@arkandel I think that some of the details in the comments from Clooney and a similar interview from McConaughey show why there are concerns about leaving the safety checks up to actors with minimal experience.
"I mean every time I get handed a six-gun," or a gun that holds six cartridges, "you point it at the ground and you squeeze it six times," Clooney said, noting "It's just insane" not to.
You can't do that if the gun is loaded with blanks. You could shoot yourself in the foot with a blank (which may have been what happened in another Rust set incident).
"You hear 'cold' -- now I want a visual," said the Texan star. (McConaughey) "If you and I are in a scene together, I need to give you visual. If it's a six shooter, do you see light through all six holes?
You can't do that when a six-shooter is loaded with dummy rounds for the shot.
"I've never heard the term 'cold gun,'" Clooney said of his years of movie-making. "I've never heard that term. Literally. They're just talking about stuff I've never heard of. It's just infuriating."
Numerous armorers have spoken about the term "cold gun" and "hot gun" in recent interviews. Even McConaughey mentions the term in his interview.
They mean well, but this is just showing how their field of expertise is different from that of armorers, which is why the safety protocols are designed the way they are and why you don't want actors freelancing their own personal safety protocols.
I'm watching a video essay about Love, Simon, a movie about a gay boy coming out. There's a bit where the essayists are talking about how important representation in media is, and for the first time, a horrible thought has occurred to me: can representation be a good thing under capitalism, when that representation is being sold on the market for consumption? Is gayness okay if the audience is okay with it because it provided an acceptable level of entertainment relative to the ticket price?
I suspect the answer is "no ethical consumption" and all that, but I can't shake this sudden fear that representation isn't visibility, but rather commodification.
@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
I suspect the answer is "no ethical consumption" and all that, but I can't shake this sudden fear that representation isn't visibility, but rather commodification.
It's really not either of those things. It isn't really visibility because the types of representation that you see tend to be stereotypical or trope-y. See: Jack a la Will and Grace. You aren't seeing the reality of the thing, just this stereo-archetype of the thing in question.
But neither is it commodification. It does not, in and of itself, have an inherent value. You can't trade it for other things. If it wasn't there, they would slot in something completely different and it would have the exact same effect. Will and Grace could have been substituted with Futurama and you would still get viewership and ad buys and whatnot.
If anything, what it does is ultimately beneficial -- it gets you so used to seeing the most grandiose and overblown version of a thing, flattening out this idea in your mind until it is a familiar part of the landscape, that less-extreme (aka 'actually normal') versions of this thing don't even cause a momentary glitch anymore. You just accept that this is a thing, even if that comes at the cost of 'he is not as loud and out there as Jack'.
And I'm sure that some idealists out there are already frothing at the idea of how degrading that is, or whatever. But do you know what's even more degrading? Still being resented. Still being persecuted. Still being marginalized and 'other'-ed.
Whatever it takes to get out from under the weight of that scrutiny and get people to start accepting you. We don't get to fetishize some idealized critical path it has to take. You just have to get there. Somehow.
That's what this kind of thing does. And I, for one, continue to support it.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@derp said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
Whatever it takes to get out from under the weight of that scrutiny and get people to start accepting you. We don't get to fetishize some idealized critical path it has to take. You just have to get there. Somehow.
This is my take too.
I think commodifying homosexuality or diversity is a hollow and horrid when the aim is solely to cash in on it, but I think it has to be balanced with how important normalizing it is. We can wax philosophically about ethics, but I think the reality is that normalization leads to acceptance, if not tolerance, and this will probably save lives. I will gladly have more Shang-Chi, even if it means seeing Chinese people again fetishized as martial artists, if it means that more Chinese stars will get Hollywood roles and we normalize the idea of Chinese stars being action heroes and romantic leads.
Netflix and DreamWorks clearly cashed-in on the gay-ness of the new She-Ra series but no one can deny the impact it had, and will have, on the way alternative identities will be treated in the media, not as disabilities or flaws, but instead as strengths.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
So uh, I kinda hate the new Ghostbusters movie? And I feel like the only thing that they would have had to change for me to like would be to not make it a Ghostbusters movie, just make it a Cthulhu movie with a cheeky wink-wink Ghostbusters reference here and there.
@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
So uh, I kinda hate the new Ghostbusters movie? And I feel like the only thing that they would have had to change for me to like would be to not make it a Ghostbusters movie, just make it a Cthulhu movie with a cheeky wink-wink Ghostbusters reference here and there.
I loved the new Ghostbusters movie. I was in tears, but I have a soft spot for the franchise and very bright girls with social issues.
@ganymede I have a soft spot for the franchise too, and that's kind of why I feel so negatively about this movie. I'm trying to be vague here to avoid spoilers, but, like, if they announced a Seinfeld reunion show that turned out to be a slasher horror with all the characters twenty years later now trapped in a murderhouse with Newman as a serial killer, that would be roughly the same feeling I get from Afterlife.
And I like Phoebe, I truly do, but I was grinding my teeth in the theater from the effort it took not to shout at the writers, "You cowards, just say the word ***minor spoiler for coded character trait I honestly could be inferring too much from but I'm pretty sure***
I didn't need them to say anything to understand. I live with a girl like that every day. She liked the movie, I think. And then she went to go see Wicked with my partner the next day.
Still one of my favorite movies of the year. Paul Rudd effortlessly carries humor with him. Olivia Wilde is perfect for her small role. I can't say I understand why you didn't like it or the analogy you made because if I could put the cast of Seinfeld into a murderhouse I would because I hated Seinfeld.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@ganymede said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
I hated Seinfeld.
Quoting for solidarity.
@ganymede I agree Paul Rudd elevates the movie every time he's in it. I'm sure the Baskin Robbins thing is a coincidence, but I still find it very funny to think about. But as for what I mean... okay, spoilers.
***semi-detailed discussion of plot points of Ghostbusters: Afterlife***
I don't think I'm being reflexively negative here. I don't go to movies looking for a bad time. I'm a big fan of the attitude that it's more fun to like movies than to dislike them. I really do think that if this hadn't been a Ghostbusters sequel, if it had been Stranger Things vs. Cthulhu or something, then I'd have been all about it. I just can't get my head around putting that story in this franchise.
@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
I don't think I'm being reflexively negative here. I don't go to movies looking for a bad time. I'm a big fan of the attitude that it's more fun to like movies than to dislike them. I really do think that if this hadn't been a Ghostbusters sequel, if it had been Stranger Things vs. Cthulhu or something, then I'd have been all about it. I just can't get my head around putting that story in this franchise.
I mean, I've been watching this franchise since I was a child and I can say with certainty that I absolutely do not take from it what you apparently take from it. So I can see why you might be having a bad time, if that's the way you really see those movies, but I think that you may be something of an outlier.
I mean, you're not like -- wrong, or anything, but if that's the frame you choose to view the franchise through then -- I mean, I'm not sure how but yeah, I could see why this one wouldn't fit with your view.
@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
I just can't get my head around putting that story in this franchise.
I think we see the original movie very differently.
I saw Ghostbusters: Afterlife as a very loving homage to Harold Ramis as Egon Spengler and I think that's what the movie was going for to begin with.
But I also think we see the original movie very differently, and that may be why I don't understand your disappointment.
@ganymede Okay. May I ask what you see it as?
@ganymede said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
I will gladly have more Shang-Chi, even if it means seeing Chinese people again fetishized as martial artists, if it means that more Chinese stars will get Hollywood roles and we normalize the idea of Chinese stars being action heroes and romantic leads.
If you haven't, take a look at Love Hard, it's on Netflix.
***NSFW content***
@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
May I ask what you see it as?
I look at the movie as a "scientists were right" flick.
You said before that the original Ghostbusters story involved four blue-collar schmucks who saved the world, but I disagree. Three of them fit (and are) three main academic stereotypes: (1) the poser (Peter); (2) the know-it-all (Ray); and (3) the savant (Egon). They believe they know better so they start this bizarre business service that everyone is skeptical of until it proves to be true in the vein of other 80s services, like psychics and mediums, which were prevalent and mocked back then.
This is evident from the beginning. We are introduced to Peter as he uses his advanced degree to flirt with hot college girls; Ray is the busy-body spouting off his theories; and Egon eccentrically gathers the evidence and builds the machinery. All of them are parapsychologist professors at Columbia University. Once they manage to get their business set up, they hire a blue-collared person (Winston) who is willing to take a risk because this is the 80s and everyone needs a job. In the end, Winston is pivotal as the "everyman" figure that follows along because that's his job.
There are a lot of articles about how critics found the film. Some found it a satire on academia and Reaganomics, but I think that is deeper than what was intended. It ultimately is a story about how the people who believe in the bizarre prove they are right. But I really liked how each of the characters had their specific place: Ray is needed for his enthusiasm and energy; Egon is needed for his vision and brains; Peter is needed to engage socially with a doubtful public; and Winston lends the credibility that comes from being the "everyman" among the nerds.
And that's why I think Ghostbusters: Afterlife follows.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@ganymede ^^^^^^ This.
@alamias said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
@ganymede ^^^^^^ This.
Yeah, exactly that
@ganymede said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
We are introduced to Peter as he uses his advanced degree to flirt with hot college girls; Ray is the busy-body spouting off his theories; and Egon eccentrically gathers the evidence and builds the machinery.
They're also, like, objectively bad at what they do. Peter's flirtations only work on children half his age; as soon as he tries that shit on an adult, she shuts him right down. Ray's theories are so useless that he has no idea how to apply them to the ghosts he interacts with. Egon's inventions are a threat to his own life and limb, either about to drill a hole through his head until someone with sense stops him or causing him to back fearfully away from the radiation his own weapon emits. As paranormal investigators and eliminators go, they're just one step above Abbott and Costello.
The only reasons they can achieve success are because the technology is so simple only a colossal asshole like Walter Peck can screw it up, and because the big bad is an utter doofus. That all probably sounds like criticisms, but it's a comedy and that's the whole joke! The punchline is basically, "Lookit these horny idjits! What a parade of nonsense!"
My introduction to Ghostbusters was actually the cartoon. I first got into it because I realized Venkman was being voiced by the guy who voiced Garfield* but I stayed because I was terrified of the dark as a kid and I loved the idea that human science had advanced us to the point that we didn't have to be afraid of the dark any more, because we could just call an exterminator to come deal with the pests. Afterlife feels more like a sequel to the cartoon series than the movie, which I guess is fine, but to me it feels about as wrong-headed and try-hard as a reboot of He-Man that tries to present this guy as a serious villain, and who'd do that?
Pictured above: existential threat to all creation.
*Holy shit, I just put it together. Is THAT why they got Bill Murray to voice the CGI Garfield movies? It was a Lorenzo Music joke?
@greenflashlight said in Movie / TV / Streaming Peeves or Whatever:
*Holy shit, I just put it together. Is THAT why they got Bill Murray to voice the CGI Garfield movies? It was a Lorenzo Music joke?
No. Bill Murray signed on thinking he was going to be working with Joel Coen...not Joel Cohen.
Edit:
Afterlife feels more like a sequel to the cartoon series than the movie
I just don't see how anyone can even say that with a straight face. Not a dig, but my brain just can't comprehend. It just can't.
