Lurker > LinkMarioSamus

Espeon posted...

In Videodrome, first off, James Woods being a network exec trying to find new, more explicit shows to draw in viewersalready youre starting with a less rational premise. But then his transformation is weirdly supernatural, and while I can accept the concept of Videodrome creating a brain tumor, the body feels completely forced and unnecessary. Even if its a hallucination due to the brain tumor, the movie treats James Woods weird chest wound as a real thing that he uses to hide a gun. And then the movie turns into a weird plot about a shadowy cabal facing off against a light cabal and its just utter nonsense. Its too focused on visuals and theming to create the films framework of a solid plot first.

I'm curious if you specifically have a problem with an executive trying to draw in viewers with explicit content, since that doesn't sound at all irrational. At least by the standards of the time anyway. However I do know that one of the main gripes people have with that particular movie is the off-putting premise, which is also fairly standard with Cronenberg.

I've also only seen two of his movies, both of which I was impressed with, but they're The Fly and A History of Violence which are both adaptations.

Haven't seen any of the movies that dropped so far. What I know about The Lost Boys:

-Producer Richard Donner would have directed it if he wasn't busy with Lethal Weapon (in which a marquee of a movie theater can be seen which reads "Lost Boys" at one point), hence why Joel Schumacher directed it instead.

-The director is a big fan of Batman, hence why Batman comics are discussed in one scene. Ironically when he directed his own Batman movies they were widely mocked, but he was also a hired gun for the studio's campy vision and he swore before he passed away that the Nolan movies resembled more of what he wanted to do with the character. I wound up checking out his Batman movies and A Time to Kill after he passed away and while I didn't like any of them, I was largely impressed with his direction and felt the scripts were what sunk all three. Also I had no problems with his Batman movies being campy, personally. Did Schumacher ever return to the horror genre after Flatliners?

-Siskel & Ebert both gave the movie marginal thumbs down because they thought it was too ambitious and overstuffed. Having seen the CinemaSins and the Dead Meat kill count, I think I get where they're coming from.

More on-topic, I gather that relative to most decades the '80s were dominated by lower-budgeted franchise slashers regarding the horror genre? Then again you could similarly argue the late '90s were dominated by Scream copycats and the late '00s by "torture porn" and remakes (often produced by Michael Bay to boot) I guess.

I also wonder how Deep Rising would have done in the '90s horror ranking, although I suppose it wasn't important enough to include. Was The Relic included on that list? Don't remember tbh.

Ah yes, my favorite The Towering Inferno star.

Not the most on-topic but did we ever do a ranking that included Indiana Jones movies?

rockus posted...

Prince of Darkness this low? smh

Creepshow outlasting this is wild.

At least the longer Tetsuo lasts, the stronger I become

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM91uJVwkf0

In fairness Creepshow was much better received I thought.

Most of what I know about Friday the 13th is through the Netflix series "The Movies That Made Us", and James A. Janisse's kill counts for the movies where he admitted the fifth was his favorite of the first five even though he knows that's not a popular opinion.

Huh just realized no The Fog, guess there was a limit on how much Carpenter was going to be done.

Trump was in a completely different place in 2016 to be fair.

I don't really understand what Biden has done any differently from Hillary Clinton campaign-wise, yet somehow he's nowhere near as controversial. Don't get it.

Then again one of the anti-anti-progressive YouTubers I follow noted that Brie's own fans grilled her over trying to get in on the NFT bandwagon while the people who typically hate on her didn't pay any mind. Way to get your priorities straight.

PeaceFrog posted...

That has nothing to do with the actions of the Israeli government, lms.

Yeah that was my frame of reference admittedly.

Yeah I'm amazed how people get fired up so much more at Brie Larson than at celebrities who have actually done or said way worse/dumber things.

Keep in mind that Roman Polanski elicited sympathy from much of Hollywood for decades partly because he was born into a Jewish family and grew up through the Holocaust. This whole deal where seemingly any criticism of Israel gets filed off as anti-Semitism made me think of that.

Meanwhile Mel Gibson still gets work because of course.

Yes! Also I have indeed seen Happy Gilmore.

Well I was also asking why they weren't nominated in their applicable category since it seemed like the Supporting Actor category was specifically going after older Hollywood legends (Sly Stallone winning and Franco Nero also being nominated, forget who else). But I can understand why you'd get that impression.

It's not even like Douglas or Murray are Razzie regulars, since he hadn't been nominated since 1993 (Worst Actor jointly for Basic Instinct & Shining Through, the latter being the Worst Picture winner) and Murray never had been. Not to mention the Razzies have a history of shaming actresses for appearing in bad movies while letting their male co-stars off the hook.

First thing that comes to mind about Biden is me being thankful for not hearing about every stupid little thing the POTUS does anymore...then realizing I probably hear less about Biden than even Obama. Might not be a bad thing tbh.

Is it just me or are all the Supporting Actor nominees perceived to be Hollywood legends slumming it? Was half-wondering why Michael Douglas and Bill Murray were slapped with Razzie nominations for Ant-Man while Michelle Pfeiffer and Kathryn Newton got off scot-free even though their performances were probably criticized just as much if not more.

This shows you just how much being an incumbent POTUS means to voters...which in turns means Trump might very well lose the election even harder.

I still think that's more likely than not, considering last election he wasn't the guy under criminal investigation for trying to subvert election results.

So to not bring up alt-right idiots again, I also realized only the day before yesterday that Chris Stuckmann's video on Madame Web (the one titled "I have to talk about this") decrying studio interference on blockbuster movies was likely influenced by last year's writers' strike. We can meme on Matt Sazama all day for his writing credits, but we already know that Marvel Studios was hiring inexperienced writers simply because they would be more likely to bow to executive mandates. Hard not to imagine something similar going on here. Don't remember if I brought this up but:

-One of the Oscar-nominated screenwriters for Top Gun: Maverick, Ehren Kruger, was previously best known for the likes of Scream 3 and Transformers: Dark of the Moon.

-Taika Waititi is an Oscar-winning screenwriter for Jojo Rabbit, despite how much people hated Thor: Love & Thunder.

-Rian Johnson is a two-time Oscar nominee for Knives Out and Glass Onion, despite the contentiousness of The Last Jedi.

-Chris Terrio is an Oscar winner for his Argo script, then went on to have writing credits on Batman v. Superman, Justice League, and Rise of Skywalker.

-Akiva Goldsman, credited screenwriter on the likes of Batman & Robin, Lost in Space, and The Dark Tower is an Oscar winner for his script for A Beautiful Mind.

-Robert Towne, Oscar winner for writing Chinatown, also wrote the script for Mission: Impossible II and was an uncredited script doctor on Armageddon.

-Christina Hodson's first two scripts were for the critically-panned Shut In and Unforgettable, but her next two were for the much better-received Bumblebee and Birds of Prey.

-David S. Goyer was smarting off the critical panning of Blade: Trinity when he had a co-writing credit on Batman Begins, then he parlayed that into similar credits on the rest of the trilogy...and his two most recent big-screen writing credits are Batman v. Superman and Terminator: Dark Fate.

Yeah probably doesn't help I already remember it being pointed out on TV Tropes.

After watching the movie I can't get it out of my head how similar the ending fanfare sounds to the music track that plays on finishing a mission in Star Fox 64. Have to imagine it was intentional in the latter's case.

WhiteLens posted...

Since LMS is reading this topic, I have to ask, do you watch original content on YouTube? Like channels that aren't mostly about commentating on nerd culture, current political news, or drama farming.

Biggest example of course, is MrBeast.

I watch mostly movie review and Let's Play channels. Although even the latter less and less, especially since The Runaway Guys disbanded (and while I don't think what Chuggaaconroy did deserves to tarnish him completely, he definitely needs to sort out his issues).

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

LMS has been increasingly realizing how deep into the alt right that Drinker and MauLer are for the past two years since people have been telling him constantly that they're deep into the alt right.

Leonhart is right and LMS will not change and then the next time this comes up he'll go "I know it seems like they're alt right but" and then make a five paragraph post about nothing you said.

Honestly I dont have the best grasp of the alt right. And I do genuinely share a lot of their opinions, so it takes a while before I realise how they get there and feel disgusted.

Yeah I also realized that most of the board is divorced from the context of a lot of what I post. I did try to give that context but it's also not something most of the board is invested in to begin with. Chris Stuckmann is one of the movie YouTubers I've followed for almost a decade so I've been more angry at people getting mad at him over his "non-review" of Madame Web.

Also yeah reviewers like those are my go-to examples when complaining about the state of online media discourse. So I apologize if I shouldn't even bring them up.

LightningStrikes posted...

Oh but I will say: LMS is way worse now because hes basically platforming extremists and grifters in a place where there is absolutely no desire to give those people a platform. Back in the day he was just a bit weird but harmless. I dont think the current behaviour is harmless.

If we're talking about the likes of the Drinker and MauLer, tbh I'm sorry. I think I'm increasingly realizing how deep into the alt right they are, and while I don't watch them I do watch others react to them so you could say not much different. I meant more to be complaining about the general online discourse but if that counts as platforming them I honestly did not mean that.

I also realized the old David Cronenberg thriller this movie's premise reminds me of had Martin Sheen as the bad guy. It's not like Sheen has ever been in a Spider-Man movie or anything! Especially as a character who appears in Madame Web too...yes I know!

Honestly I don't mean to make anyone who likes any of the JP sequels feel bad. I apologize if that's the case. I will never be mad at anyone for liking something. I guess that makes this topic hypocritical but then again I asked worse impact.

You serious?

I guess MCU has been more clearly influential on the modern day? Guess I think more about Hollywood trends than most.

But like, all the JP sequels suck. So they paved the way for more crappy Hollywood blockbusters that emphasize spectacle over substance. At least 40% of the MCU movies are better than that. Heck, even Captain Marvel is better than any Jurassic Park sequel. For that matter, BLACK WIDOW is better than any Jurassic Park sequel.

I looked back at this thread and apparently I brought up the one particularly naive statement from The Critical Drinker twice? I just keep playing him saying "Sony would prefer a good Madame Web movie" in my head and it makes less and less sense after remembering everything I have heard about the industry...and Drinker has flat-out admitted many times in the past that just because a movie makes bank doesn't mean it's good! I guess he's not taking into account the way studios focus group everything but man. Then again my idea of "bad" movies that make bank is still Michael Bay Transformers whereas his is Avatar, Disney Star Wars, and Captain Marvel so I guess I'm behind the times.

Dude started campaigning long in advance for heaven's sake!

Prominent Let's Player Chuggaaconroy. The worst he has done is merely say things that made a handful of people uncomfortable and he's not even 35. The worst he did in public was asking a woman how their feet look in shoes he keeps sending.

Abrams's movies in particular feel like they take after Indiana Jones at least somewhat given their focus on MacGuffins. Again, given Abrams previously directed Super 8 and Raiders of the Lost Ark's screenwriter had a writing credit on The Force Awakens, I can't help but think there's no coincidence - and I know at least one review of TFA at the time did cite Kasdan's previous work on Indy as influencing the movie. Not to mention producer Kathleen Kennedy's involvement on every prior movie in that franchise to boot. Though maybe I'm just seeing Indiana Jones everywhere because he's my favorite fictional character and I think about him a lot?

There's also the whole deal about people who feel like the sequel trilogy might as well be MCU movies. I have never agreed with that given how none of the things both have in common were invented by the MCU...but given how much influence the MCU itself takes from '80s sci-fi and action movies like Lethal Weapon and RoboCop, I can't help but wonder if the sequel trilogy had similar influences to at least some extent.

I did not see Bombshell.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

What does this mean?

It just kind of feels like the trilogy owes at least as much to other sci-fi and action movies of the '80s and '90s as it does to the previous six movies if not more. Doesn't help that Abrams directed Super 8 (a bigtime homage to Spielberg's past work) and that the screenwriter of Raiders of the Lost Ark has a co-writing credit on The Force Awakens (when his only previous brush with Star Wars was a screenplay credit on Empire Strikes Back).

I genuinely think the sequel trilogy amounts to more of how '80s or '90s Hollywood would have followed up the original trilogy. And by Hollywood I mean not George Lucas.

I was not serious tbf.

I also personally don't get the whole idea that the Star Wars sequel trilogy is misandrist, and the only reason it makes sense is if people were already biased against Rey being the focus instead of the original trilogy heroes. Otherwise by that logic 99.99999% of all movies ever made are very misogynistic.

Yeah I'm not entirely serious, it's just that in a way Cruise and Willis were responsible for unleashing Abrams and Johnson on the world. Although I genuinely think both are talented and Johnson in particular is PROBABLY more suited for the franchise than Abrams.

Makes sense. Abrams would have never gotten into directing movies if Cruise wasn't sufficiently impressed with his work on Alias, and Johnson's only wide release before TLJ starred Willis.

At this point the very fact of the matter that Trump first gained ground in the Republican Party through vocal opposition to Bush-era foreign policy means Bush might as well be a Democrat.

That reminds me of when one of the anti-anti-progressive YouTubers I follow posted a clip of their response to a MauLer podcast called "The Assassination of Chris Stuckmann by the Coward Chris Stuckmann" (which was a reaction to Stuckmann's video on Madame Web which he did not consider to be a proper review but more a commentary on how the movie allegedly represents the worst of the studio system) where I saw The Critical Drinker say "Sony probably wants a good Madame Web movie". While this may be true in the broadest sense possible, how naive would you have to be to realize after all the horror stories that have come out about the entertainment industry that executives typically care more about selling crap than about making quality art? Especially considering this particular studio's track record with Spider-Man...oh wait, I guess Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are too far in the past for people to remember.

Since both movies in question are reasonably relevant to Madame Web, I'll say I broadly had similar problems with both Venom and Captain Marvel regarding how those movies seemed to substitute potential substance either movie could have had for what moviegoing audiences would find bankable regarding the Venom character and the MCU respectively. That's also why I thought the idea Disney had to inflate the latter movie's box office was laughable right from the get go, and even discounting its sequel genuinely bombing hard (apparently it's doing well on streaming though?) I've realized even more holes in that theory as time passes (e.g. the fact Dark Phoenix bombed so hard that Disney reported a financial underperformance for that fiscal quarter in spite of Endgame, so evidently they weren't concerned about covering losses there. Not to mention Disney was in the process of finalizing a $60 billion+ acquisition of another entire movie studio when Captain Marvel came out - inflating one movie's box office wouldn't be so much uncharacteristically evil for Disney so much as it would be uncharacteristically petty).

Speaking of which, The Marvels bombing because Disney couldn't promote it properly (due to the actor's strike) is another example of how stupid moviegoing audiences are since I can fully believe the kinds of people who would normally watch Marvel movies weren't even aware it had come out and only see them because of their event status. And on a similar note, movies like Gods of Egypt (incidentally same writers as Madame Web) and the live-action Ghost in the Shell getting overshadowed by whitewashing controversies limiting the amount of coverage the press was willing to give movies like those also makes it clear how important it is to get the word out. I also probably brought up earlier how I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there was market research showing that female moviegoers had a higher preference for seeing female leads than male moviegoers for their gender. Doesn't help I know at least one instance where a creative was allegedly told to confrontationally accuse people of sexism for not seeing their movie (Elizabeth Banks regarding her failed Charlie's Angels revival), so I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the same was true for cases like Paul Feig and Ghostbusters, Tim Miller and Terminator: Dark Fate (doesn't help he disowned it afterwards), James Mangold and the new Indiana Jones movie, etc.

On a more positive note, the highest-grossing comic book movie last year domestically had a woman and a black guy in the lead. And the highest-grossing comic book movie the year before domestically had a black woman in the lead. Go woke, go broke!

Still think Trump has more to lose compared to last time than Biden. Biden is merely another four years older. Trump is also four years older, is no longer the incumbent, and is way more controversial than he was even back then. And Biden is still way less controversial than Hillary Clinton was in 2016, even if her controversies were dumb.

Previously I was thinking Trump's floor in the national election was 55 million votes. Now I'm thinking his ceiling is 60 million votes.