Sean’s review of Art of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe > Likes and Comments
3 likes · Like
You confessed you were conflicted about MOTU, and I confess I'm conflicted about your review, but what the hell, have a "like" anyway, ha ha.
Jason wrote: "You confessed you were conflicted about MOTU, and I confess I'm conflicted about your review, but what the hell, have a "like" anyway, ha ha."
Hahahahahaha! Well, they say art is valuable not for the definitive answers it provides but rather the ambiguous questions it provokes. If that's the case, Mona Lisa has nothing on He-Man!
Sean wrote: "Well, they say art is valuable not for the definitive answers it provides but rather the ambiguous questions it provokes. If that's the case, Mona Lisa has nothing on He-Man!..."
Yes, He-Man is much more confusing than Mona Lisa, ha ha.
Oy! I can't remember your rules about seeing new movies with characters from your childhood. I know you don't do the old people playing their old characters 40 years later bit and have happily left them behind, e.g. Ford Indy, Murray Venkmen, Keaton Beetlejuice, etc. Does that apply to new actors making a movie based on childhood faves? If not, you might like the new Masters of the Universe movie. As bad and dorky and eye-roll inducing as some of it is, I really enjoyed it. I explain it further in my Trap review. The laughing scene at the very end about killed me, and I wish there was a YouTube clip or gif of it. I'm predicting future cult classic even though it got mixed reviews.
Jason wrote: "Oy! I can't remember your rules about seeing new movies with characters from your childhood. I know you don't do the old people playing their old characters 40 years later bit and have happily left..."
There was a point I'd sworn off anything that was a remake, reboot, revival, or sequel to an IP from the '70s, '80s, and '90s (with particular emphasis on the eighties). As I've documentedexhaustingly exhaustively, I just thought as a culture we were OD'ing on the stuff, and, strictly from a personal perspective, I didn't want to be trapped in a vortex of pop culture from my (ever-receding) youth. I found it depressing. I love the stuff I grew up on... but not to the exclusion of making room for new stories and experiences.
So... while I'm not nearly as militant in my opposition as I once was, I still have no desire to see Harrison as Indy again, or Eddie as Axel, or Neve as Sidney, etcetera; I've never experienced so much as a fleeting moment of FOMO for any of those recent "legacy" movies. I'm not saying such reprisals can't work -- Johnny Depp's cameo in 21 Jump Street is a screamer (I'm excited for his interpretation of Scrooge), and Sylvester Stallone and Dolph Lundgren break my heart (in the best possible way) in Creed and Creed II, respectively -- but on balance I have found revisiting old cinematic friends decades later to be emotionally unsatisfying.
For reasons I can't explain, though, I was perfectly okay -- even a little enthused -- to see the new Masters of the Universe. I'd purposely never watched the Kevin Smith sequel series because he pitched it as "the cartoon I thought I was watching in 1983." Translation: something far grimmer and darker and more violent than it actually was. In other words: for nostalgic adults whose tastes haven't matured, only become more cynical and bloodthirsty (hence the reason, in my lifetime, we've gone from Adam West's interpretation of Batman to Robert Pattinson's). This new MOTU movie, though, seemed to have its heart in the right place from everything I'd seen. When my wife expressed her own interest in watching it, we made it our Saturday-night feature last weekend...
It was immensely entertaining. The creative approach was 100% right for that particular IP -- a He-Man cartoon writ large, colorful and full of big, stupid action, that acknowledged the inherent silliness of the source material without belittling it. What a thrill it was to see Castle Grayskull and all of those characters -- Skeletor and Trap Jaw and Mekaneck -- realized in live action in a way the 1987 movie didn't and couldn't. And Man-At-Arms' arc gave the movie just the right amount of emotional heft.
The humor was much appreciated, too -- like when Adam's boss is leading a corporate team-building workshop and asks them all to repeat the mantra: "I have the power... to be the best version of myself." And my wife and I almost fell off the couch when Fisto battle-cries: "Bring me bad guys to fist! Give 'em head, Ram Man!" It reminded me of some of the sexual entendres in Batman Returns: moments for the adult audience to appreciate that would go over the head of younger viewers.
During the opening narration, when Adam says the sword is called the Sword of Power, my wife literally blurted, "What a stupid name." And on cue, Adam's V.O. adds, "I know -- but that's what they went with"! It was as if the screenwriters were anticipating every criticism -- and comedically addressing each one in real time! And yes -- the closing shot of the team in head-tossed-back hysterics with their fists on their hips was priceless, as was the post-credits "moral of the story."
Hollywood has been trying to get a He-Man movie off the ground for almost 20 years. A good friend of mine was one of the screenwriters brought into the development process circa 2010. What he told me when we discussed the new movie is that the mistake they were making back in the day was trying to do with Masters of the Universe what Peter Jackson had just done with The Lord of the Rings: elevate it to epic sword-and-sorcery drama.
My friend rightly pointed out that MOTU never had the depth of worldbuilding that J.R.R. Tolkien invested in Middle-earth. What MOTU did have -- and what The Art of He-Man celebrates -- were captivating visuals and imaginative character designs, which makes perfect sense given that it was a toyline supported by a post factum narrative, not the other way around. So, doing a movie that celebrated those glorious visuals with good humor and no pretensions of grandeur was exactly the right way to go.
I'm not sure I'd say Masters was as good as Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, but it was certainly made in the same spirit: entertainment for 12-year-old boys, in no way cynical or self-serious or adult-oriented like so many latter-day movies based on '80s-era IPs. I would absolutely watch a sequel should they make one; I'd love to see the fun and humor they could mine from bringing She-Ra and Hordak to Eternia.
In my essays on Superman IV: The Quest for Peace and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I argued that there is absolutely nothing wrong with "ephemeral crap," which is what both those movies -- and the Filmation He-Man cartoon -- unambiguously were. The trouble comes when we try to elevate that stuff to American literature or portentous mythmaking. The filmmakers of this movie had the wisdom to understand that the value of MOTU isn't in some lofty position in the cultural canon it hasn't earned and doesn't occupy, but rather as crass commercial ephemera that nonetheless isn't without its chintzy charms.
Supposedly, Danny McBride -- a self-professed G.I. Joe fanboy who is exactly my age -- will be writing and directing the new Joe movie, taking inspiration directly from the comics. Here's hoping he approaches that material with the same appreciation for its particular virtues as these guys did for He-Man.
Sean wrote: "There was a point I'd sworn off anything that was a remake, reboot, revival, or sequel to an IP from the '70s, '80s, and '90s (with particular emphasis on the eighties). As I've documented..."
Oh, good. I'm glad you saw it and were able to enjoy it. They really got it right, and the DVD is going on my Birthday/Christmas list. I'd like to see the She-Ra sequel if they make it, though it makes me nervous, but everything Hollywood does now makes me nervous. Screwing something up seems to be their greatest skill.
Speaking of which, I just saw the new Ebenezer trailer yesterday, and I'm looking forward to it. I like Johnny Depp's take on just about anything. Hollywood has done some disastrous Christmas Carol adaptations which I know we've discussed somewhere (I think in an e-mail exchange), but I'm cautiously optimistic with this one, mostly because I'm not expecting a traditional transcription (which Hollywood seems incapable of anyway), but Depp's own brand of zaniness. (I don't know why someone hasn't called it Depp deppth, or something... probably because that sounds stupid... oh well.) Regardless, I liked what I saw.
I haven't heard about the new G.I. Joe movie. I liked the ones from 10 or 15 years ago, but not because they got it right, (for they certainly didn't.) But it would be cool to see them do it the way He-Man was done, or the first 15 minutes of Bumblebee. That was all I ever wanted in a Transformers movie, and it was nice to see it finally happen.
Ephemeral crap. Bring it!
Jason wrote: "Sean wrote: "There was a point I'd sworn off anything that was a remake, reboot, revival, or sequel to an IP from the '70s, '80s, and '90s (with particular emphasis on the eighties). As I've docume..."
MOTU underperformed theatrically, which historically would put the franchise's future in jeopardy, but perhaps if it demonstrates legs on Prime, Amazon will greenlight a sequel or spin-off. No one remembers now, but Austin Powers bombed during its theatrical run; it was rediscovered a few months later on home video -- I was working at a mom-and-pop video store at the time and watched as word-of-mouth began to spread -- and a hit film franchise was born!
I'm excited by what I saw in the Ebenezer trailer. Depp is clearly bringing his offbeat brand of Deppiness to the role. For me personally, Scott's interpretation is the high-water mark, but it's a staid and sobor performance without any comedic touches (which was right for that adaptation). Ebenezer feels more like a Tim Burton film -- though I realize Ti West is the director -- and the trailer offers glimpses of that deft comic touch Depp brought to roles like Ichabod Crane and Jack Sparrow. Plus, Depp's the right age now to take on that part. I'm eager to see what he does with it.
You know, I only live twenty minutes down the road from Sleepy Hollow. The village's key attraction in September and October is its one-man performances of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow at the Old Dutch Church; in November and December, they offer A Christmas Carol. As far as I know, Johnny Depp is now the only actor to have played both Ichabod Crane and Ebenezer Scrooge!
I never saw Bumblebee because I was so worn out by the Michael Bay movies, but I've heard good things -- and since Travis Knight did such a good job on He-Man, I'll have to check it out...
Sean wrote: "MOTU underperformed theatrically, which historically would put the franchise's future in jeopardy, but perhaps if it demonstrates legs on Prime, Amazon will greenlight a sequel or spin-off..."
I didn't realize the same guy did Bumblebee and MOTU. Michael Bay... I didn't even bother with the newer TMNT movies because of him.
Jason wrote: "Sean wrote: "MOTU underperformed theatrically, which historically would put the franchise's future in jeopardy, but perhaps if it demonstrates legs on Prime, Amazon will greenlight a sequel or spin..."
Bay is one of many filmmakers that came to prominence in the '90s directing flashy TV spots before being recruited by Jerry Bruckheimer to make soulless Hollywood action movies. Bay knows how to shoot pretty visuals and choregraph visceral action, but none of it is in service of story. He's not a storyteller.
I remember when they were first making Transformers, the brilliant pitch the screenwriters (super-hacks Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) used to get the project greenlighted was this: "It's the story of a boy and his first car." As I said: brilliant, Spielbergian pitch...
... but that's not what the movie ultimately delivered on. Bay made a noisy spectacle devoid of logic. (And that's saying something for a franchise about millennia-old sentient robots from another planet fashioned after 1980s automobiles and cassette players!) He doesn't know how to tell a story, and even if he did, he has nothing to say. I know it's fashionable for cinema snobs to crap on Bay... but that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Sean wrote: "I'm excited by what I saw in the Ebenezer trailer. Depp is clearly bringing his offbeat brand of Deppiness to the role..."
It took me forever to find the thread where we were discussing the upcoming Ebenezer movie (if I had your number I would've just texted this to you), but dude! I just saw the second trailer which I guess came out a week ago, and I'm liking it more and more. I know you can't judge a movie by it's trailer (I've seen a few bombs that had kickass previews), but I've moved from "cautious optimism" to "excitement." Yes, I think I'm now pretty stoked, and I may even see if mama wants to go see it on opening night, or at least the opening weekend... But now that I see it comes out on November 13th, that will make for a busy weekend because I'm seeing The Goonies concert thing on the 14th. And that's Friday the 13th... I think I'll wait until sometime the following week to be on the safe side.
And now for the bitch portion of this comment. (You wouldn't want me to end something on a positive note, right?) Right behind that trailer on YouTube was an 11 minute video entitled "Ebenezer Trailer Explained: The 'New' Story Is From 1843." I didn't click on it because I refuse to give it a "view" for it's stats and algorithm and ad stuff, or whatever all that technical BS is.
And that was just for starters. Behind that was a whole slew of videos doing the same thing, exposing Johnny Depp's deep, dark secret in the movie (by which I suppose they meant Scrooge's deep, dark secret), a featurette, deep dives exploring the characterization, reaction videos (something I don't understand at all and hold in contempt on principal) out the wazoo, interpretations, videos on how this movie differs from other versions of the movies, full cast bios, and bullshit, and horse manure, and cow feces ad nauseam...
Can we not even wait until the movie comes out before we dissect it to the subatomic level and try to figure out the meaning of something that we haven't even seen yet? That kind of shit takes all the fun out of watching a movie. Strangles and wrings out every last scrap of it. This is why I have such a love/hate relationship with YouTube. Gah!
It's official. I'm a fuddy-duddy.
Jason wrote: "Sean wrote: "I'm excited by what I saw in the Ebenezer trailer. Depp is clearly bringing his offbeat brand of Deppiness to the role..."
It took me forever to find the thread where we were discussi..."
I am beyond excited for this movie! One of my all-time favorite actors taking on one of my all-time favorite stories! And I love that the tone of it feels almost horror/comedy -- not all that dissimilar from Sleepy Hollow: A Novelization. I hated, hated, HATED the Guy Pearce version from 2019 -- I thought it was an utter disgrace that mistook ugliness for edginess -- but I love what I see in this new trailer. (I wonder if the movie will get a novelization...? 🤣) And I love that Depp gets swallowed by his bed -- a fun little horror-fan callback to A Nightmare on Elm Street!
Dude, I see so many nonsensical "explainer" videos on YouTube. "The Ending of Die Hard Explained!" "The Ending of Ghostbusters Explained!" "The Ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark Explained!" Are you serious?!
That was bad enough, but now we're getting movie trailers and TV teasers forensically scrutinized for us! ("The Baywatch Trailer Explained!") Stop it. Just stop. Stop treating everything like a goddamn code that needs to be cracked.
(Side note: I'm also seeing on YouTube all sorts of AI-generated "fan fiction": Christopher Reeve and Michael Keaton "starring" as Superman and Batman in a team-up; Michael Knight, Stringfellow Hawke, and the A-Team in a crossover; a sequel to The Breakfast Club set at Shermer High the following Monday; etcetera. Who needs legacy sequels when we can pretty much create our own? Why wait for Hollywood to make the Star Wars movie you want when you can prompt ChatGPT to make it for you?)
Let me be clear: I've had plenty of friends and relatives read my analytical analyses of Die Hard and Fast & Furious, et al., and dismissively assure me that I'm overthinking those movies -- that they're "just entertainment" meant to be enjoyed, not interrogated.
I disagree. I love deconstructing stories to better understand the craft that went into producing them and the themes underlying them. We impregnate the stories we tell with the values we want promote. No one can read Dickens and argue there wasn't a social agenda underpinning almost all of his fiction.
But critical interpretation is not in any way the same thing as forensic fandom -- that is, the endless dot-connecting and Easter egg–hunting shows like Lost and media franchises like the MCU trained an entire generation to understand as the very point of storytelling. The superfan's job isn't to take meaning from the stories he consumes -- it is to make meaning of them by developing a coherent theory of everything.
Like you, I hate reaction videos -- especially ones that explain to me why the movie I love is actually dogsh*t or the one I hate is an "underrated masterpiece." And I hate "rankings," too: "Star Trek Captains from Best to Worst!" "Bond Actors from Best to Worst!" "Scrooge Actors from Best to Worst!" "Batman Actors from Best to Worst!" (Just save us the trouble by telling us Clooney's a campy train wreck and Pattinson's the emo-violent apotheosis of the character.) I have a two-word response to all of that: F**k. Off.
I'm with you: I won't give articles or videos like that the clicks. It makes me absolutely crazy that YouTube (and the Internet in general) is awash in meaningless crap like that. Love/hate relationship indeed! Anytime you want to bitch about this stuff, Pierce, I'm your man!
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jason
(new)
Jul 03, 2026 12:39PM
You confessed you were conflicted about MOTU, and I confess I'm conflicted about your review, but what the hell, have a "like" anyway, ha ha.
reply
|
flag
Jason wrote: "You confessed you were conflicted about MOTU, and I confess I'm conflicted about your review, but what the hell, have a "like" anyway, ha ha."Hahahahahaha! Well, they say art is valuable not for the definitive answers it provides but rather the ambiguous questions it provokes. If that's the case, Mona Lisa has nothing on He-Man!
Sean wrote: "Well, they say art is valuable not for the definitive answers it provides but rather the ambiguous questions it provokes. If that's the case, Mona Lisa has nothing on He-Man!..."Yes, He-Man is much more confusing than Mona Lisa, ha ha.
Oy! I can't remember your rules about seeing new movies with characters from your childhood. I know you don't do the old people playing their old characters 40 years later bit and have happily left them behind, e.g. Ford Indy, Murray Venkmen, Keaton Beetlejuice, etc. Does that apply to new actors making a movie based on childhood faves? If not, you might like the new Masters of the Universe movie. As bad and dorky and eye-roll inducing as some of it is, I really enjoyed it. I explain it further in my Trap review. The laughing scene at the very end about killed me, and I wish there was a YouTube clip or gif of it. I'm predicting future cult classic even though it got mixed reviews.
Jason wrote: "Oy! I can't remember your rules about seeing new movies with characters from your childhood. I know you don't do the old people playing their old characters 40 years later bit and have happily left..."There was a point I'd sworn off anything that was a remake, reboot, revival, or sequel to an IP from the '70s, '80s, and '90s (with particular emphasis on the eighties). As I've documented
So... while I'm not nearly as militant in my opposition as I once was, I still have no desire to see Harrison as Indy again, or Eddie as Axel, or Neve as Sidney, etcetera; I've never experienced so much as a fleeting moment of FOMO for any of those recent "legacy" movies. I'm not saying such reprisals can't work -- Johnny Depp's cameo in 21 Jump Street is a screamer (I'm excited for his interpretation of Scrooge), and Sylvester Stallone and Dolph Lundgren break my heart (in the best possible way) in Creed and Creed II, respectively -- but on balance I have found revisiting old cinematic friends decades later to be emotionally unsatisfying.
For reasons I can't explain, though, I was perfectly okay -- even a little enthused -- to see the new Masters of the Universe. I'd purposely never watched the Kevin Smith sequel series because he pitched it as "the cartoon I thought I was watching in 1983." Translation: something far grimmer and darker and more violent than it actually was. In other words: for nostalgic adults whose tastes haven't matured, only become more cynical and bloodthirsty (hence the reason, in my lifetime, we've gone from Adam West's interpretation of Batman to Robert Pattinson's). This new MOTU movie, though, seemed to have its heart in the right place from everything I'd seen. When my wife expressed her own interest in watching it, we made it our Saturday-night feature last weekend...
It was immensely entertaining. The creative approach was 100% right for that particular IP -- a He-Man cartoon writ large, colorful and full of big, stupid action, that acknowledged the inherent silliness of the source material without belittling it. What a thrill it was to see Castle Grayskull and all of those characters -- Skeletor and Trap Jaw and Mekaneck -- realized in live action in a way the 1987 movie didn't and couldn't. And Man-At-Arms' arc gave the movie just the right amount of emotional heft.
The humor was much appreciated, too -- like when Adam's boss is leading a corporate team-building workshop and asks them all to repeat the mantra: "I have the power... to be the best version of myself." And my wife and I almost fell off the couch when Fisto battle-cries: "Bring me bad guys to fist! Give 'em head, Ram Man!" It reminded me of some of the sexual entendres in Batman Returns: moments for the adult audience to appreciate that would go over the head of younger viewers.
During the opening narration, when Adam says the sword is called the Sword of Power, my wife literally blurted, "What a stupid name." And on cue, Adam's V.O. adds, "I know -- but that's what they went with"! It was as if the screenwriters were anticipating every criticism -- and comedically addressing each one in real time! And yes -- the closing shot of the team in head-tossed-back hysterics with their fists on their hips was priceless, as was the post-credits "moral of the story."
Hollywood has been trying to get a He-Man movie off the ground for almost 20 years. A good friend of mine was one of the screenwriters brought into the development process circa 2010. What he told me when we discussed the new movie is that the mistake they were making back in the day was trying to do with Masters of the Universe what Peter Jackson had just done with The Lord of the Rings: elevate it to epic sword-and-sorcery drama.
My friend rightly pointed out that MOTU never had the depth of worldbuilding that J.R.R. Tolkien invested in Middle-earth. What MOTU did have -- and what The Art of He-Man celebrates -- were captivating visuals and imaginative character designs, which makes perfect sense given that it was a toyline supported by a post factum narrative, not the other way around. So, doing a movie that celebrated those glorious visuals with good humor and no pretensions of grandeur was exactly the right way to go.
I'm not sure I'd say Masters was as good as Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, but it was certainly made in the same spirit: entertainment for 12-year-old boys, in no way cynical or self-serious or adult-oriented like so many latter-day movies based on '80s-era IPs. I would absolutely watch a sequel should they make one; I'd love to see the fun and humor they could mine from bringing She-Ra and Hordak to Eternia.
In my essays on Superman IV: The Quest for Peace and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I argued that there is absolutely nothing wrong with "ephemeral crap," which is what both those movies -- and the Filmation He-Man cartoon -- unambiguously were. The trouble comes when we try to elevate that stuff to American literature or portentous mythmaking. The filmmakers of this movie had the wisdom to understand that the value of MOTU isn't in some lofty position in the cultural canon it hasn't earned and doesn't occupy, but rather as crass commercial ephemera that nonetheless isn't without its chintzy charms.
Supposedly, Danny McBride -- a self-professed G.I. Joe fanboy who is exactly my age -- will be writing and directing the new Joe movie, taking inspiration directly from the comics. Here's hoping he approaches that material with the same appreciation for its particular virtues as these guys did for He-Man.
Sean wrote: "There was a point I'd sworn off anything that was a remake, reboot, revival, or sequel to an IP from the '70s, '80s, and '90s (with particular emphasis on the eighties). As I've documented..."Oh, good. I'm glad you saw it and were able to enjoy it. They really got it right, and the DVD is going on my Birthday/Christmas list. I'd like to see the She-Ra sequel if they make it, though it makes me nervous, but everything Hollywood does now makes me nervous. Screwing something up seems to be their greatest skill.
Speaking of which, I just saw the new Ebenezer trailer yesterday, and I'm looking forward to it. I like Johnny Depp's take on just about anything. Hollywood has done some disastrous Christmas Carol adaptations which I know we've discussed somewhere (I think in an e-mail exchange), but I'm cautiously optimistic with this one, mostly because I'm not expecting a traditional transcription (which Hollywood seems incapable of anyway), but Depp's own brand of zaniness. (I don't know why someone hasn't called it Depp deppth, or something... probably because that sounds stupid... oh well.) Regardless, I liked what I saw.
I haven't heard about the new G.I. Joe movie. I liked the ones from 10 or 15 years ago, but not because they got it right, (for they certainly didn't.) But it would be cool to see them do it the way He-Man was done, or the first 15 minutes of Bumblebee. That was all I ever wanted in a Transformers movie, and it was nice to see it finally happen.
Ephemeral crap. Bring it!
Jason wrote: "Sean wrote: "There was a point I'd sworn off anything that was a remake, reboot, revival, or sequel to an IP from the '70s, '80s, and '90s (with particular emphasis on the eighties). As I've docume..."MOTU underperformed theatrically, which historically would put the franchise's future in jeopardy, but perhaps if it demonstrates legs on Prime, Amazon will greenlight a sequel or spin-off. No one remembers now, but Austin Powers bombed during its theatrical run; it was rediscovered a few months later on home video -- I was working at a mom-and-pop video store at the time and watched as word-of-mouth began to spread -- and a hit film franchise was born!
I'm excited by what I saw in the Ebenezer trailer. Depp is clearly bringing his offbeat brand of Deppiness to the role. For me personally, Scott's interpretation is the high-water mark, but it's a staid and sobor performance without any comedic touches (which was right for that adaptation). Ebenezer feels more like a Tim Burton film -- though I realize Ti West is the director -- and the trailer offers glimpses of that deft comic touch Depp brought to roles like Ichabod Crane and Jack Sparrow. Plus, Depp's the right age now to take on that part. I'm eager to see what he does with it.
You know, I only live twenty minutes down the road from Sleepy Hollow. The village's key attraction in September and October is its one-man performances of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow at the Old Dutch Church; in November and December, they offer A Christmas Carol. As far as I know, Johnny Depp is now the only actor to have played both Ichabod Crane and Ebenezer Scrooge!
I never saw Bumblebee because I was so worn out by the Michael Bay movies, but I've heard good things -- and since Travis Knight did such a good job on He-Man, I'll have to check it out...
Sean wrote: "MOTU underperformed theatrically, which historically would put the franchise's future in jeopardy, but perhaps if it demonstrates legs on Prime, Amazon will greenlight a sequel or spin-off..."I didn't realize the same guy did Bumblebee and MOTU. Michael Bay... I didn't even bother with the newer TMNT movies because of him.
Jason wrote: "Sean wrote: "MOTU underperformed theatrically, which historically would put the franchise's future in jeopardy, but perhaps if it demonstrates legs on Prime, Amazon will greenlight a sequel or spin..."Bay is one of many filmmakers that came to prominence in the '90s directing flashy TV spots before being recruited by Jerry Bruckheimer to make soulless Hollywood action movies. Bay knows how to shoot pretty visuals and choregraph visceral action, but none of it is in service of story. He's not a storyteller.
I remember when they were first making Transformers, the brilliant pitch the screenwriters (super-hacks Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) used to get the project greenlighted was this: "It's the story of a boy and his first car." As I said: brilliant, Spielbergian pitch...
... but that's not what the movie ultimately delivered on. Bay made a noisy spectacle devoid of logic. (And that's saying something for a franchise about millennia-old sentient robots from another planet fashioned after 1980s automobiles and cassette players!) He doesn't know how to tell a story, and even if he did, he has nothing to say. I know it's fashionable for cinema snobs to crap on Bay... but that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Sean wrote: "I'm excited by what I saw in the Ebenezer trailer. Depp is clearly bringing his offbeat brand of Deppiness to the role..."It took me forever to find the thread where we were discussing the upcoming Ebenezer movie (if I had your number I would've just texted this to you), but dude! I just saw the second trailer which I guess came out a week ago, and I'm liking it more and more. I know you can't judge a movie by it's trailer (I've seen a few bombs that had kickass previews), but I've moved from "cautious optimism" to "excitement." Yes, I think I'm now pretty stoked, and I may even see if mama wants to go see it on opening night, or at least the opening weekend... But now that I see it comes out on November 13th, that will make for a busy weekend because I'm seeing The Goonies concert thing on the 14th. And that's Friday the 13th... I think I'll wait until sometime the following week to be on the safe side.
And now for the bitch portion of this comment. (You wouldn't want me to end something on a positive note, right?) Right behind that trailer on YouTube was an 11 minute video entitled "Ebenezer Trailer Explained: The 'New' Story Is From 1843." I didn't click on it because I refuse to give it a "view" for it's stats and algorithm and ad stuff, or whatever all that technical BS is.
And that was just for starters. Behind that was a whole slew of videos doing the same thing, exposing Johnny Depp's deep, dark secret in the movie (by which I suppose they meant Scrooge's deep, dark secret), a featurette, deep dives exploring the characterization, reaction videos (something I don't understand at all and hold in contempt on principal) out the wazoo, interpretations, videos on how this movie differs from other versions of the movies, full cast bios, and bullshit, and horse manure, and cow feces ad nauseam...
Can we not even wait until the movie comes out before we dissect it to the subatomic level and try to figure out the meaning of something that we haven't even seen yet? That kind of shit takes all the fun out of watching a movie. Strangles and wrings out every last scrap of it. This is why I have such a love/hate relationship with YouTube. Gah!
It's official. I'm a fuddy-duddy.
Jason wrote: "Sean wrote: "I'm excited by what I saw in the Ebenezer trailer. Depp is clearly bringing his offbeat brand of Deppiness to the role..."It took me forever to find the thread where we were discussi..."
I am beyond excited for this movie! One of my all-time favorite actors taking on one of my all-time favorite stories! And I love that the tone of it feels almost horror/comedy -- not all that dissimilar from Sleepy Hollow: A Novelization. I hated, hated, HATED the Guy Pearce version from 2019 -- I thought it was an utter disgrace that mistook ugliness for edginess -- but I love what I see in this new trailer. (I wonder if the movie will get a novelization...? 🤣) And I love that Depp gets swallowed by his bed -- a fun little horror-fan callback to A Nightmare on Elm Street!
Dude, I see so many nonsensical "explainer" videos on YouTube. "The Ending of Die Hard Explained!" "The Ending of Ghostbusters Explained!" "The Ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark Explained!" Are you serious?!
That was bad enough, but now we're getting movie trailers and TV teasers forensically scrutinized for us! ("The Baywatch Trailer Explained!") Stop it. Just stop. Stop treating everything like a goddamn code that needs to be cracked.
(Side note: I'm also seeing on YouTube all sorts of AI-generated "fan fiction": Christopher Reeve and Michael Keaton "starring" as Superman and Batman in a team-up; Michael Knight, Stringfellow Hawke, and the A-Team in a crossover; a sequel to The Breakfast Club set at Shermer High the following Monday; etcetera. Who needs legacy sequels when we can pretty much create our own? Why wait for Hollywood to make the Star Wars movie you want when you can prompt ChatGPT to make it for you?)
Let me be clear: I've had plenty of friends and relatives read my analytical analyses of Die Hard and Fast & Furious, et al., and dismissively assure me that I'm overthinking those movies -- that they're "just entertainment" meant to be enjoyed, not interrogated.
I disagree. I love deconstructing stories to better understand the craft that went into producing them and the themes underlying them. We impregnate the stories we tell with the values we want promote. No one can read Dickens and argue there wasn't a social agenda underpinning almost all of his fiction.
But critical interpretation is not in any way the same thing as forensic fandom -- that is, the endless dot-connecting and Easter egg–hunting shows like Lost and media franchises like the MCU trained an entire generation to understand as the very point of storytelling. The superfan's job isn't to take meaning from the stories he consumes -- it is to make meaning of them by developing a coherent theory of everything.
Like you, I hate reaction videos -- especially ones that explain to me why the movie I love is actually dogsh*t or the one I hate is an "underrated masterpiece." And I hate "rankings," too: "Star Trek Captains from Best to Worst!" "Bond Actors from Best to Worst!" "Scrooge Actors from Best to Worst!" "Batman Actors from Best to Worst!" (Just save us the trouble by telling us Clooney's a campy train wreck and Pattinson's the emo-violent apotheosis of the character.) I have a two-word response to all of that: F**k. Off.
I'm with you: I won't give articles or videos like that the clicks. It makes me absolutely crazy that YouTube (and the Internet in general) is awash in meaningless crap like that. Love/hate relationship indeed! Anytime you want to bitch about this stuff, Pierce, I'm your man!