Space Jam 2- Lebron James is the real Monstar.

[KHCast]

Even by the original space jam’s standards, which was already an ad, this always came off especially disgustingly cynical and commercialized, so to hear that view repeated amongst multiple groups, it really isn’t pushing to watch it (tho I eventually will). 

[Baldymcnosehair1999]

W.B be like:

 

"We need to have porkey pig rap! Kids love notorious B.I.G!"

 

"Shrink down lola bunnys chest! twitter will kiss our ass SO much!"

"Zendaya! We need to hire Zendaya!" (Liked her in spider man thou.)

 

"Kids will TOTALLY GET clockwork orange and it jokes!"

 

 

On 4/3/2021 at 9:59 AM, Milo said:

lmao I legit thought we didn’t have a thread for this at all.

rise from your grave of seven years

the sequel is real

it’s actually more of a cyberspace jam

I’m just here to post the trailer, others can come in with the other developments (plot, promotional stills, commentary about the animation, complaints about Lola’s new design or Pepe le pew being cut, etc.)

 

Woah. ad for an ad. adseption.

[KingMario05]

"Wait, Space Jam is just a 90-minute ad?"

WB exec (cocks gun) "Always has been!"

Spoiler

Also: Whoever put Granny and Speedy Gonzalez in the Matrix needs to be fired from Warner Brothers, shot in the kneecaps, and then blacklisted from ever working in Hollywood ever again. Not sure about the others, but that cameo just does not WORK.

[Stasis]

Such a shame this is a stinker. Everything about the first trailer screams huge budget and fun, 

Edit: Just watched Doug's review. He enjoyed it. Hmmm, might be one of those watch it and see types.

 

 

 

[AdventChild]

Angry Joe just recently reviewed this and the vid's title basically tells it all.

Spoiler

"It makes the previous one look like a masterpiece." All three pretty much lay it hard onto to the film.

You know, gotta give the first Space Jam credit that it ONLY needed the Looney Tunes for appeal than over bloat the film to do some Ready Player One BS with WB franchises that go nowhere.

 

[Styx_Linoone]

Whelp, critics seem to bash the hell of it while the audience loves it. It's going to be hard to please both sides.

[Baldymcnosehair1999]

I'm picturing kids when they see this movie:

"Daddy, why are bugs and lebron in that werid desert with all the makeup?"

"Mommy, who is mini me?"

"Oh! I know the old guy with the blue hair! He's from fortnite!"

[VO.SUPER]

So its an ad. So what? Its not like it was trying to be subtle about it. 

I feel like faulting a movie for having an agenda or sucking a company hard feels disingenuous when the film didn't promise to be anything else. 

Its like, faulting commercials in general. Yeah they're annoying, but hey at least in the moment you can enjoy the commercial. 

[KHCast]

2 hours ago, VisionaryofSUPER said:

I feel like faulting a movie for having an agenda or sucking a company hard feels disingenuous when the film didn't promise to be anything else. 

 

Again, the first Space Jam was an ad, but was fine for what it was. This just feels tacky and cynical, and not even all that entertaining as a actual film. There’s nothing disingenuous about people calling it a cynical shallow product

[Fire-N-Space]

After seeing the censored Lola I hope this movie keeps getting lower ratings.

[AlphaRuby]

I didn't give up on this film out of boredom, so it has that going for it over the original.

[VO.SUPER]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

Again, the first Space Jam was an ad, but was fine for what it was. This just feels tacky and cynical, and not even all that entertaining as a actual film. There’s nothing disingenuous about people calling it a cynical shallow product

Shallow, most likely. Cynical, debatable. It kinda depends on engagement with the material I guess. Because when you label something cynical I feel you are placing an assumption over the process of the whole movie. 

I'm not against the criticism itself, but I feel like criticizing a product for being what it promised is a big can of worms. 

Edit: trying to be clearer, because I dont want to invalidate proper criticism.

Like, the Emoji movie is a shallow cash grab, and in many ways this kind of movie can fall in that direction. I guess the difference is really in how much you can get from the vague concept of a sequel to another blatant cashgrab and how said cash grab tries to present itself. 

Like, something I feel like the Emoji movie gets especially wrong aside from its premise is that it tries to also have a plot that flies in the face of its very concept and premise. 

On the other hand, Space Jam 2 is just trying to be a dumb ad and ends like a dumb ad. 

[Tomboyish Mermaid]

This was a really boring movie... and it was way too long, so many scenes dragged on forever... plus, this movie really felt like a huge commercial for HBO Max. Really didn't feel like I was watching a story. 

[8ther]

Is this legit?

[KHCast]

8 hours ago, VisionaryofSUPER said:

Cynical, debatable.

It’s Warner Bros and HBO. It’s not exactly off brand for those two to do cynical corporate bs. I find it hard to imagine throwing every meme and company IP under the sun in the movie was done out of genuine artistic intent. Especially when most of the ways in which they’re introduced in the film, is forced and not exactly well weaved into the overarching story. They mostly just show up to be there to plug. It feels more like they were mandated to be there from higher ups. Like there are ways to earnestly/entertainingly do crossoverstories with other franchises, look at stuff like Roger Rabbit, which you could equally argue is a walking commercial for other animated movies. But at the same time, I don’t see anyone calling that film cynical or shallow and just done for a quick buck

[Tomboyish Mermaid]

4 hours ago, KHCast said:

But at the same time, I don’t see anyone calling that film cynical or shallow and just done for a quick buck

That's because Roger Rabbit wanted to be a movie first. The focus lied on the plot, the characters, the world, and the theme. 

[AdventChild]

So John Cena simps for the CCP and gets Fast9 to show over there but when Lebron does it, his film is rejected. Hollywood really needs to stop pandering to Panda country as it never works out trying to reach for those Commie bucks. And coming from a country that censors blacks, gays, etc. Mulan 2020's concentration camps anyone? Heck, even if they did have it, they might photoshop Yao Ming over Lebron to make Winnie the Pooh happy.

Anyway, this move from China would already have the $200 million movie to lose millions and that its second week only did a measly $3 million, a 70% drop from the first, with the new only competition being M. Night's Old.

LeBron's tweet about the 'haters' makes it sound like a homeless guy boasting about how he got a dollar bill more than the other beggar. Still doesn't hide the fact you lost money regardless.

[batson]

Shame that the movie apparently isn't very good but, let's be honest, the original movie wasn't very good either, so it's not like the sequel have ruined some illustrious legacy...

[Tornado]

On 7/17/2021 at 10:50 AM, VisionaryofSUPER said:

So its an ad. So what? Its not like it was trying to be subtle about it. 

I feel like faulting a movie for having an agenda or sucking a company hard feels disingenuous when the film didn't promise to be anything else. 

Its like, faulting commercials in general. Yeah they're annoying, but hey at least in the moment you can enjoy the commercial. 

I don't understand what this argument is supposed to be. It's like some warped, IP-holder friendly version of "So what it's a kids movie." The disingenuous part of the process is making a feature length movie if the extent that you do anything on screen is so you have a venue show off other things you want people to watch and have the entire movie be in service to that. Not even wanting you to buy toys or tie in products whatever, as was the case with the original Space Jam and countless 80s cartoons and etc, because at the very least then you need to make the thing you're putting in the movie appealing; but simply to subconsciously raise brand awareness for other things that you own that you want people to have interest in.

 

 

It's like the movie equivalent of this:

 

On 7/17/2021 at 3:03 PM, VisionaryofSUPER said:

Shallow, most likely. Cynical, debatable. It kinda depends on engagement with the material I guess. Because when you label something cynical I feel you are placing an assumption over the process of the whole movie. 

At no point in the creative process of this movie did it ever feel like there was an attempt to make a movie. Every creative decision and interview thereof justifying it that the movie gave up to its release was run through the Twitter focus groups; and I'm not even talking about it in the "woke pandering" or whatever sense. I'm strictly speaking in the Disney and Nintendo style "we'll do whatever we can to avoid doing anything that will hurt financial return" sense, where anything that could potentially lead to controversy is just removed and the person fired. Someone wrote an article on Twitter or whatever complaining about Pepe Le Pew, and the character was scrubbed from the movie entirely after already being in it just so people who go to see it don't remember *controversial anything* and link it the movie. That's cynicism, even ignoring the basic premise of the movie being that popular athlete (that happens to be LeBron James) needs to enter the Warner Brothers Intellectual Property Universe to save it from outside forces rather than LeBron James (specifically) needs to do something with the Looney Tunes in a Looney Tunes movie (which was a hurdle the first Space Jam at least made sure to clear, being both a movie specifically about Looney Tunes and specifically about Michael Jordan).

 

 

No one ever went into Space Jam 2, a movie willed into existence by internet memes and LeBron's inferiority complex coming together to make a WB executive cream in his pants as a sequel to a spinoff of a shoe commercial, expecting that they would end up with Roger Rabbit. The first movie wasn't Roger Rabbit despite how smartass the writing in it was, and even Back in Action was  quite a distance away from Roger Rabbit. But that also doesn't mean that Warner Brothers should be lauded when they deliberately shit out the 2021 version of that Charlie Sheen movie from fifteen years ago about products you buy at the grocery store just because they didn't dress it up as if it was Toy Story instead.

[VO.SUPER]

1 hour ago, Tornado said:

I don't understand what this argument is supposed to be. It's like some warped, IP-holder friendly version of "So what it's a kids movie." The disingenuous part of the process is making a feature length movie if the extent that you do anything on screen is so you have a venue show off other things you want people to watch and have the entire movie be in service to that. Not even wanting you to buy toys or tie in products whatever, as was the case with the original Space Jam and countless 80s cartoons and etc, because at the very least then you need to make the thing you're putting in the movie appealing; but simply to subconsciously raise brand awareness for other things that you own that you want people to have interest in.

 

 

It's like the movie equivalent of this:

 

At no point in the creative process of this movie did it ever feel like there was an attempt to make a movie. Every creative decision and interview thereof justifying it that the movie gave up to its release was run through the Twitter focus groups; and I'm not even talking about it in the "woke pandering" or whatever sense. I'm strictly speaking in the Disney and Nintendo style "we'll do whatever we can to avoid doing anything that will hurt financial return" sense, where anything that could potentially lead to controversy is just removed and the person fired. Someone wrote an article on Twitter or whatever complaining about Pepe Le Pew, and the character was scrubbed from the movie entirely after already being in it just so people who go to see it don't remember *controversial anything* and link it the movie. That's cynicism, even ignoring the basic premise of the movie being that popular athlete (that happens to be LeBron James) needs to enter the Warner Brothers Intellectual Property Universe to save it from outside forces rather than LeBron James (specifically) needs to do something with the Looney Tunes in a Looney Tunes movie (which was a hurdle the first Space Jam at least made sure to clear, being both a movie specifically about Looney Tunes and specifically about Michael Jordan).

 

 

No one ever went into Space Jam 2, a movie willed into existence by internet memes and LeBron's inferiority complex coming together to make a WB executive cream in his pants as a sequel to a spinoff of a shoe commercial, expecting that they would end up with Roger Rabbit. The first movie wasn't Roger Rabbit despite how smartass the writing in it was, and even Back in Action was  quite a distance away from Roger Rabbit. But that also doesn't mean that Warner Brothers should be lauded when they deliberately shit out the 2021 version of that Charlie Sheen movie from fifteen years ago about products you buy at the grocery store just because they didn't dress it up as if it was Toy Story instead.

I didn't say any of that. That it should be a Roger Rabbit, or a Toy Story. But that calling a movie bad for being a shameless ad seems disingenuous. 

At the least it can be bad and boring as far as cash crabs go and unentertaining, but not because its an ad at its most basic level. 

My argument was never the same as the "its for kids argument" that argument excuses bad writing in that its for some lower minded argument. 

I'm just saying, that it being an ad doesn't inherently make it bad. Granted, its a boring ad that really doesn't do anything meaningful outside of reminding you things exist, but thats more of a fault of not trying to do more. If this movie could have the same amount of references to WB properties and find some way to make a quality movie out of it, then more on whoever could do that. 

[Tornado]

4 hours ago, VisionaryofSUPER said:

But that calling a movie bad for being a shameless ad seems disingenuous. 

And that's what I responded to.

[VO.SUPER]

2 hours ago, Tornado said:

And that's what I responded to.

Ok then. Please explain it a second time please in a way that I guess is just simpler. Because I really didn't understand your point as to why it being shameless is bad. It's just so obvious it wants to be a commercial, I can't see what's wrong with that.

From what I got you seemed to remark it's just bad and that I was fine with, but I really didn't get the part you actually critiqued my point, except for maybe the image. But the image feels more like apples and oranges, since this is marketting IP rather than a physical object like a cigarette. Hell, I don't even think this movie is as subtle as that binary mess of the malboro symbol. And whatever other problems I have with that image I is in regards to my problems with cigarettes in general rather than the act of advertising.

 

 

[KHCast]

Wait, I’m hearing that apparently the animators weren’t credited? Is this true?

[VO.SUPER]

3 hours ago, KHCast said:

Wait, I’m hearing that apparently the animators weren’t credited? Is this true?

Yeah. Then WB tried to fix this with some lame tweet crediting them. 

I mean, its something I guess. But its not like they can't just change the HBO version. 

[Remy]

5 hours ago, VisionaryofSUPER said:

Ok then. Please explain it a second time please in a way that I guess is just simpler. Because I really didn't understand your point as to why it being shameless is bad. It's just so obvious it wants to be a commercial, I can't see what's wrong with that.

From what I got you seemed to remark it's just bad and that I was fine with, but I really didn't get the part you actually critiqued my point, except for maybe the image. But the image feels more like apples and oranges, since this is marketting IP rather than a physical object like a cigarette. Hell, I don't even think this movie is as subtle as that binary mess of the malboro symbol. And whatever other problems I have with that image I is in regards to my problems with cigarettes in general rather than the act of advertising.

It might be easy to forget this in such a corporate, capitalist, post MCU world but the general purpose of media isn't just to advertise characters to you so you buy merch, toys, watch more movies. General movies used to make you think, feel experience emotion, communicate an idea or feeling or explore some part of the human experience.

While movies have had product placement for a long time (was watching terminator 2 the other day and LMAOing at how often Pepsi was centre frame) they gave us some sort of experience beyond looking at products

We are bombarded with advertising 24/7 these days. Every time we look at our phones, a bus, billboards, websites, TV. Movies can sometimes be an escape from constant corporate bombardment. I wasn't expecting space jam 2 to be some subversive classic but it's kinda of a new low to have a movie that is just REMEMBER BRAND start to finish, even after the first one was basically REMEMBER LOONEY TUNES? BUY NIKE!