I'm sure someone's mentioned these books before, but I wanted to bring up "Pictures at a Revolution" and "Five Came Back" by Mark Harris in relation to the wrap-up portion of the episode.  Trey was talking about motion pictures in relation to WWII and how within a year there were movie made OF the battles, and Brian brought up the idea of propaganda.  "Five Came Back" is directly related to that subject in that it follows five major directors who ended up within the propaganda machine that was the US government, and discusses how that infrastructure was put into place, as well as how it was challenged and evolved over the course of WWII.  It's pretty tightly focused on the directors' experiences (John Ford, William Wyler, George Stevens, Frank Capra, and John Houston) and illustrating it through their documentation and perspectives, but it feels really in depth and is meticulously cited.

The other book, "Pictures at a Revolution" is more tangentially related to the conversation, but it definitely explores some of the theme that was being discussed about the demarcation between 70's-style movies and the earlier studio-produced films.

Anyway, they're both solid reads (I know "Pictures at a Revolution" is available in audiobook) and I was really amused at how tightly they related to the wrap-up conversation.

I'm pretty sure that Romero and/or the writers didn't really think of this, and I know Trey is fairly right when it comes to discussing the central theme of humanity's inability to learn/accept their inevitable fate as observed by the repeated use of marking time via calendar, but.  Well.

There are very good and very practical reasons for a WOMAN to be marking time.  The first calendars (nicks in a bone) were made by women to count days because we have timers guys don't have and that need to be planned for.  Again, thematically Trey's right, but practically speaking, girl's gotta mark her days.

I've tried some Dane and Swedish narrative and it wasn't entirely my tonal bag, so I've not poked the original source. I might, but according to Finnish friends there's enough character changes between the two (Danish Holder is, apparently quite different) that it isn't a direct translation. Admittedly, that's second-hand info, so grain of salt. Still, I've heard enough good things about seasons 3 & 4 that I'm interested in pushing through. The partnership between Linden and Holder and the way their backgrounds are intersecting (and not intersecting) are very intriguing.

I am only on episode 7 of the first season, so it's possible it'll lose me, but it's gorgeously shot and intriguing!

I agree with a lot of the earlier conversation re: how the Bechdel and Mako Mori tests are good conversation starters.  Because even with that info-graphic, if you're scoring movies on technicalities, the point OF the tests (how rare it is they get passed on anything BUT a technicality) is kind of being missed.

I recently went through a bit of a film renaissance of independents and smaller films released in the late 1990's and was struck by how many of them were written/directed by women and how a lot of them had multiple women in top billed roles and where the Bechdel and Mako Mori tests were passed in the first five minutes.  (Drop Dead Gorgeous, Sugar and Spice, Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion.)  And, as a woman, I have to say that this decrease in visibility and how it appears - and I will completely own the "appears" word because this is how I have interpreted the pushback for adding female cast members, I will completely own that I am not subject of backroom meetings and casting decisions - has really turned me off visual media.

Simple as it is, if I can't find a character that I connect with in the narrative, I check out.  And I'm really tired of being forced to connect to male characters because they are the forced POV.  And while I am fully capable of connecting to male characters, and have regularly in the past, I would like more options that include people of my own gender.

But, that's just my $.02.

Oh, man, that would have been FANTASTIC.  This was the PERFECT drive-in movie and I wish we had one close enough that I could have done that.  Would have been a blast!

Ah, I see.  Most of my high school and college experience involved following around people I didn't especially enjoy while they did stupid shit, so I probably built a tolerance.  That said, I was so charmed by the rest of the cast being 1000% done with him, I gave Hopper a pretty big pass.  But you, sir, have a good solid point!

You know, I never did get around to seeing Battle: Los Angeles, but I'll stick it in my Netflix queue.  If it's of a vibe with Battleship it'll probably be a fun Saturday afternoon flick.

I'll say we'll have to agree to disagree re: the first 2/3rds of the film.  This cheese definitely stands alone there!  But the section with the Missouri was seriously my favorite part of the film.  It always puts a stupidly gleeful smile on my face, and I applauded in the theater when it started.  And I would absolutely be one of the first people in line if someone did put together a Old War Veterans Save The Day film and got it in theaters.

Whew.  Okay.  I'm new and I'm just going to step off the cliff here with the following:

I earnestly love Battleship.

I will completely cede that it is not a movie for every audience and totally respect that pretty much everyone else, ever, thinks that it is a flaming pile of twaddle.

However, there were things I really liked about it.  So... defense begin now:

I honestly loved that the lead character is meant to be pretty universally disliked by everyone.  One of my favorite scenes in the film is the artillery guys asking who was left in charge and wailing for a quick end when they find out it’s Hopper.  Hopper fucks up constantly and to the point and severity that he’s indirectly responsible for the death of his brother and a lot of other people.  His arc is great for me because he doesn't go from in-the-trash to HEROEST HERO EVER, but instead, he goes from someone who has no sense of scope or stakes in his own life to someone who finally gets that there are stakes and that he can actually make good and right choices.  Plus the movie basically says Hopper is an idiot, everyone knows that, and I have no problem making that leap.

On a more earnest note, the movie really did nail something insubstantial.  My dad did his twenty in the Navy, my grandfather served in the Navy in WWII, and my Great-Grandfather served in WWI.  And while my dad does have a lot to say in criticism of the organization, the love and pride he holds to this day for having served is a palpable thing.  For the child of a family steeped in Naval pride, this movie hit a right chord with me. Hopper’s moment with the older sailors on the deck of the Missouri is a good example of this.  Sure it was hokey and cheesy and in line with the forced needs of the narrative, but the respect paid to the "old salts" and from the "old salts" to the younger officers and ncos felt real to me.  This movie isn't really a credit Kitsch can put on his "Did Shakespeare" CV, but in that moment, I believed him.  I liked that there was attention paid to the feelings and comportment of this film’s military advisors, and work was done to include the respect the filmmakers felt for those people. 

Also: Colonel Gregory Gadson.  I went bones-out apeshit for Colonel Gadson in this film.  I love that the film didn’t back off on showing the extent and collateral damage that Mick’s injuries left on him (as a character) and I was gleeful that they had an actual disabled amputee in a lead supporting role.  Moreover, while this was very definitely a first-role for Gadson, if you watch the behind-the-scenes, Mick wasn’t just a case of Gadson playing Gadson.  Gadson held his own in the film, especially in the action scenes where he beats up the alien.  I know it was stunt-casting, but they didn't just give him a short no-lines or action role.  Basically, the stunt-casting worked for me.

Was the script reliant on coincidence and a long series of dumb accidents?  Sure!  Was it based on a kid’s board game?  Yep!  This is not a great film.  I didn’t expect that when I walked in the door.  I went in because I knew there was a creative team behind it who’s work I’ve enjoyed (I mentally pre-ordered my ticket when I saw that the credited writers were the same team that wrote Red, which I also love), even if the premise was pretty ridiculous.  And you know what?  I had a good time.  I liked the cast, I laughed several times where they intended me to, and a few times when they didn’t.  It did more than it said on the tin (at least for me!) and while I’ll agree to disagree with, basically everyone, I’m fine with that.