criterionforum.org

I smelled a rat fairly early on because Pauline Kael adored the Godfather films. So if the quotes from her are accurate, they were taken way out of the original context.

I've hardly spared a thought for this movie in decades, but watching that trailer––with its weird strategy of using lies to warn you how bad the movie is going to be (and yet somehow trying to FOMO you into seeing the movie anyways)––my main takeaway was how much everything I heard and saw reminded me of watching Twixt.

Don’t get my hopes up.

How disappointing... not that the quotes were faked, but that we've collectively been reduced to such one-dimensionally humuorless turds in our response to art and its marketing (ugh). This was the brashest and funniest trailer for any film in years, but I guess it's better to have "real" statements from corporate bootlickers / quote-vending-machines like Peter Travers, et al. than to do something creative and subversive, worthy of Herzog or any number of underground films or novelists, where this sort of mocking approach is, if not common, at least acknowledged and allowed.

And yes, if this flick is half as good as Twixt, it will be great.

For all the Twixt fans on this board, I’m surprised no one else has commented on the new cut. In many ways, an already near-perfect film was made even better with some reshuffling and a tonally-distinct and wildly different ending

I keep putting it off because I can’t log it separately on Letterboxd

Maladroit Aggregator wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2024 9:51 pm How disappointing... not that the quotes were faked, but that we've collectively been reduced to such one-dimensionally humuorless turds in our response to art and its marketing (ugh). This was the brashest and funniest trailer for any film in years, but I guess it's better to have "real" statements from corporate bootlickers / quote-vending-machines like Peter Travers, et al. than to do something creative and subversive, worthy of Herzog or any number of underground films or novelists, where this sort of mocking approach is, if not common, at least acknowledged and allowed.

And yes, if this flick is half as good as Twixt, it will be great.

There's a significant difference between presenting false quotes in a context where most audiences can be expected to understand that's what you are presenting to them, and what this trailer is doing––which is building a serious-minded case for the idea that it will be good for you to have always been on board with the supposed genius of this movie in the decades to come, when its reputation is reclaimed. And I'd wager the underground filmmakers and novelists who have pulled off the former stunt created the appropriate context more successfully than this trailer does. If my square opinion is perhaps unworthy of Herzog, I'd honestly love to hear that in the guy's own words. Perhaps you could invent some for him.

I'll be honest, this trailer has made me want to see the film out of historical interest if nothing else! Plus the title is cool.

hearthesilence wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2024 2:46 am The first two Godfather films got their share of negative reviews from respected and established critics, as did Apocalypse Now and certainly anything Coppola did after 1980.

The idea that the Godfather films were widely reviled in their time and only later gained critical recognition is... ridiculous. I doubt that argument would be credible for Apocalypse Now, even if that film did get a greater amount of criticism.

It is however objectively hilarious that the marketing guy wants us to think this was the case and ginned up fake pull quotes to do so. Although I would guess this is more of a case of yet another person who doesn't know what ChatGPT does (or is)--that it isn't a magic fact-generating machine but a language simulator that is designed to produce bullshit on cue.

feihong wrote: Sat Aug 24, 2024 6:08 am

Maladroit Aggregator wrote: Fri Aug 23, 2024 9:51 pm How disappointing... not that the quotes were faked, but that we've collectively been reduced to such one-dimensionally humuorless turds in our response to art and its marketing (ugh). This was the brashest and funniest trailer for any film in years, but I guess it's better to have "real" statements from corporate bootlickers / quote-vending-machines like Peter Travers, et al. than to do something creative and subversive, worthy of Herzog or any number of underground films or novelists, where this sort of mocking approach is, if not common, at least acknowledged and allowed.

And yes, if this flick is half as good as Twixt, it will be great.

There's a significant difference between presenting false quotes in a context where most audiences can be expected to understand that's what you are presenting to them, and what this trailer is doing––which is building a serious-minded case for the idea that it will be good for you to have always been on board with the supposed genius of this movie in the decades to come, when its reputation is reclaimed. And I'd wager the underground filmmakers and novelists who have pulled off the former stunt created the appropriate context more successfully than this trailer does. If my square opinion is perhaps unworthy of Herzog, I'd honestly love to hear that in the guy's own words. Perhaps you could invent some for him.

Well, all marketing beyond simply stating "This Thing Is Available" is inherently bullshit, both harmful and not to be taken seriously. Especially the marketing of culture: art, literature, film, etc. Criticism itself of these things is just as suspect. Though the best of both selling and talking about the things being sold should be aware enough of what they're doing to allow for some ambiguity, in my opinion. I'm not convinced at this point by seeing laurel graphics plastered on a film poster, or reading yet another check-cashing quote from blurb-whores like Jonathan Lethem on re-issues of my old favorite SF books. Particularly when these are always positive encouragements, like-minded huscksterism.

Herzog is famous for documentaries with rehearsed completely fabricated moments, and he's not the only one. I'm not saying he advertises his films that way. but he plays with the "truth". Legal issues aside (YYAAWWNN) I'm sorry if you can't appreciate the humour in this sort of thing, intentional or otherwise. As for me, I'm fascinated by hoaxes, conspiracies, even outright liars. Yeah, context is important, but too many satirists are too obviously condescending, play their hand too heavily. Give me a Kubrick film where it functions both as drama and takedown simultaneously.

I just don't understand who would be offended by these fake quotes. How many people seeing this trailer in a theater even know who Sarris, Kael, et al are or were? Single digit percentage, at best. How many have read them? Almost zero. For me then, the trailer comes across as a funny in-joke, a bit of a stab at the pearl clutching modern critics (all of whom are miserable) seemingly aghast at the fakery. What would you prefer, a post-mortem James Agee praising The Godfather? Dwight Macdonald speaking on the merits of Dracula from his own grave? Would that be obvious enough?

General audience being ignorant is a non-subject. If only a few people knows you're making things up, does that make them true ?
The issue however isn't such a trailer. It's not the first choosing such a strategy and, well, why not. It's fun and a bit self-mocking, it's fine as such. The issue is that Coppola has plenty of dividing movies from which actual true negative reviews exist, but the PR still invented some others, and then at least 1 of these movies never was negatively received (The Godfather), so it's not just inventing quotes but rewriting history regarding a supposed "misunderstood genius" around it.
Then, attaching quotes to Kael, Sarris and al... : if nobody knows these names, why choosing them specifically ? Rex Reed is among the sole critics to have negatihely reviewed The Godfather, why bothering to create a fake quote and attaching it to Pauline Kael when this is readily available ? Same goes for Apocalypse Now, same goes for Dracula ? Maybe because actually, these names are saying something to the supposed audience of this trailer, more than Vincent Canby and Frank Rich.
But hey, most of the critics getting falsely attached to fake quotes are dead anyway, so they're not going to complain, eh.

What he said. Attributing fake quotes to real people is completely unethical. Why is this even a discussion?

zedz wrote: Sun Aug 25, 2024 9:14 pmAttributing fake quotes to real people is completely unethical.

Ethics in Hollywood? That's a real knee slapper. Perhaps you're confusing the appearance of ethics with the real thing?

That argument comes dangerously close to "lol nothing matters." (Maybe nothing does matter, but you can take that to the metaphysics thread.)

Isn't "maladroit aggegator" what "ChatGPT via Lionsgate" or "Lionsgate via ChatGPT" done did? Have we unearthed a conspiracy?

Any word on this getting any prints? I’m not holding my breath, but it would be nice

Walter Kurtz wrote: Sun Aug 25, 2024 11:27 pm Isn't "maladroit aggegator" what "ChatGPT via Lionsgate" or "Lionsgate via ChatGPT" done did? Have we unearthed a conspiracy?

I suspect a former banned poster is back again.

This is what, like the third of Variety's attack pieces on this film? To spare the unwilling a click, the headline reads "Francis Ford Coppola Didn’t Want ‘Megalopolis’ to Be ‘Some Woke Hollywood Production’ and Says the Cast Includes ‘People Who Were Canceled,’" but the relevant quote from Coppola (itself extracted from a Rolling Stone interview) is as follows:

“What I didn’t want to happen is that we’re deemed some woke Hollywood production that’s simply lecturing viewers,” Coppola said. “The cast features people who were canceled at one point or another. There were people who are archconservatives and others who are extremely politically progressive. But we were all working on one film together. That was interesting, I thought.”

So, to summarize: Coppola gives an interview to a magazine owned by Penske Media Corporation, which another magazine owned by Penske Media Corporation uses as a light smear quote as part of a discourse in which a third magazine owned by Penske Media Corporation directly questions the second magazine's editorial integrity. I'm so confused as to why Penske would let this happen unless it was somehow a deliberate strategy to funnel and maximize clicks on each website

Never Cursed wrote:a deliberate strategy to funnel and maximize clicks on each website

That’s literally it. That’s the state of journalism now.

I’ll spoiler this but I suspect you won’t be able to not hear about this wild element of the theatrical presentation of the film before seeing it

Spoiler

The NYFF screening revealed that the film has an audience interaction portion in which a live person is on stage during a scene of the film, and this will be replicated in at least some if not all theatrical screenings

domino harvey wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 9:47 am I’ll spoiler this but I suspect you won’t be able to not hear about this wild element of the theatrical presentation of the film before seeing it

Spoiler

The NYFF screening revealed that the film has an audience interaction portion in which a live person is on stage during a scene of the film, and this will be replicated in at least some if not all theatrical screenings

Emergo!

Apparently this will only occur in screenings labeled as “the Immersive IMAX Experience”

Reminds me of way back when

Spoiler

Universal Horrors would start with one of the film’s actors stepping out of character to address the audience directly, telling them they might find the upcoming movie a bit frightening.

domino harvey wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 10:40 am Apparently this will only occur in screenings labeled as “the Immersive IMAX Experience”

I wouldn't be surprised if this is different than the "Megalopolis: the Ultimate Experience" in IMAX I just got a ticket for, but since that's the only non-standard screening available in my city, we will see.