9/ 29/2017: How Standalone Films Will Actually Save The DCEU
By Luis Prada
Batman Forever sucks. But there was one moment in it that induced kid-me so happy. During a dialogue with Dick Grayson, Bruce Wayne casually mentions Metropolis. With a single word, the standalone Batman movie lets us know that it takes place in a larger world, one which includes Superman, without a distracting cameo. It looks like DC and Warner Bros. are going back to that tactic. In news that should surprise no one, they are having some reservations about the DC Extended Universe. This various kinds of thing occurs when only one of the four movies in the series doesn’t require fanboys to talk themselves into thinking it was good.
The new strategy is to eliminate unnecessary crossovers between characters and focus more on standalone stories that each nod at “the worlds largest” universe. Or, as DC President and Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns put it: “The movie’s not about another movie.” And with that, those of us who’ve written angry walls of text lambasting DC and Warner Brother’s insistence that their cinematic universe try to accomplish everything Marvel’s did in a fraction of the time can give our weary keyboards a remainder. Just over a month away from the release of Justice League , they eventually get why Marvel’s interconnected universe works so well.
Marvel’s success isn’t lightning in a bottle. It’s the work of careful planning by people like Kevin Feige, the president of Marvel Studios and the guy who, in essence, acts as the manager of the entire MCU. His overarching vision for the cinematic universe dedicates every movie and indicate a sense of organic cohesion. In his system, each filmmaker be able to put their own spin on a property without too many instances of jamming in references because they need an Avengers movie ten minutes ago.
The news pairs well with Warner Bros. wanting to set DC properties in the hands of “master filmmakers and make sure they all coordinate with each other.” That’s exactly the strategy that Marvel used to establish their cosmo before they earned the right over a dozen movies subsequently to have the Hulk costar in Thor: Ragnarok . A few well-placed references in a standalone movie run a long way.
9/ 28/2017: 17.2 Million People Watched Young Sheldon . What ? i > b>
By Lydia Bugg
Look to your left. Now look to your right. Statistically speaking, one of the person or persons you only looked at watched the premiere of Young Sheldon last nighttime. 17. 2 million onlookers tuned in to the series’ premiere. It was the most difficult slapstick premiere in four years. Roughly all of the pop culture thinkpieces this morning were just about Young Sheldon , but I have to wonder: Who is the audience for this prove? Did anyone who doesn’t write about pop culture for operate actually tune in?
I know how important it is to have a dialogue with people, so I tried to reach out to a Young Sheldon spectator. But I couldn’t find a single human person who watched the reveal. Here is a real conversation one of our writers had with a Big Bang Theory devotee about Young Sheldon 😛 TAGEND
Do any of us want to see the child? If so, why? Can this demonstrate astound us in any way if we already know so much about how it purposes? I personally would love to see a spin aiming wherein Young Sheldon slaughters someone. It would add a dark undercurrent to all the episodes of Big Bang Theory , as we watch Old Sheldon and mutely contemplate the fact that he’s a murderer who has escaped justice. If I knew that was coming, I would entirely watch Young Sheldon .
As it is, I have not considered the display, but 17.2 million other people apparently did. Doesn’t that number just seem a little bit amazing? 17.2 million people? Are we sure it wasn’t 17.2 million puppies whose owners left the TV on while they were out? Was it maybe 17.2 million televisions that were hooked up at CB’Ss Chuck Lorre watch-farm? Was it 17.2 million children who were being forced to watch the present as a cruel and unusual penalty?
Where did these 17.2 million people come from? What are their stories? Can someone please contact This American Life and asking questions to do a Young Sheldon segment? I require more information on these people, and why they want to see “their childrens”. Is “their childrens” truly a thing that needs to be seen? Apparently if you ask 17.2 million people, they will say yes.
9/ 27/2017: This Reaction To The Harry Knowles Scandal Is Everything Wrong With Nerd Culture
By Mark Hill
Harry Knowles — the movie critic who described Blade II as a movie that “starts with long licks with a nose lump on the exuberance button slowly” and Guillermo del Toro as a director who “takes the audiences’ clit in his mouth and simply licks it like crazy” — has, shockingly, been accused of sexual harassment and assault by five ladies. The accusations, as detailed by IndieWire’s Kate Erbland and Dana Harris, include that he repeatedly grabbed a woman’s ass and thighs without her permission, that he responded to requests for screening tickets by promising them in exchange for a kiss or nude photos, that he grabbed an Alamo Drafthouse employee and informed her he wanted to see her naked, and that he told a woman who was trying to network that “you can have my vienna sausage anytime.”
Naturally, some people have heroically leapt to Knowles’ defense. One woman was accused of lying and fabricating indication, and told that she didn’t deserve to be a writer in the film community. That, of course, is a reference to Jean-Luc Godard’s famous idea that a woman can’t genuinely realize the art of cinema until she’s groped by a famous fan, then dutifully discounts it because they’re told that’s simply part of the creep’s wacky personality. And film writer Scott Weinberg saw this defense of Knowles by Louis Black( not to be confused with famed comedian Lewis Black ), the co-founder of The Austin Chronicle and SXSW. Black wrote 😛 TAGEND
“My Harry Knowles Story: I watched as Harry through his leadership brought film geeks together, totally changed and expanded their impact on film and their standing in the industry, while stimulating stars and devoting power to geeks who for generations before had received their greatest renown in limited circulation fanzines. No one wrote for AICN for the money, the[ sic] wrote for the power and prestige and the sheer exultation for communication with an audience of like minded cinema fanatics who had never are working together before. Film nerds though their status changed, are still movie nerds. The moment the possibilities of presented itself they turned on Harry with a ruthless vengeance.”
I could hire an elite team of academics to devise a more tone-deaf answer, and they wouldn’t be allowed to top that if they dedicated their entire lives to the chore. For readers who are wondering why so much fuss is being made about a man whose profound thoughts on Heroes were dedicated to obsessively analyzing a high-schooler’s hymen and virginity, Knowles launched the film-focused Ain’t It Cool News in 1996. The website became huge thanks mainly to the fact that it was one of the first websites where anyone could discuss movies( and, of course, the nipple-pinching “rampage of orgasms” that might be contained within one ). That’s hard for anyone who’s had internet access since birth to acknowledge, but to a certain generation of nerds, getting involved in a large, like-minded community was revolutionary. It was proof that they weren’t alone in the world.
Despite a writing style that could best be described as “hypersexual ape taught English in a fruitless is making an effort to remedy its attention deficit disorder, ” Knowles went on to launch an influential movie festival, become prominent in the Austin film scene, and generally stimulate himself kind of a big deal. He scored plenty of mainstream media attention, to the point where he appeared on Roger Ebert’s depict. Some of the women accusing him viewed him as a gatekeeper who could help them break into movie writing — or ruin them if they dared to speak up. So Black’s not wrong where reference is says that Knowles brought film nerds together and changed the landscape for devotees. He’s simply misplaced his priorities so badly that scientists may be required to fabricate a telescope more powerful than any which exists today in order to situate them.
Black’s response is the perfect summation of the attitude that creates shitty people who doubt women when they accuse icons of harassment. There’s this persistent suggestion that nerd culture is a fragile thing that must be sheltered from reality at all costs, lest an legion of bullies straight out of 1980 s stereotypes wash it away in a flood of swirlies. The “power and prestige” of geeks is more important than any silly little objection some woman might have about being “assaulted.” Look how he phrased his commentary. It’s “My Harry Knowles Story, ” as if his narrative is just as relevant as those of women who didn’t like getting grabbed by a humankind whose very first belief on actress Hayden Panettiere was “born August 21, 1989 , now 17( legal in Texas, which is important, because her character is in Odessa, Texas ). “
People who are like Black — and you simply have to invest a few minutes online to find a lot of them — believe it will be 1996 eternally. That they’re part of those “generations before who had determined their greatest renown in limited circulation fanzines.” That it’s somehow still shameful to, gasp , like geeky movies, and that any person who is acknowledges to doing so is the real hero. But 1996 was a long time ago. Black is right about Knowles helping nerds get power. But once you have power, you’re not an leper anymore, and you can’t maintain acting like one , no matter how much you think you identify with the movies about them. That’s how people like Knowles get away with mistreating their power, and why when the truth ultimately comes out, people rush to their defense. The accusations suggest that Knowles’ response to finally get power after being the underdog has been to become a sexual bully. Meanwhile, defenders like Black try to pretend he is still a victim, even while he victimizes others. It’s a pattern we’re going to see until either we collectively stop believing that people who have geeky interests are somehow still wacky, misunderstood castaways in this day and age, or the Universe grinds to a halting. You know, whichever comes first.
9/ 26/2017: James Cameron Has A Billion-Dollar Problem
James Cameron is eventually making a sequel to Avatar , the 2009 landmark cinema which introduced us to a new epoch in special effects filmmaking and blue animal-people sexuality. And by “a sequel, ” I mean that he’s stimulating four sequels, one after another, with the first projected to be released in 2020. And together, they will cost a billion dollars. This is the worst thing that they are able happen to James Cameron.
It’s not the worst thing because Avatar , for all of its accomplishments, is just kind of a bland bonanza of CGI and tired themes, and the next four movies in the series will probably be more of the same. That absence of a reliance on anything resembling a fresh tale is very likely to help it in overseas marketplaces, which gobble up stuff like this and The Mummy and Pirates Of The Caribbean and Transformers — franchises which shun traditional components like “adequate dialogue” and “consistent narratives” for two-hour strings of chases and explosions.
No, it’s the worst thing because it armies Cameron to made the impossible revolutionary standard that he’s set up for himself. Anything less than the next big tendency in movies is a failing. The Terminator and Aliens are seminal ‘8 0s horror/ action classics. Terminator 2 was part of a generation of films that included Jurassic Park , which ushered in a mix of CGI and practical effects that filmmakers still struggle to top to this day . i> At the time of its liberate, Titanic was the highest-grossing movie ever, and likewise appeared damn impressive. Avatar pioneered new motion capture techniques and stereoscopic filmmaking. Hell, the only Cameron film in recent memory that didn’t serve as an depose of the previous epoch of movies was True Lies , and even that thing cost about $100 million.
Where do “theres going” when you’ve defined your job through being the person who is moves us into the future? Sure, Cameron is a bit of an insufferable douche, but I’m not assured that he deserves the title of “That guy who sucks now because he didn’t blow our brains that one fucking time.” Which he will inevitably be if each Avatar sequel doesn’t out-gross the last one, and doesn’t present us with some new technique in hitting film that’s made altogether out of moon dust and dreams or whatever. But he’s got nowhere left to go. With James Cameron, it’s either Pandora or retirement.
9/ 25/2017: Supersize Me 2: What The Chicken ? i > b>
By Ian Fortey
Following the huge success of his massively debunked sorta-documentary Super Size Me , Morgan Spurlock is back with Super Size Me 2: Holy Chicken ! i >, a movie more important today than at any time in history, if for no other reason than that “supersizing” hasn’t been an option at McDonald’s in 13 years. Way to stay relevant, Old Man Spurlock.
This new film, which YouTube Red snatched up for $3.5 million, carries the abominable subtitle of “Holy Chicken! ” because that’s a thing people say somewhere? “Holy cow! ” is a thing “theyre saying”, so maybe “Holy Chicken! ” grew from that? Anything from “What the Cluck? ” to “Motherclucker! ” to “Cock-a-Doodle-Don’t” would have clearly been superior names for this movie, unless it turns out it’s about the zany misadventures of a rooster who was somehow elected pope. Sadly, it’s not, as the doc is concentrated in committing “insights into the meat industry of today — an industry which utilizes trigger words like ‘all natural’ and ‘free-range’ to sell people on the misconception of health and self-improvement.” So we can see how “free range” chickens aren’t actually free, and not a single chicken is allowed to be pope.
As our earlier article displays, almost nothing in Spurlock’s original film stimulated appreciation, and was widely shredded from numerous sources for being, to set not too fine a degree on it, a pack of shady, shitty lies. But surely this new cinema will be delivered an honest portraying of fast food, right? According to Deadline, the sequel follows Spurlock as he opens a eatery to “attempt the same deception of consumers that so many eateries seek, all to demystify an industry that prefers to keep consumers at a remove.” So a pack of shady, shitty lies, but this time on purpose!
If the first movie was Spurlock on the receiving terminate of the fast food industry’s nefarious and liver-destroying victuals, and this movie learns him turning the tables as a purveyor of wicked and ill-conceived gratifies, expressed his belief that we’ll be seeing people feeing what they think is free-range , non-GMO, organic chicken, but what is actually the severed foot of a hobo on bath salts. But in a way that teaches us a valuable lesson about consumer culture and nutrition, and not how to lie to people for money.
Are in favour of our YouTube channel, and check out What Sean Spicer’s Emmys Appearance Says About How We Consume The News, and watch other videos you won’t insure on the site ! i > b>
Also follow our new Pictofacts Facebook page. Hurry ! i > b>