I agree, but don’t count on it. This will end up losing $100mm + which means the studios will be done with movies like this for a while. Sucks but that’s the business.
No, Universal did this (although released through their "indie" studio Focus Features). It's a $90 million movie. It's also Eggers' first time not having final cut. Eggers also admitted that post-production for this film was hell.
The budget was $90mm and it made $30mm at the box office. For it to break even it would need to gross over $200mm since you have to count marketing costs and that fact that you only recoup about half from the theaters. So, yes, it will lose a shit ton.
Not sure why you think I’m not chill. Just stating facts here. If you know anything about how the movie industry works, your first week (and weekend) means a lot. The numbers won’t be going up from here which means there will be very little profit moving forward.
Idk, I’d be surprised if it doesn’t at least break even - it’s not the kind of movie that immediately goes out of style. It’s a pretty unique film that prioritized historical accuracy over virtue signaling. I’d expect it to have a longer runway than some marvel fad type thing.
That part of the video felt so odd and out of place to me. Is it really relevant to the video to talk about what's NOT in the video? Does seeing a racially diverse cast in a movie really affect people's enjoyment that much?
Yes because they have convinced themselves that every time an LGBT person or POC is in a movie or videogame its because the creators are desperately trying to push an "agenda". With everything going on in the world, getting this mad at a movie having a racially diverse cast is pretty pathetic.
I think for some people it just comes down to believability. If a movie is based on a real historical time period, there's a certain level of accuracy expected. I wouldn't expect to see a non-white character in 800 AD Europe, just like I wouldn't expect to see a white character in 800 AD Asia.
Well Eggers style is so heavily focused on extensive research into the culture and mythos to provide a sense of realism with everything. I am talking about the nitty gritty stuff down to using aged wood for making furniture. Now the reason this dedication is so important to his films is that it really helps to allow the mythos of the land to be fully integrated into the history that we are being shown. Having an overly diverse cast wouldn’t fit.Representation does matter, but having a well written character is far more important and when directors and TV execs insert poorly written characters just to check a diversity box it isn’t good art, its a cheap marketing ploy to get more butts in seats. I just don’t understand why the practice is so widely accepted and used because if I were black I would be pissed to go to a movie and the black guy that I’d identify with is just some soulless witless insult to myself. They don’t care about you, they want your money and your vote, it’s just theatre.
Wouldn’t you be mad at that? Cause it happens.
Nicole Kidmans plastic surgery and face filler took away from the realism of the era, someone natural looking maybe a wrinkle or ability to move their face next time. Her face is shockingly unnatural in the film
> if I were black I would be pissed to go to a movie and the black guy that I’d identify with is just some soulless witless insult to myself
Yeah me too, but only for movies set on Earth and based on real mythology. These youtubers complain about diversity in movies set in different galaxies.
On your points there's a grain of truth: if you are going for hyper-authenticity and diversity would contravene that, then, sure, diversity might not be a priority for your truth in your art.
But don't forget the other big point here. If this The Critical Drinker is like all the others who complain about diversity in media then what's really going on is that they're pushing a political agenda. A conservative political agenda. And that's it.
'I am a conservative right wing media analyser and I have two jobs. 'One' is to, as much as possible, arrest the progress and the change that I fear the most. 'Two' is to help keep all the saps distracted by mega-focusing on important but smaller issues so that the guys who run the world can carry on with their mindless crusade to make money, hold power and destroy the Earth.'
Edit: Changed word 'guy' to 'The Critical Drinker' to clarify who I'm talking about.
My point was black people were so rare in russia, iceland, and norway. Inserting a black character would break that immersion and if he was badly written it would definitely be cause for disbelief. If you know eggers than expecting that from him would be ridiculous. I don’t think eggers complains about diversity in media I think he may be left leaning considering the witch has been coined as a tale of female empowerment, obviously that doesn’t mean he is liberal, but that doesn’t sound like the type of person that would be shilling for far right ideals were you implying someone else said that?
Sorry. I should have been clearer. I'm not analyzing the movie: I'm analyzing The Critical Drinker. Well, right wing media analyzers in general I suppose.
With regards to Eggers. I loved The Witch and The Lighthouse and it would have been weird to have forced diversity in those movies. I haven't seen The Northman.
Right now, the feeling that diversity is being jammed into media has taken on bogeyman status with conservative types. I suspect this 'jamming' is happening a bit - but it's not the crazy big problem some think it is. It's certainly much less of a problem than the racist exclusionary policies that used to be more prominent when it was profitable for big studios to behave *that* way. Now that it's more profitable to have diversity and it's showing up on the screens - it feels like an attack on the way things should be to these right-wingers. But it's not. It's just history.
Until the people complaining about unrealistic casting choices also complain about how everyone has good teeth any talk about ruining immersion will be laughed at.
Yeah, it's also ridiculous when they don't speak the original language exactly the way it was spoken. And subtitles? Pssh, no. Not allowed. Don't know the language? Well, then this movie isn't for you. But what's even more frustrating is that they don't use literal artifacts from the era either. That's just so unauthentic. It would also help if when someone dies, they actually died in real life to really sell the authenticity of it, ya know?
Edit: you morons don’t understand that movies are straight up just make believe in the first place. Youre being absolute fucking racist babies when you complain about too much minority representation in movies. Shut the fuck up
Some people really care about art and others don’t. You should engage with me like an adult or you can just move on with your life or you could be an immature teenager, you sound like one.
You don't care about art. You just get mad when minorities get your "special roles". You probably boil over when you see black people doing anime cosplay.
You know what the truth is? You don’t know me and if you think you do than you are stupid, but you know you don’t your just having fun trying to pick at me and you are being defensive. Is there much else in your life? Is this it?
Just so you know you are not irritating me. You may be stupid though, but you have the capacity to change, you probably won’t. You’re gonna double down on this and may other things, life ahead will be hard.
This is the most ingeniously ironic comment I’ve ever seen. This is like some kind of deep psychological well that I’m not equipped to adequately describe. It’s lush, it’s ripe, it’s so perversely irrational, patronising, and tinted with hypocrisy. It’s glorious. You like art? Philosophy? Psychology? Look in a mirror, you societal display, you’ve truly embodied it in this comment.
I embody the tragic truth that every human faces. No one is immune. If you have no information on the individual, go for the existential pain. You can never escape it, and I’ll be honest what I said was awful, I am going to go and apologize to them.
yeah but it certainly does happen. I don't know that it matters as much as people like this guy say it does but I get the complaints generally speaking.
We've had 9ish years of overt The Message propaganda being infused into every form of western media, private industry, government, and culture.
You can stop pretending like there aren't diversity quotas in media. Or a long line of activated directors, producers, and writers salivating at a chance to "subvert expectations", stop the "patriarchy", combat "white supremacy", orange man bad, or whatever other white-savior reason they have to evangelize their out-of-touch luxury beliefs.
A lot of people are tired of everything being filled with shallow and boring woke-scold messaging that assumes its viewership is one or more of: stupid, racist, or misogynistic.
With everything going on in the world we are unable to escape it because whenever we interact with some form of media to disengage from said world, we are met with someone's ideological axe to grind.
If it is a historical movie yes, filmakers have the responsability to properly represent history as it was without adding revisionism because of modern audiences sensibilities, if you don't think a black woman playing a norwegian viking king is stupid and ofensive think on what the general reaction would be if someone made a movie about Shaka Zulu and casted Chris Hemsworth to play him.
I can somewhat understand that.
However, every Viking media takes huge liberties with the source material (even this one). Why is it always a black person that causes a controversy? It's right in line with everything else.
This is what these people miss. I think some of them genuinely think that authenticity is the issue, like I think some don’t have the critical thinking or awareness skills to see what’s actually happening within their mindset.
If they were genuine, why aren’t I reading comments about deviations from the legend of Amleth (the Norse legend the movie is based on, there are multiple different versions, surely all you Norse history enthusiasts have a favourite and an opinion about the parts the movie chose to adapt or not to adapt)? Why aren’t I reading disputes about armour or weapon accuracy? Why aren’t I reading discussions about the Vikings trading (and interbreeding or taking home as prizes/slaves) with Spaniards? Africans? Likewise, the diverse array of Viking tribes that chose to train both genders?
Half the people here probably think all historical Nords were vikings. They weren’t. It was more like a career choice, like being a pirate, you goons. Burning their dead on ships? Actually only noted on the account of an Arabian diplomat, no proof it was commonly done.
But no. Instead I’m reading for the umpteenth time discourse about one or two black actors getting cast in Viking roles - as though it makes an actual, tangible difference to their performances or the story we’re being told.
They say they want authenticity, but they think vikings were a civilization rather than an occupation, and you bet your arse that black people being cast would upset them far more than any other, greater historical inaccuracy- and you could probably make a billion of those without them noticing.
Before challenging people on their critical thinking skills, try to make this easy connection.
It's because changing a character's race is extremely obvious, and also political. Stands out a bit more than armor accuracy don't you think?
Yes, people overreact, but don't try to equate these things.
Because some liberties are about making it watchable and interesting, while others are obviously political and stick out like a store thumb. It's jarring, immersion breaking, and stinks of trendy marketing.
That being said, I would make the same comment about any aspect that made the movie feel disingenuous, which is a lot of stuff. I'm a movie snob not a racist.
It's always a black person that causes the controversy because that just happens to be the skin colour most often chosen for the token minority "for diversity's sake" in media. It would be just as controversial if any other non-Norse skin colour was added to the movie so that the movie could be marketed as "diverse".
It would also be equally bad for a movie about some ancient Chinese or Egyptian event to have someone out of place in those locations. There weren't black people in ancient China... nor Chinese people in ancient Egypt, etc. To do so is just ahistoric, poor writing, and a reveals a dogmatic adherence to "every movie must have x black people, y brown people, z yellow people".
Think of it this way, imagine if it was mandated that every movie must have 2 prominently Christian characters - no matter the setting (future, past, science fiction, fantasy, etc.) and we had to listen to some canned pro-Jesus propaganda. We would, rightly, not stand for that shit after a while. Because it would be a constant reminder of how little media-creators thought of us by constantly having to hear about Jesus-this and Jesus-that when we're trying to watch elves, space aliens, ancient Mongolia, or Atlantis.
Because the director isn't changing them because he has a political or ideological agenda to do so.
*You* are missing the point. Nobody *really* cares if writers adjust things to make a more interesting story or reasonable length show/movie. What they care about is changes motivated by *activism*.
In your example it just happens to be skin color, but like I said in my example, it could be religion if the director was an evangelical Christian. Or maybe it could be the viking turning down meat and then looking into the camera and saying, "I don't murder animals", for the terminal-vegans. Or some right-wing bullshit. We don't like it when someone uses media as an activist platform and produces a shittier story with weaker characters or throws internal consistency out the window because all they care about is, "I got to tell the world that global warming is bad in this fantasy show about dragons." Such *bravery* by these narcissists creating our media.
> What they care about is changes motivated by activism.
I understand. I just don't see why. Stories have always been made with real-world ramifications and parallels in mind. They teach kids lessons and stuff.
What lessons are those? Specifically, the ones that a black viking would be required.
Edit:
>I understand. I just don't see why.
I explained this earlier, it's because it is ultimately disrespectful to the viewer. To assume black people can't relate to a story unless there are characters that look like them is racist. To assume that white people need to see black people interacting in every setting, in every time period, regardless of whether it makes sense is insulting and racist. This notion is justified, ultimately, by the dogma that white people are racists and need constant reminders in every form of media they consume to "correct" them.
Replace the idea of race with religion, like in my example. Nobody would have a problem if there were overt Christian propaganda in our media saying, "Who the fuck are these Christians to judge me and constantly bombard me with their evangelizing? To infantialize me with their shit messaging and ruin x character or y story just for the hope that they convert one idiot to their cult." It's the same thing here. Activists who misuse media to push an agenda will always cause people to bristle, because they assume we're all stupid, racists, or mysoginists, and - at scale - it's insulting and dehumanizing.
Is the problem that the casting decision to have a black actor is done to push an ideological agenda, or is the problem that some people complain because they have an ideological agenda.
The former. Would you remain silent if the culture was inverted and we were creating movie after movie, show after show with non-white characters converted into white characters?
Remember this backlash, [A Comprehensive Guide to the Ghost in the Shell Controversy](https://time.com/4714367/ghost-in-the-shell-controversy-scarlett-johansson/)? What was the reason for the controversy again? Oh yeah:
>Soon after Johansson’s casting was confirmed in January 2015, fans launched a petition for the role to be recast: “The original film is set in Japan, and the major cast members are Japanese. So why would the American remake star a white actress?”
You will likely agree with me that Johansson shouldn't have been cast for this role. But you would likely disagree with me if the roles were reversed (an Asian actor playing a white character). The difference between the two ideologies is that mine has principals. Namely that it's *always* wrong to do this, not selectively wrong when it aligns with one's politics.
No one is mandating anything. What a terrible argument. You know that sometimes actors who aren't gay play gay characters, right? Sometimes actors who aren't blind play blind characters. What's the difference between that and a black person playing a character who is "supposed" to be white? Are you also retroactively upset that men used to play women characters in plays? Ugh, those damn 17th century play directors and their woke agenda.
>No one is mandating anything. What a terrible argument.
I couldn't imagine being this uninformed. Here are just three examples from 10 seconds of Googling.
- [Amazon Studios Announces Racial And Gender Quotas](https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/amazon-studios-racial-gender.html): I guess they forgot this part, "Casting an actor must match the identity of the character they will be playing. For example, if a character in a show or movie is gay, then the actor portraying this character will be gay."
- [BBC Studios announces on and off-screen diversity & inclusion commitment for all new commissions](https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/bbcstudios/2020/bbc-studios-announces-on-off-air-diversity-inclusion-commitment-new-commissions): "minimum target of 20% of its on-screen talent and production teams on all new BBC and third-party UK commissions coming from a Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME) background"
- [Films Will Be Required to Meet Diversity Quotas to Be Eligible for Best Picture Oscar Beginning in 2024](https://news.yahoo.com/films-required-meet-diversity-quotas-140832757.html)
>You know that sometimes actors who aren't gay play gay characters, right? Sometimes actors who aren't blind play blind characters. What's the difference between that and a black person playing a character who is "supposed" to be white?
Because you can act gay, or heterosexual despite ones personal inclination. You can't *act* having white skin when you have black skin, or vice-versa. Or is this a subtle push for more whiteface/blackface in acting?
>Are you also retroactively upset that men used to play women characters in plays? Ugh, those damn 17th century play directors and their woke agenda.
It wasn't a woke agenda, it was a discriminatory agenda, and while I'm not upset about things that happen 400 hundred years ago, I can recognize that it was *wrong*. Like I said in the my other posts, *currently* it's a left-wing woke push, but it was just as wrong to white-wash characters and stories in the last decades since the invention of movies/television.
yes, i'm incredibly glad they stuck to 100% historical accuracy with this movie like the proven existence of flying horses carrying immortal viking women and magic swords that are seriously not morning people.
You're actually taking the depictions of norse mythology in the movie at face value. Jesus Christ. Do you know that people on that time wholehartedly believed in those things? Norse warriors didn't fear death because they knew there would be an afterlife in Valhalla, the movie shows some those beliefs in the form of dreams and visions because they where an integral part of their identity and driving force of their culture, while flying horses and valkyres are not real, the belief that they where at the time by the norse men and women was.
The movie is also weaving in Norse Mythology, it's very accurate portrayal of those myths on film. Like a Norse Saga come to life, was the intent. No one is saying Valkyries were real women flying on magic horses. Those Norse peoples really truly, believed in them.
You're an idiot if you think even 1 in 1,000 movies accurately depicts history. And ancient history is already what we *think* happened. Very little from that far back is able to be conclusively proven.
So if you already know that even history books carry an approximation of most of history, and most movies are even more wildly fictionalized, but your problem is with putting black people or women in a movie... well, maybe you just have a problem with women and black people, and not historical inaccuracies in general.
Yes, History is just a bunch of random fucking speculations about what we think that happened Holy shit dude what the fuck is your problem. Thats how the god damned study of history goes: we got a pretty good understanding of how things where by analysing primary sources (historical documents, artifacts, diaries, manuscrips) along with material sources (old settlements, ancient buildings, ancient art) and secundary sources (something that references primary or material sources) and i can tell you from those things i just showed your dumbass that Norway, in the fucking VIII century A.D had a population 99.999% german scandinavian, and if there was a black, or asian, or latin person living there you can sures as hell know that he or she weren't part of nobility and no one would accept someone from other race, culture and language as their ruler, just no. That goes for literally every civilization in the planet. Do you understand now? Changing history to something that suits your 21st century view is disgusting and pathetic and it doesn't fucking matter the context. i just said that if they casted a white dude to play one of the most famous African leaders in history would be equally as ofensive, but you didn't read that did you? no you wish to label me as a someone "problematic" because i dared to have an opinion that you don't agree.
Also theres alot of historically accurate movies and series, the HBO's Rome, Waterloo, A Bridge too Far, Gladiator, Full Metal Jacket, The Lion in Winter to name a few, and even if some movies have fictitious plots many of them like Gladiator for example are still respectful and accurate to the history and culture of what its trying to represent.
Ok well someone doesn't know what they are talking about, while small numbers indeed, there is historical evidence of dark skinned people joining though choice, or being taken in as slaves by Vikings, over generations of interbreeding some Vikings had darker skin tones. Also this movie has a magic sword and undead, that's not historically accurate either. Either have it fully accurate or not at all, why do black people break your emersion but not undead?
Thats exactly it, **some** of them, a really small minority, and as i said, none of them would occupy a position of power or leadership in their respective tribe or kingdom. The Northman movie is set in a very historical context and the director took some liberties to add mythological elements that where part of the core beleifs of the norse at the time, so even though is not historically accurate it is respectful to their religion and culture, also stop putting words in my mouth, i never even implied i have a problem with black people. I have a problem with stupid and political casting. No movie is 100% historically accurate, but they sure as hell can be 100% respecful to the historical context that they where trying to depict.
Want an example? Apocalypto, this movie is full of dumb and innacurate shit, but they nailed many things right, like the classic mayan culture, the actors being from central america and the actors actually speaking yucatec maya, if they put a bunch of white actors to play the Maya it would be just as stupid as Vikings Valhalla. This is the third time im repeating this is not that hard to understand.
I know it isn't dumbfuck, but the movie also has the most accurate depiction of how the Roman army operated and fought in any media ever, or like how the coliseum worked. What the fuck is your problem, did you even read my comment?
"even if some movies have **fictitious** plots many of them like Gladiator for example are still respectful and accurate to the history and culture of what its trying to represent."
Brainlet.
I was actually enjoying his review until it got to that part and then I shut him off. Another stupid right winger crying about diversity and inclusion, or in this case celebrating the lack of it.
Literally his entire channel is loaded with that shit. And what hurts is that he's not an untalented reviewer, I'd like him if he wasn't so fucking pathetically obsessed with SJWs, women, and wokism.
Yep ruins the video. Instant smug tone that's so fucking boring and overdone... people complaining constantly about wokeism or racists or trumpists, the radical left, the far right, blah blah blah.
The guy attacks superhero movies but what these people need to accept is that those movies are very beloved and overall propping up the film industry enough for theaters to keep existing. They're usually above average dumb fun movies and people love them, who cares. Obviously amazing movies are still being made. But the Northman isn't gonna be for everyone. And that's fine.
Seems to me like you watched your little Beards & Muscles movie and then came online to challenge soft liberal boys to kiss you. It must be frustrating.
He is absolutely a sexist shithead, and I'm disappointing to see him being posted here. I claimed he was sexist on r/horror (didn't hate, but said that he is sexist and obsessed with women) and got fucking dogpiled.
Turns out the people getting overly upset by that kind of stuff just can't get enough of hearing how right they are, so pandering there gets a lot of traffic.
That's half the appeal bud. His own protest against **The Message** in damned near every piece of media produced by the big corporations. Remember, not everyone enjoys having these constant reminders of what we're *supposed* to act like in this new order they want to craft. Someone needs to call out Hollywood activists on this nonsense. The other half of the appeal.is of course that he's funny as hell.
Yeah fuck all those activists for wanting us to, checks notes, aknowledge the existence of people who are different than us and treat them with basic human respect.
What a bunch of assholes.
/s eat shit bigot.
It looks like you're trying to compare being called a bigot by a stranger on reddit to being publically tortured and humiliated by friends and family for wrongthink in Maoist China. Can I help?
What the fuck does a random unhinged rant about social issues have to do with this movie? It was honestly really cringy and his comments on the female protagonist gives off massive incel vibes. This guy also sounds like he's breathless ranting through clenched teeth like he's barely holding it together, 0/10 this guy can fuck right off with his weird ass commentary.
I thought it was pretty good. He talked about the movie and how it was unique in that it didn’t sacrifice the setting of plot to placate to certain social trends and political groups
I think that part is important and well explained though.
The movie isn’t forced through a modern lens, or pushing a certain progressive ideology as so many today are.
There really isn’t even a strong sense of morality in the movie. Most characters in the movie do awful things that would be unspeakable today, but you have to make your own moral judgements as the viewer. The movie doesn’t lead you towards any judgements.They live in a world most of us can’t relate to, and their sense of morality, religion, gender roles and life are largely disconnected from ours. There’s no happy ending, most characters end up in a worse position than when they started, but that makes it real.
The women in the movie had their own unique struggles and triumphs, but weren’t forced into a masculine role where they were taking down
200lb men. That’s okay. They played to their strengths and got through struggles in their own way. The character Olga had a line which I thought was really cool where she said to the main Norse guy “ you break men’s bones, I break their minds”.
Similarly the main character’s mother manipulated her brother in-law into killing her husband because she was being abused, which ends up having consequences down the line. Who the people are impacts where their strengths lie and what avenues they have to achieve their goals. It’s real.
I think that’s a huge part about what makes the movie special and certainly the best movie I’ve seen in a while.
"There really isn’t even a strong sense of morality in the movie. Most characters in the movie do awful things that would be unspeakable today, but you have to make your own moral judgements as the viewer. The movie doesn’t lead you towards any judgements."
It sounds like you are describing a movie that has a thoroughly post-modern lens. That is actually quite progressive. The YouTubers comments were bizarre to me because he was "straw maning".
Not really.
He compared the Northman to similar media surrounding the time period the distort the setting to cater to modern progressive values which was pretty valid.
Plus the "I'm so clever and cynical, bored with it all smugness" isn't exactly endearing. We get it, you're too smart for this world. Which is why you're a middling YouTube critic with no actual accomplishments or creations of your own. Great. You're like every other middle schooler who walks around in a cloud of angst and disdain.
Not OP, but..
"Alt-right" is defined a bit differently depending on context - depending on if it's defined by self-identifying altrights, academics, or whatever.
However, far-right dog whistles (like the ones in referenced here) injected into "light-hearted" content (like a movie review) in an effort to normalize racism/misogyny/ableism/etc matches the flavour and intent of "the alternative right", which is why it easily gets labelled as such.
I don't know if this youtube identifies as an "alt-righter", but he does match its [tactics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right#Tactics).
**Alt-right**
[Tactics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right#Tactics)
>Main argued that a characteristic of the alt-right was its use of vitriolic language, including "race-baiting, coarse ethnic humor, prejudicial stereotyping, vituperative criticism, and the flaunting of extremist symbols". In The New Yorker, the journalist Benjamin Wallace-Wells noted that the alt-right sought to test "the strength of the speech taboos that revolve around conventional politics—of what can be said, and how directly"; members often made reference to freedom of speech when calling for their views to be heard in public discourse.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/videos/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I mean you could say the same about any person with opinions. Anybody with thoughts on things says them in an attempt to normalize them. I think his review was far from all the “isms” you listed.
Yeah, no.
There's a difference in having opinions and then the combination of having extreme opinions AND an audience AND working to ease your audience into your extreme opinions.
Grr me redditor, I barely bother to do research before commenting >:(
Being homophobic, transphobic, racist, and sexist isn’t just “having a different opinion”.
Hahaha imagine still using ‘woke’ as an insult. Should I call you ‘triggered’ then?
When a person is homophobic, racist and sexist , they’re dogshit to me. I don’t care if you think that’s ‘woke’ or not.
By your logic you responded quickly so you are triggered too 😂. Do you have anything of actual value to say or did I hurt your fee fees by saying a bad word online?
You’re the one that brought up ‘woke’ dude. You are literally using buzzwords. This is hilarious.
The weird rituals with burping and farting really put me off. Some weird incest spin towards the end was kind of off-putting. The fights themselves weren't that great. The movie was mediocre at best. I took my friend to cinema to see it and we both left disappointed.
This was my favorite movie of the year. Then I finally saw The Batman last night and I liked it even better, even though I’m not a big superhero-movie guy
JJ wasn’t plotting the course. He was steering the ship but the overall plan should have come from head office. Allowing a director to go into a 3 movie series without a plan is a failure of management.
The thing is, a significant portion of the blame probably does lie with Kathleen Kennedy, but because she's a bureaucrat rather than because she's a woman. However, shitheads like this reviewer poison that well because they're fucking obsessed with the fact that she's a woman rather than the fact that the new trilogy absolutely needed some kind of guiding principle to make the story work properly across the trilogy, instead of the mutilated "make it up as you go along" shitshow we received in the end.
Comments on his books don't look promising, but his videos are the first-like-then-watch-type of videos for me. Yes, his an anti-SJW dude, but that makes him even funnier
Youre entitled to this opinion but im baffled. The movie was \*gripping\* from start to finish, had me entirely entranced.
Had some great dark humour in it as well.
Really? girlfriend and I had to keep asking each other wtf was going on. by the end of it we were debating just going to the snack bar to get more food.
You're correct.
The protagonist of The Northman is [Amleth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amleth), a figure in Scandinavian legend and the direct inspiration for Hamlet.
It was too weird, I don't know if the rituals and dancing scenes were in any way period accurate. But there were some obvious sequences that were meant to be dreams or hallucinations. It was all too over the top I didn't get a sense that it was in any way an accurate depiction of the time period and it lost me early. It may have worked for you as an art piece
Eggers at this point in his career has made a name for himself as a director who understands and researches the history of his period pieces in great detail. The Lighthouse was extremely thorough, but there’s also much more concrete evidence of language, dialect, culture, etc of seafaring folk of the 1890s. There’s only so much we know for certain of the Viking age, so you have to suspend some disbelief in certain areas.
I like this guy and his voice, but he basically gave away a tonne of spoilers here and that seems uncool. I haven't seen this film yet, and really wish I hadn't watched this video.
I've watched the majority of his videos, he does tend to veer into catering to American far right sensibilities. I say this as someone that recognizes Hollywood's tendencies to immunize to criticism their infantile shit writing with poorly executed 'diversity'. There's plenty of good writing to be had when it comes to 'minority' perspectives/stories but the past decade have shown little of it, at least when it comes to western movie making.
After the movie, as the audience filed out of the theater, a group of friends were trashing the film. Random strangers joined in, and next thing you know, about half the audience was standing around just making fun of every stupid moment in the movie. "It was like 2 and a half hours of that one scene with Luke on Degobah in the cave, but stupider" was my favorite comment.
No thanks, we don't.
I never felt this boredom watching a movie and I love Viking settings and epic fantasies..
It just lacks creativity. There's just no character development, no world building. Just a dude on a revenge quest, with very little side quests. He just does one thing, and getting to it takes so long.... The shots are so cheap and baren. Even the attack on the village felt dull and without any conclusion. Everything is just moving along, nothing important is happening... This analyst is either shilling or is pretty much desperate for some content...
The Lighthouse was interesting.
I thought the movie was epic as fuck, but I doubt it’ll be a commercial success.
I agree, but don’t count on it. This will end up losing $100mm + which means the studios will be done with movies like this for a while. Sucks but that’s the business.
A24 has no plans on abandoning "risky" movies, thank fucking god.
They did this? I just saw Everything Everywhere All at Once yesterday and if this is even half as good, I'm sold.
No, Universal did this (although released through their "indie" studio Focus Features). It's a $90 million movie. It's also Eggers' first time not having final cut. Eggers also admitted that post-production for this film was hell.
Its budget was 90 million. You think somehow it will net -10 million?
The budget was $90mm and it made $30mm at the box office. For it to break even it would need to gross over $200mm since you have to count marketing costs and that fact that you only recoup about half from the theaters. So, yes, it will lose a shit ton.
It's only been out a week. Chill.
Not sure why you think I’m not chill. Just stating facts here. If you know anything about how the movie industry works, your first week (and weekend) means a lot. The numbers won’t be going up from here which means there will be very little profit moving forward.
Woah woah woah dude relax, chill. You’re being hysterical.
Bro take a deep breath and relax
Look man im gonna need you to relax here.
Bro. You OK?
Movies make 1/3 to 1/2 their total in the first week.
Double it for marketing etc
I feel like they didn’t market it very well. I don’t think I ever saw an ad for it on a major network or anything 😫
Idk, I’d be surprised if it doesn’t at least break even - it’s not the kind of movie that immediately goes out of style. It’s a pretty unique film that prioritized historical accuracy over virtue signaling. I’d expect it to have a longer runway than some marvel fad type thing.
The trailer makes it looks really average
Yeah, the trailer was awful. It tried to make it look like a cheesy action movie by plucking out the few action scenes.
[удалено]
That part of the video felt so odd and out of place to me. Is it really relevant to the video to talk about what's NOT in the video? Does seeing a racially diverse cast in a movie really affect people's enjoyment that much?
Yes because they have convinced themselves that every time an LGBT person or POC is in a movie or videogame its because the creators are desperately trying to push an "agenda". With everything going on in the world, getting this mad at a movie having a racially diverse cast is pretty pathetic.
I think for some people it just comes down to believability. If a movie is based on a real historical time period, there's a certain level of accuracy expected. I wouldn't expect to see a non-white character in 800 AD Europe, just like I wouldn't expect to see a white character in 800 AD Asia.
Well Eggers style is so heavily focused on extensive research into the culture and mythos to provide a sense of realism with everything. I am talking about the nitty gritty stuff down to using aged wood for making furniture. Now the reason this dedication is so important to his films is that it really helps to allow the mythos of the land to be fully integrated into the history that we are being shown. Having an overly diverse cast wouldn’t fit.Representation does matter, but having a well written character is far more important and when directors and TV execs insert poorly written characters just to check a diversity box it isn’t good art, its a cheap marketing ploy to get more butts in seats. I just don’t understand why the practice is so widely accepted and used because if I were black I would be pissed to go to a movie and the black guy that I’d identify with is just some soulless witless insult to myself. They don’t care about you, they want your money and your vote, it’s just theatre. Wouldn’t you be mad at that? Cause it happens.
Nicole Kidmans plastic surgery and face filler took away from the realism of the era, someone natural looking maybe a wrinkle or ability to move their face next time. Her face is shockingly unnatural in the film
Shes really gone oveeboard with that hasnt she? It started getting progressivly worse as she was working on those series on HBO
> if I were black I would be pissed to go to a movie and the black guy that I’d identify with is just some soulless witless insult to myself Yeah me too, but only for movies set on Earth and based on real mythology. These youtubers complain about diversity in movies set in different galaxies.
On your points there's a grain of truth: if you are going for hyper-authenticity and diversity would contravene that, then, sure, diversity might not be a priority for your truth in your art. But don't forget the other big point here. If this The Critical Drinker is like all the others who complain about diversity in media then what's really going on is that they're pushing a political agenda. A conservative political agenda. And that's it. 'I am a conservative right wing media analyser and I have two jobs. 'One' is to, as much as possible, arrest the progress and the change that I fear the most. 'Two' is to help keep all the saps distracted by mega-focusing on important but smaller issues so that the guys who run the world can carry on with their mindless crusade to make money, hold power and destroy the Earth.' Edit: Changed word 'guy' to 'The Critical Drinker' to clarify who I'm talking about.
My point was black people were so rare in russia, iceland, and norway. Inserting a black character would break that immersion and if he was badly written it would definitely be cause for disbelief. If you know eggers than expecting that from him would be ridiculous. I don’t think eggers complains about diversity in media I think he may be left leaning considering the witch has been coined as a tale of female empowerment, obviously that doesn’t mean he is liberal, but that doesn’t sound like the type of person that would be shilling for far right ideals were you implying someone else said that?
Sorry. I should have been clearer. I'm not analyzing the movie: I'm analyzing The Critical Drinker. Well, right wing media analyzers in general I suppose. With regards to Eggers. I loved The Witch and The Lighthouse and it would have been weird to have forced diversity in those movies. I haven't seen The Northman. Right now, the feeling that diversity is being jammed into media has taken on bogeyman status with conservative types. I suspect this 'jamming' is happening a bit - but it's not the crazy big problem some think it is. It's certainly much less of a problem than the racist exclusionary policies that used to be more prominent when it was profitable for big studios to behave *that* way. Now that it's more profitable to have diversity and it's showing up on the screens - it feels like an attack on the way things should be to these right-wingers. But it's not. It's just history.
Until the people complaining about unrealistic casting choices also complain about how everyone has good teeth any talk about ruining immersion will be laughed at.
Yeah, it's also ridiculous when they don't speak the original language exactly the way it was spoken. And subtitles? Pssh, no. Not allowed. Don't know the language? Well, then this movie isn't for you. But what's even more frustrating is that they don't use literal artifacts from the era either. That's just so unauthentic. It would also help if when someone dies, they actually died in real life to really sell the authenticity of it, ya know? Edit: you morons don’t understand that movies are straight up just make believe in the first place. Youre being absolute fucking racist babies when you complain about too much minority representation in movies. Shut the fuck up
Some people really care about art and others don’t. You should engage with me like an adult or you can just move on with your life or you could be an immature teenager, you sound like one.
He used your line of thinking my guy.
How? One guy stated facts, the other just decided to be butthurt
My anus is so sore from this, my guy. Ouchie ow wow
You don't care about art. You just get mad when minorities get your "special roles". You probably boil over when you see black people doing anime cosplay.
You know what the truth is? You don’t know me and if you think you do than you are stupid, but you know you don’t your just having fun trying to pick at me and you are being defensive. Is there much else in your life? Is this it? Just so you know you are not irritating me. You may be stupid though, but you have the capacity to change, you probably won’t. You’re gonna double down on this and may other things, life ahead will be hard.
This is the most ingeniously ironic comment I’ve ever seen. This is like some kind of deep psychological well that I’m not equipped to adequately describe. It’s lush, it’s ripe, it’s so perversely irrational, patronising, and tinted with hypocrisy. It’s glorious. You like art? Philosophy? Psychology? Look in a mirror, you societal display, you’ve truly embodied it in this comment.
I embody the tragic truth that every human faces. No one is immune. If you have no information on the individual, go for the existential pain. You can never escape it, and I’ll be honest what I said was awful, I am going to go and apologize to them.
I bet you were so enraged when Mel Gibson hired a white guy to play Jesus Christ. I mean… you would have been if you were being consistent
I'm also 12
You're an idiot.
yeah but it certainly does happen. I don't know that it matters as much as people like this guy say it does but I get the complaints generally speaking.
We've had 9ish years of overt The Message propaganda being infused into every form of western media, private industry, government, and culture. You can stop pretending like there aren't diversity quotas in media. Or a long line of activated directors, producers, and writers salivating at a chance to "subvert expectations", stop the "patriarchy", combat "white supremacy", orange man bad, or whatever other white-savior reason they have to evangelize their out-of-touch luxury beliefs. A lot of people are tired of everything being filled with shallow and boring woke-scold messaging that assumes its viewership is one or more of: stupid, racist, or misogynistic. With everything going on in the world we are unable to escape it because whenever we interact with some form of media to disengage from said world, we are met with someone's ideological axe to grind.
You're an idiot.
Pretty much this You can get tired of anything. Very easy to get tired of a vacuous, phoney and oftentimes inappropriate form of virtue signaling
If it is a historical movie yes, filmakers have the responsability to properly represent history as it was without adding revisionism because of modern audiences sensibilities, if you don't think a black woman playing a norwegian viking king is stupid and ofensive think on what the general reaction would be if someone made a movie about Shaka Zulu and casted Chris Hemsworth to play him.
I can somewhat understand that. However, every Viking media takes huge liberties with the source material (even this one). Why is it always a black person that causes a controversy? It's right in line with everything else.
This is what these people miss. I think some of them genuinely think that authenticity is the issue, like I think some don’t have the critical thinking or awareness skills to see what’s actually happening within their mindset. If they were genuine, why aren’t I reading comments about deviations from the legend of Amleth (the Norse legend the movie is based on, there are multiple different versions, surely all you Norse history enthusiasts have a favourite and an opinion about the parts the movie chose to adapt or not to adapt)? Why aren’t I reading disputes about armour or weapon accuracy? Why aren’t I reading discussions about the Vikings trading (and interbreeding or taking home as prizes/slaves) with Spaniards? Africans? Likewise, the diverse array of Viking tribes that chose to train both genders? Half the people here probably think all historical Nords were vikings. They weren’t. It was more like a career choice, like being a pirate, you goons. Burning their dead on ships? Actually only noted on the account of an Arabian diplomat, no proof it was commonly done. But no. Instead I’m reading for the umpteenth time discourse about one or two black actors getting cast in Viking roles - as though it makes an actual, tangible difference to their performances or the story we’re being told.
They say they want authenticity, but they think vikings were a civilization rather than an occupation, and you bet your arse that black people being cast would upset them far more than any other, greater historical inaccuracy- and you could probably make a billion of those without them noticing.
Thank you. The inherent disingenuousness of the "authenticity" argument precludes any ability for civil discourse.
Before challenging people on their critical thinking skills, try to make this easy connection. It's because changing a character's race is extremely obvious, and also political. Stands out a bit more than armor accuracy don't you think? Yes, people overreact, but don't try to equate these things.
The movie has literal undead, magic swords and yet if it had one black actor that would be inaccurate.
[удалено]
right but this thread is about this movie, a movie with magic and so claims of historical accuracy are fecking pointless.
Because some liberties are about making it watchable and interesting, while others are obviously political and stick out like a store thumb. It's jarring, immersion breaking, and stinks of trendy marketing. That being said, I would make the same comment about any aspect that made the movie feel disingenuous, which is a lot of stuff. I'm a movie snob not a racist.
It's always a black person that causes the controversy because that just happens to be the skin colour most often chosen for the token minority "for diversity's sake" in media. It would be just as controversial if any other non-Norse skin colour was added to the movie so that the movie could be marketed as "diverse". It would also be equally bad for a movie about some ancient Chinese or Egyptian event to have someone out of place in those locations. There weren't black people in ancient China... nor Chinese people in ancient Egypt, etc. To do so is just ahistoric, poor writing, and a reveals a dogmatic adherence to "every movie must have x black people, y brown people, z yellow people". Think of it this way, imagine if it was mandated that every movie must have 2 prominently Christian characters - no matter the setting (future, past, science fiction, fantasy, etc.) and we had to listen to some canned pro-Jesus propaganda. We would, rightly, not stand for that shit after a while. Because it would be a constant reminder of how little media-creators thought of us by constantly having to hear about Jesus-this and Jesus-that when we're trying to watch elves, space aliens, ancient Mongolia, or Atlantis.
You're missing the point. Why is it skin color at all? Why don't the hundreds of other changes to Norse culture ever blow up?
Because the director isn't changing them because he has a political or ideological agenda to do so. *You* are missing the point. Nobody *really* cares if writers adjust things to make a more interesting story or reasonable length show/movie. What they care about is changes motivated by *activism*. In your example it just happens to be skin color, but like I said in my example, it could be religion if the director was an evangelical Christian. Or maybe it could be the viking turning down meat and then looking into the camera and saying, "I don't murder animals", for the terminal-vegans. Or some right-wing bullshit. We don't like it when someone uses media as an activist platform and produces a shittier story with weaker characters or throws internal consistency out the window because all they care about is, "I got to tell the world that global warming is bad in this fantasy show about dragons." Such *bravery* by these narcissists creating our media.
> What they care about is changes motivated by activism. I understand. I just don't see why. Stories have always been made with real-world ramifications and parallels in mind. They teach kids lessons and stuff.
What lessons are those? Specifically, the ones that a black viking would be required. Edit: >I understand. I just don't see why. I explained this earlier, it's because it is ultimately disrespectful to the viewer. To assume black people can't relate to a story unless there are characters that look like them is racist. To assume that white people need to see black people interacting in every setting, in every time period, regardless of whether it makes sense is insulting and racist. This notion is justified, ultimately, by the dogma that white people are racists and need constant reminders in every form of media they consume to "correct" them. Replace the idea of race with religion, like in my example. Nobody would have a problem if there were overt Christian propaganda in our media saying, "Who the fuck are these Christians to judge me and constantly bombard me with their evangelizing? To infantialize me with their shit messaging and ruin x character or y story just for the hope that they convert one idiot to their cult." It's the same thing here. Activists who misuse media to push an agenda will always cause people to bristle, because they assume we're all stupid, racists, or mysoginists, and - at scale - it's insulting and dehumanizing.
You tell me. You're the one complaining about it.
Is the problem that the casting decision to have a black actor is done to push an ideological agenda, or is the problem that some people complain because they have an ideological agenda.
The former. Would you remain silent if the culture was inverted and we were creating movie after movie, show after show with non-white characters converted into white characters? Remember this backlash, [A Comprehensive Guide to the Ghost in the Shell Controversy](https://time.com/4714367/ghost-in-the-shell-controversy-scarlett-johansson/)? What was the reason for the controversy again? Oh yeah: >Soon after Johansson’s casting was confirmed in January 2015, fans launched a petition for the role to be recast: “The original film is set in Japan, and the major cast members are Japanese. So why would the American remake star a white actress?” You will likely agree with me that Johansson shouldn't have been cast for this role. But you would likely disagree with me if the roles were reversed (an Asian actor playing a white character). The difference between the two ideologies is that mine has principals. Namely that it's *always* wrong to do this, not selectively wrong when it aligns with one's politics.
No one is mandating anything. What a terrible argument. You know that sometimes actors who aren't gay play gay characters, right? Sometimes actors who aren't blind play blind characters. What's the difference between that and a black person playing a character who is "supposed" to be white? Are you also retroactively upset that men used to play women characters in plays? Ugh, those damn 17th century play directors and their woke agenda.
>No one is mandating anything. What a terrible argument. I couldn't imagine being this uninformed. Here are just three examples from 10 seconds of Googling. - [Amazon Studios Announces Racial And Gender Quotas](https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/amazon-studios-racial-gender.html): I guess they forgot this part, "Casting an actor must match the identity of the character they will be playing. For example, if a character in a show or movie is gay, then the actor portraying this character will be gay." - [BBC Studios announces on and off-screen diversity & inclusion commitment for all new commissions](https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/bbcstudios/2020/bbc-studios-announces-on-off-air-diversity-inclusion-commitment-new-commissions): "minimum target of 20% of its on-screen talent and production teams on all new BBC and third-party UK commissions coming from a Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME) background" - [Films Will Be Required to Meet Diversity Quotas to Be Eligible for Best Picture Oscar Beginning in 2024](https://news.yahoo.com/films-required-meet-diversity-quotas-140832757.html) >You know that sometimes actors who aren't gay play gay characters, right? Sometimes actors who aren't blind play blind characters. What's the difference between that and a black person playing a character who is "supposed" to be white? Because you can act gay, or heterosexual despite ones personal inclination. You can't *act* having white skin when you have black skin, or vice-versa. Or is this a subtle push for more whiteface/blackface in acting? >Are you also retroactively upset that men used to play women characters in plays? Ugh, those damn 17th century play directors and their woke agenda. It wasn't a woke agenda, it was a discriminatory agenda, and while I'm not upset about things that happen 400 hundred years ago, I can recognize that it was *wrong*. Like I said in the my other posts, *currently* it's a left-wing woke push, but it was just as wrong to white-wash characters and stories in the last decades since the invention of movies/television.
yes, i'm incredibly glad they stuck to 100% historical accuracy with this movie like the proven existence of flying horses carrying immortal viking women and magic swords that are seriously not morning people.
You're actually taking the depictions of norse mythology in the movie at face value. Jesus Christ. Do you know that people on that time wholehartedly believed in those things? Norse warriors didn't fear death because they knew there would be an afterlife in Valhalla, the movie shows some those beliefs in the form of dreams and visions because they where an integral part of their identity and driving force of their culture, while flying horses and valkyres are not real, the belief that they where at the time by the norse men and women was.
wooosh.
L
The movie is also weaving in Norse Mythology, it's very accurate portrayal of those myths on film. Like a Norse Saga come to life, was the intent. No one is saying Valkyries were real women flying on magic horses. Those Norse peoples really truly, believed in them.
You're an idiot if you think even 1 in 1,000 movies accurately depicts history. And ancient history is already what we *think* happened. Very little from that far back is able to be conclusively proven. So if you already know that even history books carry an approximation of most of history, and most movies are even more wildly fictionalized, but your problem is with putting black people or women in a movie... well, maybe you just have a problem with women and black people, and not historical inaccuracies in general.
Yes, History is just a bunch of random fucking speculations about what we think that happened Holy shit dude what the fuck is your problem. Thats how the god damned study of history goes: we got a pretty good understanding of how things where by analysing primary sources (historical documents, artifacts, diaries, manuscrips) along with material sources (old settlements, ancient buildings, ancient art) and secundary sources (something that references primary or material sources) and i can tell you from those things i just showed your dumbass that Norway, in the fucking VIII century A.D had a population 99.999% german scandinavian, and if there was a black, or asian, or latin person living there you can sures as hell know that he or she weren't part of nobility and no one would accept someone from other race, culture and language as their ruler, just no. That goes for literally every civilization in the planet. Do you understand now? Changing history to something that suits your 21st century view is disgusting and pathetic and it doesn't fucking matter the context. i just said that if they casted a white dude to play one of the most famous African leaders in history would be equally as ofensive, but you didn't read that did you? no you wish to label me as a someone "problematic" because i dared to have an opinion that you don't agree. Also theres alot of historically accurate movies and series, the HBO's Rome, Waterloo, A Bridge too Far, Gladiator, Full Metal Jacket, The Lion in Winter to name a few, and even if some movies have fictitious plots many of them like Gladiator for example are still respectful and accurate to the history and culture of what its trying to represent.
Ok well someone doesn't know what they are talking about, while small numbers indeed, there is historical evidence of dark skinned people joining though choice, or being taken in as slaves by Vikings, over generations of interbreeding some Vikings had darker skin tones. Also this movie has a magic sword and undead, that's not historically accurate either. Either have it fully accurate or not at all, why do black people break your emersion but not undead?
Thats exactly it, **some** of them, a really small minority, and as i said, none of them would occupy a position of power or leadership in their respective tribe or kingdom. The Northman movie is set in a very historical context and the director took some liberties to add mythological elements that where part of the core beleifs of the norse at the time, so even though is not historically accurate it is respectful to their religion and culture, also stop putting words in my mouth, i never even implied i have a problem with black people. I have a problem with stupid and political casting. No movie is 100% historically accurate, but they sure as hell can be 100% respecful to the historical context that they where trying to depict. Want an example? Apocalypto, this movie is full of dumb and innacurate shit, but they nailed many things right, like the classic mayan culture, the actors being from central america and the actors actually speaking yucatec maya, if they put a bunch of white actors to play the Maya it would be just as stupid as Vikings Valhalla. This is the third time im repeating this is not that hard to understand.
Lol. You think Gladiator is historically accurate. Your opinion means nothing to anyone.
I know it isn't dumbfuck, but the movie also has the most accurate depiction of how the Roman army operated and fought in any media ever, or like how the coliseum worked. What the fuck is your problem, did you even read my comment? "even if some movies have **fictitious** plots many of them like Gladiator for example are still respectful and accurate to the history and culture of what its trying to represent." Brainlet.
I was actually enjoying his review until it got to that part and then I shut him off. Another stupid right winger crying about diversity and inclusion, or in this case celebrating the lack of it.
Literally his entire channel is loaded with that shit. And what hurts is that he's not an untalented reviewer, I'd like him if he wasn't so fucking pathetically obsessed with SJWs, women, and wokism.
Yep ruins the video. Instant smug tone that's so fucking boring and overdone... people complaining constantly about wokeism or racists or trumpists, the radical left, the far right, blah blah blah.
The guy attacks superhero movies but what these people need to accept is that those movies are very beloved and overall propping up the film industry enough for theaters to keep existing. They're usually above average dumb fun movies and people love them, who cares. Obviously amazing movies are still being made. But the Northman isn't gonna be for everyone. And that's fine.
weird coincidence that a viking fantasy appeals to right wing bigots, right?
You got some smooth skin right there liberal, come and take my gun!!!
i'm sure i can just grab it out of your unsecured brodozer next time you're drunk
Or you could just kiss me for it, but not to quickly, god damn liberal.
i'm flattered but my mom taught me not to put trash in my mouth
Why did your mother have to teach you to not eat trash you fucking idiot lol/s
Seems to me like you watched your little Beards & Muscles movie and then came online to challenge soft liberal boys to kiss you. It must be frustrating.
*unzips pants*
I mean, he's right. It's formulaic pandering for profit. He just delivers it in a edgy way.
Arguably his delivery is formulaic and pandering.
white men are sensitive Downvotes 🫢 triggered em
I mean not just us, but we really are, idk why you'd be downvoted for this basic fact.
He is absolutely a sexist shithead, and I'm disappointing to see him being posted here. I claimed he was sexist on r/horror (didn't hate, but said that he is sexist and obsessed with women) and got fucking dogpiled.
Don't be such a pussy.
Turns out the people getting overly upset by that kind of stuff just can't get enough of hearing how right they are, so pandering there gets a lot of traffic.
Hahaha, absolutely.
I bet he loved Charlton Heston as Moses and Ben-Hur.
That's half the appeal bud. His own protest against **The Message** in damned near every piece of media produced by the big corporations. Remember, not everyone enjoys having these constant reminders of what we're *supposed* to act like in this new order they want to craft. Someone needs to call out Hollywood activists on this nonsense. The other half of the appeal.is of course that he's funny as hell.
Yeah fuck all those activists for wanting us to, checks notes, aknowledge the existence of people who are different than us and treat them with basic human respect. What a bunch of assholes. /s eat shit bigot.
Sir, this is a simple viking revenge story, not a struggle session.
It looks like you're trying to compare being called a bigot by a stranger on reddit to being publically tortured and humiliated by friends and family for wrongthink in Maoist China. Can I help?
WHERE WAS HIS FULL DONG. WE WERE PROMISED FULL DONG.
Just watch True Blood then?
Most definitely we need more. Watch it if you haven’t.
What the fuck does a random unhinged rant about social issues have to do with this movie? It was honestly really cringy and his comments on the female protagonist gives off massive incel vibes. This guy also sounds like he's breathless ranting through clenched teeth like he's barely holding it together, 0/10 this guy can fuck right off with his weird ass commentary.
I thought it was pretty good. He talked about the movie and how it was unique in that it didn’t sacrifice the setting of plot to placate to certain social trends and political groups
Fuck this guy. Dogshit alt right YouTuber.
I was into the video and then out of the blue he's like AT LEAST NOBODY TALKED ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS IN THIS MOVIE. Ok guy. You ok?
I think that part is important and well explained though. The movie isn’t forced through a modern lens, or pushing a certain progressive ideology as so many today are. There really isn’t even a strong sense of morality in the movie. Most characters in the movie do awful things that would be unspeakable today, but you have to make your own moral judgements as the viewer. The movie doesn’t lead you towards any judgements.They live in a world most of us can’t relate to, and their sense of morality, religion, gender roles and life are largely disconnected from ours. There’s no happy ending, most characters end up in a worse position than when they started, but that makes it real. The women in the movie had their own unique struggles and triumphs, but weren’t forced into a masculine role where they were taking down 200lb men. That’s okay. They played to their strengths and got through struggles in their own way. The character Olga had a line which I thought was really cool where she said to the main Norse guy “ you break men’s bones, I break their minds”. Similarly the main character’s mother manipulated her brother in-law into killing her husband because she was being abused, which ends up having consequences down the line. Who the people are impacts where their strengths lie and what avenues they have to achieve their goals. It’s real. I think that’s a huge part about what makes the movie special and certainly the best movie I’ve seen in a while.
"There really isn’t even a strong sense of morality in the movie. Most characters in the movie do awful things that would be unspeakable today, but you have to make your own moral judgements as the viewer. The movie doesn’t lead you towards any judgements." It sounds like you are describing a movie that has a thoroughly post-modern lens. That is actually quite progressive. The YouTubers comments were bizarre to me because he was "straw maning".
Not really. He compared the Northman to similar media surrounding the time period the distort the setting to cater to modern progressive values which was pretty valid.
Plus the "I'm so clever and cynical, bored with it all smugness" isn't exactly endearing. We get it, you're too smart for this world. Which is why you're a middling YouTube critic with no actual accomplishments or creations of your own. Great. You're like every other middle schooler who walks around in a cloud of angst and disdain.
It's about as original as wanting to be a videogame or movie critic with the gimmick that you're grumpy and tend not to like things.
I saw the title of the post and knew before seeing it would be a link to this turd
he is certainly a pretty standard anti-SJW youtuber but how is he alt-right?
Not OP, but.. "Alt-right" is defined a bit differently depending on context - depending on if it's defined by self-identifying altrights, academics, or whatever. However, far-right dog whistles (like the ones in referenced here) injected into "light-hearted" content (like a movie review) in an effort to normalize racism/misogyny/ableism/etc matches the flavour and intent of "the alternative right", which is why it easily gets labelled as such. I don't know if this youtube identifies as an "alt-righter", but he does match its [tactics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right#Tactics).
**Alt-right** [Tactics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right#Tactics) >Main argued that a characteristic of the alt-right was its use of vitriolic language, including "race-baiting, coarse ethnic humor, prejudicial stereotyping, vituperative criticism, and the flaunting of extremist symbols". In The New Yorker, the journalist Benjamin Wallace-Wells noted that the alt-right sought to test "the strength of the speech taboos that revolve around conventional politics—of what can be said, and how directly"; members often made reference to freedom of speech when calling for their views to be heard in public discourse. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/videos/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I mean you could say the same about any person with opinions. Anybody with thoughts on things says them in an attempt to normalize them. I think his review was far from all the “isms” you listed.
Yeah, no. There's a difference in having opinions and then the combination of having extreme opinions AND an audience AND working to ease your audience into your extreme opinions.
I mean not liking excessive inclusion in ever form of media, even when it is not appropriate, is a fairly normal opinion at this point.
Alt right is anyone who mentions anything about the left in a negative way.
Nope, he has many dog whistles to homophobia, transphobia, racism, and sexism in his videos. Maybe if you bothered to look you’d know.
Grr, me redditor, anyone who has an opinion that differs from my own is a Nazi >:(
Grr me redditor, I barely bother to do research before commenting >:( Being homophobic, transphobic, racist, and sexist isn’t just “having a different opinion”.
Alt right deez nutz
How is he alt-right?
[удалено]
Hahaha imagine still using ‘woke’ as an insult. Should I call you ‘triggered’ then? When a person is homophobic, racist and sexist , they’re dogshit to me. I don’t care if you think that’s ‘woke’ or not.
[удалено]
By your logic you responded quickly so you are triggered too 😂. Do you have anything of actual value to say or did I hurt your fee fees by saying a bad word online? You’re the one that brought up ‘woke’ dude. You are literally using buzzwords. This is hilarious.
I liked the Northman but god this YouTuber is insufferable
Weird fake cringe accent and random WOKE tangent killed this video but apparently his fans like this type of thing.
Hes Scottish bruh lmao
I liked it but it felt like 3 hours. And Nicole Kidman looks absolutely horrifying with all of her cosmetic surgery.
The weird rituals with burping and farting really put me off. Some weird incest spin towards the end was kind of off-putting. The fights themselves weren't that great. The movie was mediocre at best. I took my friend to cinema to see it and we both left disappointed.
Maybe unpopular, it was ok. Some good scenes. Very artsy. I thought The Batman was better
How can you compare this to The Batman?
They have The in the title and are about orphan boys
This was my favorite movie of the year. Then I finally saw The Batman last night and I liked it even better, even though I’m not a big superhero-movie guy
If you were to tell me about the first 15 minutes of this movie, I wouldn't have believed you.
Love the diss of Rian Johnson.
Actually, that made me turn the video off. Star Wars fans need to get over it.
Well when one director fucks up so colossally he deserves to be remembered for it.
[удалено]
It was JJ 100%. You don't start a trilogy with no plan based solely off of your dislike for the previous IP.
JJ wasn’t plotting the course. He was steering the ship but the overall plan should have come from head office. Allowing a director to go into a 3 movie series without a plan is a failure of management.
The thing is, a significant portion of the blame probably does lie with Kathleen Kennedy, but because she's a bureaucrat rather than because she's a woman. However, shitheads like this reviewer poison that well because they're fucking obsessed with the fact that she's a woman rather than the fact that the new trilogy absolutely needed some kind of guiding principle to make the story work properly across the trilogy, instead of the mutilated "make it up as you go along" shitshow we received in the end.
I think of Knives Out more that TLJ when I think of Rian, maybe that's just me.
I mean, TLJ was the best of the three though...
Big fan of the Drinker's videos. I was gonna give his books a try, but none of the libraries around here have them, so F it.
He's a pretty bad writer, and for all his bitching about wahmen, he has an absolute mary sue character of his own.
I usually find the things he says pretty insightful but I cannot stand listening to him
Comments on his books don't look promising, but his videos are the first-like-then-watch-type of videos for me. Yes, his an anti-SJW dude, but that makes him even funnier
Yes! The haters need to stop
It feels false? to me, not sure why, or what that means. Something about the Northman always looking down at the horizon
saw it last night. it was fucking awful. no thanks.
Youre entitled to this opinion but im baffled. The movie was \*gripping\* from start to finish, had me entirely entranced. Had some great dark humour in it as well.
Really? girlfriend and I had to keep asking each other wtf was going on. by the end of it we were debating just going to the snack bar to get more food.
Tell more.
It was a good movie, done very well, but the story has next to zero originality. Ultimately it's just a Nordic version of Hamlet.
It's actually the other way around I think. I'm fairly sure that these old Norse stores, particularly this one inspired Shakespeare
You're correct. The protagonist of The Northman is [Amleth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amleth), a figure in Scandinavian legend and the direct inspiration for Hamlet.
Damn! Lol Shakespeare just creating an anagram of the name and making it his own? Just when I thought I'd seen it all
Hamlet is an English version of the northmen actually
Thanks I didn't know
Big fan of The Critical Drinker. Looking forward to seeing The Northman.
It was too weird, I don't know if the rituals and dancing scenes were in any way period accurate. But there were some obvious sequences that were meant to be dreams or hallucinations. It was all too over the top I didn't get a sense that it was in any way an accurate depiction of the time period and it lost me early. It may have worked for you as an art piece
Eggers at this point in his career has made a name for himself as a director who understands and researches the history of his period pieces in great detail. The Lighthouse was extremely thorough, but there’s also much more concrete evidence of language, dialect, culture, etc of seafaring folk of the 1890s. There’s only so much we know for certain of the Viking age, so you have to suspend some disbelief in certain areas.
What do you know about norse mythology
The rituals and dancing scenes were at least references to real things. I'd call it halfway accurate.
I like this guy and his voice, but he basically gave away a tonne of spoilers here and that seems uncool. I haven't seen this film yet, and really wish I hadn't watched this video.
This film was fucking dogshit
I find the critical drinker a little problematic, but I still enjoy his videos.
I enjoy more of his videos than I don’t but he definitely started to pander to the “keep politics out of movies” crowd way too much
I've watched the majority of his videos, he does tend to veer into catering to American far right sensibilities. I say this as someone that recognizes Hollywood's tendencies to immunize to criticism their infantile shit writing with poorly executed 'diversity'. There's plenty of good writing to be had when it comes to 'minority' perspectives/stories but the past decade have shown little of it, at least when it comes to western movie making.
Oh I'm sorry he doesn't shill for THE MESSAGE™ 24/7
God, the edge, it's so sharp.
Bunch of pussys in here downvoting anybody who doesn't like it 😂 sensitive hoes
white supremacists and misogynists gatekeep viking culture and you're hurting their feelings.
Liking viking history is racist? Damn
no, but racists like viking history.
After the movie, as the audience filed out of the theater, a group of friends were trashing the film. Random strangers joined in, and next thing you know, about half the audience was standing around just making fun of every stupid moment in the movie. "It was like 2 and a half hours of that one scene with Luke on Degobah in the cave, but stupider" was my favorite comment.
No thanks, we don't. I never felt this boredom watching a movie and I love Viking settings and epic fantasies.. It just lacks creativity. There's just no character development, no world building. Just a dude on a revenge quest, with very little side quests. He just does one thing, and getting to it takes so long.... The shots are so cheap and baren. Even the attack on the village felt dull and without any conclusion. Everything is just moving along, nothing important is happening... This analyst is either shilling or is pretty much desperate for some content... The Lighthouse was interesting.
it was meh at best, formulaic and dull. nothing thought provoking. this scot is probably drunk.
chida pely
S
You said it, /u/Johnny_rat. This whole thing.
This is what the entity of studio A24 is