|
Al! posted:god they do the yelling while covered in ki fire and running at each other too. theres an argument to be made that the marvel movies are so popular because they introduced a bunch of anime tropes to a new generation what generation was unfamiliar with anime in the 2010s
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
BONGHITZ posted:its badass, the others are too woke this
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
who will be the first queer z-fighter
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
the best Marvel fight (one of maybe three I remember clearly) is Cap+Bucky vs Iron Man and there's almost no energy beams
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:who will be the first queer z-fighter Piccolo is ace/aro
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
In Training posted:So why's it epic when Dragonball does it. What part of the sauce are they missing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
It just feels very silly in WW because up that point she's been basically exclusively dealing with World War 1 weaponry but then it's the Big Bad so he has to start fighting with Lightning Bolts instead lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:15
|
|
|
fighting the god of war with lightning bolts huh. sort of like a krieg blitz
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
How do you have the gall to call yourself Cyclops when you have two eyes??!?!?!!!?? THAT WORK
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Clip-On Fedora posted:How do you have the gall to call yourself Cyclops when you have two eyes??!?!?!!!?? THAT WORK You're just gonna have to google image search 'Cyclops Rule 34' to find out. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
indigi posted:that's a little better I guess. boring decisions are better than bad ones (usually) untrue. I'll take a spectacular failure over please-everyone pablum any day of the week
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
Redezga posted:You're just gonna have to google image search 'Cyclops Rule 34' to find out. What thats three eyes not one his name should be Triclops then
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:49
|
|
|
2+1=3 DO THE MATH
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
the beams of light in dbz work because they're an expression of the character melodrama, we want to know what goku is going to have to give up to beat the unbeatable cell or w/e. the beams of light don't work in captain marvel because two out of the three protagonists literally don't know who the villain is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
I don't do nerd poo poo and I'm not about to try and understand how 1 + 2 could possibly equal 3 when they're all completely different numbers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
well I’m glad because I’m not here to educate you
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:59
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:watching the springtime for hitler musical sequence from the 2005 film and what really bugs me about this is that theres nothing to really indicate its parody as in why is broadway musical camp hitler supposed to be obvious parody but none of the previous setpiece wasnt what kind of hitler would you expect to see in an unironically pronazi broadway show that isnt just hitler as urkel was the audience expecting a show that up until that point was about how great hitler is to depict him as an rear end in a top hat Because the book was written by a Nazi, remember? The libretto was by the gay composer and was mostly inoffensive. It was the casting that led it to be camp and a parody, which is why the producers cast who they cast. Springtime for Hitler was performed by the ensemble, all of whom are shown to be competent actors, singers and dancers. Since the music was competent, the production design was competent, and the ensemble were competent - because all of those people thought they were making a hit musical - the producers' were the only ones who were trying to undermine the production, they scene is played straight. This is true in the original film, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIZKZ3C1ML8 The 2005 film, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_ACDUBURhE and on Broadway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7laQLJ_K9C0&t=2577s Now, there are camp elements in the number, which reflects the producers selecting Roger DeBris as director and bringing on his flamboyant production team, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-c9Z0L2YLI The producers anticipate that the book by Liebkind being so at odds with Roger's style will contribute to the show failing, but none of the production team do. They are all earnestly trying to make as good a show as they can, so the choreography is gay, but it's not a parody, and so is the set design and everything else. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 18:11 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:59
|
|
|
Clip-On Fedora posted:well I’m glad because I’m not here to educate you 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
In Training posted:So why's it epic when Dragonball does it. What part of the sauce are they missing. Marvel/DC style superhero stories have always been a form of content laundering. Take whatever is popular like detective stories, sci fi, or kung fu and construct a shallow parody out of standard superhero tropes and trappings. The goal is a result that is inoffensive and can be endlessly churned out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:10
|
|
|
Al! posted:god they do the yelling while covered in ki fire and running at each other too. theres an argument to be made that the marvel movies are so popular because they culturally appropriated a bunch of anime tropes to a new generation fixed that for you
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
Civil War actually sounds good from the reviews. It's apparently about war journalism and sets the war in America so that Americans will actually maybe feel something from the movie and not actually anyone's fantasy and how a future civil war would play and how their side would be really cool and win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
still can't get over the texas-california alliance tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:still can't get over the texas-california alliance tho it's so no one thinks this movie about an American civil war is political or anything
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
Whoolighams posted:it's so no one thinks this movie about an American civil war is political or anything it’s like when Reddit banned the Donald but then had to ban chapo trap house
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Civil War actually sounds good from the reviews. It's apparently about war journalism and sets the war in America so that Americans will actually maybe feel something from the movie and not actually anyone's fantasy and how a future civil war would play and how their side would be really cool and win. It's probably gonna suck but maybe I'll still watch that rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
I've got better poo poo I still need to see though like Zone of Interest. And American Fiction
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
In Training posted:It's probably gonna suck but maybe I'll still watch that rear end. it's almost certainly going to suck and that's exactly why i'm still gonna watch it
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Civil War actually sounds good from the reviews. It's apparently about war journalism and sets the war in America so that Americans will actually maybe feel something from the movie and not actually anyone's fantasy and how a future civil war would play and how their side would be really cool and win. people are going to pick a side regardless of what the filmmakers intend
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:untrue. I'll take a spectacular failure over please-everyone pablum any day of the week but the overwhelming majority of failures aren't spectacular, they're typical. that's why I said usually
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:still can't get over the texas-california alliance tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
Let’s further breakdown Springtime for Hitler and what it means, with some background on theatre. We’re going to cover three things. What is “a show within a show” and how does it work? What kind of performances do we expect to see from actors when this device is used? (Depending on if they’re performing in the show we are watching or “the show within the show”) Finally, what kind of audience would attend a play like the one the producers stage during the 1960s? "The Producers," as presented on Broadway, (though I saw it during its Toronto run) encounters a unique challenge with its “show within a show” format. This format raises the question of how to distinguish between the performance we, the audience in the theatre, are viewing and the one being witnessed by the fictional audience within the play. By “problem,” I don't want to give a negative impression. Personally, I find the “show within a show” approach interesting because of its ability to incorporate parody and creative framing, playing with the narrative by allowing shifts in genre and tone. This technique is notably effective in "The Producers," but works in other shows as well, a recent example that also starred Nathan Lane was "Something Rotten." An instance where this is more of a problem is RENT. In RENT, if you’re familiar, Maureen stages her one-woman show. It’s supposed to be - as written - artsy and terrible. It’s a character moment that tells us about Maureen. She sucks. By the time they made the 2005 film version of RENT, Idina Menzel, who played Maureen on both stage and screen, was a huge star. This is a problem within the film, because Maureen the character is not supposed to be Idina Menzel, the actress. Idina clearly didn’t want to, or wasn’t directed to, give a bad performance as Maureen (within the one-woman show). She (Idina) hits all her notes, belts, riffs, and shows incredible dynamism in her vocal performance. These are all things Maureen, the artsy loser with delusions of grandeur, should not be able to do. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pXNd2V88d60&pp=ygURTWF1cmVlbiBzaG93IHJlbnQ%3D The play within the play is undermined by the performance being too good. It doesn’t tell us anything about the character. In fact, it gives the opposite impression of the character from what we’re supposed to have. Maureen is not supposed to be a great and talented performer and vocalist. An example of the opposite problem happened in a show that just finished its run on Broadway this week, the revival of Sweeney Todd. If you don’t know, this is the one that originally opened with Annaleigh Ashford and Josh Groban. Now, the reviews early in its run, from the media previews, people had problems with Annaleigh Ashford’s accent work. The point is that her accent undermined peoples impression of the character. It took them out of the play. (Whatever, I enjoy her as an actress, I think she made interesting choices in the role. She wasn’t trying to be Angela Landsbury. It’s okay to “miscast” someone from type, just like Hitler in the Producers, if it helps set the tone of the show. Too many performances in revivals, Lea Michelle in Funny Girl, are stuck in the shadow of their originating cast.) To save the production there was a bit of, I suppose you could say, stunt casting, because two of the biggest, most respected, stars on Broadway, Sutton Foster, and Aaron Tveit, were cast as replacements for Ashford and Groban. This led audiences, cornfed middle American tourists, going to Broadway to see Sweeney Todd, expecting to see those actors perform essentially as Broadway stars. This is the opposite problem as Mendel in RENT. So, when Sutton Foster, who is a very talented actress, as well as singer and dancer, decided to play a character and make vocal choices as the character we would say, singing the way the character would, audiences responded extremely negatively. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nwkR1svlmJg&t=85s&pp=ygUac3V0dG9uIGZvc3RlciBzd2VlbmV5IHRvZGQ%3D Can Sutton Foster, the actress, hit every note as written for The Worst Pies in London? Absolutely! Of course she can! She’s very talented. But should the character be completely polished vocally? I don’t think so. (We can circle back to this if you want, but this is kind of a problem with musical theatre generally, because some shows are sung through in a way that we, the audience, know the songs are diegetic. They are reflecting the characters’ speech. In other shows, the character’s singing voice is dramatically different than their speaking voice, and that tells us that the songs reflect the characters’ thoughts. Other shows have even more complex relationships between the book and libretto, but essentially the through-line in all of this is that there’s a relationship between music and character. That’s without getting into Rogers and Hammerstein, and the mid century innovation of the dream ballet - how dance, in addition to acting and singing, reflects the character.) So these are all of the performance considerations that are in the background of Springtime for Hitler within The Producers. How should the number go? How should the ensemble and the character of Hitler play their parts? Well, that leads us into the next thing we have to discuss, now that we’ve covered a bit about the device of a show within a show, and the relationship between performance and character. We have to talk about audience. That’s because within a show, within the show, (try saying that ten times fast) we are not the (only) audience. There’s a fictional audience as well. What is Springtime for Hitler supposed to convey to them? How would it be performed? Who is the intended audience and what kind of performance will have the intended result? Understanding the cultural and historical context of musical theater during Mel Brooks' era is crucial. The medium held significant prestige and cultural relevance. It was, chiefly, the mark of having upper middle class taste. Standards sung today, “the great American songbook”, often originate in musical theatre between 1950 and 1970. If you read impressive, newspapers and magazines, as well as Book-of-the-Month club books, you were expected to have at least a passing familiarity with the Broadway shows of the day. It was an important sign of taste, and the plots and songs of shows were often referred to in conversation. To provide an example of this, I almost guarantee that everybody here, even if you haven’t seen the shows, knows, at least some lyrics or phrases or references that allude to, Camelot, drat Yankees, My Fair Lady, Bye Bye Birdie, The Fantasticks, How to Succeed in Business, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, Oliver!, Fiddler On the Roof, Funny Girl, Hello, Dolly!, Man of LaMancha, or Cabaret. For chrissakes, the first filmed part of the Adam Friedland Show contained a musical number from Cabaret. 34:15 https://youtu.be/NKo8VVqHoTA?si=L7GkD68bX2T9W_my] The Kennedy administration was dubbed 'Camelot,' in reference to the successful Broadway musical, highlighting the profound impact of musical theater in the mid-1960s. It was on everybody’s minds. It dictated how they thought about politics. It still does! Aaron Sorkin is practically the avatar of upper middle-class educated baby boomers, who developed their cultural preferences around this time. He refers to the ending of Camelot as a pivotal moment - connected to a political message - in his show The Newsroom. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N5bqAVUkUgw Will McAvoy : [to MacKenzie, smiling] Camelot. She's the kid at the end of Camelot! [Turns to Jennifer] Will McAvoy : Ask me again. Jennifer Johnson : I'm sorry? Will McAvoy : Ask me your idiot question again. Jennifer Johnson : What makes America the greatest country in the world? Will McAvoy : You do. [to MacKenzie] Will McAvoy : Hire her. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_lhduy0Em74&pp=ygUOY2FtZWxvdCBlbmRpbmc%3D Critic and theatre historian Ethan Mordden says that Broadway was mid century idealism, and liberalism, given cultural form. Broadway was a big deal. This is the cultural context in which Bialystok and Bloom are making their musical. so that being the case, how could they disgust and revolt an audience, on the opening night of a show, to guarantee it failed? The Producers revolves around the producers' intent to stage a flop by offending the post-war audience, capitalizing on the sensibilities of an era where the horrors of World War II were still fresh. The film and its 2005 remake illustrate this through the audience's shocked reactions, up until the very moment that the character of Hitler, contrary to expectations, can’t stay in character, and they burst into laughter. As you know, the twist ruins the producers' original plan, as the audience, thinking it’s a parody, loves, rather than hates the play, as intended. They were not intending to make a parody at all. A parody would not achieve the kind of failure that they said out to make. It had to be played straight, and so we see a straight performance. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 19:31 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
In Training posted:I've got better poo poo I still need to see though like Zone of Interest. And American Fiction haven't brought myself to watch zone yet but i loved american fiction
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:still can't get over the texas-california alliance tho why not? if the movie has it as a cultural alliance that's silly, but they're both economic and military powerhouses with outsized food/energy production and a ton of ports. a strategic alliance makes sense. in a world where an American civil war doesn't go nuclear inside the first week, it'd be a smart play. negotiate a ceasefire with NY/PA/NJ, mop the floor with everyone else, and decouple their respective state governments. Cali gets Hawaii and Texas gets PR. done and dusted
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Because the book was written by a Nazi, remember? The libretto was by the gay composer and was mostly inoffensive. It was the casting that led it to be camp and a parody, which is why the producers cast who they cast. its not the competency of the production itself that bothers me but the reaction of the audience in the 2005 scene that this is the most horribly offensive thing theyve ever seen only to change their minds when hitler shows up in the exact same showtunes style theyve already seen i should probably put these side by side to better explain what i mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovCf9VRLnDY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca7063tXIP4 irritatingly i cant find beatnik hitler on youtube so youll have to take my word for it that hitler does in fact look and act like a beatnik but you can clearly see in the second clip the entire production is gay camp long before hitler ever actually shows up so its a bit perplexing why a tonally consistent hitler inspires laughs while the pro nazi hitler free part of the production inspired horror as long as i have these side by side im really struck by other differences just in sheer quality the 1968 number has much more elaborate choreography with way more dancers and a giant human swastika it actually looks like something that requires a fairly high budget the 2005 version is weirdly halfassed by comparison the wardrobe is like halloween costume versions of the original and theres no depth and no stairs this same style is also really obvious in the audience shots in the original version the audience shots emphasize not just size of the crowd but the variety of reactions we get slow pans of expressions that are mostly disgusted but also fairly specific types of disgusted and you can even see some people being kind of excited with the one guy at the end doing excited clapping this neatly foreshadows how the setpiece could be interpreted multiple different ways which directly leads to the show becoming a hit when the appearance of beatnik hitler seems to confirm the satirical interpretation the 2005 audience is just really flat by comparison i get the impression that the 1968 audience was not given specific direction on how to respond and may not have even been told in advance what they were going to be watching the 2005 audience is so in lockstep they may as well be computer generated their response to gay camp hitler feels really artificial because gay camp hitler is no more or less satirical than the part of the show theyd already seen oh and while im at it the same scene timestamped in the broadway camera recording you posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7laQLJ_K9C0&t=6390s and now i can actually see why these changes were made the broadway musical version doesnt have an audience because it doesnt have an objective camera so the actual audience as in the people who are watching the show are just laughing their heads off at the whole setpiece theres no tension about the plan seeming to succeed only to fall apart when hitler shows up because the whole sequence is presented as an unbroken straight line not an abrupt pivot the 2005 film must have maintained these editing decisions solely because they were in the 1968 film even though they dont work at all with the changes that were made in the broadway musical adaptation im a little surprised the same person who made the broadway musical also made the movie although maybe i shouldnt be just because shes good at broadway doesnt mean shes good at film and her never having done another film suggests shes cognizant of these limitations btw if youre wondering what susan stroman has been up to lately since she hasnt made any other films https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ZnYOP96TA
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
States that can't agree on anything teaming up to kill people and form their own government is actually very American
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
indigi posted:why not? if the movie has it as a cultural alliance that's silly, but they're both economic and military powerhouses with outsized food/energy production and a ton of ports. a strategic alliance makes sense. in a world where an American civil war doesn't go nuclear inside the first week, it'd be a smart play. negotiate a ceasefire with NY/PA/NJ, mop the floor with everyone else, and decouple their respective state governments. Cali gets Hawaii and Texas gets PR. done and dusted from the rio to the sea 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
people made fun of DBZ for being homogenous and repetitive when it was airing, just like they do with MCU movies today. remember all the jokes about goku powering up the spirit bomb for 20 episodes? DBZ wasn't perceived as mainstream in the 90s, so you were more likely to overlook the boring parts or even defend them as a quirky aspect of a niche fandom that you liked, whereas MCU movies are billion-dollar blockbusters so criticizing them is cool and anti-establishment and disney is an easy target
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
As mentioned already though the original airing was pretty whack and was rightfully criticized.to the point where they went and authored a better edit. Will they rerelease avengers in 20 years that cuts all 15 boring movies into one insane 4 hour roller coaster?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
Pepe Silvia Browne posted:all that being said, if i could shoot beams of colored light out of my hands, i would i bet you wouldn't. and also couldn't
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
the milk machine posted:i bet you wouldn't. and also couldn't if he could then I absolutely think he could. you're just being mean for no reason with this, it's uncalled for
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 20:02
|
|