The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think that does make sense that it's Sweet Pea telling the story the whole time. Either way I still like Sucker Punch.
Goodness so many layers I was just never aware of! Although as you say it is only an interpretation of the film if your video does nothing else it has at least challenged me to think more about what the movie I am watching is trying to say to me.
Thanks for the challenge Bob =)
Thanks for the challenge Bob =)
I have to agree with Bob. if this film was supposed to deliver a message of some sort, then why did "nobody" get it? It was just poor delivery.
Well, it's actually kind of nice to see why somebody liked this movie. Moviebob lead me to go see this movie, with my dad and my brother, and we all pretty much came out of the theater going "What the hell did we just see?"
Well, it's only been a year and a half, and FINALLY Moviebob explains where he's coming from in this movie.
To be honest, I'm still not sure if I like the movie or not. It certainly had a great look to it and I wasn't exactly bored throughout the movie.
But, it's nice to see an interpretation of why somebody actually likes this movie and why it's definitely catering towards a VERY specific kind of audience.
I love Moviebob, but, I feel like he should have come up with something like this a lot sooner. It would have saved a lot of craziness I'm pretty sure people were labeling him with after he recommended it.
Well, it's only been a year and a half, and FINALLY Moviebob explains where he's coming from in this movie.
To be honest, I'm still not sure if I like the movie or not. It certainly had a great look to it and I wasn't exactly bored throughout the movie.
But, it's nice to see an interpretation of why somebody actually likes this movie and why it's definitely catering towards a VERY specific kind of audience.
I love Moviebob, but, I feel like he should have come up with something like this a lot sooner. It would have saved a lot of craziness I'm pretty sure people were labeling him with after he recommended it.
Sarkeesian denounced this as misogyny dressed up as female empowerment. I thought she just didn't get it then and, thanks to Bob, I now have a good reason for believing so. Someone send these vids to her!
Yeah, but i still think your looking waaayyyyyy to much into it. Some of your comments are valid, i agree, but the rest. Meh. For me, if its the girls fantasy (nazi thing, dragon etc) why are they still wearing sexualised clothing? Its their choice to do that, its their fantasy, not mens fantasy. The director sucked at it, if you are correct, because you cant direct a movie full of overly sexualised characters, market it and sell it that way and then make it against those things. Same way you cant film an anti war film with over the top action, its either serious war is bad, or an over the top action movie - when you add both then its bullshit. If you really wanted to communicate really anti men etc in Sucker Punch then it would be men putting the woman in the sexy clothes, but the girls are not happy, not enjoying it and there would be know over the top action just to show girls with big swords. You cant glorify a certain style and say its bad at the same time. You cant sexualise woman in a movie and then say its bad for woman to be seen that way because your the one that sexualised them and advertised it that way in the first place. If this movie was more serious and depressing it would have worked better.
Also just cos a girl kills a dragon and egg, doesnt mean its comparable to motherhood etc etc. Looking way into it and zak really isnt that deep a writer/director. lol
Also just cos a girl kills a dragon and egg, doesnt mean its comparable to motherhood etc etc. Looking way into it and zak really isnt that deep a writer/director. lol
huh ... the bus at the end might be the real world? interesting
i was running with the theory that all the girls where some part of babydolls psyche, the entire movie takes place in the half second it took the guy to drive the stake into her head (clearly running on DBZ time) and when the plan starts failing IE girls getting captured or killed, that's the spike sliding deeper into her brain killing them off.
ether way, it was an interesting movie
i was running with the theory that all the girls where some part of babydolls psyche, the entire movie takes place in the half second it took the guy to drive the stake into her head (clearly running on DBZ time) and when the plan starts failing IE girls getting captured or killed, that's the spike sliding deeper into her brain killing them off.
ether way, it was an interesting movie
Ironically, one of the main reasons I didn't pick this movie up is that the previews looked like the exact mess it was trying to satire. I agree with Bob on this one, as I usually do. Great message, but really poor execution.
On another note, am I the only strangely reminded of the plot and elements from Alice: Madness Returns after finishing this two part series. Not saying it's sending the same message, but I can't help but feel reminded of it. Especially with the asylum, innocents being mentally/physically abused, transitions to fantasy worlds, etc.
On another note, am I the only strangely reminded of the plot and elements from Alice: Madness Returns after finishing this two part series. Not saying it's sending the same message, but I can't help but feel reminded of it. Especially with the asylum, innocents being mentally/physically abused, transitions to fantasy worlds, etc.
I treated this as one long music video, and it worked pretty damn well as that. Overall, I enjoyed this film, and it reinforces my belief that Snyder is a good director.
From the ending, I'm also thinking back to the possibility of this all being in Babydoll's head. Now we venture back to Tommy Westfall. *shudders*
Bob has also elaborated on this for those that haven't had their mind blown yet:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/6074-Worlds-Within-Worlds
Bob has also elaborated on this for those that haven't had their mind blown yet:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/6074-Worlds-Within-Worlds
Or the message could be "Woman are hypocrites?" as in men should not sexualise woman....but woman still use there sexuality to there advantage.
I'm going to start off by saying that I'm surprised that you too subscribed to the whole "Baby-doll isn't the one having these visions, it's Sweet Pea" side, because that's pretty much been my interpretation of the film as well. So I guess we agree on something (I do think though that the visions, or escapes, are actually hallucinations, and thus Sweet Pea is actually insane, which pisses me off that the ending wants us to accept someone who actually needs help ends up running away)
That said, I'm still confused as to how all of this in some way is supposed to defend Sucker Punch. As Yahtzee once said, the sign of a bad comedian is delivery; you can explain the joke and the background of it to help the audience realize why it's funny, but they still won't laugh because you didn't tell it properly. Again, a lot of the assumptions made with how Sucker Punch is in fact a deep film unfortunately fall apart with just plain bad acting and dialogue. If it were intentionally bad, then perhaps the point can be seen, but unfortunately these things appear to be the result of lazy directing and writing. I can't really accept that the film is a criticism of a male audience and of third-wave feminism when the film can't get it's own shit together in actually making it seem good. A film that can't get most of the audience to sense any real danger in those fantasy scenes or care when a character dies is a film that has no right to call itself deep or important, it is a creative mess, simple as that. It's a film where Zack Snyder probably thought of when he was 13, and tried to then "update" by means of "feminist standards" to make it seem empowering, only to come out muddled.
That said, I'm still confused as to how all of this in some way is supposed to defend Sucker Punch. As Yahtzee once said, the sign of a bad comedian is delivery; you can explain the joke and the background of it to help the audience realize why it's funny, but they still won't laugh because you didn't tell it properly. Again, a lot of the assumptions made with how Sucker Punch is in fact a deep film unfortunately fall apart with just plain bad acting and dialogue. If it were intentionally bad, then perhaps the point can be seen, but unfortunately these things appear to be the result of lazy directing and writing. I can't really accept that the film is a criticism of a male audience and of third-wave feminism when the film can't get it's own shit together in actually making it seem good. A film that can't get most of the audience to sense any real danger in those fantasy scenes or care when a character dies is a film that has no right to call itself deep or important, it is a creative mess, simple as that. It's a film where Zack Snyder probably thought of when he was 13, and tried to then "update" by means of "feminist standards" to make it seem empowering, only to come out muddled.
Okay. that's why I really disliked this movie. TOO MANY FANTASTICAL MISDIRECTION LAYERS. That and the girls remain, Babydoll herself, mostly undefined and unreal or appropriately characterized. There isn't a growth between Babydoll and Sweet Pea but Baby Doll and Rocket.
That said the entire angels pre opening monologue DOES set up the protagonist switch at the end but doesn't make sense because of all the stuff missing
And unfortunately all the constant stylized interpretations with no developed central voice (not the least Sweet Pea aside from being big sister and captain bring down is weirdly not that well characterized as herself so.. why she able to survive?)
That said the interpretation, this is Sweet Pea telling the story makes things a bit more... ya know dealable but as it is I feel well suckerpunched for offering out my hand in agreement. Individualized fantasies would have worked MARVELOUSLY. It don't
That said the entire angels pre opening monologue DOES set up the protagonist switch at the end but doesn't make sense because of all the stuff missing
And unfortunately all the constant stylized interpretations with no developed central voice (not the least Sweet Pea aside from being big sister and captain bring down is weirdly not that well characterized as herself so.. why she able to survive?)
That said the interpretation, this is Sweet Pea telling the story makes things a bit more... ya know dealable but as it is I feel well suckerpunched for offering out my hand in agreement. Individualized fantasies would have worked MARVELOUSLY. It don't
Somebody already mentioned it to her.impocalyptic said:
Her response was something along the lines of "If that was the point, then it failed to bring it across".
I do not disagree with her response, but it does suggest that she needs to dig a little deeper, and do a little more research before making a claim that something is sexist.
As far as your interpretation goes...
I'd be more than willing to watch it a second time. I've said all I wanted to say last week [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.387238-The-Big-Picture-You-Are-Wrong-About-Sucker-Punch-Part-One?page=4#15462682] on the subject.
That being said, Upon watching this week's argument, I can sort of accept your argument a little better than the first week, where it felt like you were trying to play "Bob Chipman versus The World", but this week felt like maybe there is some validity to your statements.
I have maintained that Zack Snyder is a smart guy (He has to be, as far as music video directors turned Movie directors go), and as such, he probably thought about some things more than others (Most writers do that anyway, best of intentions in the beginning and all that), and this side of the argument seems to sound like things Snyder might have thought about whilst writing.
I hate being this guy, I really do. Much as you said you wanted to like Expendables II, I wanted to love Sucker Punch, and I wanted to be the guy who could defend it amongst a handful of film people (But I only know about three in my hometown, so the Escapist fills in the rest), but it's terrible that I have to follow the crowd and go, "No, I agree with everybody else", because nothing can convince me of it otherwise.
I do the same thing with Popeye, the Robert Altman film. I Love that movie, and it sits on an even 5 out of 10 on IMDB, but the fact I can convince people of its brillance and maybe be the only guy who can do it is kind of rewarding in its own way. Sucker Punch, I can't convince even one of the bigger film buffs I know that Zack Snyder is a smart guy because he gave all the girls nicknames (which I maintain is more memorable than average names, the reason we remember The Goonies is because they all have nicknames), and he looks at me quizzically every time I mention it.
Sucker Punch was a beautiful looking motion picture, but it had little, if nothing, to keep me interested in its characters, which for me, is the kiss of death in most movies. The girls were bland, and I hate saying that, believe me.
However, the next time it is on HBO and I have two hours, I'd be more than willing to sit down and watch it again, with your argument going on in my head.
I'd be more than willing to watch it a second time. I've said all I wanted to say last week [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.387238-The-Big-Picture-You-Are-Wrong-About-Sucker-Punch-Part-One?page=4#15462682] on the subject.
That being said, Upon watching this week's argument, I can sort of accept your argument a little better than the first week, where it felt like you were trying to play "Bob Chipman versus The World", but this week felt like maybe there is some validity to your statements.
I have maintained that Zack Snyder is a smart guy (He has to be, as far as music video directors turned Movie directors go), and as such, he probably thought about some things more than others (Most writers do that anyway, best of intentions in the beginning and all that), and this side of the argument seems to sound like things Snyder might have thought about whilst writing.
I hate being this guy, I really do. Much as you said you wanted to like Expendables II, I wanted to love Sucker Punch, and I wanted to be the guy who could defend it amongst a handful of film people (But I only know about three in my hometown, so the Escapist fills in the rest), but it's terrible that I have to follow the crowd and go, "No, I agree with everybody else", because nothing can convince me of it otherwise.
I do the same thing with Popeye, the Robert Altman film. I Love that movie, and it sits on an even 5 out of 10 on IMDB, but the fact I can convince people of its brillance and maybe be the only guy who can do it is kind of rewarding in its own way. Sucker Punch, I can't convince even one of the bigger film buffs I know that Zack Snyder is a smart guy because he gave all the girls nicknames (which I maintain is more memorable than average names, the reason we remember The Goonies is because they all have nicknames), and he looks at me quizzically every time I mention it.
Sucker Punch was a beautiful looking motion picture, but it had little, if nothing, to keep me interested in its characters, which for me, is the kiss of death in most movies. The girls were bland, and I hate saying that, believe me.
However, the next time it is on HBO and I have two hours, I'd be more than willing to sit down and watch it again, with your argument going on in my head.