Offline
Not allowed. Now be quiet and eat your gruel.
Offline
Barbie ganoush?
Offline
You can have a side of chocolate Barbka.
Offline
Maybe some RhuBarb pie.
Offline
Rock wrote:
You can have a side of chocolate Barbka.
Cinnamon barbka takes a back-seat to no barbka.
Offline
I watched Greta Gerwig's interview on the Smartless podcast. Like I said, I still have faith in her and will watch Barbie eventually.
Some people have made the comparison with Lego Movie, which is a close example of a project that was motivated and marketed as a purely crass consumerist venture but which the filmmakers decided to insert some subversive critiques of materialism and the ubiquity of corporate branding. There's a certain sense of having your cake and eating it, as the corporate brands in question - Lego, WB and all of the other referenced IP properties - get to act like they're in on the joke, but still get to rake in all of the dollars of their branding dominance. "Everything is Awesome", the theme song, is a sarcastic indictment of consumer complacency, absence of critical thinking, flattening of non-material values. The ultimate victory for the corporate overlords is that this song would be immediately adopted by the masses as an unironic anthem celebrating exactly this commercial submission. I can see Barbie going a similar route. Separate from whatever qualities are in the film itself, it's still reasonable to be disgusted by nearly everything else surrounding the way its being marketed and embraced. Is it a satire of Barbie's more traditional representation of American beauty standards and wealth status? I'm sure it is, but that doesn't excuse all of the related hype and merch which are promoting beauty standards and wealth status. And as for these efforts to try to rewrite the Barbie doll as a "feminist icon"? They can fuck right off with that bullshit.
Offline
While reading about this current conflict between the big tech platforms - Google, Meta, Amazon, etc - and what amounts to ad-revenue monopolies/oligopolies, I see a number of parallels to what's going on in Hollywood.
"Few platform executives believe that media-created content is fundamental to their business."
Isn't that amazing? Just as movie studios apparently don't feel as if the writers and actors are "fundamental" enough to their product-making as to similarly warrant equitable revenue-sharing. The "creatives" are more like contracters in our gig economy. I wasn't aware that most people who go online were not doing so specifically for the content. "I'm here for the ads!"
"The platforms’ consumers rely on the platform to provide consumers with a very wide range of content, of which media-created content is only a modest part."
And maybe they're trying to parse a bit with the "media-created" thing, perhaps suggesting only that content created by major media corporations, but in fact all content is media by definition. And, say?, maybe even the lowly bloggers and vloggers and who the hell else deserves some of that ad-revenue if people are attracted enough to their content as to make the peripheral ads on their pages profitable.
The argument that these tech companies is making is one of pure gatekeeping muscle, and it needs to be addressed as such.
Offline
Why do I find such satisfying amusement in the latest revelation about The Blind Side? Because the perpetually exploited young football star is finally getting what has always been owed to him? Well, sure, I guess. I wish I could say that, and it's not as if I wouldn't mean it if I did. But, more selfishly perhaps, I have to admit that it feeds a certain amount of faith in my gut instinct of revulsion. Sometimes, you just know, you know? It's kinda like learning that Katherine Bigelow was actually a CIA stooge. You think, "Oh, right. I wasn't crazy to assume that!" And I'm looking forward to finding out about Kathryn Stockett's sweatshop or that 'Sapphire' (Ramona Lofton) is actually a Bulgarian dude.
Anyway, if you haven't heard, the family who supposedly "adopted" the poor black kid in that movie actually just bilked him blind for all of the money he ever made from his success. He should at least get to melt down Sandra Bullock's Oscar into bullion.
Offline
Jinnistan wrote:
the studio has now announced a slate of new movies to flesh out a "Mattel shared universe"
I'm also happy to see it becoming more often, now that the afterglow of its explosive success has waned a little, that people are really starting to share my concerns over what the success of Barbie entails. And, to be clear, none of this concern lies with the film itself, but more in what I was referring to above, which is questioning exactly what the Hollywood response to it will be. (hint: it don't look good)
Let's talk about this "Mattel universe" and what that means. In a way, it's nothing new. Remember Battleship? Didn't they make a Tetris movie? Isn't the only film not beaten by Barbie this year at the box office Super Mario Bros? (Which, tbf, at least comes with somewhat of a built-in narrative.)
What else, I wonder? These are actual projects under development as we speak:
Barney - Probably not too surprising, except that this won't be a kids film for some reason, "more adult and have adult themes and sort of be a little bit off-kilter", "an A24-type of surrealistic movie", "more of like a ‘Being John Malkovich’". This Hollywood ayahuasca epidemic is completely out of control.
Hot Wheels - From JJ Abrams! Hot shit! "Grounded and gritty", "real characters that you can relate to, that are three-dimensional, that have emotional journeys". Emotions that only journey at 85mph, am I right?
Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots - OK, this one looks a little more appropriate since attached star, Vin Diesel, is basically born for the role, and maybe, in one of those freak accidents, a good concussion could actually shake some savant-esque powers of literacy into him that will improve his cue-card abilities. Maybe he'll even start talking French. (By the way, this is the second film version of the game - the first, Real Steel, had the good taste to obscure the source material. But still wasn't any good.)
Magic 8 Ball - "Probably be a PG-13 thriller". Why the hell not?!?
Uno - I guess Yahtzee was too high-brow.
View Master - Do these people even tie their own shoes?
I have a great idea. If we come to any respectible agreement in the Writer's strike any time soon, let's add a clause that would kick all of these people out of the Union for life. Hasn't Akiva Goldsman committed enough cinematic atrocities for one career?
Offline
Jinnistan wrote:
Hot Wheels - From JJ Abrams! Hot shit! "Grounded and gritty", "real characters that you can relate to, that are three-dimensional, that have emotional journeys". Emotions that only journey at 85mph, am I right?
Between this and Gran Turismo, I don't understand why they don't just make a racing movie. Ford vs. Ferrari wasn't a megahit but it did make money.
Although apparently Gran Turismo is supposed to have real car stunts, so maybe it's not 100% devoid of value.
Offline
Jinnistan wrote:
Didn't they make a Tetris movie?
I haven't seen it but I understand this is about the story behind the product rather than the product itself. Although I suspect it's a more compromised film than something like Blackberry, where the company is defunct and is portrayed not entirely flatteringly.
For what it's worth, I got a good amount of enjoyment out of Air, which feels like a throwback to sturdy '90s studio pictures. And I think Affleck as a director and star brings some element of parody to the proceedings.
Offline
Rock wrote:
Between this and Gran Turismo, I don't understand why they don't just make a racing movie.
I failed to mention that there's also a competing Matchbox film in the works, so there's an opportunity for a full-on merch showdown. (Mattel owns both properties, so win-win?) Personally, I'd rather watch anything with a script that wasn't written by marketing executives.
Rock wrote:
I haven't seen it but I understand this is about the story behind the product rather than the product itself. Although I suspect it's a more compromised film than something like Blackberry, where the company is defunct and is portrayed not entirely flatteringly.
From what I gather, the film has a lot of sexed-up Cold War espionage stuff that's pure fiction, stretching the inspiration behind the "inspired by true events".
Offline
Jinnistan wrote:
He should at least get to melt down Sandra Bullock's Oscar into bullion.
It looks like there's a lot of people on Twitter who are seriously demanding this, so I just wanted to reaffirm what I'm sure you guys already have the sense of humor to assume which is that I do not care in the least what happens to Sandra Bullock's Oscar.
The Blind Side family strikes back, claiming "blackmail" and "shakedown" and suggesting that their football orphan is ungrateful for all of that love (they don't mention money) that they provided.
This isn't a difficult issue to figure out in court. Either the family legally adopted the kid or not, and if not that's a pretty big hole in their story. Audit the conservatorship, and let's see where and to whom the money went. If the family wants to claim that the price of their home, "structure" and "unconditional love" comes to the same amount as the kid's slice of his movie and book royalties, let them make that case in court. If Oher is truly attempting a shakedown, then that too will become evident from basic financial scrutiny.
Something tells me there's going to be a settlement instead.
Offline
I do like the Blind Side family lawyer's logic in their defense, "They're rich! Why would rich people want to exploit a poor black child?"
Offline
There's some other strange things I've been seeing about this story. I see where this poster "iluv2viddyfilms" is describing the Tuohy family as "upper middle class". According to their lawyer, they were already worth "hundreds of millions" from their restaurant business when they decided to take Oher home with them. Exactly what is considered "rich" these days? Once you're over the 100 mill line, maybe drop the "middle". Class guilt appears to be as palpable as White guilt.
Later, the same poster calls the Tuohys "upper class white liberal douchebags", so I appreciate the dropping the middle here, but "liberal"? The Tuohys are self-described Southern Republicans.
I'm sick of this liberal-abuse!
Offline
I'm sure the liberal part of the equation comes from the fact that they brought a black kid into their house to steal his money, instead of shooting him on their front lawn to keep him from theirs
With a few exceptions, everyone at that site is either retarded of a vile piece of shit. Which,is sort of weird, considering all of the Christ love that goes on there.
Offline
crumbsroom wrote:
I'm sure the liberal part of the equation comes from the fact that they brought a black kid into their house to steal his money, instead of shooting him on their front lawn to keep him from theirs
We'll probably see an inevitable conservative FOX news backlash, getting behind the Tuohys as they ramp up their defense, which will go something like, "This is why you can't help black people, they always bite the hand that feeds."
That Dilbert guy was really ahead of his time.
Offline
"Jewface"
You may have seen where there's some kind of upset surrounding Bradley Cooper deciding to play Leonard Bernstein using a prosthetic nose. Apparently Bradley Cooper isn't Jewish. Who knew? I'm not in the habit of checking people's yellow stars or anything. But if I were to have read one day that Cooper was Jewish, I wouldn't have been like, "Whaat?" More like "Who cares?" Well, some people do in fact care. And I don't really understand these descriptions of Cooper that I'm reading, calling him "WASPy" and "conventionally handsome". Is he, though? Conventionally, I mean? Hey, he's a good looking guy. A good looking lemur-ish looking guy. And aren't there a lot of "conventionally" good looking Jewish guys? Tony Curtis, James Caan, William Shatner, Michael Douglas, Liev Schreiber, Robert Downey Jr. I'll also mention Jake Gyllenhaal since it's being reported that he was also up for the Bernstein role but lost it to Cooper, and people are talking about "Jake's a real Jew". I like how when asked for comment, Gyllenhall (a true mensch) said something like, "Hey, you win some, you lose some". The internet has turned unsolicited surrogate outrage into a profession. If Jake ain't mad, why should you be? (And btw, Gyllenhaal is much more conventionally handsome than Bradley Cooper anyway.)
Also, if we put this in reverse, would we equally enforce such ethnic boundries on Jewish actors playing goyim? Jonah Hill playing Jerry Garcia? Adrien Brody from playing Salvador Dali? Adam Driver playing a literal WASP in White Noise? Natalie Portman playing Queen WASP in Jackie? Can you see how ridiculous this quickly becomes?
I also don't like these comments, which I've now seen from multiple sources, characterizing Bradley Cooper as having been "handed" the Bernstein role from Hollywood, perhaps in an attempt to make it seem that 'da Jews' aren't actually as powerful in that city as presumed (these complaints need the oppressed unrepresented minority angle). Cooper, to his credit, wrote the script and is directing the film, so he's put some considerable work into the project beyond being a recipient of wasp entitlement. Also, it appears that the ones most responsible for greenlighting the film are the Bernstein family themselves, who have nothing but support for Cooper and the project.
So let's talk about that nose. OK. I get it. It's a big nose. Leonard Bernstein had a big nose. I'm going to guess that Jake Gyllenhaal would have worn a big-ass prosthetic nose as well. We just don't have too many quality Walter Matthau-esque Jewish mugs working today who can naturally provide such a supple proboscis.
Let's tally the score here. Supporters of Bradley Cooper's efforts include the surviving Bernstein family, nearest rival Jake Gyllenhaal...oh, and famously gentile producer Steven Spielberg. Opponents? A whole lot of bored, thristy for drama, terminally online idiots who for some reason in 2023 are still using Twitter which isn't even Twitter anymore.
Maybe not worth the headlines, guys.
Offline
All the pictures I've seen of Cooper with the nose make him look like John Turturro.
Offline
Rock wrote:
All the pictures I've seen of Cooper with the nose make him look like John Turturro.
This is a good point, considering how Mr. Turturro has been able to skate between different ethincities, and in doing so showing how nebulous the line is between them. There are a handful of other character actors of his ilk that have been considered "ambiguous" and able to be cast across a spectrum of roles without controversy.