The core of my argument is that I think, on its face, the idea of using period accurate Middle English in your werewolf movie is a bad idea that will likely result in an inscrutable film, and if Eggers insists upon it, he is letting his “brand” interfere with his creative judgment. I did not mean to imply I ever thought it was the studio’s idea that he emulate period language. It’s clearly a passion of his, and he’s deployed it to good effect in other movies, but I don’t believe it’s going to be right in this particular case, the same way it wasn’t right for The Northmen or Nosferatu.
I am not against the use of period language as a rule. I have stated why I believe its use in this film will have a different effect than it had in the Witch, and provided illustrative examples. You may disagree with me on that front, and that’s okay, but I feel like I laid out my argument decently on this subject, and thats the root of this whole thing.
Marketers doubling down on selling points which their audience have rejected was an oblique reference to American politics that I couldn’t stop myself from including. It was low hanging fruit, and I almost regret it. However, I will defend myself by saying your argument was, essentially, “it’s a contradiction for something to be both bad and one of the primary selling points”, and that’s readily disproven.
ETA: and, again, I can’t emphasize enough that I’m willing to wait and see what he does with it. It’s a bad idea, in my estimation, in the sense that there are a million ways it can not work, and very few ways in which it does. However, Eggers is, as mentioned, a talented guy who clearly thinks he’s got a way to pull it off. I’ll be happy to eat an extra helping of humble pie if he succeeds and does not have to compromise on this point.
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.
The core of my argument is that I think, on its face, the idea of using period accurate Middle English in your werewolf movie is a bad idea that will likely result in an inscrutable film, and if Eggers insists upon it, he is letting his “brand” interfere with his creative judgment. I did not mean to imply I ever thought it was the studio’s idea that he emulate period language. It’s clearly a passion of his, and he’s deployed it to good effect in other movies, but I don’t believe it’s going to be right in this particular case, the same way it wasn’t right for The Northmen or Nosferatu.
I am not against the use of period language as a rule. I have stated why I believe its use in this film will have a different effect than it had in the Witch, and provided illustrative examples. You may disagree with me on that front, and that’s okay, but I feel like I laid out my argument decently on this subject, and thats the root of this whole thing.
Marketers doubling down on selling points which their audience have rejected was an oblique reference to American politics that I couldn’t stop myself from including. It was low hanging fruit, and I almost regret it. However, I will defend myself by saying your argument was, essentially, “it’s a contradiction for something to be both bad and one of the primary selling points”, and that’s readily disproven.
ETA: and, again, I can’t emphasize enough that I’m willing to wait and see what he does with it. It’s a bad idea, in my estimation, in the sense that there are a million ways it can not work, and very few ways in which it does. However, Eggers is, as mentioned, a talented guy who clearly thinks he’s got a way to pull it off. I’ll be happy to eat an extra helping of humble pie if he succeeds and does not have to compromise on this point.
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.