• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Share literary/film analysis

 
 
 
Interesting discussion about post-western [ent]rarr[/ent] post-hero



In the same vein, two of the most iconic comic book stories from the 1980s (Dark Knight, Watchmen) were essentially hero deconstruction in the same vein. Both Alan Moore and Frank Miller asked "Are heroes even something we want or need?" and answered with a pretty brutal "No!"
 


Here's a discussion of the differences between how Killmonger and T'Challa experienced the ancestral plane, and what that tells us about the characters.
 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJGOq3JclTH8J73o2Z4VMaSYZDNG3xeZ7

Sorry for the repost, but I'm getting caught up on the above series, and it's batshit insane in a good way.

Lindsay Ellis uses the Transformers series of films as a vehicle to explain film theory and film criticism. For example, episode 2 uses Michael Bay to explain what Auteur Theory is, and that is[ent]hellip[/ent] insane. She even makes a compelling argument that Michael Bay counts as an auteur even if his movies are vomit-inducing.

The contrast between a fairly dry academic and smart discussion about film criticism and the Transformers movies is absurd. Very, very absurd.
 


Interesting. Wisecrack argues that Incredibles 2 is using the ideas of Baudrillard to criticize how media dumbs us down and makes us passive and more willing to wait for someone else to solve our problems for us.
 

The title is a little misleading. I think it would be more accurate to say "how Black Panther talks about racism."

We're probably a long ways off from being able to say whether or not it does anything about racism, hence, I'm not sure "fight" was accurate. If you've ever talked to a racist alt-right free speech warrior, then you know that watching a movie is probably not going to change their minds.

Trigger Warning
The above video
  • Assumes that racism does in fact exist and
  • Assumes that racism is a bad thing
Posters of a more fragile and delicate nature are advised to think twice about clicking on the above video if you already know that either of the above two points are likely to trigger you.
 
Mikey argues that we don't give Blade Runner 2049 enough credit.



He hints at[ent]mdash[/ent]but doesn't discuss[ent]mdash[/ent]a possible metanarrative about our nostalgia that is exploited by these very late sequels/remakes. Should they be made? Do they matter?

The original wasn't that successful but gained more respect long after its release, and Mikey argues that the same will happen with the sequel.

Also, it fixes some confusion created by different creators having different interpretations of the meanings within the movie and the confusion created by having 7 different versions of the movie released to the public that variously takes different sides from those different creative people who made the movie. For instance, BR 2049 argues that it doesn't actually matter if Deckard was a replicant or not.

Obviously, the above contains spoilers for the movie if you haven't seen it.
 


OK, I confess that the main reason I'm posting this is for the line near the beginning that claims the Matrix movies were "made for 13 year old boys [ent]hellip[/ent] [who] have a PhD in philosophy."

That[ent]hellip[/ent] uhm[ent]hellip[/ent] I'm not sure I can argue with that.
 
[YOUTUBE]jEX52h1TvuA[/YOUTUBE]

This is so insane that it's entertaining its own weird way. This guy argues that Snowpiercer is a sequel to Willie Wonka.

I'm not sure he makes his case, but he does demonstrate that there are an awful lot of similarities between the two movies.
 
[YOUTUBE]y2AS3PYRGUw[/YOUTUBE]

Wreck-It Ralph isn't the bad guy. If you stay to the end credits, you hear a song that explains why Ralph does what he does. The government used eminent domain to take his home away so some private entity could build an apartment complex. In the real world, the American government frequently abuses eminent domain for the profit of private entities such as what happened to Ralph in the movie. This is something that actually happens to real people.
 
[YOUTUBE]mHo78pqvgFs[/YOUTUBE]

Ha!

FilmJoy argues that Firefly was great because it was canceled and Serenity was great because it bombed at the box office.

Because of that, the Firefly universe is the same kind of lovable loser as the characters in the story, and in a way so are the fans. The show itself kinda fit the meta-narrative.

He also argues that if the show had run for its expected 3 seasons, they would not have been able to maintain such consistently high quality like they did. Being constantly under the gun meant everyone poured their hearts into it, and getting cancelled early probably prevented the inevitable dud episode/season from showing up, as often happens with other high quality fantasy/sci-fi shows.
 
[YOUTUBE]_NpWxANyhk8[/YOUTUBE]

An argument for why the Incredibles sequel is awful.

The character progression from the first movie is reversed, and while the original is a clever deconstruction of comic book movies (just as the Fantastic Four after which the family is patterned was a deconstruction of the nuclear family ideal from TV of that time), Incredibles 2 is exactly the thing the first movie made fun of.

So the character progression from the first movie is rendered meaningless so that they can just retread the same story with the same themes.

I still like Incredibles 2, but that may be because I have the ability to turn my brain off (beer helps) and just enjoy the action and the jokes.
 
[YOUTUBE]anndNbRjOeE[/YOUTUBE]

A short video on how Black Panther broke the Marvel formula for the better.

They had relatively little bathos, memorable music, well-developed side characters, an extremely well-developed and sympathetic villain. Just about every element of the Marvel formula that people complain about are fixed in this movie.
 
The origins of cyberpunk and the things influenced by cyberpunk:

[YOUTUBE]v=YK6IjJkjkiI[/YOUTUBE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom