Discussion in 'Community' started by Coruscant, Jul 14, 2010.
Pretty sure filmmakers these days try to appeal to more than one core audience... just sayin'
She looks PRETTY CONSENTING to me?
I am not sure most filmmakers even really care about core audiences and demographics (outside of just wanting people to see it I mean). Usually that's the marketing department's domain.
Unless a film is art for art's sake, a filmmaker would still care about an audience though as they would, like you said, want an audience. Figuring out how to get them interested is a part of it. Marketing might try to get the word out or something, but the filmmakers still have to find a way to hold the interest of somebody actually sitting in a theater: no amount of marketing can do that.
Making the film appealing is one thing, making the film appealing to particular groups (one or more) is another. Like I said I think most directors want their film to be seen, but unless there is a built in audience based on genre, the specifics of who sees it usually isn't their focus.
Saw it tonight. I haven't been this disappointed in a hyped film since Revenge of the Sith. I wanted to love it. I really did. But my disbelief was not suspended. Forget the feminist critique; if there were more women in this film, I would have become a misogynist.
Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration. But still!
Random things. I might not bother to write a detailed, flowing criticism because it's not my job and I don't feel like it.
1. DREAMS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. "Dream within a dream within a dream..."? Huh?
2. FREUD WAS A QUACK. Things neatly "symbolizing" aspects of one's "subconscious"? Give me a break. I'm surprised there wasn't a massive phallic symbol in that damned safe.
3. Why didn't the inner ear "kick" thing "wake" (as they were still in a dreamworld) them up when the van flipped over?
4. Why were the armies of the subconscious limited by physics and human biology? Why weren't they infinitely strong, infinitely fast, immortal, and infinite in number? They don't ever explain why. I guess it'd make for a short film and ignoring this creates cool fight scenes, so whatever.
5. The "ambiguous" ending was so unambiguous that it makes me think they just cut the "reveal" far into post-production to give us this contrived manipulative bull****. "But it leaves what happened up to the viewer!" No, it doesn't. Never mind that the whole "leaving it up to the viewer" thing is lazy storytelling. Anyway, Leonardo (don't remember the character's name) just wanted to get back to his kids. He accepted that he'd never see his real wife again, only a twisted "shadow" or whatever. But he still wanted to see his kids. He had mentioned that he and his wife were "like gods" in the dreamworld they lived in for what they perceived to be 50 years, so it makes perfect sense that he'd create the only thing he desired. The film might as well have been punching you in the face and screaming "HE'S STILL GOING TO BE DREAMING AT THE END!!!!" and giving you a kick to the groin for good measure.
Relatively minor nitpicks, but they really didn't help me like the film:
1. Silencers don't make guns go "pew pew." Defibrillators aren't magic resurrection machines. Yes, I realize that both of these happened within warped-reality dreamworlds, but I get the feeling that the filmmakers were using (what I had thought to be) largely-discredited cliches.
2. Where did this technology come from? "The military"? Okay, is it top secret? Are we in the future? Why does seemingly everyone (corporate execs, professors, flight attendants who like taking bribes, a bunch of random addicts in Mombasa) know about it but only a few seem to use it?
3. Speaking of the addicts in Mombasa, what the hell was with that? I understand that they were supposed to illustrate what happened/was happening with Leo and Mrs. Foreign Accent, but where the hell did they come from? If people can get addicted to the technology like that, why hasn't it radically altered society?
I should clarify: if I had gone in not expecting anything, I probably would have come out thinking it was decent. I don't think my expectations were too high, and I've gone into films with high expectations before and been largely satisfied.
I think I went to the bathroom during this part.
Are you saying I misinterpreted that scene? It wasn't that long, so I'll give you that maybe I missed something.
Or did you actually go to the bathroom?
I should know. I work for a company that does test screenings for most of the big studios.
And yes, big name directors like Michael Bay (when we screened Transformers 2), Ridley Scott (Kingdom of Heaven) and Tony Scott (The Taking of Pelham 123) will listen to what the audience has to say about their movie.
Whether these directors make changes to their films in response is a whole other story.
I actually went to the bathroom, so I wasn't really concentrating on the scene. And afterwards, nobody else could concentrate either.
BUT SERIOUSLY FOLKS I don't remember that scene at all so it must have happened when I was in the bathroom. Snorting coke.
Probably test subjects off the street. Why deal with the crappy reality of living in Africa when these folks can live in a fantasy world for a long period of time thanks to some nice drugs by The Chemist (aka the guy who helped Michelle Rodriguez free Jake Sully from jail in Avatar)
The implication is that the place was like an opium den. They're dream addicts.
i'm still underimpressed that no one drools in their sleep in this film.
Thats not what I am saying at all.
I know. I was just being pompous by posting that.
The flight attendant wasn't really just a flight attendant. If you accept that it was all a dream and complain about them making it so obvious, then why are you complaining about the internal logic not transforming society?
If it wasn't a dream, then it makes sense that those in the know don't want to spread knowledge of their skill. The Chemist needed test subjects, and what better place than random poor people in Africa? It isn't as if there were large amounts of people doing it.
I didn't have any expectations for the movie and I thought it was really good.
At least the movie addressed the whole "Having the urge to pee while you sleep makes you dream of rain or other forms of pouring water" issue
It wasn't "all a dream," only the end was as he clearly didn't escape limbo or whatever the **** it's supposed to be. I think the supposed hints that he was dreaming all along such as "come back to reality" was nothing more than lame wordplay on the part of the filmmakers. Why would his subconscious be telling him to wake up? No one says anything about that in the film. Then again, "all a dream" would explain that... as well as the poorly-developed characters, the inconsistencies, etc., and wouldn't that be convenient? It would also explain why Bob Newhart woke up next to his wife from the previous series.
I finally got around to seeing it. I really enjoyed it, though I think it tried to mess with our heads without being particularly clever. Complicated, but not so deep... I think. I'd need to see it again to properly appreciate it.
The cast and visuals were outstanding. As a big fan of Brick, I got a kick out of seeing Joseph Gordon-Levitt reunited with Lukas Haas.
Nolan has said how the original story was influenced by the Bond movies, so I think think things like the silencer noise sounding like a cat sneezing, and the skiing+gunplay were nods to that. In fact, I thought Arthur was dressed very much in the style of classic Sean Connery in the hotel action scene; I did wonder whether Eames' horribly garish shirts were a take on Moore's Bond and his 70's style.
Pretty much the same as Strange Days, I think. The military developed it, the tech got out, it was made illegal; nice people know about it but don't use it. The drug parallel is fairly obvious.
Not to nitpick, but having access to a silencer and having fired it with two or three different guns recently, some do. The subsonic .22 and PS90 both sounded pretty much like they did in the film. Little woosh sound and a small pop when they hit the target.
That said, I pretty much agree with everything else you said. Luckily I went in without having the burden of high expectations, which made it an enjoyable 2 1/2 hours.
If this were all just a weird episode of Newhart I guess it might make more sense. Did I see Tom Poston in the warehouse scene?
I admit I don't know a whole lot about firearms, and I was just going by others' complaints about the portrayal of silencers in films (and [link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51AEuOts1YU]YouTube vids[/link] of real guns being fired with silencers). (Yes, I realize that's another type of handgun than the two you mentioned.)
Yeah I'll admit I thought the same thing until my uncle got one. Most people -- like the guys in the video you linked to -- just slap it on and use standard supersonic ammo and fire it without any extra suppression (like water) in the silencer. That's why it has the muted crack sound. With subsonic ammo you hear the click of the hammer with almost a little spitting sound.
That said I was so distracted by all the other realism issues that I don't even remember the silencers.
Edit: argh, stupid iPad autocomplete...
DREAMS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. "Dream within a dream within a dream..."? Huh?--Darth Guy
Actually it's entirely possible to dream that you are dreaming...for example, a lucid dream about yourself, dreaming another dream.
It would also explain why Bob Newhart woke up next to his wife from the previous series.--Darth Guy
I expected someone to bring that up. That's not what's literally happening. You're not actually experiencing two (or four) dreams simultaneously. It's just one.