#27 - Some Hunger Games

Feedburner sucks, and started adding trackers to the feed about half way through the old feed, so you may see some duplicates in the iTunes feed before Pulp Fiction where the description is different. Let me know how it looks to you guys.

Wouldn't it be better, with the iTunes, to have the two feeds as they are? Keep the main one for commentaries, and the now renamed Intermission one for everything that's not commentaries? It'd be it more organised that way. Although if you've already worked everything out, then never mind.

And without yet having listened to the commentary, I'd like to point out that in its 29th day in release, John Carter finally managed to beat The Hunger Games' opening day.

Last edited by lab276 (2012-04-09 11:24:00)

We decided to have a main feed with everything that most people are already signed up to, and then separate feeds for commentaries and the main show if you only want one or the other. We're going to see how that works for a while and make changes as necessary.

I'll be honest, I was absolutely heartbroken when I learned that Stanton was completely responsible for Carter's marketing disaster. I adore Wall-E, and I wanted nothing more than for him to make it out of JC okay. But.. eh. Damn. Are marketing campaigns headed by the film's director a common occurance? Because if not, I can totally see why now.

Respectfully, I disagree. As someone who doesn't always watch the movies along with the commentaries, this format works well, because I don't feel like I'm missing anything. I never have to think, "Now, what scene could they be referring to here?" It's just a straight-up discussion with nothing else to get behind.

Yeah, I'm pretty much completely with Red as well.

It might be just because it's newish (Though let's be honest, it's basically just the intermission, just with...less... structure) but it feels very scatterbrained, and not in the good way that you get in commentaries, because that always has a central core that you guys always eventually come back too, no matter how far you stray down the side alleys (And of course, those side alleys are usually some of the most hilarious/thought provoking/insightful moments on DiF). And if you aren't actually watching the movie, most of the time it doesn't matter, because the actual film is just used at that central spine around which to talk.

With this, it kinda wandered over here for a bit and then it went over there and then it just sorta ended. IDK, I can't say I'm a fan, but we'll have to see how it develops.

And I'm also in agreement that it's disappointing that we probably won't be seeing the commentaries for Hunger Games or JC.

On the other hand, about this actual episode. There was some interesting stuff, but it all felt very truncated and shorthanded, never really delving into anything past the surface and first impressions in the way DiF does so well.

Ah well, this is long enough by now. Just my 2cents on the whole matter.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2012-04-10 17:01:22)

Oh...well alright then. I guess I was thrown off by you guys saying up til now, that this new format would be for movies you didn't think you could fill a commentary with.

Carry on.

Well I liked this ep a lot. I have no problem with recent movie discussions, it's always fun to listen to you guys, though I wish the episodes were longer (I love 2-3 hour movie podcasts personally). I think if I had to criticize, I'd say you could use a bit more structure, look at how FilmJunk and Slashfilmcast do it, I think that's a good model to follow.

Wow...shocked at the titanic response.  Glad y'all didn't mind the 3D, but it reaaaally bothered me on this one.  I spent most of the movie trying really hard to not pay attention to it, but eventually just gave up and was completely taken out of the story.

Personally I think cameron's view on 3D is backwards.  I don't think any movie can play in 3D, and I don't think it brings you any closer (emotionally) to the story.  In fact, I think it does the opposite.  To use one of them obnoxious film school terms, a story is supposed to take place in its own diegetic universe.  That's the entire point of the medium! 

Now when jack and rose are screwing in the back of a car on a ship in 1912, I should NOT be there.  I am sitting in a movie theater in 2012.  Why exactly am I supposed to be part of their world, or they mine?  To me, it makes the entire world of the story lose credibility.  When the ship is sinking, through story I should be able to experience it emotionally...but I should not actually BE there, because I WASN't there.  Only the characters should be there.

To me, the only media that should be in 3D are the ones that acknowledge their audience...at least thematically or in the premise.  Video games, concert films, any given IMAX exploration film.  Narrative films I enjoyed in 3D like Hugo and Avatar were predicated on openly inviting their audience to a visceral experience.  And, personally, neither of them play for me in 2D.

But a standard, old-fashioned narrative like Titanic?  I'd rather see the 2D version any day of the week.  3D has its place in a small niche, but if Cameron has his way we are all in trouble.  Not only does it not add anything meaningful to the experience, but it ruins and demeans 100 years of storytelling.

Sorry...rant end.