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

[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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igBsdNDwKjA[/youtube]

 

[DjinnFor]

'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.

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...

 

[1337mokro]

No I wasn't Bob: I thought none of what happend actually mattered in the end and it turns out I was right.

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.

 

[Katya Topolkaraeva]

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.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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

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.

 

[likalaruku]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Markunator]

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

 

[EmperorZoltan]

my response to both these episodes of moviebob:

...huh?

 

[daibakuha]

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.

 

[daibakuha]

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.

 

[daibakuha]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Something Amyss]

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?).

 

[daibakuha]

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.

 

[daibakuha]

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.

 

[Sutter Cane]

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.

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.

 

[Littaly]

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.