MovieChat Forums > MrEdofCourse
MrEdofCourse (33)
Posts
Not science fiction, a love story.
A couple of problems with this as a kids movie
What happened to PGN? (end of show spoilers)
Spoilers: Family confusion, please clarify...
View all posts >
Replies
They explained this in Season 1 and 2. There was a wardrobe truck that fell into the sink hole. So lots of new clothes for everyone.
In Season 3, they just keep jumping back to present day to get new clothes.
<blockquote>their sexual degeneracy is precisely why they do not have families and children, or why they cannot keep a man to do so.</blockquote>
You keep saying this while simultaneously linking to articles that point to other reasons for decline in population growth.
Again, there is a long history of prosperous nations and societies experiencing lower population growth and impoverished nations experiencing sky rocketing population growth.
If you want to argue that's good or bad, have that argument with yourself, but for some reason you want to point to evidence that backs <i>that</i> up while blaming "sexual degeneracy" with absolutely nothing to point to.
TIL: 45 percent of women in the US being single and childless by 2030 = extinction.
BTW: The source for the very link you posted attributes this not to "Sexual degeneracy" or being a "sick society", but rather:
“These shifting lifestyle norms are enabling more women, with or without children, to work full time, which should continue to raise the labor force participation rate among single females [...] Rising labor-force participation rates should put upward pressure on women’s wages and help increase overall consumer spending. As it stands, women already control a large share of the U.S. consumer wallet. They contribute an estimated $7 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product per year, [...] and are the principal shoppers in 72% of households.
Meanwhile, women are earning bachelor’s degrees at a higher rate than men, and they are the primary breadwinner for nearly 30% of married households and nearly 40% of total U.S. households."
In other words, prosperity. Do you want to compare population trends to other countries out to 2030 and see which have better/worse economic outlooks? How about comparing the economy/population growth here with our supposed degenerate sick society to the strict theocracies around the world?
<blockquote>There is plenty of space everywhere. As the Dutch proved that even infertile land in places like South Africa could be cultivated into fertile farmland:</blockquote>
Points to an article that doesn't mention the wars this caused, the concentration camps, famines or slavery at all.
The premise of this whole thread is flawed. Prosperous societies have had historically lower birth rates.
I thoroughly agree with you. It's a bit derivative (see Boy in Striped Pajamas), but more so it's repetitive and absolutely would've been better as a short. The sound design is worth making sure you're watching this with a good system, but the cinematography is a real mixed bag.
This movie had some flaws, but there were also moments of brilliance and overall I enjoyed it.
<blockquote>That quote at the beginning sucked.</blockquote>
Do you know who they're quoting? Your definition of art may be different, and that's ok, but this was literally Bernstein's exact definition and becomes a part of the whole movie.
<blockquote>This whole "le older movie filter" is getting annoying fast.</blockquote>
I agree. Even worse this year was Saltburn (also with Carrey Mulligan). Maestro used both aspect ratio and black & white to convey different eras, but at least there was proper composition with Maestro, wherein with Saltburn, while the director wanted to "convey a sense of peeking in", most shots were just making you feel like they would've been much better with a proper wide aspect ratio.
<blockquote>The music wasn't that good</blockquote>
I'd highly recommend not seeing a movie about a person when you don't like the music from that person.
<blockquote>Literally what's the point of this movie? Nothing happened. No one knows who he is</blockquote>
The narrative in this film is choppy at best and definitely one of its biggest flaws. It felt like this move was originally 1.5 hours longer and they cut out the wrong parts to shorten it.
It also feels like they didn't know what this movie was supposed to be... was it a love story that happened to be about Bernstein and his wife, or was it a biopic about Bernstein?
The latter should be complete in of itself and someone not knowing the character at all should be well informed after. That was not only not the case with this movie, but most scenes left us trying to guess where/when/what instead of having things clearly story told to us.
The technical editing was great, but the narrative editing sucked.
Still there was enough to like in this film that I'd give it an 8 out of 10.
Not only in the teaser, but in the end credits she gets first billing as well. It's not alphabetical. This happens both in the single title screen cast credits and in the scrolling list of credits.
Personally, I always would list her first because she's Carey F*cking Mulligan, but I think in this case, it's to emphasize her character's role (even though second to Cooper's). Additionally, it helps lessen the impact of the bombardment of Bradley Cooper's name on the credits.
There may be some thinking on Cooper's part that he doesn't need it and by giving it to Mulligan, it's a way of appearing humble or recognizing/promoting her when it comes to awards (Oscar, etc...).
While absolutely not product placement, it's more than just depicting a habit of his, it's
<spoiler>foreshadowing his wife's fate. We know someone is going to die from cancer in this film as it progresses and even as she's dying they can't help but continue to smoke due to their obsession (which itself is a reflection of character)</spoiler>
I don't think it was too short as opposed to thinking that they could've shifted focus and kept the same energy and pacing with other aspects of the story. Instead it gets a bit bogged down and repetitive with what they focused on.
I totally agree, but people should keep in mind that "Streaming" isn't really the right term here. There's subscription service, online rental and online sales, all of which could be downloaded or streamed. The key difference here is that it's not like The Irishman on Netflix where it's only providing value to Netflix on one of those three (subscription) and that only counts on impact of acquiring or retaining users.
Apple will get the subscription value, but for now is getting the online rental and sales revenue. This is direct on their own service and shared on others.
If this ends up getting Oscar nominations, which seems a certainty, that subscription value is going to be well worth it for Apple considering the position its in with Apple TV+
View all replies >