Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 2:31pm
Post 1 of 95
Why is nobody talking about Kick Ass on the forums yet?
The single best comic book movie in years (ever?) and nobody has mentioned it yet?
It's not just a great comic book movie, it's also a firm contender for my film of the year, even at this early stage in the year.
So: anybody else seen it yet?
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 3:11pm
Post 2 of 95
The movie isn't released in the US for another month, I'm afraid.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 3:32pm
Post 3 of 95
Really? Wow, crazy. Doesn't usually happen that way around!
Well, in that case...you're really in for a treat.
Also: Nicolas Cage has entirely redeemed himself in this film, as far as I'm concerned. The man is now officially a genius.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 3:33pm
Post 4 of 95
It's coming out here in Australia on the 8th of April.
It's definitely a film that I am looking forward to seeing.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 3:41pm
Post 5 of 95
April 16th is the date here in San Diego. I've been anxiously awaiting this one. I never see anything on opening weekend but this one looks fun enough that I may not be able to wait. I'm glad to hear Nick is good in this one since Ghost Rider was terrible.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 4:10pm
Post 6 of 95
For college students out there, you can try to demand a free screening+swag at your college over at the Kick-Ass page at Eventful
. Today is the last day of voting, so if your college is not #1 (or a close #2), it's not really worth voting. Otherwise, get your vote in there and if your school does indeed win, you'll get a voucher for the screening of the movie.
As far as the movie goes, I initially pegged it as a 'rent', but Tarn's reactions are intriguing. My question for you Mr. Jones: Not being a comic book fan, will I enjoy this nearly as much as you did? How prevalent are the crossovers/inside jokes from the comic book world? (I'm guessing I won't "get" many of those
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 4:22pm
Post 7 of 95
rogolo wrote:As far as the movie goes, I initially pegged it as a 'rent', but Tarn's reactions are intriguing. My question for you Mr. Jones: Not being a comic book fan, will I enjoy this nearly as much as you did? How prevalent are the crossovers/inside jokes from the comic book world? (I'm guessing I won't "get" many of those )
If you've seen any recent superhero movies, especially the Spider-Man movies, you'll have pretty much all the 'insider' knowledge you need. The film doesn't require any knowledge of comic books as such, although if you like the genre in general you'll probably enjoy it more than if you don't.
I was going to say that this was the comedy version of Nolan's Batman, looking at what could happen if superheroes were 'real', but Kick Ass is actually pretty dark and twisted in its own way. It's hilarious, to be sure, but the material is really a lot more intriguing than the veneer of seriousness in Nolan's movies.
It's hard to compare, though, because Kick Ass isn't really like anything I've seen before. I recognise a lot of the elements, but I've never seen them put together like this before.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 6:25pm
Post 8 of 95
As stuck up as I sound, not too intrigued by a little girl cutting up people into pieces, all the while swearing like a sailor. So because of that aspect, I probably won't see this film. Ever. Maybe a few years down the road I'll go and rent it at a time of desperation. Don't get me wrong, I can see the film could be entertaining, but the little girl element is a little more than I can stomach. But hey, that's just me.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 10:26pm
Post 9 of 95
Trust me, if it were out here now, I'd have seen it already and posted my thoughts. I can't wait.
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 7:03am
Post 10 of 95
Thrawn wrote:As stuck up as I sound, not too intrigued by a little girl cutting up people into pieces, all the while swearing like a sailor. So because of that aspect, I probably won't see this film. Ever. Maybe a few years down the road I'll go and rent it at a time of desperation. Don't get me wrong, I can see the film could be entertaining, but the little girl element is a little more than I can stomach. But hey, that's just me.
Hit Girl is one of the most interesting ideas in the film. It's morally dubious, of course, but the film is well aware of that.
If you feel uncomfortable with such concepts, however, then, yeah, the film's not for you.
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 9:50am
Post 11 of 95
Yeah, I'd understand that. Chloe Moretz is quite a little actress- I even found it slightly unnerving when she said "Just don't be a pussy, Tom!" in 500 Days of Summer. But woe is her commitment to the material, even at such a young age; and Kick-Ass seems to be a testament to that.
Once you get past how sort of sick-and-twisted it is though- and if you're willing to stomach it- it looks as though there's something blatantly hilarious about Nicolas Cage and her kicking ass and taking names in such a superfluously violent and skin-peeling way.
Can't wait for this movie.
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 9:53am
Post 12 of 95
Yeah, Moretz is stunning. Really, eye-opening astonishing. I've never seen a child show this kind of gritty commitment to a role. She's utterly, entirely convincing. Which is also testament to Vaughn's skills as an action director, of course, somehow making it seem entirely believable that a little kid could kick this much ass.
I'm going to be recording a podcast review of the movie tomorrow evening, so will paste the link in as and when.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 2:52am
Post 13 of 95
I'm very much looking forward to checking this out. The promos are intriguing, and the early reviews I read were immensely positive.
I just watched the Hit Girl red band trailer, and it had me cracking up. Looks great.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 6:31am
Post 14 of 95
Woah yeah, the Red Band trailers are FAR better looking than the kid-friendly ones! Really looking forward to this now.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 12:37pm
Post 15 of 95
Family groups here in Australia are upset at the rating (MA 15+ [meaning that no person under 15 is allowed to see it without a parent or guardian])http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/kick-ass-classification-upsets-family-groups/story-e6frfmvr-1225847397704
I'm all for children being protected, but it should be up to the parents, not the government, to protect the children (the same could be said about the proposed mandatory internet filter that we will be getting if K-Rudd gets his way...)
The author of the article wrote:Mrs Sorensen said parents relied on ratings to guide them, and in this case parents would have no idea about the lewd content based on the classification.
Or the parents could see the film before deciding to let their children see it...
Real Mums founder Amanda Cox said that film censors had passed the buck to parents.
"I think it's a cop-out," she said. "The Government is society's parents; they can't do this stuff and then turn around and blame parents."
Family groups annoy me.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 12:44pm
Post 16 of 95
Digerati Media wrote:Family groups here in Australia are upset
Family groups are always
at the rating (MA 15+ [meaning that no person under 15 is allowed to see it without a parent or guardian])
I'm all for children being protected, but it should be up to the parents, not the government, to protect the children (the same could be said about the proposed mandatory internet filter that we will be getting if K-Rudd gets his way...)
The problem is that a huge number of parents (most?) are incapable or irresponsible. So what then? I don't think children should be condemned to a crappy or distorted life just because their parents couldn't be arsed or didn't have a clue.
Real Mums founder Amanda Cox said that film censors had passed the buck to parents.
"I think it's a cop-out," she said. "The Government is society's parents..."
Holy moly. That's one of the most terrifyingly ignorant and naive statements I've ever read.
I bet she'd LOVE the Digital Economy Bill here in the UK.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 12:50pm
Post 17 of 95
Tarn wrote:Family groups are always upset.
Tarn wrote:The problem is that a huge number of parents (most?) are incapable or irresponsible. So what then? I don't think children should be condemned to a crappy or distorted life just because their parents couldn't be arsed or didn't have a clue.
I feel that it's a vicious cycle in that parents are lazy parents because the government is there to do the parenting for them, but the parents get to a level of laziness where the government needs to do more to make the kids not turn out completely screwed up. And it continues.
Tarn wrote:Holy moly. That's one of the most terrifyingly ignorant and naive statements I've ever read.
I bet she'd LOVE the Digital Economy Bill here in the UK.
That was my favourite quote from the article, if only because it shows how foolish the family groups truly are (for the people who haven't worked it out already).
I personally see family groups as people who just want to ruin the fun for people who are capable of making their own choices because of a few who can't.
I will see this movie, most likely I will enjoy this movie and I'll tell the family groups to jog on (and to give us our R rating for video games !)
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 2:55pm
Post 18 of 95
Watched it today, nice early showing.
Good points: Action, Story, good directing, better than the trailer make it out to be.
Bad points: needless sex references, main actor is forgettable.
Worth watching and 100% better than watchmen.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 3:01pm
Post 19 of 95
b4uask30male wrote:Bad points: needless sex references,
Hm, don't remember anything particularly overt or out of place on that front.
main actor is forgettable.
He worked really well for me, although his character is the least extreme of them all. I actually thought the film did really well at making him interesting and compelling, despite being surrounded by Big Daddy, Hit Girl and the others. Compare it to, say, some of the Batman films in which the villains are so prominent that you almost forget Batman is even in them.
Worth watching and 100% better than watchmen.
While I really like Watchmen, it is interesting to compare the two. They're both deconstructions of the genre, one extremely serious and the other extremely tongue-in-cheek. What I found, though, was that Kick Ass had much more of an emotional punch and seemed generally more insightful.
While I think Watchmen the comic works as a superb deconstruction of the comic superhero genre, the movie didn't quite do such a good job - whereas I think the Kick Ass movie works superbly as a deconstruction of the movie superhero genre.
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 11:33am
Post 20 of 95
Posted: Sat, 17th Apr 2010, 9:34am
Post 21 of 95
Saw this today. Saw the Death At A Funeral remake yesterday. Saw Date Night the night before that.
All were excellent, the latter two really surprisingly so. But overall its Kick-Ass that just gets me. Much can be said, but only few words need to be:
The movie is utterly unforgettable. Strong and bold and artful and overindulgent and too much in all the right ways. And completely captivating and gut-wrenching and impossibly entertaining because of it.
Posted: Sat, 17th Apr 2010, 10:11am
Post 22 of 95
I agree with Atom here. I have now saw kickass twice (as i live in the UK) and I think the film was very good. From the start you could tell Nicholas Cage's performance was revitalised and I believe it makes up for Ghost Rider. The thing that I believe really did it for me was the choice of songs that suited the mood whether it being chaotic (bad reputation/banana splits) or just a high tempo fight scene (omen) this really complimented the scene brilliantly. Also I liked the way that the movie gave 'nods' to other superhero films i.e. nerve ends broken was a nod at wolverine and the classic cliched jumping from roof to roof scene. Although the Final scene was a bit random and I think maybe ruined it slightly (I think they were trying to put another mention of the matrix there as the shot is almost identical to the one in the beginning of the first matrix when they ascend in a chopper.
Overall I don't think quite genre defining like it was meant to be, however, it was a work of genius on Vaughn's side and a must watch of 2010.
Posted: Sat, 17th Apr 2010, 10:31am
Post 23 of 95
Easily the best film I've yet to see in 2010, and one of the most fearless (without being distastefully/inartistically uninhibited) movies ever. It just sticks with you, a feel of unnerving satisfaction; with glee for the triumph of characters and plot points- and wretched displeasure for the negatives that happen to even the most depraved of heroes.
And the movie just has such style. Such finesse. Even in its ridiculous over-saturation and sometimes-odd editing/camera choices (Vaughn's Layer Cake had all of these as well, despite being a boring and uneven film itself) we get a very deep and harsh surreal sense of brutality. Of a distinct real-world universe the movie lives in- and we live in it too.
The saddest thing about this movie is that its promising lead (19-year-old Aaron Johnson- who I had no idea was British!) seems to have knocked up a cougar 23 years his senior and has basically decided to 'take time off to raise a family'. I know it isn't my business, but moreso than the film's violence (and yes, there's a lot) this leaves a nasty feeling in the pit of my stomach. This kid's career was shot on sight, and that sucks.
But Kick-Ass, despite my halfhearted pause in potentially passing it up and/or not enjoying it due to the excessive vulgarity, was kick-ass itself. Highly recommended on my part- a movie that knows what it is and fires on all cylinders.
Nicolas Cage, in case anyone doubted me before, is a god. Btw.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 3:57am
Post 24 of 95
Sorry for the double-post, but this bugged me incomprehensibly for some reason:
In your podcast, Tarn, you talk about 'Why Did I Get Married Too?'- and say it's made by Terry Pyler. It's Tyler Perry. Then you go onto be surprised that 'Terry Pyler' is a woman. And the other guy cements that 'she' is as if he knows it.
Not only is Terry Pyler really Tyler Perry (you noticed this later on, but it was still frustrating
), but he
is most-assuredly a man
. And a fairly iconic/recognizable African-American actor and personality here, too.
He even is in Star Trek as the head of Starfleet Academy. His very casting/appearance during my theater showing of ST got uproarious laughter because of how well-known he is for soap-opera-style movies and cheap comedies.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 5:19am
Post 25 of 95
Wait... Tarn thought Tyler Perry was a woman??!
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 5:52am
Post 26 of 95
Him and his podcast friend thought he was a woman named Terry Pyler, yes. I know.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 5:05pm
Post 27 of 95
Yep. As far as I'm aware, Tyler Perry is a complete, 100% non-entity here in the UK. Not sure why that is, but that's where the confusion came from.
As we'd never heard of the guy, and because the movie's title is such a mess, it all came out a bit fumbled.
One of the perils of taking a very localised (OK, so the whole of the US, but you get what I mean) cultural thing and making it available to an international audience via the internet.
Does anyone know if any of Perry's movies have had a UK release?
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 5:12pm
Post 28 of 95
I hope not, God save the Queen.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 7:16pm
Post 29 of 95
I doubt it. His films are made for a very specific audience, and don't get much appreciation outside of that particular group (Christian African-Americans with happy homes). I don't think Brits would find anything relatable at all in them. Hell, most American's don't. As far as I know, his films haven't been released at all internationally. You're better off without him.
Also, I can believe that you would have been confused about his gender at first, since he dresses in drag in like every one of his movies.
Disclaimer: I have never seen, nor do I intend to see, a Tyler Perry movie. However, I DO intend to see Kick-Ass, possibly this evening.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 7:26pm
Post 30 of 95
Tyler Perry movies are not bad, Diary of a Mad Black Woman was actually nominated for an Academy-Award. And it was pretty good.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 8:27pm
Post 31 of 95
You sure about that?
ben3308 wrote:Diary of a Mad Black Woman was actually nominated for an Academy-Award.
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 2:05am
Post 32 of 95
Just came back from seeing this in a practically empty theater.
Best film of the year, possibly the best superhero movie ever, and one of the best action films of our generation. I loved it. Simply amazing. I will definitely be going to see this one again, and I almost never see movies twice in theaters. Every time I thought, "okay, this might be lame" it managed to surprise me, and kept everything fresh and invigorating.
And hey, a Lost reference!
Totally agree with Atom, 10/10.
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 2:21am
Post 33 of 95
It was a great, 'achey humanity' (considering that point in the plot of the film) type of Lost reference, too. I really loved that, and the line about the posthumous narrator of Sunset Boulevard. Really cemented the feeling of the movie for me- Sharp. Almost too-much-so, but not.
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 2:30am
Post 34 of 95
Yeah, really that whole scene was perfectly done. From his monologue, through the beating/burning, and the strobe light "kill em all" bit. So emotional, visceral, and gratifying.
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 4:56am
Post 35 of 95
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 8:24am
Post 36 of 95
Glad to see you guys finally getting to see this movie.
I'd say it's the most fearless movie since Fight Club.
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2010, 4:18am
Post 37 of 95
I saw it.
Something about it just didn't work for me. I'm not quite sure why. I have theories, but I'd have to formulate them a bit more before giving it a full review. I liked a lot of aspects of it but the whole thing just never came together as any sort of wonderful/amazing/awesome MUST SEE film.
I'm actually quite disappointed that it didn't fully work for me because it was one of my most anticipated releases of the year.
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2010, 4:43am
Post 38 of 95
Saw it for the second time today. I actually read through a few chapters of Fight Club (the novel), just by chance, before seeing Kick Ass again, and that made my views of the more sadistic/darker parts of the film soften; as the former is muuuuuuuuuuch worse, comparatively.
Anyhow, I enjoyed the film a LOT the second time through, even though I knew where all the twists and turns and plot points were, primarily because the action is so solid and unique, and I was able to pay attention to things like the music, which - though varied extremely and not the kind of thing I'd want to listen to at home - work in deep harmony in the context of the film. This is in terms of soundtrack/song selection AND musical score - both are endearing and appropriate for the film.
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2010, 9:30am
Post 39 of 95
I saw this on Saturday in an also almost empty theater. What an amazing movie. I don't see many movies in theaters anymore but this has got to be the top one in quite some time. Then again, after having seen Clash of the Titans two weekends prior, almost anything would be awesome. Everyone who has liked it has already given reference why it's so awesome. Tarn - Love the Fight Club reference, it really does remind me of it in more ways than one. Fight Club is why I got interested in movie making in the first place.
What made this so great for me is I only say the tv trailers and didn't realize many of the plot points going in. In my opinion, this movie was a GREAT movie to go into not having given anything away...But going back and looking at the online trailers, not too much was given away anyways.
I hope this movie gets the recognition it deserves, as well as all the actors, especially Cage.
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2010, 9:49am
Post 40 of 95
sfbmovieco wrote:Tarn - Love the Fight Club reference, it really does remind me of it in more ways than one. Fight Club is why I got interested in movie making in the first place.
Yeah, while the content is obviously completely different, they share a similar attitude. Fight Club was about tearing down the assumptions of Gen X, and Kick Ass is about tearing down the assumptions of comic book movies.
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2010, 12:34am
Post 41 of 95
Saw it last night, Thought it was good, not amazing.
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2010, 5:20pm
Post 42 of 95
Wait, what was the Lost reference? Can't believe I missed that.
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2010, 6:09pm
Post 43 of 95
When he's getting tortured and beat up, he narrates mentioning all the things he'll never get to do, one of them being see the finale of Lost.
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2010, 8:05pm
Post 44 of 95
Saw it this past weekend with some friends, loved it. Absolutely amazing, I enjoyed the entire ride. So perfect, funny, good, kick ass, etc. Didn't expect that at all.
Jerusalem Jackson wrote:
You sure about that?
ben3308 wrote:Diary of a Mad Black Woman was actually nominated for an Academy-Award.
I love how this is just ignored.
Posted: Mon, 26th Apr 2010, 10:28pm
Post 45 of 95
Yeah, sorry, I was thinking about Tyler Perry's plays, not the movie. Confusion on my part.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2010, 12:03am
Post 46 of 95
Really loved this. The soundtrack rocked as well. I will be seeing this again.
And yes, Nick Cage rocked.
Posted: Wed, 28th Apr 2010, 8:28pm
Post 47 of 95
Yep. Kickass rocked.
Posted: Thu, 29th Apr 2010, 4:35am
Post 48 of 95
I loved this movie! I really liked the music too. The different renditions of the '28 Days Later' theme and 'The Surface of the Sun' from 'Sunshine' (If I'm not mistaken) were exceptional! Great film! Definitely going to see it again sometime soon.
Posted: Sat, 1st May 2010, 6:56pm
Post 49 of 95
Did anyone else spot Adam being killed by Hit Girl?
Posted: Sat, 1st May 2010, 8:35pm
Post 50 of 95
Yeah, this is a great film. I didn't expect it to be as intense as it was, I thought it would be much more of a joke. The scene where hit girl is rescuing big daddy and kick ass, with the strobe lighting etc, was so epic and amazing, and generally awe inspiring. It was very good indeed.
Posted: Tue, 4th May 2010, 8:35am
Post 51 of 95
Hybrid-Halo wrote:Did anyone else spot Adam being killed by Hit Girl?
I completely forgot that Adam worked on the film - the shoot was so long ago, and I remember dismissing it out of hand at the time due to it starring Nic Cage (I'd recently watched Ghost Rider...).
Ah well, there's another excuse to watch Kick Ass again.
Posted: Tue, 11th May 2010, 12:32pm
Post 52 of 95
Posted: Tue, 11th May 2010, 9:19pm
Post 53 of 95
Just saw this film and it was indeed enjoyable. Filmmakingwise, this is excellently directed, written, produced and made. However, I couldn't help but be a little disturbed by it as well.
It seems perfect for todays generation in it's attitude. A certain "we know it all" wise guy attitude combined with "oh yeah" punch delivering something that is inherently rather questionable. I read a couple of forum comments on the film here, on imdb and on other places and those are very interesting and certainly don't do the argument of "mature teenagers" any favor in most cases. Unfortunately.
Obviously, films have to continuosly raise the stakes. And apparently, today it's totally okay in mainstream cinema for an 11 year old to be as bloody violent as this. It's not that what I find disturbing though, there have been violent movies with children since the media excists. What I do find a bit worrying though is the fact the film is, in it's very nature, aimed at a teen audience, different to other movies.
As a teacher and a filmmaker (who obviously also uses violence in movies) I get confronted with the reality and question of how teenagers deal with the media they come in contact with on a daily basis and Kick Ass kind of personifies what is probably the most difficult: a clearly adult theme in a teenage setting.
However, this has been the case in media for ages and there are lots of studies in all directions. And obviously, I don't believe that movies turn intelligent people into mass murderers. Still, I couldn't help but completely understand why the movies has raised these debates a lot over here.
So yes, an interesting movie experience.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 1:12am
Post 54 of 95
I think you're really pretty far off in your assumption the film is aimed at a teen audience. Or your conclusion that the film industry/generational teens today have any sort of cahoots currently.
Mostly because Kick-Ass is so obviously, from the beginning moments of exceedingly adult, graphic content, a mature movie. The very 'hard R
' nature of the content too, and the adult ratings across the board (right?) would indicate that it is not
a teen movie; rather a movie with teens in it
And Hit Girl is a testament to that. Her inclusion doesn't mean the film is geared towards kids
because she's a kid
. Rather, like The Matrix or Sin City this film exists on the borderline of teen-attracting 'cool/youth factor', but is ultimately created (and intended) for an older audience.
If they were marketing this film as Fantastic Four 2: Rise of The Silver Surfer, I would understand the argument and frustration. But they aren't, and the film's somewhat lackluster sales reflect that it hasn't been sunk into by the mainstream teenage youth audience.
Then we've got the issue of the movie being such a hard gamble to market
. Undoubtedly the surface of the film looks very whimsical and teen-friendly, and there's really no way around this facet when you're editing together trailers or an ad campaign. I think it is, then, great to see that Kick-Ass went in guns blazin', offering and encouraging people to see their unrated and mature-content trailers to understand the really adult
nature of the film.
And let me say this: it is
a very adult film. Complex, graphic, mature, and sometimes hard-to-stomach; Kick-Ass knows what it is and thrives on it. And it's a testament to the depth and resonance of the film that the film's tone, content, and overall persona can't be fully explained or described in the marketing materials or trailers.
I've got teenage siblings, and being in my 20s I'm an audience member right on that young adult 'mature' moviegoing line myself, and I found the movie perfectly acceptable- perhaps even really enjoyable in that 20-something middleground market it finds.
I also tend to think this sort of snarkiness devalues your argument:
places and those are very interesting and certainly don't do the argument of "mature teenagers" any favor in most cases. Unfortunately.
I think there do exist
mature teenagers, and I think that sort of audience is the one that goes to see Kick-Ass as well. And I think that is perfectly acceptable. When I was 14 or so I went to see Kill Bill Volume 1, and as I have expressed on here over the years I, very clearly
, was not ready for it. It shocked me, I reviled it with complete disgust, and left the theater to see School of Rock instead. But you know what- I knew
it wasn't right for me. I was mature enough to accept that I wasn't ready for it, and that was fine. Had I seen Kick-Ass, maybe- perhaps even likely- I would've found the same reaction. But I wouldn't be so ignorant or blinded to think I was this know-it-all adult that could stomach mature content. And even if I did, I can assure you some way into the movie it would've hit me I wasn't ready for it- and I would've completely accepted that.
The problem with some teenagers (although mostly-certainly not all
teenagers) is that they anointed themselves as mature members of society that should be 'allowed' to watch things like Kick-Ass. The rub there, is that these very people who think they are mature teenagers are the exact opposite, and are juvenile in a way that dilutes the very image they're trying to create.
But that doesn't mean mature teenagers, discerning-yet-young audience members, who can enjoy and grow from watching films like Kick-Ass don't exist. I really believe they do; and that it's a product of growing older and anxious of youth to think they don't- and to be bitter about it.
How old were you when you saw T2, for instance, Sollthar? Were you 'too young'? Did you enjoy it? Would you feel angered or frustrated, now, to have someone in your youth lament how such a graphically-violent, language-foul, intense film (which, make no mistake, it completely is
- it's by no means 'kid-friendly') is being watched or geared towards your age when you saw it? Specifically in such a snarky way, too?
Just some food for thought.
With Kick-Ass: I wouldn't want my little brother to see it, no. But he doesn't want to, either. And even myself, weary and wary of the 'Hit Girl' concept from the get-go, wasn't sure. But my naivety was rewarded, and I found the movie completely captivating because of it.
In this regard, I think the film does a very good job. It can't seem to fully describe itself in the trailers or how its geared, but it offers up enough forewarning as to what you're getting yourself into watching it. And, if you feel you're mature enough to enter into that contract- and willing to stomach some parts- you're pretty handsomely rewarded with an incredibly enjoyable, original, and thought-provoking film.
Like any R-rated movie, the rating itself deters (to most extents) the proclivity of youth/teenagers. The rest of the film pretty much speaks for itself. I don't really see how this can be considered aimed at a teen audience.
When films and studios want to aim at a teen audience, they do it
. They don't beat around the bush or furtively strike at the youth. They're very open and obvious: They go for a PG-13 rating, play trailers on youth TV networks, and up-play child-like portions of the film.
The trailers, ratings, and outlets Kick-Ass has displayed itself on, as far as I can see, didn't do this. Intentionally or otherwise.
But again, maybe that's just me.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 1:59am
Post 55 of 95
Sollthar wrote:aimed at a teen audience, different to other movies.
The movie isn't aimed at a teen audience, nor were the comics. It's teens in it, and little kids, and things of a comic book nature; so the uninvolved consumer of media will maybe take it as teen lore and fall into its disturbing world. But that doesn't mean the creators particularly aimed
the story as such. Did they fail to provide enough safeguards to insure that the story remained adult, on all ends, so that kids wouldn't be attracted to it? Probably.
But thematically structuring everything
in an adult sense would occlude the nature of the film and the way in which the story was told. And that wasn't a risk the writers or filmmakers were going to take. And it was bold, and that's why the movie is as good as it is.
Did I know going into Fight Club (which I assumed was a movie about....well, some cool kung fu/fighting club) that its themes would reach deeply into dark areas of society - castration, morbidity, masochism, sadism, sexual deviance, et al - no, not at all. But was the movie better for it? Yes, absolutely. Granted, the film tempered heavily the themes the book conveyed and in a more appropriate, broad manner. The dying girl at the church who propositions everyone in the support group doesn't die while having sex with The Narrator, as she does in the book. Things like this, as in Kick Ass, were conscientiously left out in consideration for a broader audience.
Still, the movie has heavy-handed themes and dark patches and unexpectedly potent, sometimes disturbing characteristics. But that doesn't make it sick or bad or repulsive; purely by virtue of the fact that all those themes help to cultivate the overall greatness of the movie.
This isn't Anti-Christ
we're talking about. It's Kick Ass. It's fun, relatively harmless and it's not meant for kids. Clearly.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 3:01am
Post 56 of 95
ben3308 wrote:This isn't Anti-Christ we're talking about. It's Kick Ass. It's fun, relatively harmless and it's not meant for kids. Clearly.
Have you seen the way it's marketed? It is clearly aimed toward teens, there's no arguing against that. The movie itself
isn't aimed at younger audiences, clearly, but people who haven't seen it yet don't know that. Watch any of the TV spots that have it advertised as being "Superbad meets Kill Bill" with young adults interviewed saying "It Kicks Ass" and tell me that it's not aimed at teens.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 3:03am
Post 57 of 95
Kill Bill, truthfully, wasn't for teens, though. They saw it, but that's not the fault of the creators.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 3:29am
Post 58 of 95
Most teens in 2010 probably don't even know what Kill Bill is. And if they do, they probably haven't seen it, maybe just seen the photographs of Thurman with the sword in the yellow suit. It's somewhat of a cult film, made 7 years ago (teens were talking about are younger teens who subjectively probably shouldn't see the film). And swords and stuff attract teens.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 3:40am
Post 59 of 95
ben3308 wrote:Kill Bill, truthfully, wasn't for teens, though. They saw it, but that's not the fault of the creators.
No sh!t. You could say that Superbad wasn't either, because it's rated R, but you only have to be 17 to see an R rated film, that is still "teen". When I saw Kick Ass, there were a LOT of kids under 17 in the theater. The fact that they use those films as a comparison means they are marketing toward teens. I don't care whether it was the intention of the creators for it to be seen by people over some arbitrary age, the fact is that the marketing suggests it is for young adults and teens. Most people over 35 probably couldn't care less about it. It's young people who are the main market, and I don't see how that is arguable at all.
I highly doubt that many little kids are watching Kick Ass, simply because of the R rating. Most parents are smart enough than to take their kids to see it. But most TEENS (13+) are most likely very attracted to it, and you can't completely fault the marketing for that, because the film itself has cool action and comic booky stuff and high school kids.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 4:13am
Post 60 of 95
I'm just saying, my little brother is 14, about to finish middle school, and none of his friends saw Kick Ass. So maybe, yes, 16 and 17 years old see it, but 'teens' like 13, 14, 15 I don't think are the ones being targeted. Not really.
Likewise, not a whole whole lot of 13 year olds saw Superbad, it was most definitely a juniors/seniors in highschool thing and people older than that. Hence the R rating, because anyone younger wouldn't 'get' half the jokes, I think.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 5:00am
Post 61 of 95
Well sure. It's certainly marketed toward the high-schoolers, but it's not like it's marketed toward little kids. That's what I was saying as well.
As an example, though, I was a freshman in high school when The Matrix came out, I think I was 13 or 14, and I was going crazy to see that movie, and eventually convinced my dad to take me to see it. That movie is definitely not marketed toward young teens, but all of my friends had seen it, and the people who hadn't, wanted to. Maybe it was a different time.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 6:06am
Post 62 of 95
I remember being in 4th grade, and everyone wanted to see Austin Powers. And look at The Hangover, Watchmen, 300, etc. I'm sure kids wanted to see some of those movies. R rated films are usually marketed with adults in mind, which often-time influences what kids want to see.
In my personal opinion, I don't think a film has any impact on the development of a typical 13-year-old. I'd say by 15 or 16 films ability to have an effect on people to a high degree is 99%, steadily decreasing to 99.999 over time (because some people are just susceptible, no way around it. Virginia Tech shootings being a good example of this according to most psychologists). My percentages are obviously an estimate.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 6:13am
Post 63 of 95
I dunno, I remember watching even Borat and thinking "who was this meant for? It seems too depraved for people my age..." even though I enjoyed it.
Likewise, because The Matrix became so culturally/historically significant, and because people predicted that it would be, I think it's a bit different.........more acceptable. Things like V for Vendetta I wouldn't show to a 13-year-old, for instance. Too thematically heavy for someone that age. Likewise, I love movies of all types, and make a point of seeing all mainstream and most independent films released in Austin in theaters; attempting when possible to go to critics or premiere screenings. But when I was 13 and saw Kill Bill, I knew I was too young to see that. And my friend who really enjoyed it when he saw it, well he's super messed up now.
I do think that gives credence to the fact that the messed up people are messed up with or without movies like that at semi-young ages (and 13-15 you still are just a kid). But watching things like that makes it worse, I think.
And yes, that actually means I agree with everyone about kids not seeing Kick Ass. But I think that the marketing isn't trying to perpetuate anything malignant, just that uninformed masses who see 'comic book' think kid-friendly.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 6:25am
Post 64 of 95
ben3308 wrote:And yes, that actually means I agree with everyone about kids not seeing Kick Ass. But I think that the marketing isn't trying to perpetuate anything malignant, just that uninformed masses who see 'comic book' think kid-friendly.
Yeah, this is exactly my point.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 6:44am
Post 65 of 95
I was interested to read this thread. I had refrained from seeing Kick Ass in theatres, as it really had seemed, from the internet material I'd seen, to be a teenager movie. I really liked the idea, but figured I'd wait until I could see it on my home theatre.
Now, from the sounds of it, being past the teenager age by a decade or two, I think I might have really enjoyed it.
Sounds like it was totally mis-marketed, as some people have alluded to. Everything about everything I saw about it, made me think of a teenager movie, it really didn't seem to have a dark or deep side at all.
I'm looking forward to buying it now.
One thing also, seems there is a lot of confusion (even in the USA sometimes it seems) about movie ratings. The USA rating R only requires under 17 year olds to have adult accompaniment. It is NOT an 18 or older restriction at all. The NC-17 is, you have to be 18 or older, period.
This is in contrast with even Canada, where R is indeed ONLY for 18 or older, regardless of accompaniment.
So, a "rated R" move with USA MPAA ratings is misleading, when we normally think that actually means 'restricted' versus 'restricted, except with an "adult" '. There are 17+ allowed alone, and younger people with accompaniment also. Hardly an Adult film rating at all.
Thanks for the heads up all, I'm much more excited about getting this movie.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 6:45am
Post 66 of 95
ben3308 wrote:I'm just saying, my little brother is 14, about to finish middle school.
Atom is 14? That explains a great deal. I kid of course.
I can only say that from the trailers I would definatley want to see this even when I was 12, although I probably shouldn't. That's what the rating is for.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 6:45am
Post 67 of 95
Atom" wrote:I think you're really pretty far off in your assumption the film is aimed at a teen audience.
Seeing it has a main character in it's late teens/early twenties with problems of people maturing (being in school, finding no friends, first love etc), a little kid, comic book hero themes and the trailer made it look as a fun superhero spoof I'd say the the movie is attractive to that very age group.
Basically, ben just said exactly what I meant: that uninformed masses who see 'comic book' think kid-friendly.
My point exactly. Uninformed, middle intelligent people are the mass. They make up the population of this planet.
You deal with the media of film itself, so you have a different perspective in total which 99% of the films audience doesn't have. So you're a bad example and certainly don't represent the majority for many reasons, neither do I.
Kick Ass IS very adult. It's a very adult film dressed in a setup that the uninformed masses will mistake at teenager friendly.
Anyways. I have no doubt the american politic and psychologic situation is different then the one here. But here, the subject of teenagers coming in contact with violent material disguised as friendly entertainment is a rather hot topic - especially nowadays where violence by and among that very age group has risen incredibly and new laws are being made and thought of this very moment. Laws I strongly, incredibly oppose against and find worrying, just as a sidenote.
Maybe mainly because of the current political situation here, the fact I'm politically active in that regard as well and the fact of my background in education and psychology my perspective on the film is towards those points. I find that interesting and it's a difficult and hotly discussed topic even among people who know what they're talking about.
I think there do exist mature teenagers, and I think that sort of audience is the one that goes to see Kick-Ass as well. And I think that is perfectly acceptable.
Oh, I completely agree. I doubt that these mature teenagers are a large percentage, but I don't doubt they exist.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 6:52am
Post 68 of 95
Well, as you explain yourself, which I believe is probably true, the American system of social contracts between explicit content differs from that of Switzerland and other areas- and more to that extent the hot water we get in (or don't get in, in some cases) in exposing youth to that content is likely entirely different as well.
Now, I'm not disagreeing with that or the latter portion of your post either. I just think it's wrong to put it on the purposeful gearing (or even unintentional ignorances) of one group, be it the film itself or teenagers, to be find a reason to be worried or sickened by the movie.
Not for what it represents by itself, but the implications it might have on today's youth. Why? Because every
movie that is seen has implications on youth and almost every
movie is a testament to the time.
But the impressions they leave and the representation of the generations they are created in are not as great, I don't believe, as you may think.
Teenagers aren't a bunch of mindlessly impressionable idiots with no discerning ability on the one hand; and movies with graphic content (no matter how they may be displayed
) aren't easily-accessible to view by younger (even teenage) views either. That's why an R-rating exists and why (at least in almost every theater in the two major U.S. cities I live in
)theater owners and operators so stringently, almost annoyingly enforce ratings and rules. Which makes me need to address this:
ChillyZebra wrote:So, a "rated R" move with USA MPAA ratings is misleading, when we normally think that actually means 'restricted' versus 'restricted, except with an "adult" '. There are 17+ allowed alone, and younger people with accompaniment also. Hardly an Adult film rating at all.
This is (almost) entirely false.
Yes, an R-rating exists to exclude guests under 17- but that doesn't mean it isn't an 'adult' rating. I would consider 17 a decently old age and not much different from 18, although I could see the argument there. However, what you're entirely sideswiping is the social contract and image an 'R-rating' normally has- which is entirely
one of very 'adult' content.
Young teenagers try
to get into R-rated movies, yeah. Note the verb "try
". I tried
to get into Snakes On A Plane just months before my 17th birthday with my friends, but I didn't- because the movie was deemed R-rated and thus 'adult'; and there's a stigma attached to teens who try and get into 'adult' movies. And, even then, most who do (again, in my theaters) are asked to leave and given a refund if caught there- even if they've got a ticket. The system basically works, and isn't misleading at all. 'R' is the rating that excludes the teen audience for better or for worse. If this wasn't true, studios wouldn't try so repetitively to get PG-13 ratings on all their big blockbuster moneymakers instead of R ratings.
This being said, it's very rare NC-17 films come to the public eye because, well, an R-rating can usually do the trick. Kids can't get in under the age of 17, not even with +17 aged friends. That
comment is misleading. To get in with another person, it (usually) has to be a parent and the person must show ID as being over 21 years of age (otherwise known as 'a proper adult'). And this sort of rating I see very, very much enforced.
12-year-old kids don't get into R-rated movies. I see it all the time. Box-office employees don't sell to them and their 17-year-old brother, they only sell if a parent or someone distinguishably older than them is purchasing and consenting to it. And hey, if a parent deems it acceptable- that's another story.
But that doesn't devalue the very adult
nature of an R-rating. It isn't misleading, and it's strictly-enforced and abided by where I live. I don't know about you, but I find it a perfectly apt rule and rating for a movie like Kick-Ass; and I think it brings in the right kind of audience. But again, maybe that's just me.
Back to the Sollthar matter, though, I think there's oversight on either end, but there's also caution and a discerning ability; and I think that often gets lost in the 'oh, look at today's youth!' lamenting. With anyone
, not just you.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 7:24am
Post 69 of 95
I'm not sickened by the movie at all, but it does have a component that somewhat worries me. That's the emotional feeling it left me in and I'm still trying to figure out exactly why that is. Kick Ass is an entertaining film that works of many levels and has some rather questionable and intriguing elements, as I've already stated.
I agree, films are a testament to their time and I do think Kick Ass is perfect for todays time and generation it's aimed at. Just like Fight Club was, which has been mentioned here too.
That's why an R-rating exists and why (at least in almost every theater in the two major U.S. cities I live in) theater owners and operators so stringently, almost annoyingly enforce ratings and rules.
That's not so much the case here plus - we both know in todays interactive time, it's very little of a problem to get your hands on something at any age. That way, much has changed since I was in that age - allthough obviously, we also got our hands on things we probably shouldn't have and I'm still alive today.
The "look at todays youth" lamenting is indeed a rather odd and typical phenomenon that's existed probably since mankind did. It's a fascinating aspect in itself.
And it's rather difficult to confront in our political system here since the naked numbers do indeed show a large increase in violence in that age group. Tough to figure out why exactly this is the case and makes my political and personal position tough to argue for.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 8:35am
Post 70 of 95
It's been said already, but I think it's worth reiterating: just because a story features young characters doesn't mean it's meant for young consumption.
You know, just the same as a story about a serial killer isn't intended for serial killer audiences. A serial killer still might go see the movie and like it, but that's a completely separate issue.
I'd also take issue with some of the disparaging comments about teenagers, which inherently imply that adults are more mature/superior. I'd say that's quite a myth - you get immature and mature people, regardless of their age. There's just as many stupid adults as there are stupid teenagers - perhaps the difference is that teenagers are more engaged with modern communications (particularly the internet), so are more noticeable. Ultimately, both adults and teenagers are perfectly capable of misreading a film.
As for Kick Ass: all of its morally questionable content was entirely deliberate. The film makes issues of them. The character of Hit Girl isn't portrayed as a positive thing - she's quite clearly been brainwashed by her father and the film is critical of that, and the end of her story is being given a chance to be a 'normal little girl'.
Even if young people do see Kick Ass, I don't think it's something to worry about. For all its violence and extreme content, the central moral message of the film is very traditional and positive.
Fight Club was attacked on its release for being anarchical and fascist, mainly because people didn't appreciate its subtleties or even its overall point. I suspect the controversies of Kick Ass will gradually fade over time as people read into the film a little more deeply.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 8:50am
Post 71 of 95
I'd also take issue with some of the disparaging comments about teenagers, which inherently imply that adults are more mature
I presume this is aimed at me, so I'll respond:
It might be a translation problem, but I meant "mature" in the sense of psychologically and neurologically developed. That teenagers are in a different neurological and psychological phase of development then adults is not a matter of opinion or nothing to take issue with, it's a fact. There's not really an inherent "superiority" coming with it, but the way information is processed by the brain of a teenager and an adult is different. That also doesn't state anything about if adults are inherently more intelligent then teenagers. If you got that out of what I wrote, you're putting words into my mouth.
I have no doubt that stating that fact might not be too popular and obviously a touchy subject for some, but I can't help that really.
The character of Hit Girl isn't portrayed as a positive thing
Is that so? You're right, the film has a specific character and scene in it that states Hit girl as a sociopath. But you would honestly argue that the character isn't portrayed as being "cool" and the final scene of the movie, when this so called "normal little girl" is being robbed by two people and beats them isn't going for "cool" again? Have you read any of the comments towards Hit Girl on certain message boards?
Again, I have no doubt that you see through the films construction. You're a clever guy. I have no doubt that many other people, even many young people see through that construction. Different to you though apparently, I have my doubts about how many those people actually are.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 8:56am
Post 72 of 95
Sollthar wrote:I meant "mature" in the sense of psychologically and neurologically developed.
So now it's not merely a matter of gained experience (and perhaps an instinctual habit for using caution in looking at the world) with age to find 'maturity', but actually literal brain development
that limits the palette of discernibility for teenagers?
Last edited Wed, 12th May 2010, 8:57am; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 8:57am
Post 73 of 95
The character of Hit Girl isn't portrayed as a positive thingIs that so? You're right, the film has a specific character and scene in it that states Hit girl as a sociopath. But you would honestly argue that the character isn't portrayed as being "cool" and the final scene of the movie, when this so called "normal little girl" is being robbed by two people and beats them isn't going for "cool" again?
I don't know if I thought it was cool, but I did think it was funny.
The film's operating on many levels, it's not entirely critical and dismissive and it's not entirely approving. I'd say it's presenting a more nuanced picture than that.
In terms of female role models, though, I'd say Hit Girl is vastly better than those presented in many big budget Hollywood movies. Compare to, say, the overly sexualised and utterly pointless Megan Fox in Transformers 2.
Young girls aren't going to see this movie and then go around stabbing, shooting and killing people. That's absurd. What they might take from it, though, if they do see it, is that it's important to stand up for yourself, don't let bullies rule your life, and that you can be just as strong and influential and powerful as any boy.
Have you read any of the comments towards Hit Girl on certain message boards?
No. But again, I don't see that as particularly relevant. Every film can be completely mis-read, or interpreted in alternate ways, especially by random people on the internet. That's the beauty - and danger - of any good art form.
But just because some people miss the point doesn't mean it shouldn't be made, or should be made differently.
I do agree that it shouldn't be marketed inappropriately, though.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 9:02am
Post 74 of 95
Tarn wrote:I do agree that it shouldn't be marketed inappropriately, though.
If you'll look at my remarks above, I myself don't think it was. It's a hard film to market right off the bat; but it also has no reservations about what it is: a graphic, adult film.
Kick-Ass is titled Kick-Ass
for christ sakes. The movie has a level of adult content right there that rules out a much larger amount of teens than you'd think. The essence of the film was captured to a very small degree in the trailers; but captured nonetheless- and I think that's more important than trying to touch on any specific demographic. Teen or otherwise.
And I think the marketing of Kick-Ass knew that. The print ads are esoteric and brutal looking, not cutting edge and flashy. The trailers are more open, but still pretty brutal and obviously show an exercise in excess violence not suitable for young teens.
But maybe that's just me.
Really, my biggest point of it all is that I think there's an unfair lack of faith in the intelligence of today's youth and an over-reliance on snarky assumptions of generational ignorance. That, I dunno, every teenager is stupidly-impressionable, and that the masses don't know how to compute depth or satire or messages beyond the surface.
It may not have proved it at first, but the humongous cult and mass following Fight Club has attracted over the years- increasingly by older teens- shows an intelligent receptiveness to the film's subtleties and satire. On a level not singular to those 'few mature teens'. No, it's pretty much everybody these days in my generation. Everyone in my highschool, everyone in my college, everyone in my workplace- they all love and thrive on the cynicism, satire, wit, and brutality of movies like Fight Club. But that doesn't mean they think it's okay to go beat the shitt outta people. No, they 'get it'. And I think it's wrong, for anyone, to discount that.
People aren't as dumb as any of you may think, I suppose is what I'm trying to say.
Last edited Wed, 12th May 2010, 9:08am; edited 2 times in total.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 9:04am
Post 75 of 95
No, I agree. I didn't encounter any marketing here in the UK that seemed aimed at teens. The film seemed very, very honest about its content right from the start, even releasing that red band Hit Girl trailer that was brutal and sweary.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 9:11am
Post 76 of 95
Young girls aren't going to see this movie and then go around stabbing, shooting and killing people. That's absurd.
I completely agree. I argue exactly the same thing. I do however look at the "it's all utterly and completely 100% harmless" point with the same caution and distance.
Okay, you got me. You all seem to be very sure about what you're saying and apparently know way more then I do about such complicated subjects as neurology and psychology. I don't have a precise opinion of the subject and find it very, very complex even with my background and try to look at it critically and the film has raised many discussions here and I can understand almost every thing I read about it very well from either side. Mostly do. And always I find myself in the cross fire of both sides of an argument and every side amusingly putting me into the basket of the other sides prejudices. Probably the natural result of looking at things the way I do. I am used to it by now.
Let me leave with an all famous "Peace Out" then.
So now it's not merely a matter of gained experience (and perhaps an instinctual habit for using caution in looking at the world) with age to find 'maturity', but actually literal brain development that limits the palette of discernibility for teenagers? Interesting...
Despite the fact I assume destructive sarcasm was the only intent of that remark, if you actually find it interesting, there's a lot of good literature around covering the neurological development of a human being. It is indeed interesting.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 9:31am
Post 77 of 95
Sollthar wrote:Okay, you got me. You all seem to be very sure about what you're saying and apparently know way more then I do about such complicated subjects as neurology and psychology. I don't have a precise opinion of the subject and find it very, very complex even with my background and try to look at it critically and the film has raised many discussions here and I can understand almost every thing I read about it very well from either side. Mostly do. And always I find myself in the cross fire of both sides of an argument and every side amusingly putting me into the basket of the other sides prejudices. Probably the natural result of looking at things the way I do. I am used to it by now.
I think that's mainly down to the attitude and presentation of your initial post. People inevitably respond strongly to a strongly opinionated writing style.
As a neurology and psychology student I'm sure you already know that.
On a different note, what do people think of Kick Ass's Matthew Vaughan and Jane Goldman directing and writing the new X Men movie? At one point Vaughan was going to do X Men 3 - such a shame that never happened.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 10:21am
Post 78 of 95
I wasn't aware of an opinionated attitude. I'm aware of raising controversial points, obviously. But I've not said many of the things that seemed to be argued against me.
You have to excuse if I don't completely ignore things I know very well seeing I have a master in the very subject of how young teenagers psychology and neurology works because it's my job. I'm not in the convenient position to say "I don't have to deal with how teens react to such things".
Make fun of it if you like. Believe you know better if you like. It doesn't change my reality of being in between worlds, not only as a teacher and an artist. I take responsibility very serious, I'm just wired that way.
I do not think teenagers are stupid or irresponsible. I do know however that they react differently to such material then adults (note here that it's not per se an age thing. You don't turn invincible on your 18th birthday and are fragile until that day) and films like this can be difficult.
I can't take every possible viewpoint into account in a forum post, I would write for too long. I also can't easily explain every statements deductive origin (apparently, neurological differences between a 15 an a 30 year old are new to some). Plus the inherent different backgrounds of people posting and the problems of written text in a foreign language.
I tend to forget the reality of an internet forum from time to time. For that I apologize.
The inner conflicts of arguments the teacher inside me, the artist inside me and the normal guy who also well remembers what being a teenager was like me sound similar to the resulting back and forth here. So I understand.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 10:25am
Post 79 of 95
Atom wrote:People aren't as dumb as any of you may think, I suppose is what I'm trying to say.
No, they really, really are. Not in all cases, obviously, but people are very dumb.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 10:29am
Post 80 of 95
Yeah, I agree with Aculag. People are, on the whole, pretty stupid. I tend to think that the advance of the human race is due to the hard work of a small number of people, rather than a general positive movement by the entire species
However, I don't think that's a reason to self-censor art and entertainment. Aim high, not low.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 1:16pm
Post 81 of 95
If you're left feeling uneasy regarding Hit Girls character, good. I had the distinct impression that this kind of feeling is exactly what the character was designed to provoke. The juxtaposition of A childrens TV Theme with extreme violence was kind of, you know, intentional.
I don't believe in the concept of censorship for the sake of the stupid. Fight Club is an excellent example of why, examine the average idiot reaction to that films message compared to those who actually paid attention to it.
I also felt that the marketing for Kickass was totally plain and honest. When a film advert has the word "c**ts" in it being spoken by a little girl, you have to drastically reassess the credibility of any argument being made about Kickass being marketed to minors.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 4:40pm
Post 82 of 95
How is "People are, on the whole, pretty stupid." an okay statement but when I mention that teenagers are less mature then adults then that's something to take issue with and opinionated...? Could you enlighten me there Tarn, I really don't quite follow and I'm very curious to know.
Maybe I just stood into the fanboy effect too much. Noting potential critical things about a thing everyone really loved... Always something that doesn't get you popular. (And yes, I don't like Star Wars either. Take that, Internet!!!!)
I don't believe in the concept of censorship either. I do believe in the concept of responsibility however and it's an interesting dilemma. Obviously, the "art can do whatever it wants, screw potential consequences" approach works well and is fairly easy, hence popular. I just question that as much as the censorship approach. But yes, I also have no easy solution for what is no doubt a more complicated problem then people seem to make it out to be on both sides of the argument. Maybe I just try to aim for a more pedantic and descriptive approach to a subject then people want to. Wouldn't be a first either.
You have to drastically reassess the credibility of any argument being made about Kickass being marketed to minors.
I wasn't saying that the marketing of the film was specifically geared towards teens. What I meant was, that the concept of a teenage guy wanting to be a superhero is a concept that is very likely to attract a teenage crowd an associate itself with a teenage crowd. More likely then, say, something like Antichrist or even Fight Club. At least, that's what I'd assume. But yes, I could obviously be wrong.
Last edited Wed, 12th May 2010, 9:03pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Wed, 12th May 2010, 6:36pm
Post 83 of 95
I tend to agree with both sides of that. A large percentage of the general population is indeed pretty stupid. But stupid or not, your brain's ability to make judgments is highly immature in adolescents.http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm
So a younger teen will not be able to make all the conclusions we are making about Hit Girl. It will be quite a bit more simple than that (and obviously this varies from person to person, etc.) There are just way too many factors to reach a conclusion on how to really handle this. Personally I am highly against the MPAA and the NATO. Parents and adults of the population should be responsible for steering kids in the right direction, and the government should (and already does) try to send positive messages through schools, programs in schools, media, etc.
As Sollthar said, there is plenty of literature out there on the actual neurological development of the brain and it's ability to filter information. My link is just one of the first I found to cite my point.
So in short, I'd say the best way to insure positive development is to just do our best as responsible adults. Express yourself how you want to, but attempting or intentionally spreading negative content to youth is wrong, but I think this represents a very small minority of media and marketing (first thing that jumps to mind, related to judgment, is tobbaco companies releasing strawberry flavored cigarillos and stuff).
Also Atom, off-topic, but you must suck at sneaking.
I agree that R ratings generally keep teens and younger kids away from theater screening though, pretty much proven by historical box office stats.
Posted: Thu, 13th May 2010, 9:51am
Post 84 of 95
Parents and adults of the population should be responsible for steering kids in the right direction
I completely agree. The problem is that most parents are overstrained with that responsibility. Especially when it comes to media they themselves know very little about - it's not per se their fault. It's a difficult task and an immense responsibility. The other thing is that views vary quite a lot in what this "right direction" actually is.
It's also a problem that has no simple "yes" or "no" answers. You don't want to force everything on someone else, you also don't want to let everything happen. And you have to hit the right moment for the right actions otherwise you might get a strong opposed reaction, especially in puberty. Plus, even if you do a good job and the right thing that doesn't mean it has an immediate effect and will be understood as a positive thing.
Education is incredibly hard. And there are so many factors that keep undermining it no matter what you do.
I've often jokingly said that you should need some sort of license to even have a kid because you'd honestly be scared of some things I've experienced in certain schools when it comes to how people chose to deal with their children.
Society is a constant struggle. At the moment, I fear that governments start to interfere into private decisions in a way that goes totally against my understanding of freedom. In some years, it might be punishable by law to eat unhealthy food or not take the most effective route to work. On the other hand, people do indeed do odd things and there are indeed many destructive elements in our society that shouldn't be tolerated.
To me, it's a shame people often take the easy answers and be done with it. I can also understand the heavy weight of actually taking responsibility of ones actions to the full extent. Life is a tough thing I guess.
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2010, 8:24pm
Post 85 of 95
KICKASS TWO HAS OFFICIALLY BENN ANNOUNCED:http://steelcloset.com/2010/05/05/fook-yeah-kick-ass-2-coming-out-in-2012/
I'm sure you'll agree that kickass was a brilliant success and one of my favourite films this year and hopefully the second one will not kill off the great vibes from the first film; it is going to be rather different with a darker/more gritty tone to it. I think that the rumoured name of the villain sums up the next one:http://io9.com/5492741/kick+ass-2s-new-villain-could-be-named-the-cnts
What do you guys think?
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2010, 8:20am
Post 86 of 95
Nice! Particularly interesting, given some of the discussion in this topic, is that they might take Hit Girl in a direction showing her attempting to rebuild her life in a more ordinary manner.
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2010, 5:55pm
Post 87 of 95
Just for all you film/kickass lovers who have a very good ear. During the fight scene (the strobe one) in the warehouse. Do you know what big daddy says? I've narrowed it down to two:
'Now switch to kryptonite' or 'now switch to crippler ahhh' i'm sure it's the first one though.
Then What does he say?
'Now go to Robin's revenge'???
i'm guessing this is a batman reference but is it some sort of tactic used to distract enemies and sneak round the side???
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2010, 10:01pm
Post 88 of 95
Really? I thought he said "Now batter carrot the eyesore", but that could've been just me. That's almost certainly a Veggie Tales reference.
Posted: Fri, 21st May 2010, 10:26pm
Post 89 of 95
"Now switch to krypton light"
The strobing white bulb on the end of the gun, they sell them at gun stores and things like that, and the flashlight company SureFire manufactures the most common ones. Krypton and Xenon are used, commonly, in 'white light' flashlights and things of that sort because they're noble gases.
Posted: Sat, 22nd May 2010, 3:11am
Post 90 of 95
How can the "villain" (singular) be called "the c**ts" (plural)? Does not compute.
ben3308 wrote:the flashlight company SureFire manufactures the most common ones.
So does BlackHawk! Products Group, ©2010, http://blackhawk.comJoke advertisement, those lights are probably out of the budget of an indie filmmaker, don't hate
Posted: Sat, 22nd May 2010, 5:56pm
Post 91 of 95
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2010, 1:31am
Post 92 of 95
Aye, those are the Blackhawks.
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2010, 3:08am
Post 93 of 95
So does BlackHawk! Products Group, ©2010, http://blackhawk.com
ben3308 wrote:the flashlight company SureFire manufactures the most common ones.
I'll take seven.
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2010, 3:09am
Post 94 of 95
Serpent wrote:Aye, those are the Blackhawks.
are the Blackhawks.(Had to)
Posted: Sun, 23rd May 2010, 3:20am
Post 95 of 95
Nope, these are the Blackhawks.
Serpent wrote:Aye, those are the Blackhawks.
Speaking of which, Flyers - Blackhawks is going to be so ridiculously dull. Habs in the finals would've been so frickin' cooler.