Nick1Ø66

Featuring another excellent performance by Karen Allen!

Er…Karen Allen in The Perfect Storm?

Phenomenal film. Not only does Hollywood not make films like this any more, I've pretty much resigned myself that they never will again.

But even if that's true, there's still nothing to be gained, and certainly something to be lost, by watching The Hobbit first.

I get your point indeed. Those scenes in the various prequels tend to rob the original scenes of much of their power, especially, I imagine for a first time viewer who foolishly chose to watch the films in in-universe "chronological" order. Of course, the same can be said for The Hobbit trilogy, which has many callbacks to images and sequences to those done (better) in The Lord of the Rings. Seeing dark Gandalf say "I am not trying to rob you" isn't as powerful and shocking once you've seen the same bit done with the "If I say Bilbo Baggins is a burglar..." in the prequel. Anyone who watches Star Wars or Middle-Earth for the first time in "sequence" is robbing themselves of something very special that they can never get back.

Sure. Kids make up their own mind on what they like. If the kid doesn't like Star Wars '77, not much to be done about it. But just because a kid prefers McDonalds doesn't mean I'm not making them eat their vegetables.

Well that's just bad parenting.

The simple truth is that, in every case, release order is the preferred order for watching a film series for the first time.

TSWLM, Marvin Hamlisch & Bond ‘77 have entered the room.

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!