Last Movie Watched

[Damien]

Recent trailer for creepy Luc’s Dracula looks better. I mean absolutely fuck the whole “I’ve crossed oceans of time to find you” bullshit, but so it goes.

The conceit of THIS version of Dracula is that his wife is also immortal, or is it one of those reincarnation 'you are her come again' kind of things where he gets weirdly obsessed with a totally unrelated chick that just looks like his wife? I can't even tell. I'm a sucker for a 'historical' Dracula, so I'll fucking watch it. Like an asshole.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

Ok but, what is the comment? MacGuffins are...? MacGuffins mean...?

What separates it from The Case in Ronin? Or The Rabbit's Foot in MI:3? The Government Secrets in North by Northwest? Or are those also commentary? Other than being vaguely defined, is it any different from the Maltese Falcon? Just an object of desire, no? Bog standard MacGuffin as far as I can tell.

I'm just not seeing a comment there and I don't think leaving it vague counts as subversion since a MacGuffin's interchangeability is part of the definition.

Admittedly, I haven't seen Ronin. The Pulp Fiction briefcase is different from the Rabbit's Foot because I don't like JJ Abrams and refuse to credit him unless absolutely necessary. It's different than the government secrets because Hitchcock's movies were intentionally lean. He knew MacGuffins were a plot device in service of his ultimate goal: building suspense.

The briefcase is tongue-in-cheek, while the other objects are straightforwardly there to progress the plot. If it wasn't commentary, why bother opening it on screen? Why go through the trouble of giving it an otherworldly glow? Why not fill it with money or drugs? Keeping it closed or filling it with drugs or money would've served the same purpose. Instead, fans are discussing what's in the briefcase 31 years later. Is it Marsellus Wallace's soul? We're proving the point by asking the question. Nobody is having these conversations about the government secrets.

This is tough for me, because I’m biased as I am *definitely* a Hoffman/Lewis style actor myself

Wait, are you comparing yourself to two of the best actors of the last 50 years?

 

[AceofKnaves]

Wait, are you comparing yourself to two of the best actors of the last 50 years?

Well . . . you’d have to come see one of my shows to find out.

 

[Damien]

Nobody is having these conversations about the government secrets.

Nobody is having these conversations about Unobtanium, either. Everyone just said 'that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard' and moved on to 'look at how pretty this movie is.'

 

[JakeEkiss]

The briefcase is tongue-in-cheek, while the other objects are straightforwardly there to progress the plot. If it wasn't commentary, why bother opening it on screen? Why go through the trouble of giving it an otherworldly glow? Why not fill it with money or drugs? Keeping it closed or filling it with drugs or money would've served the same purpose. Instead, fans are discussing what's in the briefcase 31 years later. Is it Marsellus Wallace's soul? We're proving the point by asking the question. Nobody is having these conversations about the government secrets.

I mean, real answer? He just didn't want to figure it out and the lighting was good for the scene it's noticeable in. The Marcellus's soul thing is something the net just made up because terminally online people cannot tolerate ambiguity of any kind in film. It has no bearing on anything on screen, souls aren't even mentioned in the movie. It's not a supernatural setting.

Commentary requires a comment. There isn't one here. The closest you get is interviews where Tarantino says he leaves things blank because whatever answer you come up with to fill that gap is as exciting as anything he can dream up. That's a valid answer, but it's also just the standard answer when most directors leave something up to your interpretation. He didn't come up with it.

Like, I just don't think this one has anything to say making it a comment. That's not a criticism of it. MacGuffins are a trope, but tropes are not inherently bad. This is a good MacGuffin. Kind of one of the best ones, really, because it's in the Hitchcock style of being super lean. I just don't think it's adding anything to that concept.

 

[Damien]

We're basically arguing the difference between HAVING a McGuffin in your story, and NAMING the McGuffin in your story 'McGuffin.' Is that kind of where this is at?

 

[JakeEkiss]

We're basically arguing the difference between HAVING a McGuffin in your story, and NAMING the McGuffin in your story 'McGuffin.' Is that kind of where this is at?

That's how I'm looking at it. The Rabbit's Foot is never defined beyond its name. The Government docs are never defined (are they fleet locations, undercover agent names, secret weapon plans? who fucking knows), we have no indication at all what the case in Ronin is except the CIA, NRA, and other folks want it. The only thing that makes the Pulp Fiction one different from those is a soft yellow glow.

To me that isn't enough to be anything more than another example. Maybe a stylish example. Certainly one film nerds love to theorize over, but I don't think it makes it commentary on MacGuffins. If it is commentary, I don't know what the comment is.

 

[JakeEkiss]

Oh absolutely it was! I think that personal component is what makes the heart of that movie. When the script was finished though, they were still together so I wonder if it was based on a trial separation or something, then they were done by the release I think.

For Cameron it feels like a guy who knew his relationship had been over for a while trying to convince himself it could come back eventually. Missing the fire that used to be there.

Nice of him to just come out and say it for us.

 

[JakeEkiss]

Man, Channing Tatum could have had the Sam Worthington role in Avatar. I don't know if I feel sad he didn't get it or happy.

 

[Chooch555]

We watched Play Date last night, my wife really had to talk me into it because Kevin James is aggressively not for me.

It wasn’t thee best movie, but holy shit it turns out that Alan Ritchson is incredibly fucking funny. He’s got a real ease to his comedy, but also explosive and very weird. Worth the watch for him and for Isla Fisher in a hilarious cameo.

Watched it tonight. I was super disappointed for the first half. I thought it was trite and poorly acted - only Alan was keeping it together. Then like an idiot it dawned on me that this was a kid's movie. The rest was enjoyable then.

 

[Schizm]

Nope. I'm aware of them, but I've never tried them. For one, they're fairly expensive. But the bigger reason is maybe silly to people that don't understand but; I don't know if I want to know what I'm missing.
You can't wear those corrective glasses 24 hours a day. Which means at some point you've gotta take them off and go back to your disability. And if what you see is amazing, and you see all these beautiful colors and all this vibrancy that you're missing out on, you have to look at it knowing you have to go right back. You can get this perfect little moment, but you can't live in that moment. Intellectually, I understand that the world is more beautiful and vibrant than I have ever been able to see it. But do I want the actual living memory of that in my head all day, every day, while I'm trying to live my life? Maybe I'm coming off as dramatic, but that sounds horrible.

I'm quoting this comment from the GI Joe thread because it's relevant to this discussion, but what you just described is exactly what some people get from the Avatar films. And why they get depressed after watching them.

One thing for sure coming out of this is that Glen Powell is a movie star. He should get lots of ongoing work as a leading man, but that worked against him here. He's a movie star whether he's dressed as a bum or a priest. Dirt is not believable on him.

But it's sexy dirt.

Spoiler: Running Man finale spoilers

Did they just swap up the ending at the last minute? I saw the film and it loses coherence at the end. What's real? Everything is a question and therefore nothing is interesting. Then to cut away from that finale to see him with his family and then cut to another season of The Running Man? HUH? Colman Domingo says Season 7 but I don't know what season Glen was and he acts like it's a premiere but that makes no sense. Not that it makes sense for a finale and that any production like this would let *those people* inside their sacred walls. And then Glen casually walks up? WTF? I get they wanted to use his "Action!" to propel into the credits, but this completely confused me and my friend.

That said - this movie had the best cackle I've heard in ages. That woman gave her performance everything.

 

[Damien]

I'm quoting this comment from the GI Joe thread because it's relevant to this discussion, but what you just described is exactly what some people get from the Avatar films. And why they get depressed after watching them.

I guess I understand, but also have almost no sympathy for that. I'm missing the actual real world around me. They're missing a fantasy world that literally only exists on a screen.

 

[Ru1977]

I guess I understand, but also have almost no sympathy for that. I'm missing the actual real world around me. They're missing a fantasy world that literally only exists on a screen.

I felt the same way about the frequent customers when I worked at a porn video store.

 

[Red Ogre]

I found this a few years ago and saved it because it seemed kind of insightful. I'm not enough of a film snob (respectfully) to really get it, though.

 

[joshsquash729]

One of the things I hate most is when creators bow too much to fan demands. A little fan service here and there is fine- encouraged, even, especially if it doesn't effect the overall story or message, but relenting too much compromises the integrity of the thing (assuming it was even all that strong to begin with). Too many companies nowadays just panic when reception starts to dip a little bit, or they'll change a story beat if fans guess it ahead of time to maintain surprise, instead of holding strong and having faith in the story they're telling. So much of fan response is reactionary- they feel what they feel in the moment and may get upset if it doesn't align with their expectations, but the solution isn't to then adjust to that, it should be to show them why the decision you made is the right one. A true fan of something wants what's best for the story and characters, even if they've convinced themselves otherwise, and a fan guessing a twist ahead of time isn't necessarily bad writing, it could mean that the show is connecting in the intended way. To say "no, no, you were right" and bow to meet their demands gives the fanbase a false sense of entitlement that, honestly, is one of the biggest issues with "fandoms" nowadays. There's a weird parasocial thing that develops, and playing into it, intentionally or not, only damages things more, I feel, and makes it harder for future audiences to accept when something doesn't go the way they were expecting.

The example I keep going back to is Rise of Skywalker. My apologies to anyone who likes it- I don't mean to yuck your yum, but it's a movie that, to me, not only clearly goes back on what was established before, but takes great pains to show you that it is, to try and regain your trust. Obviously it had other issues going on- namely Carrie's death- but still. There's something to be said for a franchise that sticks to its guns and tells the story it wants to tell, even if it isn't super well-received by all. Not everything can or will resonate with everyone, and that's okay.

Anyway. Sorry to ramble again, ya'll. I got enough DayQuil in me to down a horse.