|
cargo cult posted:why hasnt there been a proper paranoid spy movie in ages? we live in an age where spooks seem to run everything and have captured all the tech giants but the only thing that gets greenlight is garbage like jack ryan. john krasinski seems like a massive islamophobic chud if you haven't seen it, Atomic Blonde is actually pretty great. but it's set in Cold war. i loving love the run-down dystopic east-euro/germany grungy punk setting tho
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Fleetwood posted:Believe it or not, there's a real hunger from the studios to find strong writers who can produce a product that isn't just recycled versions of the media they've obsessively consumed. I talked to a successful person in the industry recently who said that too many writers have no life experience outside of consuming media. have they tried looking at the many national and international film festivals that exist for the sole purpose of scouting out new talent the problem isnt that current writers and directors are any less talented than the ones in past years its that our entire mainstream film distribution system is designed around franchises and remakes and it turns out that studio executives are free to hire whatever nepotistic assholes they think are the most fun at child rape parties instead of actually talented people when the marketing system is centered around selling vague nostalgia and brands as opposed to stories
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:That's something else that these, besides that these 23+ movies have maybe 5 lines that get quoted between all of them, they're are no stand out set pieces like running from the boulder, ripping the heart out, choosing the wrong grail, the Death Star trench run, the Canal chase from T2, anything from Aliens or any of the other rich stones of well cinema that have been absorbed into culture. i don't know if it counts as MCU since it was made by fox before the merger, but Logan has definitely stuck with me since i first saw it. the grandfather/father/daughter relationship they evoke against the backdrop of unavoidable oblivion and inhuman cruelty was about as emotionally charged as you can get from comic book source material. logan having to interact with charles as the put-upon but dutiful son and then having to turn around and be an estranged father to laura, aware of all his failings and yet wanting so desperately not to be the same burden upon her really resonated with me. the scene where logan has to bury charles and completely loses his poo poo and flips out and wrecks their vehicle and laura essentially has to wear the grown-up pants and fix all of it was darkly cyclical and also hit a little too close to home for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
cargo cult posted:why hasnt there been a proper paranoid spy movie in ages? we live in an age where spooks seem to run everything and have captured all the tech giants but the only thing that gets greenlight is garbage like jack ryan. john krasinski seems like a massive islamophobic chud haywire is like this but about private intelligence contractors. sicario is great too
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
Jason Bourne had some plot about Facebook spying that honestly can't remember well. The Mission Impossible franchise has had Western spies as antagonists in like half the films. It's not intentional but the two messages I take away from that series are "unaccountable spies are bad" and "Tom Cruise craves death."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
its pretty ironic how the impossible mission force itself is an unaccountable government agency and alec baldwin is an honorary villain in the fifth one for making the entirely accurate observation that they tend to gently caress up all their missions and only succeed in the end by pure dumb luck as for sicario the movie unironically suggests that death squads are cool and good and that guys like benicio del toro are just making the touch choices that cowardly liberals like emily blunt wont the movies about as anti security state as zero dark thirty
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:as for sicario the movie unironically suggests that death squads are cool and good and that guys like benicio del toro are just making the touch choices that cowardly liberals like emily blunt wont the movies about as anti security state as zero dark thirty Genuinely curious where you're getting this, at least for the first movie. It seems like it presents Del Toro as a monster hired by the CIA, which spends the whole movie manipulating someone who actually still believes in the system to the point of forcing her to sign off on stuff at gunpoint. Then in the second one they weren't willing to follow through with it and had the lead CIA murderer have a change of heart at the end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
the real good spy series is Burn Notice, which constantly depicts the CIA as a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths will sell you out at the first opportunity and are never to be trusted
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 13:36
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:as for sicario the movie unironically suggests that death squads are cool and good and that guys like benicio del toro are just making the touch choices that cowardly liberals like emily blunt wont the movies about as anti security state as zero dark thirty lol I think your literally the only person who has suggested that interpretation of sicario. this is like saying no country for old men supports the clear headed barbarism of Anton chigurh over the confused morality of tommy Lee Jones
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:the real good spy series is Burn Notice, which constantly depicts the CIA as a bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths will sell you out at the first opportunity and are never to be trusted This, but Person of Interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:have they tried looking at the many national and international film festivals that exist for the sole purpose of scouting out new talent The studios aren't in the business of creating trends, so they just do whatever has made money in the recent past. There's so much exec turnover at the high level studios that no suits will take a risk. It's unfortunate. otoh, there's more variety available from independent companies than ever before. I don't think they make much money though. Annapurna Pictures has been trying to break the studio mold by pushing indie-type movies to the forefront, but out of the two dozen movies they made last last year, only one of them broke even. https://observer.com/2019/03/annapurna-box-office-vice-beale-street-losing-money-how-will-it-recover/
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
Kevin Feige just got put in charge of Marvel Comics as well as the studio and buddy I wanna die
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Kevin Feige just got put in charge of Marvel Comics as well as the studio and buddy I wanna die What the gently caress happened to Cebulski then? Also, poo poo is Marvel going to be unreadable in the future, there's never going to be an adventurous story done ever again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Fleetwood posted:The studios aren't in the business of creating trends, so they just do whatever has made money in the recent past. There's so much exec turnover at the high level studios that no suits will take a risk. It's unfortunate. otoh, there's more variety available from independent companies than ever before. I don't think they make much money though. Annapurna Pictures has been trying to break the studio mold by pushing indie-type movies to the forefront, but out of the two dozen movies they made last last year, only one of them broke even. drat that’s depressing, them and a24 are the two bright spots of American film production
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:What the gently caress happened to Cebulski then? Also, poo poo is Marvel going to be unreadable in the future, there's never going to be an adventurous story done ever again. He's EiC, Feige is CEO I believe Edit Chief Creative Officer, he'll have say in the stories and ideas the line as a whole pushes, if it's anything like when John's was CCO at DC BENGHAZI 2 has issued a correction as of 15:22 on Oct 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
What exactly that translates to in the day to day is up in the air, things like this take a while to shake out in Comics where everything is done months ahead of time and there's no such thing as changes in real time My current guess is that guys like Hickman and Ewing and Aaron, who have either been around a while and have some stroke or have some stroke from absolutely crushing it on their first big book (Ewing), will be mostly left alone Everyone else is probably going to be falling in line with the new tone/direction, to wit, boring bullshit Again, it's not something that's going to change poo poo over night. We're looking at at least February before we start seeing anything at all (Comics are solicited three months out, were close enough to January releases being announced that there's not enough lead time) and it'll probably be later than thAt It just sucks Edit quick research says that short to mid term, nothing is changing except that Joe Quesada, who was EiC and then something else and now executive vp and creative director, will report to someone who will report to Feige, and Trump lover Ike Perlmutter is out of the loop on creative BENGHAZI 2 has issued a correction as of 15:24 on Oct 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
The actual worst part is that they could theoretically move Marvel Comics office to the west coast and out of it's home in NYC which is just It feels wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
I was about to say, I didn't even know who Marvel's CEO was before, but I knew they moved one of their old Editors in Chief to a creative position at one point, guess it was Quesada. I've just hated how much the movies have dictated that the illusion of change be hampered on more than usual in terms of keeping characters at a set status quo. That and weird-rear end tie ins like the time Mystique developed scales for no loving reason other than she had them in the movies and then the comics had to forget she had them or how homogeneous all the character designs have been to be in the ballpark of the actors when there used to be a lot of interesting takes on characters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I was about to say, I didn't even know who Marvel's CEO was before, but I knew they moved one of their old Editors in Chief to a creative position at one point, guess it was Quesada. They've pulled back from the actors likeness thing by and large. Iron Man's the last hold out and that one makes sense
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
It's also entirely possible that my broken brain is just freaking out because I've done this for so long and getting a peek back into the bubble now that I'm out is fuckin me up
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:They've pulled back from the actors likeness thing by and large. Iron Man's the last hold out and that one makes sense Didn't Samuel l Jackson ask marvel to make him Nick fury in the comics so he could be the character in any movies? I distinctly remember this happening but I don't know if I'm having a Mandela effect moment
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Jenny Agutter posted:lol I think your literally the only person who has suggested that interpretation of sicario. this is like saying no country for old men supports the clear headed barbarism of Anton chigurh over the confused morality of tommy Lee Jones whatshername points out right there at the end that antons whole thing about giving people a choice with coin flips is a load of poo poo because hes the ones whos actually making the choices and is always choosing to escalate the situation for no reason because hes an rear end in a top hat tommy lee jones never even comes into it since he never manages to catch up with the main plot roughly every five minutes in sicario emily blunt is proven to be a moron whose soft adherence to morality would have gotten her raped and or killed if del toro wasnt there to bail her out then every ten minutes some spook is explaining how the drug cartel is made up of literal animals who cant be fought any other way and at the end its explicitly stated that short of having del toro go out on a murder spree every so often the problem is totally unsolvable instead of just mostly unsolvable Fleetwood posted:The studios aren't in the business of creating trends, so they just do whatever has made money in the recent past. There's so much exec turnover at the high level studios that no suits will take a risk. It's unfortunate. otoh, there's more variety available from independent companies than ever before. I don't think they make much money though. Annapurna Pictures has been trying to break the studio mold by pushing indie-type movies to the forefront, but out of the two dozen movies they made last last year, only one of them broke even. the reason annapurna failed is because the major studios effectively control the distribution system it has nothing to do with actual consumer demand
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Didn't Samuel l Jackson ask marvel to make him Nick fury in the comics so he could be the character in any movies? I distinctly remember this happening but I don't know if I'm having a Mandela effect moment The story is that when Bebdis was writing USM and introducing the ultimate version of Nick fury he asked Sam Jackson to use his likeness and the answer was "I get first shot at the movie" How true that is is debatable
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
They did introduce a new Nick Fury, Nick Fury Jr, the black son of Nick Fury, when the movies took off for real though but it's hardly as blatantly Samuel L as Ultimate Nick Fury was
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:reason annapurna failed is because the major studios effectively control the distribution system it has nothing to do with actual consumer demand It's this, but also tbf in a small distribution you do have to take into account tastes. Like Vice, i'm a radical gay space communist leftist and i don't have any particular desire to pay money to see a movie about a loving war criminal, which because ive been trained over 3 decades of neolib center-right hollywood that they're predictable, is gunna suck him off and portray him as a Flawed But Good Intentioned Guy. i would imagine most of the smaller-movie goers probably thought the same thing I did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:roughly every five minutes in sicario emily blunt is proven to be a moron whose soft adherence to morality would have gotten her raped and or killed if del toro wasnt there to bail her out then every ten minutes some spook is explaining how the drug cartel is made up of literal animals who cant be fought any other way and at the end its explicitly stated that short of having del toro go out on a murder spree every so often the problem is totally unsolvable instead of just mostly unsolvable del toro kills kids in cold blood, he uses blunt as bait, the cia is explicitly in cahoots with one drug cartel, their involvement guarantees the continuation of the violence that kills Emily blunts team members at the start of the movie. she is absolutely guilty of cowardly liberalism but the CIA types are portrayed as much worse, it’s an indictment of smokescreen attempts to regulate the behavior of bad agents via toothless oversight
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
the question isnt whether the the cia is depicted worse than emily blunt its whether the cia is depicted worse than the drug lords who del toro is icing and it most certainly is not
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
Xaris posted:It's this, but also tbf in a small distribution you do have to take into account tastes. Like Vice, i'm a radical gay space communist leftist and i don't have any particular desire to pay money to see a movie about a loving war criminal, which because ive been trained over 3 decades of neolib center-right hollywood that they're predictable, is gunna suck him off and portray him as a Flawed But Good Intentioned Guy. i would imagine most of the smaller-movie goers probably thought the same thing I did. it gratifies to me to read that actually i thought i was the only one who reacted that way but thats because i have to get most of my movie related feedback from the entertainment press which is poo poo unsurprisingly it also didnt help that i hated the big short a lot the more i thought about it the movie is incredibly unnecessarily condescending to its audience and entirely too sympathetic to its main characters who by any reasonable definition were vultures profiting over the economic destruction of the rest of the country
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:the question isnt whether the the cia is depicted worse than emily blunt its whether the cia is depicted worse than the drug lords who del toro is icing and it most certainly is not there’s no difference between the cia and the drug lords tho, they’re explicitly supporting one drug cartel over another and don’t actually care about stopping cartel violence in general because they correctly realize it won’t stop until either demand or prohibition ends in the us
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
theyre explicitly supporting one cartel over the other because they think that there will be less violence if one cartel controls everything this is coincidentally the exact same argument the actual united states government has used to justify its participation in drug wars and emily blunt doesnt even come close to calling it out for the load of poo poo it is she fully accepts their premise
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
I got the impression she did realize that policy was wild bullshit, that’s why she tries to stop the tunnel raid and gets beat up by the mercs and has to be threatened in order to sign the papers at the end. like she’s clearly in the right and the viewers POV, I don’t get how you can say the film advocates the cias actions
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:it gratifies to me to read that actually i thought i was the only one who reacted that way but thats because i have to get most of my movie related feedback from the entertainment press which is poo poo unsurprisingly never seen the big short but i figured that would probably be the case is portraying main guys as lovable reasonable goofballs who just happened to be ___. it's always the loving case
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
most of the dudes in the big short are portrayed as miserable workaholic who feel lovely about betting against the economy, which is still a more sympathetic portrayal than the ice blooded vultures they probably are irl and count me as another person who had no interest in vice, even if it was not a sympathetic portrayal we had to live with that ghoul in the media for 8 years and I never want to think about him again
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
the book also had that problem but its also a real accessible read of how the scam worked which is why it was popular the movie was the exact opposite of that because it kept using those drat cutaways the people who made it seemed to sincerely believe that moneyball was too cerebral and needed more celebrity guest stars
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
is your problem that you think general audiences already knew what a mortgage backed security or credit default swap was, or that they were explained in that specific way?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
look, you don't have to like Big Short but you at least have to like the bit where the lady at the ratings agency is literally blind
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
I don't remember enjoying Big Short too much. I wanted to like it more than I actually did. Maybe I wanted the lazy aesop route where the movie plays up the "guilty pleasure heist" aspect, and then calls the audience out for being complicit in cheering for the characters betting against the economy. Vice was equally condescending, but a bit more entertaining. Parts that were supposed to be funny actually were. And I'll take any Trump-era media that argues that things were bad long before 45. It's a middle finger to people who want to rehabilitate Bush. (And the movie pisses on Liz Cheney too for being a cynical homophobe so cool.) Wolf of Wall Street (yes I'm aware of the movie itself being entangled in a scam) probably did a better job than Big Short of painting an unflattering portrait of Wall Steet culture. The documentary "Inside Job" is kind of boring, but does a better job explaining the scam than Big Short. There was also that Wall Street sequel, which was also about the 2008 meltdown; I don't remember much about it other than Shia LaBeouf and Josh Brolin being in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
the big short is useful at least for showing to normies so that you can show them their favorite movie stars teaching them that people knew the crash was coming but nothing was done due to naked greed. lots and lots of people think that all those bankers woke up one day and had no idea how things had broken down
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
smh at all you guys talking bout movies talking about the economic recession and not mentioning the best one, The Other Guys, a comedy which features graphs about the unbelievable inequality and bullshit in the credits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
lmao Werner Herzog is in the new Disney Star Wars bounty hunter show
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 19:18
|
|