As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

When movie’s on a bagel you can have [movies] anytime

1101113151621

Posts

  • ChicoBlueChicoBlue Registered User regular
    Watched The Batman!

    Now, I wouldn't say I disliked it, but at one point I paused it to do something and was very startled and confused to see that there was still another hour and a half left to go.

    The Batmobile did sound cool.

    durandal4532DarkPrimusHacksawMidnitetynicHybrid
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    The new Dr. Strange movie wasn't very good, despite having some neat moments.

    It was not as interested in exploring the concept of multiple parallel universes as Everything Everywhere All At Once.

    And at one point characters randomly walk onto a machine that projects your memories to you in order to have some background exposition and it's like when a TV in a shop window is playing the Topical News only much more extreme.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
    Aphostile
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    I believe you that Everything Everywhere was better, but the idea that "exploring the concept of multiverse" plays into that qualitative difference is something I'd balk at even not having seen Dr. Strange

    EDIT: But then I would also say Everything Everywhere is actually not too concerned with the concept of multiple universes either

    Maddoc on
    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    tynicAbsurdProposition
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    Maddoc wrote: »
    I believe you that Everything Everywhere was better, but the idea that "exploring the concept of multiverse" plays into that qualitative difference is something I'd balk at even not having seen Dr. Strange

    They have similar high-concept premises, one uses that premise to drive the actions and growth of the main characters and also has some fun with it and one visits two different CGI locations.

    Like without getting super into spoilers for either, 'Everything...' is about the fact that jeez infinite realities exist that's pretty existentially terrifying

    Multiverse of Madness is about... I guess trying not to be a control freak? Sort of. It's not well presented. But the multiple realities thing didn't need to be there, it could have just been globetrotting and few elements of the characterization or actions would need to change.

    Edit: I would super disagree that Everything Everywhere is unconcerned with its premise! I would say it uses it to great effect, even if it isn't literally just about exploring the sci-fi concept.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    That's not what Everything Everywhere is about

    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    Sweeney TomMidniteDarkPrimusKetarJohnny ChopsockyshoeboxjeddyCentipede Damascus3cl1ps3Grey GhostHacksawPoorochondriacMysstminor incidentMegaMan001Narbus
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    I'd say that in Everything Everywhere the concept of multiple realities is the kick-off to a lot of the actions people take, both literally as part of the premise and metaphorically with characters ruminating on paths not taken and coming up against the idea that they feel trapped in the worst version of themselves. And ultimately in them finding meaning and significance where they are rather than trying to measure all actions against an infinite expanse of potential actions.

    And then throughout the film the idea of many realities sets up some good goofs as well. Heck even just the "you need to do something weird" thing is a great setup for jokes, and also a great connection to the idea of breaking out of a rut by refusing to do what's expected of you.

    In Dr. Strange the infinite expanse of realities exists primarily as two sets in a warehouse studio, alongside some cameos. It just seemed like as a premise it wasn't particularly interesting to anyone making the film.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    Spoilers for Dr. Strange: MoM and Everything Everywhere
    I think both movies used the Multiverse as a way to explore the main characters' feelings about the choices they made in life. Strange was feeling doubts about the way he handled the Thanos crisis, and also his relationship with Christine. Evelyn was feeling doubts about literally all of her life choices leading up to doing laundry and taxes forever.

    Strange learns to make peace with his choices, seeing the horrible things that happen to him in realities where he makes different choices, as well as learning to let go of his regrets regarding Christine. Evelyn learns that there's no such thing as a life where everything is better than the life she has, that all her possible choices were both good and bad, which allows her to make peace with the choices she did make.

    Johnny ChopsockyshoeboxjeddyDoodmann
  • PoorochondriacPoorochondriac Ah, man Ah, jeezRegistered User regular
    Almost no movies are about the plot

    There are some puzzlebox movies that are exceptions, and they all suck

    MidniteFencingsaxMysstminor incidentDoodmannOlivawNarbussarukun
  • Sweeney TomSweeney Tom Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    DJ Eebs wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    So I had a weird experience at my showing of Doctor Strange. Trailers are rolling, dude in front of me, probably late 20's ish?

    Super super stoked for Avatar.
    Super stoked for Thor.
    Jurassic World trailer plays all the way through. Dude is losing his shit.

    Gets to the end of the trailer, which they show only the classic T-Rex skeleton logo and no title, and he no shit turns to his buddy and says:
    "Dude, what movie is that?!"
    Friend chuckles, then double takes. "Wait, seriously?"
    "Yeah, that looked freaking awesome."
    "Uh...Jurassic World?"
    "Oh man, that looks dope as hell. Do you think they'll make a series out of it?"

    The friend was just dumbfounded.

    After Doctor Strange, I was behind them leaving the theater and the dude was making is friend google Jurassic Park.

    you know, it's wild that he doesn't know what Jurassic Park is but I really do envy that guy getting to watch Jurassic Park for the first time

    Oh, sure it, could be fun. But what if he doesn't like it?

    What if you find the absolute unicorn who has no awareness of Jurassic Park, and they hate it?

    That shit would rattle me to my core, I'm being entirely serious here

    Then we have truly become a planet of apes.

    sarukunironsizide
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    DJ Eebs wrote: »
    Mvrck wrote: »
    So I had a weird experience at my showing of Doctor Strange. Trailers are rolling, dude in front of me, probably late 20's ish?

    Super super stoked for Avatar.
    Super stoked for Thor.
    Jurassic World trailer plays all the way through. Dude is losing his shit.

    Gets to the end of the trailer, which they show only the classic T-Rex skeleton logo and no title, and he no shit turns to his buddy and says:
    "Dude, what movie is that?!"
    Friend chuckles, then double takes. "Wait, seriously?"
    "Yeah, that looked freaking awesome."
    "Uh...Jurassic World?"
    "Oh man, that looks dope as hell. Do you think they'll make a series out of it?"

    The friend was just dumbfounded.

    After Doctor Strange, I was behind them leaving the theater and the dude was making is friend google Jurassic Park.

    you know, it's wild that he doesn't know what Jurassic Park is but I really do envy that guy getting to watch Jurassic Park for the first time

    Oh, sure it, could be fun. But what if he doesn't like it?

    What if you find the absolute unicorn who has no awareness of Jurassic Park, and they hate it?

    That shit would rattle me to my core, I'm being entirely serious here

    Then we have truly become a planet of apes.


    Isn't that a bit from Shang-Chi?

    Twitch Channel
    Steam: munkus_beaver
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    http://www.ccfa.org/
    Ringo
  • 3cl1ps33cl1ps3 I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    Yes.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Spoilers for Dr. Strange: MoM and Everything Everywhere
    I think both movies used the Multiverse as a way to explore the main characters' feelings about the choices they made in life. Strange was feeling doubts about the way he handled the Thanos crisis, and also his relationship with Christine. Evelyn was feeling doubts about literally all of her life choices leading up to doing laundry and taxes forever.

    Strange learns to make peace with his choices, seeing the horrible things that happen to him in realities where he makes different choices, as well as learning to let go of his regrets regarding Christine. Evelyn learns that there's no such thing as a life where everything is better than the life she has, that all her possible choices were both good and bad, which allows her to make peace with the choices she did make.

    Hmm, these are good points. I think these elements still fell pretty flat for me though.
    I didn't remember Christine from the first film, and as far as the film presented her I understand she was a person he wanted to be with because that was text but I didn't find the relationship super compelling.

    Oh cripes I'm just now realizing the watch was crushed in the hand-crush car accident probably, which does add a bit to that whole undercurrent. Still though, it felt like the explanation was as pat as her practiced line. We can't be together because you're a bit of a control freak. Not because you've basically left human concerns behind. You don't even tie your dang tie.

    And I think what got me is that the other realities he makes the same wrong choice both times, he uses the bad book that Wanda used and it goes poorly. I was hoping for a slightly more varied exploration of the character than just same, but a bit more willing to do a dangerous and cruel thing. They both seemed to be living essentially the exact same life as him, then used the Darkhold.

    I'd have been interested in like a non-Sorcerer Strange. Or a Strange that simply didn't solve for Thanos, out of some sort of principled opposition or simple failure. If we're exploring his regretfulness, why not see an alternate that's legitimately different? Did Dr. Paint also use the danged Darkhold?

    By the end of MoM it appears Strange has sorta stopped being as controlling but also did the exact same thing as his alternates he hasn't seemed to learn a lot.

    I mean also ultimately it also comes down much more to just not enjoying the film as much, so it isn't like it's entirely structural. I just think that I can easily imagine a version of this where you chop out the interdimensional travel.

    I mean these two films don't line up a ton beyond being action-adventures with a similar high concept but they're the last two I saw so the comparison presented itself.

    And I didn't intend to say that Everything Everywhere was solely about the surface plot, I meant that the themes worked with the sci-fi concept more effectively.

    Like I've seen a surprising number of movies about space travel that are actually about how dads are mean sometimes, and some work in the fact that they take place in space better than others.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • JuggernutJuggernut Registered User regular
    The Apes are real and they are my friends

    durandal4532Odinironsizide
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Squid...or Kid? NNID - majpellRegistered User regular
    Zonugal wrote: »
    Movie thread, I have to confess a deep shame. I have never seen Masters of the Universe.

    Tonight I am rectifying that.

    Holy shit, Jesus Christ, this is my jam.

    You could not design a more guided film just for me.

    It's the best Jack Kirbys Fourth World movie that will ever be made.

    tOkYVT2.jpg
    durandal4532
  • MegaMan001MegaMan001 CRNA Rochester, MNRegistered User regular
    Everything Everywhere All At Once Theme
    The entire multiverse is just the setting for the entire movie.

    The Daughter explores every multiverse and decided that nothing actually matters because everything, everywhere, as literally happened all at once. So why would, any single choice, have any meaning when it's happened infinite other times in infinite other realities?

    The Mother explores each multiverse and discovers every choice has untold meaning to the individuals surrounding it. Choices which at the time have seem meaningless have inexplicably significant impacts in the lives of those nearby nearby.

    That's what I took away from it anyway.

    I am in the business of saving lives.
    Centipede DamascusMaddoc
  • JokermanJokerman Everything EverywhereRegistered User regular
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    Everything Everywhere All At Once Theme
    The entire multiverse is just the setting for the entire movie.

    The Daughter explores every multiverse and decided that nothing actually matters because everything, everywhere, as literally happened all at once. So why would, any single choice, have any meaning when it's happened infinite other times in infinite other realities?

    The Mother explores each multiverse and discovers every choice has untold meaning to the individuals surrounding it. Choices which at the time have seem meaningless have inexplicably significant impacts in the lives of those nearby nearby.

    That's what I took away from it anyway.
    My takeaway is that Evelyn's heroes journey throughout the multiverse makes her rethink her relationship with her husband. In spite of being able to tap into the powers of an infinite combination of herself, she is not able to save Joy from the void of the Everything Bagel until she accepts Waymonds's belief that only through Kindness can we save the world. Only through optimism and striving to make the world better does Evelyn save Joy from destroying herself and all of existence. It's also Waymond's intervention that helps fix the Audit, by appealing to the humanity of the auditor, he's able to get another chance, even after everything that happened.

    All at once.
    MysstshoeboxjeddyMegaMan001Narbus
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    Everything Everywhere All At Once Theme
    The entire multiverse is just the setting for the entire movie.

    The Daughter explores every multiverse and decided that nothing actually matters because everything, everywhere, as literally happened all at once. So why would, any single choice, have any meaning when it's happened infinite other times in infinite other realities?

    The Mother explores each multiverse and discovers every choice has untold meaning to the individuals surrounding it. Choices which at the time have seem meaningless have inexplicably significant impacts in the lives of those nearby nearby.

    That's what I took away from it anyway.
    Yeah this is basically it, the multiverse sci fi stuff is just set dressing

    Joy correctly derives that, from a cosmic standpoint, none of our choices matter and everything is existentially meaningless.

    And Evelyn discovers that while that is also true, our lives have meaning because we give them meaning.

    The multiverse is just a way to illustrate the choices we make, and the feelings of regret over what might have been, and coming to terms with making the best of the life you're living now and appreciating the people who are in your life now. The sci fi concept ultimately doesn't actually figure into it beyond fun action sequences and gags.

    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    Commander ZoomMegaMan001Centipede Damascus
  • cursedkingcursedking Registered User regular
    Just saw Dr. Strange, it was great.

    In comparison I think EEAAO is a better movie. I mean that movie was immediately one of my favorite movies of all time, so that’s not saying much.

    I loved how gnarly it was and it was certainly one of the better marvel movies to actually be about something and bring a character through an arc.

    Types: Boom + Robo | Food: Sweet | Habitat: Plains
    Deadfall
  • AistanAistan Tiny Bat Registered User regular
    Just saw Dr. Strange, it was a very well made Sam Raimi movie that I personally turned on halfway through and found to be ultimately entirely unpleasant thematically. With some additional meta analysis annoyance at said halfway point being the reason for turning on it.
    The movie is entirely a character assassination of Wanda, with a dash of "people know and like these characters and will be excited to see them!" thrown in for the purpose of "let's kill them in gruesome ways!" to make it blatant and irritating.

    It was a Sam Raimi-ass movie, and I don't enjoy those. And now I don't really care about Dr. Strange anymore either. Cool he's evil now, ok. Fun.

    Basically Infinity War's miserableness again.

    tldr i'm a grump about mr. strange's metaverse of madness.

    Aphostile
  • cursedkingcursedking Registered User regular
    edited May 15
    what?
    Wanda was already like that in the show, this movie did not change that. She was reading the darkhold in the show, she was kidnapping and enslaving people in the show.

    Also, he's specifically not evil, that was the whole point of the movie! He was the only Strange who let go of the control he thought he needed and also the only one to show ultimate compassion to everyone in the movie.

    The stinger at the end is not that he is evil. It's that he was, in some way, effected by the darkhold. He'll have to deal with that but he's not evil - the corrupted people had black fingertips from all of the stuff they did. He used the book one time. He'll be fine.

    edit: i mean I will say, if you don't like sam raimi movies I don't really know what else you were expecting. That seems kind of like a dead pigeon do not open situation

    cursedking on
    Types: Boom + Robo | Food: Sweet | Habitat: Plains
    A Dabble Of Thelonius
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    I was actually really into the Sam Raimi-ness bits, it felt different from the smoothed edges I expect from MCU stuff. But I didn't like the
    Introducing neat alt-universe people to murder. I mean I guess hard to have one without the other but like I don't know I just don't find that sort of conflict interesting when it happens in comics and I didn't like it here. It makes the superhero fights seem either silly because oh wait of course all superhero fights should resolve in 60 seconds with dozens of murders or they feel silly because wait a second why would they stand there in front of this magical evil person and describe their powers at her and then in one case literally kill themselves before she can? They fought Thanos, they should know how to not stand in the path of zappy bolts. It gives me whiplash.

    I did like the spiking the camera/POV shots and evil cackling specters though.

    Although also this is the first time an MCU movie really made me feel unmoored with a character, since I didn't watch Wandavision. It's definitely the sort of thing where like it's just a magnetic pole of her characterization that she goes mad with power but also I was like whooooa the memes that came out of Wandavision did not prepare me to expect her to be a demon-summoning mass-murderer! I thought it was going to be like Dr. Strange fleeing from a number of people who want this power and she's one of them, not that she would be the primary antagonist.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
    Doodmann
  • AistanAistan Tiny Bat Registered User regular
    cursedking wrote: »
    what?
    Wanda was already like that in the show, this movie did not change that. She was reading the darkhold in the show, she was kidnapping and enslaving people in the show.

    Also, he's specifically not evil, that was the whole point of the movie! He was the only Strange who let go of the control he thought he needed and also the only one to show ultimate compassion to everyone in the movie.

    The stinger at the end is not that he is evil. It's that he was, in some way, effected by the darkhold. He'll have to deal with that but he's not evil - the corrupted people had black fingertips from all of the stuff they did. He used the book one time. He'll be fine.

    edit: i mean I will say, if you don't like sam raimi movies I don't really know what else you were expecting. That seems kind of like a dead pigeon do not open situation

    Hey maybe I didn't know it was a sam raimi movie

    She went from
    Horrified about what she did and apologizing and running away,

    to summoning demons to murder across the multiverse then personally murder 100 magic students then murder a bunch of oth... she kills a shitload of people. Yeah they say it's the darkhold but they don't differentiate it from her at all, not even when Xavier goes into her mind which is what I thought would happen. So she turned evil because of the darkhold.

    And now Strange had the darkhold and is affected by it and now he's evil too because that's what the darkhold does. Instant third eye "this is what it did to the baddie in the collided universe primary signifier of this person is evil he stabs a giant eyeball at the start which is evil the eye means evil he's evil now" symbolism. No one got redeemed from that. They died.

    Aphostile
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    I don't even like Rami's Spider-man trilogy and I loved Multiverse of Madness.

    Twitch Channel
    Steam: munkus_beaver
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    http://www.ccfa.org/
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Aistan wrote: »
    cursedking wrote: »
    what?
    Wanda was already like that in the show, this movie did not change that. She was reading the darkhold in the show, she was kidnapping and enslaving people in the show.

    Also, he's specifically not evil, that was the whole point of the movie! He was the only Strange who let go of the control he thought he needed and also the only one to show ultimate compassion to everyone in the movie.

    The stinger at the end is not that he is evil. It's that he was, in some way, effected by the darkhold. He'll have to deal with that but he's not evil - the corrupted people had black fingertips from all of the stuff they did. He used the book one time. He'll be fine.

    edit: i mean I will say, if you don't like sam raimi movies I don't really know what else you were expecting. That seems kind of like a dead pigeon do not open situation

    Hey maybe I didn't know it was a sam raimi movie

    She went from
    Horrified about what she did and apologizing and running away,

    to summoning demons to murder across the multiverse then personally murder 100 magic students then murder a bunch of oth... she kills a shitload of people. Yeah they say it's the darkhold but they don't differentiate it from her at all, not even when Xavier goes into her mind which is what I thought would happen. So she turned evil because of the darkhold.

    And now Strange had the darkhold and is affected by it and now he's evil too because that's what the darkhold does. Instant third eye "this is what it did to the baddie in the collided universe primary signifier of this person is evil he stabs a giant eyeball at the start which is evil the eye means evil he's evil now" symbolism. No one got redeemed from that. They died.

    The movie goes into it a lil bit.
    Wanda gives the rationalizations. "There are infinite universes, what are a few lives" because that's what the Darkhold was telling her. And she was able to distance herself from people by telling herself that lie over and over.

    It wasn't until America made her confront her with the direct suffering she was causing to the one cadre of people she actually cared about, her potential children, that Wanda realized "Oh shit, I'm ruining lives here."

    She went from Nihilism to Absurdism through the movie.

    Twitch Channel
    Steam: munkus_beaver
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    http://www.ccfa.org/
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    i feel like not knowing the director of a movie before you see it is a matter of personal responsibility

    7656367.jpg
    Commander ZoomCristovalZonugalSweeney Tomminor incident3cl1ps3StraightzicursedkingshoeboxjeddyMagellMidniteDarkPrimusOlivawAndy Joe
  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    Sam Raimi taking over directing was also a pretty big story, and also lots of people have been talking about how it's certifiably a Sam Raimi movie, which actually has me kind of wanting to see it but I refuse to see a Disney movie in a theater.

    97H9G7S.png PSN - Masked Unit | FFXIV - Laitarne Gilgamesh
    MidniteMysstOlivaw
  • KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    i feel like not knowing the director of a movie before you see it is a matter of personal responsibility

    This is a weird and elitist take.

    I'm a huge fan of the MCU, watch the trailers and what not, and I don't really remember them mentioning Raimi much.

    I wouldn't blame the average viewer not realizing it was directed by Raimi.

    And even if they were, I wouldn't expect most people to know Raimi movies apart from Spider-man.

    PeewiRingo
  • Dex DynamoDex Dynamo Registered User regular
    Kyougu wrote: »
    i feel like not knowing the director of a movie before you see it is a matter of personal responsibility

    This is a weird and elitist take.

    I'm a huge fan of the MCU, watch the trailers and what not, and I don't really remember them mentioning Raimi much.

    I wouldn't blame the average viewer not realizing it was directed by Raimi.

    And even if they were, I wouldn't expect most people to know Raimi movies apart from Spider-man.

    Directors are important to movies, and the only reason the directors of Marvel movies (and similar-scale blockbusters) are obscured is due to a conscious effort by a multibillion dollar corporation to ensure that they, not the person steering the actual ship, holds all of the power in the audience's eye

    I think saying "hey you should know how steered the ship" is a pretty reasonable stance!

  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Dex Dynamo wrote: »
    Kyougu wrote: »
    i feel like not knowing the director of a movie before you see it is a matter of personal responsibility

    This is a weird and elitist take.

    I'm a huge fan of the MCU, watch the trailers and what not, and I don't really remember them mentioning Raimi much.

    I wouldn't blame the average viewer not realizing it was directed by Raimi.

    And even if they were, I wouldn't expect most people to know Raimi movies apart from Spider-man.

    Directors are important to movies, and the only reason the directors of Marvel movies (and similar-scale blockbusters) are obscured is due to a conscious effort by a multibillion dollar corporation to ensure that they, not the person steering the actual ship, holds all of the power in the audience's eye

    I think saying "hey you should know how steered the ship" is a pretty reasonable stance!

    The heck? There are a lot of reasons to criticize the MCU, but they absolutely advertise the directors.

    Twitch Channel
    Steam: munkus_beaver
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    http://www.ccfa.org/
    PreacherAndy Joe
  • Dex DynamoDex Dynamo Registered User regular
    Dex Dynamo wrote: »
    Kyougu wrote: »
    i feel like not knowing the director of a movie before you see it is a matter of personal responsibility

    This is a weird and elitist take.

    I'm a huge fan of the MCU, watch the trailers and what not, and I don't really remember them mentioning Raimi much.

    I wouldn't blame the average viewer not realizing it was directed by Raimi.

    And even if they were, I wouldn't expect most people to know Raimi movies apart from Spider-man.

    Directors are important to movies, and the only reason the directors of Marvel movies (and similar-scale blockbusters) are obscured is due to a conscious effort by a multibillion dollar corporation to ensure that they, not the person steering the actual ship, holds all of the power in the audience's eye

    I think saying "hey you should know how steered the ship" is a pretty reasonable stance!

    The heck? There are a lot of reasons to criticize the MCU, but they absolutely advertise the directors.

    Well alright then, even more reason to know the director!!!!!!

    The Lovely BastardMagellSweeney TomMidniteAndy Joe
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    In this particular instance, they pretty heavily advertised that it was Sam Raimi directing the movie.

    Twitch Channel
    Steam: munkus_beaver
    Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but it dies in the process.
    http://www.ccfa.org/
    PreacherAndy Joe
  • 3cl1ps33cl1ps3 I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    Not knowing the director behind a given film is roughly akin to not knowing the band behind a given album.

    Can it happen? Yes. Is it completely your fault for not knowing? Also yes!

    The Lovely BastardZonugalminor incidentDex DynamoshoeboxjeddyReynoldsMagellSweeney TomsarukunMidniteMysstDarkPrimusAndy Joe
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    edited May 15
    the way art has been systematically commodified to this point really is troublesome to me; the idea that anyone, as a viewer, would feel it is elitist to know that human beings created your art is wild


    The Lovely Bastard on
    7656367.jpg
    Zonugalminor incidentDex Dynamo3cl1ps3shoeboxjeddyMagellSweeney TomsarukunMidnitecursedkingGarlic BreadMysstDarkPrimusAndy Joe
  • minor incidentminor incident discount etsy agitprop Registered User regular
    I mean, I'm not gonna say anyone's a bad person because they went into a movie blind. I know plenty of people that don't want to know anything at all about how the sausage is made because they just don't care that much. But it is surprising to me that someone who cares enough about movies to post about them on an internet message board wouldn't know who directed the thing they're about to go spend $15 to $50 to go see.

    Steam: minor incident || PSN: inter-punct
    I hope the painful memories only flex their power over you a little of the time
  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    Like I don’t really follow Marvel movie productions, but I only heard about Sam Rami being involved in the past couple of months.

  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    edited May 15
    Hmmm. I don't agree that not knowing a film's director is anything like not knowing the band that made an album? I don't think I know who directed most films I've ever seen, in fact. I don't go to see movies because I want to follow a particular director's work, I see movies because the story or sometimes the visuals seem appealing to me, vs. music where I often follow a specific band or artist's work because I liked other works they made.

    Directors often get much lower billing than the lead actors as well, and share credit massively with the entire cast and crew, vs. music where the credits are the artists and maybe a short list of sound technicians and producers so it's easier to notice specific people involved.

    BahamutZERO on
    BahamutZERO.gif
    RanlinMunkus BeaverPeewiRingoInquisitorBanzai5150Kyougu
  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    Which isn't to say I am completely unaware of directors or that I don't care about their other works in my decisionmaking process, I know who Spielberg, Lucas, Kurosawa, Brooks are, it's just generally way less important to me than music artists are to music selection so it feels like a bad comparison.

    BahamutZERO.gif
    Munkus Beaver
  • 3cl1ps33cl1ps3 I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    Studios have spent the last several decades purposefully de-emphasizing directors and production staff while hyping up (highly marketable, broadly interchangeable) lead actors. They've been very successful at altering the public consciousness in this way! It's why you rattled off a bunch of directors from the 70's and 80's whose work you know, because that's from the period when the director attached was a big deal.

    You still see sooome degree of this, like Jordan Peele's films, but by and large studios have managed to pretty much make the director, the single most influential member of a film's creative team, a footnote behind the Brand and whatever highly marketable interchangeable lead actor they've shoved in there.

    Dex DynamoMidnite
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    Hmmm. I don't agree that not knowing a film's director is anything like not knowing the band that made an album? I don't think I know who directed most films I've ever seen, in fact. I don't go to see movies because I want to follow a particular director's work, I see movies because the story or sometimes the visuals seem appealing to me, vs. music where I often follow a specific band or artist's work because I liked other works they made.

    Directors often get much lower billing than the lead actors as well, and share credit massively with the entire cast and crew, vs. music where the credits are the artists and maybe a short list of sound technicians and producers so it's easier to notice specific people involved.

    well i mean i have a hell of a different relationship with movies here, but this feels more like a personal thing than a fundamental rule? why wouldn't you look into who made a movie you liked and see what else they made the same way you would musicians? what is the difference here? a bad movie and a bad album could tank your opinion on either, the same with one bizarre outlier, so why is one chance more copacetic than the other?

    even when you factor in production differences, the general vibe and tones that both filmmakers and musicians make will stay true. and, like, i have heard a million songs on the radio i didn't know the name or band behind and looked up, so why is curiosity barred one way?

    in the end, i am not going to say not knowing who made the thing you like makes you a bad person, but with how readily available that information is with very little effort? not knowing is on you no matter the medium.

    7656367.jpg
    minor incident3cl1ps3shoeboxjeddyDex DynamoMaddocSweeney TomZonugalrhylithPreacherKetar
  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    Raimi I specifically remember because people started identifying the 00's spider man trilogy as the Raimi ones after they started making other continuities of spider men films, before that and at the time I did not retain any information about who directed those.

    BahamutZERO.gif
    Peewi
Sign In or Register to comment.