mother! | 09.15.17 | Paramount | Darren Aronofsky, Jennifer Lawrence | Razzie Awards frontrunner

[Webslinger]

1 minute ago, Hatebox said:

 

I haven't seen mother so can't comment on its quality, but it sounds like you're agreeing with me. (No idea what TTOL is.)

The Tree of Life

[Hatebox]

1 minute ago, Webslinger said:

The Tree of Life

 

I wouldn't count that as it got great reviews out of the gate (not that you were the one who brought it up).

 

As for the Shining razzies... eh. Many thought it was bad at the time but they weren't appalled by it. Just disappointed and rather bemused.

[trifle]

 

 

3 hours ago, Gumby said:

I've read a few times that JLaw dared people to boycott the movie.

 

Any truth to this?

 

None.  I saw comments claiming that on twitter, but unless someone snuck a Jen interview past me that I didn't see (you have to admit that that is unlikely), no such thing ever happened. And I'll go further, I couldn't even imagine her saying that.

 

3 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

i will say i don't think it's an anti-christian movie. noah got painted with that same brush. i think it's just people see a unique and personal interpretation of those texts as inherently negative.

The worst thing is that I think the religious metaphors were unnecessary and somewhat distracting from the main message. It was fine for me, what a movie says isn't ever going to 'offend' my beliefs, I'd just laugh at them.  But when they distract from the main message, it, or any metaphor, is a bit annoying. I discarded them like a pickle someone put in a hamburger they handed me, and appreciated it regardless. I think Aronofsky is just really into religious metaphors.

 

I just came back from seeing it a second time.  I'm mulling over the review I'm going to give it. 

[AJG]

Quote

"This movie is very audacious and brave. You are talking about a director at the top of his game, and an actress at the top her game. They made a movie that was intended to be bold. Everyone wants original filmmaking, and everyone celebrates Netflix when they tell a story no one else wants to tell. This is our version," says Paramount worldwide president of marketing and distribution Megan Colligan. "We don't want all movies to be safe. And it's okay if some people don't like it."

 

Loooool. Paramount just said “you like it when Netflix do this shit, but when we do it you wanna bitch?” The response is so bitter. The Netflix hate is truly real.

[a2k]

15 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

Loooool. Paramount just said “you like it when Netflix do this shit, but when we do it you wanna bitch?” 

paying $8-10 per month for unlimited movies and watch them unlimited times in your home if you want

Vs 

paying that amount for only one movie by driving to a theater and getting to watch it just once

 

and people bitch and bitch and bitch about mother!...so unreasonable. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by a2knet
NETFLIX vs THEATERS

[trifle]

10 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

Loooool. Paramount just said “you like it when Netflix do this shit, but when we do it you wanna bitch?” The response is so bitter. The Netflix hate is truly real.

 

5 minutes ago, a2knet said:

paying $8-10 per month for unlimited movies and watch them unlimited times in your home if you want

Vs 

paying that amount for only one movie by driving to a theater and getting to watch it just once

 

and people bitch and bitch and bitch about mother!...so unreasonable. 

 

I'm pretty sure they were saying 'do you want original fare or don't you?' Not 'Netflix sucks!'.

[a2k]

1 minute ago, trifle said:

 

 

I'm pretty sure they were saying 'do you want original fare or don't you?' Not 'Netflix sucks!'.

i know. i am just comparing the huge cost and convenience gap when experimenting with movies on netflix vs theaters.

Edited September 17, 2017 by a2knet

[trifle]

13 minutes ago, a2knet said:

i know. i am just comparing the huge cost and convenience gap when experimenting with movies on netflix vs theaters.

Well, you're not wrong....

 

But does that mean we don't want anything new from movies in theaters? I mean it's a huger cost for a theatrical production to take that risk as well.

 

In the end, you like it or you don't, and Paramount can't be surprised there  are people who really, really don't.  But I do think it should be respected that all involved took risks. Which still doesn't change if you like it or don't!

 

But the reason I am in favor of this movie is I like for my favorite actress to stretch herself into different types of roles, and to take risks.

 

It is a really good thing no one asked my vote for a cinemascore, or I would have ruined their perfect F.

Edited September 17, 2017 by trifle

[Gumby]

So Paramount says the movie is "audacious and brave."  

 

I'll give them "audacious."  It most certainly is that.

 

But in no way is a movie "brave."  "Brave" is a cop going into a drug house or a firefighter risking his life going into a burning building or a soldier fighting ISIS.  

 

This is people play acting and making millions of dollars.  I'm not sure why they would release a defensive statement like this.

[trifle]

2 minutes ago, Gumby said:

So Paramount says the movie is "audacious and brave."  

 

I'll give them "audacious."  It most certainly is that.

 

But in no way is a movie "brave."  "Brave" is a cop going into a drug house or a firefighter risking his life going into a burning building or a soldier fighting ISIS.  

 

This is people play acting and making millions of dollars.  I'm not sure why they would release a defensive statement like this.

 

It isn't physically brave.  But risking a career is brave as well. Have you gone into a drug house or risked your life in a burning building, or enlisted to fight ISIS?  I haven't. But even not in that context, there were things I was apprehensive of doing. You can call the statement defensive, and since it never once struck me that way, I will have to consider it from your point of view. I was reading it as, 'we took a risk, and we stand by it.'

[AJG]

4 minutes ago, Gumby said:

So Paramount says the movie is "audacious and brave."  

 

I'll give them "audacious."  It most certainly is that.

 

But in no way is a movie "brave."  "Brave" is a cop going into a drug house or a firefighter risking his life going into a burning building or a soldier fighting ISIS.  

 

This is people play acting and making millions of dollars.  I'm not sure why they would release a defensive statement like this.

 

They mean “brave” as in a company spending money to launch a new product that wasn’t guaranteed to be a big seller from its conception (like a SpiderMan movie).

 

The word “brave” can be used to describe many different actions outside life or death situations.

[a2k]

1 hour ago, trifle said:

Well, you're not wrong....

 

But does that mean we don't want anything new from movies in theaters? I mean it's a huger cost for a theatrical production to take that risk as well.

 

In the end, you like it or you don't, and Paramount can't be surprised there  are people who really, really don't.  But I do think it should be respected that all involved took risks. Which still doesn't change if you like it or don't!

 

But the reason I am in favor of this movie is I like for my favorite actress to stretch herself into different types of roles, and to take risks.

 

It is a really good thing no one asked my vote for a cinemascore, or I would have ruined their perfect F.

yes i agree with that and if they had kept their statements limited to audacity, risk and experimenting it would have been fine. i think their pulling netflix into it didn't make much sense due to the different inputs required in both the mediums. seemed a bit passive aggressive "you like netflix originals so what's wrong with this". well there was nothing wrong with theatrical risks (solaris for eg) even before netflix existed. and there isn't anything wrong with taking those risks right now.

 

i don't think they appreciated why a different medium like netflix finds it easier to sell stories no one wants to tell and why people have slightly safer expectations from theaters due to the time and money people put in compared to watching netflix with a monthly subscription.

[trifle]

2 minutes ago, a2knet said:

yes i agree with that and if they had kept their statements limited to audacity, risk and experimenting it would have been fine. i think their pulling netflix into it didn't make much sense due to the different inputs required in both the mediums. seemed a bit passive aggressive "you like netflix originals so what's wrong with this". well there was nothing wrong with theatrical risks (solaris for eg) even before netflix existed. and there isn't anything wrong with taking those risks right now.

 

i don't think they appreciated why a different medium like netflix finds it easier to sell stories no one wants to tell and why people have slightly safer expectations from theaters due to the time and money people put in compared to watching netflix with a monthly subscription.

OK, I guess I'm not up on the Netflix animosity.  The mention of Netflix added nothing to the comment for me, so it could have been omitted, imho.

[The Futurist]

Oh,

the mother! screening hosted by Christopher Nolan & Rian Johnson in 2027 in LA with special guests

Darren & Jennifer Aronofski

to celebrate the Tenth Anniversary of mother!, the movie that changed Hollywood forever :

Will you be there ?

Will you be invited ?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by The Futurist

[a2k]

5 minutes ago, trifle said:

OK, I guess I'm not up on the Netflix animosity.  The mention of Netflix added nothing to the comment for me, so it could have been omitted, imho.

Even Paramount may not have mentioned them negatively. But yeah, couldn't just make the connection considering risks like these have always been taken.

Anyways, like they say: movies don't fail, only budgets fail. As long as studios are real about financial expectations I support all the risks they take. But we might just have become a world where very big risks are more practical on other mediums.

[The Panda]

mother! Was a risk and experimental.  I'll give them that.

 

But the thing about risks and experiments is they don't always work.  So when one doesn't, don't defend it as one that does.

[baumer]

Are we supposed to praise a film for being symbolic and nothing else?

[JB33]

4 hours ago, Gumby said:

So Paramount says the movie is "audacious and brave."  

 

I'll give them "audacious."  It most certainly is that.

 

But in no way is a movie "brave."  "Brave" is a cop going into a drug house or a firefighter risking his life going into a burning building or a soldier fighting ISIS.  

 

This is people play acting and making millions of dollars.  I'm not sure why they would release a defensive statement like this.

Oh FFS....

 

No dog in this fight but I guess nobody can say they're brave if they're not doing the things you listed. Come on, I think you know what they were getting at.

[Jeriosnal]

Making a lousy movie isn't brave.  

[raegr]

49 minutes ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

Are we supposed to praise a film for being symbolic and nothing else?

BUH BUH, IT'S A BIBLICAL ALLEGORY THAT SLOPPILY CRAMMED IN ATHEIST MESSAGES! 

 

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DRAW THE LINES DUHHHH