a brilliant movie

"Their love is based on something much deeper than sex, it's based on a profound friendship between the two of them."

James Gunn about Gamora/Peter and why there was no kiss (neccessary) at the end of GotG2

Originally posted by dassala

A Monster Calls Aesthetic

“Your mind will believe comforting lies while also knowing the painful truths that make those lies necessary. And your mind will punish you for believing both.”

I saw Guardians of the Galaxy 2 again today and noticed a bunch more things on the rewatch.

  • First of all I was expecting to be bored at least some of the time (I mean, I just saw it a little over a week ago), but I never, ever was, not even once. This movie uses every minute so well. (Unlike the first one, where most of the Ronon and Thanos scenes dragged horribly even the first time, and were completely skippable on a rewatch.)
  • I love how the end of the movie recontextualizes some of the earlier scenes. For example, Mantis’s misery and fear is so obvious when she first meets the gang, and in most of her scenes afterwards. The first time you watch it, her anxiety is easily read as nervousness around strangers. The second time, though, it’s such a gut-punch to see her standing behind Ego, wringing her hands, and knowing why.
  • Drax mistaking Yondu for Peter’s actual father is another of those fantastically recontextualized scenes. The first time, it’s funny, just a tossed-off joke. The second time, though … right in the feels. Because Drax, for the most part, doesn’t get the whole concept of people pretending to be something other than what they are. He watches Yondu and Peter interact with each other and he totally gets the actual relationship in a way even they don’t.
  • Speaking of which, there is some really brilliant editing in this movie. This time around, I noticed how it cut from Ego’s “I’m your dad, Peter” right to the first installment of Yondu’s storyline (which also involved interacting with his parental stand-in, Stakar). And none of the significance of this is clear if you don’t know the characters’ emotional context! You basically can only pick it up after having seen the movie once.  
  • The pacing on all the emotional arcs is so, so good. I didn’t even really notice, the first time around, how strong the Peter-Rocket arc is, from their fighting in the beginning, through Rocket not wanting to leave him on the planet, to their little moment of connection at the end.
  • I still can’t get over how this movie has eight major characters (not counting Ego; let’s not count Ego) and every single one of them has a) an emotional arc of their own, b) at least one strong platonic relationship arc with a beginning, middle, and end, and c) at least one scene in which they get to be awesome and do something important. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Even the noncombatants. Even the baby!
  • The first time around, I didn’t really notice how brutal Gamora and Nebula’s fight is. @sheronm pointed out how incredibly OTT Gamora picking up the ship cannon is (in a way female characters rarely get to be) but the whole fight is like that: brutal, dirty, vicious, and not sexualized in the slightest. Speaking of which …
  • The only shirtless scenes in the whole movie are guys (Peter on the ship, and Yondu at the brothel). The closest the movie comes to a romance arc is Peter and Gamora flirting and dancing. I still adore how Mantis and Drax make it explicitly clear that they aren’t into each other in a sexual/romantic way, and yet the most important relationship either of them has in the movie is with each other, and he’s willing to die to save her in the end. The movie doesn’t completely ignore romantic love (the Peter/Gamora relationship is still important), and it is true that there are a few sexist jokes (like Peter hitting on the Sovereign queen – though he apologizes for it, which is a rare thing). But overwhelmingly, this is a movie that never dismisses its female characters to “love interest” or sexualizes them any more than the male characters are.
  • When I saw this movie the first time, I thought the soundtrack and use of music was better in the first movie, but now that I’ve seen them both back to back, I was so, so wrong. They both have great music, they both have some great musical scenes, but I think it’s mostly that the first movie has a faster, more actiony soundtrack, while the second movie has a slower, gentler, more emotional soundtrack that I didn’t fully appreciate at first. But in the first movie, the music is mostly a (well-done!) melodic accompaniment to the action, while in the second movie, the songs are very carefully fit to the scenes in which they occur – whether the important thing is the peppy/awful contrast (“Come a Little Bit Closer” over the murder montage), or the whole point is that the song is so terribly, cheesily on point (“Brandy”), or sometimes because the song fits the emotional tone of the scene in the best fanvid kind of way (“Father & Son”, or the repeated use of “The Chain” for the characters being separated and then coming all back together in Peter’s love-epiphany/Power of Friendship™ moment at the end).

It’s just sooo goooood. I really didn’t expect a bombastic, ridiculous musical comedy in space to genuinely be one of the best movies I’ve seen in ages.

I saw A Monster Calls about a week or so ago and it’s still on my mind. It’s such a brilliant movie with gorgeous animation, design, and story. I love it so much! Such an inspiring movie!  

Also made this my first print available on Society6 

swedebeast  asked:

After thinking about how there is only about a dozen sci/fi movies ever made in my home country, I started to wonder. In the history of movie-making in the USA, what periods was sci/fi the hottest thing, and when was it disregarded as a genre belonging in the trash? And why do you think it was popular/profitable and unpopular/unprofitable respectively?

In the 1960s, special effects designer/director George Pal, who made When Worlds Collide and War of the Worlds, made a damn bold claim: he said that in the future, the highest grossing movies will be science fiction films. Everyone laughed at him at the time, since scifi was a genre for b-movies, teenagers, drive-ins, and weirdos. But he was right.

It’s worth noting that teenagers and college students were seen as a fringe market worth ignoring until the late 1960s and almost no culture was made for them. In fact, even the idea of a “teenager” (an in-between period between a child and an adult) is a pretty recent invention that only goes back to the late 1940s and 50s. I think that’s the reason scifi went from being unprofitable to profitable: young people were discovered to be a kind of consumer, and that has implications way beyond just scifi films. 

To directly answer your question, the absolute nadir for the entire genre of science fiction on film had to have been in the 1930s and early 1940s. It had that status because of the failure of two huge and expensive scifi movies. The first was the German studio UFA’s Metropolis, which, today, we remember as a brilliant movie and an all time classic, but at the time, lost a tremendous amount of money, to the point it was part of the reason that UFA closed its doors. It was such a bomb that UFA’s collapse meant that Germany wouldn’t successfully be a rival to the Hollywood studios the way they had been in the 1920s (there were also some political events happening at this time in Germany that you might have heard of). 

The other big bomb was 1930′s Just Imagine, a comedy set in the incredible year 1980. The most interesting thing about it is that the props used in the movie were so expensive that they were re-used everywhere for every laboratory, including James Whale’s 1931 movie, Frankenstein. If you ever wondered why every movie used the same five pieces of lab equipment, this is why.

For decades, the only people who even tried scifi were movie serials who did “kid’s stuff” like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, not to mention chillers shown for drive-ins. That’s why I think a very important turning point was Forbidden Planet in the 1950s, because that was a big studio making a science fiction movie. And not just any studio…MGM, the guys who made Gone WIth the Wind and movies like that, the most dignified and elder statesmanlike of all the studios. Except Disney, most studios don’t have brand identity anymore, but back then they did, and MGM certainly did, which is why it mattered when they did a scifi film. 

Star Wars was definitely a turning point, and sure, everyone knows that one…but it’s important to put it in the context of the 1970s, when all scifi movies were moody downer pictures starring guys in turtlenecks. A scifi crowd-pleaser was new, and since then scifi’s found it’s footing. Star Wars didn’t change the world all at once, though; I remember when Independence Day came out and was a huge hit, people were shocked that a scifi movie could do numbers like that. 

What’s the best time to be a scifi fan at the movies? Definitely right now. There are all kinds of scifi films coming out now that, if they had come out in the 1980s, would be these generation defining cult films the way Tron was, but now they’re just another scifi film. If it came out in the 1980s, for example, people would still be dressed up as Live, Die, Repeat characters to conventions. 

4

« You have bewitched me, body and soul, … »

« But he’s been a fool, about so many other things. But then, so have I.  » 

Part 2 of my Zutara/Pride & Prejudice mash-up. The first one was fun to do, so why not a part 2? Also the idea of Jet-Wickham was too tempting. (And Aang-Collins–sorry Aang, it had to be this way. We still love you)

And the famous hand stretch scene, aah. A brilliant detail.
Again, love this movie. 

Part 1 | Part 2

(DISCLAIMER: this is in no way meant to bash on other ships than Zutara. It’s just me playing with an AU)