MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB: April The 16th Be With You

14 Responses to “BYOB: April The 16th Be With You”

  1. leahnz says:

    dream on black boy
    dream on white girl
    and wake up to a brand new day (to find your dreams have washed away)

    does Chewey have some grey hair too? i couldn’t quite tell, i hope so – old granddads solo and bacca keepin’ it real in the empire, rebels4life

  2. Pete B. says:

    Hey INXS!
    Yeah, Chewie should have some gray hair and maybe a beer gut too.

  3. PcChongor says:

    It looks like “Star Wars” has finally become the same sort of generic, sci-fi claptrap that “2001” and “A New Hope” were originally rebelling against. Hopefully Nichols’ “Midnight Special” is the one getting remade in forty years and “The Force Awakens” fades away like”Buck Rogers” did back in the 70s.

  4. Hallick says:

    I don’t follow Star Wars lore closely enough to know the average lifespan of a wookie, but Han Solo getting old and gray doesn’t necessarily mean that Chewie should be doing the same thing. Maybe he’s been toting around a ton of “Just For Men” hair products in that utility belt of his.

    Which reminds me: thanks to these movies, I was never able to process the fact that my hispanic grade school classmates were not named Chuy after Chewbacca. Why else would you name a kid Chuy?!?

  5. MAGGA says:

    PcChongor, let’s hope that forty years from now, if cinema exists, we have a better generation of moviegoers and that nothing really gets remade

  6. amblinman says:

    Is it me or is there a huge Emperor-has-no-clothes vibe with how folks are reacting to this trailer? Everyone I know is suddenly crazy excited for this but I didn’t see anything in there that even remotely tickled adult-me or child-me. Not one image that stirred the imagination. Seeing an old Harrison Ford wearing a young man’s character is depressing, not reassuring.

    Guys my age have done an amazing job of training audiences to have a Pavlovian reaction to this stuff.

  7. Stella's Boy says:

    Don’t the fanboys react this way to every event trailer? Guardians of the Galaxy and both Avengers and so on? They’re all the greatest trailer ever and salivated over and if you dare diss then you’re a No Fun Charlie.

    I also want to say RIP to Justified. One of the best shows on TV and also insanely under-appreciated. So much better than pretty much all the prestige shows currently airing.

  8. Jerryishere says:

    Star Wars isn’t a fan boy thing.

    Fanboys are a small subset
    It’s a family, kids of all ages franchise
    Very different than the marvel /dc stuff

    If you have kids of your own you understand this

  9. Stella's Boy says:

    I do have kids of my own. Two in fact. You seem a little defensive Jerry.

  10. Jerryishere says:

    How so?
    Just stating an opinion

  11. storymark says:

    “Anyone who likes this is a sheep!”

    “Not necessarily.”


  12. Stella's Boy says:

    Didn’t say anything about sheep, but if I had a nickel for every time I’ve been pilloried for not adoring The Avengers and its ilk, I’d be a very wealthy man.

  13. Hallick says:

    Yeah, alright, but it is still the fanboys who are going allergy-defying NUTS over this thing that doesn’t actually have all that much to it yet. It’s a “glimpser” more than a “teaser”.

  14. John E. says:

    If I could get a nickel for every time I got pilloried for not adoring The Avengers, I would be trolling Avengers fan-sites 24/7.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin