Pop culture stuff
Mar. 15th, 2021 10:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. My Father was Famous as John Le Carr, but my mother was his crucial covert collaborator
For as long as I can remember, my parents have been defined by the work they did together, and by a working relationship so interwoven with their personal one that the two were actually inseparable. David’s first report of Jane, long before I was born, was that she had rescued his novel A Small Town in Germany when it was literally in pieces on the floor. Some of my earliest memories are of him reading, handwritten pages or typescript with annotations in black pen, sometimes physically cut and pasted in the days before computers, and her listening, absorbing, only occasionally responding, but always with immediate effect.
It was easy to misunderstand her as just a typist – and many did – not only because she also typed everything, as he never learned how, but also because her interventions were made in private, before the text was ever seen by anyone else. I was witness to it as a child and then as a teenager, but by and large only they knew what passed between them and how much she reframed, adjusted, trained the novels as they grew. She was adamant that her contribution was not writing, that the creative partnership they had was uneven. She declined interviews and stepped out of photographs – even family ones, so that as we were looking this week for images for the order of service at her cremation, we had very few, and those were stolen moments gleaned before she could practise her invisibility trick. It was part of how it worked: he produced, they edited; he burned, she fanned. It was their conspiracy, the thing that no one else could ever offer him, in which they both connived.
This is touching, and reminds me of my own parents. Who both read Le Carr.
I've also been listening to Michelle Obama's Becoming - where she discusses falling in love with Barack via their long debates and discourse. Spouses who can converse for long periods of time - tend to get along better, I think. Since sex waxes and wanes.
2. Reviews of The SnyderCut version of Justice League
Someone on scans daily asked: "so we're excited about a movie that is an expensive recut of another not so great movie, four hours long, and took four years to be remade...from a bunch of comic books?"
Response: "We're comic book fans that's what we do."
It is. It's what geeks do. Particularly culture geeks. I'm fascinated by how this thing came about. It cost WB over $70 to do the recut. It cost them $300 million to do the original. They got bullied into doing the recut by two separate yet united factions - the fans (who are rather toxic but fans can be if riled up and convinced they are on a righteous path of justice - they become a bit like an insane cult or mob) and the cast (lead by Ray Fisher and his allegations against the studio and Whedon). Because of how this came about - I'm wildly curious about the film.
But it's four hours long. And I've seen Snyder films. I am fully aware of what four hours watching a Snyder film would be like. MD and I struggled through Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Also through Man of Steel.
(I liked Caville better in The Witcher. He had more to do. Also Mission Impossible.)
So, reading reviews first:
Justice League Review - Still a Mess Now a Million Years Long
Justice League - Snyder Cut delivers the film fans longed for
ome of the most satisfying wrinkles, not surprisingly, involve Superman (Henry Cavill), whose revival to ward off this apocalyptic threat (or Apokolips-tic threat, in deference to Darkseid's home) provides a central dilemma. Where Whedon went for the stirring and staid -- "Truth and justice," etc. -- Snyder again goes grand and indeed messianic, casting the son of Krypton as Earth's savior, who pays a price for his service.
So far, so very good, and this "Justice League" proves a richer and more rewarding experience on almost every level. Some of the best original scenes are still there, such as an awakened Superman's fight with the rest of the team, but it's jarring how much is new and completely different, helpfully divided into chapters, plus an epilogue, to navigate the sprawling length.
Simply put, nobody frames superhero action more lovingly than Snyder, who going back to "300" has exhibited a knack for translating comic-book imagery to the screen. The effect is visually dazzling, and far more visceral than what previously saw the light of day.
Where, then, is the down side? Mainly that producing this for streaming, as opposed to a theatrical version, didn't require any significant choices about excising unnecessary threads.
What might have been a terrific 2 ½ or even three-hour movie thus becomes a somewhat bloated four-hour indulgence intended for die-hard fans, bypassing logical places to end things to pile on tantalizing teases for storylines that seem unlikely to be pursued anytime soon.
Granted, most of those complaints come down to the last 30 minutes or so, and for those who crusaded to "Release the Snyder cut," the subscription to HBO Max will be worth every penny. In that sense, this consumer-driven spectacle represents a logical use of the streaming service, super-serving fans in a way that doesn't care, or have to, about time constraints or how well it will play with the broadest possible audience.
In the final analysis, that's what willed "the Snyder cut" into existence, so from that standpoint, mission accomplished. Whether that means Warner Bros. gets its money's worth out of this unique use of its newest platform, or emboldens future efforts to use hash tags to revisit and expand upon cinematic history, remains to be seen.
Snyder Cut exposes problems with fan culture
Director Zack Snyder’s cut of Justice League, out March 18 on HBO Max, is way better than the original version released in theaters in 2017. It had to be. The theatrical cut of the DC Comics superhero movie was a dissonant mishmash of two radically different directorial styles that left audiences confused, critics unimpressed and the studio reportedly at a financial loss.
During filming, Snyder left the project after the sudden and tragic death of his daughter, and another director, Joss Whedon of Avengers fame, took over. Whedon reshot much of the movie, and whether by poor communication or studio interference, the plot became incomprehensible—and Whedon sprinkled quips throughout to try to brighten his predecessor’s signature gloomy tone, to the consternation of Snyder’s most devoted fans.
The new cut of Justice League, dubbed the Snyder Cut by fans on the Internet, lasts four exhausting hours. But Snyder uses his doubled run time wisely. Whereas Whedon’s version gestured at vague, tearjerky backstories, Snyder gives each hero personal stakes, particularly Ray Fisher’s Cyborg: his strained relationship with his father becomes the much needed heart of the film. The villain Steppenwolf, too, gets a motive—redeeming himself to his villainous family.
The CGI battles look better, and are longer and bloodier, if that’s your thing. No longer tonally bipolar, the film is one man’s vision, for better or worse. It’s uniformly dark—and not just figuratively: Snyder transformed several daytime scenes into murky nighttime ones. (Points for consistency, if not for visual clarity.) And he has said he is donating some of the proceeds to suicide-prevention programs.
Snyder turned a bad movie into a less bad movie. In a pandemic when blockbusters are scarce, maybe that’s welcome. But the journey here was fraught. A group of fans operating under the banner #ReleaseTheSnyderCut bullied Warner Bros. into giving Snyder $70 million to remake the film. (That’s chump change for a superhero movie, but could have funded a lovely new original film.)
This wasn’t a quaint letter-writing campaign. While some fans innocently used the hashtag in hopes of getting a better movie, a toxic contingent spammed producers, critics and fans of the rival Marvel Cinematic Universe with angry comments and threats. By capitulating to fans who employ dubious tactics to get what they want, Warner Bros. may have set a dangerous precedent. If this is the future of filmmaking, who’s really in control?
A new villain Darkseid Zack Snyder's cut of Justice League
Here's the thing? The original version wasn't that bad - jarring yes, but not quite as bad as I was lead to believe. I thought it was okay. I like Age of Ultron better, but I like the MCU as a whole better than DCU. Always have always will. I'm not a fan of the Randian view - which DC swings towards.
Age of Ultron had more going on. And more humor. I also prefer Infinity War and Endgame to Dawn of Justice and Justice League - because they are built up better and there's more character development. And I prefer Robert Downy Jr to Ben Affleck.
Anyhow..it's late. Good night.
For as long as I can remember, my parents have been defined by the work they did together, and by a working relationship so interwoven with their personal one that the two were actually inseparable. David’s first report of Jane, long before I was born, was that she had rescued his novel A Small Town in Germany when it was literally in pieces on the floor. Some of my earliest memories are of him reading, handwritten pages or typescript with annotations in black pen, sometimes physically cut and pasted in the days before computers, and her listening, absorbing, only occasionally responding, but always with immediate effect.
It was easy to misunderstand her as just a typist – and many did – not only because she also typed everything, as he never learned how, but also because her interventions were made in private, before the text was ever seen by anyone else. I was witness to it as a child and then as a teenager, but by and large only they knew what passed between them and how much she reframed, adjusted, trained the novels as they grew. She was adamant that her contribution was not writing, that the creative partnership they had was uneven. She declined interviews and stepped out of photographs – even family ones, so that as we were looking this week for images for the order of service at her cremation, we had very few, and those were stolen moments gleaned before she could practise her invisibility trick. It was part of how it worked: he produced, they edited; he burned, she fanned. It was their conspiracy, the thing that no one else could ever offer him, in which they both connived.
This is touching, and reminds me of my own parents. Who both read Le Carr.
I've also been listening to Michelle Obama's Becoming - where she discusses falling in love with Barack via their long debates and discourse. Spouses who can converse for long periods of time - tend to get along better, I think. Since sex waxes and wanes.
2. Reviews of The SnyderCut version of Justice League
Someone on scans daily asked: "so we're excited about a movie that is an expensive recut of another not so great movie, four hours long, and took four years to be remade...from a bunch of comic books?"
Response: "We're comic book fans that's what we do."
It is. It's what geeks do. Particularly culture geeks. I'm fascinated by how this thing came about. It cost WB over $70 to do the recut. It cost them $300 million to do the original. They got bullied into doing the recut by two separate yet united factions - the fans (who are rather toxic but fans can be if riled up and convinced they are on a righteous path of justice - they become a bit like an insane cult or mob) and the cast (lead by Ray Fisher and his allegations against the studio and Whedon). Because of how this came about - I'm wildly curious about the film.
But it's four hours long. And I've seen Snyder films. I am fully aware of what four hours watching a Snyder film would be like. MD and I struggled through Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice. Also through Man of Steel.
(I liked Caville better in The Witcher. He had more to do. Also Mission Impossible.)
So, reading reviews first:
Justice League Review - Still a Mess Now a Million Years Long
Justice League - Snyder Cut delivers the film fans longed for
ome of the most satisfying wrinkles, not surprisingly, involve Superman (Henry Cavill), whose revival to ward off this apocalyptic threat (or Apokolips-tic threat, in deference to Darkseid's home) provides a central dilemma. Where Whedon went for the stirring and staid -- "Truth and justice," etc. -- Snyder again goes grand and indeed messianic, casting the son of Krypton as Earth's savior, who pays a price for his service.
So far, so very good, and this "Justice League" proves a richer and more rewarding experience on almost every level. Some of the best original scenes are still there, such as an awakened Superman's fight with the rest of the team, but it's jarring how much is new and completely different, helpfully divided into chapters, plus an epilogue, to navigate the sprawling length.
Simply put, nobody frames superhero action more lovingly than Snyder, who going back to "300" has exhibited a knack for translating comic-book imagery to the screen. The effect is visually dazzling, and far more visceral than what previously saw the light of day.
Where, then, is the down side? Mainly that producing this for streaming, as opposed to a theatrical version, didn't require any significant choices about excising unnecessary threads.
What might have been a terrific 2 ½ or even three-hour movie thus becomes a somewhat bloated four-hour indulgence intended for die-hard fans, bypassing logical places to end things to pile on tantalizing teases for storylines that seem unlikely to be pursued anytime soon.
Granted, most of those complaints come down to the last 30 minutes or so, and for those who crusaded to "Release the Snyder cut," the subscription to HBO Max will be worth every penny. In that sense, this consumer-driven spectacle represents a logical use of the streaming service, super-serving fans in a way that doesn't care, or have to, about time constraints or how well it will play with the broadest possible audience.
In the final analysis, that's what willed "the Snyder cut" into existence, so from that standpoint, mission accomplished. Whether that means Warner Bros. gets its money's worth out of this unique use of its newest platform, or emboldens future efforts to use hash tags to revisit and expand upon cinematic history, remains to be seen.
Snyder Cut exposes problems with fan culture
Director Zack Snyder’s cut of Justice League, out March 18 on HBO Max, is way better than the original version released in theaters in 2017. It had to be. The theatrical cut of the DC Comics superhero movie was a dissonant mishmash of two radically different directorial styles that left audiences confused, critics unimpressed and the studio reportedly at a financial loss.
During filming, Snyder left the project after the sudden and tragic death of his daughter, and another director, Joss Whedon of Avengers fame, took over. Whedon reshot much of the movie, and whether by poor communication or studio interference, the plot became incomprehensible—and Whedon sprinkled quips throughout to try to brighten his predecessor’s signature gloomy tone, to the consternation of Snyder’s most devoted fans.
The new cut of Justice League, dubbed the Snyder Cut by fans on the Internet, lasts four exhausting hours. But Snyder uses his doubled run time wisely. Whereas Whedon’s version gestured at vague, tearjerky backstories, Snyder gives each hero personal stakes, particularly Ray Fisher’s Cyborg: his strained relationship with his father becomes the much needed heart of the film. The villain Steppenwolf, too, gets a motive—redeeming himself to his villainous family.
The CGI battles look better, and are longer and bloodier, if that’s your thing. No longer tonally bipolar, the film is one man’s vision, for better or worse. It’s uniformly dark—and not just figuratively: Snyder transformed several daytime scenes into murky nighttime ones. (Points for consistency, if not for visual clarity.) And he has said he is donating some of the proceeds to suicide-prevention programs.
Snyder turned a bad movie into a less bad movie. In a pandemic when blockbusters are scarce, maybe that’s welcome. But the journey here was fraught. A group of fans operating under the banner #ReleaseTheSnyderCut bullied Warner Bros. into giving Snyder $70 million to remake the film. (That’s chump change for a superhero movie, but could have funded a lovely new original film.)
This wasn’t a quaint letter-writing campaign. While some fans innocently used the hashtag in hopes of getting a better movie, a toxic contingent spammed producers, critics and fans of the rival Marvel Cinematic Universe with angry comments and threats. By capitulating to fans who employ dubious tactics to get what they want, Warner Bros. may have set a dangerous precedent. If this is the future of filmmaking, who’s really in control?
A new villain Darkseid Zack Snyder's cut of Justice League
Here's the thing? The original version wasn't that bad - jarring yes, but not quite as bad as I was lead to believe. I thought it was okay. I like Age of Ultron better, but I like the MCU as a whole better than DCU. Always have always will. I'm not a fan of the Randian view - which DC swings towards.
Age of Ultron had more going on. And more humor. I also prefer Infinity War and Endgame to Dawn of Justice and Justice League - because they are built up better and there's more character development. And I prefer Robert Downy Jr to Ben Affleck.
Anyhow..it's late. Good night.