The point about Civil War is a good one - while I can't say that the film worked as a whole, it was at least an *attempt* to do something interesting and novel within the Hollywood context, and I'm glad to have seen that rewarded.
I don't know where else it can go. I feel like franchise fandoms (d)evolved into a kind of political fandom: woke fandom. Now I feel Hollywood might discover different (a)political aesthetics.
I won’t. I am a hipster snob cultural elitest, I always hated mainstream Hollywood movies. I don’t like most popular music either like contemporary urban R & B, metal, hip hop, and recent Nashville country.
The points about Furiosa are completely divorced from everything about the movie itself or its immediate predecessor. Seems like you were just trying to make a cheap political point based in tribal brain, which is extremely disappointing because the premise of this is really interesting for those of us who care about this subject
Not fair to say he has tribal brain. I think the essay was mostly good but using “Furiosa”, which is an auteur-driven project, is just ridiculous. Like you may think Fury Road is mediocre but a lot of critics genuinely think it’s the best action movie ever. A much better example would be the new Ghostbusters movies
Fair,, but don't forget I'm not explaining why people didn't like it, but why people didn't see it. Yes this is an auteur-driven project, but that doesn't change people's minds about woke fatigue, which, I'm sorry, but this largely is. This is the Mad Max series and we have not one but two films where he is not the central character? The first time, sure, it's a different take. But now...
Here is a quote from the Mad Max subreddit:
"I'll be honest - I was quite disappointed with this film's reception, but it was mainly because of people that never saw anything deeper in it than 'bad CG' or 'woke hollywood' and all the rest of that nonsense repeated over and over like a broken record."
He agrees with you and Glenn but he acknowledges that many fans were complaining about woke Hollywood. I wasn't explaining whether the film was actually good or not, but why the fandom didn't turn out like it might have. And, auteur driven or not, critically acclaimed or not, every single fandom is feeling and expressing woke fatigue.
Now I should clarify that George Miller wasn't cynically playing by the handbook I described in my piece. But fatigue does not make people discerning. They have the attitude of "see one, see them all." Think about Westerns. By the '80s, Westerns were extinct (ironically in the cowboy Reagan era). Doesn't stop Silverado from being great or even Heaven's Gate from being an unfairly maligned classic. But Western fatigue explains why they stopped coming.
Agree strongly with the larger point here. Media markets as Balkanized as they are, I don’t think there’s much of a future in chasing the dragon of appealing to everyone. But there *are* still uncaptured youth sensibilities that might be articulated — there always will be, I think, and not just for the youth — but these sensibilities are embedded in that balkanized space, and so represent a comparatively modest potential box office. Which is fine.
In good faith, though, I’m something like bewildered at your individual movie takes here. Furiosa as generic on anything but a plot level is an impossible read to me. Everything about how it appears onscreen feels like at least an attempt at something new. And it’s true that Civil War isn’t in lockstep with mainstream sentiment, but if there are other, more interesting ideas motivating it, I couldn’t locate them. To my eye, it passes over everything in its setting but violence and (photo)journalism, and even there all it has to say is “It’s bad” and “It’s complicated.”
Regarding Furious, see my reply to Matt above please. As for Civil War, it is not a literal movie. Our current film culture seems to want essays disguised as films. So many publications put out pieces with titles like "This is How Barbie is the Perfect Feminist Film." Civil War does not do that. It is clearly anti-fascist, but it is not preaching anti-fascism. It is not preaching anything.
What I'm saying is, it is possible you didn't locate the interesting ideas the first time. This is one of those films that requires multiple viewings, like Beau is Afraid does.
Re: Dylan, he was a big rock and roller in his high school years before he got into topical folk, and recorded an obscure rock n roll single during the Freewheelin' sessions. The writing was on the wall that he wouldn't be an acoustic folkie forever!
Sure enough, Hit Man isn’t showing in my town. I’m bummed.
I wouldn't have expected a wide release, but a long limited word of mouth, then a wide release, I don't know
The point about Civil War is a good one - while I can't say that the film worked as a whole, it was at least an *attempt* to do something interesting and novel within the Hollywood context, and I'm glad to have seen that rewarded.
I don't know where else it can go. I feel like franchise fandoms (d)evolved into a kind of political fandom: woke fandom. Now I feel Hollywood might discover different (a)political aesthetics.
The blockbuster can't exit soon enough. I haven't been to a move theater for years. The Criterion Channel suffices for me.
You might be back sooner than you think.
I won’t. I am a hipster snob cultural elitest, I always hated mainstream Hollywood movies. I don’t like most popular music either like contemporary urban R & B, metal, hip hop, and recent Nashville country.
The points about Furiosa are completely divorced from everything about the movie itself or its immediate predecessor. Seems like you were just trying to make a cheap political point based in tribal brain, which is extremely disappointing because the premise of this is really interesting for those of us who care about this subject
Did you read the rest or did tribal brain prevent that?
Not fair to say he has tribal brain. I think the essay was mostly good but using “Furiosa”, which is an auteur-driven project, is just ridiculous. Like you may think Fury Road is mediocre but a lot of critics genuinely think it’s the best action movie ever. A much better example would be the new Ghostbusters movies
Fair,, but don't forget I'm not explaining why people didn't like it, but why people didn't see it. Yes this is an auteur-driven project, but that doesn't change people's minds about woke fatigue, which, I'm sorry, but this largely is. This is the Mad Max series and we have not one but two films where he is not the central character? The first time, sure, it's a different take. But now...
Here is a quote from the Mad Max subreddit:
"I'll be honest - I was quite disappointed with this film's reception, but it was mainly because of people that never saw anything deeper in it than 'bad CG' or 'woke hollywood' and all the rest of that nonsense repeated over and over like a broken record."
link: https://www.reddit.com/r/MadMax/comments/1d73o9f/now_that_the_dust_has_settled_i_love_how_this/
He agrees with you and Glenn but he acknowledges that many fans were complaining about woke Hollywood. I wasn't explaining whether the film was actually good or not, but why the fandom didn't turn out like it might have. And, auteur driven or not, critically acclaimed or not, every single fandom is feeling and expressing woke fatigue.
Now I should clarify that George Miller wasn't cynically playing by the handbook I described in my piece. But fatigue does not make people discerning. They have the attitude of "see one, see them all." Think about Westerns. By the '80s, Westerns were extinct (ironically in the cowboy Reagan era). Doesn't stop Silverado from being great or even Heaven's Gate from being an unfairly maligned classic. But Western fatigue explains why they stopped coming.
Agree strongly with the larger point here. Media markets as Balkanized as they are, I don’t think there’s much of a future in chasing the dragon of appealing to everyone. But there *are* still uncaptured youth sensibilities that might be articulated — there always will be, I think, and not just for the youth — but these sensibilities are embedded in that balkanized space, and so represent a comparatively modest potential box office. Which is fine.
In good faith, though, I’m something like bewildered at your individual movie takes here. Furiosa as generic on anything but a plot level is an impossible read to me. Everything about how it appears onscreen feels like at least an attempt at something new. And it’s true that Civil War isn’t in lockstep with mainstream sentiment, but if there are other, more interesting ideas motivating it, I couldn’t locate them. To my eye, it passes over everything in its setting but violence and (photo)journalism, and even there all it has to say is “It’s bad” and “It’s complicated.”
Regarding Furious, see my reply to Matt above please. As for Civil War, it is not a literal movie. Our current film culture seems to want essays disguised as films. So many publications put out pieces with titles like "This is How Barbie is the Perfect Feminist Film." Civil War does not do that. It is clearly anti-fascist, but it is not preaching anti-fascism. It is not preaching anything.
What I'm saying is, it is possible you didn't locate the interesting ideas the first time. This is one of those films that requires multiple viewings, like Beau is Afraid does.
Haven’t read it yet but Peter Sellers. Love that shot.
Re: Dylan, he was a big rock and roller in his high school years before he got into topical folk, and recorded an obscure rock n roll single during the Freewheelin' sessions. The writing was on the wall that he wouldn't be an acoustic folkie forever!
I stand corrected. The rest of my footnote stands except the last sentence then.
Hundreds of Beavers is an incredible movie. Must watch.
Finally saw it. Love it.