TheImpressiveX
moviesIf someone tells you all the “plot holes” they found in a movie they are not helping you decide if you’ll enjoy the movie, but just trying to score internet points.
It's more about the execution than the story itself. I'll readily suspend disbelief and ignore inconsistencies as long as the delivery is well made, like in Funny Games or Arrival
Part of my enjoyment of a movie is that the plot maintains a level of consistency throughout. This generally requires a level of writing that most producers/directors aren't willing to spend money for. While some might be more aggressive in what they label plot holes or whatever, it's a reasonable metric that lots of complaints about plot holes is a good sign I won't like the movie.
I swear, YouTube editorial wannabes have just utterly devastated media literacy and appreciation. Maybe not to the extent that 'second monitor' mentality and committe storytelling have, but they're definitely part of the larger problem.
People have really fallen into 'be told what to think, not how to think'.
I can't really speak to his normal mechanisms because when I saw it it sure seemed like the movie either has frequently bad ADR or the audio sync in the theatre was just slightly off.
It was enough that I ended up lying to myself that the movie was dubbed because obviously they're really speaking in Mycenaean Greek.
The only mechanism I can identify Christopher Nolan using is loud sound effects and very quiet dialogue 😅
He really does not want parents watching his movies while the kids are asleep
I'm sorry, what was that?
EXPLODE!!!
The Expanse method
Plenty of terrible shows with equally terrible sound editing and you pick a good show with passable sound editing? Go on I guess...
What sound setup did you use to watch it? This is an actual problem for me, because I want to watch it, but either can’t understand it or blow my eardrums out. I haven’t been able to find reliable versions with subtitles, which is my normal solution, so now I’m just super interested, but unable to understand it.
How have you been watching it? It was implied that you were pirating, but are you torrenting or streaming? And what type of audio (format, bit rate, etc) is included with the encode you're watching? I'm also surprised it doesn't come with subtitles, unless you're looking for a language other than English.
Streaming. I just choose a site from the piracy community list and watch there until it refuses to load, then move on to another. I haven’t found any of those sites to be better than the others though.
How do I know how the audio is encoded?
Those streaming sites usually use pull from low quality encodes uploaded to file hosting sites, and the audio can often be the bit that has been sacrificed the most. It's usually lower bit rate AAC or AC-3, which can sound distorted at higher volumes and the mix can lack clarity. I'd recommend downloading an episode with higher bitrate audio, at least 640 kbps AC-3, E-AC-3 or even DTS and seeing if it makes a difference with your sound setup. The encode info is usually available on whatever torrent site you're browsing.
Yarr?
That’s why the subs are unreliable, lol. If I had it on dvd or bought it online, I hope they’d be included. But yeah, all of the options seem to either never load or have inaccurate/nonexistent subtitles. It’s actually to the point that I’m keeping an eye out in libraries for a copy, but I haven’t had any luck yet.
I agree with him actually, a lot of amateur film criticism is along these sorts of lines. Some other common ones are people complaining about characters (even minor characters) not having enough development, or serving as plot devices, or people nitpicking every other plot moment as "unrealistic". They tend to overemphasise the importance of these "flaws" too.
But anyway, since Nolan's films often serve as a sort of baby's first for big budget action fans to engage their brains for the first time, I think it's only fitting that his films suffer a baby's first level of amateur criticism too.
You touch upon something I've been struggling with - is this film intended for the "broad-strokes" introductory audience or more experienced filmheads?
His interviews always seem to imply he wants it both ways. Praise his films on anything remotely artistic and profound and he'll readily take credit. Critique and it's "a technical film", that can only be enjoyed in IMAX.
I want to love this film (I did find it entertaining and worth a watch) but felt nothing. Brother, this all could have been avoided if you just got someone else to write instead of your ego.
In my opinion it's more the former, as is the case with nearly all of his films bar maybe the very early ones. That doesn't mean they are inherently bad films, but I do think they are often massively overrated by people whose only other regular experience with the cinema or film are the even more mass market, big budget, action films. I would like to think Nolan's films play an important role in bridging the gap between Marvel and Disney slop and the larger film world, which (like any other art form) is too often reduced to the very mainstream stuff where all the money is.
I touched on this in the review thread for this film, but something I find pretty interesting about The Odyssey is that so many people have seen it or plan to see it, yet almost no one has seen or wants to see The Return, despite it being released less than two years prior. They are both based on Homer's Odyssey, but one was directed by Christopher Nolan with a budget of $250 million and starred Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland and Robert Pattinson, whilst the other was directed by Uberto Pasolini with a budget of $20 million and starred Ralph Fiennes, Juliette Binoche, Charlie Plummer and Marwan Kenzari in the corresponding roles. One is a film with ~2 hours worth of non-stop violence, fast-paced action and deafening noise so it can explain the traumatic effect of the Trojan War on Odysseus, whilst the other is a slow and quiet film that never shows the war or any of the subsequent adventures/horrors - Fiennes conveys all of that through his acting alone, and since he doesn't speak much it's mostly conveyed via body language and much more subtle directorial techniques.
In my opinion, The Return is a significantly better film but most people will never be interested in watching it or even be aware that it exists. All the praise when discussing modern adaptations of Homer's Odyssey will default to the mainstream Nolan adaptation that was designed for mass market appeal and that everyone has seen. There is a sort of critical mass with the reception of art where at a certain point it no longer needs to be great to be remembered as great. It just needs to be good enough to a large enough number of people who don't have the knowledge or experience to critique it more effectively, and at that point the hype surrounding it takes over and elevates it to mythical levels of fame.
There is a sort of critical mass with the reception of art where at a certain point it no longer needs to be great to be remembered as great.
This is why I sometimes think that 'better' and 'great' are two distinct adjectives.
Were there better bands than 'The Beatles' but they never reached the popularity? Maybe. But were there greater bands than 'The Beatles'? I don't think so. I can't even name most of their albums yet I'm aware of their impact on the popular culture.
Any other band you name as counter is going to be a band that was massively popular (Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or Queen) too.
Another example I can give is of tremendously two Indian movies 'Sholay' and 'Deewar'. Both released in 1975, both have Amitabh Bacchan in leading role, both written by the duo Salim - Javed.
In my opinion, 'Deewar' is a better movie by any metric yet it isn't anywhere close to 'Sholay' when it comes to popularity or influence. The latter was a juggernaut.
Anyway, it's past midnight here and I'm wondering if I've made any good point in this rambling.
as is the case with nearly all of his films bar maybe the very early ones
The cut off is pretty much when he stopped collaborating with Jonathan Nolan on the script. Jonathan and Christopher split up after Interstellar where Jonathan went on to write for TV shows starting with Westworld.
Don't get me wrong, Christopher Nolan is quite capable of making movies by himself, but there still was a quality loss in the writing after Interstellar.
Yeah it's like saying "oh this musician is using smaller intervals in their chorus to make it easier to sing, LAME".
"They added sugar to their tomato sauce because the restaurant is in a location where they have to use canned tomatoes, WEAK"
What's this about needing added sugar for canned tomatoes? I've never heard that before.
it's to take out the bitterness, but bicarb works better and doesn't add sugar.
How does that work? Bicarb will neutralise acid, i.e. sour flavours, but sour is a desirable flavour in a tomato. And bicarb is itself bitter if it doesn't react.
Exactly, tropes exist in all human art forms. Sometimes they can be relied on too heavily in lieu of something else, but I find I get a lot of satisfaction out of recognising one that has been employed well. Being able to recognise and connect with the choices an artist made doesn't inherently make them bad artistic choices. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I loathe the sort of discourse I see about movies these days. The same trite stuff is always repeated. And it feels like a large percentage of it flows from shitty online sources.
Yeh because everyone sees themselves as a 'brand' and with that comes internet points and possibly sponsorship. Its not passion driving what they do, its commercialization pushing them to be something special amongst a sea of mediocrity....So gotta to scream or complain louder.
Its not unfair to have personal pet peeves esp about tropes, or to air them, but building a cult around it is a bit extreme.
And it feels like a large percentage of it flows from shitty online sources.
Specifically those CinemaSins videos, which I think are intended as humour and not serious criticism (though I don't really watch them so maybe I'm wrong) but which viewers definitely seem to interpret as the latter and then regurgitate across the internet.
CinemaSins are indeed intended as humour with some valid criticism/praise here and there.
I mean, that was my issue with South Park and political stuff.
Anyone else feel a bit offended by this in general?
Is it a problem? or is it just feedback that he is feeling sensitive about?
I really dislike it when groups/individuals who often court influence and dialogue to market but don't like it on the flip side. They have fed these ecosystems but bite back at the content that dismisses them. You want people to talk about your movie/music/show then simply accept you have no control over the direction and tone of the talk.
I wonder if he takes offense to amateur film advocates...or in general viewers? as i feel like these kinda statements make me feel like I am not allowed to share my opinion on his movies i watched.
He's clearly talking about people who broadcast opinions so uninformed that they don't know the difference between a problem and a trope.
Opinions aren't precious gems that need to be valued and protected. Not all opinions are valuable. In fact, most aren't. This used to be common understanding, along with "don't share your name on the internet", "you can't trust politicians", and "don't believe everything you read". All of these have been flipped around, for worse and now people are so attached to their takes and opinions that any challenge is an affront. There's no reason to be offended about opinions cobbled together in a few seconds not being valuable unless there is an irrational amount of pride and attachment involved.
So if your opinion is that pointing out a movie follows the Heroes Journey and that means it sucks, then Nolan is right. If it's not, then what is there to be offended about?
Or an opinion and an observation
No, because he's right and I don't confuse the two either, while there are quite a few people who do. Hell, there are plenty of popular reviewers who still think "reviews" are plot summaries.
Now why does such a simple statement directed at a type of criticism bother you?
Hmmmmmmmmmm?
The best thing thing about letterboxd is the shitposts. The "real" reviews feel kinda eh.
Amongst many other things, the way you can spot an imbecile is when they complain about “unlikeable” characters.
Kinda depend if the writer really want you to like the unlikeable character or not like them.
Or how much they're on screen.
It’s a complaint that I really don’t understand. I would love for someone who hates movies with unlikable characters to explain it to me.
I’ve noticed it’s a complaint usually given by people who mainly watch action movies, e.g. my James Bond-loving uncle who didn’t like Marty Supreme because the main characters were unlikable. You’re supposed to admire and root for the main characters in action movies, but who says you have to feel the same way in other kinds of movies?
If that’s what makes me an imbecile, so be it (unless it was a joke about the spelling). I don’t think it’s bad to make unlikable characters, but I also don’t want to be around them for a couple hours of my limited free time.
Do you go around saying certain movies are bad because the characters are all unlikeable but can't explain how or why?
Because that's the kind of person they're talking about.
I wouldn’t say that, but I’ve probably complained about the likability of characters, which is what their initial comment criticized. I can’t get into It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, for example, because the main characters are all so awful, but I enjoy isolated clips.
I think it is from this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa4I8Ch2TRo
Bring back Tarkovsky.
I don't know shit about this guy and haven't even seen the movie trailer...
...I just know for sure I hate the marketing and hype.
Do you not use an ad blocker? I don’t think I’ve seen a single ad. Apart from, like, movie posters. I actively avoid ads tho.
TBF marketing is not just direct ads. The constant articles or media arguments are still marketing. I might have wanted to see it before but all the discussions online about it put me off. the more something is pushed the less I like it.
All the discussions of iMax etc, I even got shown a music video made by the stars. I watched it to be polite but TBH i found it a bit cringe and i now have the feeling of go away already. I used to love cinema and movies. But marketing and hype just kills any passion i have now.
I even got shown a music video made by the stars.
Which music video? 🤔
There was a music video of all the stars doing a line each. It was not the best.
I still carry a grudge for the massive fuckup that was audio in Tenet.
Also there was some hubbub about this one being filmed on land that is being stolen by Morocco, so not great optics there either.
