Okay, since a lot of people have been asking for this, and I'm a big believer in sharing this experience with everyone, here are the director's commentaries for Boy (2010).
have fun, share, and feel free to come and scream to me about it afterwards!
233 notes
·
View notes
Thinking about bvs again and how it actually turns "Doomsday" into slightly less of a plot device and more of a literal weapon from his greatest adversary. Like it's fascinating how the one weapon that could kill Superman, a man exactly like him with more age and skill and fore knowledge about everything, from life to their planet to war, is whom he had to kill in MOS only to be desecrated by his greatest arch enemy, the antithesis to Superman and the very thesis of the potential evil of men, into a monster created and forged to destroy everything and anything, but ultimately Superman.
11 notes
·
View notes
I started writing this in the replies of a different post but quickly reached the word limit so I'm putting it here instead. These are my thoughts on across the spiderverse and they contain heavy spoilers. Please only read if you have seen the movie because it's the kind of movie that gets absolutely ruined by being spoiled.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So the antagonists in both ITSV and ATSV have a lot in common.
Miguel and kingpin have the same motivation in each of their respective films. They both wanted to live a life that didn't fuck them over and they crossed through dimensions to try and make it happen.
They both fail to achieve their goal: kingpin's attempts to bring his family back are thwarted by the spiders, and the world Miguel enters literally falls apart around him.
Their actions have ramifications that further the conflict of the series. By creating his collider, kingpin gave the spot his powers, allowing the spot to wreck havoc through dimensions. Miguel's new dimension unraveling led him to believe in specific canon events that must happen to every spider person, and that any anomalies to his formula would cause the multiverse to unravel.
There's a pattern to be seen here, and while the next movie is likely going to focus somewhat on the conflict against the spider society, I think it would be cool if the conflict between miles 1610 and miles 42 followed a similar pattern.
Miles 42 lost his father, and 1610 showing up has proven to him there are other dimensions out there, including one where his dad is still alive, which would provide a motivation in line with the previous ones. Miles 42 is framed pretty clearly as an antagonist, meaning Miles 1610 as the protagonist will likely find a way to stop 42 somehow, meaning all that's left to see is the ramifications. I honestly don't know how it all will play out. Beyond the spiderverse could take this story in so many different directions and most of them would be satisfying enough for me.
The ultimate coolest move in my book would be to create a meta narrative of sorts where each movie has the same key elements that make up the story, but handle the conflict in three different ways; what if each spiderverse movie was an alternate version of the same movie? ITSV would be a man vs man conflict (kingpin pulled the spiders out of their own universes and miles has to defeat him to repair the damage done). ATSV would be a man vs society conflict, as miles is up against a society of other spider people who believe he's an anomaly who needs to be contained, destroyed, or forced into conforming to the spiderman formula. I predict that BTSV (at least miles' main arc) will be a man vs self conflict, showing miles a version of himself who behaves the same way as the villains he's faced so far, and having him reconcile with that.
The villains this series has given us have all been victims of circumstance, people who are trying to do what they can to get themselves out of a difficult or painful situation. What makes them villains is the choices they make in trying to get out. Kingpin, Miguel, and the Spot (and presumably Miles 42 but it's a bit too early to say) will stop at nothing to get what they want, and they don't care about the people they hurt along the way.
Destiny and canon want to put Miles through the ringer like every other spiderman, but Miles rejects these very concepts in the climax of ATSV. Miles chooses to reject these ideas, trying to find an alternate path much like the antagonists. But Miles has a different motivation: in addition to making a better world for himself, he's fighting to make a better multiverse for all of the spider people.
I'm not a super active writer, but a writing adage I've picked up over the years is that protagonists ask questions and antagonists give answers to those questions. Its up to the protagonist whether to believe if those answers are true. In BTSV Miles' question would be "Am I a villain too?" Miles 42 answers yes by showing our Miles that at the very least, he is capable of becoming a villain. If Miles rejects that answer, he will no doubt do so by remembering that unlike the villains he's faced, he's fighting for something greater than himself.
11 notes
·
View notes
US war movies, and war movies in general, are about Showcasing the Horrors of War and how much these poor soldiers suffered (if youre lucky, you will also see how these poor soldiers made others suffer too). the most important and valuable aspect of all quiet on the western front, what makes it stand out from other war movies, is that it does not have a happy ending. gringo war movies love to put a woman back home so the guy has a wife to come back to, a family to raise and a future to sustain. by focusing on that promise of a better future, we are all the more ready to forget about what happened before (or even worse, to excuse it as the ugly ugly means to get to the good things, a calvary to get to heaven)
postwar movies, as in, movies focused on what happens After the mass suffering and trauma of a society, have a bigger, harder to pinpoint power. these stories actually deal with guilty parties, with responsability and the aftermath of crimes, about the holes in the system that allows surviving victims to go without reparations and genocides and generals to continue to evade punishment. it replaces the adrenaline pumping excitement of a battlefield for the cold professionalism of courts and offices. after every war there is a process of reconditioning and readjustement. and if you cannot make an anti war war movie, then your best bet is a post war anti war movie. the only way you can make sense of the violence is by seeing everything from the distance of the future, and by reorganizing the truth into testimonies that can allow you to learn.
there is little to learn from suffering. there is more to learn from what remains after that suffering has happened.
9 notes
·
View notes