Coppala's "Little Fat Girl in Ohio That Brings Down the Movie Business and Turns it into Art" is Kung Fury

[Oliver Daniel]

You and I evaluate art very differently.

I don't care how much fun he had making it. I don't care about his vision, his heart, any of that.

I care about what he has to say. I found absolutely nothing at all.

Mike Judge can take a bunch of dumb ideas and make a true satire. David Sandberg can take dumb ideas and make a VFX show.

​

That's the issue right there, subjectivity. 

Before I watched Kung Fury, I wasn't expecting a film where he has something profound to say about the world. I don't think anybody should be. 

I watched the film because I wanted to see a Kung Fu cop beat people up, shoot cars into the air, pick up a tank, throw it on someone and kill lots of Nazi's. All in a different way than I'm used to. 

I also watched Ex Machina two days ago and quite enjoyed it. Although it said all the usual intriguing stuff regarding the responsibility of creating powerful A.I, I found it less entertaining than Kung Fury. Sometimes it doesn't matter how much a film wants to say, sometimes I don't really care. Sometimes I'd rather see a cobra bitten superhuman stand on a car in mid-air and shoot idiots in the head. 

[AaronChicago]

I mean after all, it was released for free on YouTube, where cat videos reign. Can't expect Kung Fury to speak profoundly to mankind.

[fuzzynormal]

It was released for free on YouTube, where cat videos reign. 

If you can't realize the profundity of cat videos, you're dead to me.​

[Ed_David]

I actually have spent a lot of time with ultra "Elon Musk" types - and I'm reading the biography on him right now.

My uncle help create arpanet which latter became email and was a professor at MIT and worked in the AI department.

And my dad is a computer scientist.  And I worked on a doc on Watson - the most advanced AI computer in the world, IBM's AI project. So I got to know Watson's team very well.

So I've been around these types a lot in real life.  And their brains move at a different speed and tempo than most people, certainly differently than the two male characters in the film.  

"Do you think I'm crazy" is the first sentence in the book about Elon Musk - said by him.

I wish the screenwriter and director researched the AI scene a little more.

It's pretty amazing/scary what is actually happening at google these days so much that Elon Musk is concerned about AI recently.

Oh well - hopefully the next film will get it a little more accurately.

[AaronChicago]

I actually have spent a lot of time with ultra "Elon Musk" types - and I'm reading the biography on him right now.

My uncle help create arpanet which latter became email and was a professor at MIT and worked in the AI department.

And my dad is a computer scientist.  And I worked on a doc on Watson - the most advanced AI computer in the world, IBM's AI project. So I got to know Watson's team very well.

So I've been around these types a lot in real life.  And their brains move at a different speed and tempo than most people, certainly differently than the two male characters in the film.  

"Do you think I'm crazy" is the first sentence in the book about Elon Musk - said by him.

I wish the screenwriter and director researched the AI scene a little more.

It's pretty amazing/scary what is actually happening at google these days so much that Elon Musk is concerned about AI recently.

Oh well - hopefully the next film will get it a little more accurately.

I saw an AMA with a scientist about AI and he said that the AI in Ex Machina is so far away in reality. It is a bit frightening but to know we're nowhere even close to the point of singularity is comforting.

[Axel]

I saw an AMA with a scientist about AI and he said that the AI in Ex Machina is so far away in reality. It is a bit frightening but to know we're nowhere even close to the point of singularity is comforting.

​Apart from the question when machines develop conscience, if ever, guys like Philip Dick (Blade Runner) or Kubrick (HAL9000 or A.I.) ask if our own intelligence is natural. The nature of man, a contradiction in itself. Does reason really form our decisions? Modern science says no. It's little more but a rationalization of subconscious processes. We are not aware of the forces that make us act the way we do. What is an idea, what are interests, how is a resolve being 'computed'? Sentient beings who uphold the delusion that they are intelligent. Or, as Cohle puts it in True Detective, we live in a dream of being a person.

[Jimmy]

The "Elon Musk" of that film is an alcoholic, misoginist, manipulative, paranoid recluse with a god complex.... Why do you expect him to speak with logic and clarity? He is loosely based on various CEOs, but it is a fictional character... Not a biography.

[hmcindie]

 

I care about what he has to say. I found absolutely nothing at all.

​You sound like someone who has been conditioned to hate by a film school. "It doesn't have anything to say!".

Sometimes I just hate those moments when a fun movie stops down and says something "profound". Where does a film like "star wars" even fit in that stupid category of "saying something"? And how much do you need to "say something" in a 90 minute film? Is one profound- line enough or just an interesting backdrop? Why do you even need a movie to "say something"?

Ah, that's just some really pretentious shit.

[AaronChicago]

PERMIT, DENIED!

[cantsin]

Can we perhaps agree on the following - whatever "Kung Fury" is and what people here think of it, it is 

1. highly unlikely to bring down the film industry;
2. highly unlikely to be the kind of film Coppola had in mind. 

Just to bring the thread back on topic.

[Chrad]

​You sound like someone who has been conditioned to hate by a film school. "It doesn't have anything to say!".

Sometimes I just hate those moments when a fun movie stops down and says something "profound". Where does a film like "star wars" even fit in that stupid category of "saying something"? And how much do you need to "say something" in a 90 minute film? Is one profound- line enough or just an interesting backdrop? Why do you even need a movie to "say something"?

Ah, that's just some really pretentious shit.

​'Saying something' doesn't mean talking down to the audience to impart a message. 'Saying something' means having something new and original to share, that the creator(s) really needed to get out. Star Wars said something new. Kung Fury didn't.

A lot of the defence of the film around here seems to revolve around 'you want all movies to be high art/you think every movie needs to have a big message/you're just a pretentious snob who only approves of what the critics think is great'. To that I would say that the best movie I saw in the past two weeks was Last Action Hero, a movie that's certainly not profound, but is extremely fun, and in my mind definitely 'said something'.

[Oliver Daniel]

​'Saying something' doesn't mean talking down to the audience to impart a message. 'Saying something' means having something new and original to share, that the creator(s) really needed to get out. Star Wars said something new. Kung Fury didn't.
A lot of the defence of the film around here seems to revolve around 'you want all movies to be high art/you think every movie needs to have a big message/you're just a pretentious snob who only approves of what the critics think is great'. To that I would say that the best movie I saw in the past two weeks was Last Action Hero, a movie that's certainly not profound, but is extremely fun, and in my mind definitely 'said something'.

​

Kung Fury said something to me. It said "tank you", when Kung Fury dropped a tank on someones head.

[hmcindie]

To that I would say that the best movie I saw in the past two weeks was Last Action Hero, a movie that's certainly not profound, but is extremely fun, and in my mind definitely 'said something'.

​If you take out the little piece of "said something" from Last Action Hero...it would still be fun. For example the Hamlet scene in that film. That's basically Kung Fury. It doesn't say anything, except about the genre itself.

Kung Fury is very close to Last Action Hero. Both play with genres. The other is about one hour longer and it EXPLAINS while it plays with genres. Kung Fury doesn't explain, it just exists and it's up to the viewer to connect the genre dots.

[silvertonesx24]

​You sound like someone who has been conditioned to hate by a film school. "It doesn't have anything to say!".

Sometimes I just hate those moments when a fun movie stops down and says something "profound". Where does a film like "star wars" even fit in that stupid category of "saying something"? And how much do you need to "say something" in a 90 minute film? Is one profound- line enough or just an interesting backdrop? Why do you even need a movie to "say something"?

Ah, that's just some really pretentious shit.

Never been to film school.  We are hyper-saturated with content that either says nothing or says the same old thing in the same old way. If you're going to slobber over something like it's high art (the OP), yet it brings absolutely nothing new, why is it worth anyone's time? Just admit that it's a fun hurr durr $600k VFX reel and eat your popcorn. Nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly not the next Mozart.

[Ed_David]

Mozart was actually pretty punk rock.

And Kung Fury is pretty punk rock.  It's not Breathless by Godard but it competes with Hollywood at their level of craft - it is technically really advanced.  Tiny Furniture didn't compete - that felt amateur all the way thru.  Kung Fury is as good as anything and if it was still a 5k movie not up to 600k because of kickstarter it would have still competed.

And if anything I hadn't been so excited by VFX since the Matrix - there was something unique and loving about it that you don't get in movies that cost 100x that to make.

I rather watch Kung Fury 20 times than the Avengers 1 or 2 20 times - because there is love in it - in making it.

Everyone is having fun - it doesn't feel like a job.

You can feel that energy on it.

And it's really funny.  The movie went to Cannes - director's forthnight so I'm not the only one who thinks the thing is good. But hey, what is good?  What makes something good and something bad?  

But yes it's not Breathless or 400 Blows or 8 1/2 or Leviathan - it's a crowd-pleaser film that can compete with eye balls made at a fraction of the cost that is more visually stimulating than pretty much everything coming out of boring Hollywood - and by a guy from Sweden.  What is not to admire about that?

[silvertonesx24]

​

That's the issue right there, subjectivity. 

Before I watched Kung Fury, I wasn't expecting a film where he has something profound to say about the world. I don't think anybody should be. 

I watched the film because I wanted to see a Kung Fu cop beat people up, shoot cars into the air, pick up a tank, throw it on someone and kill lots of Nazi's. All in a different way than I'm used to. 

I also watched Ex Machina two days ago and quite enjoyed it. Although it said all the usual intriguing stuff regarding the responsibility of creating powerful A.I, I found it less entertaining than Kung Fury. Sometimes it doesn't matter how much a film wants to say, sometimes I don't really care. Sometimes I'd rather see a cobra bitten superhuman stand on a car in mid-air and shoot idiots in the head. 

​Great, I'm all for that, in small doses. Which is why for the first five minutes I kind of enjoyed the film, and then spent the next twenty-five waiting for a payoff, and when there was none, and then I read articles and comments hailing this film as the pinnacle of independent crowdfunded filmmaking artistry, I wonder what people are smoking.

[silvertonesx24]

What makes something good and something bad?  

Do the story, characters, and message connect with an audience?

Kung Fury doesn't connect with me any more than Vimeo VFX reels do. The people who work on those have a lot of "heart and love" too I'm sure. They're fun for 5 minutes or so. And that's it. Into the mental recycle bin it goes.

I would rather watch 10 Ex Machinas over 10 Kung Furies.

[Julian]

Kung Fury does connect with me. I get the comparison people make with something like Danger 5, but that doesn't connect to me at all. Can't even stand watching the trailer. Humor is difficult and very subjected to taste, Kung Fury nails it 9/10 for me.

Anyway, imo the whole discussion about this movie is pointless. The dude had an idea, wanted to make it. Went to Kickstarter, found a lot of people who wanted to see it. Those people paid for it, dude made the movie. People that wanted to see it loved it, so did million others. It's completely unpretentious. That's what I like about it.

[silvertonesx24]

Kung Fury does connect with me. I get the comparison people make with something like Danger 5, but that doesn't connect to me at all. Can't even stand watching the trailer. Humor is difficult and very subjected to taste, Kung Fury nails it 9/10 for me.

I'm not discussing whether people like it or not. You like it, I dislike it. But "bringing down the movie business" and "turning it into art"? Come on.

"Anyway, imo the whole discussion about this movie is pointless. The dude had an idea, wanted to make it. Went to Kickstarter, found a lot of people who wanted to see it. Those people paid for it, dude made the movie. People that wanted to see it loved it, so did million others. It's completely unpretentious. That's what I like about it."

So essentially what you're saying is that what you like about it is not the film itself, but the process of how it was made. That's not really any different than celebrating a film because of the super awesome camera it was shot on rather than what it contributes to the ethos of a generation.

[Julian]

I'm not discussing whether people like it or not. You like it, I dislike it. But "bringing down the movie business" and "turning it into art"? Come on.

"Anyway, imo the whole discussion about this movie is pointless. The dude had an idea, wanted to make it. Went to Kickstarter, found a lot of people who wanted to see it. Those people paid for it, dude made the movie. People that wanted to see it loved it, so did million others. It's completely unpretentious. That's what I like about it."

So essentially what you're saying is that what you like about it is not the film itself, but the process of how it was made. That's not really any different than celebrating a film because of the super awesome camera it was shot on rather than what it contributes to the ethos of a generation.

​That's not what I mean. I like it regardless of how it was made. I would love just the same if it was a billion dollar production by Michael Bay.

What I mean is that it doesn't matter what critics say, and it doesn't matter if people like it or not.

It would matter if the people who backed it on Kickstarter disliked it, but I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty sure 99,99% of the backers got what they asked for.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Ed's statement about "bringing down the movie business" and "turning it into art". To me, Kung Fury absolutely is art. And it is a good example of what can be achieved by an individual without the movie industry as we know it. So maybe Ed has a point.

But then again, I don't think it matters, because it doesn't pretend to be anything.