|
Narsham posted:The scene where they show up on the dock and get told they won't need masks isn't the opening scene. But Johnson is extremely careful to have our nameless agent say nothing at all about what he's just sprayed in the characters' mouths. Nobody even questions until we get to Blanc, and he receives a non-answer followed by "you won't need to worry about COVID" which implies, but never states, that the spray constitutes protection. There's certainly no "technobabble" given that no explanation is offered. And that is the point: a complete stranger gets off a ship, says Miles wants everyone to get sprayed, claims they no longer have to be concerned about COVID, and everyone (including the hyper-alert chemist) just believes it. Why? Because Miles is rich. Why in the world would you trust a tech billionaire to know the slightest amount about vaccination or disease? The assumption is that he paid someone who does know, but that's an assumption we see tested elsewhere in the film and it doesn't hold up. Self-interest? The film establishes that Miles doesn't believe he can ever suffer meaningful consequences for his actions, and in a COVID context, that critique extends itself far outside of the ranks of billionaires. I'm 100% on the 'it was hydroxychloroquine' train.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
Probably a dumb question but what was with the burnout guy who showed up all of three times and was like "haha don't mind me I'm totally not here!" Was that a reference to something, deliberately lazy misdirection, does Rian Johnson just really like using that actor in things? All of the above? I really did think he was 'Chekov's Fratboy' for a minute there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
It was funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:does Rian Johnson just really like using that actor in things? That was Noah Segan, so yes
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
josh04 posted:Yeah, I think all the underlings have some kind of awkward familial relationship going on, to Miles and to each other and their hanger-ons - like Birdie and Peg. It's only really Miles who has this group of protégés in place of children. I kept trying to figure out if we were supposed to read Birdie and Peg as lovers, sisters or ditzy mom and responsible daughter. Mister Speaker posted:Probably a dumb question but what was with the burnout guy who showed up all of three times and was like "haha don't mind me I'm totally not here!" Was that a reference to something, deliberately lazy misdirection, does Rian Johnson just really like using that actor in things? All of the above? Of course Miles would have his own Kato Kaelin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Probably a dumb question but what was with the burnout guy who showed up all of three times and was like "haha don't mind me I'm totally not here!" Was that a reference to something, deliberately lazy misdirection, does Rian Johnson just really like using that actor in things? All of the above? It's another Glass Onion metaphor. Bron literally tells everyone he's not related, so despite showing up in several scenes......... An alternative interpretation is to observe what he's holding in just about every scene. EDIT: Everyone posted:Of course Miles would have his own Kato Kaelin. Yeah, there's that, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
josh04 posted:I wrote a thing about Glass Onion and what it does and doesn't say about billionaires. This is good stuff
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
Every good mystery needs a red herring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Every good mystery needs a red herring. This one had about sixteen of them. It's great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
I went from liking the Kato guy to thinking it was a bit affected to loving him when he turned up at the end with a light. Thanks for the detailed response! The COVID stuff I think could be taken either way - in a film that obsessively explains its twists, I tend towards thinking we're supposed to take it at face value, with the implication that it's all nonsense a sort of fun easter egg, versus something like the last Always Sunny season finale where characters who treat the virus with hubris just slowly and apparently become ill. I don't think this is a huge problem with the film though. I'll have to come back to you about the spoiler-y stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Just watched this. I liked the first. I didn't like this overall but it had good moments. Some of my problems were that the first hour (which was a lot better) withheld that Andi had a twin sister, which the rest of the movie relies upon - every other twist that I noticed relied on a similar exclusion of actual dialogue within scenes we just don't see until later. Or in some cases already obvious and treated like a revelation later. In a mystery film I like to feel like you could have worked it out on your own, like what I've seen is clever, but this movie never felt clever. I also thought the rich people satire was pretty cliche and didn't make me laugh - Kate Hudson's character was just a series of clunkers. The only one I thought was actually funny was Dave Bautista's character, him talking about his googs blowing up was the only time I think I actually laughed - and then he died! One of the other more bland characters like the senator or lionel should have been sacrificed for stake raising because they added nothing afterwards. So many cuts to reaction shots when somebody says something stupid to make sure the audience knows the movie thinks it was stupid. Then the whole last sequence leading up to the burning of the Mona Lisa took way too long because it was obvious that was where it was going. Didn't really feel like anything a billionaire's lawyers couldn't work around though. A major financial hit probably, but I didn't buy that Miles Bron was actually done or that his friends would turn against him. It felt like it was really reaching over the goal to make the gently caress you Miles ending land. Edward Norton's performance was pretty good, too, actually. Also this might just be me but I found Monae's performance to not really be good enough to center the movie around. Gonna read the thread now and see if my opinions change. I usually miss things in movies like this, so my points might not be totally valid, but that doesn't change that throughout the movie my entertainment levels were gradually going down. roomtone fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Dec 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
Rampant Dwickery posted:An alternative interpretation is to observe what he's holding in just about every scene. Remind me again, it was Corona wasn't it? Is there significance to this other than being a jab at 'lol we made this movie during COVID'?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
josh04 posted:I went from liking the Kato guy to thinking it was a bit affected to loving him when he turned up at the end with a light. For me, the fact that Blanc questioned what it was, didn't get a response, and then the rest of the movie was dedicated to showing that Miles was an idiot fraud who rushes out bad science for notoriety is more than enough to sell the gag. You're definitely supposed to think it's some kind of rich people super serum in the moment, but nothing about the remainder of the movie indicates that you're supposed to keep thinking that upon reflection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
This movie was entertaining
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
Yeah just watched it also. Was ok. I liked the giallo inspired bits and lighting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
needed to be more like a giallo. had the beautiful setting down
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:This movie was entertaining I'm surprised at how many people thought the napkin was supposed to have actual important writing on it, beyond its relevance to the court stuff. Maybe it's just me, but I assumed it was meant(beyond its plot function) to be a joke about the "i wrote the idea down on a napkin" cliche being, well, that. It's a cliche and in reality the napkin isn't going to be where the real important ideas are(but a certain kind of person sure loves making themselves look better by overhyping stuff like that). The movie certainly doesn't pretend that the napkin is supposed to have actual supergenius stuff on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 04:32
|
|
|
Napkins being used for million dollar ideas is a new thing for me, I thought the cliche was that it was for contracts where big executives met at a bar and got drunk and wrote a sales contract together
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Napkins being used for million dollar ideas is a new thing for me, I thought the cliche was that it was for contracts where big executives met at a bar and got drunk and wrote a sales contract together https://www.eandvgroup.com/the-cocktail-napkin-hall-of-fame/
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
News to me!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
roomtone posted:Then the whole last sequence leading up to the burning of the Mona Lisa took way too long because it was obvious that was where it was going. Didn't really feel like anything a billionaire's lawyers couldn't work around though. A major financial hit probably, but I didn't buy that Miles Bron was actually done or that his friends would turn against him. It felt like it was really reaching over the goal to make the gently caress you Miles ending land. A billionaire's lawyers probably could get him off, but one of the keys to this is that Miles isn't going to be a billionaire after this. He sank everything he had into Klear, his sci-fi super-fuel that just destroyed one of the great treasures of art. And he personally killed two people. Who used to be his "friends." And his "friends" are turning on him because they know what happens if they don't. He passes the blame for this onto one or more of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
Everyone posted:A billionaire's lawyers probably could get him off, but one of the keys to this is that Miles isn't going to be a billionaire after this. He sank everything he had into Klear, his sci-fi super-fuel that just destroyed one of the great treasures of art. And he personally killed two people. Who used to be his "friends." I mean, one of them was already ruined the moment Duke died: Claire. Getting caught in a party during COVID restrictions and with MRA Duke (I didn't look carefully enough, but I'm certain that Claire is a Democrat) has pretty much ruined her chances at the Senate seat and probably endanger her position as governor. The Glass Onion exploding from Klear was just the final nail in the coffin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 07:11
|
|
|
Everyone posted:A billionaire's lawyers probably could get him off, but one of the keys to this is that Miles isn't going to be a billionaire after this. He sank everything he had into Klear, his sci-fi super-fuel that just destroyed one of the great treasures of art. And he personally killed two people. Who used to be his "friends." He would have plenty of net worth outside of Klear, I don't think it was said he put literally all of it into this. Alpha was diversified, they made a point of that. Klear was just his current major project. If Klear disappears, well he's still got a huge company and valuable assets like a personal greek island at his disposal, plus a personal wealth probably larger than all of his friends combined. The rest about klear destroying the mona lisa and killing two people is just like Blanc said - there's no hard evidence for any of that. In fact Helen was the one who actually destroyed the mona lisa, so she'd be on the hook. That's all exactly the sort of stuff he'd be able to lawyer out of, if charges were even pursued. It was just a simplistic ploy to make the ending a rebellious victory, but I can't see a way that he actually loses. Hurt by it, yeah he's gonna have some bad PR and expenses, but that wasn't what the ending was going for. I think after the film ends, Miles goes 'wait a minute' and realises he's still got plenty of routes out - even if he is an idiot, the people he employs or keeps on retainer won't be. All of his friends and Helen are going to be accountable for their own crimes/misdeeds if they try to stand against him, anyway, and they all had something. So everybody loses everything to make a rich man less rich. roomtone fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Dec 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 07:16
|
|
|
roomtone posted:He would have plenty of net worth outside of Klear, it was never said he put literally all of it into this. Alpha was diversified, they made a point of that. Klear was just his current major project. If Klear disappears, well he's still got a huge company and valuable assets like a personal greek island at his disposal, plus a personal wealth probably larger than all of his friends combined. Debatable. Alpha's board was already in revolt over Klear and was only being kept in line by Lionel's assurances. Klear blowing up the boss man's home, destroying the Mona Lisa, and almost killing him means Lionel is no longer going to being Bron's whip. We're also not sure how diversified Alpha really was, because, like his disruptors, they all seemed to be there to advance his goals, so it's likely he had everything sunk into Klear so it could get a wide acceptance, from rockets to power generation to home heating to cars, or to help push that message, like Alpha News. Also, he clearly violated the insurance agreement with the Mona Lisa by installing his clown switch. He could lawyer out of it, eventually, but he's going through litigation hell for maybe the rest of his life. roomtone posted:It was just a really simplistic ploy to give the ending a rebellious victory but I can't see a way that he actually loses. Hurt by it, sure, but that wasn't what the ending was going for. I think the next day he goes 'wait a minute' and realises he's still got plenty of routes out - even if he is an idiot, the people he employs or keeps on retainer won't be. That's why my headcanon is that Bron dies from complications of COVID amid an ivermectin overdose about a month after the film ends. I mean, Johnson has said that the only person returning is Blanc (and probably Hugh Grant), so it's not like we're going to see what happens to Alpha or Blood Like Wine Publishing in a future installment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 07:36
|
|
roomtone posted:The rest about klear destroying the mona lisa and killing two people is just like Blanc said - there's no hard evidence for any of that. In fact Helen was the one who actually destroyed the mona lisa, so she'd be on the hook. That's all exactly the sort of stuff he'd be able to lawyer out of, if charges were even pursued. the only reason she was able to destroy it was because Bron violated basically every possible insurance or loan agreement he had with the french government by putting in an override on the safety cage, which - frankly - the french government probably wouldn't bother to sue him, they'd just have him killed.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 07:57
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:Agreed. I think Johnson either didn't understand the importance or just plain screwed up the basic premise of the napkin cliche. A hastily sketched out idea or design for a new product could theoretically be used to establish ownership of intellectual property rights. But it's a hastily sketched out idea for a company, and that's pretty irrelevant when it comes to actual ownership of that company.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 08:27
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:the only reason she was able to destroy it was because Bron violated basically every possible insurance or loan agreement he had with the french government by putting in an override on the safety cage, which - frankly - the french government probably wouldn't bother to sue him, they'd just have him killed. not necessarily a moral outcome but certainly an understandable move for them in this instance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 08:38
|
|
|
There's a prestigious detective who can put together a compelling story that implicates Bron in two murders and four witnesses that can corrobrate that story. Those same four witnesses can testify that Bron was carelessly playing around with his lighter which caused the Klear to ignite and destroy the painting. Bron isn't getting away with poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 10:54
|
|
|
1stGear posted:There's a prestigious detective who can put together a compelling story that implicates Bron in two murders and four witnesses that can corrobrate that story. Those same four witnesses can testify that Bron was carelessly playing around with his lighter which caused the Klear to ignite and destroy the painting. Bron isn't getting away with poo poo. Sure a forensic fire investigation would establish that the Klear ignited. That coupled with the 'destroy the Mona Lisa button' is enough to wreck him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 11:01
|
|
|
Simplex posted:I think Johnson either didn't understand the importance or just plain screwed up the basic premise of the napkin cliche. A hastily sketched out idea or design for a new product could theoretically be used to establish ownership of intellectual property rights. But it's a hastily sketched out idea for a company, and that's pretty irrelevant when it comes to actual ownership of that company.  ), but the important part is whether or not everyone lied about it in court. This seems to be the book in the background btw: https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-D...ps%2C184&sr=8-1 stev posted:Sure a forensic fire investigation would establish that the Klear ignited. That coupled with the 'destroy the Mona Lisa button' is enough to wreck him. The fire that Andi/the twin started aka did an arson and then deliberately pushed that button, knowing exactly what it would do
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The fire that Andi/the twin started aka did an arson and then deliberately pushed that button, knowing exactly what it would do What? No. There are four witnesses who will claim that Bron started the fire. On accident, sure, but goodness that Klear stuff is so dangerous that just waving a lighter around can ignite it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 11:43
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The fire that Andi/the twin started aka did an arson and then deliberately pushed that button, knowing exactly what it would do The thing is, this whole discussion is largely irrelevant. The point behind having the Mona Lisa there, plotwise, is that Miles staked his reputation (and a chunk of his fortune) on his promise to keep it safe. He's on the hook for whatever happens to it. Even if he manages to drag anyone else down with him, he can't escape responsibility by saying someone else did it because it was explicitly his job to stop that from happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
Had a thought - the movie starts off with a lot of Covid references that are not further explained because, duh, we all lived through it. But in some decades those details will seem quite weird without a footnote. What other movies have stuff that makes total sense for viewers at release but are just strange some years down the line? edit: thanks for the thread link! ymgve fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Dec 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
ymgve posted:Had a thought - the movie starts off with a lot of Covid references that are not further explained because, duh, we all lived through it. But in some decades those details will seem quite weird without a footnote. What other movies have stuff that makes total sense for viewers at release but are just strange some years down the line? There’s a whole thread! https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3899855
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
ymgve posted:Had a thought - the movie starts off with a lot of Covid references that are not further explained because, duh, we all lived through it. But in some decades those details will seem quite weird without a footnote. What other movies have stuff that makes total sense for viewers at release but are just strange some years down the line? I was curious too and did a quick look on epidemics that have happened during the era of film, and there's various things like smallpox, and different flu epidemics, but the one that jumps out as closest to Covid for film reasons is the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Surely there are some films from the 80's with people being extra scared/precautious of unprotected sex and future generations will either not notice it or be like, oh yeah, the HIV/AIDS scare was big around this time. Same with future generations clocking extra masks and hygiene and distancing in COVID era films?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
ymgve posted:Had a thought - the movie starts off with a lot of Covid references that are not further explained because, duh, we all lived through it. But in some decades those details will seem quite weird without a footnote. What other movies have stuff that makes total sense for viewers at release but are just strange some years down the line? It seemed strange to me because we're already past social distancing and mask wearing, so I thought 'oh yeah, i suppose this was made during covid'. The covid period was really just 2 years long or so, which means by the time a lot of movies made during it come out, it was already over and nobody wants to think about that poo poo anymore - although it's not like they could've known. I was glad they just moved on. I mean who wants to watch people's faces covered up and staying away from other actors. Maybe in 20 years it'll be vaguely interesting as a cultural artifact but unless something is explicitly about covid or 2020-2022, I don't want it included at all. Glass Onion could've been set in 2016 or 2024 or whatever, it's not important. roomtone fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Dec 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Don't forget the entire reason he had the Mona Lisa was because in a week all the world's leaders were coming to his place so he could pitch them on Klear. Having the place explode due to known issues with Klear won't win him any favors. duz fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Dec 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I mean, one of them was already ruined the moment Duke died: Claire. Getting caught in a party during COVID restrictions and with MRA Duke (I didn't look carefully enough, but I'm certain that Claire is a Democrat) has pretty much ruined her chances at the Senate seat and probably endanger her position as governor. The Glass Onion exploding from Klear was just the final nail in the coffin. The thing with Claire is nonsense. She was a witness in a highly publicized court case, as was Duke. And they both testified that they were present at the napkin moment. Why else would they be there if they did not know each other and rather well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
roomtone posted:I mean who wants to watch people's faces covered up and staying away from other actors. Maybe in 20 years it'll be vaguely interesting as a cultural artifact but unless something is explicitly about covid or 2020-2022, I don't want it included at all. Glass Onion could've been set in 2016 or 2024 or whatever, it's not important. I guarantee you we're gonna get a whole bunch of stupid movies that romanticize the lockdown in about 10 years. An entire genre of movies where the actors never interact. A million romcoms like "they say love is blind!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
Covid was huge enough that I think it will have a long lasting cultural memory and therefore not really feel odd to modern audiences. Films made during the Cold War don't feel odd to us now if they allude to nuclear paranoia or russian spies (any continuing tensions with Russia not withstanding). Maybe it will be a bit odd for kids born after the events, but it's good excuse for parents to say "Well, it was a scary time back then... no one really knew what was going on" during family film night, as my parents did vis a vis Cold War, so it'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 18:55
|
|
