The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

I liked this movie. It was easily forgettable, but a great weekend movie.

I will say about this video Bob... I loved the whole *super analysis of a poorly received movie*, but you needed to make this one 3 episodes.

I felt like you were seriously cramming too much into this last episode.

Captch: respect me (lol)

... and there goes my interest in Sucker Punch.

Really film makers, you had to go attack Third Wave feminism? And badly? Come on - we're not suggesting everyone "save themselves with sexy dances" - we're saying that we should have the right to dress and act as we choose.

The Second Wave "everything sexy is evil" bullshit is just as awful and limiting as being forced to wear dresses and high heels.

Third Wave believes that every woman should have the right to be who she wants to be, with no one telling her otherwise. If she wants to be sexy, she can own it, but she doesn't HAVE to be.

So yeah, my interest in this movie is now dead. **sigh and walks away**

You need to come out of the closet bob. You like middle school girls who kick ass and drool over them, nothing wrong with that. Just don't make some thing shallow and fan service-y sound so deep.

its still fucking delightful that most of the people of who watched it pirated it so basically shits on the film maker. ive never watched it n never will tbh

impocalyptic:
Sarkeesian denounced this as misogyny dressed up as female empowerment. I thought she just didn't get it then and, thanks to Bob, I now have a good reason for believing so. Someone send these vids to her!

I really hope we stop giving her so much power, I feel it turning into her being the foremost authority on what is or isn't feminist/misogynist, the way some of us tried to insist that Roger Ebert was such authority over what is considered art.

The reason why Starship Troopers and Inglourious Basterds (never heard of that other one) are so good is because it is clear to the audience that its a satire of real life.

The propaganda in Starship Troopers clearly shows the satire...would you like to know more?

Inglourious Basterds is clearly fictional but that wasn't evident right away. The first scene is scarily realistic and brilliant but as soon as the 'Basterds' are shown you know that it is a work of fiction. It was also awesome when they blew Hitler away and then continued to shoot his face to shit. Hilarious!

Suckerpunch fails in demonstrating this because if someone has to explain why a movie is deep, then it isn't. No-one cares why its deep knowing the hidden message behind doesn't change that the movie sucked.

I'm going to go with: The curtains were fucking blue. Cookie if you get the reference.

castlewise:
If I'm in a certain mood I really did this kind of deep analysis of movies. Hunting for metaphors and hidden meanings can be fun. Its hard to know where to stop though. For example its probably safe to assume the curtain call thing at the beginning was put there for a reason. On the other hand, last week MovieBob included the advertising for the film as part of the film's message, and I'm not sure that moviemakers always artistic direction over their posters and trailers.

Yeah, but you can be pretty certain they knew TITTEHS!!!! was going to be part of it.

pearcinator:
The reason why Starship Troopers and Inglourious Basterds (never heard of that other one) are so good is because it is clear to the audience that its a satire of real life.

Except, at release, Starship Troopers wasn't considered clear.

It's awesome to say it in hindsight, and in fact I was saying it at the time, but most weren't.

Can't speak for Inglorious Basterds, because I can't name a Tarantino movie Except Pulp Fiction I didn't completely despise. But Starship Troopers? Not only did people not take it as satire on face value, there was also the book.

Brilliant! A very thought-provoking analysis Bob! Please do "Manos: The Hands of Fate" next.

I'll jump start you, shall I?

Manos: The Hands of Fate has been lauded for years as possibly one of the worst movies in cinema history, but those who think so are wrong and I will prove them wrong, because I am right and they are wrong.

The title of the movie is an evocation to the old Greek myth of the Moirae, three women who had the thread of life of every individual (even Gods), being a personification of Fate, of which not even the Gods could escape from.

Likewise, the director has the audience in a situation where they cannot escape from (unless they leave the theater) and he will puppeteer us into questioning what makes an actual movie, by presenting a film with no story, characters, actors, sound, photography or even editing.

Notice that, unlike Fellini's 8 1/2, where we are shown the inner and outer struggles of a director while he is making a movie that is not the one we are watching, Manos is a struggle of the audience and of the movie itself, going into a deeper layer of self-awareness that none other director has tried of yet.

But the movie has more strengths than just questioning how can a movie exist without its parts. The 5-minute car ride where absolutely nothing happens, leaves the audience asking themselves if they aren't suffering a fate worse than death. And even though nothing in the movie actually suggests this, one can be confident enough to say this is a criticism at our society.

Remember, at that time, movie-goers were usually middle-to-upper class, and it's with a great deal of caustic cynicism that the movie "forces" the audience (much like Fate forces events upon our lives) to believe they are the most miserable creature on Earth, even when the audience itself KNOWS there are people dying in Africa, Asia, South America and even struggling with poverty in their own country. They KNOW, but cannot FEEL anything other than utter despair. A despair that is self-inflicted; a reminder of the incapacity of any individual to change the world into a better place. No two hands can change fate.

I could go on, but unfortunately I am far from qualified in this regard; I just hope MovieBob reads this, picks it up and polishes it. Furthermore, I have only seen Manos: The Hands of Fate twice until the end. The other times, when I show it to my friends, they usually give up at the car scene.

Yeah, it is kind of like a porn flick where the actresses get naked and then pontificate that anyone turned on is some nerd with no life, who will never get laid. Which isn't necessarily a correct assumption around the motives of watching pornography. But any other merit the movie might have had is lost at this point.

Which renders most of the deconstruction in part 2 irrelevant. Not wrong, and maybe interesting enough, but not enough to make a bad movie good.

So, it's a bad movie, and people who think it is a bad movie, which is most people, aren't wrong.

As best I can tell the movie has been mostly forgotten at this point. Does it have any kind of cult following?

Zachary Amaranth:

pearcinator:
The reason why Starship Troopers and Inglourious Basterds (never heard of that other one) are so good is because it is clear to the audience that its a satire of real life.

Except, at release, Starship Troopers wasn't considered clear.

It's awesome to say it in hindsight, and in fact I was saying it at the time, but most weren't.

Can't speak for Inglorious Basterds, because I can't name a Tarantino movie Except Pulp Fiction I didn't completely despise. But Starship Troopers? Not only did people not take it as satire on face value, there was also the book.

Yes, apparently the book was completely different and was written straight and realistic. I'm not American but the movie reminded just how America would react...Funnily enough, the movie came out BEFORE 9/11 and America's response with the 'War on Terrorism' is surprisingly similar to how the humans react in Starship Troopers.

I don't know how you didn't straight away see the satire (maybe you're American?). It opens with military propaganda. The 'enemy' planet is on the other side of the galaxy! They aren't even space-faring creatures!

Then the scene goes to the Humans invading the bug home planet (Klendathu)...they attacked full on thinking these bugs are stupid and didn't stand a chance...in fact, just watch the first scene (or the whole movie) again...it is awesome.

King of Asgaard:
'Never meant to change my opinion'? Then you might want to change the title of your video, Bob.

"None of this is intended to change anyone's opinion about the quality of the movie."

If you're going to disagree with a quote it makes sense to quote it at length so that you're actually responding to the meaning of the quote instead of some irrelevant strawman version of it.

The title of this two-part series is claiming that you're "wrong" in thinking that Sucker Punch is sexist pandering to infantile males, not that you're "wrong" in thinking it's a bad movie. This distinction was made quite clearly in part 1.

Fearzone:
So, it's a bad movie, and people who think it is a bad movie, which is most people, aren't wrong.

That's not and has never been what the Title of this two-part series was referring to. This was spelled out quite clearly in both parts on multiple occasions...

daibakuha:

varmintx:

daibakuha:

It's a good thing you aren't a film critic, because you suck at film analysis.

Give 'em a break, most people suck at analysis of every kind...especially introspection.

The only reason I didn't was because even after both of these videos he still refuses to acknowledge any other opinion than his own.

So you are mad at someone... because he didn't throw away his own opinion and instantly accepted the opinion of another?

So what you are mad about is that instead of saying "I am wrong" he instead says "You are wrong". Because acknowledging isn't the same thing accepting. Which is what you actually want from him.

You want everyone everywhere to agree and accept Bob's opinion because it neatly matches with your own I assume.

That's sort of the exact same thing you are mad at someone else for. You are acknowledging and accepting only Bob's opinion on this and nobody else's.

Sutter Cane:

Dastardly:

MovieBob:
You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

Spoilers abound in this week's finale to Bob's retrospective on Sucker Punch.

Watch Video

The two most misunderstood satires in quasi-mainstream movies in a long time: this one, and Moulin Rouge.

Moulin Rouge satirizes the whole "love conquers all" motif behind so many garbage movies and songs... and far too many people missed that point, hailing the movie as being oh-so-romantic-I-love-the-music! Basically, the movie makes fun of the very people who like it, and they still like it.

Suckerpunch had the opposite problem -- the people the movie makes fun of don't like it for exactly the reason it was making fun of in the first place.

I'm glad to hear someone else come down in favor of this movie, and for the right reasons. Aaaand I guess if most people were self-aware enough to understand satirical content aimed at them, there wouldn't be much need for the satire in the first place, huh?

(Yeah, I'm in a bit of a mood today. Apologies.)

I was under the impression that Moulin Rouge was supposed to be a loving pastiche of the big bollywood musicals, and that while the shallowness s completely intentional on that film's part, its meant to celebrate those kinds of films rather than ridicule them.

You're correct, Sutton, that's exactly what Moulin Rouge was about (as stated very clearly by the writers, the director, the actors and everyone involved in the project). Did it have a wink-wink-nudge-nudge attitude in the way the story was told? Yes, certainly, but it was above all a very heart on sleeve Bollywood and old Hollywood love letter.

In the same way it's funny to see people attempting to be so smart and clever (not to mention smug) about how their far fetched theories are so much better than anyone else's and how that makes them better people. Like with Sucker Punch, a movie that Zack Snyder, the person these fans are lifting on a pedestal as a genius, described as being "cool" cause it "has hot girls kicking ass it in". Snyder is as much a multi-layered genius and master storyteller as Kubrick was a curator of fart jokes in his films.

Going to say this yet again: you def. CAN market a movie as something and have that something be most of the movie and yet have the movie with a message against it. For another example (perhaps a better made one) see Cabin In the Woods. Which is marketed to horror fans, is full of horror and blatantly against it.

impocalyptic:

SL33TBL1ND:
I agree, Bob, and I'm honestly surprised that so many people don't. I thought this was all rather obvious.

impocalyptic:
Sarkeesian denounced this as misogyny dressed up as female empowerment. I thought she just didn't get it then and, thanks to Bob, I now have a good reason for believing so. Someone send these vids to her!

I have a better idea! Watch this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6264-Anita-Sarkeesian-The-Monster-Gamers-Created

Seen it. And I mentioned her because she blew up over this film as opposed to when she was talking about recurring tropes in games where she was quite calm.

It doesn't matter. The only reason she has any attention is because people keep giving it to her.

Is the opening music from Sam & Max?

Well, you know what the BTAS Joker would have said...If you have to explain the satire, there is no satire.

Sucker Punch is not only dumb, it's insulting.

It depicts a female being disinherited by a patriarchal figure for corrupt ends, and dumped into a mental asylum which she thinks is a bordello, and she has these violent fantasies when she's asked in her imaginary bordello to do a sexy dance.

So far it's like a feminist version of a crippled ballerina story that a 5 year old would come up with. And we can draw the logical conclusion from the movie that feminism is griping about imaginary problems because they're bat-shit bonkers right ? Or are we dealing with that creepy perversion so many women entertain ? That masochistic persecutory rape fantasy that crops up as something 90% of women masturbate about in sex surveys.

It depicts the audience as male and perverts, but neglects how many women came to see the movie(btw I went to see it with 2 women and they hated it) and how it is supposed to be an action movie and fun. Clearly fun wasn't on the agenda here.

The movie criticises its own action sequences. Nice one sweepee. For an encore pull the screenwriter's head out of his/her arse.

Then it depicts babydoll, the sexualized under-age disinherited pseudo ninja being lobotomized, as if to say that this is returning to her correct state, that she's essentially a dutch wife, and not a pro-active character, she's not an accurate portrayl of authentic femininity (whatever that is) but a stupid male fantasy and disempowered, leaving us with Sweepee, the grumpy nay-sayer as the survivor and authentic female voice ? Voice of what exactly ? Whining ? Having better people do all the work and reaping the rewards because you are somehow morally superior for doing nothing ? When we look at Sweepee she is all but in league with her "oppressors" out of fear. Now at least that seems like authentically female behavior to me. And what is the moral of the story ?

Whiny cowards are the authentic female voice, because anything with more character, more courage, more loyalty, more honor, more competence is not authentically female, it's male, and males are ultimately sacrificial.

This movie is saying nothing. It is pro-status quo and endorses the do-nothing, morally and intellectually bankrupt state of Feminist thought these days. There will never be a 4th wave, at least not in the 1st World. This is a whole world view that has run out of steam.

I like Bob, but this two parter is the worst thing he's ever done on the Escapist.

"You are wrong" is how you start a rant, not a discussion. At best it's needlessly arrogant (Bob is the only one who gets it!) At worst it's out and out trolling.

In case you guys didn't listen to these last time around:



my response to both these episodes of moviebob:

...huh?

1337mokro:

So you are mad at someone... because he didn't throw away his own opinion and instantly accepted the opinion of another?

So what you are mad about is that instead of saying "I am wrong" he instead says "You are wrong". Because acknowledging isn't the same thing accepting. Which is what you actually want from him.

You want everyone everywhere to agree and accept Bob's opinion because it neatly matches with your own I assume.

That's sort of the exact same thing you are mad at someone else for. You are acknowledging and accepting only Bob's opinion on this and nobody else's.

Take a second and read what I wrote. He refuses to acknowledge anyone else's opinion but his own, regardless of how well reasoned and supported it is. To acknowledge his opinion is to accept that his opinion is valid. He dismisses Bob's arguments and posits that his own as the only correct one.

He essentially called Bob wrong on the subject without actually bothering to support any of his arguments, he went the pedantic route. An opinion of a work of fiction is only valid if you can support it with reasonable arguments. He did none of these things, and decided to be a passive aggressive douchebag about it. Hence the comment.

Also, nice to see you assuming things about me already, but no, Bob's opinion on the film, while interesting, is not my own.

Markunator:
In case you guys didn't listen to these last time around:
Snipped videos

The Spill.com guys aren't exactly bastions of good film criticism.

Sixcess:
I like Bob, but this two parter is the worst thing he's ever done on the Escapist.

"You are wrong" is how you start a rant, not a discussion. At best it's needlessly arrogant (Bob is the only one who gets it!) At worst it's out and out trolling.

Did you watch the video? The title is a bit sensationalist, but he doesn't sound ranty over the course of both videos.

I actually haven't seen this interpretation before, and if more people had, the movie may have received some better reviews.

daibakuha:

Markunator:
In case you guys didn't listen to these last time around:
Snipped videos

The Spill.com guys aren't exactly bastions of good film criticism.

Why not? What is wrong with them? They're usually more reliable than Bob is, anyway.

pearcinator:

I don't know how you didn't straight away see the satire (maybe you're American?).

I just said the contrary. I don't know how you didn't see that (maybe you're Texan?).

Markunator:

Why not? What is wrong with them? They're usually more reliable than Bob is, anyway.

They don't look any deeper than a simple plot analysis. They don't really take the time to dissect a film's message.

and being "more reliable than Bob" is a not-so-clever way of saying their opinions often match with your own. So you like them because they reaffirm your opinions.

SpiderJerusalem:

You're correct, Sutton, that's exactly what Moulin Rouge was about (as stated very clearly by the writers, the director, the actors and everyone involved in the project). Did it have a wink-wink-nudge-nudge attitude in the way the story was told? Yes, certainly, but it was above all a very heart on sleeve Bollywood and old Hollywood love letter.

In the same way it's funny to see people attempting to be so smart and clever (not to mention smug) about how their far fetched theories are so much better than anyone else's and how that makes them better people. Like with Sucker Punch, a movie that Zack Snyder, the person these fans are lifting on a pedestal as a genius, described as being "cool" cause it "has hot girls kicking ass it in". Snyder is as much a multi-layered genius and master storyteller as Kubrick was a curator of fart jokes in his films.

If someone can support an interpretation of a film with good arguments and reason, then that interpretation is a valid one, regardless of authorial intent.

That doesn't mean that authorial intent doesn't play a role in interpretation, it most certainly does, but it doesn't always work the other way around.

SpiderJerusalem:

Sutter Cane:

Dastardly:

The two most misunderstood satires in quasi-mainstream movies in a long time: this one, and Moulin Rouge.

Moulin Rouge satirizes the whole "love conquers all" motif behind so many garbage movies and songs... and far too many people missed that point, hailing the movie as being oh-so-romantic-I-love-the-music! Basically, the movie makes fun of the very people who like it, and they still like it.

Suckerpunch had the opposite problem -- the people the movie makes fun of don't like it for exactly the reason it was making fun of in the first place.

I'm glad to hear someone else come down in favor of this movie, and for the right reasons. Aaaand I guess if most people were self-aware enough to understand satirical content aimed at them, there wouldn't be much need for the satire in the first place, huh?

(Yeah, I'm in a bit of a mood today. Apologies.)

I was under the impression that Moulin Rouge was supposed to be a loving pastiche of the big bollywood musicals, and that while the shallowness s completely intentional on that film's part, its meant to celebrate those kinds of films rather than ridicule them.

You're correct, Sutton, that's exactly what Moulin Rouge was about (as stated very clearly by the writers, the director, the actors and everyone involved in the project). Did it have a wink-wink-nudge-nudge attitude in the way the story was told? Yes, certainly, but it was above all a very heart on sleeve Bollywood and old Hollywood love letter.

In the same way it's funny to see people attempting to be so smart and clever (not to mention smug) about how their far fetched theories are so much better than anyone else's and how that makes them better people. Like with Sucker Punch, a movie that Zack Snyder, the person these fans are lifting on a pedestal as a genius, described as being "cool" cause it "has hot girls kicking ass it in". Snyder is as much a multi-layered genius and master storyteller as Kubrick was a curator of fart jokes in his films.

Actually what's interesting is that Snyder himself has said things in interviews that back up bob's statement about it mocking ts perceived intended audience. That's one of the reasons that the reaction to these episodes kind of pisses me off since whether or not you think sucker punch is a good film (and for the record i'm firmly in the "no" camp on that one) Snyder did at least attempt to do something more complex that people want to give the film credit for, and i think acknowledging what the film set out to do is important.

I really enjoyed both videos, it's an interesting argument and I haven't really seen it brought up before.

I haven't seen Sucker Punch myself, I heard the same things as everyone else about it and chose to avoid it, so I can't say myself if it's reading too much into it or not, but it's an interesting way of looking at it nonetheless.

SL33TBL1ND:

impocalyptic:

SL33TBL1ND:
I agree, Bob, and I'm honestly surprised that so many people don't. I thought this was all rather obvious.

I have a better idea! Watch this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6264-Anita-Sarkeesian-The-Monster-Gamers-Created

Seen it. And I mentioned her because she blew up over this film as opposed to when she was talking about recurring tropes in games where she was quite calm.

It doesn't matter. The only reason she has any attention is because people keep giving it to her.

Considering that the majority of the gaming community blew up at her, I think she would appreciate a level-headed deconstruction of a damn good film.

I couldn't keep watching this...I...I just couldn't. The little video clips of the movie were enough to remind me how much I hated it.
Garbage. Garbage with multiple layers apparently, but nevertheless garbage.

...we need to go derper.

daibakuha:

1337mokro:

So you are mad at someone... because he didn't throw away his own opinion and instantly accepted the opinion of another?

So what you are mad about is that instead of saying "I am wrong" he instead says "You are wrong". Because acknowledging isn't the same thing accepting. Which is what you actually want from him.

You want everyone everywhere to agree and accept Bob's opinion because it neatly matches with your own I assume.

That's sort of the exact same thing you are mad at someone else for. You are acknowledging and accepting only Bob's opinion on this and nobody else's.

Take a second and read what I wrote. He refuses to acknowledge anyone else's opinion but his own, regardless of how well reasoned and supported it is. To acknowledge his opinion is to accept that his opinion is valid. He dismisses Bob's arguments and posits that his own as the only correct one.

He essentially called Bob wrong on the subject without actually bothering to support any of his arguments, he went the pedantic route. An opinion of a work of fiction is only valid if you can support it with reasonable arguments. He did none of these things, and decided to be a passive aggressive douchebag about it. Hence the comment.

Also, nice to see you assuming things about me already, but no, Bob's opinion on the film, while interesting, is not my own.

Well ask yourself this. Bob titled his video as "You are wrong about sucker punch". Doesn't that sort of imply that Bob sees his opinion as the only valid one and any other opinion as flawed?

It's sort of like arguing that someone who likes beef and refuses to eat anything else somehow is different from a guy who made a video titled "I like chicken and refuse to eat anything else".

They are both equally bad and it really just sounds like you don't like his opinion or him sticking by his opinion simply because it isn't Bob's opinion. Kind of a bit of a double standard. With a bit I of course mean allot.

1337mokro:

Well ask yourself this. Bob titled his video as "You are wrong about sucker punch". Doesn't that sort of imply that Bob sees his opinion as the only valid one and any other opinion as flawed?

It's sort of like arguing that someone who likes beef and refuses to eat anything else somehow is different from a guy who made a video titled "I like chicken and refuse to eat anything else".

They are both equally bad and it really just sounds like you don't like his opinion or him sticking by his opinion simply because it isn't Bob's opinion. Kind of a bit of a double standard. With a bit I of course mean allot.

The important part of this is that the video doesn't sound egotistical. The title is just a hook to get the viewer to watch the video. Arguing over the title is just a straw man.

It's not a similar situation at all, in fact it's completely different. It's one person making a well reasoned and researched article about how some may have misinterpreted a film, and another guy just saying it sucks without any discussion as to why it does.

I dislike his post because his criticism is bad. It has nothing to do with whether or not I have the same opinion as Bob does (which as I've pointed out, I don't).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here