Ilandar

Totally agree with you in relation to groupthink and it's the main reason I have them disabled too. I don't like my opinion of a comment to be influenced by others before I've even finished reading it.

Okay, that first paragraph makes a bit more sense to me if I combine it with your first reply. Your primary critique here is of Eggers and his creative process and the potential effects on the quality of the film, rather than marketing and financial results. I think when you added that stuff it sent me off in the wrong direction, because it sounded like you were arguing that the language choice was a corporate decision and that it was a bad one because the average person is not capable of following medieval dialogue and therefore won't be interested in seeing the film. I guess I enjoy the fact that Eggers is doing something different to his contemporaries and that overrides any concern I might have about creative quirks feeling forced. And selfishly, I feel pretty confident in my ability to follow older dialogue or subtitles so it doesn't concern me if that confuses other viewers. You can't please everyone and compromising on your creative choices in an effort to do so can be just as destructive to the final product.

I guess if you are arguing that it's targeted marketing to a specific audience, then I can see your point. But that's not the impression I got when you mentioned "any audience" in your previous reply. Regardless, I believe this is an artistic choice he makes and insists upon as opposed to a gimmick pushed by studios to hype up his films. His most recent film did not include this supposed gimmick, so I'm not sure how that applies to your "doubling down" theory.

I'm confused by your argument. It's a marketing gimmick...that won't work because modern audiences don't tolerate period authentic dialogue? That doesn't sound like a marketing gimmick.

The Wii U also suffered from it's weak library of games, though. Yes, you could argue that was partially due to Nintendo pivoting away from it earlier due to the slow start which was, in part, caused by the confusion over the naming and marketing...but if Nintendo commits to the Switch 2 and releases more bangers from big franchises it will be a long-term success. The "gimmicks" of the Switch are the best assortion and implementation the company has ever delivered and it has an amazing library of games. There is no reason why the Switch 2 can't deliver in those same areas (it already will with the retention of motion controls and portability).

Spoilers for those who haven't seen it:

I am not a big fan of the horror genre but I absolutely love what directors like Eggers and Flanagan are doing with it. Sort of making films and series about other things, that just happen to have a horror twist to them.

Not really sure what to expect from this one, the trailer was wild. I greatly prefer Bong Joon-ho's older films (Memories of Murder, Mother) to his newer ones, though. I am a little worried he is starting down a path of pandering to Western audiences with these ultra violent, post-ironic comedy things but we'll see. I think he is a much better director when he starts with a very serious premise and then adds some biting social commentary to it, as was the case with the two aformentioned films, rather than starting with the social commentary and going all absurdist.

While details are scarce, sources say the story is set in 13th century England. The script also features dialogue that was true to the time period and has translations and annotations for those uninitiated in Old English.

Sounds very promising, I love it when directors do this instead of dumbing down a script for wider appeal. I watched The Witch recently and the dialogue really added to the immersion, which in turn leads to a scarier film.

We actually can’t tell what’s AI and what’s real

You can if you pay attention. Multiple people called this out as AI.

Is anyone actually invested enough in Avatar to care about "twists" in the films? My feeling has always been that it's a series people watch purely because of the visuals. The first one was a big event for this reason, and the second was a big event because it was the follow up to the first one and promised 13 years worth of improved visuals. No one really cared about the story, or the characters, or the world building to my knowledge - certainly not to the exrent that they do for other science fiction franchises like Star Wars or Alien (when Ripley existed).

I'm just so sick of the nostalgia bait. Let it end.

I wouldn't have hated it so much if I hadn't watched the first film. It felt more like an inferior remake than a sequel.