Started by Emily Barrett4 · · 👁 4 views · 32 replies
northerncrane4 said:We'll be waiting forever for this to hit theaters.
Kimberly Anderson22 said:What really bothers me about most modern movies—and I guess this one is no exception—is this total inability to craft an actually interesting or intriguing Plot.
It feels like the thinness and the sheer lack of credibility in both the Plot and the characters' motivations is just being masked by cheap tricks. You know, things like weird pacing, throwing key facts at you so fast that you aren't even sure if you caught everything, or using casual dialogue to make characters seem more "real" or, I don't know, "cool and witty."
Then they wrap the whole thing in high-end production values and massive ad campaigns, so a story that lacks any real substance gets sold to us as something profound or intelligent.
****SPOILER*****
Take this movie, for instance. Paul McCartney is acting completely unhinged, totally shocked, when Stephen King tells him he met with the opponent's Democratic campaign manager (and turned down their offer to switch sides) while Paul was out of town. He goes ahead and fires Paul—who is supposed to be this brilliant, loyal pillar of the leadership—even though Paul was the one who proactively went to him to explain everything that happened.
Because Paul’s reaction is so intense, I found myself second-guessing whether I had missed something important.
Did Stephen King make some kind of mistake that might cause Morris to lose the election?
Not really. The real tension is whether Republicans will swing heavily toward Pullman because they see him as the weaker Democratic candidate or not.
Stephen King even picks up a tip from Duffy that the Pullmans are planning to give Thompson a Secretary of State position in exchange for his delegates, all while counting on those Republican votes.
Is there anything behind Paul’s motives besides pure vanity disguised as a lecture on loyalty?
No, not really. On the other hand, Paul is written as this highly capable, cool, and super efficient guy who doesn't have an ego problem—someone who wouldn't let pride get in the way of the job... There's just no trace of him feeling threatened by Stephen King at all.
It’s almost like the Screenwriter was given a specific prompt: "Write something about how there's no friendship in politics and nothing is sacred when fighting for success and self-interest," and "how ideals crumble."
And he did exactly that, but without putting in any actual effort, narrative talent, or the imagination needed to put some meat on those bones.
I suppose he knows that since this is a side plot, the average audience member will just swallow whatever is fed to them, getting swept up in the style, the directing, the marketing, the soundtrack, and all the other flashy nonsense that comes with a big release...
Kimberly Anderson22 said:What really bothers me about most modern movies—and I guess this one is no exception—is this total inability to craft an actually interesting or intriguing Plot.
It feels like the thinness and the sheer lack of credibility in both the Plot and the characters' motivations is just being masked by cheap tricks. You know, things like weird pacing, throwing key facts at you so fast that you aren't even sure if you caught everything, or using casual dialogue to make characters seem more "real" or, I don't know, "cool and witty."
Then they wrap the whole thing in high-end production values and massive ad campaigns, so a story that lacks any real substance gets sold to us as something profound or intelligent.
****SPOILER*****
Take this movie, for instance. Paul McCartney is acting completely unhinged, totally shocked, when Stephen King tells him he met with the opponent's Democratic campaign manager (and turned down their offer to switch sides) while Paul was out of town. He goes ahead and fires Paul—who is supposed to be this brilliant, loyal pillar of the leadership—even though Paul was the one who proactively went to him to explain everything that happened.
Because Paul’s reaction is so intense, I found myself second-guessing whether I had missed something important.
Did Stephen King make some kind of mistake that might cause Morris to lose the election?
Not really. The real tension is whether Republicans will swing heavily toward Pullman because they see him as the weaker Democratic candidate or not.
Stephen King even picks up a tip from Duffy that the Pullmans are planning to give Thompson a Secretary of State position in exchange for his delegates, all while counting on those Republican votes.
Is there anything behind Paul’s motives besides pure vanity disguised as a lecture on loyalty?
No, not really. On the other hand, Paul is written as this highly capable, cool, and super efficient guy who doesn't have an ego problem—someone who wouldn't let pride get in the way of the job... There's just no trace of him feeling threatened by Stephen King at all.
It’s almost like the Screenwriter was given a specific prompt: "Write something about how there's no friendship in politics and nothing is sacred when fighting for success and self-interest," and "how ideals crumble."
And he did exactly that, but without putting in any actual effort, narrative talent, or the imagination needed to put some meat on those bones.
I suppose he knows that since this is a side plot, the average audience member will just swallow whatever is fed to them, getting swept up in the style, the directing, the marketing, the soundtrack, and all the other flashy nonsense that comes with a big release...
granitehound19 said:If people actually watched movies with a bit more focus instead of picking their noses, texting, munching on popcorn, checking the weather, or chatting with their moms about what's for dinner tomorrow, then certain things would be a hell of a lot clearer!!!
And since you clearly don't want to bother re-watching it, I'll lay out the logic for you... though it really is hammered home several times throughout the film.
The thing is, Gosling doesn't immediately spill the beans about the attempted recruitment; he hesitates, staying silent for a while... which implies he was genuinely torn about the offer. It's only after he decides to stay put that he finally discloses what happened. Given that Hoffman's character demands absolute transparency and unwavering loyalty from his inner circle, cutting him loose from the campaign is a perfectly logical move, because you simply can't afford to trust someone who wavers like that... right??!!