User Profile

Forum Activity by DaMU

James MacKinnon
DaMUSome numbers, for fun: there have been 122 superhero films released since 1978. Of those films, five (4%) were female-led. Of those films, one (>1%) was directed by a woman.

Those five films were Supergirl, Elektra, Catwoman, Barb Wire, and Tank Girl.

That one film was Punisher: War Zone, directed by Lexi Alexander.

So Wonder Woman has increased the number of female-led superhero films by 20% and doubled the number of female-directed superhero films.

All of the movies you listed were god awful... Even Punisher War Zone... And that hurts me to say as, if you can't tell by my avatar pic, I am a huge Punisher fan...

Personally I don't care who's directing the movie (man, woman, any ethnicity etc...) but I want the movie to be good. That's all I really care about...

I'm sure I'm gonna go see Wonder Woman, and I'm optimistic that it's gonna be decent. Who knows, maybe they'll surprise me and it'll actually be *gasp* good!

I want the movie to be good too, and I'd love to be at the point where we don't have to stress about the gender behind the camera (not that either of us are gnawing through our fingernails, but you know).

But one thing that I think does get lost in the mix is the possibilities of diversity and how that can give us new kinds of stories. I, along with nearly everybody else, responded strongly to Get Out, and I think a big part of that wasn't just that it was an exceedingly well-done thriller-comedy, but that it told a different kind of story. While its conspiratorial angle would be at home in the '70s with The Wicker Man and obvious touchstone The Stepford Wives, it puts us inside a protagonist who's experiencing different kinds of struggles in his life, struggles that a lot of us might not have empathetic access to, and one that Hollywood studios would normally be loathe to take a risk on (not out of overt racism but out of the more incidental bigotry of wanting to make every possible dollar by doing exactly what's been done before - which almost invariably involves straight white men).
May 28, 2017 6:18 PM
All but official that we'll be pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords.

I knew it was coming, obviously.

But there's still grief.
May 28, 2017 7:19 AM
Some numbers, for fun: there have been 122 superhero films released since 1978. Of those films, five (4%) were female-led. Of those films, one (>1%) was directed by a woman.

Those five films were Supergirl, Elektra, Catwoman, Barb Wire, and Tank Girl.

That one film was Punisher: War Zone, directed by Lexi Alexander.

So Wonder Woman has increased the number of female-led superhero films by 20% and doubled the number of female-directed superhero films.
May 27, 2017 12:27 AM
88 Miles Per HourThats a tough situation to be in very sad, but yeah silver lining is they Whedon might be able to swoop in and uhhhhh 'fix' JL.

Yeah, the bright side of this man's daughter dying is that someone might improve his movie.

Fuck's sake.
May 23, 2017 2:06 PM
Evan Solomon
Black PhilipWho died? Zach Snyder? That's not a bad thing.

PS - I looked on IMDB and 19 people were killed at an Ariana Grande concert. That's a just a little more fucking sad than Zach Snyder's woes.


See this guy? At least I'm not this guy.

Admittedly, not a high bar to clear.
May 23, 2017 4:58 AM
Evan SolomonI was under the impression that Justice League would be a two part movie and that only the first half was nearing completion.

Nope. Plans changed after the hostility toward BvS. There's still a second one planned, but this first one is standalone (or as standalone as a contemporary superhero film can be).
May 23, 2017 1:44 AM
Evan SolomonI feel bad for Zack Snyder and he has my condolences, but you could not make this story up. Lot of interesting things here. Will the movie be worse now because a new director stepped in halfway through? Is their humor/irony in DC just giving up and hiring the man who made the Avengers to do the movie? That is insane to me. It's the ultimate "pls help". It could only be more desperate if they asked Disney to produce the movies...

Also, why, WHY, in God's name take this job. He did not like the studio meddling at Disney in the exact same kind of picture. WB's is demonstrably worse at that, AND he's taking over midway through production on what is already a mess of a movie and cinematic universe. I might be willing to call him a sell-out on this based on his past behavior.

Joss Whedon is already contracted for Batgirl, and he's somewhat famous as a script doctor in Hollywood, and Zack asked him to help write the material they planned for reshoots. It seems somewhat natural that he'd jump in to help shepherd the film from post to release.

Additionally: the film is not "halfway through." Principal photography and initial cuts have been completed. They're currently going back for reshoots (as happens with nearly all major films nowadays) and then final cut, so the process itself is likely closer to 80% done (allowing that the back 10% is promotion and release).
May 23, 2017 12:43 AM
Robin McDonald
Johnny Hyperspace
Robin McDonaldHere is the plot hole. Some unknown person stabbed the father with that switchblade
with an overhand downward stroke.

A plot hole is when information is missing from a relevant plot sequence. If a story has a man claim he doesn't know a certain person's phone number, then later we see him calling the person; that's a plot hole. There's a hole in the information bridging "don't know phone number" and "dialing phone number"



I get your point about stupid or incompetant jury logic in real life. This movie offers great examples of flawed logic.

I don't want to be condescending but your definition of a plothole is extremely deficient. To your credit, your example ?of a plot hole is fine . You site a flaw in logic by contradiction. My example is the same as yours. The Juror argues no one would stab someone with a downward stroke with a switchblade. But we have a victim who was stabbed with a downward stroke with a switchblade. The murder itself proves his argument is wrong.

Klugman's argument is that no one with sufficient switchblade experience would kill someone that way. They concluded the boy had enough experience that him stabbing the father that way was unlikely. The argument wasn't that nobody's ever stabbed anybody overhand.
May 22, 2017 1:46 AM
Takoma1
DaMUFew months back I made a girl dinner and she looked through my movies for something to watch and picked 12 Angry Men. Problem is, I like the movie so much that I was watching it with full attention and didn't realize she just wanted a pretext to snuggle and then make out. She patiently watched the whole movie with me. But who do you blame in that situation? I blame Lumet. How are you supposed to make out when Lee J. Cobb's crying about his boy? That is riveting.


This is amazing.

I imagine she was checking off all the boxes in her head: "Drama? Check! Black and white? Check! Only dialogue? Check!"

Please tell me you ended the evening with a handshake and then solemnly handed her a packet of further reading on the themes of the film.


I wish to God now that I'd given her further reading.

Couple weeks later, she wanted to make out during a Darin Morgan episode of The X-Files, and at that point I wondered if she was into sadism, because that was cruel.
May 22, 2017 1:41 AM
Few months back I made a girl dinner and she looked through my movies for something to watch and picked 12 Angry Men. Problem is, I like the movie so much that I was watching it with full attention and didn't realize she just wanted a pretext to snuggle and then make out. She patiently watched the whole movie with me. But who do you blame in that situation? I blame Lumet. How are you supposed to make out when Lee J. Cobb's crying about his boy? That is riveting.
May 22, 2017 1:01 AM
Takoma1
MKS
Takoma1I felt like the science in Lucy was annoying mostly because so much running time was used up trying to explain it and make it sound real, when all I needed as an audience member was "special drug + enhanced brain = telekenetic" and then a bunch of action scenes.

This was how I felt about Split. All I needed was the implications that his personalities were manifesting physically (the diabetic personality) and I would have been on board. Had the therapist scenes only served for the personality hiding as another, it may have worked but it still felt like too much run time spent trying to ground this in "real science" that just hit the brakes on building tension and atmosphere with the girls. They could have diverted that time into building up the other girls and it would have made the film seem more unpredictable and frightening when things go bad.


This part I certainly agree with. I don't mind the therapist being used as a framing device, and as a way to give the character a past. And given that the girls showed initiative it was a bit disappointing that they are literally shoved aside in the final act. The part in the first act where they get into the vent and the one girl makes a run for it was really thrilling and actually made me like their characters quite a bit. They were scared and made mistakes at time, but they didn't fall into the annoying stereotypes of throwaway victims. Then it's like the movie doesn't need them anymore and they are just discarded. I thought their characters deserved better.

I'll also go back to one of my original pet peeves with the general construction of the movie which is the insulting suggestion that people who have survived abuse are somehow inherently stronger than those who haven't. I feel like it romanticizes surviving abuse in a way that I find a little questionable. If more time had been given to the girls and their relationship, I feel like it would have added more tension and also developed the main character. The one girl has already shown her kindness by inviting her to the party despite her being a bit weird, and the father similarly shows care for her when he offers her the ride home. The main character is never given a chance to voice her journey and her coping skills.

Interesting point about romanticizing abuse. I'd be curious to rewatch and see how much of that might be intended to present us with Kevin's perspective and how much might be leaking through into the film itself.
May 21, 2017 4:06 AM
MKS

That headache was because you managed to use 15% of your brain.

My God... it's like I've reached some new stage in human evolution.

[climbs wall]

[falls over]
May 21, 2017 2:00 AM
MKS
DaMU
MKSI didn't mind the supernatural/superhuman aspects. I didn't like that he tried to ground them in Lucy levels of pseudo-science.


I admit it, I sorta love it when movie characters toss out goofy-ass crackpot theories and then wonder why, oh, why won't anyone believe them. It's a hokey trope, but it's one that sometimes hits the spot.

Damon Lindleof destroyed my ability to appreciate in a modern film and Besson pissed on the corpse so I'm certainly bias on this matter. However, if the tone is campy enough or if it's a Twilight Zone-esque classic flick, I'll eat it up.
The problem is that all the aforementioned negative examples have intensely serious tones and it triggers all small amounts of nerd rage.

It's funny you were talking about how Lindelof ruined Prometheus, because my understanding is that Spaihts' original draft was actually not far off the final product, and it was at Scott's insistence that Lindelof added a lot of the BS we see. Is that not accurate?

Either way, I can get the frustration. I remember getting a very slight headache the first time I heard Lucy's premise.
May 21, 2017 1:21 AM
MKSI didn't mind the supernatural/superhuman aspects. I didn't like that he tried to ground them in Lucy levels of pseudo-science.


I admit it, I sorta love it when movie characters toss out goofy-ass crackpot theories and then wonder why, oh, why won't anyone believe them. It's a hokey trope, but it's one that sometimes hits the spot.
May 20, 2017 11:51 PM
By twisting the film into a more fantasy direction, Shyamalan sorta nudges his way out of the need to be rigorous to D.I.D. and avoids the charge of exploiting a mental disorder for some B-movie thrills (because you can't even really call it D.I.D. by the end - wall-crawling regenerators don't fit into the DSM-IV). I'm glad he made that choice.
May 20, 2017 10:34 PM
Robin McDonaldThe most important thing I have to say is the video is nicely produced and you have a good voice for this sort of thing.

I recently did a thread on 12 Angry Men or had a lengthy debate about it.
I have a problem with it in that I think the kid is guilty. The jury rewrites a fictional history of events
to create reasonable doubt. Simple questions should have been brought back to the judge for clarification.
Like could we find out if the female witness is nearsighted or farsighted The assumption is made that she's nearsighted.
If they noticed I had glasses marks on my nose I would have been able to see the murder perfectly clear without glasses.
Credible witness end of story. Was the boy found to have a hole in his pocket? If yes that would have corroborated his
story but if not its unlikely he would have lost it.

Like O.J. with blood in his car and home. he must have been one of the most unlucky accused to have just happened to have bought a knife that night exactly like the one sticking out of his father. If only he had it that would also prove he didn't do it. I also pointed out that in West Side Story the characters jab underhanded with switchblades but at several points in the fight both characters switch to an overhand grip to make a downward killing blow like the one that killed the father. That's as far as I will re-litigate the case but I sensed the plot was to force an inevitable 180 turnaround. I was left unconvinced they did the right thing.

Its not bad writing to contrive an outcome. I have a favorite screenwriting author who calls this "craft" and he likes the film.
One of the things I enjoyed was almost all the actors were memorably in either Star Trek or The Twilight Zone.
I like the writing in "The Twilight Zone" and that's what I felt the writing was sort of television story logic.


The question isn't whether or not the kid seems to be guilty but how much reasonable doubt is present. For example, the assumption actually isn't made that the woman is nearsighted. The only assumption drawn is that her eyesight is in question and potentially unreliable. [And, speaking from a modern context, we actually know that eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable anyway.]

If you want to get technical, the biggest issue with the film is that Henry Fonda's Juror 9 should've been thrown out and a mistrial declared the second he produced an identical knife. Because not only is that him introducing evidence not brought in by the prosecution, it's also proof that the film actually isn't about proper jury function at all - it's really just a trial movie in a different context, with Henry Fonda taking the place of the defense and Cobb and his associates acting as prosecution. Fonda's more or less re-trying the case in that jury room instead of looking more carefully at the arguments of prosecution/defense and the evidence presented. Instead, he's approximating the old man's walk, he's wearing down E.G. Marshall to try and put him in the same headspace as the boy, Joseph Sweeney spontaneously brings up the new evidence of the woman's eyesight.

That's actually made it tougher for me to love the film in the past few years; not because I think the boy was guilty (I think his guilt is indeterminate, and anyway the point is that we have to consider the difference between innocent and "not guilty," which is a more agnostic claim), but because the film plays fast and loose with how a jury operates and what we should value about the process.

Still a great flick... it's just trickier.
May 20, 2017 9:06 PM
How quickly you all forget Peter Fonda's charming turn as Surf Man (?) in Escape from LA.
May 19, 2017 2:37 AM
Little sidebar on Split: a couple weeks after watching it, I was re-reading Morrison's Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth, and something that struck me was how Morrison (by proxy) diagnoses the Joker with what he calls "super sanity."

[wanders off to get comic]

The in-comic dialogue says, "It's quite possible we may be looking at some kind of super-sanity here. A brilliant new modification of human life...the Joker seems to have no control over the sensory information he's receiving from the outside world... He can only cope with that chaotic barrage of input by going with the flow. That's why some days he's a mischievous clown, others a psychopathic killer."

This does the duty of explaining why the Joker can vary from author to author and decade to decade (why a Silver Age Joker is nothing like Morrison's sexually ambiguous fop), but it also sounds a lot like what Betty Buckley's character theorizes about Kevin Wendell Crumb in Split - that his consciousness is a "next stage" in human consciousness as opposed to a degradation. And I have to wonder if Nighty had that in mind when developing his story.

Sidebar to the sidebar: there's an epigram in Arkham at the end regarding Clayface that opens with "Not born... shit into existence." Which is what the Golgothan says upon his arrival Dogma.
May 19, 2017 2:35 AM
AxterixAliens
Alien
Alien 3
Empty space where people can't hear me scream.
AvP
Prometheus
Alien Resurrection

(haven't seen AvP:R, so can't say if it goes just above or below Alien Resurrection).

Below.
The answer is below.
May 18, 2017 4:58 AM
Popsicle PeteClaude Taylor knows some shit.

He and Louise Mensch... I'm not sure what to make of them. They blast out so many scoops that it's hard to get some sort of baseline estimate of their accuracy.
May 18, 2017 3:18 AM