Gabe Kovacs, thank you. Again you're doing the work and gave, in my humble opinion, a sharp, mindful and smart take on Megalopolis. It feels so good to have someone that competent sharing his thoughts. The rest of Reelblend is good not to knock anyboby down but Gabe really improve the film conversation.
Saw Megalopolis here in the Philippines! And of course in my local theater there was no person to walk up to interview Adam driver 😂 but apparently for imax one of the workers would walk up and mime the interviewer as Kevin explained last episode. Ecstatic to hear Coppola talk about shooting apocalypse now in the Philippines!
I love this interview and movie review. You have the most charitable reviews of Megalopolis. You saw the good stuff and didn’t sneer at sentiments. Everyone sees something different. I have seen it 1.5 times on IMAX and I was delighted that it was enigmatic and so thought provoking. It was optimistic. It had more colors than a lot of movies these days. Yes it’s like a play and yet needs to be on film to convey deal quality.
The master is right. Just saw Megalopolis for the second time. Like repeated viewings of Apocalypse Now, it was a wholly different experience than seeing it the first time.
I haven't seen Megalopolis yet. Not because I'm avoiding it - the opposite, in fact. I just can't find a convenient showtime around where I live - it's the second week and it's already leaving theaters around me. And at the same time, as much as I do want to see it, I'm not willing to shell out the IMAX bucks for it. I say that at the start to just show that I'm agnostic towards it. I don't think I'll hate it though - I know what to expect. But I really just wanted to comment on the topic regarding 'original' films. I've thought about this myself for a little while now, especially this year, and I'm in partial agreement with Kovacs. So I agree with Kovacs when he says that when audiences say they want 'original' films, they don't actually mean 'original' in the strict sense of the word - as in something brand new that flips the table conceptually. If that were the case, indie films and films like Megalopolis would do better business. So it's not that. Where I slightly disagree with Kovacs is when he projects onto the audience that when they say original, they actually mean 'good'. I used to fall into this trap myself but I'm not of that opinion anymore. Where I disagree is how we define 'good' in the objective sense. I don't want to debate the meaning or etymology of the word, or get into a philosophical discussion (not the venue for that), but can we at least agree that the baseline of 'good' would entail - at the very least - a coherent and logical script that makes sense plot wise? Because if we do, then the audience's definition of 'good' goes right out the window. So if we've taken 'original' and 'good' off the table, what are we left with? I think, as cliched as it is, it simply comes down to what the audience defines as 'entertaining'. And 'entertaining' can really mean anything. It can be a 2 hour Jackass movie or it can be Oppenheimer. Other than the fact that they're moving images on a screen, not much else links them. Where I've settled on - the closest I've gotten - regarding the modern audience's definition of 'entertaining' is basically a slight remix or twist to an existing franchise property - with plenty of nostalgia and callbacks thrown in. So a perfect example of this is the first Joker. Franchise property but what gives it the twist is that it liberally steals from early Scorsese. Notice that there's nothing really original going on here - all the elements are pre-existing and familiar - but the combination of them - the slight twist to combine them - makes it 'entertaining' enough for the audience. To it's credit though, at least the script is coherent. Another good example is Alien Romulus. That's not a film so much as it is an extended Alien franchise highlight reel/compilation remix. Narrative-wise, it's actually more akin to a Universal Horror Nights theme park ride than it is a coherent story. Nothing about it on a story level is objectively 'good', let alone 'original'; but it's assembled in such a way that the audience gets that 'entertaining' experience - exactly like a theme park ride, where at every level you recognize the sign posts up ahead. Apologies for the long post but I've been marinating on this topic for a while, as you can probably tell. I just don't want to hear that audiences want something 'original' or' 'good' when things like Twisters, Alien Romulus, and Deadpool vs Wolverine earn more money in their opening weekends (for Deadpool, opening day's) than movies like The Bikeriders or Challengers make during their entire runs.
Remember when Jake did the interviews with Denis V. and he asked him about how the author of Dune had to make a sequel because people took the wrong messages from the 1st book so he felt compelled to make a sequel book? That's what Joker 2 reminded me a LOT OF. Joker 2 was a masterpiece imo. I liked it more than the first if I'm being honest. I think people will look back 10 years from now and study Joker 2019 and this film as a character study of Arthur Fleck. Edit: haha just watched the video, spot on Jake!
We're lucky to still have Ford Coppola alive, actually I feel like watching his new movie Megapolis after seeing Joker: Folie á Deux, which I didn't like. Well, you have to get back on that horse when you fall off.
Todd Phillips said while promoting the first film that he set the story in a DC comic setting just to get the studio to pay for the weird Scorsese pastiche that he wanted to do. Using the Joker mythology was just always just a means to an end. He viewed it as a heist where "We’re gonna take $55 million from Warner Bros. and do whatever the hell we want.” To me that sounded awesome but I personally didn't think he did anything interesting with the material.
Joker (2019), an R rated non-action non-comedy non-adventure psychological thriller drama that made over a billion dollars worldwide, that's more than special regardless of anyone's personal opinions.
@@neo_bellicbut we aren’t talking money here. It’s impressive from a financial point of view. Alex Jones is a millionaire. So is Andrew Tate. So what? People buy their bullshit. Alex Jones just sits around and talks nonsense for hours and he gets plenty of views. Why does that hold peoples attention? Have you seen comic cons? People give lots of money to actors like Michael Beihn just because they starred in their favourite movie. It’s hilariously stupid. The Joker film hit a few bullet points. It was perfect storm. The Joker character is fascinating to everyone for starters. Trailers of it with snippets of Joaquin Phoenix as Joker and all the weight he brings with him anyway but also it came off as looking like it would work. Moment you saw Jared Leto’s Joker, it was instant put off. It wasn’t working. The film didn’t look too weird overall. Very neutral. The trailers didn’t overegg anything. The film has a comfortable edginess too it that’s in the trailers. It never truly crosses any lines. It just sells itself as that. Key for a wide audience. De Niro is even in the cast. Other cast littered throughout really capture wide range of audience. Even Marc Maron is in it. The director associated with very popular comedies. It gets strong opening weekend regardless because of all these things and then word of mouth follows and it also had controversy around it from get go in media and the reports don’t say it’s a slow arty film, because it’s not, it’s mainstream. Batman Returns is darker than this.
Agreed. He didn’t do anything interesting. And what he’s saying is bullshit. It’s disingenuous. Like when directors say there is no cgi now. It’s just empty marketing schtick. Joker is a packaged film. They have made a film in search of success. It doesn’t just exist because of a passion for ideas. They want it to be successful. Every filmmaker wants their films to be successful but sometimes the ideas aren’t driven by that. It comes from a different place. He stumbled upon a winning formula. It seems as though they have done what he is actually meaning with the sequel.
@@curiositytax9360we are talking money though. It made 1 billion dollars so in the sequel he was given Carte Blanche for the sequel . He subverted the whole first movie implying that Arthur is only a joker that arguably inspired the Real joker. It’s actually quite clever but people aren’t buying it . The 1 billion dollars Warner Bros made on the first movie means they’re still in the black overall .
C'mon guys!! I love this podcast, but there's no way you three did not know that Coppola met Kurosawa. Kagemusha? Oscars? Film history? This should not be a surprise. Nevertheless, great interview.
Jeez! I know you recommended against Joker 2, but it actually made me wanna watch it. Didn't enjoy the first one in particular, as I thought there wasn't anything interesting about idealizing what Arthur represented. It would be crazy if I actually happenned to love Joker 2.
I don't know Jake.. just because people applauded at the end of the first Joker movie doesn't mean they are applauding murder in real life. It was great cinema and deserved the applause. We should be living in the reality of the movie and not projecting our reality into this movie. Just enjoy the movie man.
It will be funny if each of you are on video and in the background we just see rooms full of junk and that are a mess! 😂 Francis is eating a sandwich when you call him 😂
"Now we have 2 movies about a guy that's not the joker". Is kind of a close minded way of viewing both films. The movie is called JOKER. Not THE Joker. This joker is still a valid character within batman lore and did create this symbol that will live on past the man himself and ultimately become an enigma. Arthur is one of many jokers. This is just the story of THIS particular joker. The one that started the madness. Nothing in the first film ever alluded to arthur becoming the epic clown prince of crime that will go on to fight batman. Arthur only killed people that were mean to him or wronged him. He never cared about chaos. And the riot at the end of the first film may have been a delusion from arthur thinking that people finally saw him. FOLIE A DEUX is arthur realizing that no one ever saw him. They saw the symbol. Certain things are still open to interpretation in both films. So this films existence doesnt ruin that.
I enjoyed Megalopolis. To Gabe's point there were two people in my screening that were laughing at certain parts of the story in a way that they thought how outrageous some scenes were. Rise and fall of empires and also a mirror to the current state of affairs in our country, but with hope. Performances were all over the place, but I guess their directive was to make it a satire? Now I have no interest in seeing Joker 2. You should see "Wild Robot", while it reminds me so much if the "Big Hero 6" movie when it comes to theme, the animation is inspired and amazing
We are sick of listening the memories aboıt godfather fot god sake. Of course it was supposed to be about megalopolis. It is lasy think to ask about godfather. He lost his house because of "one from the hearth" but no lets talk about godfather for pne millionth time
I don’t plan on seeing Joker 2 because I’m one of the few people who didn’t like the first one. I didn’t like it specifically because it was obvious to me this Joker was never going to fight Batman at some point in the future. Why should I pay attention to the story of a villain who’s never going to face off against the hero? So it sounds like based off the negative reaction and the your guys’ spoiler review, people are not liking the sequel for the same reason I didn’t like the first one, and what was obvious to me from the first movie is now being made extremely obvious in the 2nd movie.
I don't get it. People really wanted to see a low IQ mentally unstable Joker fight batman when he's 60 years old? That was clearly never gonna happen and why would anyone want to see that? I thought Joker 2 validated all my thoughts about the first movie 🤷♂
Coppola was an awesome guest! So humble and down to earth!
Gabe Kovacs, thank you. Again you're doing the work and gave, in my humble opinion, a sharp, mindful and smart take on Megalopolis. It feels so good to have someone that competent sharing his thoughts. The rest of Reelblend is good not to knock anyboby down but Gabe really improve the film conversation.
I'm new to your channel and I must say that you three have a fantastic chemistry and asks excellent questions. Props to you guys, JV.
Oh wow guys!!! Im in Australia. Was just about to go to bed, instead I'll be watching this. Love this show that much❤😊
Thanks so much!!!
@seanoconnell2073 you're amazing Sean 😇💫❤️
Saw Megalopolis here in the Philippines! And of course in my local theater there was no person to walk up to interview Adam driver 😂 but apparently for imax one of the workers would walk up and mime the interviewer as Kevin explained last episode. Ecstatic to hear Coppola talk about shooting apocalypse now in the Philippines!
Outstanding interview guys. Just loved it.
That camera angle is wild, truly auteur
I love this interview and movie review. You have the most charitable reviews of Megalopolis. You saw the good stuff and didn’t sneer at sentiments.
Everyone sees something different. I have seen it 1.5 times on IMAX and I was delighted that it was enigmatic and so thought provoking. It was optimistic. It had more colors than a lot of movies these days. Yes it’s like a play and yet needs to be on film to convey deal quality.
I love this interview , just because of this interview I’ll go see Megalopolis, I had 0 intentions . And I work at movie theatre .
Love the scenes of the new casino opening it's like movie theatre.
The master is right. Just saw Megalopolis for the second time. Like repeated viewings of Apocalypse Now, it was a wholly different experience than seeing it the first time.
I haven't seen Megalopolis yet. Not because I'm avoiding it - the opposite, in fact. I just can't find a convenient showtime around where I live - it's the second week and it's already leaving theaters around me. And at the same time, as much as I do want to see it, I'm not willing to shell out the IMAX bucks for it.
I say that at the start to just show that I'm agnostic towards it. I don't think I'll hate it though - I know what to expect.
But I really just wanted to comment on the topic regarding 'original' films. I've thought about this myself for a little while now, especially this year, and I'm in partial agreement with Kovacs.
So I agree with Kovacs when he says that when audiences say they want 'original' films, they don't actually mean 'original' in the strict sense of the word - as in something brand new that flips the table conceptually. If that were the case, indie films and films like Megalopolis would do better business. So it's not that.
Where I slightly disagree with Kovacs is when he projects onto the audience that when they say original, they actually mean 'good'.
I used to fall into this trap myself but I'm not of that opinion anymore. Where I disagree is how we define 'good' in the objective sense. I don't want to debate the meaning or etymology of the word, or get into a philosophical discussion (not the venue for that), but can we at least agree that the baseline of 'good' would entail - at the very least - a coherent and logical script that makes sense plot wise? Because if we do, then the audience's definition of 'good' goes right out the window.
So if we've taken 'original' and 'good' off the table, what are we left with? I think, as cliched as it is, it simply comes down to what the audience defines as 'entertaining'. And 'entertaining' can really mean anything. It can be a 2 hour Jackass movie or it can be Oppenheimer. Other than the fact that they're moving images on a screen, not much else links them.
Where I've settled on - the closest I've gotten - regarding the modern audience's definition of 'entertaining' is basically a slight remix or twist to an existing franchise property - with plenty of nostalgia and callbacks thrown in.
So a perfect example of this is the first Joker. Franchise property but what gives it the twist is that it liberally steals from early Scorsese. Notice that there's nothing really original going on here - all the elements are pre-existing and familiar - but the combination of them - the slight twist to combine them - makes it 'entertaining' enough for the audience. To it's credit though, at least the script is coherent.
Another good example is Alien Romulus. That's not a film so much as it is an extended Alien franchise highlight reel/compilation remix. Narrative-wise, it's actually more akin to a Universal Horror Nights theme park ride than it is a coherent story. Nothing about it on a story level is objectively 'good', let alone 'original'; but it's assembled in such a way that the audience gets that 'entertaining' experience - exactly like a theme park ride, where at every level you recognize the sign posts up ahead.
Apologies for the long post but I've been marinating on this topic for a while, as you can probably tell.
I just don't want to hear that audiences want something 'original' or' 'good' when things like Twisters, Alien Romulus, and Deadpool vs Wolverine earn more money in their opening weekends (for Deadpool, opening day's) than movies like The Bikeriders or Challengers make during their entire runs.
I know he’s elderly… god bless him… but just gotta add that Paramount was the studio behind Godfathers… not Warners. Thank you Francis!!!
The Interview alone will ad a star in my rating for Megalopolis 👍😉
Coppola's interviews in support of this masterpiece have been engaging, enlightening and a delight to watch.
Remember when Jake did the interviews with Denis V. and he asked him about how the author of Dune had to make a sequel because people took the wrong messages from the 1st book so he felt compelled to make a sequel book? That's what Joker 2 reminded me a LOT OF. Joker 2 was a masterpiece imo. I liked it more than the first if I'm being honest. I think people will look back 10 years from now and study Joker 2019 and this film as a character study of Arthur Fleck.
Edit: haha just watched the video, spot on Jake!
Joker 1 was shit though
We're lucky to still have Ford Coppola alive, actually I feel like watching his new movie Megapolis after seeing Joker: Folie á Deux, which I didn't like. Well, you have to get back on that horse when you fall off.
The godfather of modern cinema
Todd Phillips said while promoting the first film that he set the story in a DC comic setting just to get the studio to pay for the weird Scorsese pastiche that he wanted to do. Using the Joker mythology was just always just a means to an end. He viewed it as a heist where "We’re gonna take $55 million from Warner Bros. and do whatever the hell we want.” To me that sounded awesome but I personally didn't think he did anything interesting with the material.
Joker (2019), an R rated non-action non-comedy non-adventure psychological thriller drama that made over a billion dollars worldwide, that's more than special regardless of anyone's personal opinions.
What does that have to do with Coppola or Megalopolis?
@@neo_bellicbut we aren’t talking money here. It’s impressive from a financial point of view. Alex Jones is a millionaire. So is Andrew Tate. So what? People buy their bullshit. Alex Jones just sits around and talks nonsense for hours and he gets plenty of views. Why does that hold peoples attention?
Have you seen comic cons? People give lots of money to actors like Michael Beihn just because they starred in their favourite movie. It’s hilariously stupid.
The Joker film hit a few bullet points. It was perfect storm. The Joker character is fascinating to everyone for starters. Trailers of it with snippets of Joaquin Phoenix as Joker and all the weight he brings with him anyway but also it came off as looking like it would work. Moment you saw Jared Leto’s Joker, it was instant put off. It wasn’t working.
The film didn’t look too weird overall. Very neutral. The trailers didn’t overegg anything. The film has a comfortable edginess too it that’s in the trailers. It never truly crosses any lines. It just sells itself as that. Key for a wide audience.
De Niro is even in the cast. Other cast littered throughout really capture wide range of audience. Even Marc Maron is in it. The director associated with very popular comedies.
It gets strong opening weekend regardless because of all these things and then word of mouth follows and it also had controversy around it from get go in media and the reports don’t say it’s a slow arty film, because it’s not, it’s mainstream. Batman Returns is darker than this.
Agreed. He didn’t do anything interesting.
And what he’s saying is bullshit. It’s disingenuous. Like when directors say there is no cgi now. It’s just empty marketing schtick. Joker is a packaged film. They have made a film in search of success. It doesn’t just exist because of a passion for ideas. They want it to be successful. Every filmmaker wants their films to be successful but sometimes the ideas aren’t driven by that. It comes from a different place. He stumbled upon a winning formula.
It seems as though they have done what he is actually meaning with the sequel.
@@curiositytax9360we are talking money though. It made 1 billion dollars so in the sequel he was given Carte Blanche for the sequel . He subverted the whole first movie implying that Arthur is only a joker that arguably inspired the Real joker. It’s actually quite clever but people aren’t buying it . The 1 billion dollars Warner Bros made on the first movie means they’re still in the black overall .
C'mon guys!! I love this podcast, but there's no way you three did not know that Coppola met Kurosawa. Kagemusha? Oscars? Film history? This should not be a surprise. Nevertheless, great interview.
Jeez! I know you recommended against Joker 2, but it actually made me wanna watch it. Didn't enjoy the first one in particular, as I thought there wasn't anything interesting about idealizing what Arthur represented. It would be crazy if I actually happenned to love Joker 2.
It happened!!!
I don't know Jake.. just because people applauded at the end of the first Joker movie doesn't mean they are applauding murder in real life. It was great cinema and deserved the applause. We should be living in the reality of the movie and not projecting our reality into this movie. Just enjoy the movie man.
No @JakesTakesTV "Reel Blend Premium" jingle today :(
@8:28 “I don’t want to leave anyone out”
He leaves out one of the most prominent members of that Movie brat gang and close friend, Steven Spielberg. 😂
Is that Sammy Wilson
I personally really loved the new joker movie
It will be funny if each of you are on video and in the background we just see rooms full of junk and that are a mess! 😂 Francis is eating a sandwich when you call him 😂
"Now we have 2 movies about a guy that's not the joker". Is kind of a close minded way of viewing both films. The movie is called JOKER. Not THE Joker. This joker is still a valid character within batman lore and did create this symbol that will live on past the man himself and ultimately become an enigma. Arthur is one of many jokers. This is just the story of THIS particular joker. The one that started the madness. Nothing in the first film ever alluded to arthur becoming the epic clown prince of crime that will go on to fight batman. Arthur only killed people that were mean to him or wronged him. He never cared about chaos. And the riot at the end of the first film may have been a delusion from arthur thinking that people finally saw him. FOLIE A DEUX is arthur realizing that no one ever saw him. They saw the symbol. Certain things are still open to interpretation in both films. So this films existence doesnt ruin that.
I enjoyed Megalopolis. To Gabe's point there were two people in my screening that were laughing at certain parts of the story in a way that they thought how outrageous some scenes were. Rise and fall of empires and also a mirror to the current state of affairs in our country, but with hope. Performances were all over the place, but I guess their directive was to make it a satire?
Now I have no interest in seeing Joker 2.
You should see "Wild Robot", while it reminds me so much if the "Big Hero 6" movie when it comes to theme, the animation is inspired and amazing
We are sick of listening the memories aboıt godfather fot god sake. Of course it was supposed to be about megalopolis. It is lasy think to ask about godfather. He lost his house because of "one from the hearth" but no lets talk about godfather for pne millionth time
I don’t plan on seeing Joker 2 because I’m one of the few people who didn’t like the first one. I didn’t like it specifically because it was obvious to me this Joker was never going to fight Batman at some point in the future. Why should I pay attention to the story of a villain who’s never going to face off against the hero? So it sounds like based off the negative reaction and the your guys’ spoiler review, people are not liking the sequel for the same reason I didn’t like the first one, and what was obvious to me from the first movie is now being made extremely obvious in the 2nd movie.
this film was dog shit
I don't get it. People really wanted to see a low IQ mentally unstable Joker fight batman when he's 60 years old? That was clearly never gonna happen and why would anyone want to see that? I thought Joker 2 validated all my thoughts about the first movie 🤷♂
Yeah let's interview the predator great idea. Thanks for that I guess.