In his review, Bob clearly supports the film.Revolutionaryloser said:
"This will be a divisive, love-it-or-hate-it kind of film, but put me down for team 'Hell yes.' Do NOT miss this movie."
The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
"This will be a divisive, love-it-or-hate-it kind of film, but put me down for team 'Hell yes.' Do NOT miss this movie."
Okay... this was a bit more convincing than the last one. It's still just a matter of content ratio, in which straight-up "action girl fetishism", as you put it, takes up 80% of the movie, which I just find it very hard to justify only by virtue of those comparatively tiny segments where the movie actually gives insight and critique. Almost all of its energy and attention goes to those gleeful, childish vignettes - I can't help it if my attention also goes there. And I also can't be generous and say it only just "missed the landing"; it was one of the more spectacular fatal crashes in recent years. However, it didn't lower my opinion of Snyder - I don't think he's mysoginist or that his intentions were bad, he just botched the script.
Its an interesting theory, and I could concede to your interpretation as the "right one" (or close to it), but it doesn't change the fact the movie has issues; and, for as deep as its script and underlining message might be, if its delivery is not well handled, it is a poorly made movie. Being poorly self-referential about awful action scenes with sexualized characters doesn't make it a deconstruction, it makes it yet another movie with awful action scenes with sexualized characters. If its not better or different, its not deconstructing anything... Its the equivalent of Duke Nukem laughing at the Halo helmet as if it was from an inferior copy.
I think at times you are reading too much into lines. In my opinion, the dragon scene was not some mother related issue, but another example of cliche action scene the movie tries to "deconstruct" by imitation. Either that, or there is some metaphysical explanation for the Samurai with a gatling gun, the Helgast general and the Final Fantasy-like train. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... Either we accept that, or every single movie can be ascended to high philosophy by overanalisis.
Also, if your intention with your last sentence was to present the video as "jut my opinion and defend yourself from the people that might not agree with it, you should reconsider using such a factual title.
I think at times you are reading too much into lines. In my opinion, the dragon scene was not some mother related issue, but another example of cliche action scene the movie tries to "deconstruct" by imitation. Either that, or there is some metaphysical explanation for the Samurai with a gatling gun, the Helgast general and the Final Fantasy-like train. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... Either we accept that, or every single movie can be ascended to high philosophy by overanalisis.
Also, if your intention with your last sentence was to present the video as "jut my opinion and defend yourself from the people that might not agree with it, you should reconsider using such a factual title.
well... I just hate "sad/bad/tragic ending" that's all....
"I want my babydoll babydoll babydoll..."(baby back rib song music)
"I want my babydoll babydoll babydoll..."(baby back rib song music)
Seconded. Combined with my sentiment that Zack Snyder has never shown that he is clever enough to have thought to frame the movie as a "You guys should be ashamed that you like all this" sort of way that Bob mentions in Part 1SonOfVoorhees said:
OT:
While I would allow for the possibility in a better movie that their sexualized costumes in the fantasy world (a world which they created to escape the sexual nightmare of their reality) are a way for them to try and reclaim their sexuality in a manner that works for them...that's far from how it comes out in the film. There are PLENTY of scenes we could all point to and think "Fanservice!!" because of how over-the-top they are in that regard, or because it's super obvious that the scene was made for guys to think the characters were cool/sexy, rather than because the characters would think this was cool. (I'll point out here that at no point in the entire film, as far as I remember, do any of the female leads indicate that fighting or sci-fi/fantasy worlds are things they personally enjoy and would fantasize about, and that therefore Snyder gives us no reason to assume there was any reason to have them doing so other than because he thought it would look cool/he decided to try for symbolism using things he finds are a good form of escape, but which aren't shown to be what his CHARACTERS find are good forms of escape. Which, you know, kinda undermines the whole "Look at how clever this movie is!" argument.) Etc, etc.
Now I'm not going to rule out the possibility that Snyder was trying to go for something deep and is just too bad at writing/making original films to be able to pull that kind of thing off, but I say you're trying too hard if you insist that it's all there and that everyone who doesn't see it simply doesn't get it. There's plenty in that movie to indicate something different happened.
He can change his crappy titles, for one...Sutter Cane said:
Isnt he? The fact he disagrees with Bob's opinion implies that he does acknowledge others opinions. It just so happens he is falling into the, "my opinion is FACT" mindset. A shame to say the least, but it is nothing new...daibakuha said:
I've only seen the film once and I didn't really pay attention for subtext, I spent most of the film rolling my eyes at how juvenile some of my fellow male friends are, haha. This is an interesting analysis, however I'm still not a huge fan of the film, the only girl who I didn't find annoying was actually Sweet Pea, so I was pretty pleased when she made it out in the end.
Wow I wasn't even aware of those of meanings and message until now. Yyeah like you said, it doesn't change my opinion of the film but I suppose I got a better understanding of what it was trying to say now.
I don't know Bob, you might be seeing too much into it. I loved the movie, but from a GUY's perspective. The movie might be more about escapism that it is about sexism. At least it makes more sense to me that way.
The "real" story could hold its own, sad and violent as it is. The story is interesting and cliche enough to support an entire movie. There'd be no reason not to show everything that happens in that asylum, blue aprons, rapes, violent tantrums, screams and shit thrown on the walls. You'd just have a bleak movie that would challenge people to view it and then leave a bad taste in their mouths.
So why not perform a bit of magic and turn the story into something more tasty? I really believe that the Brothel World is never a fantasy of one of the girls, but a metaphor that retains all the symbolism, made so that the viewers can escape from the ugly reality.
The Dance World is basically the same thing, only on steroids. While a sexy dance would've been cool, the current escapist generation enjoys more than just a pole dance. There are so many "buttons" being pressed there, that any gamer should have an orgasm. 10 foot minigun? School girls? Dragons? Nazi steampunk zombies?
How escapist can you get?! When the dude in the temple says "These are your weapons, use them", he might refer to our fantasies, the small and insignificant things we all do after 10 hours of work every day. If we can click ourselves happy at the end of a pathetic day's work, FINE! The world is so bad out there, that only a lobotomy might make us immune from empathy. If the only alternative is lying and fantasising, well, DO IT! It's better than hanging yourself.
This is a "show and tell" movie. If you want to tell people that escapism is fine in this crazy world, what better way to prove it than making a movie about an asylum and sexually abused girls AND still have the audience enjoy themselves with a bit of unrelated and misplaced action movie-magic?
This is my take on it... it's something that came to me in the first 20 minutes of the movie, it made sense till the end credits and it made me enjoy the movie immensely. I don't recall ever having such a good time at the cinema.
The "real" story could hold its own, sad and violent as it is. The story is interesting and cliche enough to support an entire movie. There'd be no reason not to show everything that happens in that asylum, blue aprons, rapes, violent tantrums, screams and shit thrown on the walls. You'd just have a bleak movie that would challenge people to view it and then leave a bad taste in their mouths.
So why not perform a bit of magic and turn the story into something more tasty? I really believe that the Brothel World is never a fantasy of one of the girls, but a metaphor that retains all the symbolism, made so that the viewers can escape from the ugly reality.
The Dance World is basically the same thing, only on steroids. While a sexy dance would've been cool, the current escapist generation enjoys more than just a pole dance. There are so many "buttons" being pressed there, that any gamer should have an orgasm. 10 foot minigun? School girls? Dragons? Nazi steampunk zombies?
How escapist can you get?! When the dude in the temple says "These are your weapons, use them", he might refer to our fantasies, the small and insignificant things we all do after 10 hours of work every day. If we can click ourselves happy at the end of a pathetic day's work, FINE! The world is so bad out there, that only a lobotomy might make us immune from empathy. If the only alternative is lying and fantasising, well, DO IT! It's better than hanging yourself.
This is a "show and tell" movie. If you want to tell people that escapism is fine in this crazy world, what better way to prove it than making a movie about an asylum and sexually abused girls AND still have the audience enjoy themselves with a bit of unrelated and misplaced action movie-magic?
This is my take on it... it's something that came to me in the first 20 minutes of the movie, it made sense till the end credits and it made me enjoy the movie immensely. I don't recall ever having such a good time at the cinema.
For full disclosure: I've never seen the movie in question, the only reason I bothered watching this was the title "You're wrong" seems pretty egotistical.
I subscribe to the belief that when it comes to things like movies and literature (and even videogames to a certain extent), so long as there is evidence to back up your argument, your interpretation is never wrong. Someone can look at the same evidence from the movie/text that you did and come to a different conclusion, but that still doesn't mean you're wrong.
As such, I find it rather presumptuous for Bob to title this video "You're Wrong About Sucker Punch." No, Bob, they weren't wrong. So long as their argument was based off of something more than "Sucker Punch sucked because it was fucking lame and I didn't like the story." Well that they're opinion, but without evidence to back it up they have nothing to stand on when discussing the movie itself. Someone could have watched the movie, saw all the evidence that Bob saw, and come up with their own conclusions. Does that mean that Bob's wrong? No. It means that two different people took two different interpretations away from the movie.
Unless you are the author of a piece of literature or the writer/director of a movie, you have no place in telling other people what the author/writer/director was trying to convey with their work. You might think you have a damn good idea about it because you've put together a nice essay worth of facts drawing on evidence from the movie or book, but you still could be completely wrong about it. For all you know (and to be clear: I do doubt this is the case, just speaking hypothetically) the writer of the movie could have just been wanting to make a movie about chicks doing action stuff with a plot to tie the action sequences together. It could be that the author/writer/director had absolutely no deep meaning or purpose behind the work at all and we're just attaching our own meaning to the work because it fits our personal context.
For further reference, please see the South Park episode "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs."
In short: though I've never seen the movie myself, I still say that YOU'RE wrong about this movie due to your assertion being based upon your own interpretation of the movie.
I subscribe to the belief that when it comes to things like movies and literature (and even videogames to a certain extent), so long as there is evidence to back up your argument, your interpretation is never wrong. Someone can look at the same evidence from the movie/text that you did and come to a different conclusion, but that still doesn't mean you're wrong.
As such, I find it rather presumptuous for Bob to title this video "You're Wrong About Sucker Punch." No, Bob, they weren't wrong. So long as their argument was based off of something more than "Sucker Punch sucked because it was fucking lame and I didn't like the story." Well that they're opinion, but without evidence to back it up they have nothing to stand on when discussing the movie itself. Someone could have watched the movie, saw all the evidence that Bob saw, and come up with their own conclusions. Does that mean that Bob's wrong? No. It means that two different people took two different interpretations away from the movie.
Unless you are the author of a piece of literature or the writer/director of a movie, you have no place in telling other people what the author/writer/director was trying to convey with their work. You might think you have a damn good idea about it because you've put together a nice essay worth of facts drawing on evidence from the movie or book, but you still could be completely wrong about it. For all you know (and to be clear: I do doubt this is the case, just speaking hypothetically) the writer of the movie could have just been wanting to make a movie about chicks doing action stuff with a plot to tie the action sequences together. It could be that the author/writer/director had absolutely no deep meaning or purpose behind the work at all and we're just attaching our own meaning to the work because it fits our personal context.
For further reference, please see the South Park episode "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs."
In short: though I've never seen the movie myself, I still say that YOU'RE wrong about this movie due to your assertion being based upon your own interpretation of the movie.
I'll say the same thing about Sucker Punch that I said about Cabin in the Woods. When a movie scolds an audience purely for being the audience, then who the fuck is this movie FOR? Who's supposed to be the one that will enjoy this movie? Feminists that'll see the sexualized main characters and are expected to understand that they're only sexualized for the sake of the movie being able to wag its finger at the male audience here to see sexy female characters in action?
I always used to laugh at the English teachers who reminded us over and over that everything needs to be written with an audience in mind. "Every person can be the audience," I thought to myself. "It makes no difference!" But now I see what the hell they were talking about.
I always used to laugh at the English teachers who reminded us over and over that everything needs to be written with an audience in mind. "Every person can be the audience," I thought to myself. "It makes no difference!" But now I see what the hell they were talking about.
Hey now, don't think like that. Zack Snyder's probably the true asshole for calling his audience the assholes for DARING to like the stuff he put into his movie.bz316 said:
I think the other things to hate about Sucker Punch is that, as poorly characterized as they were, we wanted the girls to escape, and only the "bitchy" one did. That last minute protagonist switch at the end was just dick-slap.