Specifically, Peter Parker has to be Caucasian, and that’s due to some legal wrangling between Sony (who own the movie rights) and Marvel (who own the comic rights) about innovation or something.
Getting Miles Morales into a movie adaptation would be ace, but I doubt that will happen unless Marvel can buy back all the rights and not have to worry about Sony getting in the way any more.
I’m of the view that if a new piece of media comes out with races changed, go for it. A good actor draws me into their performance, whatever race they are. I also enjoy drinking the tears of “I swear I’m not racist but this is the hill I choose to die on anyway” fanboys, although I admit that isn’t the healthiest diet.
I liked it okay. I don’t particularly like zombie movies, but as it was a comedy, and I think I’d also just recently watched Tucker and Dale vs Evil so was still in the mood for fun, it worked for me. I have no great desire to see it again, but compared to most modern comedy, it made me smile.
If the point of the movie was “how to survive a zombie apocalypse,” I might be as troubled as you are about survival-oriented failings of the characters. That’s not what the movie is about, though. The “rules” tell us that the movie is about exactly the opposite of that.
Look at the rules and how they change over the course of the movie. At first, they are very pragmatic and focused on individual safety and survival. Including “don’t be a hero” and “no attachments.” IOW, live for yourself and minimize risks for injury (of all sorts).
As the movie progresses, we get “enjoy the little things” and “[del]Don’t[/del] be a hero.”
So, yes it is really stupid to be so focused on getting a twinkie or riding a beloved ride that you put yourself in jeopardy. That’s dumb in Zombieland, as is being a hero or having attachments.
It’s almost as if the rules are ultimately not about surviving in Zombieland at all, or even about Zombieland…
I have already answered the other points in other posts. This is the only one I will answer. Lose credibility? Maybe with you. Oscar wins mean precisely dick to me, and if anyone really thinks every Oscar win is “real”, that’s just BS. I am happy when an actor or movie I like wins an Oscar in a vague sort of way. Other than that, I couldn’t care less.
Besides I’m 39 years old. I don’t need to like someone or something even if every single other person on the planet likes it. Especially something as subjective as art! I’m a grownup; I can have a differing opinion.
Miller and I agree on a lot of art (but not all) and this is one where he’s kind of stated my opinion better than me, so thank you for that. I have every right to expect that my comedies, or indeed any movie I watch, stay internally consistent, mind their own rules, and figure out what they are trying to do. But I would also submit, that even if they don’t do this, they are trying to make me laugh, so if they hardly even make me laugh, then they have failed, at least for me.
Do I think the movie is racist? I’d better sit down and start making a list of movies I love with all white leads, then, eh? Naw, I was just snarking (a little sadly) on the lack of diversity. I refuse to feel bad about kind of wanting some racial diversity in my movies. I also refuse to feel bad about enjoying some of them without, anyway.
Well! My next movie on the queue (I still watch on DVD too) is Joy Luck Club. Yup, that will be some kind of transition. Should be plenty of Asians in there!
See my post above. Zombieland does this with a high degree of precision from start to finish. There’s a reason that the movie opens with Columbus spending all his time immersed in online gaming. There’s a reason why Tallahassee’s backstory includes the death of a loved one. There’s a reason why they are named with places rather than names. There’s a reason for the twinkies and the amusement park.
You’re right that you don’t have to like it, most definitely. You’re wrong about it failing to be internally consistent, knowing what it wants to do, and minding it’s own rules.
Yup. It’s a sappy moral but that’s the gist of it. Columbus, Tallahassee and Wichita all start out with their own way of staying isolated: pragmatic video-game style “rules”, aggression and coldly using people. All three see their methods fail: “rules” can’t cover every situation, aggression won’t help get past the lost of your son, you can’t be an effective surrogate mother/sister if you’re refusing help or leaving people before you get to close. Each adjusts their methods: you can bend the rules, you can focus your anger into something good, you can be clever and still accept others’ help.
I mean, it’s still an action-comedy and it ain’t Citizen Kane but the characters have a development arc consistent with the theme of the movie.
Exactly. And, I have to admit that I like this movie a lot more than Citizen Kane (although I hasten to add that I appreciated the artistry and achievement of Citizen Kane).
And for Zombieland to pull this off while also being really funny and having cool zombie gore is pretty awesome.
I think Tallahassee’s story is even more meaningful that just the indictment of his disconnection. It is an example of the reason why you might have “no attachments” on your list in our “zombieland.” He embodies the saying that “he that hath a wife and child hath given hostages to fortune.” To be connected (beyond online gaming) to others is to risk potentially great pain. But all we see of his past are extraordinarily sweet and simple moments. “Enjoy the little things” and “have attachments” because stumbling around minimizing emotional risk, being disconnected, is like living in zombieland.
I’m not a zombie-movie fan, not by a long shot, but I really enjoyed Zombieland. Laughs, thrills, ordinary people trying to cope with an absurd but scary situation. The Bill Murray cameo was just the cherry on top.
I did appreciate that Zombieland avoided one of the most common cliches of zombie movies, which is presenting other survivors as a bigger threat than the zombies. If you look at any large-scale disaster, one of the most consistent things you’ll see is people pulling together, and engaging in some truly astounding acts of bravery and self-sacrifice on behalf of others. I really like the idea of a zombie apocalypse acting as a catalyst for people rediscovering their humanity, as opposed to serving as a metaphor for human selfishness and self-destruction.
I just wish Zombieland had done so competently. Those themes don’t have to come at the expense of a coherent plot or believable characters, and ultimately, I couldn’t engage in the themes it wanted me to, because I couldn’t get past the idea that any of these people, with the exception of Woody Harralson’s character, would have survived the first fifteen minutes of a zombie apocalypse.
Miller, I agree that the plot is not strong at all. I also find the ending to be kind of weak, too. Thematically I like it, but it definitely could have been better. Overall, though I think the film still did what it wanted to more than competently.
I’m sorry, but that’s just silly. A timid mouse of a recluse and a woman keeping everyone at arms length for fear of getting burned stand a good chance of lasting through the initial phase of all your friends and family and neighbors suddenly trying to eat you.
You know what was really unbelievable, was the old woman who winched a piano up 3 flights to drop on just one zombie, that just took me right out of the moment.
