movies

Haven't seen Hamnet, thank you for the recommendation!

I blame tech. The way it scales plays too well to the speculative nature of markets, and by infecting everything we do with itself, it turns these things into speculative commodities.

Practical effects are a craft, - they are only to be made and admired. Digital doubles can be canned, preserved and reproduced at scale with no friction. It's the theme of 21st century: sacrificing everything we love for the sake of convenience, while telling ourselves that only this convenience is love-worthy.

You see, you can't just "be" or "make" things anymore. Whatever you do, you can only do it in a way that makes money slide.

Everything is smooth in the frictionless world, especially disappointment.

Don't try to understand it. Feel it.

EXPLODE!!!

Plenty of terrible shows with equally terrible sound editing and you pick a good show with passable sound editing? Go on I guess...

Exactly, tropes exist in all human art forms. Sometimes they can be relied on too heavily in lieu of something else, but I find I get a lot of satisfaction out of recognising one that has been employed well. Being able to recognise and connect with the choices an artist made doesn't inherently make them bad artistic choices. Quite the opposite, in fact.

In my opinion it's more the former, as is the case with nearly all of his films bar maybe the very early ones. That doesn't mean they are inherently bad films, but I do think they are often massively overrated by people whose only other regular experience with the cinema or film are the even more mass market, big budget, action films. I would like to think Nolan's films play an important role in bridging the gap between Marvel and Disney slop and the larger film world, which (like any other art form) is too often reduced to the very mainstream stuff where all the money is.

I touched on this in the review thread for this film, but something I find pretty interesting about The Odyssey is that so many people have seen it or plan to see it, yet almost no one has seen or wants to see The Return, despite it being released less than two years prior. They are both based on Homer's Odyssey, but one was directed by Christopher Nolan with a budget of $250 million and starred Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland and Robert Pattinson, whilst the other was directed by Uberto Pasolini with a budget of $20 million and starred Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Charlie Plummer and Marwan Kenzari in the corresponding roles. One is a film with ~2 hours worth of non-stop violence, fast-paced action and deafening noise so it can explain the traumatic effect of the Trojan War on Odysseus, whilst the other is a slow and quiet film that never shows the war or any of the subsequent adventures/horrors - Fiennes conveys all of that through his acting alone, and since he doesn't speak much it's mostly conveyed via body language and much more subtle directorial techniques.

In my opinion, The Return is a significantly better film but most people will never be interested in watching it or even be aware that it exists. All the praise when discussing modern adaptations of Homer's Odyssey will default to the mainstream Nolan adaptation that was designed for mass market appeal and that everyone has seen. There is a sort of critical mass with the reception of art where at a certain point it no longer needs to be great to be remembered as great. It just needs to be good enough to a large enough number of people who don't have the knowledge or experience to critique it more effectively, and at that point the hype surrounding it takes over and elevates it to mythical levels of fame.

And it feels like a large percentage of it flows from shitty online sources.

Specifically those CinemaSins videos, which I think are intended as humour and not serious criticism (though I don't really watch them so maybe I'm wrong) but which viewers definitely seem to interpret as the latter and then regurgitate across the internet.

Yeh because everyone sees themselves as a 'brand' and with that comes internet points and possibly sponsorship. Its not passion driving what they do, its commercialization pushing them to be something special amongst a sea of mediocrity....So gotta to scream or complain louder.

Its not unfair to have personal pet peeves esp about tropes, or to air them, but building a cult around it is a bit extreme.

Most of the time, people don't even know what a plot hole is though. A lot of times, it just means that the movie didn't explain a unimportant detail. I saw it when Rouge One came out and people were excited to "finally have the plot hole about how the vent shaft could have been included in the design of the Death Star".

Do you go around saying certain movies are bad because the characters are all unlikeable but can't explain how or why?

Because that's the kind of person they're talking about.

TBF marketing is not just direct ads. The constant articles or media arguments are still marketing. I might have wanted to see it before but all the discussions online about it put me off. the more something is pushed the less I like it.

All the discussions of iMax etc, I even got shown a music video made by the stars. I watched it to be polite but TBH i found it a bit cringe and i now have the feeling of go away already. I used to love cinema and movies. But marketing and hype just kills any passion i have now.