Jump to content
JulyDiaz

EPISODE 112 — Jupiter Ascending

Recommended Posts

 

The quote paraphrased by FisterRobot is actually from Kalique ("It's just a planet, Jupiter. In this world, people own things far more valuable"), and it's there to emphasise how detached the royals are from human concepts of value. As far as Kalique is concerned, Earth is quite trivial in the greater scheme of things - it is one planet among innumerable planets, and Balem and her presumably own hundreds if not thousands of planets between them. Earth is valuable, of course, but it's only one asset of many.

 

 

Ahhh okay. I just had it in my notes with "What the shit?!" written next to it in all caps. I misremembered and thought it was Stinger (and was too lazy/didn't care enough to look for it again). If it was supposed to show detachment, though, it would have been much better to have shown her detached from something that the whole movie didn't build up to be so valuable that they were having a war over it. It is only one of many planets they own, but Balem has some speech in the first scene he's in about how it's worth more than all of Titus' planets combined.

 

The only way this makes any sense to me is if Kalique was downplaying its value to make Jupiter think that it was worth less than it really was so it would be easier to steal away from her.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Don't know if anyone mentioned it, but a slight omission

 

I really wanted June to be in this week episode just for one particular part of the movie. After rescuing Mila Kunis for the first time and getting injured, Mila character uses a pad that the owner of the car (a woman) left in glove compartment, to stop Channing Tatum bleeding.

 

A few problem with this scene:

1. Most adult (and non adult) women don't use a pad, but rater tampons

2. even if they do, they won't likely to keep it in the glove compartment of the car, but rater keep it in their bags (especially if they are keeping it for emergency). which would not be a big problem movie wise, if Mila didn't mentioned how the car belongs to a women cause women keep pads in their car glove compartment.

3. Most importantly, in order to stop the bleeding she puts the pad on his stomach GLUE SIDE DOWN!!!! which means that the part of the pad that actually exist to soak up the bleeding is a way from the wound and the plastic sticky side is now (probably quite painfully) stuck to his wound and most likely not really helping much

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Ahhh okay. I just had it in my notes with "What the shit?!" written next to it in all caps. I misremembered and thought it was Stinger (and was too lazy/didn't care enough to look for it again). If it was supposed to show detachment, though, it would have been much better to have shown her detached from something that the whole movie didn't build up to be so valuable that they were having a war over it. It is only one of many planets they own, but Balem has some speech in the first scene he's in about how it's worth more than all of Titus' planets combined.

 

The only way this makes any sense to me is if Kalique was downplaying its value to make Jupiter think that it was worth less than it really was so it would be easier to steal away from her.

 

I think appreciating the full quote in context helps. It plays out like this:

 

JUPITER: How can one person own the earth?

 

KALIQUE: [Laughs] It's just a planet, Jupiter. In this world, people own things far more valuable. You cannot know right now what it will be like when you're offered wealth beyond your imagining. When you can choose to remain young and beautiful, or when you can have the power to change the lives of your family for the better. And all you have to do is close your eyes.

 

Basically, this is a 14,004-year-old woman finding amusement in what must be to her a supremely childish and naive question from a young woman who knows virtually nothing of value. These people prize their own happiness, vanity and pleasure above everything else, perceiving their assets (i.e. planets) as a means to an end rather than things of value in and of themselves.

 

Ultimately, Jupiter Ascending is about a family squabble that is actually rather petty in the greater scheme of things (as far as they're concerned). In the early scene with the three siblings, they're all playing with each other - it's why Kalique rubs Titus's face in the fact that Earth is worth more than all of his planets combined, and it's why Balem gleefully mocks Titus's money problems. They're playing the game of planets but not taking it particularly seriously, since they're all thousands of years old and are long past taking anything seriously (except for Balem, who takes certain things very seriously indeed).

 

And therein lies a key problem I think people have with the film. I've seen many people accuse it of having pretensions of scope and grandeur that it doesn't meet, and I think that accusation can be traced back to the central conflict being very small-scale in relation to the grand universe we're introduced to. At the same time, however, I think that's the whole point - it's not a movie about Jupiter changing the universe, it's about the universe - and her newly discovered knowledge of her place in it - changing Jupiter. Jupiter follows the same trajectory as Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz or Sarah from Labyrinth in that her adventures cause her to return home with a renewed appreciation for her life - it's a very small story of internal development told on a ludicrously large and elaborate canvas, and I think that's thrown people off and left them confused as to what the hell it is they're looking at.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Omission

 

No mention in the podcast of how even the heroes of this movie (minus Jupiter) seem to be totally on board with the idea of planet scale genocide to produce the fountain of youth serum. Even if they don't explicitly support it nobody says a word against it until Jupiter comes along. Stinger sold them out to get money for the serum for his daughter (who had a mild cough). The space cops definitely didn't appear to be cracking down on it.

 

Lesser omission

 

What did the word royalty even mean in this movie? It seemed like the Abrasax family was just ludicrously rich. But they were still bound by the ridiculous bureaucracy. They didn't seem to be at the top of any form of government. And the ineffective space cops tried to give the Abrasax orders but they were just ignored since they were outgunned. The "your majesty" part just felt silly. It would be like if in the US we started calling Bill Gates your majesty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

Well, at least you're setting a good example for your teenage daughter in what qualities are important to look for in a potential boyfriend/girlfriend.

 

giphy.gif

 

I just want to say thank you for this Jensen Ackles GIF, so thanks!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, thank you for the response. While I don't agree with you completely, I totally respect your opinion. Here are some of my thoughts in regard to your well-thought out reply.

 

 

To begin, I saw the movie four times in cinemas. I was baffled by it after my first viewing and immediately wanted to see it again in order to understand what the hell I'd just watched; however, everything began to cohere with subsequent viewings and I found it increasingly admirable and fascinating...

 

JA requires a lot of patience and creative engagement to enjoy fully, and while no film should ask that of viewers I've found going back to JA immensely very rewarding. I generally watch it with a big grin on my face.

 

I do see how this can happen. In the mini-sode thread, I mentioned that I had a similar experience when I re-watched this movie. Now, to be clear, I wasn't re-watching out of amazement, curiosity, or befuddlement, but simply because I try to watch HDTGM's a couple of times before the episode. In this case, I definitely got more out of it on the second viewing, which isn't to say that I liked it, just that I understood it better. Since I was already aware of what I was in store for, a lot of the things that were lost on me due to murky storytelling made much more sense. So while I agree that watching it multiple times can be illuminating, I would also agree with your other point that I shouldn't be required to watch any movie multiple times just to "get it." In my mind, this movie could have been pretty good. To me, a good movie should be a pretty simple story that rewards people if they choose to revisit it, but re-watching should never be mandatory. In my opinion, the Wachowskis' problem is that, although I think they are decent writers in a technical sense, they really suffer as storytellers. I think they need a little less, "Look at this super cool, intelligent sounding thing I just wrote" and a little more "kill your darlings."

 

 

It's also unashamedly a movie for girls and young women, which I (being female) appreciate. I actually found it a real shame that all of the commentators on the podcast were guys, since a film like JA is really begging for a female perspective. Having said that, I did appreciate the defence of the film at the end - while brief it's nice that the dissenting opinion was aired.

 

 

I don't know if I'd call this a "girls" movie. I'm not even sure I subscribe to the idea of a "girls" movie or a "boys" movie. I am more of a "good" movie or "bad" movie kind of guy (I know, that sounds horribly black and white of me. I assure you, I believe there are shades of gray [at least 50, or so I've heard], otherwise I wouldn't be listening to this podcast). I want to say that she has no agency, but that is not entirely true as she does have some agency by the end. I want to say she spends the whole movie being rescued by Tatum, but realistically, if put in the same (ridiculous) situations, wouldn't we all, regardless of gender, need a roller skating werewolf to save us? I don't know, I'm just another guy and probably not the best person to answer the question of whether her role in this movie is empowering for women or not... In my gut, I feel like it's not, but I may very likely (most likely) be wrong. Who am I to say?

 

However, I 100% agree with you that this episode could have used a female's perspective. I always enjoy it more when they have as many different perspectives as possible, but I think it is almost crucial when the movie being discussed is being told exclusively from a woman's point of view. Otherwise you just have four dudes sitting around a table discussing what they think a woman might be thinking or feeling in any given situation without the firsthand experience to know whether they are right or wrong. Don't get me wrong, I did love the episode, but I think June's input was sorely missed. Ideally, if June isn't available, it would be nice to have a female guest to cut the nearly overwhelming testosterone in the room. This way, if someone says something kind of ignorant like, "She makes mistakes--she donates her eggs," hopefully someone will call them out on how coo-coo that sounds.

 

Anyway, thanks for the response! Again, I'm not turned around on my feelings for it, but it is interesting to hear a non-crazy person's response to why they liked this movie.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
I just want to say thank you for this Jensen Ackles GIF, so thanks!

 

Hey, I aim to please!

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

OMISSION:

 

While the hosts did briefly mention that Jupiter in this movie is a lot like "The One" in The Matrix, they also left out the parallels that:

1) in both movies, the main character isn't important because of what he or she does; they are the hero because of an accident of birth they had no control over,
2) in both movies, they are on the run from powerful alien beings who harvest humanity for our life-energies,
3) in both movies, everyone on earth except the main characters has no memory of the mass destruction wrought in the action scenes, giving the filmmakers an excuse to indulge juvenile fantasies of consequence-free violence. But -- and this one blew my mind:
4) BOTH MOVIES END ON THE EXACT SAME SHOT!!! The hero woooshes out over a cityscape using his or her new superpowers with a smug sense of superiority over all the "sheeple" who just don't get how awesome their messiah is, and who would be grateful for all the sacrifices made on their behalf, if they only knew...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone that said, "nonplussed" used it as its opposite. Common but still annoying. It means bewildered, not unaffected.

 

On another note, good to hear my thoughts from the trailer weren't off the mark. Excellent show!

Share this post


Link to post

I do see how this can happen. In the mini-sode thread, I mentioned that I had a similar experience when I re-watched this movie. Now, to be clear, I wasn't re-watching out of amazement, curiosity, or befuddlement, but simply because I try to watch HDTGM's a couple of times before the episode. In this case, I definitely got more out of it on the second viewing, which isn't to say that I liked it, just that I understood it better. Since I was already aware of what I was in store for, a lot of the things that were lost on me due to murky storytelling made much more sense. So while I agree that watching it multiple times can be illuminating, I would also agree with your other point that I shouldn't be required to watch any movie multiple times just to "get it." In my mind, this movie could have been pretty good. To me, a good movie should be a pretty simple story that rewards people if they choose to revisit it, but re-watching should never be mandatory. In my opinion, the Wachowskis' problem is that, although I think they are decent writers in a technical sense, they really suffer as storytellers. I think they need a little less, "Look at this super cool, intelligent sounding thing I just wrote" and a little more "kill your darlings."

 

That inability to 'kill your darlings' is probably the central problem with the Wachowskis. I find them quite extraordinary filmmakers and really admire their boundless creativity - you can tell that they literally have endless ideas and ample enthusiasm for realising them. At the same time, you're correct in that the most well constructed and successful films are very disciplined and tight - that's why The Matrix was successful while Jupiter Ascending was not. The Matrix was super disciplined and highly linear and easy to follow, whereas Jupiter Ascending is none of those things. However, since I tend to really enjoy films with odd and non-traditional structures, I didn't mind Jupiter Ascending's lack of discipline and enjoyed the relentless eccentricity of it.

 

I don't know if I'd call this a "girls" movie. I'm not even sure I subscribe to the idea of a "girls" movie or a "boys" movie. I am more of a "good" movie or "bad" movie kind of guy (I know, that sounds horribly black and white of me. I assure you, I believe there are shades of gray [at least 50, or so I've heard], otherwise I wouldn't be listening to this podcast). I want to say that she has no agency, but that is not entirely true as she does have some agency by the end. I want to say she spends the whole movie being rescued by Tatum, but realistically, if put in the same (ridiculous) situations, wouldn't we all, regardless of gender, need a roller skating werewolf to save us? I don't know, I'm just another guy and probably not the best person to answer the question of whether her role in this movie is empowering for women or not... In my gut, I feel like it's not, but I may very likely (most likely) be wrong. Who am I to say?

 

I don't normally like to label films as 'girl's' or 'boy's' movies either, and what I meant by my comments is that Jupiter Ascending is very explicitly about a young woman's experience of a bizarre sci-fantasy world - there are very few sci-fi films that do that, especially space operas. Perhaps most importantly (to me), Jupiter is never sexualised and her choices and feelings are always respected and presented as important and meaningful. That's why Caine is a good guy and the Abrasax sibs are evil - Caine is all about giving Jupiter choice and control (which is why he gives her his gun at the beginning and explains how to use it), while the Abrasax sibs are all about denying Jupiter choice and control (which is why they all attempt to make her fit into their very particular plans).

 

The points you make are very insightful, and they highlight why so many people have dismissed Jupiter as a weak and passive protagonist. While she does get rescued a lot, that's nothing to do with her female-ness - it's to do with her status as an untrained, ignorant human who has a very limited knowledge base and almost no useful skills to draw upon. Of course she needs help to survive, and I don't think that makes her useless or stupid - it just makes her realistic and human.

 

Every Wachowski film (and, indeed, their TV show Sense8) is ultimately about the power of choice. In Jupiter Ascending, Jupiter is heroic because she ultimately chooses to sacrifice her family and herself in order to save the Earth - without her consent, Balem can't touch the Earth and Jupiter's choice thus means the whole planet is safe. That's a deeply courageous choice and it's a choice that any one of us could make - Jupiter doesn't need magical powers or combat skills to be powerful since her power comes from her empathy and conviction. I found that very refreshing and resonant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

At the risk of calling forth a cold and ruthless Internet, could we please have a moratorium on posts correcting the hosts/guests on their usage of the word "nonplussed?" We get it. After one post, we got it. Besides, according to a two second Google search I just tippy-tapped out, the North American usage of nonplussed can mean: not disconcerted; unperturbed.

 

Look, I get it, I was an English Major (yes, I have tons of typos in my posts, whatever). Words--they mean something, man! But the battle is over on this one. Nonplussed purists, you lost. I'm sorry. But seriously, could you not understand what they meant at least contextually? Did it really affect your enjoyment of the podcast or did your brain just shutdown as if they were screaming gibberish?

 

And while I'm at it, Mila vs Myla? I didn't really notice. I don't give a fuck, and unless your name actually is "Mila," neither should you.

 

#biggercrimes (That's my first hashtag, guys. You see what you've driven me too?)

 

Anyway, sorry for the rant. Won't happen again.

 

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry, I just told a fib, one more thing. If you are writing a post, especially if it has been a couple of days after an episode drops and it begins with the phrase, "I'm not sure if someone has already brought this up..." chances are somebody already did. Feel free to peruse the comments first, it only takes a couple of minutes. People say a lot of interesting and funny things here that deserve to be read. If someone already brought up your point, feel free to expand on it, but otherwise, do the work. Okay, now I'm done. Once again, I apologize. Won't happen again...probably.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

If you are writing a post, especially if it has been a couple of days after an episode drops and it begins with the phrase, "I'm not sure if someone has already brought this up..." chances are somebody already did. Feel free to peruse the comments first, it only takes a couple of minutes. People say a lot of interesting and funny things here that deserve to be read. If someone already brought up your point, feel free to expand on it, but otherwise, do the work.

 

I was going to make this same post until you did. We get it about the pad in the glove box already. Quit bringing it up every page, ya dummies.

 

That said, I'm going to agree for the nth time about needing a female voice. I think that's probably the one aspect that Nonesuch and I agree on in regards to this episode. I actually would really enjoy a feminist "reading" (or whatever you call it for movies) of JA. I think that leads to a very interesting conversation, and I'm not entirely sure how I would characterize it. I did re-watch it last (admittedly while dicking around on the internet, but that's the most attention I could muster the second time around) with this in mind. And honestly, I'm still not sure how I feel about the character of Jupiter.

 

Nonesuch - I also thought a lot about your points from yesterday. I now understand where you were coming from, but I still don't think there's really enough nuance to this film to really develop a lot of the thematic elements you mentioned. I can see that that's what they were going for, but it feels like they really need someone to focus their writing better. I still think a stripped-down version like I suggested earlier in this thread would make for a much better movie.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

*CORRECTION* (or maybe clarification)

 

Hopefully no one else already posted about this, as I can only read so many threads about the pronunciation of Mila Kunis.

 

However, there was mention to the "anunnaki" movie (that sounds like Paul said "anuki") in the second opinions section. Was this person referring to the dogshit E.T. ripoff film called "Nukie?" With dodgy and terrifying alien puppets and superfluous amounts of stock footage of Africa...

 

Share this post


Link to post

Okay for some reason I was doing some research about some of my favorite actors and actresses last night (because I'm obsessed with being a human IMDB I'll be honest) and I found out something really interesting about Milla Jovovich that made me think more into a part in this movie that a lot of us had issues with...

 

Her Serbian father, Bogdan Jovovich, was a medical doctor in Kiev. There he met her mother, Galina Jovovich (née Loginova), a Russian actress. At the age of 5, in 1981, Milla emigrated with her parents from the Soviet Union, moving first to London, UK, then to Sacramento, California, and eventually settled in Los Angeles. There her parents worked as house cleaners for the household of director Brian De Palma.

 

So I'm wondering if people who were rich or just comfortable in Eastern Europe who came to America and ended up as housekeepers is more common than I and some others originally thought. It seemed so weird to me that in the movie Jupiter's mother would have such a comfortable lifestyle and then have to sneak into America and be forced to clean houses for the next 25 years.

 

One more thing that actually rather bothered me about this movie is Mila Kunis is fluent in Russian and I was so excited to hear her speak in it and she said maybe three words? It was a complete waste of a beautiful talent!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

*CORRECTION* (or maybe clarification)

However, there was mention to the "anunnaki" movie (that sounds like Paul said "anuki") in the second opinions section. Was this person referring to the dogshit E.T. ripoff film called "Nukie?" With dodgy and terrifying alien puppets and superfluous amounts of stock footage of Africa...

 

 

I don't think that was it. I looked up the actual review it came from (fortunately, Amazon has some custom review searches that are pretty legit). You can read the whole review here:

 

http://www.amazon.co...rd=terra+papers

 

Here's the relevant part:

 

Ask yourself why the Anunnaki movie was prevented from being made.

 

After some research (that involved visiting more foil-hat forums than I would have cared to), I think they meant a movie called 1Annunaki that was supposed to be directed by a dude named Jon Gress. Apparently, the production was shut down, and if you google the title, you'll see a bunch of conspiracy theories about how "TPTB" (an acronym for "The Powers That Be" that I wish I still did not know) shut down production and removed all traces from the internet! It's fucking crazy as balls.

 

But yes, Paul definitely meant "Annunaki;" he's just notoriously bad at words and names.

Share this post


Link to post
Nonesuch - I also thought a lot about your points from yesterday. I now understand where you were coming from, but I still don't think there's really enough nuance to this film to really develop a lot of the thematic elements you mentioned. I can see that that's what they were going for, but it feels like they really need someone to focus their writing better. I still think a stripped-down version like I suggested earlier in this thread would make for a much better movie.

 

I don't think the film's problem is a lack of nuance - if anything, it's a lack of clarity. Certain elements of the film - such as the character motivations and the siblings' relationships with their mother - are very nuanced, and you only really notice them if you're a.) conscious of them to begin with and b.) paying close attention. It's very small things like the way Titus and Kalique both make subtlety disparaging comments about their mother in their scene together ("now you sound like Mother" and "her fetish for wrinkles"), and the way Balem's body language and expressions don't even remotely match up with what he's saying in his first scene with Jupiter. All of these things inform the bigger picture, but they're very small and easily missed or dismissed as arbitrary and meaningless.

 

My feeling is that the film either needed to scale back its ambitions (remove a sibling, for example) and be shorter or be around 30 minutes to an hour longer. The film is very choppily edited and reeks of panicky studio notes - my impression is that the money ran out and the Wachowskis were told they had to keep the film at two hours or less, which is why the final film feels insanely rushed and compressed.

 

I absolutely understand if people don't share my response to/feelings about the film - my only bug bear is when people say the film is shallow and/or lacking in depth and ambition. I can totally see why people might think the film's attempts at depth and complexity failed because it wasn't clear enough about its intentions and didn't really come together for them, but it annoys me when people say they're absent altogether (which you're not doing, by the way - I just bring it up as it's a claim I've come across with great frequency in relation to JA).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, if there's anything this film has in spades, it's definitely ambition.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

 

They stated that Earth was just now entering its "Genetic Age" where presumably the genes were good enough to bottle.

 

As a side note, its well known that 108 humans go in one bottle of soylent water. But if you grab some middle ages people... whew you'll be bottling all day long its more like 250 / bottle. And really it doesn't work as well =D

 

I don't remember anyone saying anything about a "Genetic Age", but maybe I just didn't catch that part. I won't argue that someone said it.

 

but if that is the case, then take humans that have already reached the ideal genetic age and re-seed new planets with them instead of waiting 100,000 years for them reach it on their own. they're already perfect to harvest and make rejenex (whatever it's called), so just get them to reproduce instead of completely starting from scratch every time the seed a planet.

(side point: they have the tech to erase people's memories, so there's no chance that the humans they take from one planet to the next would ever rebel because of knowing the truth about everyone else on their planet being killed like cattle)

 

it make absolutely zero sense why the hell they wait so long to harvest a planet.

Share this post


Link to post

The "genetic age" was in reference to how advanced a civilization they are, and thus why Jupiter or at least other humans as a whole couldn't possibly understand whatever bs it was they were talking about beforehand (I believe it was along the lines of "if your people found out they weren't alone, would they be ready" kinda thing).

 

So, "genetic age" would be about the fact that DNA was discovered and understood only fairly recently (especially since in the eyes of someone 14k years ok, 60 years or so would be exceptionally recently). And we're really only on the cusp of being able to really have a good poke at our genetics and do anything really meaningful with that knowledge. It would be like saying we only entered our Computing Age, except their whole thing is gene manipulation and splicing and things, so maybe they prioritize genetic knowledge when judging civilizations vs other technology.

Share this post


Link to post

Can we address that the live 2nd opinions dude made the claim that this movie somehow worked on the same level as Star Wars? And the statement was not challenged AT ALL by the gang?

 

This is the equivalent of saying a half eaten Big Mac from a dumpster works on the same level as the finest high end steak served at the finest high end steak house. Yes, I suppose they are both carbon-based foodstuffs that provide calories to the consumer. Both Star Wars and JA are theatrically released movies.

 

But they simply do not work on the same level. Not now. Not ever. Not after 1,000 beers. I found this to be a profoundly troubling statement that should have ended the 2nd opinion on the spot. Zouks simply says, "leave the studio now" and we all go on with the podcast.

 

This aggression cannot stand, man.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Follows the bad movie sign of not being able to read even the short Wikipedia plot summary without getting a headache. "The Wachowskis do Hunger Games" summary should not be harder to follow than Chinatown.

Share this post


Link to post

Can we address that the live 2nd opinions dude made the claim that this movie somehow worked on the same level as Star Wars? And the statement was not challenged AT ALL by the gang?

 

This is the equivalent of saying a half eaten Big Mac from a dumpster works on the same level as the finest high end steak served at the finest high end steak house. Yes, I suppose they are both carbon-based foodstuffs that provide calories to the consumer. Both Star Wars and JA are theatrically released movies.

 

But they simply do not work on the same level. Not now. Not ever. Not after 1,000 beers. I found this to be a profoundly troubling statement that should have ended the 2nd opinion on the spot. Zouks simply says, "leave the studio now" and we all go on with the podcast.

 

This aggression cannot stand, man.

 

I would imagine he meant that it had a similar scope to Star Wars, which is absolutely true - you visit a number of planets and go on a crazy space adventure in both films, so they are on the same level in that sense.

 

And they were respectful since we all have different opinions/perceptions of things. That's a good thing and ought to be encouraged - the world would be a very boring place if we all saw everything in the same way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

And they were respectful since we all have different opinions/perceptions of things. That's a good thing and ought to be encouraged - the world would be a very boring place if we all saw everything in the same way.

 

I am all for the notion of "How can it be bullshit to state a preference?" And of course film is subjective and tastes vary... but come on. By any quantifiable logic - box office, cultural influence, impact on the art and craft of movie making, QUALITY - these are on opposite ends of the furthest ranging spectrum a movie watcher could find.

 

To make such a statement and then attempt to defend it is to basically offer the opinion that there is no truth, there is no right or wrong, there is no scale upon which things can be measured... and in order for a person to believe these things, they would have to somehow exist ABOVE such a scale, above the notions of right or wrong. They would have to be a deity.

 

I am respectful of opinions that are credible. You can enjoy this movie all you like, but this is not a debate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I am all for the notion of "How can it be bullshit to state a preference?" And of course film is subjective and tastes vary... but come on. By any quantifiable logic - box office, cultural influence, impact on the art and craft of movie making, QUALITY - these are on opposite ends of the furthest ranging spectrum a movie watcher could find.

 

To make such a statement and then attempt to defend it is to basically offer the opinion that there is no truth, there is no right or wrong, there is no scale upon which things can be measured... and in order for a person to believe these things, they would have to somehow exist ABOVE such a scale, above the notions of right or wrong. They would have to be a deity.

 

I am respectful of opinions that are credible. You can enjoy this movie all you like, but this is not a debate.

 

 

Well, to view the films on an 'objective' level Jupiter Ascending would win over Star Wars when it comes to pure visual spectacle - it wouldn't be a competition because the technology we have now is far beyond anything special effects artists could dream of in 1977. I'd say that Jupiter Ascending is at least a match for Star Wars on the levels of its visual presentation and world-building, and I can construct a credible argument defending that stance. It is certainly not a match for Star Wars when it comes to character building and plot construction, but Jupiter Ascending's structural flaws and tonal inconsistencies don't make it the cinematic atrocity it's often made it out to be. They instead mean it's flawed and occasionally head-scratching; however, these issues do not preclude it from having merit and being enjoyable.

 

And most of the measures you refer to are concerned with a film's impact over an extended period of time. While it's safe to say that JA isn't going to be anywhere near as influential/significant as Star Wars was (I don't think any single film has been more influential), none of us know how it's going to be perceived 40 years down the line. Labyrinth was a box office flop and had rather scathing reviews, yet it's now deemed a classic fantasy adventure film and has new viewers coming to it all the time. Examples like that (and now highly regarded movies such as Blade Runner and Metropolis, which were poorly received upon their initial releases) demonstrate why it's dangerous to use things such as box office and critical reception as gauges of quality and/or merit.

 

It's entirely possible to defend Jupiter Ascending and be credible. I'm not saying it's as good as Star Wars, but I am saying that it's not ludicrous to mention both films in the same sentence since they both have a similar sense of scope and visual spectacle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×