Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Two questions
james_nicoll
How does Sean Bean's character die this time? And does Mila Kunis' character get to do anything but get rescued?



Also posted at Dreamwidth, where there are comment count unavailable comment(s); comment here or there.

  • 1
Milan Kunis being the nickname of a Mila Kunis lookalike from northern Italy?

So, is this plot lifted from a Catherine Asaro novel? Maybe more than one Catherine Asaro novel?

The Wachowski, um, siblings have previously demonstrated skill in incorporating elements from a variety of sources into their films...

Edited at 2014-06-28 01:17 am (UTC)

Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.

Why are they "um, siblings"? Is there some question as to their parentage?

It used to be "brothers"; one of them changed their public gender presentation, so now it's "siblings".

Yes, I know that. Which makes then "siblings," rather than "um, siblings" as far as I know?

Why are they "um, siblings"? Is there some question as to their parentage?

I intended to hint that, while I have now and then glibly uttered the phrase "the Wachowski brothers," I am not yet accustomed to using a more appropriate locution.

I do admire how deftly lil_shepherd slips "the Wachowski pair" into the the comments below.

"It's not what you do. It's who you are." [1]

I know that "the chosen one" is a standard trope and all, but do the people who write these things ever think about the implications of making the key character important due to their ancestry rather than any trait over which the character has volition?[2]

wes


[1] that's what the dialog sounded like to me
[2] if I was a conspiracy nut, I'd answer my own question as "yes, they know exactly what they're doing and it's part of the long game of anti-democratic forces


It's true that the story could be about a woman who goes from cleaning toilets to a position of great importance entirely through her own intelligence and conscientiousness. But she wouldn't have any volition over those traits, either. And since she lives in the developed world they'd mostly come from her "ancestry" too, although not the same way as royal inheritance.

A person may not have control over their intelligence, but conscientiousness certainly is a choice -- it's a choice we make every time we interact with other humans.

In any event, no matter how privileged a person is, that's no guarantee of success. Plenty of rich folks have had kids who died in a ditch as a result of bad choices. This is different from the typical fantasy hero of destiny whose success is guaranteed by the very metaphysics of the fictional universe.

Conscientiousness has a higher heritability than homosexuality, so I don't think you can describe it as a choice.

"It's not what you do. It's who you are."

Yeah, that part struck me too; if I weren't wearing my tinfoil hat, I'd think it was just like our Corporate Masters were trying to get people acclimatized to the idea of aristocracy.

(See also: Star Wars, etc.)

Hmm...that's almost exactly the opposite of "It’s not who I am underneath, it’s what I do that defines me."

Think I'm going with Batman on this one.

Catherine Asaro!!! YES!!! *That's* what this reminds me of! Thank you!

Whether that's a good thing or not is an entirely other subject.

In answer to the second question: it doesn't look like it. The trailer looks very pretty, but the film also looks to be devoid of any interesting world building, plot, characterisation or wit. Mind you, that's how I feel about almost everything the Wachowski pair have done. (I will make an exception for The Matrix which I enjoyed at the cinema but haven't been able to watch since, and I guess V for Vendetta could have been worse, though they missed the point....)

The Matrix was great because it did capture that faintly futuristic, end of history feel of the turn of the millennium, that idea that the nineties could continue forever until 9/11 put an end to that idea.

V for Vendetta again captured the Bush/Blair era perfectly and its dystopia worked in a way that the original Moore story wouldn't have at that time on the screen. It seemed plausible that we could get to there from here.

Neither is a perfect movie, but both are a cut above the average big budget sci-fi movie.

Neither are movies I want to watch a second time. That says a lot about what I think of the rest of the output.

What hit me most about 'V for Vendetta' (apart from the backing off from some political themes and the fact they started off by getting 'Remember, remember' wrong!) was how much it was like a wannbe Batman movie. (V uniform, V cave, and wasn't there a V cycle or something?)

It certainly didn't seem in the least plausible to me.

'The Matrix' was okay but it suffered from an implausible main plot theme.

As Wil Wheaton noted, the already made and completed movie has had it's premier release date moved from North-America wide release next month, to limited release in the Netherlands next spring. This is the kind of thing they do when they realise they have an embarrassingly high profile flop.

Well now, I presume the test screenings went very well - not.


After viewing the informative clip I feel I can answer those questions:

Answer to question one - who cares?

Answer to question two - most likely not.

-m

  • 1
?

Log in