other hand, I was all about.

    Whether based around men or women, books *like* Little Women and the movies based on them will always look boring to me. I just can’t be bothered to deal with a lot of older capital-L Literature. That may make me a total Philistine and I’m kinda okay with that nowadays.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Fighting The Rising Odds Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited January 15
    Oh sure: I wasn't aiming it at anyone in particular. In fact I suspect my own lack of interest in seeking out either the book or an adaptation until now was at least partially a result of a sexist assumption that it wasn't for me.

    Classical literature can be excitingly adapted, though. Love and Friendship is another one that made me properly gut laugh recently, and I'm very much looking forward to David Copperfield.

    People don't just love literature with a capital L because they're taught to, or because it's in some way an attempt to gain credibility. Some of these books are fucking funny. Jane Austen is a goddamn hoot to read.

    Bogart on
    BlackDragon480shrykeThirithRingoPailryderFencingsaxN1tSt4lker
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Oh sure: I wasn't aiming it at anyone in particular. In fact I suspect my own lack of interest in seeking out either the book or an adaptation until now was at least partially a result of a sexist assumption that it wasn't for me.

    Classical literature can be excitingly adapted, though. Love and Friendship is another one that made me properly gut laugh recently, and I'm very much looking forward to David Copperfield.

    People don't just love literature with a capital L because they're taught to, or because it's in some way an attempt to gain credibility. Some of these books are fuckingfunny. Jane Austen is a goddamn hoot to read.

    Still one of the best opening lines to anything:
    It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

    BloodySlothFencingsaxN1tSt4lker
  • DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    Yes. Thank you for telling me what I'm saying.

    But you started off that statement with "I didn't say anyone was wrong"

    And now you are agreeing with me saying you did say people were wrong..

    Huh?

    desc wrote: »
    ~ * ~ Week-Long Dance-a-thon Booty Ribbon ~ * ~
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Registered User regular
    Yes. Thank you for telling me what I'm saying.

    But you started off that statement with "I didn't say anyone was wrong"

    And now you are agreeing with me saying you did say people were wrong..

    Huh?

    I guarantee you that nobody, myself included, needs this conversation to unfold any further. I said I was being overly sensitive so let's drop it and talk about movies instead.

    DemonStacey
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I will say that from what I’ve heard here Little Women has actually gone into my watch list though. Otherwise it probably would have been a skip.

    I'm very interested in watching it, and I suspect it's a good movie on its own, but from what I've read it sounds like I won't be able to appreciate half of what makes it so special since I know fuck all about Little Women.

    Kinda like reading Watchmen having never read a comic book.
    I think the movie stands on its own, more so than any previous iteration of the movie. My girlfriend has never read Little Women, and she thought it was a brilliant and excellent movie that was easy to follow (even with the flashbacks).

    Hahnsoo1 on
    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Little Women requires no fore-knowledge of the book to be enjoyable. I had none and loved it to bits. The book is 750 pages long and has a (quite possibly sexist and undeserved) reputation as a bore in some circles, but I believe a reasonable amount of the bang up to the minute sounding dialogue is taken verbatim from the book so I am now planning to read it at some point.

    I suspect a common feeling about it is that it's something for women, and men can happily steer clear without missing anything they'd like. This is utter crap and the film is a joy for anyone - but, probably, especially women, as it's a film that is about the predicament of women in a patriarchal society and the interior lives of women and how they see each other than it is about how they interact with men.

    The ending is a delicious little kicker that feels all Gerwig.
    I loved the period dialogue, from Jo saying "capital" when referring to something cool to "Christopher Columbus!" as an exclamation (like "Jesus Christ!" or "Jumpin' Jehosephat!")

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Lady Bird, on the other hand, I was all about. (snip)
    If you liked Lady Bird, you'll probably like Little Women. There's fingerprints of Greta Gerwig all over both movies, and it really shows. Plus, you'll probably have flashbacks to Lady Bird, what with Saoirse Ronan playing a plucky young protagonist and Timothee Chalamet being a disappointment. :D

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGU: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
    Commander Zoom
Sign In or Register to comment.