I grew up reading the comic book, so I think of Peter Parker, specifically the slightly more mature John Romita version. So I have a very specific programmed view of Spiderman. Doesn’t mean a re-boot couldn’t work of course, but I’ll always have a little cognitive dissonance there. Heck Tobey Maguire gave me a little cognitive dissonance :D. No big deal in the scheme of things.
Now for the opposite we have the Le Guin Earthsea debacle, where Le Guin’s very specifically dark-skinned protagonist was white-washed for TV. Might have been tolerable if the show was any good, but sadly…
It kind of felt like it didn’t really know what genre it was supposed to be. It was a sendup in places and then it tried to be really serious in others, and it just didn’t gel well.
It’s a comedy but it’s not specifically a zombie parody. The zombies operate about the same as they do in most films with “fast mode” zombies versus shamblers. They’re zombies due to a stock “infection” style excuse. It doesn’t set out to lampoon the idea of zombies or talk about how silly zombie movies are. It’s just a zombie movie with comedy elements.
Shaun of the Dead was much the same. Pegg said that he wasn’t trying to mock or riff off of zombie movies, he wanted to make a comedy with zombies in it that stood on its own.
I’m confused how you can get a sense of what it was supposed to be if you fast forward through most of it. This also doesn’t help a movie “gel well” either.
I liked the movie. I’m not an uber fan of it, but it worked well enough for me.
No, the decision did not come from Stan Lee. He simply agreed with the decision. I can understand that from an artistic point of view. We’re discussing altering his artistic vision and this makes him uncomfortable. There’s nothing wrong with him feeling this way but it is supremely hypocritical to argue for the sanctity of the original character when they change backstories all the freaking time.
Stan said “I don’t see any reason to change that”. Of course, he really doesn’t offer any compelling reason to not change that either.
Ok so you watched the movie “just fast enough to be able to see the subtitles”. Fair enough. My point stands.
It seems you watched it for the Harrelson highlights. I’m not sure that’s giving it a fair shake. It seems you watched it like a teenager watches porn. Just fast enough to slow down at the shagging bits. Which, ya know, OK, fair enough. I’m, just, not sure that really allows you to get a sense for the direction or the gelling.
I’m not saying it does; this is why I was asking. I don’t think of characters races when I’m reading or watching movies. I just don’t. I think it’s because I realize that to me, the real story is going on in my mind and since I don’t particularly think visually I don’t image the characters as any race unless it’s important to the story like American History X.
I’ve always been a fan of penguins but when I met a penguin who let me pet him I’ve really been a fan. Fantastic creatures in my mind. The disgruntled part, well, that’s just me.
No, I don’t think that. I said it wasn’t a parody. There’s a difference between a movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously, and a parody. Heck, there’s a difference between an outright comedy, and a parody. Zombieland was sort of an action-comedy with a lot of gore, but very little of it was parodic, particularly when it came to the standard zombie movie tropes, which by and large, it played entirely straight.
I thought all five of your reasons were silly, but I particularly didn’t like the direction you seem to be going with the racial criticism. But sure, I’ll give you my thoughts on all five:
>>1. Only white people apparently can survive the zombie apocalypse!
With a cast of six, and based on the geographic setting, this is a pretty reasonable casting choice. This objection reads like a knee-jerk political correctness.
>>2. The girls exist literally to be a) conniving little bitches who steal from the main characters b) love interests (at least the elder) c) to be rescued by the guys.
The two women in the movie are major characters with their own motivations (which they discuss with each other, among other non-boy topics they talk to each other about), virtually never talk to each other about the men in the movie, and demonstrate clear agency in determining their own fate. This complaint is a major reach.
>>3. Bill Murry appears on screen just long enough for Woody Harrelson to go crazy over him and then to get shot while being an asshole. Which admittedly is probably true to form (and I like Bill Murray)
Zombieland is a comedy. That was supposed to be funny.
>>4. Jesse Eisenberg is the hero! Who would make this kid a hero? He’s terrible. I am sorry now he is going to be Lex Luthor but he just can’t act. He didn’t change his expression once during the movie.
That guy with an oscar nomination for best actor? Yep, total hack. Not that oscar noms are the be-all-end-all measuring stick, but you lose credibility when you say he can’t act at all.
>>5. Jesse gets the girl in the end! Who in their right mind would look at Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg and think…uh let me pick the guy that can barely face up to a clown to get to me as opposed to the guy who is mowing down tons of zombies.
Maybe the better thread topic would have been “I hate Jesse Eisenberg” (which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to have) instead of trying to shoehorn in racism and sexism where it really doesn’t apply. No surprise that the racist angle is what people picked up on. (Not you being racist; your assertion that the movie is.)
Can’t say I agree with you there. “I wish this movie were more diverse,” isn’t even remotely the same thing as “This movie is racist.”
Also, while I’m here, “It’s totally reasonable that the only five people to survive the zombie apocalypse were white,” is not actually a rebuttal to, “I wish this movie were more diverse.” Yes, it’s realistic that such a small group could be so homogenous, but the complaint had nothing to do with realism.
Fair to say, but it misses the point. They did something stupid isn’t suddenly a more valid complaint because of the distinction between comedy and parody,IMHO.
Oh, I don’t agree with Miller’s assessment of the film as a whole. I just agree with him that it wasn’t parody, it was an action-comedy set in a zombie apocalypse.
Bill Murray’s decision to scare Columbus was stupid but, in the context of the film, it worked fine for me. They came across Murray’s mansion, they all have this party montage sort of moment like everything is great in the world then – oops! – oh, that’s right we’re back to zombies and guns and danger. If it didn’t work for someone, cool, but I got what the film was trying to do there and it worked for me.
As I said, Wichita and Little Rock’s initial plan was way stupider in my opinion (even as a contrivance to get them together it could have been better) but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying the movie.
Are you suggesting that comedies, by their nature, are immune to the standard criticisms of plot and characterization that apply to other genres? Because that’s not an idea I can really get behind.
Certainly, it’s true for some comedies - any one criticizing Dumb and Dumber because the characters are morons is clearly missing the point. On the other hand, something like Real Genius relies very much on presenting its characters as smart and competent, regardless of the amount of farce contained in the movie, and if the protagonists were regularly acting like morons, it would have damaged the overall film.
Where Zombieland failed for me was in the way it was unable to resolve the tension between the genres it was straddling. The scene where Bill Murray gets killed would have worked fine in a movie that did not expect us to care about the consequences of its plot. But the film also wanted us to be emotionally invested in the characters and their plight. We’re meant to care about Jesse Eisenberg’s obviously futile quest to find his parents, or be moved by Woody Harralson’s revelation about his son. And in general, it expects us to take the danger presented by the zombies as legitimate. I can’t do that when you have things like one of the protagonists taking a movie break in the middle of sweeping a house for zombies, or the jaded, street smart grifters getting stranded at the top of a Ferris wheel. These are characters that the script was plainly expecting us to take as smart, competent survivors, but couldn’t be bothered to actually write them as either.
