Is your friend the guy who made the decision to do the 2001 style teaser? If so, give him props for me. That was pretty clever.

Very curious to hear your thoughts. I think you're probably gonna love it.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Is your friend the guy who made the decision to do the 2001 style teaser? If so, give him props for me. That was pretty clever.

---

They make decisions on creative, but they're not one of the people actually conceiving the trailers. Basically, they're in charge of the overall campaign strategy, when the trailers/commercials/posters will roll out, who the marketing partners/tie-ins will be, what the overall campaign vibe will be, etc.

TCTTS said:

---

I'll bet you $100, right here, right now, that it ends up A) in the top ten at the box office for 2023, and B) over 80% on Rotten Tomatoes.

---

I dont have any insider knowledge, or have much respect for popular taste…so i wont take that bet.

But it seems to me like most men and many women wont be interested from the name alone

And seems like the concept is doomed- if it goes woke, traditional families will hate it, if it goes with glamor and tradition, the woke crowd will cancel it.

I sure could be wrong, but i'd be curious how that works out as a positive.

I can't with this woke panic nonsense anymore. There is literally nothing so far to suggest this will be woke in any way. You're pulling that out of your ass.

TCTTS said:

---

I can't with this woke panic nonsense anymore. There is literally nothing so far to suggest this will be woke in any way. You're pulling that out of your ass.

---

Read my post. You completely missed my point.

Barbie the doll has been under major attack from woke idiots who hate that a doll looks like an attractive traditional female, and also from traditional families for doing **** like 'fat ass barbie' and 'drag queen barbie'

My issue is, how does 'barbie the movie' succeed when they can't even sell a ****ing doll anymore?

I hear you. Knowing Gerwig/Baumbach, I'd be willing to bet the movie addresses that very thing in a clever, winking fashion. Barbie isn't going to be your typical adaptation. It's a meta comedy from two indie filmmakers.

Anyway, I don't want to keep derailing the thread. We'll just have to see how it all shakes out in six months.

I hated certain swaths of this movie. Particularly in the second half.

It's often a lavish, absurd, indulgent, irritating and exhausting assault on the senses that thinks it's waaaaay more clever and funny than it actually is.

Yet, despite its flaws, by the end… I think I kind of loved it? And may even watch other parts of it again and again?

All I know is that I've never had a movie-going experience quite like it.

Some friends and colleagues have been telling me lately that I should try my hand at directing. And for the first time in my life that not only feels like a real possibility, given certain career developments, but after the first forty minutes or so of this movie, I was so hyped, and so utterly convinced I could direct for the rest of my life. It was almost euphoric in that sense.

Yet, then, two hours in... I could not have been more disgusted by Hollywood, or more turned off by the entire pursuit.

Which was basically the point. That exact, drug-like experience.

Because despite the highs and many lows of both the movie and my 18 years in this industry, it's the poignant (if not somewhat cheesy, but in the best way) final five minutes or so of Babylon that reminds fools like me that no matter how hard or depraved or depressing it can get, being part of the movies - watching them, loving them, and attempting to make them - is something some of us simply *have* to do, something that will always move us in ways nothing else can, and something we're simply compelled to pursue, despite the copious amounts of elephant sh*t constantly being dumped on us and seemingly endless heartbreak that comes our way. To that end, while Babylon doesn't quite succeed as a movie, it *does* succeed wildly at bottling that pursuit, that feeling, in roller coaster fashion, distilling it into the experience of drug that we or the characters can't quite quit.

On somewhat of a side note, part of my emotional reaction also had to do with the theater where I saw it tonight. The Landmark on the west side of LA (on Pico) was my all time favorite theater and basically my second home for the 12 years it was open. I swear, if it was possible to trace all the tickets, concessions, and beer at the theater bar I bought there, to a single bank account, I guarantee you I had to have been one of the top three customers over that time period. I loved that place so damn much, couldn't get enough of the vibe/energy, saw so many great movies and filmmaker Q&As there, and never once imaged it would ever cease to exist any time soon. Ironically, it survived the pandemic (and was in fact thriving again), only to be priced out, post-pandemic, by Google moving in across the street, causing rent in the immediate vicinity to skyrocket, to the point where that particular Landmark location had to move out.

It was so gutting, but then, just under a year ago, Landmark bought an old theater complex in Pasadena - where I happened to move during the pandemic - which felt like kismet. I had been waiting for it to open ever since, less than 10 minutes from me, it finally did a couple weeks ago, I was able to check it out for the first time tonight, and honestly... it was way more depressing than I was prepared for. The theater itself is nice, clean, and modern, no doubt, but the location is bland as hell, there's no energy or vibe like the old spot, the seats are legit uncomfortable, and the whole experience was such a stark reminder that so much of this town and this industry has changed in the past couple of years, which really added to the theme and melancholy of the movie itself, in ways I wasn't expecting.

So there was that, along with the overwhelming feeling that we've officially reached our quota for movies about movies. Babylon… The Fabelmans… Empire of Light… etc… combined with auteur directors (besides just Spielberg) making what were essentially vanity projects in the form of Armageddon Time… Bardo… etc… Hollywood was WAY too up its own ass in 2022 (more so than usual, at least). I hope they all got it out of their system, because it's high time they quit making such indulgent awards efforts and instead start concentrating again on making awards movies for the audience. Movies that can still be challenging, but are more marketable, entertaining, and endearing, not naval gazing three-hour snooze fests or fever dreams (like Babylon) that are increasingly turning people like my parents off from going to the movies at all. I have faith that 2023 will go a long way to reverse course for the better, but we'll see.

Still, despite how nuts it is, and what didn't work for me, again, there are some incredible sequences in Babylon. The filmmaking is breathtaking at times, and the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous too. The first half of the movie, particularly the opening sequence, is the hottest Margot Robbie has ever been, so it has that going for it as well. It's absolutely worth a watch, for myriad reasons, but I would definitely wait for streaming, where you can break it up into three one-hour chunks if need be. Because it's just so damn much, and all over the place, but in the end really comes together in poignant, even profound fashion.

Interesting. Our thoughts seem almost the exact same on the movie, but I guess I assumed you'd have more of a tolerance for the stuff I didn't like as someone who works in Hollywood. But we're pretty much on the same page. (Though you've said it better than I could.)

There's a lot of self-indulgent stuff that would put me off the movie, but then it would get me back. I feel like there's a good movie here but you can toss out about 30 minutes easily.

And that sucks about your theater.

20 edits. Next time just use word and cut and paste.

Why? It's easy to edit on TexAgs.

You have to load 40 pages to edit something 20 times. 42 times if you include the original post. Working it out in word seems easier. I was just messing with TC about something he is known to do though, although I think 20 edits may have beaten his previous high.

Ah okay I get it. I'm a heavy editor myself.

Sea Speed said:

---

You have to load 40 pages to edit something 20 times. 42 times if you include the original post. Working it out in word seems easier. I was just messing with TC about something he is known to do though, although I think 20 edits may have beaten his previous high.

---

I imagine writing it all out in Word wouldn't put him in teh same mindset as typing the post up on Texags. Then having another thought you want to add or change.

The real play is to just fire it off and forget it

TCTTS's review of Babylon seems to be just as long winded, rambling and self-indulgent as the actual movie. I'm hoping to see it this weekend and I'm encouraged that it will be a good experience.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Interesting. Our thoughts seem almost the exact same on the movie, but I guess I assumed you'd have more of a tolerance for the stuff I didn't like as someone who works in Hollywood. But we're pretty much on the same page. (Though you've said it better than I could.) There's a lot of self-indulgent stuff that would put me off the movie, but then it would get me back. I feel like there's a good movie here but you can toss out about 30 minutes easily.

And that sucks about your theater.

---

I almost gave up when Margot Robbie's character threw up on that rich dude. It was like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit. I can totally take gross out humor, but it just felt like something from a different movie. There were three or four instances like that where I was just like, "Really?" But then, yeah, like you said, it would eventually pull me back in each time.

Ha, I knew the edit thing wouldn't go un-commented on, per usual. As I've said before, it's not like I'm obsessing over my post or reading through it 20 times in full. For reviews or any lengthy post like that, I just like to do a final read through after it's published, and then edit sentence by sentence, publishing each edit as I read through it. There's just something about reading it published on the thread vs reading it in the reply box that makes it easier for me. I'm the same way when I write things for work. I have to read a doc "published" in a pdf to actually proof read it before sending it out. It's like it helps me read it more objectively, from the POV as the reader or something. Is it necessary on a message board? Absolutely not. But I also can't stand having typos, which is about half the edits.

InternetFan02 said:

---

TCTTS's review of Babylon seems to be just as long winded, rambling and self-indulgent as the actual movie. I'm hoping to see it this weekend and I'm encouraged that it will be a good experience.

---

That's part of the point. Posts like that are at least 50% me just being self-indulgent and wanting to organize my own thoughts. The great thing is, you can choose to read them or not (or not even comment!), makes zero difference to me.

That final scene of Manny in the theater was really great as a movie fan.

I did feel like it skipped a couple decades though. From what I managed to catch, it jumped straight from 2001: A Space Odyssey to T2 to Avatar.

Cameron must love that. But you'd figure maybe a little Star Wars, maybe LOTR.

I would put all that behind spoiler tags. You're hinting at/giving away the entire payoff.

The first majestic work of journalism in 2023 is here. https://t.co/jk2LW04ShV

— Jordan Hoffman (@jhoffman) January 5, 2023

This was a really bad movie. Just pointless. The ending tried to bring some meaning or point to it all, but by that point, I was thinking, "**** you, you don't get to shovel elephant **** down our throats for 3 hours and then try to get nostalgic in the last 5 minutes to make us think it was all worth it."

No, this was 3+ hours of elephant ****, and sadly, I could have left much earlier and still got the elephant ****, just less of it.

How does garbage like this get made? Why would Robbie and Pitt do this? The rattlesnake scene was especially ridiculous, and I can't see Robbie ever living that scene down.

Ugh.

What a hot mess. It was a good experience for post holidays date night but I recalled we did LaLa land several years ago and that was so much better in every way. But hey our other option was the whale and that definitely feels like should be watched at home. Why did this have to be 3 hours? How about a 10 minute intermission with some more jazz? This movie wasn't funny when it was trying to be funny wasn't scary when it tried to be scary and wasn't emotional when it tried to be emotional. Plenty of lol moments and mostly fun but it didn't hit at all like it should have. I'm still a Damien chavelle fan. I want to go watch boogie nights, licorice pizza once upon a time in Hollywood and LaLa land again now.

GDit now we're watching LaLa land at home. 10 minutes in and you are 100% emotionally invested in these two lead characters. Feels like he tried that with the two leads in babylon and it just failed miserably

Quote:

---

It's often a lavish, absurd, indulgent, irritating and exhausting assault on the senses that thinks it's waaaaay more clever and funny than it actually is.

---

In other words, it's Hollywood.

I didn't even love La La Land but I have to agree. Far better movie and characters for me.

A lot makes sense in this

Quote:

---

To Love and Hate in L.A.: 'Babylon' Must Be Seen to Be Believed

https://www.theringer.com/movies/2022/12/21/23519567/babylon-movie-review?fbclid=IwAR1GN6hYMiyWTYVYXye3_LFo99Ize-gfPbEWTc0TH0qsiMmZSx99u9c8s9A&mibextid=Zxz2cZ

Damien Chazelle's rambunctious new feature is either a celebration of Old Hollywood or an ode to the death of the entire industrybut above all else, it seems deliberately designed to kill his own career

---

Quote:

---

Make no mistake: All of this discombobulation is very much on purpose, as if Chazellewhose biggest hits, Whiplash and La La Land, were, in their way, crowd pleaserswere trying to recast himself as a black sheep in an industry that's already embraced him as a precocious prodigy. A case can be made that Chazelle's first movie, the charming, black-and-white hipster romance Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench (2009), is still his best; certainly, it's the one in which his love of musicals and preoccupation with the balancing act between creativity and personal stability rings truest, with the best ratio of invention to self-indulgence. The bigger his movies got, though, the more they felt imbued with show-offy style and a bizarre masochism about art. Whiplash was basically Full Metal Jacket for jazz majors, minus Kubrick's satirical (and political) subtext, while First Man sacrificed the exhilaration and uplift of other astronaut biopics for a sweaty, white-knuckled anxiety that stalled at the box office.


Well-made, conspicuously expensive, and emotionally remote, First Man was the sort of movie you make when you have an Oscar in your back pocket and you're cashing in your chips. Babylon is something else entirelylike a guy who's already all in tossing his watch, car keys, and wedding ring into the pot. Hollywood history is littered with titles whose directors had reason to fear that they might never work in this town again, but Babylon is on the short list of movies that seem almost deliberately designed as career killers. It is, on some level, an affront to its subject matter and its audience, yet the mix of exuberance, insolence, and white-hot melancholic guilt at its core makes it just as hard to hate as to love. Gold-plated, fur-lined, and spattered with precious bodily fluids of every kind, Chazelle's film somehow aims high while also going low. It's a hymn to its own filthy ambivalence.

---

One reason no one can explain the plot is the weakness of the Manny character. Who is he? This should be boogie nights or almost famous for the 1920s. Dirk was a normal naive kid but he had a giant cock…William was a brilliant writer but he was just 15 years old…what is Manny's skill or unique feature? He's in the right place at the right time and is a good listener and gofer? He's an ideas guy? Margot could be the Rollergirl or Penny Lane supporting lead role and it had potential but never got there.

He just loves movies. He's the everyman.

I finally watched. Streaming is the way to go, I could pause and watch in chunks. Overall I enjoyed, provided me enough entertainment for stream viewing

We went to Babylon when it first opened. We walked out after 25 minutes. Truly a pathetic effort by the director and whoever spliced it together. You might think we walked out because it was obscene. Nope! It was a mishmash of randomness that was pointless and boring. It wasn't sexy, it wasn't titillating and it damn sure wasn't interesting!

Just another POS, half ass effort, spliced together scenes of randomness being passed off as a movie. We give it a zero.

This is now streaming on Paramount Plus.

I had already listened to The Big Picture podcast on this film and I legit thought I was going to hate it, but I didn't, I actually enjoyed it. That isn't to say there's not issues with the movie, of which there are many. The movie lacks a definitive plot, and there's no examination or growth of Manny, Nellie, or Jack as characters. There's a lot of money and spectacle on the screen, I enjoyed the ride even if it was going nowhere in particular. While I do think it's a love letter to movies, it's also a middle finger to Hollywood as well. I think there's an element of self-loathing from Chazelle, there's a lot of vitriol on screen about the people that make up the Hollywood machine of which he is now a part of. I think he's the victim of the financing here, he got to make what he wanted, they cut a big check for this movie, and he did too much, he didn't edit himself.

While this isn't on the level of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, I did like it more than Hail Cesar. It's a beautiful movie, it looks like a movie, it could have been made recently or decades ago. I can't tell if he likes or dislikes actors. There's a lot of laughs, but no real heart. Margot Robbie is great, but I don't think they gave her much to work with. The Tobey Maguire sequence was just an insane descent into hell. The closing montage while Manny was watching Singing in the Rain was unnecessary and dumb IMO especially considering how superficial Babylon is. I doubt I'll watch it again, but I don't consider the 3 hours spent to be a waste of my time. I think if you're open minded there's fun to be had, though the flaws are easy to find.