fantastic_four

By the way...I'm not a huge Scorsese fan. I do love Goodfellas, but the reason I love it has nothing to do with the theme, it's entirely the characters, the acting, the music, and the look into a culture I'm not familiar with. Everything else of his I've forgotten shortly after seeing it, although that scene from Casino where Joe Pesci and his brother got whacked haunted me. But not in a good way, it turned me off to the film. I like him enough to make a point of seeing his films, but Goodfellas is the only one I find rewatchable.

That's a definite social message, but at best it's a minority aspect of the film. It's social impact is also lessened by being based upon fictional events as opposed to being a fictional historical drama like Tom Clancy's movies which also never get nominated since the message in those also take a back seat to the action, but even those are more artistic than any superhero film to date since Clancy writes his fiction based upon real military or political events. This isn't a criticism of the quality of Winter Soldier or a great Clancy movie like Hunt for Red October, either. I love them both as much as I love any great superhero film, I just love them for an entirely different reason than I love films whose primary intent is thematic.

So why would Manhattan keep him imprisoned at all? Him bothering to do it implies Veidt is some sort of active threat to something. Seemed at the end of Watchmen that Manhattan was done with humanity. I can't guess why he'd care about anything Veidt could do.

One of the pinnacles of literary art is widely regarded to be one simple phrase from Shakespeare's Hamlet--to be, or not to be. It's the existential question that faces every one of us every day of our lives. Will I choose to take arms against a sea of troubles today, and by opposing, end them? THAT'S great art--an idea that has universal appeal and maximum potential to impact the life of an open-minded, thoughtful reader or viewer. So while Winter Soldier is in my top 15 list of superhero films, what theme from that film has some measure of universal appeal to improve an individual or society? Scorsese is using a connotation of the word "art" that I'm well familiar with as an English major that isn't in general usage. When you take exception to his, mine, or anyone else's assertion that Marvel movies aren't art, I assume you believe we're saying they lack skill and craft. I'm certainly not saying that as a hardcore fan of superheroes, and Scorsese isn't saying that, either. He explicitly said multiple times in his Times article that there's definitely a ton of skill and craft in the films. He's saying that he doesn't like their artistic intent.

Most films don't have anywhere near the same constraints as serial dramas though. If you're making a Marvel movie, or a Harry Potter movie, or a "Fifty Shades" movie, your characters are set, and your entertainment-based expectations from the audience are set, too. There are ways to create artistic superhero films, but those types of artists aren't drawn to the genre, so we don't see it much. And the great majority of the time it's more likely than not to end up in disaster with the fans hating what you've done, which is the other reason it's not happening. It's also very difficult to fit a universal theme with relevance to society within a science fiction context. The most significant recent example of this that comes to mind is Black Panther. When Erik Killmonger took the throne of Wakanda for the express purpose of reversing the subjugation of Africa by other nations that has gone on for several millennia now it tapped into a a vibrant social idea that resonated with anyone in the audience who can sympathize with that plight. Yet the entire mechanism of it happening at all within the film is based upon vibranium, and that's just pure fantasy, so it's not an idea that translates well to the real world. So while the social theme of Killmonger's intent is compelling, it has limited explicit real-world significance. The social significance it does carry is similar to that carried by the Black Panther comic--it's a heroic myth for anyone who identifies or sympathizes with African culture and society, and that does carry some social significance, albeit an amount limited by the nature of fantasy.

They're NOT art, they're entertainment. This isn't a concept he's creating here, he learned it the same way millions of others did--by studying the history of literature and film. This is the same reason you're not seeing superhero films winning Oscars; Oscar voters vote for films that aspire to be art the VAST majority of the time, with a few notable exceptions. The goal of art is to present social or individual themes and ideas intended to advance humanity. That's not what Marvel movies are trying to do, and if they did try it I wouldn't like them as much. I'm not sure why he even felt the need to write the article. I knew what he was saying the first time he said it, and 98% of the people who didn't get it the first time aren't likely to ever agree with his perspective, anyway.

If they hadn't worked out the specifics of his role and compensation mechanism, then I can't imagine what he thought his role would have been. If his name would have continued to be in the list of producers of the films, fans would have expected him to have creative control.

Yea, but why? Is it the public statements Lucas made around the time Force Awakens came out, or is it something else? If I were Iger at the time of the sale, I'd offer Lucas the chance to be the keeper of the lore, but only under a very specific set of conditions that I'm 99% sure Lucas would never agree to. They seemed amenable to the existing order anyway since they kept Lucas's cohort Kathleen Kennedy in the role.

What makes you say that? For him to be the keeper of the Star Wars lore he'd have to be into it, and he clearly wasn't when he owned his company himself. I don't see why he'd suddenly be inspired to continue the series after selling it to Disney.

No doubt, but that's just Lucas throwing his two cents in. They'd need more work from him than a few ideas, they'd need him to be an actual producer. But like I said, if they tried it I doubt it would work since he doesn't play well with others.

It's not a question of him being allowed--he just hasn't wanted to work on Star Wars stories for over a decade. He said that when he sold it to Disney, that it was finally time to let someone else take it over since he couldn't find it in himself to continue the story. He said that after he finished Revenge of the Sith, too, that he probably wouldn't do Episodes VII and up. I bet Iger would LOVE for Lucas to be the keeper of Star Wars lore for Disney if he wanted to do that, but everything I've seen from him tells me he doesn't. I doubt it would work out anyway given his ego. The reason he directed the prequels is that he just didn't trust anyone else to do it but him. He regretted not directing Empire and Return of the Jedi, and the directors of those films were to varying extents sick of the control he exerted over their decision-making. He's got very specific ideas about how things should work, and if you disagree with him he's notoriously pig-headed. The entire reason there was a 20 year gap in Indiana Jones stories after Last Crusade in 1989 is because Lucas wanted to do that dumb crystal skull story, but Spielberg and Harrison Ford HATED it. Fifteen years later it was clear Lucas just wasn't going to give it up, so they finally relented and did his story. So while I love Lucas, and I liked the prequels myself despite all the problems with them, I don't think he's capable of the kind of light touch on directors that Kevin Feige has had with Marvel. He's quite limited when it comes to collaborating with other creators.

When Laurie Blake (Silk Spectre) opens the suitcase towards the end of the episode, she pulls out and assembles a giant Blue Dingdong. I guess she really misses Manhattan. Jean Smart is a brilliant actress. Oh yea, I caught that. Her having a blue vibrator seemed more bittersweet than funny, but yea, in retrospect it is a bit funny.

He exaggerated, but he's not wrong. There is a bit of similarity between theme park rides and almost any serial drama like superheroes, or Star Trek, or Indiana Jones, or Star Wars. First, they're primarily entertainment, not art, and Scorsese and Coppolla aspire to art. Second, he's right in that directors and actors are HUGELY limited in what they can do. Rian Johnson was allowed to break the formula a bit and fans violently reacted, so Scorsese is right that much of what draws him and directors like him to cinema necessarily makes him dislike--or in the case of Coppolla, despise--film series that have fans who expect directors to keep the universe consistent. Christopher Nolan proved you can innovate even within the limitations, but most of Scorsese's comments apply even to the constraints Nolan worked under to make Batman films. It's far more difficult to do what Scorsese wants to do working under something like Marvel universe constraints, and for an art-centric director like him the end result would always be worse. So yea, his or Coppolla's comments are no surprise at all. Scorsese's comments were more restrained, Coppolla's ventured into hyperbole though.

We can complain about directors, but they're not the problem. When you've got an ongoing story like Star Wars, you need a gatekeeper of the lore who doesn't let directors get off-track. Kathleen Kennedy is a great producer, but she's not the one to be the gatekeeper. Someone with intimate knowledge, love, and understanding of the content and characters needs to be that person, someone like perhaps Pablo Hidalgo. Or maybe not, I know very little about him. You can't leave it up to directors, because sometimes you get one who's great with the material, but most often you don't. Sam Raimi did great, Christopher Nolan did great, and Irvin Kershner did great, but there's an element of luck to their selection. You won't always luck out leaving a work mostly up to directors. Kevin Feige is that guy for Marvel. I'd love for Lucas to be that guy again for Star Wars, but he was just worn out for whatever reason. He would've been a PHENOMENAL guy just playing the Feige role of giving general guidelines for films somewhat like he did with Episodes V and VI--although he did exert a ton of control over both of those films that drove the directors nuts--but something about his ego never let him do it. I'm shocked that they're actually trying to stretch Feige out thin with his own Star Wars movie, but who knows, maybe he'll get them on track.

I noticed she called herself Laurie Blake. Did she ever refer to herself with her father's last name Blake in the original series? I thought her name was Juspeczyk, or Jupiter, throughout that series.

Yes, they're carrying the show for me right now. I enjoyed the episode mostly because they dominated the narrative for most of it. I'm surprised, because I REALLY didn't like Jean Smart in Legion, but so far I'm loving her in this.

Just watched the episode and missed that, what happened? I watched it on my phone at lunch at work, and the sun was REALLY bright making it tough to see the screen at times.

This thread should be re-named to "The Irvin Kershner Richard Marquand George Lucas J.J. Abrams Rian Johnson ruined my childhood thread".

May as well throw world peace, complete automation of all human endeavors, and infinite resources for everyone in there too since you're wishing for the impossible.

Actually there's at least one more obvious example in the films of Force affinity apparently being passed on via genetics that somehow eluded me--Ben Solo, who presumably got it from Leia.

I originally asked in my post about cloning if genetics plays a part in Force affinity, but then I edited it back out after I remembered that both Luke and Leia inherited Anakin's genetics and were strong in the Force. If not genetics, I don't know what else would have passed Force affinity on to both of them.

Now I'm wondering why Palpatine cloned Jango Fett for the army of the Republic...seems like he should have cloned Yoda, or maybe himself. Maybe he thought Jedi would be harder to control.

WOW, that makes a lot of sense. And...

The first two episodes have made multiple references to Doctor Manhattan being on Mars. He was shown on Mars in Watchmen, but at the end of the original series he was shown saying he was going to leave the Milky Way galaxy in the panel linked to below. So why is he still on Mars in this show? Also, while searching for an answer to this, I saw a possible answer about whether or not Manhattan will be in this show. The answer to that was apparently shown in one of the trailers HBO released for the show, but they removed that from the final trailer. Here's the bit from that trailer answering the question hidden in a spoiler (doesn't seem like much of one to me, but I can definitely see others disagreeing):

Dunno, what would you prefer it be about? Obviously the threat of the US and USSR destroying each other with nukes wouldn't be the central conflict if Alan Moore were to write it today. The Watchmen sequel "Doomsday Clock" was set in the early 1990s, whereas this show is set somewhere in the 2010s. The central conflict of Doomsday Clock was that wars between nations weren't about nuclear weapons, they were about governments creating metahumans to compete with each other. It mixed in DC heroes like the Justice League, Joker, etc. I never read it because it sounded lamer than the original concept and a way for DC to mix Watchmen characters in with their primary universe to make future work on the title easier and more profitable for DC as a whole. I'm undecided about this series so far. I'm not finding it compelling yet, but the first review I read claimed it amps up in episode 3, so I'm giving it at least that long before I write it off.