|
Super 8 would have been as good as ET if it didn't have an alien at all, and was just about those kids trying to make a monster movie.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
penismightier posted:Super 8 would have been as good as ET if it didn't have an alien at all, and was just about those kids trying to make a monster movie. This is exactly how I feel about it. I've watched it a few times since then, really enjoyed it, and turned it off with about 20-30 minutes to go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:Why not? Star Wars and Indiana Jones were nostalgic pastiches of old movies, and people went bananas for them and still do. Sure, but Star Wars became a hit because of all the 5-25 year olds who went to see it repeatedly, not the 50 year olds mumbling about how much they loved Commando Cody. I should hope you'd see a nostalgic pastiche differently at age 10 and at age 30.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:Just my personal sense of having watched these movies as an adult (I didn't grow up with Close Encounters or E.T.) and the reactions of my various friends. If Super 8 were really all that straightforward, I really think people would still be praising it the way they do Iron Giant. It seems like there is a huge yearning for good nostalgia-tinged sci-fi adventure films, Super 8 is the closest we've come in a while, but it has not attained cult status. It is possible, however, that people overpraise Iron Giant and/or that they underrate Super 8. You bring up an excellent point: Iron Giant was readily consumed by a child and adult audience that enjoyed its 'throwbacks' to the cultural past, and Super 8 was generally dismissed because it didn't live up to the same aesthetic/thematic expectation. This does not mean, however, that either is better than the other. Or that it even matters. This isn't a derail. This is relevant precisely because this is a thread where, collectively, we are discussing the cultural worth of a particular unseen, unknowable film based on an arbitrarily defined sense of 'common sense' logic in reading/viewing art... but art isn't common sense, it's a spontaneous eruption of animal emotion. If we're going to take pleasure in ganging up on films that we somehow collectively determined deserve it -- that's the other thing, though, nobody has to feel like they need to engage another post, they can just start talking about something else -- we might as well tussle around with the more ambiguous questions. Because otherwise we're just taking the mickey out of something for the sake of empowering ourselves, rather than actually risking something of ourselves in the pursuit of both denigrating 'bad' art and upholding 'good' art.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
morestuff posted:This is exactly how I feel about it. I've watched it a few times since then, really enjoyed it, and turned it off with about 20-30 minutes to go. I love Abrams, but his Achille's Heel is leaning too hard on big splashy plot complications - same thing that ruined Into Darkness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
If you want to use boring numbers, kids liked Super 8 significantly better than the gen pop:
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
I like "IMDB users" down there at the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:Nobody is going to have Super 8 posters on their walls in ten years. I'm honestly surprised anyone has an Iron Giant poster on their wall now. And I don't see why not. They're both critically acclaimed sci-fi films for kids. Is it really hard to believe a 23 year old might have that poster on their wall in ten years?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Super 8 would have been as good as ET if it didn't have an alien at all, and was just about those kids trying to make a monster movie. We can all agree Attack the Block was much more entertaining, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:I can't even remember what the alien looked like, I think my memory said "I'm not wasting synapses on this poo poo, you can just bunk with the bug from the end of Men In Black" I didn't really care for Attack the Block, other than the cool monster designs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
wyoming posted:I'm honestly surprised anyone has an Iron Giant poster on their wall now. And I don't see why not. They're both critically acclaimed sci-fi films for kids. Is it really hard to believe a 23 year old might have that poster on their wall in ten years? And, more importantly, how is this important? What does the cultural 'worth' of the film have to do with its qualities? EDIT: Attack the Block is a great companion piece to Super 8. That would make a great double feature.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
morestuff posted:If you want to use boring numbers, kids liked Super 8 significantly better than the gen pop: There's definitely more iconic fodder than Super 8 in the present day. I don't think anyone will remember any one specific Marvel film, but the whole lot of them smushed together as a genre will definitely be something that defines the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:But I hate that it's become a tool against middle-of-the-road apolitical film criticism, too. There's nothing wrong with trying to identify structural problems in Super 8. I like reading Screenwriting 101 poo poo, okay? Is that so bad? I'm not sure where this conclusion comes from or what is exactly positioned against what. The structural (formal?) elements are as politically and philosophically charged as any other aspect of a film. The medium is the message. A discussion on the cinemetography, plot, compositions, score, special effects,diologue etc. are all elements of a film's philosophical position. Having an opinion or making a value judgement on any those elements or the film as a whole is taking an ideological position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I love Abrams, but his Achille's Heel is leaning too hard on big splashy plot complications - same thing that ruined Into Darkness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:We can all agree Attack the Block was much more entertaining, right? Sure can! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:I guess it's impossible for us to be certain what kids will carry with them into adulthood, though if your parents were adults when Star Wars came out I recommend asking them what they thought of it at the time. It's safe to say we have no drat idea what kids will have nostalgia for. How much do you know about Ben 10? iCarly? Skylanders? Cars? Legend of Korra?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's safe to say we have no drat idea what kids will have nostalgia for. How much do you know about Ben 10? iCarly? Skylanders? Cars? Legend of Korra? A lot sadly but that's because I have kids. But yeah, grown adults trying to understand what kids will like in 10 years is a fools errand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Danger posted:I'm not sure where this conclusion comes from or what is exactly positioned against what. The structural (formal?) elements are as politically and philosophically charged as any other aspect of a film. The medium is the message. A discussion on the cinemetography, plot, compositions, score, special effects,diologue etc. are all elements of a film's philosophical position. Having an opinion or making a value judgement on any those elements or the film as a whole is taking an ideological position. What is the political position inherent to: quote:I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
North is pretty drat tasteless and insulting if I recall correctly what review that was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Danger posted:I'm not sure where this conclusion comes from or what is exactly positioned against what. The structural (formal?) elements are as politically and philosophically charged as any other aspect of a film. The medium is the message. A discussion on the cinemetography, plot, compositions, score, special effects,diologue etc. are all elements of a film's philosophical position. Having an opinion or making a value judgement on any those elements or the film as a whole is taking an ideological position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:North is pretty drat tasteless and insulting if I recall correctly what review that was. Yeah it's pretty racist/sexist apparently, which fair enough, but Ebert doesn't even bring that up in his written review--is being anti-tasteless a political stance? If the taste in question is, like, don't be unfunny?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Yeah he does, he attacks the premise for being odious nonsense. He rejected North because the very idea of it was repugnant; Ebert's not really the guy to claim not substantiating his objection to a movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:45
|
|
porfiria posted:Yeah it's pretty racist/sexist apparently, which fair enough, but Ebert doesn't even bring that up in his written review--is being anti-tasteless a political stance? If the taste in question is, like, don't be unfunny? Having a problem with audience-insulting cynicism could be a political stance. I mean the paragraph is basically Ebert restating the idea that it's wrong to make movies that are as stupid and terrible as North based on the assumption that people are stupid and like terrible things, which is vaguely egalitarian or whatever, and you could extrapolate from that...?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:You don't think arguing that "technically, if you really think about it, apolitical elements ARE philosophical" is being a little coy? You don't see the tonal difference between the two styles of discussion I'm talking about? I'm wondering what the distinction is between political and apolitical elements or why there is even assumed to be one. Discussing how lovely some cg looks in a movie is discussing the films message, though likely in fairly reductive ways. For instance the cgi babies in Noah, while apparent, draw a clear parallel to the innocent nature of the other animals and their radical potential for difference. The tone of the discussion seems sort of superfluous. Just say what you want to say. Danger fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah he does, he attacks the premise for being odious nonsense. He rejected North because the very idea of it was repugnant; Ebert's not really the guy to claim not substantiating his objection to a movie. Nonsense because, he says, it completely misunderstands the nature of children. My point isn't that he doesn't substantiate his objections but that the nature of those objections isn't meaningfully political, unless you want to use that word in a way that most people don't. acephalousuniverse posted:Having a problem with audience-insulting cynicism could be a political stance. I mean the paragraph is basically Ebert restating the idea that it's wrong to make movies that are as stupid and terrible as North based on the assumption that people are stupid and like terrible things, which is vaguely egalitarian or whatever, and you could extrapolate from that...? Yeah, sure, but we're getting pretty far afield in that case, particularly here when so much of the analysis is explicitly Marxist/Zizekist. I mean, thinking politically--is anyone FOR cynical audience insulting movies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
CPFortest posted:Well, except for that one guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
porfiria posted:What is the political position inherent to: Well, all of this stuff in the same review: quote:I have no idea why Rob Reiner, or anyone else, wanted to make this story into a movie, and close examination of the film itself is no help. "North" is one of the most unpleasant, contrived, artificial, cloying experiences I've had at the movies. To call it manipulative would be inaccurate; it has an ambition to manipulate, but fails.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Nonsense because, he says, it completely misunderstands the nature of children. My point isn't that he doesn't substantiate his objections but that the nature of those objections isn't meaningfully political, unless you want to use that word in a way that most people don't. Since it's not couched in 2014 CD friendly ("realism" versus, I dunno, "SMGism") terms I would kind of agree, but he's examining the idiocy and carelessness of the relationship North has with his parents. There's no humor there because it's not something anyone relates to, so it fails even as low common denominator comedy and that's before all the lazy stereotypes. He's a succinct enough writer that you know what he's getting at if you've seen the movie. quote:To call it manipulative would be inaccurate; it has an ambition to manipulate, but fails. Yeah, that's a pretty good quote. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:You are not getting this right. Because I pretty explicitly did not say that "film theory is wrong" or that film theory is somehow inherently pretentious. In fact I clarified several times that I don't think either of those things. Okay. My mistake - I assumed you were saying that because you kept insulting vague imaginary 'hick freshmen' and easy target TVTropes. Question though - how do you discern if the 'pedo anime' you take pains to talk about is actually a subtle commentary on pedo animes or not? I would assume you would do it by 'reading' the anime, also known as 'watching' it. TVTropes has a lot of problems but at the very least they might be onto something sometimes because they bother to try (they fail, but they try) to interpret the material they watch. You're the one distancing yourself from the material by just dogmatically assuming something can't be satire or whatever. That's disingenuous. Like I really want to understand where you're coming from here but all I can really get is the vague statement that SMG is 'wrong' and a bunch of insults aimed at how you think he feels about you. You also seem to be saying he's misreading or half-reading Zizek. What's he misreading? Please explain your thoughts to me. I'm going to re-ask the question because I genuinely would like to know: What is 'dumb' about hamburgers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Since it's not couched in 2014 CD friendly ("realism" versus, I dunno, "SMGism") terms I would kind of agree, but he's examining the idiocy and carelessness of the relationship North has with his parents. There's no humor there because it's not something anyone relates to, so it fails even as low common denominator comedy and that's before all the lazy stereotypes. He's a succinct enough writer that you know what he's getting at if you've seen the movie. I've never seen the movie, have no context for it beyond that review, and know what he's getting because he says it outright.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
I have seen North and can say he's pretty much exactly right; that review was enough to launch a series of books from Ebert because his writing on bad movies is just as good as his writing on good movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:12
|
|
porfiria posted:Yeah, sure, but we're getting pretty far afield in that case, particularly here when so much of the analysis is explicitly Marxist/Zizekist. I mean, thinking politically--is anyone FOR cynical audience insulting movies? I mean, you asked what is the potential political implication of the paragraph about North. I answered. The fact that most people here agree with the paragraph and its implications doesn't really relate? Hbomberguy posted:My mistake - I assumed you were saying that because you kept insulting vague imaginary 'hick freshmen' [...] I'm going to re-ask the question because I genuinely would like to know: What is 'dumb' about hamburgers? You are really bad at reading words because the things you think I said and the questions you're asking me don't have anything to do with the things I actually wrote. Please stop trying so hard.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I have seen North and can say he's pretty much exactly right; that review was enough to launch a series of books from Ebert because his writing on bad movies is just as good as his writing on good movies. You ain't kidding. His evisceration of Battle: Los Angeles was far more enjoyable than the film itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Danger posted:I'm not sure where this conclusion comes from or what is exactly positioned against what. The structural (formal?) elements are as politically and philosophically charged as any other aspect of a film. The medium is the message. I know nothing of his work, but I was under the impression that McLuhan took "The medium is the message" to the extreme degree of saying that content is wholly irrelevant and all films have the same effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Super 8 would have been as good as ET if it didn't have an alien at all, and was just about those kids trying to make a monster movie. Have you (or anyone else here) seen the preview for Earth to Echo? It looks a lot more like what you want Super 8 to be, though there's still an alien, it's entirely from the kids' perspective. It essentially looks like ET set in the modern day, shot like Cloverfield. It came outta nowhere when I saw Muppets a few nights ago, and looks like it might actually have some weight to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:06
|
|
Sprecherscrow posted:I know nothing of his work, but I was under the impression that McLuhan took "The medium is the message" to the extreme degree of saying that content is wholly irrelevant and all films have the same effect. I mean even if he didn't that would still be a wrong use of the phrase since "medium" isn't the same thing as the structure of a work (as in "three-act structure" etc.).
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:I mean even if he didn't that would still be a wrong use of the phrase since "medium" isn't the same thing as the structure of a work (as in "three-act structure" etc.). That's what I'm saying. The things he's talking about fall under what (I think. Again I know nothing) McLuhan conceptualized as content and therefore irrelevant. I actually don't disagree with his post altogether, I'm just not sure his invoking of McLuhan is in line with McLuhan's writings and I'd like someone to confirm or correct my notion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
McLuhan says that form and content can't really be segregated, not that content is irrelevant. The medium is the message: the medium is the content. I'm probably getting it wrong because that dude was way smarter than me. Kull the Conqueror fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:You are really bad at reading words because the things you think I said and the questions you're asking me don't have anything to do with the things I actually wrote. Please stop trying so hard. "Why did you write what you did about hamburgers" is a pretty straightforward question. I'm not sure why you have such an apparent interest in dodging it. Also I'm pretty sure everything I wrote deals with things you have said. Feel free to actually tell me where I went wrong any time, though! My basic stance on movies/culture/art is that even 'bad' things are part of the message. Atlas Shrugged is highly anti-objectivist because its narrative is so directly flawed it exposes the very idea of objectivism as a bullshit ideology that doesn't work. The job creators can rise above the chaff, and all they need to do is invent magic! I can sum up my plan in a speech that only takes three hours to read aloud! You couldn't write a better satire of Ayn Rand if you tried.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Sprecherscrow posted:I know nothing of his work, but I was under the impression that McLuhan took "The medium is the message" to the extreme degree of saying that content is wholly irrelevant and all films have the same effect. I really don't mean to be an rear end, but it's not as if it's hard to find his stuff these days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVnjiASvCOU
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:32
|
|
