#I love watching movies with my friends

[gothicprep]

i'm currently reading a book called "you are what you watch" by walt hickey. the chapter i'm on right now is called "commerce and culture and commence", and what hickey is describing in this chapter is something similar to a flywheel – the idea of a book or movie or tv show leading to people buying merchandise, which in turn leads to them going to amusement parks. he's zeroing in on a very specific part of pop history that i had completely forgotten about, the warner brothers' studio store. it's discussed as the missing link between the entire history of pop culture before the 90s and everything that's followed since then.

hickey explains that, before the wb store was innovated, pop culture merch was for children. tv shows about batman, for example, didn't lead to adults wearing shirts about batman. it was all targets to kids. disney locked in on this idea of connecting merchandise to films very, very early. the empire strikes back was the one that really capitalized on this in particular, but star wars in general realized again that you can sell toys to children based on the thing they'd seen. but the thing that warner bros studio store did is that they tapped into the aging boomer audience that had money and were nostalgic. bear in mind, this is 1991, so boomers at the time would have been in their 30s and 40s.

after batman came out in 1989, it was the biggest movie of the year, so wb produced a little bit of adult merch for it, and it sold out almost immediately. then they quickly realized that there was a big demand for batman pins and memorabilia from those boomers. this wasn't just nerds in fandom spaces, these were genuinely mainstream individuals. again, this was the biggest movie of the year.

if you look at the warner brother's library, it's not the cuddly mickey mouse stuff. it's the snarky looney tunes stuff. so wb thinks to themselves, "hey, we're in the 90s. this could work." hearing the people interviewed in the book talk about the development of the store is so interesting because they immediately realized where their strengths were – ignore kids entirely, try to poach people from department stores and design studios instead, and make the kinds of things that people will want to actually buy, except it has daffy duck on it.

what really jumped out to me was that the pop culture artifacts became representations of identity, and wb basically discovered this accidentally. there's a moment in the book about the specific looney tunes characters being targeted to specific groups of people. the consumers didn't want all the looney tunes on their shirt, they wanted one specific character. they had no idea this identity component even existed until they started selling stuff.

the architect of this was a woman named linda postell, who's interviewed in the book. she mentions that, early on in development, all the men who would buy foghorn leghorn stuff would all basically look the same. if they bought harley davidson, they were a taz guy. etc.

there are a lot of looney tunes characters, and wb mined their archives to appeal to more people. before the store concept, marvin the martin was only in about 20 minutes of the cartoon in the aggregate. they slap him on merch, and suddenly, the IT guy has him on his mug because he's persnickety. within a few years, marvin is refereeing space jam. the people who pulled this off were fucking geniuses. you're not only evoking memories of someone's childhood, you're doing it in a way that articulates something about that person in the process.

i'm a millennial, and my generation sorted itself into one of four hogwarts houses. we had that burst of post-apocalyptic fiction that required people to sort themselves into one of five classes. there was star wars and their weird "are you the light side, or the dark side?" campaign. this strategy has been employed by people in the entertainment industry where content design is all a downstream of this.

this next bit isn't in the book at all. it's just my hot take. but i feel like this has been actively destructive to the world of culture criticism, consumption, and enjoyment in very real and specific ways. in what we see in so many of the arguments over things like star wars, there's this thing that's like "star wars is my identity, so i have to defend what i believe to be the correct version of star wars". or, "marvel is my identity, and i can't stand dc people". or vice versa, "dc is my identity. i love zack snyder movies. these marvel movies are trash. put them on the curb". the adaptation of culture around this tribal behavior, imo, has made it very difficult to actually make culture that's resonant while also not allowing itself to give in to that competitive nature.

if you were to consider the release pattern and the mentality around the snyder cut, it becomes difficult to disentangle it from this. there was an underdog perception around it, despite the fact that these are fans of one of the two biggest comic book universes in the world. "i have been wronged. i have ought to be compensated for this in the form of a film made to my specifications."

there are elements of it that, ugh, good isn't the word... i guess allowed us to understand a deeper reason why some things resonate with us and others don't. with sitcoms and relating to a specific character, rather than the entire ensemble cast, is sometimes how people get clued in on a specific show. that was the case with friends and cheers. having on-ramps into pop culture for different people isn't the worst thing in the world. and understanding that people do take this seriously enough that they can articulate an element of their identity through it is not bad.

that being said, these are publicly traded corporations that have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders to maximize value. as a result, sometimes we're gonna get things that play off this instinct in a way that are unhealthy for pop culture and culture as a whole.

so, impressive as the development process was was, they were cracking something open there in the desert that cannot be put back.

[crumb-crumblet-s-crumbington]

AND BUMBLEBEE !!!!!!!!

[savageymir]

So I saw Beetlejuice Beetlejuice again… 👀👀👀

[phantasymistart]

p&p 2005 screencap study

[webonchin]

The one true Family model

I have bunch of some ATSV drawings so I will be posting them yay

[hwljpg]

the spongerrrr

[afterthelambs]

⚠️Spoilers for Look Back but I was initially confused about what Fujino and Kyomoto's relationship had to do with pursuing a career as a mangaka. After thinking about it, I interpret it as a narrative device to represent what will come when choosing to pursue art (of any form, whether it's comics, painting, animation, music, etc.).

Think about it, what's Kyomoto's role in the story? She is what got Fujino to take art seriously in middle school, and what motivated her to continue after she initially gave up. However, she's also the only thing in the story that makes Fujino wish she quit art. First, halfway through 6th grade and then later after her death. She serves as Fujino's motivator and de-motivator.

I think the scene of Fujino wishing that she never told Kyomoto to come out (that pursuing art only led to suffering) represents artists' regrets. We literally look back and see an alternate universe where Fujino never pursued art and it has a happier ending. Anyone that pursues artistic dreams will end up regretting it at some point. It's not easy, any artist will tell you that. The story is saying yes, you probably will end up healthier and more stable by giving up your dreams. Because art is suffering.

But then Fujino enters Kyomoto's room after reading the comic from the alternate reality and all of a sudden we get a montage of the happy memories and accomplishments they had pursuing their dreams together. And we realize that, everything we saw of them in the alternate 'happier' reality pales in comparison to this:

The happiest both of them look in that alternate world is when they finally meet and promise to work together someday. They loved art. They loved each other. Giving up on your dreams means missing out on all of that, and nothing in the world can replace it. Because yes art is suffering, but art is also joy and love.

And so the end of the story where Fujino goes back to work isn't her moving on. She tapes the comic strip in front of her to remind her of Kyomoto, to remind her of why she got into comics in the first place. Basically, Kyomoto IS art to Fujino. A life with her means experiencing both suffering and joy, while the life without her means having none of that.

I might be wrong about this, like maybe Fujimoto just wanted to tell a mangaka story with doomed yuri (valid) HOWEVER i like my interpretation so im sticking with it.

[ayushipop]

the violence in bottoms (2023) is so satisfying in a way i don't really know how to put into words. somewhere between the violence against women that movies sometimes shy away from too much but also Lean Into a little too much (spectrum of either not depicting realistic violence/harassment due to discomfort with it or the "you can't hit her she's a girl!" concept vs gratuitous sensationalized violence). like it's that "boys will be boys" kind of roughhousing that girls are excluded from if the narrative frames them as too delicate / feminine / untouchable. and i see them beating the shit out of each other and it feels Good. they're not untouchable dolls nor are they objects to project malice and gratuitous violence onto! it's not even fully about the empowerment or seeing girls be able to fight back (which does feel amazing in its own right and the movie does a great job of delivering it) like even seeing like, idk black widow beat up a bunch of guys in a marvel movie doesn't feel the same as how bottoms does it. it feels unpolished and grounded and realistic and satisfying. #girlswillbegirls

[donutdisturblivball]

after rewatching nimona four times since its release (because yes, this movie is just that good), i caught a few little details that just make the whole experience so much better. so, incoming SPOILER ALERT, don’t read this if you haven’t watched the movie yet. speaking of, why the fuck haven’t you?? go watch the movie (and read the comic while you’re at it, some sites offer it for free), then come back and enjoy.

1. When the Squire gives Ballister his sword, he clearly realizes something’s wrong with it. He’s trained with it for so long that he knew that something was off just by holding it. This detail is something you wouldn’t pay much attention to when you first watch the film, but it’s there to make you realize something is a little off, especially when the Squire attempts to show him the video, but it also has plausible deniability so you could chalk it up to being something else (ie. the Squire wanting a picture with Ballister).

2. This sneaky line from this sneaky bitch.

3. Nimona tells us exactly how the movie ends. (Sorta. In a sense. The phoenix rises from the ashes and overthrows the government.)

4. You can see Nimona sneaking into the jail where Ballister is being kept.

5. Mini Ballister and Ambrosius! I think a few others have pointed this out before, but I only noticed it upon my second rewatch. (A little surprised younger Ambrosius didn’t have the Asian bob. That’s like a right of passage.)

6. Nimona’s train backstory versus her flashback.

7. During Nimona’s nightmare on the couch, she turns into a wolf, and then a cat. In her flashback, as the villagers attack her, she turns into a cat and then a wolf. It could be because having her turn into anything else would be too big for the couch, but if this is intentional, then it means Nimona was having a nightmare of that day.

8. This. Visually, the sparks are sorta similar, and in both instances, Ballister has lost something irreplaceable. I think this one might be a reach and may not be intentional, but my mind connected the two scenes and wouldn’t let go, so.

Honorable mention: the gay and trans flags above Ballister and Nimona respectively in that one scene. iykyk. I didn’t add it because 1. I think many other people have brought it up and 2. the mobile app is limiting me to 10 images. Anyway, I love this movie and its comic SO much and I’m so glad that it made it to our screens from the box of scrapped movies that could have been great if people (namely, executives) gave them a chance. There is so much love, care, and passion put into this movie, and you can really sense that this was made for its audience and its author, for its story and not only for the money it could make. This movie is metal as fuck, so GO STREAM IT!!

[nuppu-nuppu]

[ghostorbz]

I bought nasb today

[gothicprep]

so, apparently marvel is in disarray. ahead of the marvels coming out this weekend, variety dropped a bomb on the studio's somewhat dire state of affairs, as the franchise has hit its first real rough patch since the release of iron man 15 years ago. among the issues: jonathan majors, whose domestic violence arrest continues to hang over marvel's plans to make his character the thanos-like heavy for the next sequence of movies, the weak box office projections for the marvels (which some have said is tracking lower than recent bombs like the flash), the unending flood of hashtag content on disney plus which is overwhelming audiences who are finding it harder to keep up with the interlocking stories that have served marvel so well over the years, shoddy visual effects, spiraling budgets such as the reported $25mil an episode for she-hulk, a show that looked terrible because of the shoddy effects work aforementioned, behind the scenes chaos as kevin feige works to slash budgets and kill projects that aren't coming together. one movie at risk is the forthcoming blade reboot with mahershala ali, which has gone through rewrite after rewrite including reportedly one draft in which blade was the fourth lead in, quote, "a narrative led by women and filled with life lessons".

that last line has provided a lot of laughs for people like jay gothicprep, and critics who insist that marvel's efforts to diversify the lineup have led to much of this disaster, indicative of disney's overall failure with things like indiana jones and the dial of destiny or animated projects like strange world or lightyear. while this is potentially true (i guess, it's possible) it doesn't seem true because this certainly wasn't the case when black panther and captain marvel were both cracking the billion dollar mark a few years ago. rather it just seems, more simply, that marvel has run its course. marvel was hit by a double-whammy of endings. the thanos storyline that'd dominated the first ten or so years of the project came to an end. at the same time, the pandemic began and disney plus started flooding the zone with content, creating a natural break point for audiences that had no desire to watch hours of tv to understand 1.5 plot points in whatever the next movie that's coming out is.

this preamble is getting kind of long, and i have a lot more to say, so i'm going to continue to thought dump about this under a cut.

first of all, i'm still laughing like a week later at the women led life lessons description. no one has disputed that it happened. that description is the funniest thing i've ever read in a trade industry report possibly ever. what in the hell, my friends. did a writer even talk to a producer about what blade was? it's a movie about a guy with a sword who kills vampires! it's pretty straighforward! that sounds like something i want to see! there were three of them already, and two of them were pretty good!

anyway, i think you can take that incredibly ridiculous description of a draft that maybe wasn't the main draft – this movie has been through tons of writers and directors – and see some of the real problems with marvel's creative direction, which is that they've stopped making movies that highlight the core concepts of their characters. there are other problems as well, but when's the last time they put out a movie that was like, "iron man. he's a guy in a metal suit and he fights a bad guy." or "spider man. it's a guy in a spider suit with spider powers. he's got girlfriend problems and he fights crime around manhattan and maybe there's dr octopus." they don't do that. their recent stretch of movies have all been these impenetrable multiverse stuff with ties to tv series that you haven't seen and maybe won't ever see. there was a whole 25 minute section in black panther 2 that was setting up armor wars and ironheart. and like. who needs that sequence, which was boring and looked like total garbage? and now armor wars is being redeveloped lol. they've just departed from a lot of the core concepts that powered their earlier films.

they have some other problems. they've leaned into a slate of characters that is not all that well-known or inherently super popular, even for marvel being able to deliver on making billion dollar films out of guardians of the galaxy and such. maybe with the exception of spider man, which they don't get a full cut from because sony owns the actual movie rights. then there's the fact that the streaming series, by all accounts, aren't great but you *feel* like you need to have seen them. they're all real big problems. marvel needs to go back to making movies that are named after a character who's a superhero with a clear concept. guy with spider powers fights crime in his neighborhood. even though those movies got kind of repetitive, they did well enough because they didn't stray too far from the character concept.

i think, too, as a viewer, when you have a studio churning out so much stuff that's not good, you get the impression that the superhero industry feels entitled to your time and entitled to your money while not delivering.

this summer also represents an interesting counterpoint to what's happened with marvel and dc. the sheer amount of stuff that you devote every waking minute to keeping track of the damn things got exhausting and made movies stop feeling like events. this summer we've had barbenheimer and the eras tour, and those have been both big events and felt exciting. barbie was a chance to be campy, oppenheimer was a chance to see something serious and cinematic, the eras tour was exciting for fans of taylor swift who couldn't afford to spend $3k on taylor swift. and they felt this way because they were all unlike anything you'd seen at the movies in recent years. they had a high standard of quality, and going, it genuinely felt like people were there because they wanted to be, not because they were being force marched by a cultural behemoth to be there. you can't summon that same kind of energy for a marvel movie when it both feels obligatory and you expect it to be bad.

it also feels like there's a certain contempt for the audience where it concerns quality problems. i mean, i don't think that this is the intention. marvel isn't saying "we can deliver this stuff that's garbage and people will see it anyway". but one of the things i thought was the most damning about that variety story was the fact that, on some of the marvel tv shows, the final effects were inserted after the shows were released. so if you watched the show on opening night, you probably didn't see the final effects work. the arrogance involved in that is insane. it speaks to a total vanished pride in putting out a good product.

even some of marvel's better regarded films were heavily edited and heavily worked on right until the end, in part because kevin feige would come in and fix things, so stuff would have to get reworked. that's why effects deadlines were super tight and people were always crunching at the very end of this. there was that incredible quote from sam raimi from a couple months before the second doctor strange came out where he was like, "i think it's done but i'm not sure. marvel, they work on their movies until the very end." the director didn't even know if his own movie was locked or not because he clearly wasn't the one making the decisions about what the final print would look like.

that can work if you're making two movies a year and have a supervisor that comes in during the process and says, "i need you to redo this, in this way". but when you stretch that out to three movies a year, plus god knows how many episodes of television, there's no way to do that and make it a high quality product.

an instructive lesson comes from the book "disneywar", which chronicles michael eisner's time at disney. and one of the things in this book was the development and deployment of "who wants to be a millionaire" in america. bob iger is head of abc at this time. the guys making this show do it for a week. audiences love it. it's putting up huge numbers. everybody is excited. it's crushing it in the ratings. and the people who made it wanted to keep doing special week or two week long engagements that people would show up for. and iger was like, "no. i want this every week, three times a week, forever." and audiences got burnt out on it quickly, because it was something that only really worked as a special that ran for a week and disappeared for a few months. that's what the disney plus strategy feels like with marvel.

[nikki-rook]

Matthew Perry in Fools Rush In

[chalkrub]

it's mendel!

[xxplastic-cubexx]

so like do you think they made the plastic wheelchair ALONGSIDE the plastic prison as a Just In Case situation, only after they realized charles was going to be a frequent visitor, or both as in because they knew charles was going to be the only person visiting him during planning they decided to make him a chair ahead of time

[keii]

JJK (Toji & Mahito) x I Saw the Devil (K-Movie) Crossover