SF Kosmo
Banned
Yeah almost everyone is just chewing the scenery like crazy except for the girl who plays Julia, who is just wooden and boring.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Megalopolis | Rottenwatch
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Sold. We need more facesitting scenes in movies.
Very much agree. And she's that way in pretty much everything she's done (that I've seen) so I'm not sure why she was cast other than looking pretty and conceivably being the daughter of Giancarlo Esposito and Talia Shire. That narrowed the talent pool considerably and I think he just got stuck.
SF Kosmo
Banned
Apparently Zendaya was attached to the role at one point, but dropped out, presumably when she actually read the script.
Not that Zendaya's acting style is much different.
Last edited:
Oh god, that would have been ATROCIOUS. Though Zendaya can do a good melt down so there were a few scenes that might have been better. But damn, she's 12 years younger than Adam Driver (and LOOKS 20 years younger), wouldn't have worked.
Then again, there is like a 45 year gap between John Voight and Aubrey Plaza, but that was addressed in the film
SF Kosmo
Banned
I think there is supposed to be a 20+ year age gap between those characters though. He is supposed to be in his 40s and she is supposed to be like a college dropout in her early-mid 20s.Oh god, that would have been ATROCIOUS. Though Zendaya can do a good melt down so there were a few scenes that might have been better. But damn, she's 12 years younger than Adam Driver (and LOOKS 20 years younger), wouldn't have worked.
Then again, there is like a 45 year gap between John Voight and Aubrey Plaza, but that was addressed in the film
The perspective of this movie is consistently gross and awful. And Coppola himself was accused of groping and creeping out the hot girl extras. So it's pretty on-brand.
Yeah, but on film that stuff rarely works. So few young actresses can stand toe to toe with much older and more experienced actors unless their role is to play the doe-eyed innocent. Jennifer Lawrence comes to mind in her heyday (and ooph if the reason why she got all those Miramax roles is true)
But yes, you are probably correct about the intended age gap. And yes there was a lot of eye candy on that set, Francis you are not 40 anymore!!!
SF Kosmo
Banned
I think the fun of this movie is that literally nothing it tries to do works in any way. It shoots for the stars and somehow hits a fire hydrant.
Last edited:
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
If this movie is meant to be about this, and demonstrate these parallels. I don't know that it does that. But it is a piece of work that is certain. It is something amazing to watch.
It will be peculiar and maybe we will see it, corruption brings down the American dominance due to political greed. But you could argue that Rome grew stronger in the Empire before the ultimate collapse of the Byzantine empire. Really the last vestiges of Rome.
It will be peculiar and maybe we will see it, corruption brings down the American dominance due to political greed. But you could argue that Rome grew stronger in the Empire before the ultimate collapse of the Byzantine empire. Really the last vestiges of Rome.
SirKicksalot
Member
Somewhere along the way it turned into an optimistic tale about the old guard understanding that they should let the youth take control. The old draft has a sad ending. The final version is an explosion of joy and optimism.
I watched it last week and I still think about
the mayor's struggle to join his wife on the golden road to the future. It's so on the nose but it's beautiful!
ForAcademicPurposes
Member
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I watched the first 15 min and quit. Cool art and colour vibe. I didnt know anything about it going in except it was supposed to be a modern day take on Rome as some kind of drama/thriller.
The second I saw Adam Driver doing time powers and some scenes had people talking like it's a comedy movie, I bailed. Maybe the rest of the movie gets better, but I'm not sitting through another 2 hours to find out.
The second I saw Adam Driver doing time powers and some scenes had people talking like it's a comedy movie, I bailed. Maybe the rest of the movie gets better, but I'm not sitting through another 2 hours to find out.
Doom85
Member
Man, and I thought Ridley Scott’s meltdown over The Last Duel was sad to see (and at least that film is actually good). Kind of speaks volumes if Coppola is unable to consider his movie could be bad especially given how long he spent on trying to make it happen, and so he lashes out at others instead even in illogical ways (Ebert is only three years older than you, Francis, and he gave movies scores, come on now).
Stephen King once wrote that one can’t really judge their own work they’ve created until they’ve spent enough time away from it in order to look at it from an unbiased point of view, as they will otherwise likely be either too harsh or too forgiving of their own work due to the time of their labor on it being too recent that it affects their judgment one way or another (this is why he advises taking at least a six week break after finishing a first draft for a book, as it helps make you less emotionally attached to it and thus able to edit it in a more unbiased manner). I feel Coppola might not ever be able to do that, due to the long time he spent trying to make the film happen, and the fact that if he admits it’s even so much as flawed then as a result he might see that as conceding that all the studios that turned him down had a point.
The Last Duel is irredeemable, ideologically captured trash
Man, and I thought Ridley Scott’s meltdown over The Last Duel was sad to see (and at least that film is actually good).
DKehoe
Member
The Razzies are bullshit. Kubrick got nominated for Worst Director and Shelly Duvall was nominated for Worst Actress for The Shining. They're for people with dull taste.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Media people have big egos thinking what they made is the best thing since sliced bread. A combination of ego, wasting people's time and money, and being laughed at for a shitty product will kill a person's confidence. They also got to put up a brave face so they can get another gig. Pro athletes are similar. Guy could be on a huge downswing, is injured all the time, but will always promote himself to sports reporters he's still in his prime and can do a good job. In reality, he's 5 min away from being waived or sent down to the minors.
Man, and I thought Ridley Scott’s meltdown over The Last Duel was sad to see (and at least that film is actually good). Kind of speaks volumes if Coppola is unable to consider his movie could be bad especially given how long he spent on trying to make it happen, and so he lashes out at others instead even in illogical ways (Ebert is only three years older than you, Francis, and he gave movies scores, come on now).
Stephen King once wrote that one can’t really judge their own work they’ve created until they’ve spent enough time away from it in order to look at it from an unbiased point of view, as they will otherwise likely be either too harsh or too forgiving of their own work due to the time of their labor on it being too recent that it affects their judgment one way or another (this is why he advises taking at least a six week break after finishing a first draft for a book, as it helps make you less emotionally attached to it and thus able to edit it in a more unbiased manner). I feel Coppola might not ever be able to do that, due to the long time he spent trying to make the film happen, and the fact that if he admits it’s even so much as flawed then as a result he might see that as conceding that all the studios that turned him down had a point.
On the other hand, when the avg joe makes a mistake at work on a factory line or spreadsheet, it's not the end of the world. You man up, admit you made a mistake and fix the issue in the next 10 minutes. Problem solved.
A guy writing, making a movie or a video game taking up years and millions of dollars will rarely openly admit defeat. And if they do, it'll be 10 years later when it's safe to do so.
Last edited:
DKehoe
Member
I'd rather an artist go to bat for their work than throw up their hands and say, "Yeah, that was shit, huh?." in response to not getting the reaction they hoped for. Even if I don’t like what they made, I can respect their conviction. It’s far worse when someone disowns their work entirely because of what others might think about it. If they won’t stand by it then why should anyone care about it?
Coppola clearly believed in this project, putting his money where his mouth is. He's apparently made something he's proud of and that's enough in itself. Its box office performance and the opinions of others don't determine whether making it or not was worthwhile.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
IMO, being truthful about something is more important.
At work, our company has had numerous products lines that failed miserably. Launch a new brand with lots of products and it could literally be shut down a year later. Big waste of time and money. The effort was there, but a failure is a failure.
I've never seen one marketing manager involved with a disaster product line try to spin it successfully or blame customers not buying it (like video game makers often try to do too). A failure is a failure and it takes a confident person to admit defeat. Right now, were on the cusp of cancelling a big product that both sold lousy and reviewed horribly on Amazon. Everyone knows it stinks. And the marketing people in charge of it knows it's a stinker too.
Copolla just has a problem admitting it's both a review and box office bomb. Not every movie is a box office success. And not every movie needs to be. But when Mega has a $150M+ budget it has to be. And reviews have been terrible, which negates that part too. So he cant play the game of good reviews, but bad sales. It's both lousy.
Last edited:
Doom85
Member
Megalopolis mirrors Coppola’s own struggles to get the film made and his resentment towards those who didn’t agree with his vision. Naturally, the film rewards the protagonist with his happy ending where he creates the greatest city ever (not really, but the movie says it is, so…..yeah) and proves everyone who disagreed with them wrong.
Yeah, the low reviews wasn’t due to people “not getting it”. Everyone got it. A seven year old who was told the preproduction history and then saw the film would get it. There’s no deep meaning here, it’s as surface level as it can get.
It’s a self-insert ego boost. Whatever artistic vision he had got swept away a long time ago and was replaced by spite. Which was then covered with an uninspired Roman aesthetic and a limp dick of an attempt to be philosophical.
It’s a far fall from the director’s heights. And it will be remembered 50 years from now…….as a shining example of why one should not let their pride cloud their (supposed) better judgment.
So for that, congratulations, Coppola. You did it.
DKehoe
Member
What's the truth there? Other people not liking it must mean he's lying about being proud of it?
You're comparing commercial products and art. Commercial products are solely about making money and so whether or not they do that is a fair metric of their worth. But art is a personal expression and creative process that's about more than just making money. Yeh there's certainly a commercial aspect to the production of a film and that can factor into decision-making. But, of all projects, Megalopolis wasn't about making money. Coppola willingly put his own money into it and doesn't seem to have been viewing it as an investment he expected a return on. Even years before the film came out he was saying he didn't care about how it did commercially.
In an ideal world I'm sure Coppola would have loved it to make $3 billion dollars and be the most commercially and critically successful movie of all time. But realistically he probably knew it wasn't going to be a smash hit with wide appeal. But he made it because he wanted to make it and it had been his passion project for decades.
Commercial performance shouldn't be the sole metric to judge whether or not a piece of art is a failure. The same goes for "did other people like it?"
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
No doubt a big part of it (hence the ART part) is that Coppola thinks his modern day sci fi take on Rome with edgy CGI and that copper tone colour palette is the best ever. People didnt give a shit. Movie still reviewed lousy.Megalopolis mirrors Coppola’s own struggles to get the film made and his resentment towards those who didn’t agree with his vision. Naturally, the film rewards the protagonist with his happy ending where he creates the greatest city ever (not really, but the movie says it is, so…..yeah) and proves everyone who disagreed with them wrong.
Yeah, the low reviews wasn’t due to people “not getting it”. Everyone got it. A seven year old who was told the preproduction history and then saw the film would get it. There’s no deep meaning here, it’s as surface level as it can get.
It’s a self-insert ego boost. Whatever artistic vision he had got swept away a long time ago and was replaced by spite. Which was then covered with an uninspired Roman aesthetic and a limp dick of an attempt to be philosophical.
It’s a far fall from the director’s heights. And it will be remembered 50 years from now…….as a shining example of why one should not let their pride cloud their (supposed) better judgment.
So for that, congratulations, Coppola. You did it.
If someone makes a modern day remake of 90210 or Melrose Place with a 2020s setting instead of 1990s, no director would be claiming people dont understand art. But since he made a glitzy Roman inspired sci fi take with time stopping powers, he assumes people have to like his vision. Thats as egotistical you can get.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Even if you ignore the financial aspects, the reviews were lousy. Its got a 55 in MC (user score 4.7), and RT has it at 45% (35% on popcorn meter).
So no matter how good Coppola thinks Mega is, a lot of people think it's lousy.
DKehoe
Member
What would be the threshold for the Metacritic score for him to be allowed to be proud of it and defend it?
Like I said, the opinions of others don't have to be the metric for it being a failure or not. It's not a popularity contest.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
RT and MC already have colour coated scales. I think a red tomato is 60%, and MC is a good green score if it gets 75+. Right off the bat, those could be used.
Just because art in general doesn't have distinct numerical targets doesnt mean it cant be acknowledged as a success of failure. A media creator getting a 0% score might think it's still the greatest product ever. But everyone else thinks it's bad.
Coppola might not like the bad reviews or razzies, but the movie got that because people as a whole dont like it. Its such as bad movie, it didnt even make good money. It only made about $15M box office sales globally. Thats it. So even the CGI and overall jist of the trailers didnt resonate. And to cement it as a bad movie, anyone who saw it and contributed a review score to aggregate sites scored it lousy too.
Last edited:
DKehoe
Member
Be specific, at what Metacritic score is an artist then allowed to be proud of and defend their work? When it goes yellow at 40? When it goes green at 61? Up to that point people are allowed to shit on their work and they aren't allowed to say anything?
If you personally liked a movie that was poorly received then are you wrong and not allowed to voice your opinion? Or is it just the people who made it that are wrong if they like it?
You're continuing to repeat that people didn't like it and that it didn't make money and that it's a failure because of that. But why should he give a shit if that wasn't the aim?
I don't mind people not liking the film. That's totally fine. But the people who make a film don't have to call their work a failure because it didn't hit some metric. They can like it for what it is.
You've got to see it's a little funny that Coppola is talking about how the industry is too scared to take risks and are too concerned about metrics and in response you're saying he shouldn't talk that way because his movie didn't meet certain metrics.
Last edited:
Ahhh, I liked it. The worst (best?) parts were Affleck and Damon playing frenchmen. The notion of powerful men with little understanding of how their actions are perceived by others is a good one. The idea that there are three sides to every story is another. The only flaw, outside of some of the acting, is that the opinion of the woman would be that important or matter AT ALL when the real strife was over dowry and land.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
As I said, a person can go ahead and rate their own movie how they want. If they get a 0% but still think it's good, while everyone doesnt like it, go ahead. Tell the world they dont understand art or sales means nothing. But realistically it failed. Just like my product line example which failed. They came up with a snazzy product with R&D, sunk a lot of money into it, got bad reviews and sales and will probably get axed a year later.
How could anyone with a straight face say they did a good job and it's a great product when every touch point measurement says it's bad? Sometimes you got to admit defeat. If a batter is in a slump going 5/50 batting .100, he can say all he wants he's doing a good job, putting in effort and has bad bounces. But fact is no matter how good he thinks he's doing, he's still batting .100.
But fact remains, the general public and movie critics didnt like it.
Hollywood scared? Coppola made a movie with a high budget. People and critics gave it bad scores and nobody wanted to see it in theatres though it's got well known actors like Adam Driver and cool CGI.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
You're framing this whole thing wrongly. No one is saying you can't like what you. The point of contention is people trying to claim something is good because they like it. Something can be terrible and people still like it. Unfortunately, most people's ego and need for validation along with the cognitive dissonance of trying to reconcile liking something bad will have them trying to convince others that said thing is not bad.
Last edited:
DKehoe
Member
I'm guessing your product line was produced to make money. Megalopolis wasn't. This is a big difference. How can it be a failure if the person who made it wasn't setting out to accomplish that? He also doesn't need the approval of others. So if we're going to have some definition for the film's success and failure those cannot be what it's judged on. There can be an overlap between art and commercialism but they aren't the same thing. So you can't judge them in the same way. I think this is the main point where we differ. Your product line or how marketing managers act
Your baseball metaphor also doesn't work. A baseball batter's success is measured in their ability to hit the ball well enough for the team to progress and score runs. (apologies if I'm using the wrong terminology here, I'm not a baseball guy) That is what the batter is aiming to do and we all have an understanding that's the case. You're deciding that Coppola's equivalent of that are things that he has explicitly said are not what he's aiming to do. How can you talk about every "touch point measurement" but ignore what he is saying are his reasons for making it? That's the most important measurement you could have. He wanted to make Megalopolis and he made a version of that vision he's happy with. That's it. He did so well in life that he got to bypass the studio system he and many of his contemporaries have been struggling with for their entire careers to make his dream project how he wanted. That's another success in itself. "But the box office and Metacritic score!" means fuck all.
If you made a game, wrote a book or produced a painting that you enjoyed making and were proud of once you were finished then is it actually a failure because you didn't have lots of people tell you how great it is or make a lot of money from it? No, of course not. Art isn't solely a commercial product.
Yes. He's saying Hollywood being scared about things like box office and having a broad appeal gets in the way of them producing meaningful films. This film clearly means a lot to him.
He's saying it's objectively a failure. As I said I don't mind if people don't like the film. But I disagree with the idea that Coppola has to acknowledge it's a failure.
People are allowed to like something but that doesn't mean they can claim it's good? You have to go along with what the consensus is like it's some definitive ruling? That seems like a very boring way to approach things.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
The consensus is it's a bad film. No one is saying don't like it. Like said it's a combination of ego, need for validation and cognitive dissonance that has people trying to convince others that it's not bad imo but I'm not a shrink.
Shaki12345
Member
I watch 350+ movies a year, it's my passion. And I can fairly say that I really enjoyed this movie. A director that just does whatever the F he wants in a uncompromised vision is what art should be about.
Jon Voight and Shia Labeouf were the highlights for me. These guys are legendary actors. Hopefully Shia gets more roles.
Jon Voight and Shia Labeouf were the highlights for me. These guys are legendary actors. Hopefully Shia gets more roles.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Exactly.
I think the movie White Chicks is hilarious. But critics wise got awful reviews. But critically among movie reviewers, it got ragged on big time.
If whomever made the movie claims it's a great movie go ahead. He likes it, I like it, but a lot of people didnt. Thats why RT has it at a 15% tomatometer, which is worse than Mega. How can the White Chicks director or me claim it's a fantastic comedy movie where people are wrong and dont understand comedy when the consensus is in reality a clearly bad movie? Even the popcorn meter at 55% isnt great either. So it shows a lot of general public didnt like it either.
If I lay a turd in the toilet and call it a piece of art, thats my choice. But everyone else will think it's disgusting. Just because I think it's a great log and there's no agreed upon measurement of evaluating shit doesn't mean it cant be called gross.
Last edited:
DKehoe
Member
Can you expand on this idea that someone can like something but that doesn't mean they can say it's good? It's kind of strange to frame pushback against that as some kind of psychological thing.
This is the main issue for this "critically acclaimed, audience panned" stuff. At a certain point you are so jaded with movies that you can watch one of these highly artistic (to be generous) films that buck all the usual conventions because you have the depth of experience to appreciate that type of novelty. While the mainstream just wants another John Wick.
I just don't know that Megalopolis was extreme enough to be a future cult classic. It's not wacky enough, nor deep enough, nor abstract enough (IMHO). It's ideas feel half-baked, not above my head.
Shaki12345
Member
I think Moonfall is a great film, but it has been destroyed by critics. 8/10 for me. I think you should judge a movie on 2 factors: whether you like it, combined with if the movie succeeds in what it tries to do.
I had a BLAST with Moonfall. Was laughing my ass off and had a amazing evening with it. That was the exact intention of the movie. Rating that below a 8/10 would be an insult to everything movies are and should be about.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
OK let's take your position to the absurdity of its limits which would mean that as long as one person likes something (taco bell, cannibalism, country music) it cannot be deemed bad and I think we agree that bad things exist
DKehoe
Member
Yeh I think those two factors are what matter. If you enjoyed it is the most important one but what should factor into that is what it's trying to do. As Ebert said you meet the film on the level it's working on. A stoner comedy isn't trying to do the same thing as a serious prestige drama but you can enjoy it just as much if it's well executed.
I'm talking about personal taste. But clearly there are limits to that when you get into morality and harm caused to others. Cannibalism is bad because it involves being violent to others. Watching a movie doesn't do that unless you're talking about something like a snuff film. I'm talking about art, where objectivity is harder to pin down. If you enjoy something you can think it's good.
Last edited:
Shaki12345
Member
He is an auteur that stands by his vision. As he should.
Good or bad, Megalopolis is far from slop. Slop is the 100 movies Netflix puts out every year that no one remembers watching 5 seconds after they finish.
SJRB
Gold Member
Slop is indeed a poor choice of words on my part. I tried to watch Megalopolis three times but it's just unbearable. The script, the acting, the visuals, the camerawork; it's terrible. But it's not slop.
Point of my post was mad respect for Coppola for going yolo mode on this whole thing and rolling with the punches.
Shaki12345
Member
I haven't seen one unbearable or terrible thing in the whole movie.
The only thing unbearable and terrible was the apparent mission from the critics and public to needlessly destroy this movie because it's not what they're used to. This is not a movie where you can use your smartphone.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
So is it your position that Art inherently can not be bad?
DKehoe
Member
I already said I'm talking about personal taste and that objectivity is harder to pin down when it comes to that. You can think that a piece of art is bad or you can think that it's good.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
OK so let me try a different angle. If art is subjective and consensus is not enough to deem something bad then by the same token would you agree that nothing should be deemed a masterpiece?
Last edited:
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
This is actually an amazing way to accept the nominations. He is right most of what is put out is inconsequential.
DKehoe
Member
This kinda just seems like a version of the same angle as your last post, just swapping out whether something can be considered bad for can something be considered a masterpiece. So, to reiterate, no I'm not saying that. You can think something is a masterpiece if you want or you can disagree that something is a masterpiece.
There can be a canon, works generally regarded as great, like The Mona Lisa, Hamlet, or, since this thread is about Coppola, The Godfather. There's definitely merit to the idea of classics that people should try to experience if they're into that medium. Looking at what the consensus is can be a useful guide. But it's also perfectly valid to think they’re not good. Similarly, you can consider something a masterpiece, even if most people think it's terrible.
You can have a critical consensus, which reflects the commonly held view among experts or those knowledgeable about the medium. There's also a public consensus, representing the general opinion of the wider population. Rotten Tomatoes can illustrate how these perspectives may differ. But you can disagree with both of those about what is bad and good.
Van Gogh's work wasn't appreciated in his time but he's now widely considered one of the greatest artists in history. The consensus shifted. Was it objectively bad before and now it's objectively good? When is it appropriate for that definitive judgment to form?
Rat Rage
Member
Not one second was I bored when I watched Metropolis. It was really refreshing to watch it. It felt somewhat like a theater play, but only on a big cinema screen and a huge budget.
I can see why typical Hollywood audiences didn't like, though, since their cinematic taste buds have become numb due to years of overconsumption of mindless, easy-to-consume Hollywood slop.
I can see why typical Hollywood audiences didn't like, though, since their cinematic taste buds have become numb due to years of overconsumption of mindless, easy-to-consume Hollywood slop.