Unpopular opinion I'm sure but I feel like the MCU films are like the biggest of big "event" style comics and, love them or hate them, those are always about huge cross-overs between the characters in-universe. I therefore prefer an extremely connected MCU with films that build upon one another.
Unpopular opinion I'm sure but I feel like the MCU films are like the biggest of big "event" style comics and, love them or hate them, those are always about huge cross-overs between the characters in-universe. I therefore prefer an extremely connected MCU with films that build upon one another.
I mean, sure, they are
And if there were thirteen forty three minute episodes a year about a given hero, then I'd probably support and agree with this
Yeah if you were reading comic books and literally the only thing they did was huge event arcs that would get old real fast
It really really killed my interest in DC and Marvel comics back in the day, like 2006-10, it was very difficult to read comics. It was cool, occasionally, with all of the huge reality changing stuff happening, if you just picked up an event or two, but if we were trying to follow a title long term, it was exhausting.
Marvel based their main movie reality or whatever in large part on that era though, as most of us are aware, so it was Thanos meme inevitable
+6
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
The thing about Black Adam is most people don’t know who the fuck Black Adam is.
I watched Black Adam because my parents were in town during late October and it was the only thing showing that wasn't a horror movie. I didn't even know the dude was a Shazam, I vaguely assumed he was just another Jack Kirby weirdo from space!
I mean, I think (marvel) comics in general get old. I need to take breaks, and luckily there's a ton of great indie stuff and I consider comics and adjacent interest to books, which have no shortage of good quality stuff. But even in non event comics I get tired of the endless plot contrivances to keep the same set of heroes going and having shenanigans each month. On the big screen and dominating such a large portion of theater interest, I feel like it'd be exhausting with any possible approach Marvel and DC could come up with that's not just drastically reducing output.
Man I forgot how funny Addams' Family Values was. I hate they had to get a new house and some of the jokes are real cringe but damn there are some slappers
Man I forgot how funny Addams' Family Values was. I hate they had to get a new house and some of the jokes are real cringe but damn there are some slappers
Debbie: These Addams men! Where DO you find them?
Morticia: It has to be damp.
Not a childhood favorite movie for Ben Shapiro.
+2
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
What does it mean to know everything about a movie in advance?
read a plot synopsis on wikipedia or something, or someone told you about the movie beforehand
Sure, sure, of course, that makes sense
Hey real quick can you read this for me
The woman sits markedly upright in a "pozzetto" armchair with her arms folded, a sign of her reserved posture. Her gaze is fixed on the observer. The woman appears alive to an unusual extent, which [the artist] achieved by [the] method of not drawing outlines (sfumato). The soft blending creates an ambiguous mood "mainly in two features: the corners of the mouth, and the corners of the eyes".
What does it mean to know everything about a movie in advance?
read a plot synopsis on wikipedia or something, or someone told you about the movie beforehand
Sure, sure, of course, that makes sense
Hey real quick can you read this for me
The woman sits markedly upright in a "pozzetto" armchair with her arms folded, a sign of her reserved posture. Her gaze is fixed on the observer. The woman appears alive to an unusual extent, which [the artist] achieved by [the] method of not drawing outlines (sfumato). The soft blending creates an ambiguous mood "mainly in two features: the corners of the mouth, and the corners of the eyes".
Would you say that you just saw the Mona Lisa?
No.
And that has nothing to do with knowing the plot of a movie. People get angry about spoilers for a reason.
+3
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Ahh yeah fair point, fair point
By the by, can you read this for me as well
Peter, a Young Soviet Pioneer, lives at his grandfather's home in a forest clearing. One day, Peter goes out into the clearing, leaving the garden gate open, and a duck that lives in the yard takes the opportunity to go swimming in a pond nearby. The duck and a bird argue on whether a proper bird should be able to swim or fly. A local cat stalks them quietly, and the bird—warned by Peter—flies to safety in a tall tree while the duck swims to safety in the middle of the pond.
Before long, Peter's grandfather scolds him for being outside and playing in the meadow alone because a wolf might come out of the forest and attack him. When Peter shows defiance, believing he has nothing to fear from wolves, his grandfather takes him back into the house and locks the gate. Soon afterwards, a ferocious grey wolf does indeed come out of the forest. The cat quickly climbs into the tree with the bird, but the duck, who has jumped out of the pond, is chased, overtaken, and swallowed by the beast.
Seeing all of this from inside, Peter fetches a rope and climbs over the garden wall into the tree. He asks the bird to fly around the beast's head to distract him, while he lowers a noose and catches the wolf by his tail. The beast struggles to get free, but Peter ties the rope to the tree and the noose only gets tighter.
Some hunters, who have been tracking the wolf, come out of the forest with their guns readied, but Peter gets them to instead help him take it to a zoo in a victory parade (the piece was first performed for an audience of Young Pioneers during May Day celebrations) that includes himself, the bird, the hunters leading the wolf, the cat, and lastly his grumbling Grandfather, still disappointed that Peter ignored his warnings, but proud that his grandson caught the beast.
At the end, the narrator states those listening carefully could hear the duck still quacking inside the wolf's belly, due to being swallowed whole.
Would you say that you just listened to Peter and the Wolf?
+1
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Not seeing a film because you've got a basic plot understanding of it is a wild thing to do. Films are so often about shit that's only tangentially related to the actual plot progression!
Like if I know the plot to a Jackie Chan movie, I'm not going to be like oh actually I already know he saves the day at the end of this no need to see these awesome fight sequences.
It definitely colors how the film works, and there's a reason people don't want spoilers, but dang
Peter, a Young Soviet Pioneer, lives at his grandfather's home in a forest clearing. One day, Peter goes out into the clearing, leaving the garden gate open, and a duck that lives in the yard takes the opportunity to go swimming in a pond nearby. The duck and a bird argue on whether a proper bird should be able to swim or fly. A local cat stalks them quietly, and the bird—warned by Peter—flies to safety in a tall tree while the duck swims to safety in the middle of the pond.
Before long, Peter's grandfather scolds him for being outside and playing in the meadow alone because a wolf might come out of the forest and attack him. When Peter shows defiance, believing he has nothing to fear from wolves, his grandfather takes him back into the house and locks the gate. Soon afterwards, a ferocious grey wolf does indeed come out of the forest. The cat quickly climbs into the tree with the bird, but the duck, who has jumped out of the pond, is chased, overtaken, and swallowed by the beast.
Seeing all of this from inside, Peter fetches a rope and climbs over the garden wall into the tree. He asks the bird to fly around the beast's head to distract him, while he lowers a noose and catches the wolf by his tail. The beast struggles to get free, but Peter ties the rope to the tree and the noose only gets tighter.
Some hunters, who have been tracking the wolf, come out of the forest with their guns readied, but Peter gets them to instead help him take it to a zoo in a victory parade (the piece was first performed for an audience of Young Pioneers during May Day celebrations) that includes himself, the bird, the hunters leading the wolf, the cat, and lastly his grumbling Grandfather, still disappointed that Peter ignored his warnings, but proud that his grandson caught the beast.
At the end, the narrator states those listening carefully could hear the duck still quacking inside the wolf's belly, due to being swallowed whole.
Would you say that you just listened to Peter and the Wolf?
Not seeing a film because you've got a basic plot understanding of it is a wild thing to do. Films are so often about shit that's only tangentially related to the actual plot progression!
Like if I know the plot to a Jackie Chan movie, I'm not going to be like oh actually I already know he saves the day at the end of this no need to see these awesome fight sequences.
It definitely colors how the film works, and there's a reason people don't want spoilers, but dang
But you're assuming a basic understanding and you're picking a movie that's mostly visual in content.
Peter, a Young Soviet Pioneer, lives at his grandfather's home in a forest clearing. One day, Peter goes out into the clearing, leaving the garden gate open, and a duck that lives in the yard takes the opportunity to go swimming in a pond nearby. The duck and a bird argue on whether a proper bird should be able to swim or fly. A local cat stalks them quietly, and the bird—warned by Peter—flies to safety in a tall tree while the duck swims to safety in the middle of the pond.
Before long, Peter's grandfather scolds him for being outside and playing in the meadow alone because a wolf might come out of the forest and attack him. When Peter shows defiance, believing he has nothing to fear from wolves, his grandfather takes him back into the house and locks the gate. Soon afterwards, a ferocious grey wolf does indeed come out of the forest. The cat quickly climbs into the tree with the bird, but the duck, who has jumped out of the pond, is chased, overtaken, and swallowed by the beast.
Seeing all of this from inside, Peter fetches a rope and climbs over the garden wall into the tree. He asks the bird to fly around the beast's head to distract him, while he lowers a noose and catches the wolf by his tail. The beast struggles to get free, but Peter ties the rope to the tree and the noose only gets tighter.
Some hunters, who have been tracking the wolf, come out of the forest with their guns readied, but Peter gets them to instead help him take it to a zoo in a victory parade (the piece was first performed for an audience of Young Pioneers during May Day celebrations) that includes himself, the bird, the hunters leading the wolf, the cat, and lastly his grumbling Grandfather, still disappointed that Peter ignored his warnings, but proud that his grandson caught the beast.
At the end, the narrator states those listening carefully could hear the duck still quacking inside the wolf's belly, due to being swallowed whole.
Would you say that you just listened to Peter and the Wolf?
are you for real right now
This reminds me of the time when I took mushrooms and accidentally turned on the descriptive audio on Bojack Horseman.
Not seeing a film because you've got a basic plot understanding of it is a wild thing to do. Films are so often about shit that's only tangentially related to the actual plot progression!
Like if I know the plot to a Jackie Chan movie, I'm not going to be like oh actually I already know he saves the day at the end of this no need to see these awesome fight sequences.
It definitely colors how the film works, and there's a reason people don't want spoilers, but dang
But you're assuming a basic understanding and you're picking a movie that's mostly visual in content.
I mean we're discussing Black Adam and the big aspect of that movie is the CGI setpieces and action scenes so it seems like a good comparison.
Honestly, knowing a plot synopsis or a twist in advance usually makes me want to see the movie more because I want to see the little details that build to the twist, and I get more joy out of that than I do being surprised by the twist itself
Not seeing a film because you've got a basic plot understanding of it is a wild thing to do. Films are so often about shit that's only tangentially related to the actual plot progression!
Like if I know the plot to a Jackie Chan movie, I'm not going to be like oh actually I already know he saves the day at the end of this no need to see these awesome fight sequences.
It definitely colors how the film works, and there's a reason people don't want spoilers, but dang
But you're assuming a basic understanding and you're picking a movie that's mostly visual in content.
I mean I'd say Alien and Get Out are also good examples of things that are worth watching!
There's a continuum from "I have read the wikipedia entry" to "I have read the novelization" to "I have seen 3/4 of the film via clips or something" to "I've actually watched the film" and for good films it's usually pretty great to go from not-quite to actually watching them.
I mean not that I've watched all the good films regardless and you can certainly cull the infinite list of things that are possible to watch using any means necessary, but like I've seen Alien plenty and mostly this is making me think dang I wouldn't mind re-watching Alien.
If we're being weird about this I would also say knowing too much of the plot synopsis in advance greatly decreases my desire to watch a movie
I absolutely agree with this, but it depends on the movie. If there's about a zero % chance I'd go see it on my own or if I thought there'd be stuff in it that'd bother me, then I'd look it up beforehand. Sometimes finding out what's going to happen can instead interest me in then checking it out after all.
OTOH, reading the synopsis for Barbarian absolutely sealed I will never go watch that willingly when my friends and I were trying to figure out what scary movie to go see one night.
Not seeing a film because you've got a basic plot understanding of it is a wild thing to do. Films are so often about shit that's only tangentially related to the actual plot progression!
Like if I know the plot to a Jackie Chan movie, I'm not going to be like oh actually I already know he saves the day at the end of this no need to see these awesome fight sequences.
It definitely colors how the film works, and there's a reason people don't want spoilers, but dang
But you're assuming a basic understanding and you're picking a movie that's mostly visual in content.
I mean we're discussing Black Adam and the big aspect of that movie is the CGI setpieces and action scenes so it seems like a good comparison.
Ah, got ya. I was talking movies in general, sorry.
Not being a fan of action movies at all, my reading like, say, the wikipedia plot of Black Adam would be more than enough for me but others may differ!
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Peter, a Young Soviet Pioneer, lives at his grandfather's home in a forest clearing. One day, Peter goes out into the clearing, leaving the garden gate open, and a duck that lives in the yard takes the opportunity to go swimming in a pond nearby. The duck and a bird argue on whether a proper bird should be able to swim or fly. A local cat stalks them quietly, and the bird—warned by Peter—flies to safety in a tall tree while the duck swims to safety in the middle of the pond.
Before long, Peter's grandfather scolds him for being outside and playing in the meadow alone because a wolf might come out of the forest and attack him. When Peter shows defiance, believing he has nothing to fear from wolves, his grandfather takes him back into the house and locks the gate. Soon afterwards, a ferocious grey wolf does indeed come out of the forest. The cat quickly climbs into the tree with the bird, but the duck, who has jumped out of the pond, is chased, overtaken, and swallowed by the beast.
Seeing all of this from inside, Peter fetches a rope and climbs over the garden wall into the tree. He asks the bird to fly around the beast's head to distract him, while he lowers a noose and catches the wolf by his tail. The beast struggles to get free, but Peter ties the rope to the tree and the noose only gets tighter.
Some hunters, who have been tracking the wolf, come out of the forest with their guns readied, but Peter gets them to instead help him take it to a zoo in a victory parade (the piece was first performed for an audience of Young Pioneers during May Day celebrations) that includes himself, the bird, the hunters leading the wolf, the cat, and lastly his grumbling Grandfather, still disappointed that Peter ignored his warnings, but proud that his grandson caught the beast.
At the end, the narrator states those listening carefully could hear the duck still quacking inside the wolf's belly, due to being swallowed whole.
Would you say that you just listened to Peter and the Wolf?
are you for real right now
Yes. It's a weird way to look at and conceptualize art!
Plot is an important aspect of movies, sure, but especially when we're talking about movies that are acclaimed for their acting or their visual style, it's bonkers to me to suggest that it's the only thing that matters.
Art is experiential, it's not just knowledge to tuck away in your memory banks. Describing it as such makes it feel like... I dunno, memorizing dates for a high school history test. That's weird!
Peter, a Young Soviet Pioneer, lives at his grandfather's home in a forest clearing. One day, Peter goes out into the clearing, leaving the garden gate open, and a duck that lives in the yard takes the opportunity to go swimming in a pond nearby. The duck and a bird argue on whether a proper bird should be able to swim or fly. A local cat stalks them quietly, and the bird—warned by Peter—flies to safety in a tall tree while the duck swims to safety in the middle of the pond.
Before long, Peter's grandfather scolds him for being outside and playing in the meadow alone because a wolf might come out of the forest and attack him. When Peter shows defiance, believing he has nothing to fear from wolves, his grandfather takes him back into the house and locks the gate. Soon afterwards, a ferocious grey wolf does indeed come out of the forest. The cat quickly climbs into the tree with the bird, but the duck, who has jumped out of the pond, is chased, overtaken, and swallowed by the beast.
Seeing all of this from inside, Peter fetches a rope and climbs over the garden wall into the tree. He asks the bird to fly around the beast's head to distract him, while he lowers a noose and catches the wolf by his tail. The beast struggles to get free, but Peter ties the rope to the tree and the noose only gets tighter.
Some hunters, who have been tracking the wolf, come out of the forest with their guns readied, but Peter gets them to instead help him take it to a zoo in a victory parade (the piece was first performed for an audience of Young Pioneers during May Day celebrations) that includes himself, the bird, the hunters leading the wolf, the cat, and lastly his grumbling Grandfather, still disappointed that Peter ignored his warnings, but proud that his grandson caught the beast.
At the end, the narrator states those listening carefully could hear the duck still quacking inside the wolf's belly, due to being swallowed whole.
Would you say that you just listened to Peter and the Wolf?
are you for real right now
Yes. It's a weird way to look at and conceptualize art!
Plot is an important aspect of movies, sure, but especially when we're talking about movies that are acclaimed for their acting or their visual style, it's bonkers to me to suggest that it's the only thing that matters.
Art is experiential, it's not just knowledge to tuck away in your memory banks. Describing it as such makes it feel like... I dunno, memorizing dates for a high school history test. That's weird!
i generally look up plots to movies for this among other reasons. the plot is ancillary to the execution of the film, and I want to be able to really focus on those aspects of it. knowing the beats beforehand has helped me appreciate movies artistically, personally.
Not seeing a film because you've got a basic plot understanding of it is a wild thing to do. Films are so often about shit that's only tangentially related to the actual plot progression!
Like if I know the plot to a Jackie Chan movie, I'm not going to be like oh actually I already know he saves the day at the end of this no need to see these awesome fight sequences.
It definitely colors how the film works, and there's a reason people don't want spoilers, but dang
But you're assuming a basic understanding and you're picking a movie that's mostly visual in content.
I mean we're discussing Black Adam and the big aspect of that movie is the CGI setpieces and action scenes so it seems like a good comparison.
Ah, got ya. I was talking movies in general, sorry.
Not being a fan of action movies at all, my reading like, say, the wikipedia plot of Black Adam would be more than enough for me but others may differ!
I still think you're larger position is wrong as well.
I've read Shakespeare's plays, but that pales in comparison to seeing them performed or even movie productions of them. The acting performances give the scripts life and change just reading what happened.
Peter, a Young Soviet Pioneer, lives at his grandfather's home in a forest clearing. One day, Peter goes out into the clearing, leaving the garden gate open, and a duck that lives in the yard takes the opportunity to go swimming in a pond nearby. The duck and a bird argue on whether a proper bird should be able to swim or fly. A local cat stalks them quietly, and the bird—warned by Peter—flies to safety in a tall tree while the duck swims to safety in the middle of the pond.
Before long, Peter's grandfather scolds him for being outside and playing in the meadow alone because a wolf might come out of the forest and attack him. When Peter shows defiance, believing he has nothing to fear from wolves, his grandfather takes him back into the house and locks the gate. Soon afterwards, a ferocious grey wolf does indeed come out of the forest. The cat quickly climbs into the tree with the bird, but the duck, who has jumped out of the pond, is chased, overtaken, and swallowed by the beast.
Seeing all of this from inside, Peter fetches a rope and climbs over the garden wall into the tree. He asks the bird to fly around the beast's head to distract him, while he lowers a noose and catches the wolf by his tail. The beast struggles to get free, but Peter ties the rope to the tree and the noose only gets tighter.
Some hunters, who have been tracking the wolf, come out of the forest with their guns readied, but Peter gets them to instead help him take it to a zoo in a victory parade (the piece was first performed for an audience of Young Pioneers during May Day celebrations) that includes himself, the bird, the hunters leading the wolf, the cat, and lastly his grumbling Grandfather, still disappointed that Peter ignored his warnings, but proud that his grandson caught the beast.
At the end, the narrator states those listening carefully could hear the duck still quacking inside the wolf's belly, due to being swallowed whole.
Would you say that you just listened to Peter and the Wolf?
are you for real right now
Yes. It's a weird way to look at and conceptualize art!
Plot is an important aspect of movies, sure, but especially when we're talking about movies that are acclaimed for their acting or their visual style, it's bonkers to me to suggest that it's the only thing that matters.
Art is experiential, it's not just knowledge to tuck away in your memory banks. Describing it as such makes it feel like... I dunno, memorizing dates for a high school history test. That's weird!
i think it's weird that you're comparing a painting, a movie and a film but acting like they're the same thing while also dismissively mocking the idea that if someone knows the entire plot to a film that they would then not want to watch it.
I'm a complete sucker for any time a movie or whatever introduces characters with little graphics so I already love Bullet Train
I watched Bullet Train last week on the insistence of my roommate who shares my passion for quirky crime movies and I was absolutely delighted by it. As these types of movies go, 10/10 would make this a Shadowrun absolutely.
Matev on
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
The majority of books, comics, movies etc should be brand new. We live in the worst timeline of remakes, spin-offs and reboots. I didn’t watch Alien back in the day because I already knew what it was, for example.
Alien was a brand new IP, so why did it upset your sensibilities around spinoffs and remakes?
"I hate spinoffs and remakes, which is why spoilers are bad" is not a coherent thought
Narbus on
+1
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Peter, a Young Soviet Pioneer, lives at his grandfather's home in a forest clearing. One day, Peter goes out into the clearing, leaving the garden gate open, and a duck that lives in the yard takes the opportunity to go swimming in a pond nearby. The duck and a bird argue on whether a proper bird should be able to swim or fly. A local cat stalks them quietly, and the bird—warned by Peter—flies to safety in a tall tree while the duck swims to safety in the middle of the pond.
Before long, Peter's grandfather scolds him for being outside and playing in the meadow alone because a wolf might come out of the forest and attack him. When Peter shows defiance, believing he has nothing to fear from wolves, his grandfather takes him back into the house and locks the gate. Soon afterwards, a ferocious grey wolf does indeed come out of the forest. The cat quickly climbs into the tree with the bird, but the duck, who has jumped out of the pond, is chased, overtaken, and swallowed by the beast.
Seeing all of this from inside, Peter fetches a rope and climbs over the garden wall into the tree. He asks the bird to fly around the beast's head to distract him, while he lowers a noose and catches the wolf by his tail. The beast struggles to get free, but Peter ties the rope to the tree and the noose only gets tighter.
Some hunters, who have been tracking the wolf, come out of the forest with their guns readied, but Peter gets them to instead help him take it to a zoo in a victory parade (the piece was first performed for an audience of Young Pioneers during May Day celebrations) that includes himself, the bird, the hunters leading the wolf, the cat, and lastly his grumbling Grandfather, still disappointed that Peter ignored his warnings, but proud that his grandson caught the beast.
At the end, the narrator states those listening carefully could hear the duck still quacking inside the wolf's belly, due to being swallowed whole.
Would you say that you just listened to Peter and the Wolf?
are you for real right now
Yes. It's a weird way to look at and conceptualize art!
Plot is an important aspect of movies, sure, but especially when we're talking about movies that are acclaimed for their acting or their visual style, it's bonkers to me to suggest that it's the only thing that matters.
Art is experiential, it's not just knowledge to tuck away in your memory banks. Describing it as such makes it feel like... I dunno, memorizing dates for a high school history test. That's weird!
i think it's weird that you're comparing a painting, a movie and a film but acting like they're the same thing while also dismissively mocking the idea that if someone knows the entire plot to a film that they would then not want to watch it.
How so? I'm providing a description of (aspects of) the piece of art, just the same as a movie synopsis is.
Like, I legitimately do not see much difference between the examples provided. The Mona Lisa isn't narrative, I guess, but I also specifically chose it because of its famous ambiguities and visual referencing of other art, things that you might not catch from a description of it. How is that different from reading the synopsis of Alien and saying, "There we go, no need to watch that anymore"?
+1
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
If you read a synopsis of a movie and say "nah, not for me" that's fine, to be clear. I've certainly done the same.
My point is that is not equivalent to seeing the movie. There's so much more that movies have to offer than the plot, much of which is experiential and can't be properly described.
+2
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
If you read a synopsis of a movie and say "nah, not for me" that's fine, to be clear. I've certainly done the same.
My point is that is not equivalent to seeing the movie. There's so much more that movies have to offer than the plot, much of which is experiential and can't be properly described.
Look, I can only speak for myself here but I know that I absolutely hated watching 'The Godfather' through no fault of the movie's own. It's because I knew every fucking story beat, every fuckin twist and turn, through cultural osmosis. It hurt my viewing experience. It was like watching a movie I had seen for a hundred times for the first time and it was boring as a result.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Posts
I mean, sure, they are
And if there were thirteen forty three minute episodes a year about a given hero, then I'd probably support and agree with this
But man cannot live on events alone
It really really killed my interest in DC and Marvel comics back in the day, like 2006-10, it was very difficult to read comics. It was cool, occasionally, with all of the huge reality changing stuff happening, if you just picked up an event or two, but if we were trying to follow a title long term, it was exhausting.
Marvel based their main movie reality or whatever in large part on that era though, as most of us are aware, so it was Thanos meme inevitable
I watched Black Adam because my parents were in town during late October and it was the only thing showing that wasn't a horror movie. I didn't even know the dude was a Shazam, I vaguely assumed he was just another Jack Kirby weirdo from space!
Nothing I was just picking something at random.
I didn’t watch Get Out because I knew everything about it in advance.
Debbie: These Addams men! Where DO you find them?
Morticia: It has to be damp.
read a plot synopsis on wikipedia or something, or someone told you about the movie beforehand
Not a childhood favorite movie for Ben Shapiro.
Sure, sure, of course, that makes sense
Hey real quick can you read this for me
Would you say that you just saw the Mona Lisa?
No.
And that has nothing to do with knowing the plot of a movie. People get angry about spoilers for a reason.
By the by, can you read this for me as well
Would you say that you just listened to Peter and the Wolf?
Guardians of the Galaxy on line one.
Like if I know the plot to a Jackie Chan movie, I'm not going to be like oh actually I already know he saves the day at the end of this no need to see these awesome fight sequences.
It definitely colors how the film works, and there's a reason people don't want spoilers, but dang
are you for real right now
But you're assuming a basic understanding and you're picking a movie that's mostly visual in content.
This reminds me of the time when I took mushrooms and accidentally turned on the descriptive audio on Bojack Horseman.
I mean we're discussing Black Adam and the big aspect of that movie is the CGI setpieces and action scenes so it seems like a good comparison.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
I mean I'd say Alien and Get Out are also good examples of things that are worth watching!
There's a continuum from "I have read the wikipedia entry" to "I have read the novelization" to "I have seen 3/4 of the film via clips or something" to "I've actually watched the film" and for good films it's usually pretty great to go from not-quite to actually watching them.
I mean not that I've watched all the good films regardless and you can certainly cull the infinite list of things that are possible to watch using any means necessary, but like I've seen Alien plenty and mostly this is making me think dang I wouldn't mind re-watching Alien.
I absolutely agree with this, but it depends on the movie. If there's about a zero % chance I'd go see it on my own or if I thought there'd be stuff in it that'd bother me, then I'd look it up beforehand. Sometimes finding out what's going to happen can instead interest me in then checking it out after all.
OTOH, reading the synopsis for Barbarian absolutely sealed I will never go watch that willingly when my friends and I were trying to figure out what scary movie to go see one night.
Ah, got ya. I was talking movies in general, sorry.
Not being a fan of action movies at all, my reading like, say, the wikipedia plot of Black Adam would be more than enough for me but others may differ!
Yes. It's a weird way to look at and conceptualize art!
Plot is an important aspect of movies, sure, but especially when we're talking about movies that are acclaimed for their acting or their visual style, it's bonkers to me to suggest that it's the only thing that matters.
Art is experiential, it's not just knowledge to tuck away in your memory banks. Describing it as such makes it feel like... I dunno, memorizing dates for a high school history test. That's weird!
i generally look up plots to movies for this among other reasons. the plot is ancillary to the execution of the film, and I want to be able to really focus on those aspects of it. knowing the beats beforehand has helped me appreciate movies artistically, personally.
I still think you're larger position is wrong as well.
I've read Shakespeare's plays, but that pales in comparison to seeing them performed or even movie productions of them. The acting performances give the scripts life and change just reading what happened.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
i think it's weird that you're comparing a painting, a movie and a film but acting like they're the same thing while also dismissively mocking the idea that if someone knows the entire plot to a film that they would then not want to watch it.
I watched Bullet Train last week on the insistence of my roommate who shares my passion for quirky crime movies and I was absolutely delighted by it. As these types of movies go, 10/10 would make this a Shadowrun absolutely.
But that wasn't at all what you started out saying
Alien was a brand new IP, so why did it upset your sensibilities around spinoffs and remakes?
"I hate spinoffs and remakes, which is why spoilers are bad" is not a coherent thought
How so? I'm providing a description of (aspects of) the piece of art, just the same as a movie synopsis is.
Like, I legitimately do not see much difference between the examples provided. The Mona Lisa isn't narrative, I guess, but I also specifically chose it because of its famous ambiguities and visual referencing of other art, things that you might not catch from a description of it. How is that different from reading the synopsis of Alien and saying, "There we go, no need to watch that anymore"?
My point is that is not equivalent to seeing the movie. There's so much more that movies have to offer than the plot, much of which is experiential and can't be properly described.
Look, I can only speak for myself here but I know that I absolutely hated watching 'The Godfather' through no fault of the movie's own. It's because I knew every fucking story beat, every fuckin twist and turn, through cultural osmosis. It hurt my viewing experience. It was like watching a movie I had seen for a hundred times for the first time and it was boring as a result.