#Did I just re-watch the theatrical release of the film | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

abysscronica · 2 years ago

Note

What do you think of the one piece movies?

Oh boi, that's a loaded question. 😭 I will reply honestly but please remember this is my personal opinion, whatever you like it's all legit!

In general, I don't particularly care for the OP movies too much. I did see them, almost all, even enjoy some or part of them, but I'm grateful that they're non-canon. I don't hate them and I'm always happy when a new one is announced (more OP content!), but that's about it. Same goes for the special/OVAs, although they kinda stopped with those. I will only go through the movies in this post.

Movie 1 (One Piece: the Movie) and 2 (Clockwork Island Adventure) are basically like filler arcs in the early days of the anime. They are not bad, nor good. I haven't seen them in a long while but I remember being pretty neutral towards them.

Movie 3 (Chopper's Kingdom on the Island of Strange Animals) and 5 (The Cursed Holy Sword) actually SUCK. They suck so much I could hardly get to the end. The Chopper one is just a total bore with a super predictable plot, while the Zoro one is actually painful. Zoro and the crew are totally OOC, and the poorly-thought magic lore introduced in the movie just doesn't fit with the OP universe.

You'll noticed I skipped movie 4 (Dead End Adventure). And that's because this one I like. It's also like a filler arc, but it fits perfectly in the plot (love the quick reference to Navarone), it flows well, it's dynamic and engaging, and the original characters are actually good. Shout out to Shuraiya Bascùd, whose design is basically Ace in a different color palette, but has a complex personality.

Movie 6 (Baron Omatsuri and the Secret Island) is a unique One Piece product, quite distant from what we're used to, and therefore I consider it a must-see. Not really for the plot, which doesn't make much sense, but for the art and the direction. In fact, it was directed by Hosoda, a very notable anime movie director (Wolf Children, The Girl who Leapt through Time, Summer Wars, Digimon...).

Movie 7 (The Giant Mechanical Soldier of Karakuri Castle)... I remember absolutely nothing of this movie except Nami's bouncing boobs.

Movie 8 (Episode of Alabasta) and 9 (Episode of Chopper plus) are revised re-tellings of the Alabasta and Drum saga. They aren't bad, especially Chopper's, some dramatic sequences are very touching. They made a great use of the soundtrack, or lacking thereof.

I will place Movie 11 (One Piece 3D: Straw Hat Chase) here because it doesn't fit with the remaining ones. This may as well be a special: it's only 30 minutes long, most of the Strawhats barely appear, it doesn't feature a villain-based adventure, and it's in a graphic format never used again. Take it as a slice-of-life episode, and it's enjoyable.

Movie 10 (Strong World) is a turning point, because this is when OP movies became "films", Oda started to get involved, some original canon elements were dropped in, and there were theatrical releases. The difference in quality (at least plot-wise) is immediately clear. Strong World is the last movie set before the timeskip (excluding movie 11), and it may well be my favorite.

Movie 12 (Z) is probably close second. The villain is a great character, and I LOVED the inclusion of Aokiji and Kizaru, how different they were, the implications they brought to the plot.

Movie 13 (Gold) is okay. Enjoyable. Once again, good villain, nice setting, good animation.

Movie 14 (Stampede) has a special place in my heart because it included the Kid Pirates, and Kid & Killer have a few scenes. Buuuut if I have to be honest, the plot is quite weak and, if you take off the (scarce) screen time of my beloved, it's a little boring.

And finally! The most recent, movie 15, Red. I haven't had the chance to watch it yet because it didn't get a theatrical release where I live, so I'm waiting for the DVD to be out. What I can say is that I've watched reviews from my two favorite OP youtubers (Tekking101 and Sawyer7mage), and they were not particularly impressed with it. My best friend also watched it and found it incredibly boring, so my hopes aren't really too high. I think they went waaaay too hard on the marketing for this one, they pushed Shanks and Uta SO MUCH. (Also it doesn't help that I'm one of the very few people that don't really care about Shanks, huh). I heard the songs and they were amazing, Ado is a masterclass singer. I read about the plot and I do think some details are quite interesting, like Uta's whole psychology and possibly the ending (?). I guess I'll have to update my opinion when I actually watch the movie.

That's all for now. Feel free to ask for more details if you want.

#one piece movie #baron omatsuri and the secret island #dead end adventure #strong world #one piece z #one piece gold #one piece stampede #one piece red

36 notes · View notes

kylesvariouslistsandstuff · 2 years ago

Text

Much Ado About MOANA

Say it ain't so!

Walt Disney Pictures is working on a live-action "reimagining" of MOANA that will involve Dwayne Johnson himself, who of course voiced Maui in the original animated feature directed by Ron Clements and John Musker for Walt Disney Animation Studios and released in 2016.

As of now, the movie has three forthcoming extensions: This project, a land at Epcot in Walt Disney World, and an animated series being produced at WDAS (namely its recently-opened Vancouver unit) for Disney+.

I used to grouse to the moon and back about how much I detested much of these particular remakes and reimaginings of Disney's animated features and characters. You know, the ones made in the aftermath of Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND throughout the 2010s, and even into now. I used to see them as something of a threat to animation's reputation, and they all came at us fast! MALEFICENT in 2014, CINDERELLA in 2015, THE JUNGLE BOOK (a largely CGI movie with one live actor and maybe like, 5 real-life plants) and ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS in 2016, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST in 2017, and a five-finger-punch of DUMBO, ALADDIN, THE LION KING, a MALEFICENT sequel, and LADY AND THE TRAMP in 2019... And then MULAN in 2020, CRUELLA in 2021, and PINOCCHIO this past year. Mixed in with these movies were a genuine new take on hybrid film PETE'S DRAGON and a legacy sequel to MARY POPPINS, MARY POPPINS RETURNS. Even Burton's ALICE, which got this whole ball rolling, was pretty much its own thing, ditto the 2016 sequel.

On the horizon? PETER PAN & WENDY, THE LITTLE MERMAID, SNOW WHITE, MUFASA: THE LION KING, BAMBI, THE SWORD IN THE STONE, a JUNGLE BOOK sequel, THE ARISTOCATS, ROBIN HOOD, THE CHRONICLES OF PRYDAIN (which the 1985 animated feature THE BLACK CAULDRON was adapted from), THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, HERCULES, and LILO & STITCH. Now MOANA joins the ranks, the first all-CG animated Disney film to get the "live-action" treatment.

That's a ton of remakes in the span of almost 10 years, if we peg the actual start of this trend with 2014's MALEFICENT.

I think I've only seen... ALICE IN WONDERLAND, and THE JUNGLE BOOK, in full. I refused to watch the others. Back then it was out of protest and me just genuinely not being interested, nowadays? It's just the latter. These things aren't for me, and that's okay I guess. They haven't erased animation, nor did other recent "realistic" takes on animated classics, such as the 2017 GHOST IN THE SHELL movie with Scarlett Johansson. It hit me one day at my cinema job when THE LION KING was released. The Cinemark that I work at used to have a cart for movie merchandise, including things like T-shirts and Funko Pops and such. Most of the merchandise for the remakes that came out that year? Were for the animated originals... (I use the word loosely, but... You know what I mean!) I'd say it was an 85/15 ratio. Some stuff for the new remake, but mostly stuff for the classic animated movies that inspired them... It hit me... These are just over-glorified theatrical re-releases of the animated classics, made to move some merch and stuff at your local Hot Topic. It's kind of a weird transition from the way Disney used to keep their films in the public eye, whether it was a re-release cycle from the 1940s up until the mid-1990s, or their video releases being available for a limited time before being retired to the infamous "Disney Vault" (a ruthless marketing strategy thankfully put to rest with the arrival of Disney+ in 2019).

But in 2017-ish, I remember just being so goddamn grumpy about these things. Made worse by various directors, actors, and producers involved with the remakes making disparaging remarks about the classic movies for being... Well... **Animated**. Imagine that! The director of live-action BEAUTY AND THE BEAST declared that filming that story with real people gave it layers of psychological depth and nuance or some such bullshit. An actor on ALADDIN said almost verbatim the same exact thing. Disney stressed that their LION KING remake wasn't animated, even though the entire thing except a single shot was computer generated and "animated"! Then of course, several folks involved with the remakes making up nonsense about the princesses and heroines in the originals. We're seeing that now, even, with THE LITTLE MERMAID. Though these particular remarks about classic Disney heroines are nothing new, they remain nonetheless a bit irritating and proof that media literacy is lacking in many people. Then again, we do live in a world where people constantly parrot nonsense like "Batman is a rich guy who beats up poor people" and "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is about being bullied until you're useful to your bullies."

Some people just don't pay attention to what they watch, do they?

But really, the remakes come, make a lot of noise, often times make a crapton of money at the box office... And then they just... Disappear. Like, it was insisted that BEAUTY AND THE BEAST 2017 fixed the plot holes of the 1991 movie and was "darker", more "adult", whatever- Uhhh, I don't really feel its presence anymore, whereas the 1991 animated movie directed by Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale? Still here, still beloved, still holds up. I guess you could not outmode the dumb ol' kiddie cartoon, now could you? All that "darker" and "more psychology" talk is gimmicks at best, and most folks just kinda watch 'em because they saw the originals... and then that's it. It's a movie, it's a thing, it exists. You got what was on the tin: It's [insert Disney movie here], all over again!

This all being said... Now the CG movies are fair game, and possibly Pixar's some time in the future. It ain't just the 2D movies they're going after anymore. Look at Universal, they're readying a HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON live-action movie for 2025 with Dean DeBlois himself - director of all three of the animated DreamWorks HTTYD movies - at the helm! It's either going to be a straight-up live-action version of the DreamWorks adaptation released back in 2010, or it's going to be a whole new take on Cressida Cowell's book series. I hope it's the latter, honestly, then I might give it my attention.

To this day, many rightfully concerned folks still feel that these live-action/photorealistic remakes insult pure animation. Pure animation as in, animation that KNOWS it's animated. Straight-up cartoon or abstract. That Hollywood sees animated movies as but a "stepping stone" to superior live-action, but really... What I see is this... Money. People love an animated movie or show? Money. How many different coats of paint can we put on the car?

Some are asking... Why not just a MOANA sequel?

The weird thing about that is, Ron Clements and John Musker left Disney Animation. They were last seen developing a METAL MEN movie for Warner Animation Group. Of course, the directors being off on a new adventure doesn't mean anything in capitalism, Disney could plow ahead with a MOANA sequel if they wanted to. But they choose not to at the moment, only this and a D+ series. Kind of keeping in line with a history of not really making sequels in-house, and the days of outsourced direct-to-video fare has been loooooong over. (The remakes are often compared to the DTV sequels of the '90s and '00s, and for good reason. They're little more than brand extensions, and you can ex 'em out of the equation if you so choose to do so. Disney EU or Disney "Elseworlds" if you will...)

But what's actually seemingly upsetting is that... In the past few months, on the year of Disney's 100th anniversary... Most of the movie announcements have been nothing but continuations and brand extensions. They also serve as a nice distraction from needless layoffs, but yes... The big announcements have been things like TOY STORY 5, FROZEN III, ZOOTOPIA 2, Live-Action MOANA, etc. etc.

However, one ought to look closer. In-between all the franchisey stuff and synergetic things, there's still original movies being made... Like, there's not only 20th Century Studios continuing to make new live-action movies that aren't remakes or re-dos or new adaptations of books (y'all seen THE MENU and BARBARIAN last year? Great stuff! Highly recommended.), but you still have Pixar. From March 2020 to March 2022? Four straight original animated movies: ONWARD, SOUL, LUCA, TURNING RED. After spin-off LIGHTYEAR, we're getting ELEMENTAL in two months, ELIO in spring 2024, and presumably many more on the horizon.

Oh, but ELEMENTAL looks "mid", you say? "A parody of Pixar"? Or whatever else is being mindlessly parroted at the moment? Whatever, I don't know what to say to that, but like it or not, a movie like ELEMENTAL is the rare original movie from Disney, a small island in a sea of remakes, Marvel, and Star Wars. Ditto ELIO, and again, whatever is in the works after that that isn't a sequel.

And of course, Walt Disney Animation Studios, who have all but abandoned literary adaptations outside of public domain fairy tales, keeps up with original stuff, too. After releasing no new movies in 2017, two back-to-back sequels from 2018-2019 and taking 2020 off due to COVID-19 complications, they hit us with RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON, ENCANTO, and STRANGE WORLD. Next up is WISH, also an original story, despite the weird way it was presented and reported on at D23. Whatever releases after that, I do not know, but FROZEN III and ZOOTOPIA 2 aren't the only things in development there. Plus, they have partnered with Nigerian upstart studio Kugali to make an original show for Disney+ called IWAJU.

Much like the reception ELEMENTAL is getting online, a movie that isn't even out yet, a lot of the recent WDAS output and what's next is just being written off... But it's all there, it's original, it's a mere morsel of something coming out of the company that seems to be all about them brands. I'm not blaming audiences specifically for, say, STRANGE WORLD's epic floppage this past holiday season, buuuuut- Those numbers are looked at, and they possibly bring about consequences.

I do get the worries, though. Under former CEO Bob Chapek, we saw Pixar's originals post-ONWARD all go straight to streaming while franchise entry LIGHTYEAR hit the big screen... and lost money. WDAS movies had a hard time, too. RAYA did a day-and-date thing with Disney+ before most of the vaccine rollout, ENCANTO dealt with Delta and Omicron before being a huge hit at home, STRANGE WORLD was straight up left for dead after testing very poorly.

With Bob Iger back in charge, Chapek's strong pivot to streaming is being reversed, as it's being realized that streaming is not the be-all end-all of the movie world. And sharp eyes knew it never would be, either, but you know how things go in capitalism: New thing shows up, abandon everything for the new thing! Disaster! Hey, that's how hand-drawn animated features prematurely got the boot circa 2001. Anyways- Yes, Iger rearranged a lot of things, and now the release strategies and marketing campaigns are back in the hands of the studios and creatives, and I'm pretty sure that there's an effort, a commitment to make ELEMENTAL the first Pixar box office success in four years. That's right, the last Pixar movie to make its money back at the box office was... TOY STORY 4... Back in 2019... And you wonder why a fifth one was greenlit?

I'd imagine Iger saw how Chapek and co mandated Pixar to send TURNING RED straight to streaming, and knew what to do from there. Ditto how, on the WDAS front, STRANGE WORLD was just straight up abandoned. TURNING RED probably would've made ENCANTO or BAD GUYS numbers at best, which wouldn't have been enough for its hefty budget (Pixar needs to stop overspending on these things), but I wonder what's in store for ELEMENTAL. Few animated movies post-2020 have passed the $100m threshold domestically, and I feel that is due to how many trips to the movies families can afford a year. (Say the line, Kyle: In 2014, statistics showed that the average American family goes to the movies four times a y-) It's opening amidst a ton of blockbusters and other animated family movies, including Disney's own LITTLE MERMAID, and the fifth INDIANA JONES movie. Maybe movies should just be more affordable? And theaters, better places to sit down and see a movie? I can see why many just don't go anymore, again, having worked at a theater for 7 1/2 years (and ready to move on to something better).

Or better yet, Pixar and WDAS need not spend more than $150m on the movies that they make. DreamWorks, Illumination, Sony, et al. put out dynamic-looking movies that are rewriting the CG animation book for way less, WDAS and Pixar should probably consider that. Leave the tech-flexing to things like that LION KING remake and prequel, let their animated movies experiment and have fun again. But even movies they don't seem to be flexing tech cost so much. Why, though? I know in California, these things are expensive, but DreamWorks is based out of California, too. I guess that Moonray software they themselves created and other solutions have gotten their movies to cost less than $100m each time out. Well, WDAS opened their Vancouver unit, so maybe they can up them to feature status? Like they did with the defunct Florida unit way back when? Split the effort with Vancouver, lower the cost? I dunno, just spit-balling here.

Basically, I don't want ELEMENTAL and WISH to come up short at the box office. Or any of the original stuff coming out, period. Again, WDAS, Pixar, and 20th Century/Searchlight are like Disney's last outlets for that kind of stuff on the movie end of things. 20th is fine and good, because in small-scale live-action, most of the time the studios know how to be smart with budgets. $150m budgets make the average WDAS and Pixar movie a risk, that they have to get on the stage and essentially perform like a Marvel movie just to break even! That's a lot to ask of an original animated movie! And not even the WDAS name nor the Pixar name can guarantee people will show up, both have had their fair share of flops. And now, judging by how ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA is doing, the Marvel name ain't a guarantee anymore either. Ditto Star Wars, remember how SOLO just sorta existed at the box office and lost a lot of money? TV and elsewhere is a different story, of course, there's plenty of original stuff to choose from there.

MOANA Live-Action is likely being made to fund the fun cool stuff, much in the same way sequels help fund originals. They... Pay the bills, shall we say.

In other words, I'm just indifferent. Whatever. Tell me more about the original stuff coming out, and you'll have my ear.

#moana #live-action remake #disney #unorganized thoughts #opinions

12 notes · View notes

give-me-stuff-to-watch · 1 year ago

Text

Watching Stuff Day 2 - 7/8/2023 - Current Streak: 2

For today's movie, I watched Nimona, and it was so good that it felt criminal that I was able to watch it by just having a Netflix account. I wish this movie had a theatrical release for the sole reason that it would allow me to purchase tickets and support it more directly.

As mentioned in my previous post, I read the Nimona graphic novel when I was middle school and I decided to read again before watching the movie to refresh myself on it. The movie ended up changing most of the plot while still keeping quite a few similar story beats, so the re-read wasn't really needed. Even though it wasn't a faithful adaptation with the exact plot, it did still feel faithful to the spirit of the original comic and the purpose of its story which is why I feel that it's still a good adaptation alongside being an amazing movie on its own.

One of the major changes that I ended up really liking was how they handled Ambrosius and Ballister's relationship dynamic, they made them have more explicitly show that they have romantic feelings for eachother and even had them in a relationship. I also specifically with how it changes the scene where Ambrosius removes Ballister's arm. In the comic, Ambrosius and Ballister were more spiteful despite still having some care for each other because they had a longer period of time in the comic to develop as enemies and because Ambrosius removing Ballister's arm was due to more selfish reasons. In the comic, Ambrosius was told that if he could beat Ballister in joust, he would become the Institution's Champion. The Institution wanted to secure his victory, so they gave him a weaponized lance in order to make that happen. He didn't want to use this unfair advantage, so he was planning to use it as just a regular lance. Since he wasn't familiar with it, he lost fair and square to Ballister, and in desperation he used the weaponized lance and blew Ballister's arm off. It's still an interesting backstory for how that happened in the comic, but I prefer how the movie handled it by making it a much more complex situation. Instead of it just being black and white with Ambrosius being fully wrong, it's a lot more nuanced now. Slicing his arm off was still a bad thing to do from the audience's perspective because we know Ballister is innocent but from the perspective of everyone else, he had a dangerous weapon that just killed the queen and needed to be stopped. However, since Ambrosius had such a deep connection and relationship to Ballister, it still works at being a betrayl to Ballister since Ambrosius would've been the one most likely to trust and defend Ballister, and Ambrosius being aware of that adds to his guilt over it. It does a lot to set up conflict between the characters while still giving you reason to empathize with both of them to some degree. Also, generally since they were still in a relationship at this inciting incident for the film and still have strong feelings for eachother throughout, it adds a lot more depth and intrigue for the scenes they share together and how they end up. As individuals though, I feel like both characters were changed a lot from their comic counterparts. Ballister's change feels a bit more natural to me as we're seeing a version of him that didn't have any reason to be critical of the institution or commit more actually evil acts until he met Nimona, while he was already doing that himself for a while in the comic. Ambrosius feels very different though, he seems to be a better person in the movie, showing more guilt and struggle with his actions. This is somewhat better because it strengthens his relationship with Ballister but doesn't feel as much like the original character.

As for Nimona's character she was handled perfectly here! They kept her as a violent, chaotic, fun-loving gremlin and executed that incredibly well, no notes on that. I also really liked all of the focus given on how she doesn't want to be defined by others or feel like she has to change to be accepted. What I found to be one of the most emotional scenes in the movie was when she was flashing-back to when she was using her powers and changing herself to try and fit in with various groups of animals only to experience rejection each time, only to find someone she thought did accept her as she is, only for her to be betrayed and have that ripped away. I almost cried at that. I also like how the movie had a more uplifting and happy ending for her with her being accepted and mourned by everyone while having an ending scene that implies that she is still fully alive and going to be more directly connected to Ballister. This is more of a personal preference though, the comic ending is also really good, and in quite a few ways better critically imo, I'm just a sucker for happier endings most of the time.

A few minor nitpicks I have:

I feel like Ballister's distrust of Nimona at the end wasn't as well built up as it could've been. It was still fine, but having the comic as a comparison, where it was much more believable with how it happened makes it stand out a bit more to me.

The artstyle was quite a bit different from the original comic. I found the comic's artstyle really charming and was a little disappointed it was changed so much. However, I understand that it was the kind of style that would be difficult to adapt in 3D and the new style they went with also looks really nice on it's own. While I'm talking about how it looks visually, it was also really well and smoothly animated for the most part along with having interesting shot composition. It also had really good modeling and set design. They really knocked it out of the park with all of that.

They changed Ballister's last name to Boldheart instead of Blackheart. I don't have an issue with that , but do think it's a missed opportunity that they didn't have a line where someone who believes him to be a villain goes "Boldheart?!? More like Blackheart!" It would've been cheesy but I would've appreciated the reference.

Overall, an amazing movie on its own along with having good callbacks to the comic (stuff like the board games, "I'm a shark", and the zombie movie). A near 10/10, I'll probably rewatch it at some point in the near future and if they do a blu-ray release of it I'll probably buy that too.

#nimona #nimona netflix #nimona film #nimona 2023 #animation #3d animation #review

6 notes · View notes

90shaladriel · 1 year ago

Text

My son just watched the Star Wars OT for the first time and some observations.

Ok this is a bit of cross-fandom random thoughts, but I wanted to put somewhere.

I'm a child of the 80s-90s. I grew up with Star Wars, was legitimately obsessed with it from ages 3-7 me and my brothers endlessly rewatched the Original trilogy (or just 'Star Wars' as it was known then) on VHS tapes in those years. I remember being so excited for the theatrical re-releases and later the prequels.

My son (4) doesn't watch a lot of non-educational TV or movies, partly we don't show him much, but also he tends to be easily frightened by any tension or scary villains. Probably the scariest movie he had watched before this was Cars 2 (which was weirdly violent!) I also thought that maybe the violence would be something he wasn't really prepared for, none of his books or TV shows really shows graphic deaths. The worst thing he's seen are clips from TV News about the war in Ukraine which isn't often.

Last year I picked up some old children's books from my parents, and I had a stack of books that were the Star Wars read along books (that used to come with a small vinyl record) for the OT and a Star Wars ABC books. I would occasionally read these books at bedtime and my son gradually became enthusiastic about them, so we would get other Star Wars books from the library, most of those were either Prequel-era or even now Sequel-era stuff which he seemed to like and get. I think what's important is that going into actually watching the films he had been "spoiled" somewhat on the basic storylines and characters, like he knew Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader, but honestly I think at his age he doesn't follow stories that well, so knowing all the characters and places upfront probably helped him enjoy it more I think?

So I thought with this I would just sort of give some observations about my son's experience and also my own re-watching the films for the first time in years. I had the Blu-ray Special Editions that were released maybe 5-6 years ago?

A New Hope

On rewatch this is by far my favorite, it's funny, gritty, action packed. It is pretty violent, dead bodies seen in the first firefight on the ship, Vader force choking people, Owen and Beru's burnt corpses, but overall this didn't seem to be harmful to my son, we did talk a bit about it being a war and that people were 'hurt'. He seemed most affected by the death of Obi-wan, and kept asking where he went. My son seemed to like Luke and R2-D2. I will say a lot of the audio was kind of uneven on this edition, I had trouble hearing dialog and my son can't read subtitles so I was explaining stuff and then the action or score would be super loud.

I think that the special edition CGI additions are the weakest in the trilogy, particularly the ones on Tatooine. IMO they don't add much and look fairly cheesy by today's standards. To be fair a lot of the Cantina alien costumes also don't look the best now in HD resolution.

Sadly one of the areas I feel suffers the most now is the continuity with all the Prequels and series. Like the way Obi-wan talks about the past makes it sound like 30-40+ years ago when it was really more like 18 and, now with the Kenobi show, things like him meeting Darth Vader was <10 years ago. I'm only 40 and events 10 years ago feels like nothing. So Vader's line "I sense something; a presence I've not felt since..." just feels like doesn't carry the weight it should. The Jedi shouldn't be an "ancient religion" they were still be hunted down in recent years and Han would have been alive when the Jedi were fighting in the Clone Wars I would think? I kind of think George Lucas backed the franchise into a corner a bit by setting the Prequels too close to the beginning of the OT, I get why to somewhat explain Luke and Leia's ages. I dunno, I would have rather ret-conned them to be mid-20s or something.

Empire Strikes Back

Very enjoyable still. Son liked the Hoth battle scenes, loves AT-ATs. Kind of less interested in some of the Dagobah planet and Yoda scenes. He didn't understand at all what was happening in the Dark side cave which was pretty scary for him, eventually the explanation that stuck was "It was a robot Darth Vader, not the real Darth Vader" that Luke killed. He had little or no commentary on the Han-Leia romance, something I remember feeling cringey about it as a boy that thought girls were like the enemy, he doesn't seem to care, but doesn't like it either as far as I can tell. My son was shocked when Vader cut off Luke's hand, because the Read Along picture books sanitize this as "Vader slashed Luke's lightsaber away" or something more PG. These are violent movies!

I don't remember as much additional scenes or CGI in this one, the old models of Star Destroyers and Rebel ships looked amazingly good I thought, I think Executor and generally imperial navy scenes overall are so good still. I think they added a few shots of the Falcon flying around Cloud City and maybe the snow monster scene looked a bit cheesy now?

Something that struck me on this rewatch in particular was how good the lightsaber duel between Vader and Luke was. I always remembered it as Luke losing pretty badly. Which is true, but he seriously held is own for most of the fight, counterattacking even getting a few glancing blows on Vader. The fight was way more intense than I remember it being and super fun to watch especially with how later jedi duels in the prequel movies get a lot of praise. This really held up in my opinion.

Which is impressive with what we now know Vader to be, like the greatest Jedi warrior ever. Again some continuity stuff bothers me more about the prequels, especially in Kenobi the Darth Vader vs Third Sister fight where in the how Vader could basically force block her lightsaber, and she was pretty much fully trained in the force. Similarly the hallway scene in Rogue One he can toss people around, it's hard to imagine Luke being able to compete with him at all. I kind of prefer the OT Vader without the prequels, strong with the force yes, but not superhuman powerful.

One nitpick though. Several times The Falcon is being chased by TIE fighters, why didn't Han or Leia go back and use the turret cannons to shoot them down like in ANH Death Star escape?

Return of the Jedi

Confession, growing up this was always my favorite Star Wars movie. On rewatch for me it kind of felt the weakest of the three. I guess you have to be an adult to kind of see it?

My son seemed to get a bit bored at parts. I think the Jabba Palace scenes were a bit more subdued and slow-paced than I remember, and so was a few of the middle scenes with Yoda or Luke's revelation to Leia, very quiet and somber, but definitely nothing like what we saw in ANH or ESB in terms of action-pacing.

My son thought ewoks were kind of silly and funny, but doesn't seem like to make an impression on him since we watched, unlike the AT-ATs or some of the human characters. He was afraid of the emperor, on some level I think he "got" the dynamics between Luke and Vader as it's clear Vader is his dad and Vader used to be a good guy (Anakin) in contrast to the truly evil Emperor so that all seemed to work well for him. I have to say, as a Dad now myself the final fight scenes and what Vader did hit way more deeply than anytime I've watched before, definitely teared up a bit. One question I got from him which I struggled to answer was "What does it mean to turn to the dark-side?" I'm not really sure I have a good answer other than "be tricked to do bad things" which is as good as I could explain it to his level. I guess that is a pretty abstract and fictional concept for a 4 year old.

Overall I loved the Luke - Vader rematch, again, Vader seems to be slowing down with age or wear and tear when compared to even Rogue One or ESB but Luke is getting stronger. Since Luke is the only Jedi left at the time, it was never clear how strong he was supposed to be, also being physically a small guy he doesn't seem as impressive a hero but more of an underdog in the saga, yet he took on Vader 1 on 1 and defeated him, so maybe the Force is stronger with him than I used to give him credit for? The fight was good, emotionally intense, I almost wish the actual lightsaber battle was a little longer.

One new takeaway that never really struck me before was that the ultimate climax to STAR WARS was the hero throwing away his weapon and choosing Non-Violence and ultimately being saved by (a father's) Love. That's kind of a radical notion for the 2020s let alone the 1980s. Props to George Lucas for that unconventional twist there. I almost feel like this doesn't get talked about enough compared to other aspects of Lucas' philosophy or themes in the films.

The Battle of Endor still is one of the best space battles I've ever seen. I do think the Battle of Scarif in Rogue One is probably on-par with it, but for the 1980s it's so impressive what they were able to achieve with the technology then. Also my favorite minor character of the series is Admiral Ackbar. I'm glad my son enjoyed him as well (also I felt his costume held up better in HD than the ANH alien rubber mask costumes). I wish he had his own spin-off show or movie tbh.

Overall Thoughts

I was so happy to finally be able to share this treasured part of my childhood with my son, and he seemed to take as much enjoyment from them as I did. He still asks to read the books at bedtime and we have been trying to branch out and get more Star Wars books about the Prequels and Sequels. As far as toys goes, he likes LEGO in general so we've got him a couple of Star Wars LEGO sets. It's a far cry from the collection of action figures and space ships I had in the mid-80s, but he enjoys it.

Next Star Wars to Show Him

I think that I would like to show him some of the Prequels next. Those were never my favorites, but maybe they will appeal to him at his age? The prequels were released when I was in HS/College and already had a lot of head-canon for what I thought would be in them from the EU and other sources. Maybe the Clone Wars animated show would be appropriate? I've never actually seen it myself so don't know if it's good for him to watch, maybe it's more for older kids?

I think Rogue One is also a natural fit with the Original Trilogy, but that's probably a bit too dark/adult for him right now I think. I do wonder if there are any good sanitized kids picture books about it though 😂

#star wars #original trilogy #star wars with kids #passing hobbies to the next generation #nonviolent luke #no wonder I was desensitized to violence as a kid #80s movies #80s nostalgia #star wars fandom #darth vader #luke skywalker

2 notes · View notes

romilly-jay · 2 months ago

Text

Deja-Vu: A Time-Loop Movie With Somewhat Savage, Somewhat Problematic Elements That I Still Love (**WHY**??) And Re-Watch At Every Opportunity

***spoilers -incl a few big ones, but this movie is from 2006 so...***

***content warnings - murder, terrorism, natural disaster, suicide***

This is a movie I still really enjoy, partly because I will do my best to be onside for anything at all with timey-wimey elements and partly because I continue to find Denzel Washington endlessly watchable.

(Side note, I have a long-ago memory that there was a study which found that people with symmetrical facial features are considered [more?] attractive and giving DW as one example - and... there was:)

But, that said, goodness, 2006 does feel like a long time ago.

(Yes, yes, I know - just watched an episode of University Challenge where a contestant nailed the music question from a few seconds of the intro and then confirmed that no, he hadn't been born back when it was released... in the long-ago year of 2000.)

Specific to the cast and creatives on this movie, 2006 was:

Before Director Tony Scott suicided (2012) and LONG before the sequel to Top Gun, planned for shooting in 2013 with Tom Cruise starring and TS returning as director, finally made it to a well-received theatrical release (2022). NOT before Jim Caviezel played Jesus for the first time (2004) though knowing that he had increases the dissonance of seeing him play a domestic US extremist here.

So I was surprised and pleased to find that a contemporary review of the film is still accessible on The Guardian's website, by film critic Peter Bradshaw, who nearly two decades later still writes (some) reviews. Not bad going, PB! Here's the link to the review:

Here's what PB had to say about one of the two, erm, TRICKY moves the film has to make in order to drive the plot forward - making the POV detective care enough about the female MC to go beyond the standard requirements of his detective role and risk his life for her:

Washington's heart is melted by discovering the body of a beautiful woman called Claire (Paula Patton) who appears to have been separately killed by the terrorist before the bombing took place. Some meet-cute this is. She is a drop dead gorgeous gal who has dropped dead. Washington conceives for the spiffing stiff what I have to say is an unwholesome and necrophiliac tendresse. Who was she? How did she fit in? Carlin is astonished to find that a top-secret team of funky boffins can help him...

Tricky, indeed - and on this, the ?fourth? time of watching, it FINALLY occurred to me that Claire is unreasonably pretty in death considering what is supposed to have been done to her [redacted].

The other 'bigly' problematic aspect is the time is spent watching Claire in her underwear/and occasionally in The Altogether... For context, there's a blah mcblah device that allows the aforementioned funky boffins to look back in time four days (i.e. before Claire was killed). Apparently, they mostly want to use this expensive and top-secret device to hang around in Claire's bedroom. CREEPY. Snaps to the one (Black/female) boffin who questions the need and to the writers for bringing the issue into the room but without going one step further and rewriting to make the surveillance LESS CREEPY - Perhaps they'd argue that the ick was the point? Hmmm OKAY.

Sooooo - what did I like about it, again?

Plenty, but my FAVOURITE thing about it is the liminal space we find ourselves in as soon as the DW MC goes to visit Claire's home.

This is AFTER she's been found dead and BEFORE he discovers the Time Spies angle. The scene is packed with things to tell us (SPOILER) that DW has been here already: the unfriendly cat recognises him, there's a glass that turns out to have his DNA all over it, there are bloodied rags in a bin that turn out to be linked to a bullet wound he receives - and, most intriguing of all, magnetic letters on the fridge that spell the message: U CAN SAVE HER.

If she can be saved, why is she still dead? DW hasn't decided to go back in time yet - he doesn't yet know that this is an option - but he's seeing all kinds of signs that will later tell us - he's already been there.

This would seem entirely logical according to philosopher David Lewis - his position was that time travel is philosophically possible but/and would create some outcomes that seem odd to us. For example, events in the past that are *caused* by things that happen later, chronologically speaking. He says that Time Happens Once, so if a time traveller is going to be in a past moment, anything they will do when they are there has already happened. Just like in this scene.

He also says that time travellers (probably) can't change anything - and that if they do, the timeline will split, possibly with multiple universes or possibly with the original timeline disappearing. In practical terms it doesn't matter either way to the time traveller because they could never get back there.

These ideas are reflected pretty closely in parts of the film and I don't think it's a big leap to imagine that the writers were familiar with Lewis's short article from 1975 where he laid out his thinking:

Fun! With Impossible Time Stuff! Fun!! Fun!! Fun!!!

#deja vu #denzel washington #tony scott #time travel #science fiction #new orleans

0 notes

blast0rama · 1 year ago

Text

I’m Sorry, But Things Cost Money

Sort of a rambling series of thoughts here, inspired by a post I saw over on Threads1.

I’m not going to link to the specific thread, but there was a trending post which boiled down to “Hey, remember 2013, when Netflix was $20, and you could stream everything?” It picked an ongoing nit in my brain when it comes to how people are reacting to streaming costs.

I will preface this rant with a few points:

Yes, Hollywood Accounting is weird

Yes, the executives at the companies who provide our entertainment are vastly overpaid

Yes, even some actors are overpaid2

I think it’s time that we make an effort to understand the costs of our entertainment. While movie budgets have bloated over the last decade, plus, the money is generally on screen. CG, practical effects, name actors, quality cinematographers and more. Not to mention the literal hundreds of other people who work on these films. The credits aren’t just for show, folks.

What ruined our understanding of these concepts is two fold:

The studios all chased what Netflix did

We devalued what this entertainment meant by flooding the market and calling it “content”3

Let’s look at what was prior to Netflix. The cable bundle. $100+ a month, the owners of the channels getting a carrier fee every month, plus whatever money they generate from television advertising. Not to mention the money generated from DVD sales, theatrical re-releases, and licensing their shows and movies to other networks.

Netflix shows up, and guess what? They pay licensing fees to studios! Sure, they’re all undervalued because “who’d want to watch TV on a computer”, but it’s found money.

Netflix grows. People start cutting the cord. Carrier fees aren’t as strong. Shrinking audiences mean less money for their ads. People stop buying discs. Who goes to the theater? Why should we license our work to someone else, when WE can be Netflix?

Now, let’s look at the things that a Warner Bros, a NBC Universal, a Disney, a Paramount then had to pay out to “join the club” with Netflix.

The infrastructure to launch and maintain their own streaming services

The money to buy back license rights from other networks or services to have their shows and movies on something they own

Also, they better be making brand new content for this service, and they need a LOT of it AND it better serve EVERY POSSIBLE AUDIENCE AROUND THE WORLD

And lets be sure to charge LESS than Netflix, too.

That’s how they end up spending literal billions. And losing literal billions.

And to do what? To follow the worldwide leader in this type of service, Netflix…a company that is only as big as it is because they were the first, and they’re the name, like Photoshop, Kleenex and Nintendo, that people think of when they think of their product. Even they’ve found the siren’s song of advertising revenue.

The creators of all these shows and movies? They used to get paid every time a disc was sold, or a movie was aired on television. Limited slots, limited availability. How do you make that work for libraries which are expected to have everything in perpetuity forever. What’s the math there look like?

That’s why the writers and the actors had their strike. To get the money they were deserved and weren’t getting.

Now you say, hey, wait! I’m not getting access to everything ever from these studios? Why can’t they just all be on Netflix? Why can’t I just pay one subscription and get everything, ever?

Ask musicians how Spotify, Tidal, Apple Music, et al. are working for them.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe crew, they’ll be fine. Just like Taylor Swift.

But what of the Wes Andersons, the David Lynches, and the future version of them to come? Would that be sustainable? Would these projects get green-lit?

We’re at a time where art needs to be valued more highly. A time where studios that were once built around a diverse lineup of movies and shows for audiences of all kinds, at different budgets, they instead put their money behind the sure things, repeating the same things again and again.

And we sit there, and we ask for MORE MORE MORE all of the time?

And we want it cheaper.

And if they’re not? I’m gonna PIRATE everything!4

When you have access to everything, everything means nothing.

Would you want to be paid the same amount of money at your job, forever, and you are responsible for everything you’ve ever done, forever?

Think of the movies and shows that surprised you. The movies and shows that took risks, and weren’t what you expected, or you had to go off the beaten path to find.

Things cost money. Art has value. Pay for it.

The Social Media service you’re embarrassed to read, and never post to! ↩

But probably not as much as you think when you consider the monies generated by their efforts ↩

I react to this word the way others do moist. ↩

I think there’s a fair point to be made about piracy as a way of archiving media, or gaining access to content not available to you internationally, but…I don’t think that’s the majority of use here. ↩

0 notes

imp-furiosa · 2 years ago

Text

Goncharov is a Bad Meme...

...because it’s a bad movie. I don’t begrudge anybody their cult movie favorites, but so few people have heard of Goncharov that there’s a joke going around that it doesn’t exist and people have made it up just to troll. Ironically the things that have won it acclaim as a cult success are the very things that doom it as a work. You need look little further than the box office reception for proof.

Check out the top grossing movies of 1973 and you’ll notice that Goncharov doesn’t make the list. The Exorcist tops things out with a gross of $193 million. The bottom spot goes to Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid with $8 million. Goncharov on the other hand was a commercial failure at release, barely recouping its unnecessarily bloated budget. Not that the budget was big, it was really a shoestring, but a list of production issues and re-shoots ate more and more time and money just to get something out the door.

Now I’m not trying to argue that box office revenue is all that matters for a good movie. It doesn’t at all. But in the case of Goncharov, the box office flop is informed by the way the film was made and thus informs its unique problems.

You see, Goncharov was filmed on location in Naples in the early 1970s during one or perhaps two extended “vacations” for most of the cast in the film. Highly unusual. But that’s sort of how things work when Stefano Pessina of Walgreens Boots Alliance (then Petrone Group) has an urge to play in an American mobster movie. He footed the bill himself (or rather convinced his daddy to), and the mess they shot was largely derivative and not worth any notice.

Scorsese wasn’t even involved until De Niro and Keitel approached him for help. Doing what he could to piece together what he assessed as workable bones, Scorsese tied together formerly loose threads and themes (notably the clock motif wasn’t nearly as significant before he took to work on it). The biggest thing is that he insisted on re-shoots as possible, adding new scenes, cutting scenes entirely, and notably excising all but a cameo of former star Pessina--the man can’t act. But he was paying the bills and while he’d find himself lucky to break even on the venture, his checkbook did at least allow the thing to see the light of day. Saved as much as possible by Scorsese’s talented eye.

All that cut material was saved, possibly at Pessina’s insistence, and has found its way to the public in the half century since its debut. Which has resulted in a number of new cuts and editions. It’s a favorite for film students to practice editing because the copious extra scenes allow wildly varying stories to be told. Since most people aren’t even aware of the movie in the first place, those that see it happenstance may well have found an unofficial edition. This is why we see many wildly varying “canonical” scenes. They all exist, but very few of them actually showed up in Scorsese’s theatrical release back in ‘73.

This is also why it’s lauded on that famous poster with “Martin Scorsese presents.” Despite his extensive work directing re-shoots and new scenes, editing and producing, Scorsese saw it for the train wreck it was and chose to distance himself from the thing. Al Pacino once joked in a TV Guide interview that he wished he had been “able to distance my name from it in that manner. I think we all do.”

Look, who among us has watched Mean Streets or Serpico? Both of those are better works than Goncharov and came out that same year. For a modern audience they would have worked just as well for this joke. Except then instead of topping it off with the ultimate punchline of hunting down the thing and being disappointed you wasted two hours of your life, Mean Streets or Serpico would be enjoyable watches. So save yourself some disappoint and go watch one of those instead.

#goncharov #unreality #martin scorsese #robert de niro #harvey keitel #turns out this isn't only a moby dick blog atm

322 notes · View notes

beatlesdumpsterfire · 3 years ago

Note

feel free to ignore it if you already talked about it cuz it was a while ago lol but I’m like 75% sure that was legit George on the back of that car in Help! all 3 of them did a test run and they chose George specifically cuz he was the best at doing it?? Kinda insane that they let him do it we love a natural stuntman

I could be wrong though, I remember watching the special features like once when I was 11 and the shot of Paul John and George on the back of their own little car driving around in a circle stands out to me. If this is something my kid brain just randomly made up it is simply my own personal canon and refuse to not believe it <3

Thank you so much for asking because this is literally something that keeps me up at night. After some deep digging, I can tell you this: on the second disc of the 2007 re-released DVD of Help! there's a 30-minute documentary called "The Beatles in Help!" that features some interviews from 2 stunt doubles, Peter Cheevers (Paul's stunt double) and Cliff Diggins, who is credited as George's stunt double. In a part of their interview, they're talking about the car chase scene, and Cliff shares that George thought he was going to be on top of the car when it crashes into the tree, but Cliff and the other stunt doubles told him that he wouldn't have to do that. However, nothing's mentioned about the scenes where he's actually on top of the car, but I can only imagine it was him, mostly because (I'm ratting myself out here) I've slowed down that part of the movie and literally played it frame by frame and I'll be damned if that isn't George. It's shocking that they let a beatle hang off the back of a moving car (though I'm sure it was moving slow) but I really hope it's true that George wound up doing it because he was the best at it.

In the documentary they also include some shots of the beatles driving around in convertibles wearing their costumes from the "Another Girl" shoot - I remember reading somewhere that they had taken those cars out and crashed into each other on film so I guess in a sense the people in charge on the set really were like "eh, do whatever the hell you want" which was an incredibly risky thing to say to the fricken beatles considering they all collectively shared a single braincell. But, I mean, if the beatles were literally ramming into each other for fun, it doesn't seem too far off that they would let George do that stunt.

Also, as a side note, while I was looking into this, I FINALLY found the shot of George wearing the Ringo disguise in the Bahamas!!! You can see it at 2:10 of their theatrical trailer here.

#beatles ask #the beatles #help!#george harrison #paul mccartney #ringo starr #john lennon #george harrison is a natural stuntman #I'll die on this hill

19 notes · View notes

jerryb2 · 4 years ago

Photo

I mean….you all knew this was coming ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ : the Star Wars Art of one Mr. Drew Struzan.

And look, the man has done so much and has such a diverse portfolio that Star Wars is only one very small part of his career. If you want to explore some of his other works, then might I suggest that you check out his website.

As for me here, we’ll be sticking strictly to his SW art. Now, with that out of the way, here we go…

*cracks knuckles*

I have to admit that before I really started to dig into this, I didn’t realize just how many Bantam Era (and beyond) Star Wars books this man has illustrated. Nearly 50 titles, ranging from novels to comics, short stories & even an RPG supplement. 🤯

And so, after much consideration, I decided to just pull all the titles that feature his art off my bookshelf and take a few pics for you guys:

First off, I just want to point out that I don’t have every book he’s ever illustrated. Some of them are just harder than hard to find, are hilariously expensive, or I just don’t have an edition that features his art prominently - you’ll see what I mean. Right off the bat though, you can see that he was really hitting his stride in the mid-90′s, with all but a handful of these coming out between ‘94 & ‘99. One of the highlights from this time for me, is The Callista Trilogy.

I just want to stress that The Callista Trilogy is a highlight for me only because of its gorgeous cover art. 🤣 Other than that, this book series needs to go lay down.

Anyway, the designs are all really striking and even after all these years, absolutely iconic. And you can really see Struzan’s distinct visual style at play here; not a painting in the same vein as something from Dave Doorman, and not a simple trace. Rather, something that is stylized in a very particular, very subtle way, almost to the point where it appears photo-realistic at first glance. Beautiful.

Next up is this trio of trilogies (good use of words, me), collected in these Science Fiction Book Club (SFBC) hardcovers:

Once again, these covers are just striking, particularly The Black Fleet Crisis. This is actually what I was referring to when I said that I don’t always have the best editions for a Drew Struzan appreciation post. 😅

Because these are hardcover collections of paperback books, we actually miss out on a good bit of the art. For these SFBC special editions, the publisher just took all three and basically photoshopped the best bits of each one together. The one that suffers the most here is obviously The Corellian Trilogy, where they didn’t even try to blend everything together, and instead just separated everything into columns. I don’t personally mind it (and I do love having the hardcover editions of these books) but if you want to see the covers as they were originally intended, just pickup those mass market paperbacks. 🙂

There’s a lot more to get through, so I’ll just hit the highlights here; even though he didn’t illustrate The Thrawn Trilogy (that was Tom Jung, who I personally think did an okay-ish job at best), he did an absolutely amazing job with the follow-up, The Hand of Thrawn Duology in ‘98 & ‘99:

I’ve always loved these covers. And narratively speaking, they really do serve as one last hurrah on the Bantam Era. Oh, and also please note, Mara Jade on the cover of Vision of the Future, just as Zahn originally described her. ❤❤❤

If you step back and look at Struzan’s work as a whole, it’s all incredibly unified. I bring this up here because even though some of these are books relatively ‘meh’ worthy, Struzan maintained a level of quality that belied the mediocrity contained within. And also to say that he was definitely busy, particularly in 1994:

That’s right - all of these released in ‘94, within a few months of one another. These covers man… *chef’s kiss*

And look I’m sorry, I just can’t help myself: The Crystal Star was a hilarious joke until we all realized they were serious about it. 😳

Alright, that’s a little on the harsh side; it’s not nearly as bad as most make it out to be, and Waru as a source for unlimited power (citation needed 👀😉) isn’t any more ridiculous than the 50 other post-Palpy, hair-brained Imperial schemes that everybody else cooked up, so I guess it fits. And besides, I really wanna be nice to Vonda McIntyre here, but this book was just so so boring. 😴

*clears throat* Moving on, here we have a couple Barnes & Noble hardcover collections of The Jedi Prince Series:

The same thing applies here; cover art photoshopped from across 6 different YA novels to get these. They don’t look bad, far from it. But rather this series has some things that people would rather forget about, namely a supposed son of Palpatine (spoiler: he wasn’t) named Triclops who had - wait for it - 3 eyes.

Like Tien. From DBZ. Yep. 🤦‍♂️

Moving further down the list, we have yet another pair of iconic cover designs, being I, Jedi (the only Star Wars novel written in the first person, and an appropriate riff on Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot - yes ladies & gentlemen, that is as clever as Star Wars gets) and The New Rebellion.

Classics, no doubt….but for reals, did anybody else ever wonder why the X-Wing on the cover of I, Jedi is missing an S-Foil? Or how that one slipped through??? 👀

Ah, at last we arrive at what is arguably Struzan’s most famous work; the covers for Shadows of the Empire & The Star Wars Trilogy: Special Edition.

It’s hard to overstate just how important Shadows of the Empire really was for Star Wars as a brand. In an era where SW books were already extremely popular, the Shadows of the Empire Multimedia Project basically served as a breakout hit and reignited interest in SW media across the board. This was in no small part due to the striking imagery captured on its cover - are you seeing a pattern here?

This success actually renewed Lucas’ interest in a theatrical re-release of the OT in 1997….which of course, feature more beautiful art from Drew Struzan:

These are my OG Special Edition VHS tapes from back in the day. I watched these so damn much as a kid. In fact, they’re basically the whole reason that I’m here, annoying the shit out of everybody today. 😁

After the Bantam Era concluded & the Star Wars publishing license went to Del Rey, Struzan did progressively fewer pieces for SW media. Here we see his contribution for the latter half of the Last of the Jedi YA series, and his kick-ass cover art for the Darth Maul comic:

And when I say that Struzan did progressively fewer pieces for Star Wars, I am of course omitting his turn as the poster artist for the freaking Prequel Trilogy:

Say what you will about the films, but these poster designs are nothing short of genius.

Look guys, it would be pretty easy for me to downplay Struzan’s Star Wars portfolio as just one small part of his incredible career. But my dudes, this is literally just the tip of the iceberg. The man has been a professional illustrator for over 50 years, and his art has delighted and inspired generations. From Star Wars to Indian Jones, and from Back to the Future to Blade Runner - Drew Struzan has played an integral part in shaping popular culture.

Here’s to you, sir. 🍻

124 notes · View notes

seriouslycromulent · 4 years ago

Text

Random thoughts on ZSJL after 1st viewing

So dear DCEU fans, before I sit down to re-watch Zack Snyder’s Justice League again tonight, I thought I’d share some of my first impressions and thoughts on the film. I really wanted to take part in the watch party yesterday, but I knew I wouldn’t be able to give the film my full attention if I did so, especially since it would be my first viewing.

But now that I know what was inside my birthday gift (my birthday was March 18th), I can chat about it with others and discuss to my heart’s content.

However, this is NOT that post. This is not a review. It’s just some of my initial thoughts and reactions, which may or may not change after multiple viewings.

And yes, I will mark this post as “ZSJL spoilers” for anyone trying to remain unspoiled until they get a chance to watch it at their own pace.

Here we go ...

Question #1 - Why does Barry only burn out of his shoes, but nothing else he’s wearing when he moves to save Iris? Is it the friction against the floor? Or is it just convenient for the sake of visuals? We know the suit he made is designed to withstand wind and heat resistance when he moves, so when he’s not wearing it, are his clothes in danger of getting shredded if he moves fast enough?

This isn’t snark. I’m genuinely curious. :-)

Reaction #1 - I know it’s blasphemous to speak positively about the theatrical release, but I kind of miss the opening credit sequence with the song playing over the images and interactions of people arguing, fighting and falling into despair after Supes died. I felt it was an apt response in the world in the wake of his death, and it suited Zack’s overall tone connecting BvS to this film from the start. I’m not saying the new opening is bad. Just that I kind of liked the theatrical one better.

Question #2 - Now this is kinda snarky. But does Arthur just leave sweaters and shirts littered all over the place whenever he goes below the surface? What if there’s no one there to pick it up like that lady in Iceland?

Reaction #2 - I’m love, love, loving the much bigger role of the Amazons in this version. That battle scene with Steppenwolf is still brutal to watch, but the extra screen time is much appreciated.

Reaction #3 - I’m now calling the arrow shot into the Shrine of the Amazons the “Hanukkah Arrow” because it was a miracle the fire stayed lit during its entire journey to the Shrine and how it stayed lit until a film crew caught it on the news.

R#4 - Even though I knew Victor’s car accident was coming, I was still shook when it happened. Like, I genuinely screamed when the other vehicle crashed into them. That’s how emotionally invested I was in that scene at the time.

R#5 - I liked the juxtaposition of going from Victor’s dysfunctional relationship with his dad to Barry’s sweet, but heartbreaking relationship with his dad. Way to mess with our emotions, Zack.

R#6 - “gorilla sign language” Tee-hee!

R#7 - Great placement with the suicide prevention billboard. It was both seamless and poignant.

R#8 - As a fellow tea drinker, I like that Alfred is particular about how tea is made, even when the cup of tea isn’t for himself.

R#9 - It’s interesting to see how jerky Victor’s movements are in Chapter 3. I know he will move more smoothly as the film progresses, but I feel like that growth and development in his movements were missed in the theatrical release, which is a shame because it’s a great mirror to his psychological development as well.

R#10 - It’s a shame how easily Steppenwolf captured the 2nd box thanks to King Orm’s incompetence. Ugh. I can’t stand that guy.

Question #3 - Why is Arthur responsible for retrieving the box that was lost on his brother’s watch? He’s not king yet, so why does it fall to him? Whatever. Orm sucks.

Question #4 - OK. So I know this was in theatrical release, but how is it that the other team members disappeared when Commissioner Gordon turned his back and Barry didn’t notice it happening? That technically should be impossible unless Barry was distracted by a squirrel or something.

Favorite Hell Yeah Moment #1 - Barry saving the kidnapped people from being hit by the falling debris outside after the team rescues them from Steppenwolf. Go Barry! Do that shit!!! You don’t need lessons on how to be a f*cking hero!

R#11 - So Barry did trip in the original script. Interesting. I still don’t like that. It’s in character for where he is right now on his journey, but I still don’t like it.

Question #5 - Architectural question for the design nerds out there. Why does Lois have a glass pane in her front door in an apartment building in a major metro area in the US? That’s an odd design. Is it a renovated office building? Was her apartment at one point the office of a private detective in a noir film? I need answers.

Favorite Hell Yeah Moment #2 - The J’onn J’onzz reveal is officially one of my biggest thrills of the entire DCEU franchise. Years ago, when people were speculating about who was the 7th in the phrase “Unite the 7,” I said it’s J’onn J’onzz, and fanboys corrected me and insisted it had to be Hal or at least one of the Lanterns. And I was like, “Nope. I bet you it’s J’onn. He could easily already be a part of the story and we don’t even know it.” This is the part where I say to you ... Called It! Like 6 years ago! I f*cking Called It!

R#12 - Yep, by Chapter 5, Victor is moving much more smoothly.

R#13 - Dude!!!!!! The “Not Impressed” moment was better than anything Supes ever did in the theatrical release. Anything. It was just so epic and smooth and smoothly epic. I’m accepting that scene as a part of my personal birthday gift. Zack did that for me. That’s why that’s in there.

R#14 - I know Barry got a couple of hero moments earlier in the film, but none of them compare to the actual reconstruction of f*cking time in order to save everyone. The way the ground literally formed under his feet as he ran had me holding my breath without me even realizing it. Thank you, Zack! Thank you for making Barry more than the comedy relief. Thank you for giving him this moment. He deserves this.

Favorite Hell Yeah Moment #3 - I know everyone is talking about how they cheered when the team goes charging into the building altogether (sans Supes). And don’t get me wrong. That moment is pretty f’cking sweet. But dude, my all-time favorite, jump-out-of-my-seat, and jump-up-and-down moment was when Arthur speared Steppenwolf from behind and lifted him up in the air. I was like ...

The fangirl in me was unashamed and unbossed. Arthur deserved that moment. He spent half the film being tossed around like a ragdoll or brooding like a hot stevedore. He deserved that shit! Yes, yes, he did.

Epilogue thoughts ---

Again, this is the longest film epilogue I’ve seen since LOTR: Return of the King, but I’m not hating, just noting.

The extra scenes with J’onn J’onzz and Deathstroke made my day after everything else made my night. They are 2 of my absolute favorite DC characters who were all but cut from the theatrical release. I’m taking those scenes as ... again ... my personal birthday gifts.

I know we may never get JL2 and JL3, but I felt like the cliffhanger was pretty good. It leaves you wanting more, but not feeling as if you’ve been left high and dry. For those who doubted Zack’s decision to keep it a cliffhanger knowing he may never get to finish the story, I say to you, “Aren’t you tired of doubting this man?”

#zack snyder #zack snyder's justice league #justice league 2021 #zsjl spoilers #zsjl #dceu positivity #dceu #dc comics #martian manhunter #j'onn j'onzz #deathstroke #slade wilson #arthur curry #barry allen #victor stone

62 notes · View notes

elysian-entries · 4 years ago

Text

One film, two visions; The Justice League

It’s 2017; the highly anticipated “Justice League” film, directed by Zack Snyder, is set to be released later in the year as a continuation of the DCEU.

A blockbuster movie showcasing the biggest DC characters uniting. Taking down the ultimate super villain; bound to fulfil millions of past and present children’s, as well as current adults and elderly dreams.

Then a fork in the road appears, Snyder and his wife, Deborah, step down from the colossal project due to the incredibly woeful loss of their daughter, Autumn. News hits the fans like a brick. Resulting in Joss Whedon and the Warner Bros. Studio stepping up to the mantle. Or at least attempting to.

Whedon's theatrical cut lost Warner Bros. Pictures approximately $60 million dollars. With overall painfully negative reviews and reception. Breaking the hearts of DC fans everywhere.

4 years, campaigns, hashtags, sky banners, petitions, and billboards later; I can’t say how many of us would have predicted receiving the holy gift that is the “Snyder Cut”, in its full 4 hour running time glory (in a 4:3 ratio, which somehow adds to the grandeur). 4 years of dedicated, passionate and determined people helping in any way they can for the cause. It was a journey to behold.

A large section in Snyder’s 4 hour venture is used to build dimension and depth in the characters. Making an absolute world of a difference. Something that was sorely lacking in Whedon's cut. The film had a completely different feel and atmosphere instantly.

There's no better example of increased depth in characters than Cyborg's (Ray Fisher's) narrative. I was engaged, and intrigued by his story. In Whedon’s cut, he isn't even given a second thought. His entire backstory was cut as well as his father's important role also being stripped. His scene where he sacrificed himself in order for them to find the mother box was gone. And it took away such an important, integral part in Cyborgs story, and in the film in general I believe and also realised having seen the two movies; the complicated but delicately developing relationship between father and son. And just the whole story in general made such a difference in Snyder's cut, it really is almost indescribable the difference it made. It just felt so much more genuine and heartfelt. Like a real developed and executed narrative.

In Snyder's cut we were shown detailed flashbacks that fully fleshed out his character, his morals and his relationships. Creating a much needed deeper connection with the audience. We experience his conflicting journey to accepting his responsibility, accepting the past, the "gift he has", and his purpose in the league. Leading into receiving closure. He was given great and meaningful importance and purpose in this cut.

Similarly, Ezra Miller's Flash was too given a largely more meaningful and impactful role that left quite the impression on me. His character was light-hearted and charming but still had those important, emotionally impactful scenes. Which were painfully lacking in Whedon's cut. I was left loving Barry Allen a lot more than I already did. Barry's scenes with his wrongly convicted father were hard hitting for me. They also play a large part in making later scenes more impactful. Like his detrimental importance during the final fight. In Whedon's cut his big hero moment was saving a Russian family. The overall the inclusion of the family was superfluous and extraneous, along with the robber at the start and many other things. Not only that but Whedon's cut gave the Flash a silly, attempted comical relief role. To be fair he attempted to give everybody a comical relief role. Which hardly worked because none of the attempts were actually funny and were at time agonizing. It ultimately lacked substance and came across as almost immature. The scene where Barry went on about brunch was painful. Leading me to ask, why? Why was this so important to film Whedon?

After re-watching Whedon’s version, I had gained a new found appreciation for Snyder's representation of Barry. '"Make your own future, make your own past"; he echoes his father’s words. "Your son really was one of them, the best of the best," as his theme "At the Speed of Force" plays in the background of this pivotal moment. A powerful scene reflecting Barry's ulterior motive, doing his father proud. Which invoked many tears. And still does whenever I re-watch the scene or listen to the song. As if it were the first time experiencing it. Thomas Holkenborg's soundtrack truly amplified emotion and made the scenes much more powerful, It makes for one of the absolute best scenes in the movie; I'd say one of, if not my absolute favourite.

His job in charging up Victor was completely removed and I have to wonder why. Instead Barry was left to participate in "bug duty" (bugs being one of his fears also). Barry's role in Snyder's cut, and that one incredible scene where he broke the rule was arguably better than Whedon's Justice League as a whole.

I think the only scene in Whedon's cut involving Barry that I thought was actually meaningful was where he was faced with his first real mission. And he was confronted with his fears of "obnoxiously tall" beings. He appeared anxious and frantic. Fearful. Communicating to us his inexperience. And Batman simply told him to just "save one". To which he then, without struggle, saved them all. And was also able to participate in the final battle. The "save one" scene made those achievements more meaningful.

The scene after they won the battle, showcases the victorious team standing proud; and Barry with a sweet, goofy, golden retriever-esque smile plastered on his face. What a loveable smile.

An interesting contrast is the scene in where Barry reveals to his father his new position at an “actual job”. In Snyder’s cut the father was absolutely over the moon, shouting at the top of his lungs, "his foot is in the door!" repeatedly in excitement. It tugged at my heart strings; his shameless pride in his son. Making me wonder how he would have shown his pride if he found out Barry saved the whole Earth and humanity. We can assume Barry had that unequivocally powerful underlying thought too. Contributing to his saccharine reaction. In Whedon’s cut the reaction was softer and more timid but nonetheless a sweet moment. Barry becoming bashful.

It was a sweet touch to have Cyborg and Flash finally fist bump during that victorious scene after Victor rejected Barry's initial advance in Whedon's cut. Ezra Miller improvising that “racially charged” line, acknowledging the possible racism attached to a fist bump I assume. The whole fist bumping being "racially charged" was not included in Snyder's cut. The grave digging scene was entirely different. Which I far more preferred. It was a group excursion. With a little positive interaction between the Atlantean and the Amazonian. And funnier, more light-hearted dialogue between Barry and Victor.

Aquaman’s contrast was interesting. In Whedon’s cut he actually sought out to obtain the trident to help the league (although he was always disagreeing with them). Compared to Snyder; where he was apprehensive and had to be hesitantly persuaded by Willem Dafoe’s character Vulko (who was completely absent from Whedon’s cut). This was also an importantly established relationship by Snyder. Arthur first makes his desire to help the the team known saving them from the water rushing from Gotham Harbour. He isn't acknowledged in the theatrical cut but in Snyder's cut Diana notices and takes a moment to take in his presence (I assume?). Then Barry asks who that guy is. And of course we all know, it's Aquaman.

I particularly liked how Snyder chose to include Barry asking for Arthur's opinion on military hats. It's an odd, minimalistic thing to include - the reasoning as to why I like it. I also thought it was quite charming.

A scene I think deserves a mention is when Aquaman is first introduced, and then rejects Bruce's offer, he then makes his way back into the ocean. A farewell song is performed. This was quite early in the film and I think the voices being hauntingly beautiful, yet slightly eerie/poignant set the perfect atmosphere. A well done scene.

His overall character was also contrasting. He became a genuine hero who was proved capable of more than water powers and silly moments. Including that god-awful lasso of truth scene. In the theatrical cut he was bitter, a bit of a joke, not caring too much about the events that were unfolding. He had more of a heroes’ sense of purpose within Snyder’s cut.

Gal Gadot did not gain too much from the extra scenes. Though different to the theatrical cut, Snyder had paired her with a repetitive character establishing theme. It could be referred to as ancient lamentation music. Hauntingly beautiful. Something I could only assume would be the battle cries of the Amazonian warriors and the Amazonian warrior inside Diana. In some ways possibly over used, though I thought it was brilliant. It has a special place in my heart because I love that type of soundtrack. The almost eerie, maybe poignant but overall emotion provoking type. Especially her introduction scene where she faces off against the terrorists )which was overall better in Snyder's cut) The haunting warrior moans fade into her classic theme to create an incredible atmosphere. And that atmosphere was definitely missing in Whedon's cut, in more than just that one scene. It was also sorely lacking the lamentation music. We also didn't get that sweet interaction between Diana and the little girl.

When Diana began detailing Steppenwolf and the mother boxes past to Bruce, the cuts were very strange and abrupt/awkward in some way. And it felt silly and rushed; and I think that perfectly describes the whole film.

Whedon's cut also included uncomfortable scenes. Almost forcing characters to be funny where it was just completely out of place and character. Or just downright inappropriate. To be fair, Whedon is known for the Marvel movies in which fourth wall dimension breaking and odd self ware/ironic jokes are heavily used. One of the main reasons I don't particularly enjoy them, but rather enjoy the darker, more meaningful DC movies. I say meaningful in the way in which we are completely transported into this universe; where it's taken seriously and has obvious effects and meaning to the characters. Compared to Whedon's Marvel films in which the threat is joked about and the characters make fun at their expense.

Another negative contrast is the colour grading and overall shots. A good example is the conversation between Lois Lane and Martha Kent. In Whedon's version the colour is poppy, reminiscent of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or The Office. As if it were an empty shell of a TV show. Lacking any artistic or symbolic aspects. Whereas Snyder's conversation between Martha Kent (who was actually Martian Manhunter) and Lois Lane was beautiful. The lighting was dim, with steam from their hot coffee creating a brilliant shot and conveying the perfect mood. Almost a piece of art. A lot of Snyder's cut looked as if it were ripped straight out of an incredible graphic novel. His talent when it comes to filmmaking is grandiloquent. Compared to Whedon's over saturated and flat scenes as if it were from a cliché sitcom.

Whedon also made the Justice League a lot more dysfunctional than it needed to be.

The scene where the team unanimously come up with the plan to revive Superman seemed really silly and lackluster in Whedon's cut. In Snyder's cut it was a genuine moment. A "wow" moment where the penny dropped. It gave me goose-bumps. The way it was implied, the explanation/analogy with the house, and then Cyborg creating a Superman visual as the team, standing around the table, stared at it in awe. All thinking the same thing. Without even having to say it (as Barry pointed out) It was a uniting moment. Whedon's version was just, disappointing. Lacking any impact at all. And it made the team seem disconnected in a way. Whereas in Snyder's scene the league's thoughts were in unison.

There was also an agonizing amount of Wonder Woman praise. I think praise is a...well...nicer way of putting it. It was more so adolescent boy humour, immature if you will; with her being the butt of the joke. To the point where it was little uncomfortable and borderline unnecessary. And to another point where Gal Gadot refused to do a scene, (the one where Flash lands on her) and Whedon insisted so much on still including it - that they used a body double. A scene so stupid and pointless it actually hurts. Why, Whedon?

Superman's main feature in this film is his moustache. Or, lack thereof. At the beginning of the theatrical cut, we witness the infamous Superman film scene, where we are introduced to his CGI moustache…then “Everybody Knows” by Sigrid plays as we see the aftermath of his death. I really enjoyed this scene, the song and the atmosphere. I think it was a strong start, setting the poignant mood. But of course it all goes out the window and downhill from here.

The biggest difference between the two Superman’s was the elimination of the godforsaken CGI removed moustache and the introduction to the “Recovery Suit” in Snyder's cut, which was a brilliant touch. We actually see Clark stumble upon the suit. A scene where various voices from his past, echo in his mind. An equally important and impactful scene; where he flied up into the universe, overlooking the Earth he is to protect.

I also really liked the whole, "Lois Lane is key" setup, with the eerie premonitions and glimpses into the “Knightmare”. Adding yet another deeper layer to the narrative. Setting the scene for Snyder's envisioned sequel.

In Whedon's cut during the first confrontation where Clark is confused immediately after his resurrection - the previous BvS battle is implemented more. With the "Do you bleed?" question being revisited. Giving us an unwanted closer look at the strange looking $3 million dollar CGI.

I liked Snyder's first confrontation better. It included more action and participation of all parties. And it was just a longer scene, making it seem more plausible and less silly. Before Clark reached Bruce he went through every member. Resulting in a little appreciated interaction between Arthur and Barry. I also thought Whedon’s scene showing Superman throwing Batman away like a ragdoll added to the ridiculous nature.

During the final battle. (Not mentioning how uncomfortable the colour grading was causing an unlikable atmosphere. Especially when it became daylight, taking away the exciting and intense atmosphere.) Whedon's Superman's entry was a little plain. Maybe cliché. Banging on about "truth" and "justice". Which isn't necessarily bad. It's just, maybe, too Superman? We then see the relieved faces of all the members. Batman's giddy smile was by far the best. It was nice to see genuine happiness and I think that played an important role in communicating to us Bruce's character arc. From lowest of lows, and his conflicting attitude towards Superman in BvS, to Superman giving him incredible hope. Though it slightly made me uncomfortable.

Snyder's entry of Superman was brutal in the best way. Appearing just before Cyborg was chopped to bits. Giving us that epic moment of 'He came.” Superman mercilessly rips into Steppenwolf for the next minute or two. No breakaways. Which was a great choice. It perfectly showcased his abilities. Though in the theatrical cut he was shown to be the only capable one of saving the world and being the real “hero”, in Snyder’s cut, especially The Flash, they were all shown to be powerful with meaningful parts to play.

Bruce Wayne appeared more guilty and conflicted about what happened in BvS in Whedon's cut. Though he was overshadowed in terms of writing by Superman and Wonder Woman. He also was the one who brought in the "big guns" a.k.a Lois Lane as a contingency plan in case the Superman resurrection went awry. In which it did. In Snyder's cut it was coincidence, or the doing of Man Hunter in that mysterious scene. Bruce was also quite tense and wasn’t too much a bright beacon of hope as he was in the Snyder cut. Even despite Snyder's vision of him being reminiscent and heavily inspired by Frank Millers version; darker, older, broken and violent in a way (which is brilliant) he still had this character arc. The lover’s tiff he suffered with Diana was irritating and what I thought was superfluous. Creating an unnecessary disconnect with the group. It wasn't an interesting sub-plot/complication at all .

Bruce's character arc (from the dark BvS time, to the hopeful present) was more thoroughly shown in Snyder’s cut compared to Whedon's. I briefly mentioned Bruce's schoolgirl grin when Superman arrived right on time. Though Snyder more effectively showcased this positive rise through his obviously increased in optimistic attitude. When the team are off the defeat Steppenwolf once and for all Alfred asks Bruce how he can be so sure of the Man of Steel’s arrival. And Bruce replies full of vigour, “Faith, Alfred, faith!” And in another instance Barry questions their strength against Steppenwolf due to the amount of demons he has won against. Bruce declares that, “He’s never fought us. Not us united.” It was a powerful statement that heavily elevated excitement for the final fight.

During this final fight, Batman basically goes out on a suicide mission. Then the rest of the league join him for a family reunion. The Snyder cut better represented this with an astounding freeze-frame, slow motion shot of the team. It nicely established the power of unity in this case.

The way in which Steppenwolf was defeated was vastly altered. Changed completely. Mostly due to Darkseid’s absence in the theatrical cut. Darkseid added an important extra layer of looming fear, and even gave Steppenwolf more depth. It gave him an important reason as to why he was doing what he wasy doing. As we saw his utter dedication to Darkseid. It alerted us of the larger dangers that were present. Steppenwolf’s death in Whedon’s cut was ultimately debilitated after seeing Snyder’s version. Instead of being anti-climactically eaten alive by his bug minions as the sun rose; (maybe it’s a personal preference but I heavily dislike the daylight, especially for action scenes) his head was chopped off, first horn by horn, then from the neck. His decapitated head thrusted back through the portal into his own world, landing at the horrifying Darkseid's feet, along with the terrifying parademons. Engulfed by a fiery hellscape. The horror that Earth could have faced. But still could face. It reveals the deeper and darker enemy, beyong Steppenwolf looming just beneath the surface.

A sinister tune plays, as we see the victorious Justice League looking back at them. The portal then closes. Although a victory, we can’t help but wonder what the demonic and powerful entities, far more powerful than Steppenwolf, have in store for Earth’s future.

The Knightmare vision being apart of that future. It's set up from BvS to the very end of Justice League. It's a very intriguing part of Snyder’s vision. The moment where you can link up and see the connections between all the post-credit scenes and the “premonitions” is an epiphanic moment. It’s a whole other narrative on its own that you can analyse, hypothesize and discuss. It’s a very intriguing/exciting concept to think of what would have been Snyder’s future movie where Barry (as we saw previously reverse time) goes back to warn Bruce that “Lois Lane is the key”, to avoid the whole disastrous scenario. We can gather that he is referencing what we see at the end of Snyder's cut, Superman turned evil. The death of Lois Lane, whose skeleton we saw Superman cradle previously, we can assume had a hand in that, and possibly the Anti-Life equation too. It's an incredible narrative, and there are few things I would love more than seeing the Snyderverse come to life on this epic scale again.

We also finally get a glimpse of Snyder’s joker. A very exciting moment for me. Seeing any new iteration of the Joker is an exciting moment. Could Jared Leto somehow redeem himself?

Well, it sure was infinitely times better than the Suicide Squad rendition. This Joker was actually eerie and unsettling. I felt almost uneasy watching these scenes, and his odd laugh caused shivers to form down my spine. Jokers comments about “boy wonder”, whom we find out was indeed Bruce’s adoptive son, were heartbreaking (I believe he was actually referring to Dick instead of Jason surprisingly as his grave was once seen in a previous movie) Leaving me holding my breath, wondering what Bruce would say next, or what other wretched thing Joker could say. Of course the "reach around" comment was a bit off, but I’ll just brush over that.

We also learnt of Arthur Curry’s death, Harley Quinn’s death. Proving that Snyder had such a colossal plans for all the characters, dead and alive.

It’s a poignant feeling; to see this incredible, vast narrative, just beneath the surface, unfold. Knowing that we won’t be able to see it fully developed. As of now.

While watching these two completely different cuts of the same movie; it occurred to me and I am sure many other people, that attempting to produce such an in depth narrative intensive movie on the small scale that Whedon attempted, will commonly end in a painful, empty and superficial representation. Or maybe that really was just Whedon's vision.

As the epilogue ended, the credits rolled. Hallelujah began playing, sung by Allison Crowe. And as they rolled, in big letters the words; "For Autumn" took center focus. White against black. Clear as day. Like a bus, it hit hard. The reason I was sitting on that couch finally having the great honour to watch such a film. The courage it must have taken to continue and finish such a project is beyond admirable, it's heroic. Also non-profit. It only further proves what we already knew, that the intentions were pure, as no one ever doubted.

Also acknowledging the giant billboard on one of the buildings promoting the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. A very important cause, especially to the Snyder’s. To date fans have raised over half a million dollars to the AFSP in honour of Autumn. A truly incredible feat.

When looking at the two movies side by side, it blows my mind to see the difference that I do. The emotion, meaning, the depth. It all just made sense in Snyder's cut. The emotion was palpable, absolutley unmistakable. Things mattered more. The people mattered more. There were reasons, and purpose. It was a genuine journey for every one of the characters, and I felt it. There were so many little scenes that made so much difference that added depth and meaning, emotion.

And I cannot say such words for Whedon, though I won’t put all the blame on him. Warner Bros. is about equally responsible. .

The true, original and intended Justice League; expatiated heroes, people, stories and journeys coming together on a grandiose scale, executed with passion and care. But also giving us a bittersweet taste of Snyder’s epic trilogy that could have been.

The end of the saga; and the rest of Snyder’s visions, are left unfulfilled; as of now. But regardless, remains as one of the things I hope to see come to life. Watching this movie, and the feeling I had during and afterward is indescribable. I want to say a massive congratulations to Zack Snyder. The film was beyond breathtaking. It really is so special and it will forever have an important place in my heart.

Though I think the most important thing to take away from the Snyder's incredible work is Autumn's story.

Thank you Zack Snyder.

For Autumn.

www.imdb.com/title/tt12361974/

29 notes · View notes

kylesvariouslistsandstuff · 11 months ago

Text

So this year, we're getting yet another GHOSTBUSTERS movie in the re-rebooted franchise, and a new Star Wars feature film looks to shoot later this year for a penciled-in May 2026 release.

I see a lot of skepticism on the internet over these particular developments, and I think a lot of it is rooted - in some way or another - in a legitimate concern. It seems most of the consensus on GHOSTBUSTERS: FROZEN EMPIRE, and its 2021 predecessor GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE, is that it's taking a simpler property way too seriously. Treating it as if it's some serious legacy franchise, that has to be honored to the letter. Like it's... Star Wars!

I have yet to see GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE, I'm actually really not that big of a Ghostbusters person. I had seen the first movie a while ago and thought, "Yeah, that was kinda cool." But that's about it. I didn't remember it having a presence when I was a kid in the '90s. I do know that there was a cartoon airing on Saturday mornings in the late '90s called EXTREME GHOSTBUSTERS (how of the era!), but I never watched it. So, yeah... Ghostbusters is not exactly my jam, but I do think there is some overreacting going on here regarding this new movie.

I totally get it, though. GHOSTBUSTERS III stalled and stalled and stalled, and then Harold Ramis - Egon - passed away, so Sony/Columbia opted to just reboot it entirely with a different continuity... And with four women playing the Ghostbusters, only to get greeted with nothing but contempt. Regardless of the 2016 movie's quality, it created this aggressively no-nuance situation where it was this ultra-hated movie (for all the wrong reasons) and that YOU - if you weren't a raging misogynist racist asshole - were morally obligated to LIKE the movie... Regardless of what you thought of it, in terms of its quality. Ya know, script, acting, direction, etc. The movie ended up flopping, so there was no future in this team, though they did appear in an IDW-published comic thereafter.

So, Jason Reitman, son of the franchise's co-creator Ivan Reitman, started a "true" third Ghostbusters that took place in the same continuity as the first two movies and brought back the remaining actors to play the Ghostbusters... Passing the baton to a group of kids, two of which were girls. Sort of treating it all as a legacy brand, which I understand can be annoying to those who feel like GHOSTBUSTERS - the 1984 movie - was at its core a small-scale comedy and not this worldwide thing. At the time, I definitely saw that particular movie as spite. A sort of kowtowing to the angry male nerds who honk "WOKE" like a defective goose at everything. But that apparently was not the case during production, it was just... Ghostbusters is a franchise, and in capitalism... Things *must* continue (facetious), even if it's well past its expiration date. An animated Ghostbusters movie is also in the works, which is being done up at Sony Pictures Animation... And me? I think this concept works great in animation, and after all, the cartoons are an important part of the whole thing so... Yeah, I'll likely see the animated Ghostbusters movie. I think exploring that universe in the animated medium might be a fresh spin on a chestnut property. Heck, SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE came off of *three* theatrical live-action iterations of the character, so you never know!

This FROZEN EMPIRE sequel, I'm just indifferent. It exists. Someone will like it, for sure. AFTERLIFE did pretty well at the box office amidst the Delta and emerging Omicron variants of COVID-19. I was working the box office the week it came out, and I had a family come up to me to get their tickets for it... All dressed as Ghostbusters, complete with a homemade proton pack. And I thought to myself, "That's what it's aaaall about."

Star Wars, admittedly, has gone in directions that I just don't care for. The last movie I genuinely had a good time with in the franchise was SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY, which was already a very safe and workmanlike movie. The cast and old school space western vibe save it. Despite what we now know what it's like to work under Phil Lord and Chris Miller (as made clear by the stories that got out on ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE), I honestly would love to see what their version of that story would've looked like... But, we ultimately didn't receive that movie, so... And of course, I really liked THE LAST JEDI. Really liked how Rian Johnson took the franchise, which was becoming well-worn, and cracked it open and took a look at it with a fresh new perspective. And naturally, it was hated beyond belief, and mostly by the usual suspects... I think such a fervent backlash played a part in how Lucasfilm and Disney went forward with this franchise.

So when THE RISE OF SKYWALKER came out, I also took it as spite. Bowing to the angry assholes who just couldn't stomach that the franchise featured people other than white guys and had something more important to say. I was quite pissed off with how they significantly dialed down Rose Tico into a nothing character, instead they gave more time to this new character - whose name I, no shock, forget - who was played by some friend of J.J. Abrams that won a bet during development... Like, what the hell was that all about? Also didn't care for a number of things that just got... Thrown at you. It felt like it was made in panic mode, a Disney-mold please-all movie to end the sequel trilogy and the entire Skywalker saga as a whole. I could go on and on, but I wasn't necessarily upset with developments like "Rey is actually related to Palpatine"... They just come too late and are super-undercooked, all of it in one 2 1/2-hour movie that was following two movies that were saying and building up to something entirely different. The death of Carrie Fisher certainly didn't help, either. I didn't hate THE RISE OF SKYWALKER per se, I was left feeling "whatever"... Like... What the hell was that?

So I didn't bother with THE MANDALORIAN and anything else thereafter, in terms of live-action. And it appears that the Mando side of things informs the franchise going forward. The new movie is called THE MANDALORIAN & GROGU, and that just tells me everything I need to know. I'm curious about the movie featuring Rey 15 years later, that's to be directed by Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy. James Mangold could possibly make something cool out of his ancient Jedi movie, but... Honestly, it's all a big bag of "who cares" to me. With a universe so big and wide, with all kinds of planets everywhere... why does it always have to be about the Skywalkers, the Jedi, etc.? Just give me a Disney+ National Geographic-style documentary about banthas, that would be infinitely more interesting to me. That's why STAR WARS: VISIONS is on my watch-list, like... Enough about the Skywalkers and the Jedi already...

But, Star Wars is owned by big bad Disney. And Disney is going to milk this franchise until audiences collectively get sick of it. Sure, there has been plenty of Star Wars media made before the Disney buyout of Lucasfilm: Comics, video games, novels. It's always been around in some way or another, but I feel Disney just doubled-down on it. Probably because of the abundance of movies made and the amount of shows they're cranking out.

And then I try to place myself in 1977, when STAR WARS first came out. The original movie, before any sequels, before any TV specials, before the added "A NEW HOPE" subtitle, etc....

STAR WARS, alongside Steven Spielberg's JAWS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, are often seen as the end of "New Hollywood" and the beginning of the blockbuster era of Hollywood... And yet, STAR WARS was being made before that all really took off. When George Lucas and his crew were planning and shooting what would become the first movie, how they would they have known what kind of monster it would create? Not just the Star Wars franchise as a whole, but the blockbuster in general. JAWS was the only "blockbuster" at the time of this movie's making, having grossed over a record $130m domestically in 1975. In 1976, the highest grossing movie was ROCKY, with $55m. STAR WARS was one of those movies where it was looking like it was going to be this big mistake, this big flop. Who in 1977 wanted to see some pulpy kid-friendly space adventure movie? By late 1976, the movie industry was still in the era of adult auteur-driven films. Dramas, political thrillers, and smaller pictures that would be called "prestige pictures" today. Films that would struggle to make $50m domestically in 2024, let alone be released in theaters. It was the era of THE GODFATHER, TAXI DRIVER, DOG DAY AFTERNOON, THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, etc. Isn't it something that those kinds of movies were once regularly the biggest hits at the box office? And you wonder why Martin Scorsese voiced his concerns about Marvel movies...

You look at STAR WARS, and it is indeed part of that waning era of American cinema. At first glance, it's a kids' space adventure movie featuring a WIZARD OF OZ-esque band of weirdos, where people fight with laser swords and there's ships flying around... But it's actually, through and through, a 1970s movie. It's informed by Lucas' politics, the Vietnam War, the Richard Nixon administration... And to think that people complain that the franchise had gotten too political or too "woke" under Disney's ownership? Don't make me laugh.

In a way, you kind of come to realize... Well, this little space movie from the 1970s somehow became the highest-grossing movie ever for a period of time (Steven Spielberg's E.T. took the record in 1982), it spawned two sequels and a few TV specials and cartoons... And tons of comic books and novels and toys... And then three more movies, and more cartoons, and more movies, it's now owned by a massive multimedia conglomerate that wants MORE MORE MOOOOOOORE of it out there... And well... Capitalism. It becomes big, new people take it over every now and then, it's soooooooo far removed from the little anti-Vietnam War space movie it was in 1977 that could've gone down as an embarrassing box office disaster and subsequent cult classic.

And then you realize when it's time to get off the train, and quit going after the wrong people, aiming for the wrong targets. In that, the thing wasn't ruined, it's just so big now that it's not its earliest roots. When I see these new Star Wars things that throw in cameos and try very hard to play to fans who want Star Wars done up in a very specific way, I can't get too too angry... Because this whole "Star Wars, the way you've always loved it" thing seems to fundamentally misunderstand what the original movie, NOT the Original Trilogy, was in 1977. Repeating the past, instead of being someone's unique vision informed by the events of the era it was made in. It became a franchise, but it's okay to say when it's time to cap it off and go watch something else.

I extend this to my current gripes with Walt Disney Animation Studios and the majority of Disney's modern movie output that isn't Pixar, 20th Century Studios, and Searchlight. WDAS may never be what it was a few decades ago, it'll certainly never be what it was under Walt's watch. I can gripe all I want about their recent films not entirely doing it for me, but I can still look for the things I like (for example, STRANGE WORLD had some really cool stuff in it, have yet to see WISH all the way through) and hope for the best next time. "The best", as in, a picture I really really dig and cherish. Even if I may not get just that. The reality is, these things grow and balloon way beyond what they started out as, and many different people are now involved, money drives it all, and thus those in charge take it the direction that they THINK is the right direction. It's never easy to guess what it is the audience might want or will like, ya know?

Sometimes things are truly special before they blow up into something else where there's too much money at stake and too many people making what they feel are the right decisions... Sometimes those things can still be special, too...

2 notes · View notes