MovieChat Forums > Abed303 > Replies
Abed303's Replies
I agree this film is top-notch, but the first movie is a bootstrap paradox and the second completely upends that so I don't know how much respect went to the original lore. That can easily be dismissed though because of, well... everything else.
I literally went through every point explaining the relevance. I'm sorry if you either cannot keep up or choose not to have an actual discussion. Most of these points that I brought up were in the form of questions, ones that were not answered. Why not just respond to any of the questions? I haven't criticized your viewpoint that you disapprove of the diversity in The Magnificent Seven and the film industry at large. I don't share that opinion so I was asking for information on that viewpoint and offering my own. Discussions grow; that's literally what a message board is designed to facilitate and why a tree structure is used. It's not a non-sequitur to advance a discussion on a platform designed for just that.
All Publicly-traded companies, like the studios that produced The Magnificent Seven, absolutely care about profit.
I wasn't blown away, but I enjoyed this movie when I first saw it.
The mini-series was awesome though. The format works so much better for the material. Most of the movie is dialog and Tarantino shines in that area, but the film is almost three hours long. Splitting it up into Episodes made it easier to digest which allowed the dialog to take center stage without fault. Also, Kurt Russell's out-of-place narration was removed, which I felt was an improvement.
Mentions of Shakespeare, blackface, and John Wayne were in response to a completely different post and I think their use is quite clear. Training Day was brought up because it was suggested that Antoine Fuqua added diversity to the cast and made the villain a white guy so that he could push his racial agenda. I never would have mentioned Training Day if Antoine Fuqua wasn't brought up. So again, relevant and quite clear.
You're saying you think that the level of diversity in The Magnificent Seven bothers you. OK. Unfortunately not enough people feel that way. In other words, you're in the minority. If there were enough people with that opinion where it would affect profits Hollywood would immediately reduce diversity.
I think there are definitely consequences, but those consequences and what they mean in the Feige-master-plan are the only reasons for the rest. (spoilers on all of the D+ marvel shows) Viewers that skip these shows will suddenly be reintroduced to a living Vision, and maybe even his and Wanda's children. Next time Sam Wilson is in a movie he'll be in a Captain America costume (although endgame sets this up) and we're sure to run into John Walker at some point. Loki is almost certainly going to end with this Loki's or Sylvie's involvement in later films and obviously the multiverse is fleshed out.
Before Disney+ Marvel shows were criticized for not affecting the MCU at all so they full tilt in the other direction and made it the prime directive. These shows are meant to lay groundwork for the movies and, i guess, maybe it will make futures movies better. Films like Thor 2 or Age of Ultron sacrificed a lot to be a cog in the MCU machine. Imagine seeing either of those films formatted as a series over several weeks.
I'll clarify my point for you.
I asked questions that are directly related to whynotwriteme's suggestion that The Magnificent Seven (this particular movie) is a subversion of the western genre.
Those movies I mentioned represent different sub-genres of a western (the genre of this particular movie). I was wondering if whynotwriteme felt that these were subversive as well. I don't understand what could be subverted in society by any of these movies mentioned and certainly not by adding diversity to The Magnificent Seven.
I mentioned Seven Samurai because it is the movie the 1960 film is adapted from. In other words, there's nothing sacred about the 1960 film, it's an american version of a foreign film. That makes them all three different versions of the same story. Each one with different protagonists, different villains, and different circumstances.
whynotwriteme suggested there was an agenda being pushed, referencing the director, villain, and the cast. Training Day was made by the same director, and in many ways juxtaposes the circumstances of The Magnificent Seven. I'm suggesting that this group was likely just making art, rather than pushing a consistent agenda.
Now my post criticizing those Disney movies was deliberately tongue-in-cheek. I think Disney should give their male villains the same treatment, but at the same time not lay it on so thick with the sympathy in any of those movies. For example, I thought Maleficent changed so much that it wasn't the same character or story. Cruella (spoiler) treated the character better, but the whole murder-trained-dalmatian-fake-mom angle was way too much in a movie that was already over the top.
I was suggesting more villainous characters are given depth, not only the females, but not done so in a way that bastardizes the story. I don't see the equivalence to your suggestion that a Black and Asian guy being cast in a remake of an old western is subversive.
Television shows are open ended, written to be as long as they stay popular. The writing often bends to the will of public opinion. Disney+ Marvel shows are essentially mini-series, written with a set story for a single season. An entire show is done filming before any of the episodes release. Shows like BSG, Lost, and GOT were all criticized for their later/last seasons because the writers were just making it up for as long as they could. When Netflix started dumping shows on the public a season at a time the conversations changed. In my experience, discussion was saved until people watched the whole season.
I remember being disappointed when The Boys switched to a weekly release, but the show didn't leave me disappointed. All of the speculation and discussion didn't outweigh the end product. I think the Marvel shows were primarily made to be essential viewing for the MCU to increase Disney+ subscriptions. The shows are then stuffed with Easter eggs that tease future releases. Finally after all of those boxes are checked story is considered. I believe the creators of The Boys were primarily focused on telling a story. Many of the Marvel theories are made to try and work out the inconsistencies that Disney's priorities for the shows have created. Many of them are trying to find meaning in what is ultimately discovered to be filler. This is the problem.
Also, I never mentioned any specific fan theories. So, Mephisto being thrown in with another villain, that's a you problem.
I don't see your point, and you didn't answer the question.
Subvert the western genre? What do you even mean by that?
How do you feel about foreign westerns like The Good the Bad the Weird?
Do you hate spaghetti westerns like Django?
What about Tarantino's Django?
The Original Magnificent Seven was an adaptation of a Japanese samurai movie (Seven Samurai). Does that make it a subversion of Samurai cinema?
This same director and some of the same cast members were also responsible for Training Day, a movie with a black villain and a white protagonist. The villain was a corrupt and murderous cop who tries to have his white trainee killed to save himself. In the end the white cop wins and the black cop dies, brutally. What agenda is this group of artists pushing exactly?
So you're saying that The Magnificent Seven was explicitly made to indoctrinate the masses under the guise of entertainment?
I have a bridge to sell you.
Everything in life changes. In regards to the movie, if everything stayed the same there'd be no point of making a new one. I do not think that the costumes, action, dialog, music, or direction can change but characters' races are off limits.
Women not being allowed on stage and the use of blackface are examples of societal norms of the past that are unacceptable today. I'd argue that a lack of diversity is just another example of that.
I wasn't trying to use a non-sequitur. Maybe you are offended by John Wayne's portrayal or Genghis Khan. I was under the impression that your issue was with characters being race-swapped in film. John Wayne was a white actor who was cast as a Asian character. You clearly take issue with the diversity in Magnificent Seven because it wasn't in the original. They aren't even the same characters as the 1960 film (inspired by the first of course, but it's a re-imagining).
The demographics of the time that the movie is set in is an interesting point. If historical accuracy is important to you, maybe it doesn't work (but Kowalski buries that argument). There were examples of such inaccuracies in the both films outside of race though (e.g. levi jeans and references to 10 story buildings). I don't understand why it is important to be historically accurate in regards to race (which you already admitted has no change to the story), but not costume or dialog.
It is not at all racist to say that representation matters. The term is not at all exclusive to race. I've lived all over the U.S. and racial diversity is vastly different throughout the country. You may live in an area that reflects those percentages. Many of the places I have lived has not.
I enjoyed both the original and the remake and can appreciate them both for what they are.
You seem to be upset that "the characters very well still could have been white and nothing would have changed", but by your own admission the diversity changed nothing. So why does it upset you that some people are different races? Is it just because it feels like an unnecessary change?
Men used to play women in Shakespearean plays because women weren't allowed onstage (neither were black actors). Was it woke to let women on stage? I'm sure you have no problem with women in film today; a man from the late 1500s would.
What about blackface? Do you think it's woke that blackface is no longer acceptable? Many american's did when the practice started to decline in the 40s and 50s as the civil rights movement started gaining traction.
White actors have been playing non-white roles for ages. How can you be offended by the race swapping in this movie, but not be up in arms that John Wayne once played Genghis Khan? John Wayne being a white man didn't affect the story. If they had cast an Asian actor for the role "nothing would have changed".
The question is why were all of the characters white in the original? It was made for white audiences, that's why. Representation matters and we live in a more diverse world than 1960. It only makes sense that modern interpretations of older films will be made for modern audiences.
Your feelings towards the second half of Fight Club mirror my own towards the second half of your response. You're bringing up even more political opinion in your response. This isn't the place for that. You don't need to explain your beliefs as it's already obvious that your on the right. Leave it at that. Lying and slandering happen on both sides.
A kitchen timer is significantly louder than a human heartbeat. I can hear a kitchen timer clicking if I'm next to it, but I've never heard anybody's heart beating while they were next to me.
One thing I completely agree with Wuchak on is that exchanges were respectful before your post. While I do not agree with his response, what were you expecting? Wuchak compared "antifa thugs" to what the fight club turned into. There wasn't even a direct equivalency made. The OP simply said "too reminiscent of ANTIFA thugs".
I can see the comparison, I'm not offended and, full disclosure, I'm a Democrat. Wuchak's response to you did offend me, but you invited it with insults and hate. One thing that all hate groups lack is tolerance. You should embrace tolerance, before you become the opposite side of the coin you claim Wuchak to be.
What exactly does "radically against any hate group" mean? Are you infiltrating hate groups and taking them down from within? lol
I doubt that you are even actively against hate groups, never-mind radically. Also, i pickup on hate in your own response. Why point out that democrats started the KKK (a misleading statement and not fit for this message board)? It's completely irrelevant to today's' politics. Attempting to identify the democratic party today by actions in the 1800's is irrational at best and propaganda at worst. To label liberalism as fascist is just more hate. For someone so radically against hate groups you sure seem comfortable with some of their rhetoric.
I don't think ANTIFA, Proud Boys, or KKK are groups that anyone should be aligned with, all of them radical in their own ways.
Also, to bring this back around to, I don't know....Fight Club, it's pretty clear at the end of the film that Norton's character rejects Tyler's philosophy.
This is a good point. The next villian-turned-hero movie will be Ursula, and will likely depict her as a victim that was wrongfully thrown out of the kingdom. Is Disney creating sympathizing origin stories for only the female villains? I question the messaging. Are the female villains simply misunderstood victims while the male villains are pure evil?
Maybe Gaston’s family was rich when he was young, The family was convinced by Belle’s father to invest in his inventions and it bankrupted them. His parents withered away, physically and mentally until they’re thrown into the madhouse by a younger Monsieur D'Arque. Gaston had to become a proficient hunter so he could survive on his own.
Scar was likely beaten and bullied by his older brother in their youth. Maybe it was this abuse that isolated him and turned him against his family. A pack of hyenas could have witnessed this abuse one day and defended him against his brother. This is why Mufasa hates the hyenas and as soon as he becomes king, he forces them into exile.
Perhaps Jafar was a young apprentice to his father, the advisor to the youthful sultan. Jafar’s father makes an honest mistake resulting in some negative consequence for the Sultan. Young and rash, the sultan has him executed. Jafar is appointed the new advisor and forced to serve his father’s murderer. He decides to hatch a plan of revenge that takes him decades.
I get the intention with these films, but I think a better direction would be making new films with female protagonists.
Having said all of that, I enjoyed Cruella. I found the movie quite fun. The music, costumes, and acting really helped gloss over the messy parts of the story. Emma Stone nailed it and Paul Walter Hauser was incredible.