I have no idea what that word means but I guess a fancy word for elaborate? I just find it puzzling that this movie is still relevant in the media compared to how many other quintessential things...
I have no idea what that word means but I guess a fancy word for elaborate? I just find it puzzling that this movie is still relevant in the media compared to how many other quintessential things happening in the states right now and based on how reddit was astroturfed hard when it came out I'm very skeptical about this continuous focus on a movie that's not that special when it comes down to it. I know this article is just about blockbusting and box office but why is this relevant honestly.
It does not seem puzzling to me at all. The movie has been exceptionally well received. Entertainment thrives during trying times. People need their escapism. On top of that, the film crossing $1b...
In my mind, this performance and recent scotus performance are related. Edit: By “performance “ i mean the movie’s popularity, and the output of scotus.
In my mind, this performance and recent scotus performance are related.
Edit: By “performance “ i mean the movie’s popularity, and the output of scotus.
It’s more an intuition than a thought, but it’s connected to the military driven messaging in the first one, all the stuff about who tom cruise is as a person, and the (religious) authoritarianism...
It’s more an intuition than a thought, but it’s connected to the military driven messaging in the first one, all the stuff about who tom cruise is as a person, and the (religious) authoritarianism of the current court. I haven’t seen the new one, and people i love and respect have seen it and approve of it. I will see it, and then perhaps think more deeply on it amd share.
I see. I haven't seen the movie either. However, unless this movie about jet pilots has an abortion or religion subplot, maybe there's not a strong connection here? :P IDK.
I see. I haven't seen the movie either. However, unless this movie about jet pilots has an abortion or religion subplot, maybe there's not a strong connection here? :P IDK.
I just watched it last night. The movie VERY much avoids anything remotely controversial. There is no mention of religion, there's barely a romantic subplot, and even the "rogue state" mentioned...
I just watched it last night. The movie VERY much avoids anything remotely controversial. There is no mention of religion, there's barely a romantic subplot, and even the "rogue state" mentioned in the film is entirely fictitious, bearing little resemblance to any actual country. I think that's probably why it did so well. The movie offends no one by going out of its way to avoid anything that could be seen as "taking a side" in today's polarized political climate.
Definitely not, but when they've gone so far out of the way to avoid potential conflict, it can break immersion. When an underground art film eschews the trappings of real life, that's one thing....
Definitely not, but when they've gone so far out of the way to avoid potential conflict, it can break immersion. When an underground art film eschews the trappings of real life, that's one thing. When Tom Cruise is flying US fighter planes and navigating decades of emotional baggage, it feels weird that he's literally only doing it for the plot. Almost like a spec script that sat on a desk for a decade, waiting for things to stabilize a bit in the real world for finishing touches and "believability", but then went straight into production.
On some level this approach is interesting, because TG:M is undoubtedly a competent action film in structure and execution. It proves, at least on certain scales, people are willing to watch a movie without all the little details that can add up to 'plot holes', or root for a bombing run without an actual villain. However, it's, in that way, the logical endpoint to the alienating effect profit motive can have on art.
It's a movie without any sense of drive beyond the timer periodically counted off by Jon Hamm and Mr. Cruise's fetish for flying jets. And for an 80s nostalgiabomb, that's hardly a sin. It's not great though.
The astroturfing surrounding this movie is downright scary! Move along people please.
Care to elucidate?
I have no idea what that word means but I guess a fancy word for elaborate? I just find it puzzling that this movie is still relevant in the media compared to how many other quintessential things happening in the states right now and based on how reddit was astroturfed hard when it came out I'm very skeptical about this continuous focus on a movie that's not that special when it comes down to it. I know this article is just about blockbusting and box office but why is this relevant honestly.
It does not seem puzzling to me at all.
The movie has been exceptionally well received.
Entertainment thrives during trying times. People need their escapism.
On top of that, the film crossing $1b is kind of a big deal, given the state of the box office over the last 2 years.
One could say that about anything that doesn’t involve important or timely issues.
I get that but that wasn't all I said.
In my mind, this performance and recent scotus performance are related.
Edit: By “performance “ i mean the movie’s popularity, and the output of scotus.
I find this comment puzzling. Would you mind providing some further explanation?
It’s more an intuition than a thought, but it’s connected to the military driven messaging in the first one, all the stuff about who tom cruise is as a person, and the (religious) authoritarianism of the current court. I haven’t seen the new one, and people i love and respect have seen it and approve of it. I will see it, and then perhaps think more deeply on it amd share.
I see. I haven't seen the movie either. However, unless this movie about jet pilots has an abortion or religion subplot, maybe there's not a strong connection here? :P IDK.
I just watched it last night. The movie VERY much avoids anything remotely controversial. There is no mention of religion, there's barely a romantic subplot, and even the "rogue state" mentioned in the film is entirely fictitious, bearing little resemblance to any actual country. I think that's probably why it did so well. The movie offends no one by going out of its way to avoid anything that could be seen as "taking a side" in today's polarized political climate.
Do brainless action movies need to have a political message?
Definitely not, but when they've gone so far out of the way to avoid potential conflict, it can break immersion. When an underground art film eschews the trappings of real life, that's one thing. When Tom Cruise is flying US fighter planes and navigating decades of emotional baggage, it feels weird that he's literally only doing it for the plot. Almost like a spec script that sat on a desk for a decade, waiting for things to stabilize a bit in the real world for finishing touches and "believability", but then went straight into production.
On some level this approach is interesting, because TG:M is undoubtedly a competent action film in structure and execution. It proves, at least on certain scales, people are willing to watch a movie without all the little details that can add up to 'plot holes', or root for a bombing run without an actual villain. However, it's, in that way, the logical endpoint to the alienating effect profit motive can have on art.
It's a movie without any sense of drive beyond the timer periodically counted off by Jon Hamm and Mr. Cruise's fetish for flying jets. And for an 80s nostalgiabomb, that's hardly a sin. It's not great though.