Spiderman: Far from home

[Anteros]

" No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money."

Samuel Johnson

Nonsense. Whether you're Anne Frank writing to cope, Herodotus hoping to record history, Confucius hoping to spread wisdom, or hoping the mold the future like Plato, there are plenty of reasons to write outside of money. Our society and culture wouldn't be anything like it is today without people writing for reasons other than money. In fact, almost all of the most influential writings of all time weren't written for profit.

[Razade]

Nonsense. Whether you're Anne Frank writing to cope, Herodotus hoping to record history, Confucius hoping to spread wisdom, or hoping the mold the future like Plato, there are plenty of reasons to write outside of money. Our society and culture wouldn't be anything like it is today without people writing for reasons other than money. In fact, almost all of the most influential writings of all time weren't written for profit.

Or even got popular when the author was alive. Or at least not at the popularity they have now.

[Dienekes]

Nonsense. Whether you're Anne Frank writing to cope, Herodotus hoping to record history, Confucius hoping to spread wisdom, or hoping the mold the future like Plato, there are plenty of reasons to write outside of money. Our society and culture wouldn't be anything like it is today without people writing for reasons other than money. In fact, almost all of the most influential writings of all time weren't written for profit.

Just to be a stickler. Confucius didn’t write his wisdom down, outside of sending people letters and the like. It was compiled years after his death, the earliest known version was compiled on behest of a patron. So in that specific case the reason we have Confucius works survive at all is because someone wanted to make money off of someone else’s work.

But in general, you are correct. There are many motivations for creating art. It’s only the idea that Dickens, Shakespeare, and Dostoyevsky’s motivation is somehow wrong that I give people the side eye.

[Magic_Hat]

Am I okay with corperations always having money as their bottom line? Not really. But I don't exactly see myself having the power to change things. I might think society would be in a healthier place if corperations didn't have to make every increasing profits, but what can I do about it?

If I may quote Red Letter Media:
While I would never support a boycott, boy do I love cots!

And all things being said, they may not seek to make a statement, art, or history, but they can do so anyways. So long as they produce a quality product, I'm not that concerned about their motivations. (Their methods, yes, motivations, no.)

Their methods are (among other things) creating trailers with content not in the film. What do you call someone who intentionally lies about what they are selling in order to boost sales?

As for the "quality product" is re-releasing Endgame in theaters with like 20 seconds of extra content just to have it be the highest grossing film of all time "quality"?

Yeah. In the end of the day they're still employing thousands of artists and providing countless people respite and enjoyment in their lives with their works.

I hate that argument. Do you think all that money trickles down to the boom mic operators and catering service people? Compare how much money RDJ and Tom Holland make to that of everyone else. Yes, your money does help literally all of the people that worked on this product, but like 99% of it goes to the people at the top.

I find it utterly ridiculous to get angry at a corporation for wanting to make money. That's the reason it exists at all.

So you'd be okay with a corporation just putting out anything to sell product? Creating intentional design flaws in a product so it breaks down after like a month and you have to buy a new one? Or creating a cinematic universe where you have to see every film in order to know what is happening? How many people wouldn't have seen Ant-Man of Doctor Strange if it wasn't in the MCU?

You can get annoyed at the corporation for having unethical practices. You can get annoyed at them for mistreating their customer base in favor of short term gains. But when I hear "They're not interested in making art! They just want money!" my immediate response is "DUH!"

Okay:

Unethical practices: altering copyright law to keep Mickey Mouse copyrighted when almost every Disney film is based on a work in the public domain and buying anything they can get their hands on to create a monopoly.

Mistreating their customer base: lying in their trailers for films like putting the Hulk in Wakanda.

[Forum Explorer]

If I may quote Red Letter Media:
While I would never support a boycott, boy do I love cots!



Their methods are (among other things) creating trailers with content not in the film. What do you call someone who intentionally lies about what they are selling in order to boost sales?

As for the "quality product" is re-releasing Endgame in theaters with like 20 seconds of extra content just to have it be the highest grossing film of all time "quality"?

A boycott really doesn't address the fundamental issue that many corperations are beholden to investors, who only see a profit if the company makes every increasing amounts of money. If a company makes a million one year, and a million the next, investors will consider their investment a failure. That is the system that I view as broken.

Any advertisement ever? The only thing I trust out of advertisements is that the product exists. I don't even believe them when they say it will be released on a certain date, unless that date is a week away.

Well, I didn't buy that extra 20 seconds of product, so obviously I didn't consider it a quality product. Also, I'd consider that investment baiting. They are trying to trick investors by making sure they can say that they released the highest grossing film that year.

[Reddish Mage]

Just to be a stickler. Confucius didn’t write his wisdom down, outside of sending people letters and the like. It was compiled years after his death, the earliest known version was compiled on behest of a patron. So in that specific case the reason we have Confucius works survive at all is because someone wanted to make money off of someone else’s work.

This fundamentally misunderstands what’s going on in a period before print presses, copyrights or professional authors.

A patron who wanted to compile confusions’ oral teachings and letters into a writing wouldn’t be interested in money. A “patron” if its the right term, is pretty wealthy and have other pursuits that are more lucrative. An original manuscript itself had some value but beyond that there is no making money. Once a work is out where it could be copied...it could be copied by anyone (although this is a laborious process taking months, at the least).

Similarly, there were severe limits as to what authors could make off a manuscript. Some may have wrote to enhance their reputation and attract other opportunities, but writing by itself was an very laborious and not very profitable activity (and paper and books were extremely expensive). Most authors were, in fact, fairly well to do for themselves. Which is why they had the time and the ability to write well. All in all, nearly all of histories’ great authors were not motivated by profit in any tangible sense, and couldn’t have even though about it.

[Rodin]

So you'd be okay with a corporation just putting out anything to sell product? Creating intentional design flaws in a product so it breaks down after like a month and you have to buy a new one?

Absolutely. I will happily stop buying that product and then watch as the company fails as their competitors make better products. This is why product reviews are a thing.

In the specific case of the MCU, the product reviews are great, and I happen to agree with those reviews. Which is why I keep going. If the quality of the movies drops, I'll stop watching them. Simple as that.

Or creating a cinematic universe where you have to see every film in order to know what is happening? How many people wouldn't have seen Ant-Man of Doctor Strange if it wasn't in the MCU?

I very much doubt all that many people went to see Ant-Man or Dr. Strange because they felt "obligated" to see them. As we've seen in other threads, the MCU holds up very well on its own. Hell, my parents have seen exactly one MCU movie - that being Dr. Strange. I mentioned it to them because it was on Netflix at the time and it seemed more down their alley than most of the MCU. There's tons of extras that you get from seeing the previous movies, but there's only a handful you actually NEED. I watched The Avengers without having seen Iron Man 2, Thor, Hulk, or Captain America.

I'd say the only ones it's really important to see are original Avengers, Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron, GotG1, Civil War, Infinity War and Endgame. You get more out of the movies if you see them all, of course, but that's appeal. As to requiring watching other movies ahead of time, that's hardly new. Try watching Order of the Phoenix or Deathly Hallows without watching the other Harry Potter movies. Or Return of the King.

Okay:

Unethical practices: altering copyright law to keep Mickey Mouse copyrighted when almost every Disney film is based on a work in the public domain and buying anything they can get their hands on to create a monopoly.

Mistreating their customer base: lying in their trailers for films like putting the Hulk in Wakanda.

And I totally do not support those practices and will not defend them.

The copyright law thing is just something intractable in the system and goes WAY beyond Disney. Copyright law is so screwy (and I think probably veers into real-world politics) that I just can't muster up the energy to be upset about it anymore. It is what it is. I certainly won't criticize anyone who is upset by it, but if you want to boycott on the basis of copyright law you have to go live in a cave somewhere and eat nuts and berries. Which are probably GMO and have also been copyrighted, come to think of it.

The fake trailer is such a minor thing that I don't give a crap. They release false trailers to obscure plot points. Yeah, I wish they wouldn't, because it's a lesser degree of the fake Oblivion gameplay trailer that still has me pissed off. At the end of the day though, what matters is quality. Give me a great movie with a fake trailer, and I forgive. Give me a crap movie with a fake trailer, and I'll ask you to hold my pitchfork while I light your torch.

[Dienekes]

This fundamentally misunderstands what’s going on in a period before print presses, copyrights or professional authors.

A patron who wanted to compile confusions’ oral teachings and letters into a writing wouldn’t be interested in money. A “patron” if its the right term, is pretty wealthy and have other pursuits that are more lucrative. An original manuscript itself had some value but beyond that there is no making money. Once a work is out where it could be copied...it could be copied by anyone (although this is a laborious process taking months, at the least).

Similarly, there were severe limits as to what authors could make off a manuscript. Some may have wrote to enhance their reputation and attract other opportunities, but writing by itself was an very laborious and not very profitable activity (and paper and books were extremely expensive). Most authors were, in fact, fairly well to do for themselves. Which is why they had the time and the ability to write well. All in all, nearly all of histories’ great authors were not motivated by profit in any tangible sense, and couldn’t have even though about it.

You misunderstood me, partly because I was attempting to be glib. I am not very good a being glib.

The patron does not want or need to make money off the manuscript. But the compiler/writer working for the patron goes into this work based on some form of tangible benefit for their work. Be it direct payment, prestige, a chance to spread their name and attract better patrons, less scrutiny when dealing with local laws. Whatever. My point was that the Confucian Analects were not written because of some desire to spread wisdom and desire for cultural betterment for all humanity. It was a transaction. Not on the same scale or ubiquity of the modern day, but a transaction none the less.

[Kitten Champion]

Honestly, I don't see how the MCU is any different on some moral basis than countless other movies produced by every other major studio since the foundation of the medium, other than they're popular and Magic_Hat has a profound biased against them. If the complaint is "Capitalism = Bad" then fine - not really the place to make it, but whatever - but why simply cast shade on Disney, it's hardly the only participant in said system.

As to misleading or intentionally opaque trailers, they are stock standard in the industry. Sometimes as part of a larger marketing strategy - like Abrams mystery box - though mostly because the ones cutting the trailers are different than the ones making the movie and, well, they're advertisements built do what advertisements do. Or in the MCU's case, with millions of people out there who will go looking for Easter Eggs/break downs, well, there is a reason spoilers are a thing in this forum and elsewhere.

Personally, I vastly prefer Marvel-style trailers with lightly misleading or carefully edited content which serve to obscure the actual substance of the movie to basically seeing an abridged version of the film. It's not as though Avengers: Endgame was advertised as this grand superhero epic with A-List actors that follows upon the events of Infinity War... and the actual movie was just 3 hours of painting with Bob Ross. I got the premise and nature of the movie, but not what the totality of the plot and every spoiler was before setting foot in the theatres - and part of that is carefully editing around showing most of their cards - because of the nature of the medium, not knowing is part of the enjoyment in the same way you wouldn't put the complete plot synopsis to a mystery on the book jacket.

[Rodin]

It's not as though Avengers: Endgame was advertised as this grand superhero epic with A-List actors that follows upon the events of Infinity War... and the actual movie was just 3 hours of painting with Bob Ross.

That would have been one of the greatest trolls of all time. We get the same opening sequence with the reveal that the Snap cannot be undone...and then the rest of the movie is Bruce Banner keeping his rage under control by doing a Bob Ross homage show and painting pictures. People would watch the whole thing waiting for the moment he messes up and Hulks out...but no. He just paints. Roll credits, and THEN Marvel announces that they're rebooting the MCU since the current universe is too screwed to continue. Painting With Bruce Banner would continue as a Disney+ streaming show.

[Reddish Mage]

As to misleading or intentionally opaque trailers, they are stock standard in the industry. Sometimes as part of a larger marketing strategy - like Abrams mystery box - though mostly because the ones cutting the trailers are different than the ones making the movie and, well, they're advertisements built do what advertisements do. Or in the MCU's case, with millions of people out there who will go looking for Easter Eggs/break downs, well, there is a reason spoilers are a thing in this forum and elsewhere.

All this plus the fact that trailers typically come out while the movie is still in the final edit. So, for example, they say that "Rogue One" was full of scenes that didn't make the final cut largely because they were still cutting it. Apparently though, some lines they put in simply because it was a darling line and it didn't make it because the scene it was in was redundant.

The trailers that are basically abridged versions of the film are the worse and I don't know why it's done. I maintain Terminator Genysis may have been delightful if only for its abundance of shockers if not for the trailer that had to spoil every single twist the story had. However, I'm not sure why we should bring them up, since there is the option to put together a trailer that is neither misleading nor spoilery....except there isn't because the standard being set by those that complain about the MCU trailers for honest trailers is far too high to be achievable.

Star Wars has been far worse than the MCU in terms of misleading trailers, as well as misleading everything. Basically, the entire structure of the movies have been to keep us guessing about what the resolution is to all the mysteries.

Indeed, it seems the Episode IX trailers serve the purpose of getting everybody to start speculating on the meaning of all those out-of-context segments and vague hinting.

Spoiler: Star Wars Episode IX Trailer

Show

They give us the Emperor's laugh and Rey with a red lightsaber! We see what your doing there.

There's where you should go if you want to complain about misleading trailers. The MCUs trailers are actually pretty straightforward.

[Kitten Champion]

All this plus the fact that trailers typically come out while the movie is still in the final edit. So, for example, they say that "Rogue One" was full of scenes that didn't make the final cut largely because they were still cutting it. Apparently though, some lines they put in simply because it was a darling line and it didn't make it because the scene it was in was redundant.

The trailers that are basically abridged versions of the film are the worse and I don't know why it's done. I maintain Terminator Genysis may have been delightful if only for its abundance of shockers if not for the trailer that had to spoil every single twist the story had. However, I'm not sure why we should bring them up, since there is the option to put together a trailer that is neither misleading nor spoilery....except there isn't because the standard being set by those that complain about the MCU trailers for honest trailers is far too high to be achievable.

I think my favourite trailer ever is this, to Hitchcock's Psycho. Is it honest? Smugly vague I would say. Is it effective and cool? Yes.

The '98 remake's trailer is pretty much what I would expect from a contemporary movie at this point. Granted everyone knew the plot to Psycho at that point, though that does raise the obvious question of why remake it in the first place... but that's a well-beaten dead horse.

Star Wars has been far worse than the MCU in terms of misleading trailers, as well as misleading everything. Basically, the entire structure of the movies have been to keep us guessing about what the resolution is to all the mysteries.

Indeed, it seems the Episode IX trailers serve the purpose of getting everybody to start speculating on the meaning of all those out-of-context segments and vague hinting.

Spoiler: Star Wars Episode IX Trailer

Show

They give us the Emperor's laugh and Rey with a red lightsaber! We see what your doing there.

There's where you should go if you want to complain about misleading trailers. The MCUs trailers are actually pretty straightforward.

I mean, you're not wrong, but that kind of trailer feels more like a cinematic version of a movie poster. Just putting evocative, icon-rich images out there with no particular narrative to it beyond "this is the conclusion of the series". Will the images have the same meaning in the film as you might speculate? Probably not, but it's not exactly writing a different movie into existence.

I find something like the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer far more consistent with Abrams-style of misleading, mystery box trailers. Lot of out-of-context, ominous-sounding lines of dialogue placed over artfully arranged clips to create some idea of what the narrative is going to be in the viewer's imagination, but is for the most part not much like the actual movie.

[Reddish Mage]

Just putting evocative, icon-rich images out there with no particular narrative to it beyond "this is the conclusion of the series". Will the images have the same meaning in the film as you might speculate? Probably not, but it's not exactly writing a different movie into existence.

I find something like the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer far more consistent with Abrams-style of misleading, mystery box trailers. Lot of out-of-context, ominous-sounding lines of dialogue placed over artfully arranged clips to create some idea of what the narrative is going to be in the viewer's imagination, but is for the most part not much like the actual movie.

Wait till Episode IX comes out before saying it isn't meant to be misleading. At this point, for all we know the Saga's "end" isn't as final as the announcements make it to be. After all, the "Skywalker Saga ends" but the movie is titled "The Rise of Skywalker." They're already going with mixed messaging.

[Forum Explorer]

Wait till Episode IX comes out before saying it isn't meant to be misleading. At this point, for all we know the Saga's "end" isn't as final as the announcements make it to be. After all, the "Skywalker Saga ends" but the movie is titled "The Rise of Skywalker." They're already going with mixed messaging.

To be fair, the Last Jedi ended with someone saying 'and I am NOT the Last Jedi.'

Also to be fair, it's almost all certainly BS anyways. Best to go in as blind as you can I find.

[Reddish Mage]

To be fair, the Last Jedi ended with someone saying 'and I am NOT the Last Jedi.'

Also to be fair, it's almost all certainly BS anyways. Best to go in as blind as you can I find.

I'm not sure who you are being fair too because you haven't been that big on Disney and you are just strengthening my point that the Star Wars trailers are very misleading, but thanks.

I don't know if blind is the best way to see these movies or not. Rogue One certainly isn't any worse for seeing the trailers. J J Abrams probably had his hands all over the trailers and intends the trailers to be part of the overall experience.

You go in anticipating something about

Spoiler

Show

Dark Rey

, and so it's all the more special when she shows up. Ditto with a certain other character.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm not sure who I'm being fair to either. But I'm pretty sure I'm being fair at least.

Well different strokes for different folks and all that. I've never found spoilers to improve the experience. Sometimes they aren't harmful, but they are never beneficial. It's kinda like an odd version of pessimism. If something is good, and it's spoiled for me, then it's goodness has been used up before I even watch the movie. If there is something to anticipate, well instead it gets to be a sweet surprise and I won't have time to worry about them messing it up. And if something is bad, if it isn't spoiled I won't have time to brood over it and make it worse before I even see the rest of the movie.

EDIT: Oh, and of course, this way I miss all of the blatant lies as well.

[Reddish Mage]

I'm not sure who I'm being fair to either. But I'm pretty sure I'm being fair at least.

Well different strokes for different folks and all that. I've never found spoilers to improve the experience. Sometimes they aren't harmful, but they are never beneficial. It's kinda like an odd version of pessimism. If something is good, and it's spoiled for me, then it's goodness has been used up before I even watch the movie. If there is something to anticipate, well instead it gets to be a sweet surprise and I won't have time to worry about them messing it up. And if something is bad, if it isn't spoiled I won't have time to brood over it and make it worse before I even see the rest of the movie.

EDIT: Oh, and of course, this way I miss all of the blatant lies as well.

What's a spoiler? I spoil the images because some people haven't, or prefer not to, see the trailers but I don't feel any detail of the plot is being spoiled by the trailer.

What we have are very evocative images that will naturally provoke a lot of online speculation and discussion prior to the movie release. By the time the movie releases they'll be lots of people talking about

Spoiler: Star Wars Speculation based on Trailer Images

Show

Dark Rey and the Resurrected Emperor, not to mention stuff that isn't even in the trailers like redeemed Kylo and all that. Oddly, no one but Abrams seems interested in C3PO's red body parts...but some oddballs have speculated the C3PO's red eyes means he turns evil

.

All that will have been encouraged by Abrams, who is an odd director in Hollywood as my understanding is he does have creative control of the trailers of his movies and has a very specific agenda when he uses them. My guess, based on his history, is that he didn't give away all that much. Thus, its more on the misleading side than the spoilery side.

[Wizard_Lizard]

What's a spoiler? I spoil the images because some people haven't, or prefer not to, see the trailers but I don't feel any detail of the plot is being spoiled by the trailer.

What we have are very evocative images that will naturally provoke a lot of online speculation and discussion prior to the movie release. By the time the movie releases they'll be lots of people talking about

Spoiler: Star Wars Speculation based on Trailer Images

Show

Dark Rey and the Resurrected Emperor, not to mention stuff that isn't even in the trailers like redeemed Kylo and all that. Oddly, no one but Abrams seems interested in C3PO's red body parts...but some oddballs have speculated the C3PO's red eyes means he turns evil

.

All that will have been encouraged by Abrams, who is an odd director in Hollywood as my understanding is he does have creative control of the trailers of his movies and has a very specific agenda when he uses them. My guess, based on his history, is that he didn't give away all that much. Thus, its more on the misleading side than the spoilery side.

clearly 3po's red parts confirm that star wars' greatest evil is going to rreturn....



Darth Jar Jar

[Magic_Hat]

I just watched the honest trailer for this film. Still haven't seen it. Have to ask...

Spoiler

Show

...were Peter's sunglasses the macguffin, and did Tony Stark put some sort of high tech thing or something in said glasses?

If so I'm gonna need a few days to properly process this.

[Ramza00]

I just watched the honest trailer for this film. Still haven't seen it. Have to ask...

Spoiler

Show

...were Peter's sunglasses the macguffin, and did Tony Stark put some sort of high tech thing or something in said glasses?

If so I'm gonna need a few days to properly process this.

So in the first 1/3rd of the movie this scene happens.

Spoiler: Link to Youtube and Short Description

Show

And in the Scene Peter Parker puts on the E.D.I.T.H glasses that Stark uses. EDITH stands for Even Dead I'm The Hero which really shows how arrogant Stark is. The Glasses are the same glasses Tony Stark uses to remote control an Iron Man Armor "Shell" in Homecoming that rescued Peter Parker.



And they are the same glasses that Tony used in Infinity War when Tony is in New York and the Black Order show up.

Pretty much E.D.I.T.H. allows access to the Stark network and all the nifty and very CREEPY toys that Stark developed for Stark was so preoccupied with creating an Iron Curtain to protect the world after Avengers 1 (as seen in Avengers 2 with Ultron) even though Tony wanted to prevent his weapons being misused in Iron Man 1.

There was a good essay in Mashable about EDITH and the ethics of EDITH and how it compares to the similar tech in Batman The Dark Knight which also came out in 2008 same year as the first Iron Man.

https://mashable.com/article/spider-...om-home-edith/

-----

Now the movie is far more than fancy tech such as the EDITH glasses it is a story about Identity, Responsibility, Perception, yadda, yadda Spider-Man and general superhero theme stuff besides punching things.

But yeah you should really digest what a man Tony Stark is.