criterionforum.org

I presume you don't consider yourself to be one of them? You're in the 0.01%, I take it?

That's 0.01%, dumbass.

There was one 9 initially. I swear.

Please don't tell me we're going to start defending the intelligence of the general movie-going public who have made Hollywood into the festering cesspool of stupidity that it is with their wasted dollar.

Oh, you're right, everyone's stupid but you because you like good movies. My mistake. You know there's more to life than that, right? You know that a lot of incredibly intelligent people use blockbuster films as escapism, and couldn't care less how objectively good what they're seeing is? And that you should just be happy that there are films out there for you, that you've seen and will continue to be able to see? Why can't people do what they want without being under your judgmental thumb?

Of course they can do whatever they want to do. And I can sit in my corner and continue to be baffled as to why so many people pay for insultingly-stupid crap and call it good. Let's be honest, in a landscape of films like Grown-Ups 2 and Smurfs 2, I could probably make a mint by releasing a movie that was just two hours of waving keys at the camera (in 3D, of course). It's kind of sad.

Okay. You must be a lot of fun at dinner parties.

A film like this is being marketed to a consumer who would otherwise be uninterested, who might see it and think "Oh, that sweet funny guy from Bridesmaids is in this" as that potential audience is larger than those who'd say "Oh, an Australian film about an Aboriginal pop group." Claims of racism are absurd and sad and further evidence of people on the internet willingly complaining about every single last goddamn thing possible

I like the 3D key jingling idea.

CSM126 wrote:Please don't tell me we're going to start defending the intelligence of the general movie-going public who have made Hollywood into the festering cesspool of stupidity that it is with their wasted dollar.

I don't want to turn a random complaint into something more sensible, but I was actually thinking about this lately when hearing about how Snowpiercer was cut to dumb it down "for the midwest." Is the public really to blame for these things, or is it just Hollywood's perception of the public? I've read articles in the past from people living in the midwest complaining about how Hollywood just doesn't "get" them; in films they are always boiled down to two or three small town stereotypes. It would be like assuming everybody who lives in LA was a stripper, a surfer, or a cutthroat business man.

Another problem is that a lot of the public don't have access to better movies. Looking at my local theater schedule It looks like my choices are largely confined to action, action, action, or The Butler. If i want to find another theater, I will have to drive over an hour away. Looking through the 2013 Dynamic Top Ten list, I think MAYBE Side Effects played here, but none of the others were ever screened. I know that this is somewhat based on the fact that movies like that didn't sell well here in the past, but there is still somebody somewhere who is making the decision to not screen "better" films here.

I posted this same link in my post on Kick Ass 2, but the comics world has a similar problem where companies don't make comics for girls because they assume girls won't buy comics because companies don't make comics for girls.

I've been suckered into seeing plenty of lousy independent or foreign films based on stars, directors, and perhaps even a poster or two. So, while I'd like to think of myself a a 0.01%er, I'm not immune to marketing. Really, at some point, learning too much about a film is going to prevent you from actually enjoying the movie. So, you could consider misleading advertising to be a favor. I've also been initially scared away from otherwise great films by lousy or cheap advertising, so thats no good either. Watching a movie is a gamble, either way.

jindianajonz wrote:

CSM126 wrote:Please don't tell me we're going to start defending the intelligence of the general movie-going public who have made Hollywood into the festering cesspool of stupidity that it is with their wasted dollar.

I don't want to turn a random complaint into something more sensible, but I was actually thinking about this lately when hearing about how Snowpiercer was cut to dumb it down "for the midwest." Is the public really to blame for these things, or is it just Hollywood's perception of the public? I've read articles in the past from people living in the midwest complaining about how Hollywood just doesn't "get" them; in films they are always boiled down to two or three small town stereotypes. It would be like assuming everybody who lives in LA was a stripper, a surfer, or a cutthroat business man.

Another problem is that a lot of the public don't have access to better movies. Looking at my local theater schedule It looks like my choices are largely confined to action, action, action, or The Butler. If i want to find another theater, I will have to drive over an hour away. Looking through the 2013 Dynamic Top Ten list, I think MAYBE Side Effects played here, but none of the others were ever screened. I know that this is somewhat based on the fact that movies like that didn't sell well here in the past, but there is still somebody somewhere who is making the decision to not screen "better" films here.

There are three problems as I see it. Yes, there are a lot of simpletons. Also as mfunk mentions lots of "genius" level people, still somehow being able to enjoy the same banal entertainment as the simpletons. Also, Hollywood does not feel it has any responsibility for its content. In other state funded film programs there is some remit to provide quality childrens films, cultural and otherwise artistically signifcant product, whether the public want them or not. Hollywood used to work regardless, as the people running the show had some tangentially artistic purpose in addition to meeting their bottom line, but that no longer appears to be the case.

domino harvey wrote:A film like this is being marketed to a consumer who would otherwise be uninterested, who might see it and think "Oh, that sweet funny guy from Bridesmaids is in this" as that potential audience is larger than those who'd say "Oh, an Australian film about an Aboriginal pop group."

A better cover would have shown both of those things. They're not mutually exclusive. They put all their eggs in one basket, misrepresented the film, and missed the chance to actually represent the film and generate interest from more audiences than just the most mainstream "Bridesmaids" one. It's a misleading strategy that may fool a handful who wouldn't otherwise be interested in seeing an Australian film about an Aboriginal pop group to do just that (and probably be disappointed as a result) but I tend to think it's better to try and find the audience that wants to see the film for what it actually is, not market a niche title as if it's going to be a mainstream hit on the flimsiest grounds, desperately tries to make a leading man out of someone who obviously is not one. I'd seen him in a couple of things before but did not recognize him on this cover.

Since we're still talking about this, I'll add that Chris O'Dowd's entire appearance in the film is calculated to give the film a broader, more formulaic appeal. The film goes out of its way to show you the real members of The Sapphires at the end and to fill in biographical details, but curiously omits any reference to "the manager". One must assume O'Dowd's character is a convenient composite that doesn't actually have a real-life counterpart.

THE SAPPHIRES is really just a trifle steeped in cliches; the seven minute interview with the actual singers included as a bonus feature is far more interesting.

O'Dowd is one of three main characters on The IT Crowd, a fairly popular British comedy series. It's a little weird to think that he might primarily be recognizable from Bridesmaids, where he's only like seventh-billed, and appears on none of that film's promotional materials.

It's the American cover, you're nuts if you think more people would know him over here from the IT Crowd than as Wiig's boyfriend in Bridesmaids, where despite billing he is the most prominent male figure in the film. The Brit cover features him as well, but uses his name in the top-most pull-quote for presumably the reason you suggest, swo:

The UK cover looks more like "My Name Is Earl"

Kino went from this:



to this:




WTF?

That's hilariously amateurish.

Just to test if this thing works I just showed the two to my sisters and both said they would rather buy the new cover. Uggh.

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I can't wait to buy "Nosfen Tu" on blu ray!

Oh no! I just looked up the BD and it appears to be missing the commentary by Lokke Heiss (originally recorded for the laserdisc release!). I've never heard it, but it's heart breaking since Heiss was actually my doctor during my recent stint in graduate school. I knew that it was a match made in heaven when I found out that we both had Faces of Children in our all time top ten list!

Ugly ass cover. Especially when you put it against the MoC one.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/7 ... L1500_.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This.

That wasn't even the worst cover of the November slate.