HBO Max and Discovery? [Archive]

Irish

10-30-2019, 02:11 PM

You already have to pay for HBO.

Why can’t these just be on HBO?

I thought about this and it sounds like internal corporate bullshit that the marketing department came up with.

Since both HBO and HBO Max are $15 a month, the execs figure everybody will upgrade for "free." This makes the numbers for the new service look good, because you can show a shit ton of "new" accounts signing up in the first month, without spending a dime of your budget.

Then you, as marketing SVP, can go into the quarterly meeting with a nice bar chart and demonstrate Max's sharp, beautiful growth .... even though, technically, you've merely cannibalized your own cusomer base. (You just neglect to mention that part.)

On the front, customer-facing end ... it makes Max appear shiny and new even though it's the same thing as before, just with more shows, which they would've released anyway.

MadMan

11-02-2019, 08:33 AM

Embrace the piracy!

Skitch

11-02-2019, 11:15 AM

Embrace the piracy!

For the first time in my life, I'm starting to. But generally because I cant go to theaters because of how miserable the experience is, and usually its stuff I already know I'll own on bluray. I watched the new terminator a week before it was released, but I owned the films on VHS, dvd, and bluray. I deserve a free ticket. The fuckers HAVE my money.

Ezee E

11-02-2019, 07:53 PM

For the first time in my life, I'm starting to. But generally because I cant go to theaters because of how miserable the experience is, and usually its stuff I already know I'll own on bluray. I watched the new terminator a week before it was released, but I owned the films on VHS, dvd, and bluray. I deserve a free ticket. The fuckers HAVE my money.

Where do you live Skitch that has the all-time worst theater experience??

Irish

11-02-2019, 08:04 PM

Shhhhhh! Ixnay on the heatertay.

Asking Skitch about movies theaters is like inviting an old person to talk about their arthritis.

Skitch

11-02-2019, 09:51 PM

Where do you live Skitch that has the all-time worst theater experience??

I live in Ohio, but thats irrelevant. Every where I've been on vacation has been the same. Its just me. People never believe me. Then they accompany me to a theater and ask questions I don't understand like "why is the guy with the oxygen tank sitting next to you?" and "why are those two guys with completely full army backpacks sitting in front of you and talking?" and "why is the escaped asylum inmate wearing snow pants doing her taxes and pacing behind you mumbling to herself while we're watching Sinister?"

I don't know, man. I am the Ju-On of theaters.

Edit, also:

-Why is the film on fire?
-Why is the only other patron of this two hundred seat theater on a tuesday at noon a homeless person and why did they sit RIGHT NEXT TO ME
-Why after I complained twice about the teenagers kicking a trashcan down the aisle does management request I complain a third time instead of demanding my money back
-WHY IS THERE A BABY IN A CAR SEAT IN A HARD R RATED MOVIE

Dukefrukem

04-16-2020, 11:08 PM

JJ ruined Star Trek, he ruined Star Wars... now he'll destroy the DCEU

Justice League Dark film in the works

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jj-abrams-sets-3-hbo-max-shows-justice-league-dark-shining-spinoff-duster-1290530

Irish

04-16-2020, 11:40 PM

Dukefrukem

04-21-2020, 02:31 PM

1252582863968579594

1252583363296342016

1252584872914214913

1252585246593179648

1252581601378172928

Dukefrukem

04-21-2020, 02:40 PM

$14.99 per month for people. It is a free upgrade for HBO Now subscribers, and AT&T customers will also get free access.

Which begs the question... why didn't they just put all this stuff on HBO Now? Why do we need a completely new service? I dont understand this marketing thing.

Ezee E

04-21-2020, 03:32 PM

Which begs the question... why didn't they just put all this stuff on HBO Now? Why do we need a completely new service? I dont understand this marketing thing.

It's a terrible rollout.

But NEW LOONEY TUNES.

I'll be cancelling HBO after Westworld and going to Netflix... or maybe I'll try Criterion for a month...

Dukefrukem

04-21-2020, 04:02 PM

I'ts weird to me that people cancel Netflix at this point. I just assume it's already incorporated into our 'commodity" life. It would be like canceling your phone service.

Ezee E

04-21-2020, 04:15 PM

I'ts weird to me that people cancel Netflix at this point. I just assume it's already incorporated into our 'commodity" life. It would be like canceling your phone service.

Unless there's specific programming that I'm looking for (Irishman release / Mindhunter), I barely touch it. Sure, it's cheap, but if I'm not going to plan on watching something, I don't need it.

You're right though. Their stock has skyrocketed during the pandemic. From $365 to $431...

Irish

04-21-2020, 04:22 PM

Dukefrukem

04-21-2020, 04:44 PM

Yeh it's become a casual tool for me I suppose. Like last week I watched Castlevania Season 3 because I forgot it had launched in early March. Before that it was Tiger King.

So I like stumbling across that stuff. It's solid entertainment which is what I look for with Netflix. I'm not looking for the next David Fincher's House of Cards.

Skitch

04-21-2020, 04:54 PM

Philip J. Fry

04-21-2020, 07:12 PM

It's a terrible rollout.

But NEW LOONEY TUNES.

I'll be cancelling HBO after Westworld and going to Netflix... or maybe I'll try Criterion for a month...I read a few months ago that HBO Max was going to include a lot of animated shows, not just Looney Tunes, so there's that.

Philip J. Fry

04-21-2020, 07:18 PM

Netflix is killer if you're into anime, tv shows, documentaries, stand-ups...its kinda lacking for people into very specific things. My horror buddy rarely uses it and complains theres never anything on there. Well yeah, you love horror and hate tv shows. Netflix is not for you.I'd say animation in general, not just anime. Otherwise I agree with this post.

And hey, they now have the entire Ghibli catalogue, so there's also that.

Dukefrukem

04-21-2020, 09:55 PM

You're right though. Their stock has skyrocketed during the pandemic. From $365 to $431...

https://deadline.com/2020/04/netflix-ads-16m-subsiq1-1202913785/

Skitch

04-21-2020, 10:25 PM

I'd say animation in general, not just anime. Otherwise I agree with this post.

And hey, they now have the entire Ghibli catalogue, so there's also that.

I love NF. Its loaded for me and family. My queue usually has 400 things in it.

Ezee E

04-21-2020, 11:35 PM

https://deadline.com/2020/04/netflix-ads-16m-subsiq1-1202913785/

Wow.
Disney+ not really adding content, Apple TV seems to be a huge bust, and HBO Max will as well.

Netflix had nothing to worry about it seems.

Dukefrukem

04-21-2020, 11:54 PM

I mean, at least Disney+ has stuff on the horizon. More than what Apple TV can say. Plus Disney+ adds weird stuff here and there. There's a BTS coming out on the making of the Mandalorian.

Skitch

04-21-2020, 11:59 PM

Ezee E

04-22-2020, 12:06 AM

I may be new to Amazon Prime, but damn is it hard to navigate and find shit. Just like Netflix, its like the hide stuff I would want to watch. Their "since you watched" blah blah blah "maybe you'll like" whatever is just terrible comp.

Fully agree. What I did like about Amazon is that I was able to buy the Better Call Saul season for around $14, and each new episode became available to watch like I had AMC.

Mal

04-22-2020, 12:07 AM

In the last six months, the only things I think I've watched on Netflix were Dolemite is My Name, The Irishman a second time this past weekend (saw it in the theater last year), a couple episodes of Tiger King, and Salt Fat Acid Heat. I was lucky to see Marriage Story in the theaters twice via festivals. Nothing about their programming and choices as a service appeal to me, a mostly movies person. I've been using my sisters login since cancelling last summer. Their reliance on pushing series of all shapes and sizes bums me out. I look at HBO Max and it looks like another aimless, garbled mess of middling programs to forget about.

Criterion channel on the other hand, a godsend. I can always find something to watch no matter my mood.

Skitch

04-22-2020, 12:14 AM

Fully agree. What I did like about Amazon is that I was able to buy the Better Call Saul season for around $14, and each new episode became available to watch like I had AMC.

Dude I just went through most of the Star Trek movies again. Went through 1...2...3...went to hit play on 4, but even though I added to queue, they only had the trailer. Why act like you have the movie? Why don't they have part 4? So random and weird, but at least it saved me rewatching 4 lol.

Dukefrukem

04-22-2020, 12:15 AM

I may be new to Amazon Prime, but damn is it hard to navigate and find shit. Just like Netflix, its like the hide stuff I would want to watch. Their "since you watched" blah blah blah "maybe you'll like" whatever is just terrible comp.

One of the good things about it is you can just search anything in the main search bar, and it will tell you if it's available on prime, $2 rental, purchase etc. So you don't NEED to be in the prime section to serach.

The browsing though, I agree is not that good. None of the streaming services are good I find. I could be in the middle of a season of anything on Netflix, I come back to it a day later and it's nowhere near the top of the windows. Fuckin' POS why isn't the "Continue Watching" area include stuff I just stopped watching??

Skitch

04-22-2020, 12:16 AM

Mal

04-22-2020, 12:31 AM

Do you Hoopla and Kanopy? If not, fantastic free options once you jump through a couple minor hoops.

none of those are available at my local libraries.

Skitch

04-22-2020, 12:36 AM

none of those are available at my local libraries.

Mine either! So I made a trip to a library that is those networks and got a library card for free. Totally worth the trip. Are you anywhere close to a city of even medium size? The network I got in was a small city that is linked up with a Cleveland chain. I was surprised I didn't have to go but 30 minutes away and took 15 minutes to get my card. Rest was setup online.

Mal

04-22-2020, 12:58 AM

Are you anywhere close to a city of even medium size?

ha, what's medium size? I'm in New Hampshire. UNH doesn't allow alumni or anyone off campus to access Kanopy (cheap bastards).

I could get a library card for the biggest city in NH to get Kanopy but it'd be $50. Between Criterion, STARZ (which is a pretty good streaming option imo), and the TCM app, I'm pretty much set. I can only watch so much content as a person working from home right now.

Skitch

04-22-2020, 02:07 AM

Geez. I got mine in Cleveland network for free. They make you pay for a damn library card?

Peng

04-22-2020, 02:47 AM

My Netflix at the moment:

- In the middle of Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 2
- About to start Kingdom (South Korean period zombie series)
- Rewatch of Phantom Thread pending
- On queue to watch for the first time: Full Metal Jacket, a bunch of Johnnie To films, unseen Ghibli films

So I'm still getting much from it.

Irish

04-22-2020, 02:58 AM

Geez. I got mine in Cleveland network for free. They make you pay for a damn library card?

Kanopy is no cost to you, but it's expensive for the institution that offers it:

Recently, an increasing number of scholars have become aware of a simple fact about the service: university and college libraries do not pay a flat fee like individuals might for Netflix, Hulu, or the (now defunct) FilmStruck. Instead, Kanopy's platform drives "patron-driven acquisition" in which three viewings (defined as 30 seconds or more of a title) trigger a library license fee per title. (The figures I’ve seen are $150 for a year, $350 for a 3-year license, though the price might vary or change over time.)

Those fees can add up quickly, and some libraries have felt a strain on their budgets. For instance, Stanford University called Kanopy's cost "no longer sustainable" as they announced their switch from an open-platform version to a limited-access, request-only version (the only way libraries can turn off the license fee trigger of patron-driven acquisition). However, these issues do not affect public libraries, which pay Kanopy per view (current fee of $2), similar to a transaction video on demand (TVOD) service like iTunes. Still, patrons do their local public library’s budget no favors by streaming the "free" Kanopy titles, even if those libraries presumably factor in the streaming costs as part of their mission.

https://filmquarterly.org/2019/05/03/kanopy-not-just-like-netflix-and-not-free/

Paying this much for "free" movies means libraries buy less books, because obviously budgets are limited.

Skitch

04-22-2020, 09:53 AM

That's lame. Libraries should get shit free. I love the services but I dont actually use them that often. Maybe once each a month.

My other advice is (obvs not at the moment) dont forget you can order just about any physical media in at your local library (free at mine).

Dukefrukem

04-22-2020, 11:52 AM

I donated the majority of my DVD collection to my library.

Skitch

04-22-2020, 01:27 PM

I donated the majority of my DVD collection to my library.

Good man.

Dukefrukem

04-22-2020, 01:35 PM

Good man.

Kept the Criterion ones of course. But back when DVD collection was a sickness for me, I was buying 2,3 4 copies of movies just because it was a "special edition" or some crap.

Mal

04-22-2020, 02:19 PM

Geez. I got mine in Cleveland network for free. They make you pay for a damn library card?
Well I’d have to pay for any non-town library. Mine is free but they only have E-books. The closest library with Kanopy is an hour-ish away.

Skitch

04-22-2020, 02:23 PM

Maybe I should start a dark web library card service where I hook people up with network cards.

Wryan

04-22-2020, 02:26 PM

My local libraries don't have Kanopy, but I got an out-of-state "friend of the library" card for 50 bucks/year to access my home state's library system, so hopefully I'm taking the edge off a little bit that way. Happy to do it; the service has an amazing collection.

Yxklyx

04-26-2020, 05:43 AM

Netflix makes cancelling seamless and easy. They don't have enough quality content every month to justify paying all year round.

Criterion is the only service I subscribe to consistently. Every month they have new programs, usually centered around a specific actor or director, as well as their back catalog. I've watched some really great movies on there I wouldn't have seen otherwise.

Yeah, I don't know what people see in Netflix. I had their streaming for a few weeks then cancelled and now I've cancelled the DVD account that I had for nearly 20 years (really just wanted to pause it for now). I like the selection on Amazon Prime and been using that service - I've watched a lot of the Criterion's but maybe I'll check out their streaming. On a related note, I re-watched Enter the Void tonight on IFC (free subscription through Amazon) and afterwards I looked at what they have - and it's really nothing. A few films I've seen that are good but don't need to watch again - so I just cancelled that one even during the free trial. Netflix DVD still has the best selection - over any streaming service.

Yxklyx

05-01-2020, 03:54 PM

I may be new to Amazon Prime, but damn is it hard to navigate and find shit. Just like Netflix, its like the hide stuff I would want to watch. Their "since you watched" blah blah blah "maybe you'll like" whatever is just terrible comp.

It's been ok for me but I look it up from my desktop in a browser. They have a checkbox for different decades, etc... I then add it to the watchlist there and I'm done.

Skitch

05-01-2020, 04:41 PM

It's been ok for me but I look it up from my desktop in a browser. They have a checkbox for different decades, etc... I then add it to the watchlist there and I'm done.

Thanks I'll try that

Wryan

05-01-2020, 09:59 PM

Oooooh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWEASasO-tI

Wish I had HBO, but I'll track this down some kinda way.

Dukefrukem

05-01-2020, 10:01 PM

Oh damn, Peele is producing?

Irish

05-01-2020, 11:09 PM

Good trailer. Hope this is better than his "Twilight Zone."

Mal

05-02-2020, 02:49 AM

Jonathan Majors, I love him!

Wryan

05-02-2020, 06:18 AM

Dude's got an...interesting face for being thirty.

MadMan

05-12-2020, 07:28 AM

Looks neat to me.

Philip J. Fry

05-13-2020, 04:13 PM

1260577795924791301
Freakin' finally:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S33uf3E4UT4

Philip J. Fry

05-14-2020, 12:11 AM

1258773656861315072

Mal

05-26-2020, 05:05 PM

Directv subscribers with HBO are getting HBO Max complimentary.

Philip J. Fry

05-27-2020, 07:06 PM

1265686657866424328

Philip J. Fry

05-30-2020, 04:57 AM

1265791769603522560

Dukefrukem

05-30-2020, 12:12 PM

1265791769603522560

Isnt' that on Adult Swim ?

Philip J. Fry

05-30-2020, 04:03 PM

I believe HBO Max has several [Adult Swim] shows

Dukefrukem

05-30-2020, 04:27 PM

I believe HBO Max has several [Adult Swim] shows

Well isn't weird that someone would get excited over a free Adult Swim show on an additional paid service?

Philip J. Fry

05-31-2020, 02:13 AM

Well isn't weird that someone would get excited over a free Adult Swim show on an additional paid service?Well, I'm not sure if [Adult Swim] has a streaming service or anything (plus, since I'm not American, it would probably wouldn't work here either) so I cannot comment on that. However, since a show like Primal is so good and has been flying under the radar since it began (at least, relatively speaking), I could see why getting a chance to reach a wider audience could be exciting.

Dukefrukem

05-31-2020, 03:23 AM

Well, I'm not sure if [Adult Swim] has a streaming service or anything (plus, since I'm not American, it would probably wouldn't work here either) so I cannot comment on that. However, since a show like Primal is so good and has been flying under the radar since it began (at least, relatively speaking), I could see why getting a chance to reach a wider audience could be exciting.

Only one way to find out.

https://www.adultswim.com/videos/primal/spear-and-fang

Philip J. Fry

05-31-2020, 05:36 AM

Can't watch it here.

Dukefrukem

06-10-2020, 05:09 PM

In a weird move... all the DC movies apparently are leaving the service on July 1st? I dont understand this....

Batman
Batman Forever
Batman Returns
Batman & Robin
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Catwoman
Jonah Hex
Justice League
The Lego Batman Movie
The Losers
Steel
Suicide Squad
Teen Titans Go! to the Movies
Wonder Woman (Animated Movie)
Wonder Woman

Dukefrukem

06-15-2020, 11:44 AM

HBO go is finally going away.

So now people don't have to be confused with three HBO apps.

Philip J. Fry

06-16-2020, 02:46 PM

1272573618778767361

baby doll

06-16-2020, 04:44 PM

1272573618778767361Gone with the Wind isn't a film I love--it's more interesting as an historical artifact than it is as a movie--but the conversation around the film in 2020 is boringly simplistic. It's less a film about the American civil war than it is a film about 1930s and the ideological contradictions in US society at the time of the film's release (not only between black and white, but also between North and South and male and female). In order for the film to recoup its costs, it had to be acceptable in all parts of the US, and so the film has to somehow negotiate those ideological contradictions. For the film, what the pre-war South represents is primarily a society with clear, stable social norms and hierarchies which is literally blown up about forty minutes into the movie, and the rest of the film is about the characters trying to figure out how to live in this new, uncertain world they find themselves in. That racial issues largely take a backseat to the depiction of the war as a psychic trauma inflicted on the South and Scarlett O'Hara as a challenge to conventional gender roles reveals a lot about the racial consciousness of the film's makers and the fact that Hollywood wasn't much concerned with black audiences in the 1930s.

Incidentally, Charles Burnett's Nightjohn (a much better film than Gone with the Wind, or 12 Years a Slave for that matter) isn't available on any streaming service in Canada (although you can see it on Amazon Prime in the US). What's the deal with that?

Dukefrukem

06-16-2020, 05:29 PM

Ezee E

06-16-2020, 06:53 PM

Wryan

06-16-2020, 07:09 PM

We won't be talking about Tree of Life after eighty years of release.

Well we'll all be dead, so yeah.

baby doll

06-16-2020, 07:54 PM

Gone with the Wind is a pretentious bore. It's like 4 hours of a women whining where scenes are separated by lazy text crawls and bloated dialog. It could quite possibly be more overrated than Tree of Life.This seems like a caricature (and a bit sexist). Obviously female hysteria is a central feature of melodrama and Gone with the Wind is no exception. Part of what's interesting about the film's popularity from an historical perspective is it indicates that male audience members of the 1930s were more willing to see a long movie about a female protagonist than men today, suggesting that audiences at the time were somewhat less segregated along gender lines than they are now and that films about women had more cultural prestige--in contrast with the present where the most prestigious Hollywood filmmakers all tend to specialize primarily in boys' movies: P.T. Anderson, the Coens, Fincher, Malick, Mann, Nolan, Scorsese, Spielberg, Tarantino, etc., etc. (Of course, one might point out, for instance, that not all of Scorsese's films are macho dick-measuring contests like The Departed, but it seems safe to assume if he hadn't directed Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas, he wouldn't be thought of as a great director on the strength of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and The Age of Innocence.) I would argue that one important reason for the precipitous decline in American filmmaking since 1960 is the extremely narrow range of acceptable subjects available to ambitious filmmakers: In the studio era, there were major directors specializing in women's movies (McCarey, Minnelli, Ophüls, Sirk) and men's movies (Ford, Fuller, Hawks, Anthony Mann), as well as those whose films don't fit comfortably into either category (Hitchcock being the most obvious example), whereas today both the industry and reviewers equate noirish lighting and angsty Method acting with artistic seriousness.

Incidentally, why is onscreen text lazy here and not in every Ridley Scott film?

Dukefrukem

06-16-2020, 10:19 PM

This seems like a caricature (and a bit sexist). Obviously female hysteria is a central feature of melodrama and Gone with the Wind is no exception. Part of what's interesting about the film's popularity from an historical perspective is it indicates that male audience members of the 1930s were more willing to see a long movie about a female protagonist than men today, suggesting that audiences at the time were somewhat less segregated along gender lines than they are now and that films about women had more cultural prestige--in contrast with the present where the most prestigious Hollywood filmmakers all tend to specialize primarily in boys' movies: P.T. Anderson, the Coens, Fincher, Malick, Mann, Nolan, Scorsese, Spielberg, Tarantino, etc., etc. (Of course, one might point out, for instance, that not all of Scorsese's films are macho dick-measuring contests like The Departed, but it seems safe to assume if he hadn't directed Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas, he wouldn't be thought of as a great director on the strength of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and The Age of Innocence.) I would argue that one important reason for the precipitous decline in American filmmaking since 1960 is the extremely narrow range of acceptable subjects available to ambitious filmmakers: In the studio era, there were major directors specializing in women's movies (McCarey, Minnelli, Ophüls, Sirk) and men's movies (Ford, Fuller, Hawks, Anthony Mann), as well as those whose films don't fit comfortably into either category (Hitchcock being the most obvious example), whereas today both the industry and reviewers equate noirish lighting and angsty Method acting with artistic seriousness.

Incidentally, why is onscreen text lazy here and not in every Ridley Scott film?

If Ridley Scott had four hours of runtime to tell his story it would be lazy too. Four hours! And you can't figure out how to tell that part of your story so you put in a paragraph scroll of "here's what's happening"??

baby doll

06-17-2020, 01:28 AM

If Ridley Scott had four hours of runtime to tell his story it would be lazy too. Four hours! And you can't figure out how to tell that part of your story so you put in a paragraph scroll of "here's what's happening"??There are two issues here that are both worth considering in detail.

The issue of the film's length begs the larger question: Which kinds of films are worth more of our time and why? It's interesting to think about the kinds of films that tend to go long because it reveals certain tacit assumptions about what kinds of stories are considered important at a given moment in history. And again, in contemporary American cinema, what we find is that boys' movies are allowed to run longer than girls' movies: Superhero movies and Judd Apatow man-child comedies routinely run over two and a half hours, and Scorsese's trivial remake of Infernal Affairs is nearly twice as long as the original (and only about a third as good); on the other hand, Nora Ephron never made a film longer than 125 minutes (unless you count her screenplay for Silkwood), yet no one would argue that she's a less accomplished or interesting filmmaker than Apatow. In other words, one of the ways in which Gone with the Wind is out of step with contemporary sensibilities is that it expects us to give four hours to a story about a woman who isn't very likeable, whereas no one finds anything unusual about Sergio Leone making a four-hour film about an even more unlikeable rapist. (The first and only time I've seen Once Upon a Time in America was at a cinematheque screening in Busan, South Korea, in which every seat was full, and even though the film was shown without intermission, everyone stayed until the end.) Interestingly, it's impossible to have a discussion about Gone with the Wind that doesn't touch on its racism, yet no one seems to care much about the equally pervasive and even more unpleasant misogyny of Leone's film.

As for the use of onscreen text, one can obviously think of other, equivalent devices (embedded voice-over narration or a montage sequence would be the most likely choices for a contemporary Hollywood film), although I don't see how Gone with the Wind would be improved if the filmmakers had opted for them or how they're any less lazy. If anything, it's indicative of how stylistically homogeneous American cinema has become that onscreen text is so little used these days and only in such a circumscribed and conventionalized manner: chiefly as preliminary exposition and to identify cities, as in Scott's films, or when the characters are texting each other in a film like Fruitvale Station. However, there are lots of other functions this device can fill, such as cuing the spectator to formulate hypotheses about what's going to happen in the story (e.g., the chapter headings in Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters), creating a more overt narrational presence that comments on the action from without (Soviet montage films), and making jokes (the intertitles in Buster Keaton's silent comedies, which use words more cleverly than the work of any contemporary American filmmaker).

Dukefrukem

06-17-2020, 01:38 AM

I admit. I complain about films length a lot here. And avoid watching long ones during the work week. I dont disagree with anything you said and my reaction to Gone with the Wing was likely more about my first time viewing, after hearing praise for my entire life. The one thing it does do well, is it's a technical marvel for it's time.

Philip J. Fry

06-17-2020, 01:45 AM

It's been more than a decade since I watched GWTW, but if there's something I remember about it, is that those 4 hours went by insanely fast. I was never bored with it.

That editor earned his paycheck.

Irish

06-17-2020, 02:49 AM

For the film, what the pre-war South represents is primarily a society with clear, stable social norms and hierarchies which is literally blown up about forty minutes into the movie, and the rest of the film is about the characters trying to figure out how to live in this new, uncertain world they find themselves in. That racial issues largely take a backseat to the depiction of the war as a psychic trauma inflicted on the South and Scarlett O'Hara as a challenge to conventional gender roles reveals a lot about the racial consciousness of the film's makers and the fact that Hollywood wasn't much concerned with black audiences in the 1930s.

Yeah... I agree with what you're saying, in theory, but in your writing and my reading we're both sorta chin stroking past the racist elements of the film.

I'm not talking about overly racist elements, because there are almost none (Selznick quashed most of them early on). The ones that remain can be easily hand waved away by categorizing the work as "of its time."

I think that is the big problem with the movie: It's too easy for non-Black audiences to shrug off the way the film celebrates the Confederacy and views the end of slavery as the end of civilization.

Eg: how a conversation that might have been (or should have been) about race very quickly turns into a conversation about ... running times (?!).

This seems like a caricature (and a bit sexist).

Obviously female hysteria is a central feature of melodrama and

How did you put these 2 sentences right next to each other and not immediately see the contradiction

baby doll

06-17-2020, 03:21 AM

Yeah... I agree with what you're saying, in theory, but in your writing and my reading we're both sorta chin stroking past the racist elements of the film.

I'm not talking about overly racist elements, because there are almost none (Selznick quashed most of them early on). The ones that remain can be easily hand waved away by categorizing the work as "of its time."

I think that is the big problem with the movie: It's too easy for non-Black audiences to shrug off the way the film celebrates the Confederacy and views the end of slavery as the end of civilization.

Eg: how a conversation that might have been (or should have been) about race very quickly turns into a conversation about ... running times (?!).I'm not saying the film isn't racist; I'm just saying the film's racism isn't the only or even the most interesting thing to talk about, and it shouldn't be the last word on the film.

How did you put these 2 sentences right next to each other and not immediately see the contradictionFemale hysteria isn't the same as whining, and saying that something is central to a genre is not the same as saying that's the only thing in it.

Irish

06-17-2020, 03:36 AM

I'm not saying the film isn't racist; I'm just saying the film's racism isn't the only or even the most interesting thing to talk about, and it shouldn't be the last word on the film.

It should absolutely be the last word on the film. Cf: "Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will."

You can't separate the aesthetics from the message. Doing so is I dunno ... incredibly gross?

Female hysteria isn't the same as whining, and saying that something is central to a genre is not the same as saying that's the only thing in it.

Lemme spell it out: "Female hysteria" is in itself a sexist descriptor, for what should be obvious reasons, but even if you don't consider it to be, it's also inaccurate as there are plenty of male melodramas out there (eg: not limited to but including most contemporary action pictures).

baby doll

06-17-2020, 04:34 AM

It should absolutely be the last word on the film. Cf: "Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will."

You can't separate the aesthetics from the message. Doing so is I dunno ... incredibly gross?I agree that one can't separate the message from aesthetics, since the message is a product of the aesthetic (I made this point at some length in an essay (https://journals.sfu.ca/msq/msq/index.php/msq/article/view/125/pdf) on Basil Wright's Orientalist documentary The Song of Ceylon), but I don't find it very satisfying simply to point out that a particular film is racist, misogynist, etc. Any undergraduate with a Twitter account can do that. In the case of Gone with the Wind, my point is that the film is most profitably approached as a site of ideological contradictions, where various tensions within the US in the 1930s--related to race, yes, but also region and gender--are negotiated for the audience (hence, Selznick's insistence on toning down some of the more overt racism of the novel in order to make the film acceptable across the United States). Thus, the film is more interesting as an historical artifact than a film like Triumph des Willens, which presumes (and projects) a more homogeneous national audience.

Lemme spell it out: "Female hysteria" is in itself a sexist descriptor, for what should be obvious reasons, but even if you don't consider it to be, it's also inaccurate as there are plenty of male melodramas out there (eg: not limited to but including most contemporary action pictures).The definition of melodrama is a whole thing unto itself, but for the purposes of this conversation, I've been using the term "melodrama" to refer to the Hollywood woman's film of the 1930s, '40s, and '50s and its literary sources. Some Hollywood films of the period do feature hysterical men (e.g., Robert Stack in Written on the Wind), but to say that the genre is primarily concerned with female hysteria seems to me eminently uncontroversial. In other words, claiming that melodrama (as I'm using the term) is centrally concerned with female hysteria is not to suggest that real women are inherently susceptible to the condition but that a body of films made in a patriarchal society, and embodying the attitudes of that society, have made gendered hysteria a central concern--a fact that has been recognized by feminist film theorists since the 1970s (see, for instance, Linda Williams' essay "Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess," in which she theorizes horror, porn, and the woman's film as body genres centred on the spectacle of female bodies "caught in the grip of intense sensation or emotion").

Irish

06-17-2020, 06:02 AM

I agree that one can't separate the message from aesthetics, since the message is a product of the aesthetic (I made this point at some length in an essay (https://journals.sfu.ca/msq/msq/index.php/msq/article/view/125/pdf) on Basil Wright's Orientalist documentary The Song of Ceylon), but I don't find it very satisfying simply to point out that a particular film is racist, misogynist, etc. Any undergraduate with a Twitter account can do that. In the case of Gone with the Wind, my point is that the film is most profitably approached as a site of ideological contradictions, where various tensions within the US in the 1930s--related to race, yes, but also region and gender--are negotiated for the audience (hence, Selznick's insistence on toning down some of the more overt racism of the novel in order to make the film acceptable across the United States). Thus, the film is more interesting as an historical artifact than a film like Triumph des Willens, which presumes (and projects) a more homogeneous national audience.

Yeah you're chin stroking Confederate propaganda that has real world consequences again.

It isn't about merely point out the film is racist. It's about pointing out how it's racist, and how it's racist in a different way than other films, and about how you don't have to look very far to see that exact style of racism still in play right now, in media being made in the 21st century.

This movie didn't exist in a vacuum. Its more palatable racism was a big part of the South reclaiming its identity, and why Americans don't recoil instantly from Confederate flags the way Germans (or anybody with sense) might with swastika flags.

I mean, insert 1,000 word essay here, I guess, but three items to consider from the media (not even the real world!):

(1) from 1979-1985 one of the most popular television shows in the United States prominently featured Confederate iconography in every episode

(2) a major film studio rebooted that show as a feature film in 2005

(3) from 2017-2019 HBO was developing a TV show called "Confederate," premised on the idea that the Civil War was a draw and that slavery was still legal in the South.

You can deride "undergraduates with twitter accounts," I guess, but when those accounts post shit like "Why can't black people just get over it?" I can point directly at the influence of "Gone with the Wind" over multiple generations.

How's that for an "historical artifact"?

The racism of "Gone with the Wind" isn't about burning crosses and klan robes or about goose-stepping Nazis and krieg lights. It's more subtle than that, and in my mind that makes Selznick's film far worse, because the racism of "Gone with the Wind" isn't immediately recognized and rejected for what it is, and we're all still living with it. ("Heritage not hate" arguments in the virtual public square, lol.)

Because, again, people might punch a Nazi on the street corner --- or at least shout him down --- but they won't blink at some self-styled "good old boy" with a Confederate battle flag decal on his pick up truck.

The definition of melodrama is a whole thing unto itself, but for the purposes of this conversation, I've been using the term "melodrama" to refer to the Hollywood woman's film of the 1930s, '40s, and '50s and its literary sources. Some Hollywood films of the period do feature hysterical men (e.g., Robert Stack in Written on the Wind), but to say that the genre is primarily concerned with female hysteria seems to me eminently uncontroversial. In other words, claiming that melodrama (as I'm using the term) is centrally concerned with female hysteria is not to suggest that real women are inherently susceptible to the condition but that a body of films made in a patriarchal society, and embodying the attitudes of that society, have made gendered hysteria a central concern--a fact that has been recognized by feminist film theorists since the 1970s (see, for instance, Linda Williams' essay "Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess," in which she theorizes horror, porn, and the woman's film as body genres centred on the spectacle of female bodies "caught in the grip of intense sensation or emotion").

Yeah. But you understand that throwing out a phrase like "female hysteria" on a message board absent academic intent and appropriate footnotes merely reinforces an absurd dialectic and actively counters the point you're trying to make?

MadMan

06-17-2020, 06:40 AM

I dig The Tree of Life. I also loved OUATIA despite the main character being shitty (not the first or last time that will happen in a major movie). As for my opinion on The Departed vs Infernal Affairs, I think I covered it in my remake vs original thread. I'll see GWTW one of these days, but I doubt Irish is wrong about the film based on what I have heard and read.

Grouchy

06-17-2020, 03:25 PM

Interestingly, it's impossible to have a discussion about Gone with the Wind that doesn't touch on its racism, yet no one seems to care much about the equally pervasive and even more unpleasant misogyny of Leone's film.
The difference for me is that the misogyny of Once Upon a Time in America is a deliberate attribute of the characters. Leone is not endorsing rape but showing the morals and standards the mobsters live by. It's impossible to make the same case for Gone with the Wind. Its racism is also subtler yet permeates the whole film - but it's likely to escape those viewers unfamiliar with the History of slavery and the time period. I agree with you that it shouldn't be THE end-all discussion about the film but I for one am happy that the scandal (which stemmed from clickbait articles that implied it was being censored when it's not) got so many people to watch it.

baby doll

06-17-2020, 04:54 PM

Yeah you're chin stroking Confederate propaganda that has real world consequences again.

It isn't about merely point out the film is racist. It's about pointing out how it's racist, and how it's racist in a different way than other films, and about how you don't have to look very far to see that exact style of racism still in play right now, in media being made in the 21st century.

This movie didn't exist in a vacuum. Its more palatable racism was a big part of the South reclaiming its identity, and why Americans don't recoil instantly from Confederate flags the way Germans (or anybody with sense) might with swastika flags.

I mean, insert 1,000 word essay here, I guess, but three items to consider from the media (not even the real world!):

(1) from 1979-1985 one of the most popular television shows in the United States prominently featured Confederate iconography in every episode

(2) a major film studio rebooted that show as a feature film in 2005

(3) from 2017-2019 HBO was developing a TV show called "Confederate," premised on the idea that the Civil War was a draw and that slavery was still legal in the South.

You can deride "undergraduates with twitter accounts," I guess, but when those accounts post shit like "Why can't black people just get over it?" I can point directly at the influence of "Gone with the Wind" over multiple generations.

How's that for an "historical artifact"?

The racism of "Gone with the Wind" isn't about burning crosses and klan robes or about goose-stepping Nazis and krieg lights. It's more subtle than that, and in my mind that makes Selznick's film far worse, because the racism of "Gone with the Wind" isn't immediately recognized and rejected for what it is, and we're all still living with it. ("Heritage not hate" arguments in the virtual public square, lol.)

Because, again, people might punch a Nazi on the street corner --- or at least shout him down --- but they won't blink at some self-styled "good old boy" with a Confederate battle flag decal on his pick up truck.I think you're confusing the thermometer for the weather. Speaking as a non-American, one of the most interesting aspects of the film for me is its depiction of the civil war as a physical and psychic trauma inflicted upon the South, which helped me to understand the white southern resentment of the North that made the film's mythologized version of the Confederacy appealing. In other words, southern resentment and the Lost Cause mythology aren't the product of people seeing a film that romanticizes slavery but economic disparities within the United States between one region and another, which were exacerbated by the war. (When Ross McElwee made Sherman's March in the mid-1980s, white southerners were still pissed about losing the war.) This isn't to say the film had no pernicious effects on American society, but the film's depiction of the prewar South wouldn't have been as influential as it was if people weren't already poised to accept it. In short, as with all things Gone with the Wind, it's complicated.

Incidentally, in Germany the major economic disparity within the country is between East and West, and even within the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland, there's a split between the more respectable western bloc of the party and its more openly racist eastern bloc (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/18/germany-afd-thrown-into-turmoil-by-former-neo-nazi-explusion-andreas-kalbitz).

Yeah. But you understand that throwing out a phrase like "female hysteria" on a message board absent academic intent and appropriate footnotes merely reinforces an absurd dialectic and actively counters the point you're trying to make?Well, forgive me for thinking you guys are smart.

baby doll

06-17-2020, 05:24 PM

The difference for me is that the misogyny of Once Upon a Time in America is a deliberate attribute of the characters. Leone is not endorsing rape but showing the morals and standards the mobsters live by. It's impossible to make the same case for Gone with the Wind. Its racism is also subtler yet permeates the whole film - but it's likely to escape those viewers unfamiliar with the History of slavery and the time period. I agree with you that it shouldn't be THE end-all discussion about the film but I for one am happy that the scandal (which stemmed from clickbait articles that implied it was being censored when it's not) got so many people to watch it.Figuring out what is and isn't deliberate in a film is always a tricky proposition, especially in a film where the narration aligns the spectator so closely with the point of view of a single character: Is it Noodles who sees all women as virgins or whores or Leone? Certainly the film never shows us more of its female characters than what Noodles sees. I think one reason why Leone's film isn't more widely thought of as either a misogynist film or as a film about misogyny (and at least in my memory of the film, misogyny seems all-pervasive, from the opening murder to the climatic recognition scene) is that, on the level of plot and dialogue, it's never made an issue of. Thus, different spectators are likely to understand the film's misogyny in different ways: Some will attribute it to the character, some to the milieu represented, some to the filmmaker, and some won't notice it at all. (To put it Marxist terms, we might say that the misogyny in the film is "over-determined.") In any case, the point I was trying to make still stands: Contemporary audiences think nothing of giving four hours to a film about a loathsome man but are more reluctant to see an equally long film about an unlikeable woman.

Grouchy

06-17-2020, 06:09 PM

Figuring out what is and isn't deliberate in a film is always a tricky proposition, especially in a film where the narration aligns the spectator so closely with the point of view of a single character: Is it Noodles who sees all women as virgins or whores or Leone? Certainly the film never shows us more of its female characters than what Noodles sees. I think one reason why Leone's film isn't more widely thought of as either a misogynist film or as a film about misogyny (and at least in my memory of the film, misogyny seems all-pervasive, from the opening murder to the climatic recognition scene) is that, on the level of plot and dialogue, it's never made an issue of. Thus, different spectators are likely to understand the film's misogyny in different ways: Some will attribute it to the character, some to the milieu represented, some to the filmmaker, and some won't notice it at all. (To put it Marxist terms, we might say that the misogyny in the film is "over-determined.") In any case, the point I was trying to make still stands: Contemporary audiences think nothing of giving four hours to a film about a loathsome man but are more reluctant to see an equally long film about an unlikeable woman.
I find the misogyny deliberate precisely because it's so pervasive - the film starts with mobsters gruesomely killing a dame for no reason and devotes lengthy scenes to Max berating his mistress and to two separate instances of sexual assault, one of which is a key plot point. I'm not saying Leone is a feminist by any stretch of the imagination, mind you, but it seems to me to be a prevalent theme of the film, whereas the happy slaves of Gone with the Wind more clearly show the bias of the creators.

Grouchy

06-17-2020, 10:57 PM

(3) from 2017-2019 HBO was developing a TV show called "Confederate," premised on the idea that the Civil War was a draw and that slavery was still legal in the South.
Damn, I'd forgotten about that! I wonder what killed it for good - producers getting cold feet or the debacle that was the Game of Thrones finale.

MadMan

06-18-2020, 09:20 AM

Damn, I'd forgotten about that! I wonder what killed it for good - producers getting cold feet or the debacle that was the Game of Thrones finale.

I thought it was because many felt it was a bad idea. Anyways there was a fake documentary called C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America that came out in 2004 so that concept wasn't that original.

MadMan

06-18-2020, 09:23 AM

Skitch

06-18-2020, 10:02 AM

Also Gone Girl has a woman who is could labeled as unlikable/evil. Most people (myself included) ended up rooting for her by the end of the film. Not to mention endless film noirs featuring femme fatales, a concept that is older than GOTW.

I remember rooting for her for most of film and losing all sympathy in third act. I didnt gain any sympathy for Afflecks character either btw, I just left the film feeling like they were both assholes and one was a murderer.

Now I need to rewatch, dammit Madman, you're killing me.

TGM

06-18-2020, 11:20 AM

I remember rooting for her for most of film and losing all sympathy in third act. I didnt gain any sympathy for Afflecks character either btw, I just left the film feeling like they were both assholes and one was a murderer.

This was my take away too. Can’t lie, but I did kinda raise a brow at all the people who hailed Amy Dunne as some sort of hero in that one. Hmm... ~.^

Philip J. Fry

06-18-2020, 01:41 PM

I was team Margo all the way. Margo was best girl.

baby doll

06-18-2020, 03:41 PM

Also Gone Girl has a woman who is could labeled as unlikable/evil. Most people (myself included) ended up rooting for her by the end of the film. Not to mention endless film noirs featuring femme fatales, a concept that is older than GOTW.I'm not sure how this refutes my claim that contemporary reviewers treat films in masculine genres (and directors associated primarily with them, like Fincher) more seriously than genres coded as feminine such as melodrama, since film noir--and by extension, neo-noir, including Gone Girl--is, I would argue, very much a man's genre. After all, the danger of the femme fatale is that she acts like a man and thus represents a threat to traditional gender roles. This is also true, to a certain extent, of Scarlett O'Hara (whom one could argue is a proto-noir heroine: "Well, I guess I've done murder"), although her emotionalism, and the film's colour and lighting scheme, offset this somewhat: Hence, her comeuppance is that she gets dumped rather than murdered. Gone Girl is critically respectable at two and a half hours not only because it gives equal or more weight to the Ben Affleck character (who, for all his flaws, is still something like the moral centre of the film, and in any case, it's Affleck on the poster, not Rosamund Pike), but because it's female co-protagonist is a sociopath, which is the opposite of hysterical. In other words, even though it's based on a novel by a woman and features a female co-protagonist, generically speaking it's not a "woman's film" in the sense that Imitation of Life, Letter from an Unknown Woman, and Stella Dallas are women's films.

Skitch

06-18-2020, 04:20 PM

Anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFdChgiuasA

Irish

06-18-2020, 04:51 PM

This isn't to say the film had no pernicious effects on American society, but the film's depiction of the prewar South wouldn't have been as influential as it was if people weren't already poised to accept it. In short, as with all things Gone with the Wind, it's complicated.

It's not that complicated. "Gone with the Wind" is part of a concerted effort to revise the historical record in favor of the South. This stuff didn't happen on its own (Google "United Daughters of the Confederacy.")

Imagine flat-earthers or Holocaust-deniers won over public opinion, and won big for over a century. So much so that they're able to re-write school textbooks, change state flags, and place monuments around the country. All of which reinforces their bullshit for generations on generations.

That's the sort of legacy we're talking about, and "Gone with a the Wind" is a major part of it. (Other recognizable parts include "The Clansman" and "Birth of a Nation.")

This wouldn't be a problem if it weren't so popular, and part of the reason it remains popular is the sketchy way it deals with race.

So my question is: If contemporary society can, for example, toss away D.W. Griffith, excise racist elements out Looney Tunes, and mothball "Song of the South," then why can't we see "Gone with the Wind" for exactly what it is?

Because this film, more than anything else in the 20th century, is probably responsible for extending the shelf life on "Lost Cause" nonsense by a good 50 or 60 years. At least. All on its own.

Fun fact: During WWII, the Nazis employed Lost Cause mythology in their propaganda, telling people that the Allies would do to their towns what Sherman did to Atlanta. They printed this shit in bulk and distributed it all over Europe. Eventually, it made its way back to neo-Confederate groups in the States. Think about that for sec

Well, forgive me for thinking you guys are smart.

Oh, for real?

Dukefrukem

06-18-2020, 04:56 PM

Google "United Daughters of the Confederacy."

Wow. Where does this kind of motivation come from? You were that butt-hurt that the "south" lost the war you want to memorialize a losing army? For what purpose? I can only think of one. And it stinks.

Dukefrukem

06-18-2020, 04:58 PM

I

Fun fact: During WWII, the Nazis employed Lost Cause mythology in their propaganda, telling people that the Allies would do to their towns what Sherman did to Atlanta. They printed this shit in bulk and distributed it all over Europe. Eventually, it made its way back to neo-Confederate groups in the States. Think about that for sec

Didn't know this either....

Irish

06-18-2020, 04:59 PM

Grouchy

06-18-2020, 06:23 PM

So my question is: If contemporary society can, for example, toss away D.W. Griffith, excise racist elements out Looney Tunes, and mothball "Song of the South," then why can't we see "Gone with the Wind" for exactly what it is?
I don't get this. I don't think Griffith is "tossed away" by anyone whose opinion matters, and if it is, well then that's a disturbing, wrong attitude. I think most film buffs see Gone with the Wind for exactly what it is - a milestone of cinema that betrays the racist views of its creators. That racism is 10.000 times subtler than the KKK sequence in Birth of a Nation and the film's language as a whole is more comfortable for modern audiences, so it remains a more popular watch. But what would "tossed away" even mean in the case of Birth of a Nation?

I thought WB had not censored its digital releases of Looney Tunes but added text like they plan to do with Gone with the Wind.

Grouchy

06-18-2020, 06:30 PM

baby doll

06-18-2020, 07:29 PM

What are some modern-day melodramas in American cinema? I think the genre is alive and well in India and Korea but I can't find anything in contemporary Hollywood that reminds me of the movies of Douglas Sirk and Max Ophuls. It is pretty much Almodóvar's genre of choice and his movies earn critical acclaim.

I think a lot of genres are usually considered minor and so don't get long running times, but I'm not sure if the split is strictly gendered. There are few three hour chick flicks like there are few three hour Adam Sandler comedies.Funny People is 146 minutes--not three hours, I grant you, but pretty long. Moreover, although there are undoubtedly male-oriented genres considered minor, it's not the case that all male-oriented genres are considered minor by default.

As for modern-day melodramas in the US, the first name that comes to mind is Tyler Perry (although I haven't actually seen any of his films). Of course, that's not counting male-dominated melodramas like The Deer Hunter, Brokeback Mountain, and Paul Haggis' Crash (to cite only the first three titles that come to mind).

baby doll

06-18-2020, 07:36 PM

I think you're starting from a faulty premise, because the idea of gendered genres is all but meaningless now. Contemporary cinema's idea of a "chick flick" is to put Charlize Theron or Scarlett Johansson in a cat suit and have them dual wield pistols while kicking Eastern Europeans in the face.

More seriously, I think your angle ignores how "women's pictures" gradually migrated to television, first as soap operas and sitcoms, but more especially in the last decade, and that "contemporary reviewers" are fairly split along gender lines as well. (I could more easily name a half dozen female TV critics than their male counterparts in film criticism.)

Ie, the critical reception of "Scandal," "Girls," "Killing Eve," "Fleabag," "Unbelievable," and "Normal People" refutes most of your post.It's certainly true that the woman's film migrated to television, both in the United States and Japan, although even within television, there's still some distance in critical reputation between the shows you cite (of which I'm only familiar with the first seasons of Girls and Fleabag) and those of The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, and even Mad Men. In other words, although one could plausibly claim that there's more variety in television in terms of content (although I would hasten to add that stylistically television is even more boringly uniform than contemporary American cinema), it seems less plausible to assert that television reviewers (male and female) don't share the many of the same assumptions as film reviewers.

baby doll

06-18-2020, 07:51 PM

It's not that complicated. "Gone with the Wind" is part of a concerted effort to revise the historical record in favor of the South. This stuff didn't happen on its own (Google "United Daughters of the Confederacy.")

Imagine flat-earthers or Holocaust-deniers won over public opinion, and won big for over a century. So much so that they're able to re-write school textbooks, change state flags, and place monuments around the country. All of which reinforces their bullshit for generations on generations.

That's the sort of legacy we're talking about, and "Gone with a the Wind" is a major part of it. (Other recognizable parts include "The Clansman" and "Birth of a Nation.")

This wouldn't be a problem if it weren't so popular, and part of the reason it remains popular is the sketchy way it deals with race.

So my question is: If contemporary society can, for example, toss away D.W. Griffith, excise racist elements out Looney Tunes, and mothball "Song of the South," then why can't we see "Gone with the Wind" for exactly what it is?

Because this film, more than anything else in the 20th century, is probably responsible for extending the shelf life on "Lost Cause" nonsense by a good 50 or 60 years. At least. All on its own.

Fun fact: During WWII, the Nazis employed Lost Cause mythology in their propaganda, telling people that the Allies would do to their towns what Sherman did to Atlanta. They printed this shit in bulk and distributed it all over Europe. Eventually, it made its way back to neo-Confederate groups in the States. Think about that for secIt's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say what the concrete impact of Gone with the Wind has been in terms of upholding white supremacy. After all, white supremacy doesn't exist because Gone with the Wind is popular; Gone with the Wind is popular in part because of the unevenness of American society between North and South, which existed before the war and continues up till the present, hence the enduring appeal of the film's mythologized portrayal of the prewar South for many white Americans. Mothballing the film wouldn't do anything to change the underlying dynamics of US society. Moreover, even if one were to concede that The Birth of a Nation, The General, Gone with the Wind, The Song of the South, The Searchers, etc. all had a concrete, negative impact on race relations in the United States, that doesn't necessarily mean the films aren't interesting or that there aren't good reasons for watching them today (including entertainment value (https://newrepublic.com/article/158206/gentlemanly-haters-guide-gone-wind)).

Grouchy

06-18-2020, 08:11 PM

It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say what the concrete impact of Gone with the Wind has been in terms of upholding white supremacy. After all, white supremacy doesn't exist because Gone with the Wind is popular; Gone with the Wind is popular in part because of the unevenness of American society between North and South, which existed before the war and continues up till the present, hence the enduring appeal of the film's mythologized portrayal of the prewar South for many white Americans. Mothballing the film wouldn't do anything to change the underlying dynamics of US society. Moreover, even if one were to concede that The Birth of a Nation, The General, Gone with the Wind, The Song of the South, The Searchers, etc. all had a concrete, negative impact on race relations in the United States, that doesn't necessarily mean the films aren't interesting or that there aren't good reasons for watching them today (including entertainment value (https://newrepublic.com/article/158206/gentlemanly-haters-guide-gone-wind)).
Agreed, but I can't remember where The General touches on race relations, unless you just mean that short scene where Keaton's character tries to join the South to impress his girl. And throwing The Searchers on the same paragraph is unfair - however you feel about John Ford in general, that is a movie ABOUT racism.

Irish

06-18-2020, 08:17 PM

there's still some distance in critical reputation between the shows you cite

"Fleabag" has a better reviewed first season than either "Breaking Bad" or "Mad Men." "Unbelievable" and "Normal People" both have reviews above "Breaking Bad."

We're talking between 89%-100% here, going by RT. That doesn't seem like much distance.

(As a secondary consideration: "Fleabag" also won more Emmys than "Madmen," even though "Fleabag's" entire run was smaller than one of "Man Men's" seasons.)

it seems less plausible to assert that television reviewers (male and female) don't share the many of the same assumptions as film reviewers.

I don't know why we'd assume that, especially as some reviewers pull double duty (eg: Matt Zoller Seitz, who reviews movies for RogerEbert.com and television for Vulture.)

baby doll

06-18-2020, 08:26 PM

"Fleabag" has a better reviewed first season than either "Breaking Bad" or "Mad Men." "Unbelievable" and "Normal People" both have reviews above "Breaking Bad."

We're talking between 89%-100% here, going by RT. That doesn't seem like much distance.

(As a secondary consideration: "Fleabag" also won more Emmys than "Madmen," even though "Fleabag's" entire run was smaller than one of "Man Men's" seasons.)I was thinking less of the Tomato-meter than my sense that The Sopranos, The Wire, and Breaking Bad are the shows TV reviewers go to make the case that television can be Great Art on par with the 19th century novel.

baby doll

06-18-2020, 08:29 PM

Agreed, but I can't remember where The General touches on race relations, unless you just mean that short scene where Keaton's character tries to join the South to impress his girl. And throwing The Searchers on the same paragraph is unfair - however you feel about John Ford in general, that is a movie ABOUT racism.I wasn't trying to suggest that either of those films as racist as Gone with the Wind, only that they're "problematic" by contemporary standards: The General because it sidesteps the issue of slavery altogether and portrays the Union soldiers as underhanded villains, The Searchers particularly in the scenes with Look, who's portrayed as a stereotypical "dumb Indian."

Irish

06-18-2020, 08:37 PM

It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say what the concrete impact of Gone with the Wind has been in terms of upholding white supremacy.

White supremacy is a characteristic of the Lost Cause. They're one in the same; there's no separating the two. Selling people on the idea of a noble and honorable Confederacy makes selling shit like Jim Crow easier to do.

Since I know you dig footnotes: David W. Blight (2001). Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (https://books.google.com/books?id=3R-yvmpYaqAC&pg=PA259#v=onepage&q&f=false). Harvard University Press. p. 259

Mothballing the film wouldn't do anything to change the underlying dynamics of US society

Weird how people are pulling down those physical monuments right now tho huh

Irish

06-18-2020, 08:48 PM

I was thinking less of the Tomato-meter than my sense that The Sopranos, The Wire, and Breaking Bad are the shows TV reviewers go to make the case that television can be Great Art on par with the 19th century novel.

Your argument narrows and narrows.

It should go without saying your examples were on cable for years, with multi-year gaps between seasons, and were thus in the popular imagination for a long time.

It's hard to compare them to shows that appeared this year on streaming services --- but even still, given their popularity and critical success I don't think anyone can definitively say that "contemporary reviews" take men's stories more seriously than women's stories.

PS: If you think books buttress your argument, I can point you to titles & collections about "Desperate Housewives" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" published years before "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad" appeared.

MadMan

06-18-2020, 10:18 PM

I remember rooting for her for most of film and losing all sympathy in third act. I didnt gain any sympathy for Afflecks character either btw, I just left the film feeling like they were both assholes and one was a murderer.

Now I need to rewatch, dammit Madman, you're killing me.

My take is he drove her insane by being a cheating asshole. I don't think of her as a hero, but I certainly understand her. And yes I want to rewatch it as well. Certainly one of Fincher's more interesting movies in terms of the male v female power dynamic. I imagine he also covered that with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but I haven't see that one or the original.

baby doll

06-18-2020, 10:23 PM

Your argument narrows and narrows.

It should go without saying your examples were on cable for years, with multi-year gaps between seasons, and were thus in the popular imagination for a long time.

It's hard to compare them to shows that appeared this year on streaming services --- but even still, given their popularity and critical success I don't think anyone can definitively say that "contemporary reviews" take men's stories more seriously than women's stories.

PS: If you think books buttress your argument, I can point you to titles & collections about "Desperate Housewives" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" published years before "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad" appeared.I defer to your superior knowledge about television and the literature on it (a topic I'm not especially well versed in), but to return to the main point: Granting your objection that female-centred melodrama continues to thrive on American television, and that such programs are recognized by reviewers and the industry, does that refute my overall claim that reviewers and the industry take genres coded as masculine more seriously than genres coded as feminine? I would argue not since television, despite the strides it's made in recent years, is still a less prestigious medium than film. When the Society of Cinema and Media Studies had their annual conference in Toronto two years ago, I attended a talk where the panelists were all kvetching about how television studies is ghettoized in academia, how online journals count for less than print journals in a tenure case and most of the television journals are online, and how the concept of "prestige" television is always conflated with "cinematic" production values. Film continues to be the more culturally prestigious medium despite its declining popularity because a two-hour-plus film is still visibly more expensive to produce than a one-hour television program (Tom Cruise doesn't do TV) and because viewers invest more time, money, and effort in watching a film than a TV show (you actually have to leave your house, or at least you did pre-pandemic).

MadMan

06-18-2020, 10:23 PM

I'm not sure how this refutes my claim that contemporary reviewers treat films in masculine genres (and directors associated primarily with them, like Fincher) more seriously than genres coded as feminine such as melodrama, since film noir--and by extension, neo-noir, including Gone Girl--is, I would argue, very much a man's genre. After all, the danger of the femme fatale is that she acts like a man and thus represents a threat to traditional gender roles. This is also true, to a certain extent, of Scarlett O'Hara (whom one could argue is a proto-noir heroine: "Well, I guess I've done murder"), although her emotionalism, and the film's colour and lighting scheme, offset this somewhat: Hence, her comeuppance is that she gets dumped rather than murdered. Gone Girl is critically respectable at two and a half hours not only because it gives equal or more weight to the Ben Affleck character (who, for all his flaws, is still something like the moral centre of the film, and in any case, it's Affleck on the poster, not Rosamund Pike), but because it's female co-protagonist is a sociopath, which is the opposite of hysterical. In other words, even though it's based on a novel by a woman and features a female co-protagonist, generically speaking it's not a "woman's film" in the sense that Imitation of Life, Letter from an Unknown Woman, and Stella Dallas are women's films.

My point is that what GOTW did was not really that original or novel. And that I have no problem watching a movie where the female character is just as problematic as a male one would be. Now Johnny Guitar featured a woman character who was downright evil, but I chalk that up to her refusing to admit she loved an outlaw.

MadMan

06-18-2020, 10:24 PM

Anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFdChgiuasA

Why is Lex Luthor whispering? Meh.

Skitch

06-18-2020, 10:29 PM

My take is he drove her insane by being a cheating asshole. I don't think of her as a hero, but I certainly understand her. And yes I want to rewatch it as well. Certainly one of Fincher's more interesting movies in terms of the male v female power dynamic. I imagine he also covered that with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but I haven't see that one or the original.

Without getting too spoilery for you, the difference is one is cheater (GG) and the other rapist (TGWTDT). I can get behind the female power dynamic of TGWTDT, but in GG she literally murders a guy because of reasons? Because her husband did something that wasn't illegal? Because her feelings were hurt? Even faking her death to frame him for her murder is an overreaction imo. Who hasn't had someone cheat on them? And its not like they were married for 30 years and had 3 kids and all that...maybe I could buy into the mental break at that point, but as the movie has it, she just seemed like a vindictive psycho.

baby doll

06-18-2020, 10:31 PM

White supremacy is a characteristic of the Lost Cause. They're one in the same; there's no separating the two. Selling people on the idea of a noble and honorable Confederacy makes selling shit like Jim Crow easier to do.

Since I know you dig footnotes: David W. Blight (2001). Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (https://books.google.com/books?id=3R-yvmpYaqAC&pg=PA259#v=onepage&q&f=false). Harvard University Press. p. 259

Weird how people are pulling down those physical monuments right now tho huhAgain, as with Gone with the Wind, I would argue that the statues in themselves don't perpetuate white supremacy but are merely reflective of attitudes that were pervasive at the time they were erected (namely, that slave traders were fine people). They're coming down now because there's been a massive shift in public sentiment away from honouring dead slave traders, although I don't think anybody believes taking down a statue will stop police from brutalizing black people to enforce de facto segregation.

Philip J. Fry

06-18-2020, 10:35 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sfQehgUUFQ
July 9.

Dukefrukem

06-18-2020, 10:47 PM

Why is Lex Luthor whispering? Meh.

Isn't that scene from him in jail?

Grouchy

06-18-2020, 11:11 PM

Now Johnny Guitar featured a woman character who was downright evil, but I chalk that up to her refusing to admit she loved an outlaw.
Genuinely confused by this. You are talking about the antagonist, right? Because Vienna is awesome - she's not evil.

EDIT: Never mind, just read your review.

Skitch

06-18-2020, 11:26 PM

Isn't that scene from him in jail?

Yes that VO is from Lex talking to Batman in jail at end of BVS

Philip J. Fry

06-19-2020, 02:44 AM

1273692948295802881

Dukefrukem

07-05-2020, 01:23 PM

So I guess they added Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition on this platform. Have I seen that version? Or is that new to the platform only?

Skitch

07-05-2020, 01:35 PM

I have an Ultimate edition on blu-ray?

Dukefrukem

07-05-2020, 02:10 PM

Are you asking me if you do?

Idioteque Stalker

07-05-2020, 02:13 PM

Nope, he's asking me. And guess what? He does.

Skitch

07-05-2020, 02:36 PM

Are you asking me if you do?

More like "I have an ultimate edition, but is there another more ultimater edition?"

Dukefrukem

07-05-2020, 02:38 PM

What's the running time say on your DVD?

Skitch

07-05-2020, 02:47 PM

What's the running time say on your DVD?

183 min r-rated cut.

Dukefrukem

07-05-2020, 02:49 PM

183 min r-rated cut.

Ok. Same running time as HBO Max.

megladon8

07-05-2020, 03:39 PM

Hey Skitch, do I have that one?

Skitch

07-05-2020, 03:40 PM

Hey Skitch, do I have that one?

I have no idea, but I hope you do, because its cool.

Ezee E

07-05-2020, 04:44 PM

I don't have it, and will not even be considering the idea on HBO Max.... If and when I sign up for it.

Philip J. Fry

07-06-2020, 03:05 PM

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive, pg_1,q_80,w_800/fqtlh6atoex2vpbdksxl.png

1280140275009105920
Yesss!! The first two books were excellent.

Philip J. Fry

07-07-2020, 10:24 PM

1280605730475700224

Philip J. Fry

07-09-2020, 09:49 PM

1281291338139398145

Philip J. Fry

07-20-2020, 07:22 PM

1285268657736687616

Philip J. Fry

07-24-2020, 10:35 PM

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive, pg_1,q_80,w_800/fqtlh6atoex2vpbdksxl.png

1280140275009105920
Yesss!! The first two books were excellent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lCscBFY2Lg

Wryan

07-24-2020, 11:39 PM

Some spicy new stuff, tho one very prominent image is a bit...direct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvamPJp17Ds

Philip J. Fry

08-07-2020, 05:44 PM

1291790219314786304
If this some kind of show with Every Frame a Painting style of analysis, I'm all for it.

Ivan Drago

08-07-2020, 06:51 PM

Close Enough also got renewed for a second season!

Philip J. Fry

08-07-2020, 07:43 PM

Close Enough also got renewed for a second season!
1281278088186400769
That show is a mood. Loved it.;)

Ivan Drago

08-10-2020, 04:49 PM

I'm still waiting for a TV app for HBO Max on my X1 box. I love Regular Show though, and every clip I've seen from this show kills me. Especially this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8RiY9J2v2k

Dukefrukem

08-10-2020, 05:00 PM

Philip J. Fry

08-10-2020, 05:07 PM

Philip J. Fry

08-13-2020, 03:39 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EfTctnCUEAYTD0q?format=jpg&name=medium

Philip J. Fry

08-14-2020, 08:16 PM

Fuuuuuuuuck, that fifth episode of Infinity Train.

Ivan Drago

08-14-2020, 09:10 PM

I got one of the new ones and it's on there.

A new X1 box? Or Xfinity Stream?

Philip J. Fry

08-14-2020, 09:17 PM

1294339554669989888

Philip J. Fry

08-14-2020, 10:21 PM

1293416474632228864

Philip J. Fry

08-17-2020, 05:51 PM

1295137670499168256

Philip J. Fry

08-18-2020, 04:40 PM

1295757547375407113

Dukefrukem

08-18-2020, 05:10 PM

What would be full Disney? Restoring them perfectly?

Ezee E

08-18-2020, 07:43 PM

Are the "Censored Eleven" missing?

Philip J. Fry

08-18-2020, 09:38 PM

What would be full Disney? Restoring them perfectly?My guess is that it is because of the live action remakes or The Simpsons' ratio thing.

Are the "Censored Eleven" missing?I don't know. I doubt it.

Dukefrukem

08-24-2020, 08:24 PM

Whoa.

I'm guessing this is Scott's outlet to continuing the David android story-line, waiting patiently for the dust to settle on the Disney Fox deal. I mean, this looks gorgeously perfect for the Alien Universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnwttF7uv1I&feature=emb_title

Scar

08-24-2020, 10:17 PM

Oh My.....

Ezee E

08-25-2020, 03:13 AM

Wow. Had no idea something like that was in production, much less coming out next week.

Philip J. Fry

08-26-2020, 06:22 PM

1298651433923940353
I hope it's renewed. Infinity Train might be the best animated show in the platform.

Dukefrukem

08-26-2020, 06:28 PM

1298651433923940353
Infinity Train might be the best animated show in the platform.

That no one has seen.

Philip J. Fry

08-26-2020, 06:36 PM

That no one has seen.Then take it as a recommendation.

Dukefrukem

08-26-2020, 07:35 PM

Then take it as a recommendation.

No i just mean the general public. How many people have HBO Max? maybe 5% of Netflix and Disney+ Subscribers?

Philip J. Fry

08-26-2020, 08:09 PM

No i just mean the general public. How many people have HBO Max? maybe 5% of Netflix and Disney+ Subscribers?I don't know, but you have a point. What sucks even more is that, for example, that show has a considerable fanbase outside the US (go to Twitter and like half of the show's discussion is in Spanish or Portuguese), but since the service is only in the US for now, those numbers can't be counted. I just hope that's taken into consideration with shows like that one.

Dukefrukem

08-26-2020, 08:41 PM

I don't know, but you have a point. What sucks even more is that, for example, that show has a considerable fanbase outside the US (go to Twitter and like half of the show's discussion is in Spanish or Portuguese), but since the service is only in the US for now, those numbers can't be counted. I just hope that's taken into consideration with shows like that one.

Yeh it's a huge bummer for stuff like this and it's a catch 22. You need content to put on your service, but you also need a base to support the content when the content turns out to be good.

The four one hour episodes of the Synder Cut is going to be re-released and packaged together for international release. But they aren't going to do that for everything on Hbomax.

Philip J. Fry

08-26-2020, 08:56 PM

Yeh it's a huge bummer for stuff like this and it's a catch 22. You need content to put on your service, but you also need a base to support the content when the content turns out to be good.

The four one hour episodes of the Synder Cut is going to be re-released and packaged together for international release. But they aren't going to do that for everything on Hbomax.Yeah, unfortunately you need patience and creativity when marketing if you wanna create a base, unless you only want to do material based on already known properties such as DC.

And it's quite a shame, because part of what made HBO the revolutionary juggernaut that it is today, was that patience and creativity. Without them, you cancel shows like The Sopranos, The Wire and Six Feet Under after one season.

Irish

08-26-2020, 09:49 PM

No i just mean the general public. How many people have HBO Max? maybe 5% of Netflix and Disney+ Subscribers?

This depends on how you view the numbers. HBO has about ~25 million subscribers, but they've had trouble converting those to MAX. I don't expect that will last long, tho.

Disney+ didn't reach ~25 million until about 4 months after their launch, and they launched with almost no new, original content.

And it's quite a shame, because part of what made HBO the revolutionary juggernaut that it is today, was that patience and creativity. Without them, you cancel shows like The Sopranos, The Wire and Six Feet Under after one season.

Quick cancellations may be the new reality under streaming.

Netflix just cancelled another show after just 2 seasons ("Altered Carbon"). They've research telling them long running programs don't bring in fresh subscribers.

ATT's stated strategy with MAX is to pump out as much content as possible as quickly as possible, hence Fandome and their reliance on broad based, popular IP.

Philip J. Fry

08-26-2020, 09:53 PM

Quick cancellations may be the new reality under streaming.

Netflix just cancelled another show after just 2 seasons ("Altered Carbon"). They've research telling them long running programs don't bring in fresh subscribers.

ATT's stated strategy with MAX is to pump out as much content as possible as quickly as possible, hence Fandome and their reliance on broad based, popular IP.That's awful, honestly.

Wryan

08-26-2020, 10:15 PM

This depends on how you view the numbers. HBO has about ~25 million subscribers, but they've had trouble converting those to MAX. I don't expect that will last long, tho.

Can you go by "Wryun" in your next incarnation? I'd be flattered and a little aroused.

Irish

08-27-2020, 01:00 AM

That's awful, honestly.

It is, and I seriously wrinkled my nose when I heard about ATT's plans...

... otoh I think there's an opportunity to get away from legacy TV models and move onto something more interesting. Shows that are one-off mini-series or limited series. Or shows that follow the UK model, where a "season" is 4 episodes, but each episode is 90 minutes long, and it only comes around once every 1 or 2 years.

I also think there isn't necessarily anything wrong with streaming networks mirroring their customer's viewing habits. Speaking only for myself, I just don't have the time and energy to maintain interest for season ... after season ... after season. And that's even true of the stuff I like.

Skitch

08-27-2020, 01:15 AM

Can you go by "Wryun" in your next incarnation? I'd be flattered and a little aroused.

Never rub another mans rhubarb

Dukefrukem

08-27-2020, 01:35 AM

It is, and I seriously wrinkled my nose when I heard about ATT's plans...

... otoh I think there's an opportunity to get away from legacy TV models and move onto something more interesting. Shows that are one-off mini-series or limited series. Or shows that follow the UK model, where a "season" is 4 episodes, but each episode is 90 minutes long, and it only comes around once every 1 or 2 years.

I also think there isn't necessarily anything wrong with streaming networks mirroring their customer's viewing habits. Speaking only for myself, I just don't have the time and energy to maintain interest for season ... after season ... after season. And that's even true of the stuff I like.

I enjoy this mindset too. It's how we get stuff like Wayward Pines and Band of Brothers.

[ETM]

08-27-2020, 06:03 PM

Yeah, we've been rewatching Community and my wife was like "Wow, there are over 20 episodes in a season...?!". We pretty much gave up on all network TV so long ago that it's werd now.

Sent from my Mi 9 Lite using Tapatalk

Philip J. Fry

09-01-2020, 11:27 PM

1300903766598639616

Philip J. Fry

09-15-2020, 04:11 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgucEUwQgcc

Philip J. Fry

09-18-2020, 07:10 PM

1306974909201932288

Dukefrukem

09-20-2020, 12:27 PM

Dukefrukem

09-23-2020, 05:48 PM

Skitch

09-23-2020, 09:35 PM

Umm what!? The Suicide Squad’ TV Spinoff ‘Peacemaker’ Starring John Cena From James Gunn Ordered By HBO Max

https://deadline.com/2020/09/peacemaker-james-gunn-john-cena-dc-hbo-max-tv-1234582582/

I'm skeptical of the hype building around this movie. Obvs I hope to hell I'm wrong, but sheesh.

Dukefrukem

09-23-2020, 09:49 PM

I'm skeptical of the hype building around this movie. Obvs I hope to hell I'm wrong, but sheesh.

It's a good sign they are building this brand as much as they can. Hints that the execs like what they see with the movie.

Skitch

09-23-2020, 10:08 PM

It's a good sign they are building this brand as much as they can. Hints that the execs like what they see with the movie.

I sure hope so. I get nervous with hype.

Also it appears I was wrong about this prediction:

Snyder planning new justice league shoot amid ray fisher claims (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/zack-snyder-planning-new-justice-league-shoot-amid-ray-fisher-claims)

Irish

09-24-2020, 12:07 AM

Hints that the execs like what they see with the movie.

Or that they're operating under pressure from AT&T, whose stated goal is to pump out as much "content" as possible.

Ezee E

09-24-2020, 02:05 AM

Just got HBO Max for Lovecraft Country and the Guadagino series.

They have a HECK of a movie collection. Probably better than Netflix's.

Awesome.

Dukefrukem

09-24-2020, 02:32 AM

Just got HBO Max for Lovecraft Country and the Guadagino series.

They have a HECK of a movie collection. Probably better than Netflix's.

Awesome.

I just bought a Samsung TV, and it comes with a decent selection of movies to stream as some part of SamsungTV thing. Very odd. Also, I bought too big a TV for the bedroom.

Skitch

09-24-2020, 08:05 AM

That's not possible if it doesnt fit through the door.

Philip J. Fry

09-28-2020, 08:12 PM

1310625433541632001

Brendan Fraser, Amy Seimetz and Julia Fox!

Wryan

10-02-2020, 04:24 PM

Not......what I was hoping for. :confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nlhmJF5FNI

Wryan

10-02-2020, 04:25 PM

And they are totally gonna transform those slits on her mouth into a big ol' cgi demon maw.

notlikethis.jpg

Peng

10-02-2020, 04:38 PM

With the writing credits involved they better have the book's original ending.

Philip J. Fry

10-07-2020, 02:12 AM

1313654712940417024

Wryan

10-10-2020, 08:28 PM

Anyone watching Lovecraft Country? It's a wilder, weirder pastiche than I expected, having not read the source material. The zig-zagging tones and tropes and story lines do a slight disservice to the overall plot, as we never quite feel settled, but this also enables some truly stunning one-off episodes mostly devoted to one particular character. Just finished "I Am," and it was just awesome. It feels like this whole show is a series of bottle episodes--tho intentionally done and on a larger budget--more than a standard narrative. Once I adjusted to that, I'm enjoying it enormously.

Peng

10-11-2020, 03:11 AM

It feels like it wants to be both Prestige TV serialization and episode-of-the-week throwback format, and get messy at both. Still interesting enough, and indeed sometimes that mix leads to great episodes (I love the pilot, the Korea-set "Meet Me in Daegu", and the creepfest of "Jig-a-Bobo").

Wryan

10-14-2020, 08:53 PM

And they are totally gonna transform those slits on her mouth into a big ol' cgi demon maw.

notlikethis.jpg

God it's almost like I'm psychic or something. Like I have ESPN.

https://i.redd.it/f1xeaej194t51.jpg

Philip J. Fry

10-14-2020, 09:21 PM

Why so serious?

Skitch

10-14-2020, 09:25 PM

This Venom sequel is shaping up.

Dukefrukem

10-14-2020, 11:36 PM

God it's almost like I'm psychic or something. Like I have ESPN.

https://i.redd.it/f1xeaej194t51.jpg

Heh nice work.

Philip J. Fry

10-15-2020, 07:20 PM

1316793615952285696

Philip J. Fry

10-20-2020, 03:42 PM

1318309615327617024

Wryan

10-26-2020, 09:26 PM

Not......what I was hoping for. :confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nlhmJF5FNI

Whew this was a whole mess of not good. It's so hyper-mannered and facile for a kids' movie. Spencer is earnest and talented enough to give it a heroic effort, trying amiably to make terrible material work. Hathaway is allll over the place, proverbially and literally. This isn't even half-baked. It's quarter-baked at best. Rock's narration is terrible and unnecessary. It's exactly what I expected, regrettably. It's a wobbly, lopsided mess.

Philip J. Fry

10-28-2020, 07:48 PM

1321498562937630722

Ivan Drago

10-28-2020, 10:51 PM

Philip J. Fry

10-28-2020, 11:33 PM

Forgot to mention that thanks to getting Chromecast with Google TV, I finally have a TV app for HBO Max. I've started Close Enough and it's everything I hoped it would be. Will start Infinity Train sooner rather than later!

Also FUCK YEAH MORE TINY TOONS!!!Yusss! Can't wait to see what you think of those two shows.

Also, have you seen Harley Quinn? It's really good as well.

Philip J. Fry

10-28-2020, 11:57 PM

1321500448411582465
New Tartakovsky!!!!

Philip J. Fry

11-10-2020, 12:02 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKwDW7ee_k

Philip J. Fry

11-13-2020, 08:11 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghMFFe2Q9hA

Philip J. Fry

11-15-2020, 03:33 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em4L18SW8AE-UrH?format=jpg&name=medium

Philip J. Fry

11-17-2020, 05:00 PM

1328754557581742082

Philip J. Fry

11-17-2020, 06:04 PM

1328760956902584320

Philip J. Fry

11-18-2020, 05:04 AM

1328739906873663488

Dukefrukem

11-18-2020, 10:57 PM

WHOA

Wonder Woman 1984’ Going In Theaters & HBO Max On Christmas Day

https://deadline.com/2020/11/wonder-woman-1984-going-in-theaters-hbo-max-on-christmas-day-1234618288/

Skitch

11-18-2020, 10:59 PM

Wowsers

Ivan Drago

11-18-2020, 11:32 PM

Theaters were fun while they lasted.

DFA1979

11-19-2020, 01:43 AM

WHOA

Wonder Woman 1984’ Going In Theaters & HBO Max On Christmas Day

https://deadline.com/2020/11/wonder-woman-1984-going-in-theaters-hbo-max-on-christmas-day-1234618288/

Time for people to sign up for the free trial then dump it after watching the movie. I mean....

Honestly I'm fine with waiting for it to hit RedBox.

DFA1979

11-19-2020, 01:44 AM

Theaters were fun while they lasted.

Theaters were eventually doomed we just all thought it would be 15-20 years down the road before they started to collapse.

DFA1979

11-19-2020, 01:45 AM

1328754557581742082

I don't blame Conan. Late night has become a tad stale.

Ezee E

11-19-2020, 03:24 AM

Theaters were eventually doomed we just all thought it would be 15-20 years down the road before they started to collapse.

That's it for $150-$200 million budgeted movies in that case too.

Dukefrukem

11-19-2020, 11:33 AM

That's it for $150-$200 million budgeted movies in that case too.

Doubtful. How much of a budget do you think the Mandalorian has? Or WandaVision?

Ezee E

11-19-2020, 03:15 PM

Doubtful. How much of a budget do you think the Mandalorian has? Or WandaVision?

Mandalorian was $100 million for the entire second season.
Looks like WandaVision was $150 million.

So I'll stand corrected.

Dukefrukem

11-19-2020, 03:18 PM

Mandalorian was $100 million for the entire second season.
Looks like WandaVision was $150 million.

So I'll stand corrected.

That $100 million was mostly fort the start up costs on the first season, and utilizing the new LED backdrop tech. It's why there were able to turn around Season 2 so quickly. So I'm willing to bet the Mandalorian is an exception where the budget for each season might go down as there's less start up and transportation costs.

Skitch

11-19-2020, 10:41 PM

That $100 million was mostly fort the start up costs on the first season, and utilizing the new LED backdrop tech. It's why there were able to turn around Season 2 so quickly. So I'm willing to bet the Mandalorian is an exception where the budget for each season might go down as there's less start up and transportation costs.

I would like to see a behind the scenes on that tech. I've seen the stages. I've seen season 2. It BAFFLES me how good it looks.

Dukefrukem

11-19-2020, 11:04 PM

I would like to see a behind the scenes on that tech. I've seen the stages. I've seen season 2. It BAFFLES me how good it looks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufp8weYYDE8&ab_channel=Insider

Skitch

11-19-2020, 11:10 PM

That is crazy! I'm not knockin Avengers but you can tell it's on a green stage. Not all of Mando looks perfect but a lot of it looks like it's on built stages or locations.

Dukefrukem

11-19-2020, 11:16 PM

Yeh the Unreal tech is perfect for these quick turnaround shows like this. Especially cutting back on travel and during COVID.

Skitch

11-19-2020, 11:21 PM

That's another thing that's amazing is how fast they're pumping this stuff out. I love it.

DFA1979

11-19-2020, 11:51 PM

That's it for $150-$200 million budgeted movies in that case too.

Hmm...I agree with Duke. Mulen wasn't cheap that's for sure. Also I forgot to note that I agree with someone who posted on Twitter or FB that Disney/Amazon or Netflix will just buy up or create their own theaters since they will be able to afford taking a hit during the pandemic. I could see that happening regardless.

Dukefrukem

11-26-2020, 04:51 PM

Whedon apparently can stay attached to a project now.

https://deadline.com/2020/11/the-nevers-joss-whedon-exits-1234622208/

Dukefrukem

12-01-2020, 03:25 PM

Whelp. Everyone is talking about the Undoing. So I signed up. WWII in 3 weeks too.

Mal

12-01-2020, 08:06 PM

The Undoing kinda stinks. Bloated storytelling, unremarkable characters and courtroom moments. Hugh Grant is pretty good, though not worth watching it all for.

Dukefrukem

12-03-2020, 09:25 PM

Double holy shit

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/03/warner-bros-to-release-every-2021-movie-on-hbo-max-at-the-same-time-as-theaters.html

Irish

12-04-2020, 12:10 AM

1334597330037735424

Irish

12-04-2020, 12:15 AM

Ezee E

12-04-2020, 12:39 AM

Scar

12-04-2020, 12:43 AM

The optimist in me thinks I’ll get a vaccine come spring time.

Dukefrukem

12-04-2020, 04:24 AM

When i think "wildly available" I think walking into a CVS and getting it like a flu shot.

Fall of 2021.

WB is smart.

Remember when we were all making fun of HBO Max? Now they have a platform for their content that wouldn't be consumed otherwise.

Lazlo

12-04-2020, 12:37 PM

Compare the meaning behind this announcement to the convention wisdom there will be a widely available covid vaccine in 2021.

The bean counters at Warners have grimly predicted there won't be a movie business next year, or there won't be a vaccine, or both.

I think there's a little of this, but I think mostly it's a way to get people subscribed to their service that's had underwhelming adoption so far and to keep them subscribed. Wonder Woman 1984 can be watched during the free trial. But if there's a new big movie every 60 days, most people will stay subscribed.

Dukefrukem

12-04-2020, 12:41 PM

Lazlo

12-04-2020, 01:58 PM

The free trial for Hbo Max ended yesterday. So watching WWII for free is no longer possible.

Well, now people will be less enticed to sign up for one month and cancel after they've watched it. They've now been told to expect big movies like it on the service.

transmogrifier

12-05-2020, 12:37 AM

I keep on thinking, why do you need HBO Max to watch World War II?

Anyway, I wish Max was here in Korea - it seems to have a much better movie library than Netflix does (I don't care about the new releases - they will still come out at the theaters here like Wonder Woman is on Christmas)

Irish

12-05-2020, 01:30 AM

I think there's a little of this, but I think mostly it's a way to get people subscribed to their service that's had underwhelming adoption so far and to keep them subscribed. Wonder Woman 1984 can be watched during the free trial. But if there's a new big movie every 60 days, most people will stay subscribed.

I agree, sorta? But then they still wouldn't opt for streaming if they thought theatrical would be viable in 2021.

Several of the movies on their slate are billion dollar properties. A rough third of that expected box office would normally come from North America. To make up the difference, HBO Max would need to gain ~20 million subscribers on each film.

That ain't gonna happen, so they're effectively cutting their losses (cf: "Tenet") while propping up their streaming service.

The tepid response so far has largely been a branding problem, coupled with their failure to make Max available on popular platforms (it's still not on Roku, and won't be on Prime or Fire until 2021, iirc).

Lazlo

12-05-2020, 01:59 AM

I agree, sorta? But then they still wouldn't opt for streaming if they thought theatrical would be viable in 2021.

Several of the movies on their slate are billion dollar properties. A rough third of that expected box office would normally come from North America. To make up the difference, HBO Max would need to gain ~20 million subscribers on each film.

That ain't gonna happen, so they're effectively cutting their losses (cf: "Tenet") while propping up their streaming service.

The tepid response so far has largely been a branding problem, coupled with their failure to make Max available on popular platforms (it's still not on Roku, and won't be on Prime or Fire until 2021, iirc).

Yeah, there's no way they can match the revenue they'd have made on these movies without a pandemic just off subscribers. But it is a way to boost the service and make some money off these movies vs. no money. I also wonder if it's leverage over Roku, though that's probably low on Warners' list of concerns. Streaming devices aren't all that expensive and there's so many other non-Roku options that I find it hard to believe people are deeply married to them. So Roku probably needs to get on the stick. It's maybe a way to transition away from making so many huge movies. Burn off this slate and then don't spend so much on the 2022/3 slate.

Irish

12-05-2020, 02:17 AM

Streaming devices aren't all that expensive and there's so many other non-Roku options that I find it hard to believe people are deeply married to them.

Roku has an installed base of ~40 million and most of those accounts are in the United States. It's a perfect fit for HBO Max, but AT&T decided to get pissy about revenue and advertising share.

Nobody is gonna spend $30-50 (or more!) on a new device just to watch HBO Max.

Weirdly, Max is available on Apple TV+, which afaik has the same revenue sharing model, but with a lower subscribed base, and comes attach to much more expensive hardware.

ETA:

The most prominent platforms without agreements to carry HBO Max at launch were Amazon (maker of the Fire TV) and Roku, which together are estimated to control 70% of the U.S. streaming player market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO_Max#Distribution

I honestly don't get what AT&T is doing. It's very odd.

baby doll

12-05-2020, 04:29 AM

I think the major takeaway here is that the theatrical experience is dead and Christopher Nolan's the man who killed it.

Ivan Drago

12-05-2020, 06:02 AM

I think the major takeaway here is that the theatrical experience is dead and Christopher Nolan's the man who killed it.

Pretty much. The future of moviegoing is in the hands of the consumers and they wanted to watch The Irishman as a miniseries and cheered when Disney bought Fox because Wolverine is in the MCU.

After I'm vaccinated, the first place I'm going is the movie theater. And I'll enjoy them until the inevitable.

Scar

12-05-2020, 11:48 AM

Dukefrukem

12-05-2020, 12:03 PM

I'm going to leave my house and go somewhere, anywhere.

transmogrifier

12-05-2020, 12:23 PM

Pretty much. The future of moviegoing is in the hands of the consumers and they wanted to watch The Irishman as a miniseries and cheered when Disney bought Fox because Wolverine is in the MCU.

After I'm vaccinated, the first place I'm going is the movie theater. And I'll enjoy them until the inevitable.

Not to brag or anything, but I have seen While You Were Sleeping, When Harry Met Sally, and Mank at theaters this week, and am planning to see Apocalypse Now: The Final Cut tomorrow or Monday.

Okay, I was bragging a little. Except for the While You Were Sleeping part.

Dukefrukem

12-05-2020, 12:47 PM

Saw your review on Mank on LB and immediately put it at the top of my queue.

It's now on Netflix but wasn't when you posted it.

amberlita

12-05-2020, 02:26 PM

Okay, I was bragging a little. Except for the While You Were Sleeping part.

Don't be ashamed of that. It's a great movie.

Makes me realize that the last time I saw a movie in the theaters was in Thailand in January and omg I cannot wait until I can get vaccinated and start traveling back to SE Asia again where the world is right-side up and seriously you should humblebrag the shit out of that, trans.

Lazlo

12-05-2020, 02:27 PM

Roku has an installed base of ~40 million and most of those accounts are in the United States. It's a perfect fit for HBO Max, but AT&T decided to get pissy about revenue and advertising share.

Nobody is gonna spend $30-50 (or more!) on a new device just to watch HBO Max.

Weirdly, Max is available on Apple TV+, which afaik has the same revenue sharing model, but with a lower subscribed base, and comes attach to much more expensive hardware.

ETA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO_Max#Distribution

I honestly don't get what AT&T is doing. It's very odd.

Ah, I way underestimated Roku's market share. It's just that, while I know I'm not a typical American household in terms of knowledge about this stuff and amount of tech on hand, but I can watch HBO Max on my PS4, XBOX One, AppleTV, laptop, and cast it from my phone to my TV. Annoying that there's never been a built-in HBO app for my TV like there is for almost every other major service. I guess my point was that many people will already have alternate devices, but that's maybe not true on a widespread level.