Nick1Ø66

But that’s exactly right…every generation interprets art differently, viewed through their own lens and informed by their own values. Look how differently productions of Shakespeare have varied over the years. There have been productions with different spins on race, class, sex, etc. Countless interpretations. For example, I’ve seen Othello probably a dozen times, and every production had its own take on the same text. Ditto for Hamlet. Henry V had been staged as a British Nationalist piece during WWII and anti-war during the Iraq War. Those varying interpretations are part of what makes art, well…art. It’s also art of what makes great art timeless. I’ll also add that what an artist intends to do isn’t always what they end up creating. If people think art is telling them X, and the artist says “no, no, you’ve got it all wrong, I’m saying Y”, well, whose problem is that? Is it a failure of comprehension on the part of the viewer, or listener, or a failure of the artist in not fully conveying their intention? Some see Verhoven’s Starship Troopers as promoting fascism. Others (including me) see it as satire. Verhoven will tell you it’s the latter, but so what? I certainly agree that an artist’s intent with their own work is something that can inform an interpretation and opinion of it, but it’s only one component, and while important, it’s not a defining one. IMO this is a view most good artists share.

To me it’s not a question of ambiguity. Of course some artists (usually the better ones) are more ambiguous in what they’re trying to say than others. But once art is in the world, it’s open to interpretation, no matter how clear, or ambiguous, the artist’s intentions. The fact that people have taken so many different messages from Barbie is a credit, in my judgment, to Gerwing as an artist, and it would be a lesser film, again IMO, if she was just trying to preach. Part of its power, like most great art, is that so many take different things from it…e.g Shakira had a different take on the film than some here have. Is her take “wrong”? All this gives Barbie a universal appeal, and made it so successful, where so many “message” film’s fail.

What a film is “trying to say” isn’t as important as what a person hears. Once art is released into the world, all that matters is how people interpret it. I’m not sure about declaring what’s the right or wrong message from Barbie. It’s a Rorschach test. The director’s intentions are largely irrelevant. If Barbie’s not open to interpretation, then it’s just sermonising, and if it is, then people are free to interpret it as they wish.

“What do you mean I’m funny? Funny how”?

All the MCU films are made this way. I mean, maybe there was a bit more freedom on the first few, but by and large they're all very tightly controlled, producer-driven films. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, it's worked very well for Marvel, and there wouldn't be the continuity they've had without it. There's a reason it's the only truly successful shard universe. They just used to be a lot better at it.

Well, sure. But so is everything that goes on here, from conspiracies on the spelling of Palpatine’s name to arguing the whether Superman wears underwear. And how many people outside the first world count their biggest problem to be missing cues from Mr. Mom? They're all first world problems. I mean, everything else has been banned!

Shatner's Kirk is probably one of the most unfairly maligned characters in pop culture history, and subject to some seriously distorted historical revisionism. He's hardly the sexist, "shoot first ask questions" later misogynistic dinosaur he's made out to be. Those traits, while there to a certain extent, have been vastly blown out of proportion. Kirk is actually an incredibly thoughtful leader who almost always sought out a diplomatic solution first. Your point about how well Kirk's ageing was handled is something I hadn't considered before, and it's a very good one. Well, that's true enough. And clearly they're trying to update the characters for "modern audiences". But when you're creating what's essentially an entirely new character and simply slapping the old name and rank on them, why not just create new characters altogether? For a show about the future, NuTrek does a lot of looking back. No, I'm pretty sure it's about erasing Shatner. You simply cannot rationalize minimizing James T. f*cking Kirk in Star Trek. Especially given that every other significant Trek captain is featured in that poster. I mean…you can have Archer and not Kirk? Do newer Trek fans even know who Archer is? Give me a break. Your point about Spock being iconic is well taken, but Kirk’s an icon as well, so why not have both? There are two TNG characters after all. How is Geordi more iconic than Kirk? They don’t like Shatner. He’s said so himself. And if the purpose of the poster is to “balance the demographics” rather than featuring Star Trek’s iconic characters and history…well then, you’ve summed up NuTreks priorities, and problems, nicely.

Peck is good in the role, not great. The only re-casting of iconic characters I think they mostly nailed were Pine as Kirk (Wesley is unwatchable) and Urban as McCoy. All of the others, whether Abrams or NuTrek, are unrecognizable as the characters they're meant to be playing. And I'm not talking about imitating mannerisms...they're just completely different characters who only share a name and rank with the original.

I actually prefer Peck to Quinto, the latter of whom played Spock like a thinly veiled psychotic who always seemed seconds away from a murderous rampage. It was like the producers handed him some Star Trek episodes to prepare for the role, he watched Amok Time and said “I’ll go with this”.

The clowns running what's called "Star Trek" now hate Shatner, to the point where they've completely left his Kirk out of promotional material...something that hasn't gone unnoticed by Bill.

The Night Manager is phenomenal, including the ending. IMO one of the best limited series ever.

Yeah, it looks like something from a video game to me. Or even worse, Rings of Power.

Well, perhaps. Theoretically, there are many legal remedies. But legislatures and courts move slowly, and in the past it's proven almost impossible for the legal system to keep up with emerging technologies. Most countries, in terms of legislation, still haven't fully figured out how to grapple with relatively simple things like how copyright, free speech and censorship works in the age of the internet, and it's been decades. I mean, it hasn't even advanced much since I was in law school. And that's nothing...advances in DNA, genetics and AI are going to be the real challenge. Part of the problem is that most judges and legislators just don’t understand the technology that they’re trying to regulate. And remember, it's not just the US, every country is going to deal with this differently, absent international agreement, and good luck with that. The genie is just out of the bottle on this stuff, and we're all just struggling to keep up.

Theoretically? There will be years of battles in courts and legislatures worldwide to come to terms with all this, which will be one of many, many battles trying to sort out how AI is going to change our world. Realistically? I don't think there will be much of anything that can be done about it, and this is a future composers and other artists are going to have to deal with. IP and copyright will be the least of our worries when it comes to AI.

Hush now, Bespin, Bespin, don't you cry Mama's gonna check out all of your books for you Mama won't let any Tolkien get through Mama's gonna keep you right under her wing She might let you read, but not Lord of the Rings Mamma's gonna keep Bespin, Middle-Earth Free

I hope it's better than the trailer. I'm a sucker for this genre, and loved the John Adams series. I recently read Walter Isaacson's bio of Franklin, so this should be aimed right at me. But..this modern trailer makes it look and feel like a modern action movie, complete with the quick cuts and typical action movie music. It's just incongruous with the subject matter. I really hope this doesn't represent the tone of the actual series. And while Michael Douglas is a fine actor, I fear he's been miscast as Franklin. Tom Wilkinson nailed that role (though we admittedly have little to go by).

For those watching this, how is it shaping up? I've been waiting to binge it, but I've heard mixed things.

THE MUMMY is a fantastic flick. Better, and certainly more fun, than the last two Indiana Jones movies.

Nothing wrong with Gladiator's CGI.

Oh, I agree. After Endgame the MCU lost its way. But like it or not, it is a genuine cinematic universe. Gladiator is...not. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the MCU is the only "shared" cinematic universe that's ever really worked.

One morning I came home after being out all night...a friend had opened up a new Italian restaurant in London near Covent Garden and we closed the place down, then helped ourselves to his wine cellar. When I got home I collapsed on the couch but didn't feel like sleeping (or so I thought) so I popped in the Gladiator DVD. Fell asleep like 5 minutes later, of course. Eventually, the film played through and the DVD switched back to the menu screen, which looped the main theme every 60 seconds as the menu reset. Over. And over. And over. For 12 hours. Having drank all night, I was constantly in that half awake/asleep dream state where time and space have no meaning and I couldn't figure out why I kept hearing the same piece of music again and again, and how long was this movie anyway? Didn't even have the energy or presence of mind to reach for the remote and turn it off. That thing turned into an earworm that stayed with me until it was mercifully replaced by Hedwig's Theme. Not that there's anything wrong w/the Gladiator score, but after that, I didn't want to hear anything from Zimmer and pretty much ignored everything he did until Interstellar. Some nights though, I wake up in a cold sweat and can still hear it...the screaming of the Hans.

This is actually (no pun intended) an excellent way of describing it. I get Thor's point about world-building...even if I do think that story, and especially character, are more important. And there are movies that lend themselves to continuing to explore the "world" they inhabit. The MCU, imperfect as it is, is a good example of that. But I just don't think Gladiator is that kind of beast, and I think trying to make it be so is a little ham-fisted.

All these worlds are yours to explore, Thor. Except Middle-Earth. Attempt no landing there.

It feels uninspired and unnecessary. Some films beg for a sequel, Gladiator is not one of them. Russel Crowe and Maximus is Gladiator. There's no Gladiator without Russel Crowe and Maximus.