A few post-viewing thoughts on Space Jam: A New Legacy · 3:24pm Nov 13th, 2021
Because I just tried to transcribe the liveblog itself, and hit the character limit.
For those who want to see all of what happened post-live, it's in the #deadstreaming channel. But I did want to at least get the last portion into public view. Let's see how this looks when divorced from the film itself.
We'd just hit the closing credits. And I had a few thoughts...
Even when a movie tries to tell a deep story, something with a moral, something historic or reflective...
...a movie, to some degree, runs on marketing.
Even arthouse films need to find a way of selling themselves to an audience.
There is a huge break in the ratings of this film between two factions:
Critics and audience.
The critic felt there was just about nothing here.
Some nice visuals, a few jokes.
But -- tropes and a threadbare, call-it-in-advance plot.
We even got the Coincidental Statement Leads To Idea at the end.
The audience?
Rated this much higher.
And I think that's because of the marketing. Not the way the movie was advertised outside of the theater, but what it sold inside.
When we look at the New column on FIMFic, with crossovers... even the worst-written intersections tend to get upvotes in a hurry.
And this is for one reason.
Forget the quality
The plot.
Usually the grammar.
This is That Thing I Like.
And so they upvote it, because hey, it's That Thing and they Like it.
That's this whole movie.
Remember Space Jam?
Remember Bugs? Lola?
Anyone remember Gossymer?
And when that runs out?
Look! In the audience!
It's every WB character we had the rights for, ever!
I could pause those scenes and spend hours in searching for every cameo.
It would be fun.
Look at all that history.
All of that time.
All of those characters together in one place.
Look at...
...all of those things I like.
Shouldn't I upvote that, just for bringing it all together?
...
...no.
If the MCU had the Avengers in the first film, it wouldn't have meant as much.
We had to build it up.
Meet everyone, one at a time.
Personalities and types. Plots and the slow advancement of a story.
This was endless references and cameos not in the service of a plot, but because they could.
It's every FIMFic so-called crossover which exists just to name-drop, over and over.
But it's also a plot I've seen too many times before. Story beats which can be called off in advance.
Poor acting, a weak script.
And when that hits the Thing You Like... it can start to make you wonder why you ever liked it.
This doesn't change how I feel about the toons.
But it makes me question if Warner Brothers will ever truly use them properly again.
Or if they're just a gimmick.
A way to get people spending.
After all, it's That Thing You Like.
But it's not the reason you liked it.
How long do you keep your love when it isn't reciprocated?
I know why the critics hated this: it's too familiar, and too transparent of a cash grab.
I understand why parts of the audience loved it.
And I probably will pause on the audience scenes. Searching.
It's a lovely scavenger hunt.
But it wasn't a movie.
It's just -- marketing.
I remember hearing somewhere that it was a great way for Warner to have all of its IPs in a movie and thus refreshing some copyright on them
While we're on the subject, could someone explain to me the appeal of the 'author becomes their favorite fictional character and ends up in Equestria' trend? I just don't get that particular sequence at all. I mean, 'author becomes their favorite character and has adventures in that character's world'? Not my cup of tea, but I get it. 'Fictional character ends up in Equestria'? I'm doing that right now. But the combination of the two? Why?
5606748
The usual wish fulfillment of self-inserts and power fantasies combined with an entrenched community of people in the same bandwagon guaranteeing an audience. Displaced is a tautology of a trend; it's popular because it's popular.
Not every character. They left out Pepe Lepew because reasons. (He's banned in a large part of Europe. Conduct = class B felonies.)
5606746 Before anybody laughs this off, this is the reason we wound up with that horrid Fantastic Four movie.
5606762
You'll have to narrow that down.
5606753
A good thing about a movie I’ve heard universally panned? Awesome!
5606763
Pretty sure that it applies to all of them.
5606762
Eh, not really. The FF movie was a "you must make a movie by this date or lose those licensing rights you paid for" situation. Warner owns the these characters outright. They're in no danger until the House of Mouse finally lets copyright law expire (or, you know, the Sun explodes).
5606809
Did You Know
When Gernsbeck started printing Amazing Tales he just reprinted out of print Sci-fi classics. With the laws we have today he couldn't have done that & there would be no science fiction.
It would still be a sub genre of romance novels & a lot less common. (Up until the 1970s most authors got their start in sci-fi magazines & there probably wouldn't be any.)
I haven’t seen the movie, but I’ve seen clips on YouTube, and I’ve listen to tons of other people talk about it. About pointlessly throwing all the
eyepieceIPs together? The movie starts up making FUN of that. They want to throw LeBron into every franchise, and he think it sounds super tacky.I have to give major props it’s their idea for a villain. It’s not a classic AI story where it wants to destroy humanity or escape into space. It’s just the bullshit arbitrary algorithm that all the important people listen and nod along with. THAT is a part of the script that feels like it came from someone with something to say.
Although it’s hilariously odd that a sentient being, human or machine would want to take credit for Warner Bros direction lately. From observing the trainwreck of DC movies behind the scenes, and throwing the baby out with the bath water in their abrupt shift to streaming, I’m led to conclude that no, the heads do NOT know what they’re doing.
5606746
Actually... no. Copyright does not work that way; it doesn't have to be "refreshed" or renewed in order to retain it -- not since the Berne Convention was adopted, anyway. Copyright attaches to the work once it's created, and it remains copyrighted regardless of what the author / owner does or doesn't do with the copyrighted work until the legally-set term for the copyright expires; the copyright owner doesn't need to actively do anything to retain the copyright during that period.
Trademarks are a "use-it-or-lose-it" situation, but those are governed by a different set of laws and standards altogether. If a trademark is not actively used and maintained, it can be considered abandoned after a certain period of time (typically 3 years of non-use), which then leaves other parties free to begin using it themselves. Seems a bit hard to believe anyone could argue that Warner Brothers isn't actively using the Looney Tunes already, though, considering the amount of branded merchandise out there, and the fact that they still sell the cartoon collections on DVD or Blu-Ray...
5606956
The Looney Tunes, no
But they threw practically everything they owned in this film.
For goodness sake the characters from a Clockwork Orange showed up. I can't think of any good reason to put them into a feel good sports movie for kids.
5607200
Because they could? Special-effects guys live for that sort of thing, especially nowadays when they know that there's a whole sub-community of movie buffs dedicated to examining things frame-by-frame looking for all the little background cameos, in-jokes, and easter eggs.
Beyond that, I'm not prepared to speculate on what their motivations were -- I'm just saying what the law is. There is no such thing, under existing copyright law, as "refreshing copyright" just by sticking the characters from one movie or TV show into the background of another, entirely different movie.
Thank you, Estee. I can save myself at least an hour. I can download screenshots of the crowd scenes, then go on a scavenger hunt.
5606748
On top of the reasons given by 5606750, it's also a convenient (if flimsy) shield from the criticism of writing a Mary Sue.
Why is your character so overpowered?
"That's because it's X from the Y series."
Then why doesn't your character behave like X?
"Because it's actually a human displaced into the body of X."
Every IP save one......someone's out of style because ain't no one likes dudes what come on too strong.
5607244
5606809
All that said, because "A Clockwork Orange" was an adaptation I suspect it is subject to the same forces that resulted in however many awful Fantastic Four movies happen to exist.