Listen now | It’s an accidental all-star episode, as Kirsten Acuna *and* Aaron Neuwirth stop by to discuss Universal going the Disney live-action remake route as Jeremy Fuster declares war on misleading A24 trailers.
You guys were really giving Jeremy the business, but I agree with him, specifically about the SA bait and switch. Sure if I go in expecting a straight horror movie then get the Evil Dead II the bait and switch wouldn't bother me, but putting a graphic SA onscreen without warning when people were expecting a dramedy is the kind of bait and switch that will just trigger and piss people off. The wife and I loved Past Lives (like prime Woody Allen level writing), but after I told her about this convo in the pod and the SA in the Materialist, she said she'll never watch it now, which is fine since she's deeply against depictions of SA onscreen. I like watching and writing extreme stuff, but I firmly believe in content warnings and age-appropriate audiences.
Except, unless you can't hear it stated in the episode, the SA that occurs is not depicted on screen at all. It is only mentioned via dialogue, and we never even see the person who committed the action. If it were in the film, the MPA rating description would state this fact as well.
I actually did miss that. From the way everyone was talking about it, it sounded like Anne Hall meets Salo. Still, I feel a good bait and switch is more of a pleasant surprise than triggering material not hinted at in the trailer. Will it cause the box office to crater for the materialist? We’ll just have to see how it holds.
It's why I'm so against what's being said. If mere dialogue detailing some offscreen occurrence in a film aimed at adults is enough to shake droves of audience members, then good look ever seeing a film like...I dunno, The Apartment, ever winning Best Picture again, let alone getting past a group of angry moms to be released to begin with. Obviously I'm sensitive to the idea of people feeling triggered, but people who feel that intensely about their movie going experience can also take the 5 seconds to look up any additional info needed about what they plan to see.
As for if the box office will crater - even if it does, it won't be because of the trailers for an A24 film. It will be because 5 other new movies opened this week.
I’m not for censoring material but the marketing for said material is a another story altogether. As someone with PTSD that’s had it triggered before, I can tell you it’s fucking horrible. And presenting triggering material without a warning can in that circumstance be cruel. But a warning in the rating that says SA will be part of the subject matter should be sufficient. Looking at the rating all it says is ‘brief mature content”. They have warnings for when tobacco is used specifically so I don’t really see a difference with a warning label specifying sa-related content occurs in the film. Put the rating with that caveat in the trailer the problem is largely solved. But if Song wanted to do a movie about SA and the studio lured audiences with the promise of a more straightforward romcom, yeah the ethics are a little more thorny. Is it a career ending blunder? No but it could leave a bad taste in some viewers mouths and hurt Song’s personal brand overall.
We have no idea if Song wanted to make a film specifically about this subject, but given the role it actually has in this film (a subplot that informs the larger story) I doubt it. And again, the way this element is brought into the film is handled in such a way that even the MPA, an organization known for going hard on films especially when it comes to sex-related content, didn’t see enough of a reason to apply too much of a reference in the rating description.
Well different strokes regarding how much is enough to trigger someone. I’ll have to see it for myself. In the abstract, though, I can see where Jeremy is coming from. The macro trend of misleading trailers could be a thing. I’ll have to see more numbers on it.
And don’t get me started on the women-hating puritanical goofballs at the MPAA and their hypocrisy about depicting SA and giving something an R rating and showing a woman orgasming in a consensual relationship and giving it an NC-17. They are a deeply fucked up group of people; whoever they may be.
Watching the trailer again, I’ll go a step further and say it’s not very misleading at all. It’s advertised as a romance, not a zany rom-com, and like any romance, yes, I would expect there to be dramatic components.
Having just watched the trailer for the first time I got a weird 50 shades of Grey/Hallmark vibe because of the presence of Dakota Johnson and the billionaire seduction angle. It did show crying like stuff would get heavy, but it needed more exposition about how Chris Evans was studying spiders in the Amazon with her mom right before she died.
I’m still peeved about being baited and switched on Hereditary’s opening weekend. I was told it would be good but instead it was Hereditary.
You guys were really giving Jeremy the business, but I agree with him, specifically about the SA bait and switch. Sure if I go in expecting a straight horror movie then get the Evil Dead II the bait and switch wouldn't bother me, but putting a graphic SA onscreen without warning when people were expecting a dramedy is the kind of bait and switch that will just trigger and piss people off. The wife and I loved Past Lives (like prime Woody Allen level writing), but after I told her about this convo in the pod and the SA in the Materialist, she said she'll never watch it now, which is fine since she's deeply against depictions of SA onscreen. I like watching and writing extreme stuff, but I firmly believe in content warnings and age-appropriate audiences.
Except, unless you can't hear it stated in the episode, the SA that occurs is not depicted on screen at all. It is only mentioned via dialogue, and we never even see the person who committed the action. If it were in the film, the MPA rating description would state this fact as well.
I actually did miss that. From the way everyone was talking about it, it sounded like Anne Hall meets Salo. Still, I feel a good bait and switch is more of a pleasant surprise than triggering material not hinted at in the trailer. Will it cause the box office to crater for the materialist? We’ll just have to see how it holds.
It's why I'm so against what's being said. If mere dialogue detailing some offscreen occurrence in a film aimed at adults is enough to shake droves of audience members, then good look ever seeing a film like...I dunno, The Apartment, ever winning Best Picture again, let alone getting past a group of angry moms to be released to begin with. Obviously I'm sensitive to the idea of people feeling triggered, but people who feel that intensely about their movie going experience can also take the 5 seconds to look up any additional info needed about what they plan to see.
As for if the box office will crater - even if it does, it won't be because of the trailers for an A24 film. It will be because 5 other new movies opened this week.
I’m not for censoring material but the marketing for said material is a another story altogether. As someone with PTSD that’s had it triggered before, I can tell you it’s fucking horrible. And presenting triggering material without a warning can in that circumstance be cruel. But a warning in the rating that says SA will be part of the subject matter should be sufficient. Looking at the rating all it says is ‘brief mature content”. They have warnings for when tobacco is used specifically so I don’t really see a difference with a warning label specifying sa-related content occurs in the film. Put the rating with that caveat in the trailer the problem is largely solved. But if Song wanted to do a movie about SA and the studio lured audiences with the promise of a more straightforward romcom, yeah the ethics are a little more thorny. Is it a career ending blunder? No but it could leave a bad taste in some viewers mouths and hurt Song’s personal brand overall.
We have no idea if Song wanted to make a film specifically about this subject, but given the role it actually has in this film (a subplot that informs the larger story) I doubt it. And again, the way this element is brought into the film is handled in such a way that even the MPA, an organization known for going hard on films especially when it comes to sex-related content, didn’t see enough of a reason to apply too much of a reference in the rating description.
Well different strokes regarding how much is enough to trigger someone. I’ll have to see it for myself. In the abstract, though, I can see where Jeremy is coming from. The macro trend of misleading trailers could be a thing. I’ll have to see more numbers on it.
And don’t get me started on the women-hating puritanical goofballs at the MPAA and their hypocrisy about depicting SA and giving something an R rating and showing a woman orgasming in a consensual relationship and giving it an NC-17. They are a deeply fucked up group of people; whoever they may be.
Watching the trailer again, I’ll go a step further and say it’s not very misleading at all. It’s advertised as a romance, not a zany rom-com, and like any romance, yes, I would expect there to be dramatic components.
Having just watched the trailer for the first time I got a weird 50 shades of Grey/Hallmark vibe because of the presence of Dakota Johnson and the billionaire seduction angle. It did show crying like stuff would get heavy, but it needed more exposition about how Chris Evans was studying spiders in the Amazon with her mom right before she died.