If That's What It Takes, Then I'm Satisfied

Apparenly Gawker has something against Chuck Klosterman, leading the way for a Klosterman backlash that was probably inevitable, him doing what he does and all. I don't know if I agree with it, but they do have a point with regards to an Esquire article he wrote last year bemoaning Snakes on a Plane phenomenen. Guess what, Chuck, the Interwebs are here to stay, and people will have their say!! And for most of us, Hurray!!

But I come here mainly to praise Snakes on a Plane, because I can't imagine but that it was due to the influence of the title of this film that the 4th movie in the John McClane saga is titled, "Live Free, Or Die Hard." AWESOME!

If it took Snakes on a Plane to get to Live Free or Die Hard (and hopefully a reprise of the other two sequels--Live Free and Die Harder and Live Free and Die Harder With a Vengeance), then kudos SOAP, Kudos.

And the journey is a short one to the following:

Riggs and Murtaugh V: "I'm Too Old for This Lethal Weapon"
Rambo V: "Rock and Rambo" (co-starring Dwayne Johnson)
Terminator 4: "I, For One, Salute Our New Robot Overlords"
Omen V: "Oh, Man!"
Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Prequel to the Beginning: "Tastes Like Chicken"
Star Trek VIII: "To Boldly Go Where No Sequel Has Gone Before"
Child's Play VII: "Keep Out of Reach of Children"
Ocean's 14: "Untitled George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh Vanity Project"

But then again, I'm not the Internet.


dave said...

Thing is, he was completely right about SOAP: "If a film never takes itself seriously and originates as satire, everything is different; its badness means something else entirely. SOAP doesn't fit into either category: It doesn't take itself seriously, but it's not a satire. It will probably be unentertaining in a completely conventional way."

I don't know what Gawker has going on, but you have to give it to the guy -- he was right on that one.

And "Live Free or Die Hard." There's a viagra/heart attack joke in there, just waiting to happen, most likely to happen out of Jay Leno's lame-ass mouth, I suppose...

aaron said...

I'm not sure I agree. An unserious film that is not a satire (and ALL satires are deadly serious, which is where they get their force--in the discomfort they cause) would then be exploitation, would it not? That's what I imagine SOAP is. I guess i have to see it now.

But I remain undisturbed by the role of the Internet in the movies development and marketing. We all know Hollywood panders to what its focus groups tell them about their audiences, which is why all the "blockbuster" movies are a bunch of explosions strung together by only the barest lineaments of plot and characterization. It may be that the overwhelming disparate voices of the Internet that no one could hope to placate could result in studios saying, screw you, and making films they want to make, which may be more in line with what we know as art. However, we shouldn't forget that movies are a visual medium, and in some ways the big blockbuster directors are accomplishing more in moving the visual aspect forward (like in 300) than those who create intimate character-driven movies that would make a great novel but don't require great filmmaking skills.

Mike said...

In a Who Annoys Me More Frequently? fight between Chuck Klosterman and Gawker, I'm not sure who would win. Actually, at least Klosterman is kind of goofy and over-earnest, which is slightly endearing, even if he's also one of these "cult of personality" writers who manages to turn an entire book with a seemingly interesting premise into a rather dull treatise on himself. Whereas Gawker is, on the whole, just mean and bitter and hateful of everything. Which I realize is sort of its point, but still. There's only so much of that I can take.

Though I would certainly enjoy watching those two duke it out in a slap fight.

As for SOAP, I have no particular opinion. It just seems like another crappy movie, with the "hook" that it somehow owes its crapness (or perhaps its very existence) to the innerwebs.