Really appreciate the way you phrase the "explainer movie" phenomena. It's something that has both driven me batty and filled my digital shelves over the last 20+years. Too much exposition is always horrible, but one line here or there can do SUCH wonders to for a character, for a scene, for the whole G-D film. And the films that do requ…
Really appreciate the way you phrase the "explainer movie" phenomena. It's something that has both driven me batty and filled my digital shelves over the last 20+years. Too much exposition is always horrible, but one line here or there can do SUCH wonders to for a character, for a scene, for the whole G-D film. And the films that do require full youtube tutorials on their backstory, essentially films-for-the-films are so fun for a small subset of the audience, those of us that put the FANATIC in fan, but so many more are just "wha..." or TLDW.
As for Garland's take on politics, and ultimately Republican or Democrat being a label for how we decide to implement a distribution system...maybe you could argue that on the surface, but anyone caring to peak under the hood knows that's a fascile and lazy argument. To me, the problem with our politics these days is that many groups wish it was still thus, when it was never really, but enough people convincingly held to the story that IT WAS ABOUT "distribution of goods," when it was really about distribution of wealth, of power, and of rights, and really always has been. Only over the last 20 or so years, more and more people have started to figure that out. Some, when they become more aware, have decided to fight for more wealth, more power, and more rights. Others, when become more aware, have become scared that the power, wealth, rights will be taken (even if they never actually had access to it in the first place - but even the illusion that they might is critical to how they see themselves and their place in the wider context of society) and so they fight against the first group. And then you've got a vocal grouping in (primarily) the GOP that want power and wealth in the GOP and will use it to try and keep it, embracing all the hypocrisy imaginable to do so.
I say all this to say that, while I do want to see Civil War, it's so weird to me to make a purportedly political movie that sure sounds like it strives to be A-political. It's like making a Marvel movie but introducing new characters that are essentially Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman. Don't waste a Marvel movie when you really wanted to make a DC movie all along. They're not the same thing!
Really appreciate the way you phrase the "explainer movie" phenomena. It's something that has both driven me batty and filled my digital shelves over the last 20+years. Too much exposition is always horrible, but one line here or there can do SUCH wonders to for a character, for a scene, for the whole G-D film. And the films that do require full youtube tutorials on their backstory, essentially films-for-the-films are so fun for a small subset of the audience, those of us that put the FANATIC in fan, but so many more are just "wha..." or TLDW.
As for Garland's take on politics, and ultimately Republican or Democrat being a label for how we decide to implement a distribution system...maybe you could argue that on the surface, but anyone caring to peak under the hood knows that's a fascile and lazy argument. To me, the problem with our politics these days is that many groups wish it was still thus, when it was never really, but enough people convincingly held to the story that IT WAS ABOUT "distribution of goods," when it was really about distribution of wealth, of power, and of rights, and really always has been. Only over the last 20 or so years, more and more people have started to figure that out. Some, when they become more aware, have decided to fight for more wealth, more power, and more rights. Others, when become more aware, have become scared that the power, wealth, rights will be taken (even if they never actually had access to it in the first place - but even the illusion that they might is critical to how they see themselves and their place in the wider context of society) and so they fight against the first group. And then you've got a vocal grouping in (primarily) the GOP that want power and wealth in the GOP and will use it to try and keep it, embracing all the hypocrisy imaginable to do so.
I say all this to say that, while I do want to see Civil War, it's so weird to me to make a purportedly political movie that sure sounds like it strives to be A-political. It's like making a Marvel movie but introducing new characters that are essentially Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman. Don't waste a Marvel movie when you really wanted to make a DC movie all along. They're not the same thing!