To be honest I'm not really sure what the female gaze looks like. The male gaze is more than just ogling.
I dunno. Male gaze is bottom-up, except where top-down can see down her shirt?
I don't know if I can define Female Gaze offhand, but, like pornography I know it when I see it, like when Captain America was preventing a helicopter from taking off while wearing a t-shirt.
I know that Lesbian Gaze is mostly the same as Male Gaze, but with added shots of their hands (properly trimmed fingernails are sexy).
Charlize kissing Jaylah from Star Trek: Beyond? Okay, yeah, that sounds pretty good.
Male gaze? Sure. I know a number of females that will be into that, too.
Okay whatever but this is what I'm talking about
I understand what you mean now.
Interesting topic of discussion, but probably not suited for this thread.
It does feel a little weird when they film women like that all the time. I know I always get weirded out when i think of the camera guy actually filming the scene.
Huh, I never considered the camera operator here. When you put it that way it does sound especially odd.
I like how Tremors 2 handles this, with the guy looking at the girl's butt and turning around only for her to turn around and so the same thing to him. It was so unexpected.
I understand the male gaze part. But I need more explanation what a douchey production style is. It is probably not helping that I'm not really into Malick and haven't seen any Bekmambetov.
He has yet to direct a good movie. He's like a cheap knock-off of Zack Snyder or Michael Bay.
I think I liked 9?
I don't think I hated it.
Wanted was vaguely entertaining...or at least close
the rest I either haven't seen or am unsurprised that they suck butts
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I love some of Whedon's work - Firefly, Dr. Horrible, Much Ado About Nothing, etc. are all great. But I do think Whedon is a bit hit-or-miss, and it feels like part of the reason is that he is just not very good at fighting the studios for what he wants. Whenever he talks about one of his movies, you always hear him talk about losing fights with the studio. For example, I haven't seen Avengers: Age of Ultron, but apparently there's a confusing scene with Thor in a cave that executives insisted be in the movie that Whedon tried and failed to axe:
...a scene [in Age of Ultron] that has generated much debate involves Chris Hemsworth’s Thor entering a cave with Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård). With only the briefest of explanations, Thor strips down to his skivvies, enters the cave lake, and then has some sort of vision and endures a whole electrical light show. To put it charitably, the response of most people watching the scene has been: “The fuck?” ... Well, it turns out that was Joss Whedon’s response, too. According to The Hollywood Reporter, a new interview with the writer-director of Marvel’s two biggest films suggests that Avengers: Age Of Ultron was the studio-meddling straw that broke the superhero-rejuvenating artist’s back...The cave sequence, it turns out, was demanded by the studio brass, who...kept it in long after most of the footage was cut by dint of test audiences wondering what the hell it was doing in the movie. Whedon had the same impulses, but was forced to keep it after the executives threatened to axe two of his key story beats...
Meanwhile when you hear, say, Coppola talk about making the Godfather, you hear him talk about how he successfully fought and won against executives on a bunch of fronts, even though he was a new director and had little power:
I was very loyal to the novel after I had derived what the movie would be, and it was set in the '40s. That was one of my first arguments with the producers, was I felt it should be set in the '40s. They had wanted ... [it set in the '70s] because if you make a movie during the contemporary period that the movie is being made, you don't have to have special cars, you don't have to have special costumes, you don't have to spend all of that money trying to create a period. ...
[It was a] very big fight. ... The studio had this young director [Coppola] who was hired mainly because he was Italian-American and that would possibly be good in terms of saying, "Well, an Italian made the film." And also I had some acclaim as a screenwriter and they knew the script needed to be worked on, so they figured they'd get a free rewrite out of it, which they did. And also I was young and had no power, so they figured they could just boss me around, which they proceeded to begin to do.
[...]
The film was only budgeted for $2.5 million. You have to understand, it's not like we could throw money around. My decision to make it in the '40s and have period cars and shoot in New York was already impacting the cost, so that's one of the reasons why I was so unpopular, but [the studio] also hated my casting ideas. They hated Al Pacino for the role of Michael and they hated Marlon Brando for the role of the Godfather. I was told categorically by the president of Paramount, "Francis, as a the president of Paramount Pictures, I tell you here and now, Marlon Brando will never appear in this motion picture and I forbid you to bring it up again." ...
When he said, "I forbid you to bring it up again," I feigned that I just fell on the floor, on the carpet, and then I said, "What am I supposed to do if you tell me I can't even discuss it? How can I be a director if the part I think should be cast — you won't even let me talk about it?"
They said, "All right, we'll tell you it this way: 1) If he will do the movie for free 2) if he will do a screen test and 3) if he will put up a $1 million bond that he will in no way have any misbehavior that costs the overrun of the picture budget. Then you can do it." So I said, "I accept," ... meaning now I can talk about it.
(But then perhaps that isn't a very fair comparison, because, as Coppola says, The Godfather was a fairly low budget movie, and Whedon's superhero movies are very big budget affairs. The bigger the budget, the more is at stake, and I imagine, the harder it is for a director to get what they want.)
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Marvel hires directors with very little power so that they can boss them around, yes. Whedon is a big name in television fandom (but even there his track record with networks is spotty--has he ever made a show that wasn't canceled due to low ratings and/or network interference?) but in film he's mostly a behind the scenes rewrite guy whose biggest movie, Serenity, cost maybe a 5th of The Avengers and lost money at that.
The only director/Marvel relationship I don't know anything about is Branaugh on Thor. Other than that, they've all had problems. They exhausted Favreau, drove off Edgar Wright, fucked with Shane Black (who had his villains switched up because of a directive from the toy division), etc. Marvel elevated the Russos because they're sitcom directors who don't have the clout to argue. That's how the studio achieves its much-lauded consistency--by devaluing and depowering creatives.
Charlize kissing Jaylah from Star Trek: Beyond? Okay, yeah, that sounds pretty good.
Male gaze? Sure. I know a number of females that will be into that, too.
Okay whatever but this is what I'm talking about
I understand what you mean now.
Interesting topic of discussion, but probably not suited for this thread.
It does feel a little weird when they film women like that all the time. I know I always get weirded out when i think of the camera guy actually filming the scene.
Huh, I never considered the camera operator here. When you put it that way it does sound especially odd.
I like how Tremors 2 handles this, with the guy looking at the girl's butt and turning around only for her to turn around and so the same thing to him. It was so unexpected.
Not knowing much about cinematography, for all i know a combo of lenses and stuff would allow the camera guy to be on the other side of the room filming a slow pan up with the actress just standing there or whatever. We see it as a close up due to focal length and lenses and stuff i don't understand.
In my head though the camera guy is like 6 inches from the actress and filming like that. That's why it gets weird.
Extremely beautiful women make me nervous (as with most guys i think) so i always wonder how that discussion goes.
"Ok, for this scene we need you in just your bra, i'm going to get in there close and pan up ok? Just hold still...."
Of course with most things in life i'm 100% sure its nothing like that at all. With the director and actress being professionals and understanding that human sexuality is the most normal of things. Certainly i doubt Charlize is as embarrassed of her body as i am of my slightly doughy physique. So maybe that helps.
Certainly if I looked like Chris (any of the Chrises, Evans, Hemsworth or Pratt lol) I'd be all "yea dude! get up in there! Check this pose out! How about one of these?!? Oh this helicopter? YEA I GOT THAT! BATHROOOM IS OV_ER THEEEEERRREEEE"
The cave scene was bullshit but then the parts of the movie Whedon was obsessed with keeping were also bullshit so really they should have just axed all that and stuck to the core movie better, with less shit editing and rushing around.
+7
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Marvel hires directors with very little power so that they can boss them around, yes. Whedon is a big name in television fandom (but even there his track record with networks is spotty--has he ever made a show that wasn't canceled due to low ratings and/or network interference?) but in film he's mostly a behind the scenes rewrite guy whose biggest movie, Serenity, cost maybe a 5th of The Avengers and lost money at that.
The only director/Marvel relationship I don't know anything about is Branaugh on Thor. Other than that, they've all had problems. They exhausted Favreau, drove off Edgar Wright, fucked with Shane Black (who had his villains switched up because of a directive from the toy division), etc. Marvel elevated the Russos because they're sitcom directors who don't have the clout to argue. That's how the studio achieves its much-lauded consistency--by devaluing and depowering creatives.
Or empower a different set of creatives.
I'm still on the fence whether this is good or bad.
Some people are not meant to direct. Goyer wrote Blade 1 and 2 which were really fun films, then he directed Blade 3 which was absolutely awful. But then he did Dark Knight. Which was good. But then he did Ghost Rider, Man of Steel, The Dark Knight Rises, and Batman v Superman. So clearly in his case he needs a good director to rein his shit in.
Marvel hires directors with very little power so that they can boss them around, yes. Whedon is a big name in television fandom (but even there his track record with networks is spotty--has he ever made a show that wasn't canceled due to low ratings and/or network interference?) but in film he's mostly a behind the scenes rewrite guy whose biggest movie, Serenity, cost maybe a 5th of The Avengers and lost money at that.
The only director/Marvel relationship I don't know anything about is Branaugh on Thor. Other than that, they've all had problems. They exhausted Favreau, drove off Edgar Wright, fucked with Shane Black (who had his villains switched up because of a directive from the toy division), etc. Marvel elevated the Russos because they're sitcom directors who don't have the clout to argue. That's how the studio achieves its much-lauded consistency--by devaluing and depowering creatives.
This isn't as simply as you're arguing. Yeah, they've had a bad history - especially in the last years and yeah they do micromanage at times, the thing is this is neither a Marvel only problem (Warner Bros with Suicide Squad, Fox's X-men) and it's not like the directors haven't been treated well or given some freedom. Some directors work better with marvel than others (Wright was never a situation that was going to turn out swimmingly, his entire schtick was always working against the system that's why he prefers to work alone and not on franchise IP's*) and sometimes yes, they do fuck up with the micromanaging (Age of Ultron,Iron Man 2). They also help the director's rise in Hollywood when the partnership works out, assist directors who were nobodies before the MCU and they do have solid relationships (the Russo's, Whedon pre-AoU**, Peyton Reed etc)
There are plusses and minuses with every studio, including their opposite - Warner Brothers. Who despite being having a rep for leaving the directors alone have a habit of interfering with big productions (Batman vs Superman,Suicide Squad, Green Lantern) and there are certain people which have influence over many movies (Zach Snyder), and in contrast to Marvel's Fiege are terrible at planning ahead, having a unified vision and have very little institutional knowledge.
Yes, they like to hire directors who are easier to control, this ins't necessarily a bad thing when the people actually have good quality control. Nor are they stopping said directors from gaining acclaim and rewards so their prices are no longer that cheap. I'd think the Russo's would be huge rising stars in Marvel's stable right now, right?
* the situation with Wright was also not black and white. Marvel had a point with their arguments with him, especially when he continued to think he was working under smoother conditions like in Phase 1 where the universe was less created by other people and they hadn't figured out their formula for setting up movies/cameos/world building etc
** unlike other director Whedon had the burden of being the grandmaster of the entire universe at various levels before he got to his next film, which drained him further. For example - he helped create Agents of SHIELD (wrote and directed the pilot), and rewrote scenes for Thor 2.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited April 2017
Saying "Well the devil did pay me, didn't he?" might be good for you but it doesn't help the rest of us.
Edit: by which I mean that Marvel's behavior and selections deliberately unbalances the traditonal director/producer relationship in the studio's favor. That the directors they hire get career bumps may make this okay on an individual level; but a balanced relationship is vital to the full artistic flowering of a film and the audience is who suffers from this configuration, by getting a series of homogenized movies.
To be honest I'm not really sure what the female gaze looks like. The male gaze is more than just ogling.
I dunno if there is such a thing as female gaze, and most of the films I've seen that explore male characters or subjects the same way, usually do so in a homosexual context, which still makes it a male gaze. Mulvey's essay opens discussing phalocentrism, so I don't really think it can be an equivalent. There's almost certainly stuff that comes close.
Maybe something like Beau Travail? There was an argument in one of my classes about whether or not that could be considered female gaze. By any measure, the film is fascinated with the male body while also frequently abstracting itself and refusing to suppose a more typical (male) means of looking at its subjects. Still, the film deals with homosexuality and uses a subjective camera when characters observe each other.
Saying "Well the devil did pay me, didn't he?" might be good for you but it doesn't help the rest of us.
What does the help look like, exactly?
Yeah, Marvel's a company you need to be aware of what you're getting into before signing the dotted line. That applies to every studio in Hollywood.
This doesn't excuse Fox or WB, or any other studio being assholes. They are not angels by a long shot.
Edit: by which I mean that Marvel's behavior and selections deliberately unbalances the traditonal director/producer relationship in the studio's favor. That the directors they hire get career bumps may make this okay on an individual level; but a balanced relationship is vital to the full artistic flowering of a film and the audience is who suffers from this configuration, by getting a series of homogenized movies.
Except I don't think Marvel was the first ever studio to do this, and it's not like there aren't perks to this relationship for the director.
Supposedly WB is a studio that prides itself on letting directors having a free hand, yet what they did to the director of Suicide Squad was totally against that. At least when Marvel did a similar thing with Incredible Hulk everyone knew what they getting into, and this never happened again. I'd actually say they've become less bad at micromanaging in general over the years and they've fine tuned their strengths into being a brand any director would think twice about saying no too.
Never mind Fox during the Rothman years, and he's working at Sony now.
To be honest I'm not really sure what the female gaze looks like. The male gaze is more than just ogling.
I dunno if there is such a thing as female gaze, and most of the films I've seen that explore male characters or subjects the same way, usually do so in a homosexual context, which still makes it a male gaze. Mulvey's essay opens discussing phalocentrism, so I don't really think it can be an equivalent. There's almost certainly stuff that comes close.
Maybe something like Beau Travail? There was an argument in one of my classes about whether or not that could be considered female gaze. By any measure, the film is fascinated with the male body while also frequently abstracting itself and refusing to suppose a more typical (male) means of looking at its subjects. Still, the film deals with homosexuality and uses a subjective camera when characters observe each other.
Twilight, Fifty Shades of Gray?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited April 2017
Edited my previous post to be more clear.
Also it's ridiculous to point to other studios when the reason this is an industry wide practice now is largely because of studios following Marvel's example--they may not have pioneered the trend but Marvel certainly took it further and (for unrelated reasons) achieved a great deal of success, leading others to adopt the technique.
Saying "Well the devil did pay me, didn't he?" might be good for you but it doesn't help the rest of us.
Edit: by which I mean that Marvel's behavior and selections deliberately unbalances the traditonal director/producer relationship in the studio's favor. That the directors they hire get career bumps may make this okay on an individual level; but a balanced relationship is vital to the full artistic flowering of a film and the audience is who suffers from this configuration, by getting a series of homogenized movies.
If by homogenized you mean continued quality over the span of over a dozen films, with all 3 of the releases this year contenders for the title of "favorite", then sure.
Context is everything. In the case of Marvels MCU, a thread of similarity shot through the entire narrative is necessary for it's existence. It was built to be a sprawling series of films in the same universe, not vehicles for directors to make their signature work.
I mean, take it or leave it.
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
There are other reasons why this is bad for the industry. Some people can't handle the pressure--Josh Trank probably would have been fine making small pictures but buckled under the pressure of a big budget movie. That happens less if you bring people along more slowly (more like Rian Johnson, for instance).
There's also the problem of only straight white men getting this kind of deal.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
There are other reasons why this is bad for the industry. Some people can't handle the pressure--Josh Trank probably would have been fine making small pictures but buckled under the pressure of a big budget movie. That happens less if you bring people along more slowly (more like Rian Johnson, for instance).
There's also the problem of only straight white men getting this kind of deal.
So what's the difference between that and the rest of hollywood?
Also it's ridiculous to point to other studios when the reason this is an industry wide practice now is largely because of studios following Marvel's example--they may not have pioneered the trend but Marvel certainly took it further and (for unrelated reasons) achieved a great deal of success, leading others to adopt the technique.
I'm bringing up the other studios because A) they're not operating in a vacuum, and it's ludicrous to call them "the devil" when we have studios like Fox.
The success is not something to be ignored either, they deliver that on a silver platter more than most.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2017
Putting the onus on Marvel to produce a series of artistically visionary films constantly, allow directors complete freedom while still adhering to a cohesive universe, and solving the industry-wide casting issues that have been pretty well-known by now?
Hopefully, Fox has learned their lesson from Deadpool and Logan.
Disney will probably never change since they have a well oiled machine for putting out reasonably quality movies that make great profits. Plus, I would imagine most directors know that Disney has a set schedule for their films and they'll keep to that schedule for their cinematic universe.
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Putting the onus on Marvel to produce a series of artistically visionary films constantly, allow directors complete freedom while still adhering to a cohesive universe, and solving the industry-wide casting issues that have been pretty well-known by now?
Not asking for a lot are ya?
If the most powerful studio in Hollywood can't fix these problems, they can't be fixed. But in reality all it takes is making the decision to do so. If we as audience members care about these issues, it's our responsibility to expect and demand that studios change.
Putting the onus on Marvel to produce a series of artistically visionary films constantly, allow directors complete freedom while still adhering to a cohesive universe, and solving the industry-wide casting issues that have been pretty well-known by now?
Not asking for a lot are ya?
If the most powerful studio in Hollywood can't fix these problems, they can't be fixed. But in reality all it takes is making the decision to do so. If we as audience members care about these issues, it's our responsibility to expect and demand that studios change.
Being the most profitable studio in history would probably lead them to believe nothing really needs fixing.
Putting the onus on Marvel to produce a series of artistically visionary films constantly, allow directors complete freedom while still adhering to a cohesive universe, and solving the industry-wide casting issues that have been pretty well-known by now?
Not asking for a lot are ya?
There's a vast world of difference between, "artistically visionary" and "allowing good directors - that you hired because they are good directors - to actually do their job by making basic creative decisions on the movie they're making." We're not asking Marvel to release art house pictures.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Hopefully, Fox has learned their lesson from Deadpool and Logan.
Disney will probably never change since they have a well oiled machine for putting out reasonably quality movies that make great profits. Plus, I would imagine most directors know that Disney has a set schedule for their films and they'll keep to that schedule for their cinematic universe.
I keep hearing people say this and I don't get it. Deadpool and Logan were good (both had huge problems IMO) but in no way do they really measure up to the accomplishment that is the cinematic universe Marvel has created.
Just because they're 'different' it doesn't make them better.
Hopefully, Fox has learned their lesson from Deadpool and Logan.
Disney will probably never change since they have a well oiled machine for putting out reasonably quality movies that make great profits. Plus, I would imagine most directors know that Disney has a set schedule for their films and they'll keep to that schedule for their cinematic universe.
I keep hearing people say this and I don't get it. Deadpool and Logan were good (both had huge problems IMO) but in no way do they really measure up to the accomplishment that is the cinematic universe Marvel has created.
Just because they're 'different' it doesn't make them better.
yeah, it's not just a matter of making one good movie, it's a matter of making a good movie that fits in with ten other good movies and acts as a jumping board for a potential ten future movies.
Deadpool was great but I doubt they can keep making good sequels for long.
To be honest I'm not really sure what the female gaze looks like. The male gaze is more than just ogling.
I dunno if there is such a thing as female gaze, and most of the films I've seen that explore male characters or subjects the same way, usually do so in a homosexual context, which still makes it a male gaze. Mulvey's essay opens discussing phalocentrism, so I don't really think it can be an equivalent. There's almost certainly stuff that comes close.
Maybe something like Beau Travail? There was an argument in one of my classes about whether or not that could be considered female gaze. By any measure, the film is fascinated with the male body while also frequently abstracting itself and refusing to suppose a more typical (male) means of looking at its subjects. Still, the film deals with homosexuality and uses a subjective camera when characters observe each other.
Twilight, Fifty Shades of Gray?
Yeah, the the Female Gaze is an Actual Thing
Maybe not so much in film, given the disgusting lack of inclusion of female voices in film, but very definitely in Real Life.
Hopefully, Fox has learned their lesson from Deadpool and Logan.
Disney will probably never change since they have a well oiled machine for putting out reasonably quality movies that make great profits. Plus, I would imagine most directors know that Disney has a set schedule for their films and they'll keep to that schedule for their cinematic universe.
I keep hearing people say this and I don't get it. Deadpool and Logan were good (both had huge problems IMO) but in no way do they really measure up to the accomplishment that is the cinematic universe Marvel has created.
Just because they're 'different' it doesn't make them better.
I never said that Deadpool or Logan are the same as the entirety of the MCU.
But as individual films, they do things that MCU films haven't done and probably won't ever do.
Marvel is trying to build a cinematic universe of such a scale that no one has ever done before. But each film they make is confined to being a piece of the universe. There's a limit to each film, not just creatively, but just by virtue of the schedule they have to keep in order to put them out to fit with the other films. They couldn't have given Ant-Man's director more time to work on the film and delay its release until after Civil War or put Thor 3 after Infinity War.
As many problems as Deadpool had, the directors and writers were given more freedom to fulfill their creative vision. They weren't restricted by needing to be a piece of a bigger universe. They can do all sorts of silly and dumb self referential and fourth wall breaking jokes. They can poke fun at the idea of cinematic universes and superhero films in general. Sure, a lot of it is pretty simplistic but it is a start. It is something they can build on and they can be more sophisticated and clever in the future. Whether or not they can actually do that is yet to be seen but at the very least, they will be allowed to do it.
And with Logan, not only are they willing to show the real consequences of what a life of violence has on someone and truly end a character's story, they dealt with very personal themes and ideas that we have to deal with in our own lives. Most of us are going to have to take care of an ailing parent, most of us are going to have kids, most of us are going to deal with regrets and disappointment in our lives, and we won't want our children to be burdened by our mistakes. These are things that resonate on a level that almost no other superhero movie has done.
Hopefully, Fox has learned their lesson from Deadpool and Logan.
Disney will probably never change since they have a well oiled machine for putting out reasonably quality movies that make great profits. Plus, I would imagine most directors know that Disney has a set schedule for their films and they'll keep to that schedule for their cinematic universe.
I keep hearing people say this and I don't get it. Deadpool and Logan were good (both had huge problems IMO) but in no way do they really measure up to the accomplishment that is the cinematic universe Marvel has created.
Just because they're 'different' it doesn't make them better.
What exactly are they "not measuring up to" here? What's the accomplishment here?
I mean, yeah, they aren't like a huge series of connected films organized in a shared universe. But considering they are both literally single films, that would be kinda hard to accomplish. Logan is a single film so, no, I don't think it can do what the entire MCU can. You know, by definition.
I think that your argument about the shared universe being a hindrance can be flipped on it's head as some people like the concept of a shared universe. I'm not sure that I agree, outside of scheduling issues, that the shared universe really is a hindrance. I think it's really just a matter of tastes.
As for Logan, I'm not sure I agree that what you outlined was really in the movie. Yes, there's an aging Prof X and a young X23 but I'm not sure they really fit the mold of ailing parent and troubled youth respectively. There are certainly elements of those ideas present but as soon as we have cyborg-men and claw wolverines it kind of goes out the window. It's really no more deep than the man out of time story from the first cap movie or Tony dealing with PTSD in IM3.
Marvels amazing artistic vision is not in the movies themselves, but in the ENTIRE collective.
People lose that forest through the trees sometimes.
In the history of cinema this has never been done before. Once all the "phase" MCU movies are completed after Avengers IW2, i think history will look back and be amazed at what they built.
They just have to know when to "end the trick" in enough time to stick the landing. I hope they realize after IW2 is the time to do so, and start a new trick of a different sort.
Hopefully, Fox has learned their lesson from Deadpool and Logan.
Disney will probably never change since they have a well oiled machine for putting out reasonably quality movies that make great profits. Plus, I would imagine most directors know that Disney has a set schedule for their films and they'll keep to that schedule for their cinematic universe.
I keep hearing people say this and I don't get it. Deadpool and Logan were good (both had huge problems IMO) but in no way do they really measure up to the accomplishment that is the cinematic universe Marvel has created.
Just because they're 'different' it doesn't make them better.
What exactly are they "not measuring up to" here? What's the accomplishment here?
I mean, yeah, they aren't like a huge series of connected films organized in a shared universe. But considering they are both literally single films, that would be kinda hard to accomplish. Logan is a single film so, no, I don't think it can do what the entire MCU can. You know, by definition.
I mean as stand alone films they don't measure up to some of the single best films in the MCU. Deadpool basically has no real plot. It moves along based almost exclusively on the slapstick nature of the character and him constantly juxtaposing the film against everything else out there. Logan had great characters but I felt that the lack of any real villain in the movie severely hindered the second half of that film.
Both are great movies but I see them as being more in line with the kinds of super hero movies we saw coming out prior to the MCU. I don't agree that they're any sort of advancement on the genre.
Marvels amazing artistic vision is not in the movies themselves, but in the ENTIRE collective.
People lose that forest through the trees sometimes.
In the history of cinema this has never been done before. Once all the "phase" MCU movies are completed after Avengers IW2, i think history will look back and be amazed at what they built.
They just have to know when to "end the trick" in enough time to stick the landing. I hope they realize after IW2 is the time to do so, and start a new trick of a different sort.
I think they have accomplished something pretty amazing. But I think it's missing the trees for the forest, so to speak, to ignore that this has come at the cost of frequently generic often samey individual films often lacking clear vision hamstrung by executive meddling and the needs of the franchise as a whole.
So you end up with shit like Age of Ultron being cut to shit and Captain America 1 having a huge letdown of a second-half because it's only purpose is to brush Red Skull out of the way to get Cap ready for the Avengers film.
I think that your argument about the shared universe being a hindrance can be flipped on it's head as some people like the concept of a shared universe. I'm not sure that I agree, outside of scheduling issues, that the shared universe really is a hindrance. I think it's really just a matter of tastes.
As for Logan, I'm not sure I agree that what you outlined was really in the movie. Yes, there's an aging Prof X and a young X23 but I'm not sure they really fit the mold of ailing parent and troubled youth respectively. There are certainly elements of those ideas present but as soon as we have cyborg-men and claw wolverines it kind of goes out the window. It's really no more deep than the man out of time story from the first cap movie or Tony dealing with PTSD in IM3.
The scheduling issue leads to bigger problems like directors and writers not being able to really fulfill their own vision, and the studio picking people based more on their ability to keep a timetable over other qualities.
As for Logan, not only do they spend significantly more time dealing with those ideas but they do it with greater depth and realism. The first 30 minutes of the film was pretty much about the sacrifices Logan has to make to take care of Professor X. The way that it not only shows the indignity of aging but the weariness of taking care of someone in that state is incredible. That thread is kept throughout the film. They deal with Xavier's refusal to take his medication, the moments of lucidity he has with Laura, how draining it is for both Xavier and Logan to be on the run, etc.
The way Logan didn't argue with Xavier about staying with the family, which a lot of people complained about, is actually very believable in the way how people in those conditions would act. When someone is at that age and suffering from dementia, they're in so much discomfort and pain that they can't continue. And being the caregiver is incredibly draining physically and emotionally. And the caregiver knows that it would be pointless to argue since it'll just make everyone angry and achieve nothing.
Posts
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/03/13/sxsw-review-atomic-blonde-is-more-whimper-than-bang
I'll see it for myself because that's what I do with movies I want to see.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I dunno. Male gaze is bottom-up, except where top-down can see down her shirt?
I don't know if I can define Female Gaze offhand, but, like pornography I know it when I see it, like when Captain America was preventing a helicopter from taking off while wearing a t-shirt.
I know that Lesbian Gaze is mostly the same as Male Gaze, but with added shots of their hands (properly trimmed fingernails are sexy).
Huh, I never considered the camera operator here. When you put it that way it does sound especially odd.
I like how Tremors 2 handles this, with the guy looking at the girl's butt and turning around only for her to turn around and so the same thing to him. It was so unexpected.
I think I liked 9?
I don't think I hated it.
Wanted was vaguely entertaining...or at least close
the rest I either haven't seen or am unsurprised that they suck butts
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
http://www.avclub.com/article/corporate-drone-joss-whedon-fought-pure-artistic-i-218967
Meanwhile when you hear, say, Coppola talk about making the Godfather, you hear him talk about how he successfully fought and won against executives on a bunch of fronts, even though he was a new director and had little power:
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502250244/to-make-the-godfather-his-way-francis-ford-coppola-waged-a-studio-battle
(But then perhaps that isn't a very fair comparison, because, as Coppola says, The Godfather was a fairly low budget movie, and Whedon's superhero movies are very big budget affairs. The bigger the budget, the more is at stake, and I imagine, the harder it is for a director to get what they want.)
The only director/Marvel relationship I don't know anything about is Branaugh on Thor. Other than that, they've all had problems. They exhausted Favreau, drove off Edgar Wright, fucked with Shane Black (who had his villains switched up because of a directive from the toy division), etc. Marvel elevated the Russos because they're sitcom directors who don't have the clout to argue. That's how the studio achieves its much-lauded consistency--by devaluing and depowering creatives.
Not knowing much about cinematography, for all i know a combo of lenses and stuff would allow the camera guy to be on the other side of the room filming a slow pan up with the actress just standing there or whatever. We see it as a close up due to focal length and lenses and stuff i don't understand.
In my head though the camera guy is like 6 inches from the actress and filming like that. That's why it gets weird.
Extremely beautiful women make me nervous (as with most guys i think) so i always wonder how that discussion goes.
"Ok, for this scene we need you in just your bra, i'm going to get in there close and pan up ok? Just hold still...."
Of course with most things in life i'm 100% sure its nothing like that at all. With the director and actress being professionals and understanding that human sexuality is the most normal of things. Certainly i doubt Charlize is as embarrassed of her body as i am of my slightly doughy physique. So maybe that helps.
Certainly if I looked like Chris (any of the Chrises, Evans, Hemsworth or Pratt lol) I'd be all "yea dude! get up in there! Check this pose out! How about one of these?!? Oh this helicopter? YEA I GOT THAT! BATHROOOM IS OV_ER THEEEEERRREEEE"
Or empower a different set of creatives.
I'm still on the fence whether this is good or bad.
Some people are not meant to direct. Goyer wrote Blade 1 and 2 which were really fun films, then he directed Blade 3 which was absolutely awful. But then he did Dark Knight. Which was good. But then he did Ghost Rider, Man of Steel, The Dark Knight Rises, and Batman v Superman. So clearly in his case he needs a good director to rein his shit in.
This isn't as simply as you're arguing. Yeah, they've had a bad history - especially in the last years and yeah they do micromanage at times, the thing is this is neither a Marvel only problem (Warner Bros with Suicide Squad, Fox's X-men) and it's not like the directors haven't been treated well or given some freedom. Some directors work better with marvel than others (Wright was never a situation that was going to turn out swimmingly, his entire schtick was always working against the system that's why he prefers to work alone and not on franchise IP's*) and sometimes yes, they do fuck up with the micromanaging (Age of Ultron,Iron Man 2). They also help the director's rise in Hollywood when the partnership works out, assist directors who were nobodies before the MCU and they do have solid relationships (the Russo's, Whedon pre-AoU**, Peyton Reed etc)
There are plusses and minuses with every studio, including their opposite - Warner Brothers. Who despite being having a rep for leaving the directors alone have a habit of interfering with big productions (Batman vs Superman, Suicide Squad, Green Lantern) and there are certain people which have influence over many movies (Zach Snyder), and in contrast to Marvel's Fiege are terrible at planning ahead, having a unified vision and have very little institutional knowledge.
Yes, they like to hire directors who are easier to control, this ins't necessarily a bad thing when the people actually have good quality control. Nor are they stopping said directors from gaining acclaim and rewards so their prices are no longer that cheap. I'd think the Russo's would be huge rising stars in Marvel's stable right now, right?
* the situation with Wright was also not black and white. Marvel had a point with their arguments with him, especially when he continued to think he was working under smoother conditions like in Phase 1 where the universe was less created by other people and they hadn't figured out their formula for setting up movies/cameos/world building etc
** unlike other director Whedon had the burden of being the grandmaster of the entire universe at various levels before he got to his next film, which drained him further. For example - he helped create Agents of SHIELD (wrote and directed the pilot), and rewrote scenes for Thor 2.
Edit: by which I mean that Marvel's behavior and selections deliberately unbalances the traditonal director/producer relationship in the studio's favor. That the directors they hire get career bumps may make this okay on an individual level; but a balanced relationship is vital to the full artistic flowering of a film and the audience is who suffers from this configuration, by getting a series of homogenized movies.
I dunno if there is such a thing as female gaze, and most of the films I've seen that explore male characters or subjects the same way, usually do so in a homosexual context, which still makes it a male gaze. Mulvey's essay opens discussing phalocentrism, so I don't really think it can be an equivalent. There's almost certainly stuff that comes close.
Maybe something like Beau Travail? There was an argument in one of my classes about whether or not that could be considered female gaze. By any measure, the film is fascinated with the male body while also frequently abstracting itself and refusing to suppose a more typical (male) means of looking at its subjects. Still, the film deals with homosexuality and uses a subjective camera when characters observe each other.
What does the help look like, exactly?
Yeah, Marvel's a company you need to be aware of what you're getting into before signing the dotted line. That applies to every studio in Hollywood.
This doesn't excuse Fox or WB, or any other studio being assholes. They are not angels by a long shot.
Except I don't think Marvel was the first ever studio to do this, and it's not like there aren't perks to this relationship for the director.
Supposedly WB is a studio that prides itself on letting directors having a free hand, yet what they did to the director of Suicide Squad was totally against that. At least when Marvel did a similar thing with Incredible Hulk everyone knew what they getting into, and this never happened again. I'd actually say they've become less bad at micromanaging in general over the years and they've fine tuned their strengths into being a brand any director would think twice about saying no too.
Never mind Fox during the Rothman years, and he's working at Sony now.
Twilight, Fifty Shades of Gray?
Also it's ridiculous to point to other studios when the reason this is an industry wide practice now is largely because of studios following Marvel's example--they may not have pioneered the trend but Marvel certainly took it further and (for unrelated reasons) achieved a great deal of success, leading others to adopt the technique.
Its also the place to go that is almost 100% assured to send your career into the stratosphere.
Think of the stars it's made out of mostly unknowns (or dejected in RDJ's case)
Its also one entire universe, one entire story. There has to be some commonality there.
If by homogenized you mean continued quality over the span of over a dozen films, with all 3 of the releases this year contenders for the title of "favorite", then sure.
Context is everything. In the case of Marvels MCU, a thread of similarity shot through the entire narrative is necessary for it's existence. It was built to be a sprawling series of films in the same universe, not vehicles for directors to make their signature work.
I mean, take it or leave it.
There's also the problem of only straight white men getting this kind of deal.
So what's the difference between that and the rest of hollywood?
I'm bringing up the other studios because A) they're not operating in a vacuum, and
The success is not something to be ignored either, they deliver that on a silver platter more than most.
Not asking for a lot are ya?
Disney will probably never change since they have a well oiled machine for putting out reasonably quality movies that make great profits. Plus, I would imagine most directors know that Disney has a set schedule for their films and they'll keep to that schedule for their cinematic universe.
If the most powerful studio in Hollywood can't fix these problems, they can't be fixed. But in reality all it takes is making the decision to do so. If we as audience members care about these issues, it's our responsibility to expect and demand that studios change.
Being the most profitable studio in history would probably lead them to believe nothing really needs fixing.
There's a vast world of difference between, "artistically visionary" and "allowing good directors - that you hired because they are good directors - to actually do their job by making basic creative decisions on the movie they're making." We're not asking Marvel to release art house pictures.
I keep hearing people say this and I don't get it. Deadpool and Logan were good (both had huge problems IMO) but in no way do they really measure up to the accomplishment that is the cinematic universe Marvel has created.
Just because they're 'different' it doesn't make them better.
Noooo I love his work with Fassbinder. He was a real talent.
yeah, it's not just a matter of making one good movie, it's a matter of making a good movie that fits in with ten other good movies and acts as a jumping board for a potential ten future movies.
Deadpool was great but I doubt they can keep making good sequels for long.
Yeah, the the Female Gaze is an Actual Thing
Maybe not so much in film, given the disgusting lack of inclusion of female voices in film, but very definitely in Real Life.
I never said that Deadpool or Logan are the same as the entirety of the MCU.
But as individual films, they do things that MCU films haven't done and probably won't ever do.
Marvel is trying to build a cinematic universe of such a scale that no one has ever done before. But each film they make is confined to being a piece of the universe. There's a limit to each film, not just creatively, but just by virtue of the schedule they have to keep in order to put them out to fit with the other films. They couldn't have given Ant-Man's director more time to work on the film and delay its release until after Civil War or put Thor 3 after Infinity War.
As many problems as Deadpool had, the directors and writers were given more freedom to fulfill their creative vision. They weren't restricted by needing to be a piece of a bigger universe. They can do all sorts of silly and dumb self referential and fourth wall breaking jokes. They can poke fun at the idea of cinematic universes and superhero films in general. Sure, a lot of it is pretty simplistic but it is a start. It is something they can build on and they can be more sophisticated and clever in the future. Whether or not they can actually do that is yet to be seen but at the very least, they will be allowed to do it.
And with Logan, not only are they willing to show the real consequences of what a life of violence has on someone and truly end a character's story, they dealt with very personal themes and ideas that we have to deal with in our own lives. Most of us are going to have to take care of an ailing parent, most of us are going to have kids, most of us are going to deal with regrets and disappointment in our lives, and we won't want our children to be burdened by our mistakes. These are things that resonate on a level that almost no other superhero movie has done.
What exactly are they "not measuring up to" here? What's the accomplishment here?
I mean, yeah, they aren't like a huge series of connected films organized in a shared universe. But considering they are both literally single films, that would be kinda hard to accomplish. Logan is a single film so, no, I don't think it can do what the entire MCU can. You know, by definition.
I think that your argument about the shared universe being a hindrance can be flipped on it's head as some people like the concept of a shared universe. I'm not sure that I agree, outside of scheduling issues, that the shared universe really is a hindrance. I think it's really just a matter of tastes.
As for Logan, I'm not sure I agree that what you outlined was really in the movie. Yes, there's an aging Prof X and a young X23 but I'm not sure they really fit the mold of ailing parent and troubled youth respectively. There are certainly elements of those ideas present but as soon as we have cyborg-men and claw wolverines it kind of goes out the window. It's really no more deep than the man out of time story from the first cap movie or Tony dealing with PTSD in IM3.
People lose that forest through the trees sometimes.
In the history of cinema this has never been done before. Once all the "phase" MCU movies are completed after Avengers IW2, i think history will look back and be amazed at what they built.
They just have to know when to "end the trick" in enough time to stick the landing. I hope they realize after IW2 is the time to do so, and start a new trick of a different sort.
I mean as stand alone films they don't measure up to some of the single best films in the MCU. Deadpool basically has no real plot. It moves along based almost exclusively on the slapstick nature of the character and him constantly juxtaposing the film against everything else out there. Logan had great characters but I felt that the lack of any real villain in the movie severely hindered the second half of that film.
Both are great movies but I see them as being more in line with the kinds of super hero movies we saw coming out prior to the MCU. I don't agree that they're any sort of advancement on the genre.
I think they have accomplished something pretty amazing. But I think it's missing the trees for the forest, so to speak, to ignore that this has come at the cost of frequently generic often samey individual films often lacking clear vision hamstrung by executive meddling and the needs of the franchise as a whole.
So you end up with shit like Age of Ultron being cut to shit and Captain America 1 having a huge letdown of a second-half because it's only purpose is to brush Red Skull out of the way to get Cap ready for the Avengers film.
The scheduling issue leads to bigger problems like directors and writers not being able to really fulfill their own vision, and the studio picking people based more on their ability to keep a timetable over other qualities.
As for Logan, not only do they spend significantly more time dealing with those ideas but they do it with greater depth and realism. The first 30 minutes of the film was pretty much about the sacrifices Logan has to make to take care of Professor X. The way that it not only shows the indignity of aging but the weariness of taking care of someone in that state is incredible. That thread is kept throughout the film. They deal with Xavier's refusal to take his medication, the moments of lucidity he has with Laura, how draining it is for both Xavier and Logan to be on the run, etc.
I think Logan is the superior film to DP but I still think that the second half of it was underwhelming.