could he be more out of touch? Mixing up the generations (I am a 38 years old millennial thank you very much), [...]
Typical boomer, EVERYONE ELSE is to blame, they're all perfect! Now I definitely won't watch his movie.
Point of order: Ridley Scott was born in 1937, and is thus part of the Silent Generation. (Which is even funnier, given that this is all about him running his mouth off.)
I point this out not to mock your messing it up, but to realize that we probably too frequently call all old people "boomers" just like they call all younger people "millenials".
Though, as the name implies, it's not like the Silent Generation is very prominent in our national discourse. Joe Biden is the only Silent Generation President for example. FDR through HW Bush are all Greatest Generation, and Clinton, W, Obama, and Trump are all Boomers.
Also today I have learned the group after the Zoomers is currently called "Generation Alpha" as the first cohort to be purely 21st century babies
And as I just learned, they were called the "Silent Generation" because the youth of that generation weren't out causing any hubbub, unlike the generations around it. They just kept their heads down. It was around the time of the Red Scare the McCarthyism, so that made sense.
As far as impact on national discourse, I think you're maybe over-emphasizing the presidency. There've been quite a lot of senators, representatives, governors, etc. that have had a lot of effect on policy. I'm sure the Silents had plenty in those categories. Plus there's countries other than the US, after all. Not that they called their generations the same, but they did have people born in those years.
I saw House of Gucci with my parents yesterday and came to suggest the movie did indeed lack amenities coddled Millennials such as myself have come to expect - characters I like enough to want to succeed, characters I dislike enough to want brought low, or characters about whom I feel something other than a sense of faint disgust. But since I read the new post and found out this was about some other Ridley Scott film that just released, I'd have to agree with the inadequate marketing angle.
False dichotomy, ageism v styles. Who (any age) wants to see a movie about pair of knights kill each other over a reason during which the real world public's at a time when we're aligning our morals to a better place, getting over a ruler who was pro that reason. Who wants to see another film about a couple rich people eating each other alive when none are relatble. Maybe just the content sucks.
They constantly lament the face that millennials and younger aren't buying/consuming the same way they did, but refuse to look at why that is.
In the case of movie theaters, ticket and concession prices keep going up while the overall experience hasn't really changed. Meanwhile, home movie watching keeps getting better and cheaper.
They did get noticeably better at some point, but I think that was at least a decade ago?
They constantly lament the face that millennials and younger aren't buying/consuming the same way they did, but refuse to look at why that is.
In the case of movie theaters, ticket and concession prices keep going up while the overall experience hasn't really changed. Meanwhile, home movie watching keeps getting better and cheaper.
They did get noticeably better at some point, but I think that was at least a decade ago?
I suppose I was being a little unfair. It has improved, but I don't think most people feel like it has justified how expensive a night at the movies has become.
Back in the 90s, there was no denying that movies needed to be experienced in the theater. At home we had to deal with blurry VHS quality, and the picture was cropped and/or zoomed to fit the 4:3 aspect ratio of our shitty 32" tube TVs.
Now that we don't have to compromise nearly as much when we watch at home, it doesn't surprise me that people aren't as motivated to go to the theater.
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited November 2021
I can't imagine ever going to just like a regular movie theater ever again. Seeing the big release at something like Cinerama or that one one Texas, yeh sure. Consesions that are actually good enough to be worth the money, instead of being the same crap you can buy in any drug store marked up 400%. Large, comfy chairs. The best projector, sound system, and screen money can buy.
It takes a lot to convince me to watch movies away from home. The average mall movie theater chain is just not cutting it anymore
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
+2
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
could he be more out of touch? Mixing up the generations (I am a 38 years old millennial thank you very much), [...]
Typical boomer, EVERYONE ELSE is to blame, they're all perfect! Now I definitely won't watch his movie.
Point of order: Ridley Scott was born in 1937, and is thus part of the Silent Generation. (Which is even funnier, given that this is all about him running his mouth off.)
I point this out not to mock your messing it up, but to realize that we probably too frequently call all old people "boomers" just like they call all younger people "millenials".
Though, as the name implies, it's not like the Silent Generation is very prominent in our national discourse. Joe Biden is the only Silent Generation President for example. FDR through HW Bush are all Greatest Generation, and Clinton, W, Obama, and Trump are all Boomers.
Also today I have learned the group after the Zoomers is currently called "Generation Alpha" as the first cohort to be purely 21st century babies
FDR arguably wasn't even the lost generation (early 1880's to 1900), he was born in 1882. The first president of the greatest generation (1900's to late 1920's) was Kennedy.
Here's a handy chart that matches most other things I've seen about it (spoiled for image size):
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
On the one hand I'm curious about the movie I've never heard of being released, on the other hand if I don't actually look up the Wikipedia of it. I will always have that moment of curiosity of never quite knowing about a Ridley Scott movie, that may have been released. A Schrödinger's movie if you will.
In fact I'm on Wikipedia already making sure I spelled Schrödinger correctly...it would be so easy to check, like opening a box. I'm just not going to do it. The waveform is intact.
I can't imagine ever going to just like a regular movie theater ever again. Seeing the big release at something like Cinerama or that one one Texas, yeh sure. Consesions that are actually good enough to be worth the money, instead of being the same crap you can buy in any drug store marked up 400%. Large, comfy chairs. The best projector, sound system, and screen money can buy.
It takes a lot to convince me to watch movies away from home. The average mall movie theater chain is just not cutting it anymore
I think you're thinking of Alamo Draft House, which is a Texas based chain. Their wings and quesadillas are pretty solid, and the chairs are comfortable. Not quite restaurant quality, but good enough that if there's a movie I want to see on the big screen anyways they're on the top of my list (along with Studio Movie Grill, for the same reason).
The old days of getting a giant popcorn and overpriced soda are over. Movie tickets have gotten so expensive that going to theaters is a "thing" instead of an impulse, and that cuts into the concessions budget. And concessions have also gotten so expensive that it's just not worth it even if I wanted to wash a bucket of fat soaked carbs down with a giant waxed paper container of HFCS. Something has to change, and "dinner theater" options are one change that seems to be working - make the concessions substantial enough they're a meal so I can lump my dinner budget in with the movie budget.
The first I heard about this movie being out was via a fencing and military history Youtuber responding to Ridley Scott's tantrum. Beyond the general eye rolling at Scott's whinging, he specifically pointed out that sword and martial arts nerds, many of whom are millennials, would have been interested in the film because of the subject matter had Scott not alienated them by deciding that historically accurate costuming and props weren't good enough and decided to try and make things cooler by using armor designs like whatever the hell this is:
He then further annoyed said community by shooting the film via that blue tinged filter that Hollywood and TV studios decided was what medieval settings looked like because heaven forbid there's any actual color in such depictions despite the military aristocracy loving vivid hues on their clothing and armor. So congratulations on turning off the core audience of the movie by trying to make it more in line with mainstream entertainment and then proceeding to wonder why no one cares about the movie?
What's funny to me about his comment is, millennials are generally counted as being born between 1982 & 1997. We didn't grow up on smartphones really, we grew up with the internet. Gen Z are the ones who grew up on smartphones.
People keep using 'millenial' for kids these days, but millennials are mid-20's to late 30's now.
The people using the term like that would be forced to confront their aging and mortality if they mentally digested the fact that there's a younger generation than millennials that's now old enough to start having kids of their own.
Moving on, I know that some knight helmets did have odd shapes or openings, but I don't remember seeing anything remotely as stupid-looking as that helmet that was posted earlier.
+4
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
edited December 2021
It definitely feels like a Hollywood 'why are we paying for this expensive star if the audience can't see them?' kind of thing. Like all the close-up 'inside the suit' facial shots we get of Iron Man. Also, I think some actors feel like it hurts their ability to build their brand if the audience can't see them. Didn't Pedro Pascal have a row with the producers of the Mandalorian at one point during the second season because he wanted more unmasked scenes?
My guess is that he has that helmet because Scott, Damon, or the both of them want the audience to see his face emoting during the climactic scene. I mean, I'd have just had him lift his visor to speak more clearly to his foe in a show of bravado, but what do I know about film-making?
It definitely feels like a Hollywood 'why are we paying for this expensive star if the audience can't see them?' kind of thing. Like all the close-up 'inside the suit' facial shots we get of Iron Man. Also, I think some actors feel like it hurts their ability to build their brand if the audience can't see them. Didn't Pedro Pascal have a row with the producers of the Mandalorian at one point during the second season because he wanted more unmasked scenes?
My guess is that he has that helmet because Scott, Damon, or the both of them want the audience to see his face emoting during the climactic scene. I mean, I'd have just had him lift his visor to speak more clearly to his foe in a show of bravado, but what do I know about film-making?
The youtuber that ripped on the movie's costuming has actually been doing some videos on open faced helmet designs and discussed why some chose to still used open faced helms even after the advent of various closed face designs and being able to afford the more protective helmets. They could have still been pretty historically accurate using period appropriate open faced helmets even if it wasn't an exact reenactment of the particular duel in question (which no one reasonably expects the film to be). But no, had to use the half-assed half-exposed invention instead.
@Bropocalypse I don't think you can get drunk on planes anymore. I believe they did away with that shortly after the country song I'm getting drunk on a plane came out incidentally.
I’m still confused why they paid vin diesel to be Groot
They needed an actor that has strong technical skills as an actor (he was given actual lines and had to reflect the meaning without actually saying them), but who didn't trade on those technical skills (by choice Diesel makes a lot of schlocky dudebro stuff).
I’m still confused why they paid vin diesel to be Groot
They needed an actor that has strong technical skills as an actor (he was given actual lines and had to reflect the meaning without actually saying them), but who didn't trade on those technical skills (by choice Diesel makes a lot of schlocky dudebro stuff).
He's also a huge nerd (literally and figuratively) so he's someone that would be on board with the role for reasons besides money.
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
I'm thinking the question is often not "Why did they pick X", but rather "Why didn't they pick lesser/unknown actor with similar skills"?
Like Mr Diesel did a great job, but maybe they could have gotten an equally great performance out of someone they could pay a lot less and help their career.
Of course the answer is Money - it always is - but it'd be nice to see them take chances once and awhile.
I'm thinking the question is often not "Why did they pick X", but rather "Why didn't they pick lesser/unknown actor with similar skills"?
Like Mr Diesel did a great job, but maybe they could have gotten an equally great performance out of someone they could pay a lot less and help their career.
Of course the answer is Money - it always is - but it'd be nice to see them take chances once and awhile.
I don't think there was that much more of a performance you could get out of "the guy who says 'groot' with slightly different tones." And I think advertising having Vin Diesel in your money was probably some sort of draw, definitely more than "unknown actor". Plus maybe you want to use Vin Diesel in a future Marvel movie and you've built some affection with him towards the whole thing. And maybe he doesn't even ask for that much money because he's a big comics nerd and he is interested in making those connections to be in another Marvel movie, too.
I feel like this was probably a really easy sales pitch.
My favorite Vin Diesel fact is that during the downtime during the shooting of Riddick he once played Dungeons and Dragons with Judi Dench.
What a coincidence; that's my favorite Judi Dench fact.
I honestly can't make up my mind whether it's better that he was able to convince Dame Judi Dench, who was already old when I was in highschool, to play D&D, or that she was like "yeah okay".
I think she might have the edge cause she was already doing a Riddick movie.
My favorite Vin Diesel fact is that during the downtime during the shooting of Riddick he once played Dungeons and Dragons with Judi Dench.
What a coincidence; that's my favorite Judi Dench fact.
I honestly can't make up my mind whether it's better that he was able to convince Dame Judi Dench, who was already old when I was in highschool, to play D&D, or that she was like "yeah okay".
I think she might have the edge cause she was already doing a Riddick movie.
Hard to say, but for a lot of us it's the performing aspect that's intimidating about playing D&D. I can't imagine anything less intimidating for her. (It's not like he asked her to play Fortnite.) So I can see Diesel saying, "It's just a group storytelling thing where we each perform as our characters and I guide the story and every once in a while we roll some dice to decide if things go one way or the other way."
Posts
And as I just learned, they were called the "Silent Generation" because the youth of that generation weren't out causing any hubbub, unlike the generations around it. They just kept their heads down. It was around the time of the Red Scare the McCarthyism, so that made sense.
As far as impact on national discourse, I think you're maybe over-emphasizing the presidency. There've been quite a lot of senators, representatives, governors, etc. that have had a lot of effect on policy. I'm sure the Silents had plenty in those categories. Plus there's countries other than the US, after all. Not that they called their generations the same, but they did have people born in those years.
How many Views did they get?
They did get noticeably better at some point, but I think that was at least a decade ago?
I suppose I was being a little unfair. It has improved, but I don't think most people feel like it has justified how expensive a night at the movies has become.
Back in the 90s, there was no denying that movies needed to be experienced in the theater. At home we had to deal with blurry VHS quality, and the picture was cropped and/or zoomed to fit the 4:3 aspect ratio of our shitty 32" tube TVs.
Now that we don't have to compromise nearly as much when we watch at home, it doesn't surprise me that people aren't as motivated to go to the theater.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It takes a lot to convince me to watch movies away from home. The average mall movie theater chain is just not cutting it anymore
FDR arguably wasn't even the lost generation (early 1880's to 1900), he was born in 1882. The first president of the greatest generation (1900's to late 1920's) was Kennedy.
Here's a handy chart that matches most other things I've seen about it (spoiled for image size):
In fact I'm on Wikipedia already making sure I spelled Schrödinger correctly...it would be so easy to check, like opening a box. I'm just not going to do it. The waveform is intact.
I think you're thinking of Alamo Draft House, which is a Texas based chain. Their wings and quesadillas are pretty solid, and the chairs are comfortable. Not quite restaurant quality, but good enough that if there's a movie I want to see on the big screen anyways they're on the top of my list (along with Studio Movie Grill, for the same reason).
The old days of getting a giant popcorn and overpriced soda are over. Movie tickets have gotten so expensive that going to theaters is a "thing" instead of an impulse, and that cuts into the concessions budget. And concessions have also gotten so expensive that it's just not worth it even if I wanted to wash a bucket of fat soaked carbs down with a giant waxed paper container of HFCS. Something has to change, and "dinner theater" options are one change that seems to be working - make the concessions substantial enough they're a meal so I can lump my dinner budget in with the movie budget.
He then further annoyed said community by shooting the film via that blue tinged filter that Hollywood and TV studios decided was what medieval settings looked like because heaven forbid there's any actual color in such depictions despite the military aristocracy loving vivid hues on their clothing and armor. So congratulations on turning off the core audience of the movie by trying to make it more in line with mainstream entertainment and then proceeding to wonder why no one cares about the movie?
The people using the term like that would be forced to confront their aging and mortality if they mentally digested the fact that there's a younger generation than millennials that's now old enough to start having kids of their own.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
I've heard tale of some dueling society that had strategic gaps in it's armor so its members got distinctive scars. It sounds apocryphal though.
This guys descendants would go on to die of covid after refusing vaccination.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Nope, that was very much a thing in late 19th-early 20th century Germany
"You want me to wear a FULL helmet? How will I breathe?"
Well probably not as many as before...
pleasepaypreacher.net
Demons? It's demons, isn't it?
It does.
Moving on, I know that some knight helmets did have odd shapes or openings, but I don't remember seeing anything remotely as stupid-looking as that helmet that was posted earlier.
My guess is that he has that helmet because Scott, Damon, or the both of them want the audience to see his face emoting during the climactic scene. I mean, I'd have just had him lift his visor to speak more clearly to his foe in a show of bravado, but what do I know about film-making?
The youtuber that ripped on the movie's costuming has actually been doing some videos on open faced helmet designs and discussed why some chose to still used open faced helms even after the advent of various closed face designs and being able to afford the more protective helmets. They could have still been pretty historically accurate using period appropriate open faced helmets even if it wasn't an exact reenactment of the particular duel in question (which no one reasonably expects the film to be). But no, had to use the half-assed half-exposed invention instead.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
They needed an actor that has strong technical skills as an actor (he was given actual lines and had to reflect the meaning without actually saying them), but who didn't trade on those technical skills (by choice Diesel makes a lot of schlocky dudebro stuff).
He's also a huge nerd (literally and figuratively) so he's someone that would be on board with the role for reasons besides money.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Like Mr Diesel did a great job, but maybe they could have gotten an equally great performance out of someone they could pay a lot less and help their career.
Of course the answer is Money - it always is - but it'd be nice to see them take chances once and awhile.
I don't think there was that much more of a performance you could get out of "the guy who says 'groot' with slightly different tones." And I think advertising having Vin Diesel in your money was probably some sort of draw, definitely more than "unknown actor". Plus maybe you want to use Vin Diesel in a future Marvel movie and you've built some affection with him towards the whole thing. And maybe he doesn't even ask for that much money because he's a big comics nerd and he is interested in making those connections to be in another Marvel movie, too.
I feel like this was probably a really easy sales pitch.
What a coincidence; that's my favorite Judi Dench fact.
I honestly can't make up my mind whether it's better that he was able to convince Dame Judi Dench, who was already old when I was in highschool, to play D&D, or that she was like "yeah okay".
I think she might have the edge cause she was already doing a Riddick movie.
Hard to say, but for a lot of us it's the performing aspect that's intimidating about playing D&D. I can't imagine anything less intimidating for her. (It's not like he asked her to play Fortnite.) So I can see Diesel saying, "It's just a group storytelling thing where we each perform as our characters and I guide the story and every once in a while we roll some dice to decide if things go one way or the other way."
High.