Youtube comments of (@ThomasFlight).
-
9600
-
8000
-
3400
-
3200
-
2400
-
2000
-
1900
-
1900
-
1800
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1000
-
866
-
819
-
700
-
685
-
670
-
641
-
630
-
601
-
579
-
562
-
561
-
Often when I publish a critical essay like this the comments turn into a mess. Before you comment, here are a few things to bear in mind:
I'm a big fan of Christopher Nolan and his work. When Inception came out it played a role in re-igniting my interest in filmmaking. I've seen all his films, many multiple times, and made a video examining his work in the past. This video is not a personal attack against Nolan or anyone who likes his films. What it is, is an attempt to examine and talk about one aspect of his writing and filmmaking that has frustrated me in several of his films, and the aspect that I think ultimately kept TENET from being a great movie. It's because I like and respect so many other aspects of how Nolan makes his films- that I would spend so much time dissecting one aspect that I think he gets wrong.
You might disagree! Maybe what I talk about in this video doesn't bother you, and you think TENET is Nolan's best. Maybe you're somewhere in between. All that is fine. The point is we're making individual, subjective analysis of our own experiences, and then trying to share those experiences with each other. Feel free to elaborate in the comments on why you think I'm wrong, but let's all be respectful of each other and the filmmakers. Please provide actual examples from the film, or elaborate on what part of film theory or analysis you think I'm getting wrong, instead of attacking me personally.
A critic disliking and criticizing something that you like is just part of the ongoing discussion surrounding film- don't take it personally.
523
-
504
-
472
-
466
-
452
-
416
-
408
-
392
-
382
-
378
-
377
-
375
-
371
-
364
-
363
-
360
-
347
-
344
-
330
-
327
-
323
-
314
-
308
-
301
-
297
-
289
-
288
-
273
-
269
-
260
-
259
-
259
-
258
-
255
-
251
-
241
-
233
-
229
-
221
-
220
-
220
-
212
-
196
-
188
-
186
-
184
-
182
-
181
-
I keep getting comments about this so here we go: I realize that Rian Johnson did not personally create this effect. He also didn't personally set up the lights, hold the cameras, create the costumes, etc. But a film lives and dies by the director, they receive credit for a lot they don't personally do, but the flip side is that they also hold responsibility for things that go wrong. If this scene had been weak, with bad visual effects, I would blame Johnson, not the VFX house, because it's his responsibility to make sure that everything that makes it into the film fits his vision and standard of quality.
That said, huge credit to the guys at ILM who created this effect, they did great work.
https://www.slashfilm.com/the-holdo-maneuver/ This article describes how Johnson didn't feel the scene had enough impact at first, but once ILM added the effect I describe in the video, he thought it was great.
Cheers.
179
-
178
-
172
-
167
-
165
-
163
-
161
-
158
-
157
-
156
-
152
-
151
-
148
-
147
-
146
-
146
-
145
-
143
-
142
-
137
-
132
-
130
-
126
-
122
-
121
-
121
-
119
-
118
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
112
-
111
-
110
-
108
-
104
-
103
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
97
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
88
-
88
-
85
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
59
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
[CC] To see which films I'm referencing, turn on "English (United States)" under captions.
This video was made possible by MUBI: Get a whole month of great cinema FREE with MUBI: https://mubi.com/thomasflight
FAQ
*1. Aren't you oversimplifying (modernism, postmodernism, metamodernism, fill in the blank)?*
Yes. From a philosophical perspective actually fleshing fully fleshing out complex concepts like Modernism or Postmodernism is well beyond the scope of this video. My goal was to provide a broad enough overview of these concepts to be able to introduce people to the idea of metamodernism as it relates to film. This is not meant to be an academically rigorous description of either modern or postmodern philosophy, just a broad enough introduction for people to be able to understand the trends.
*2. Isn't Metamodernism just Postmodernism?*
Most of the Metamodern chapter of this video is trying to explain why I think this isn't the case, but I have a feeling people are going to ask or assert this anyway. My short answer is: Metamodernism looks a lot like postmodernism, because it has elements of postmodernism in it, but it also contains modernist features that you won't find in most postmodern stuff. Also, again, it's about the "structure of feeling" of postmodernism vs. metamodernism- not the specific features of each.
*3. But "meta" stuff has been around for ages/That one thing you talked about isn't "meta"/etc*
The "meta" in "metamodernism" does not actually refer to things "being meta" in the way "meta" is commonly used to refer to self-aware or forth-wall-breaking content. It's true that a lot of postmodern and metamodern stuff is "meta" in some way (include a lot of what I talk about in this video), but that's not the primary feature of metamodernism. The idea (as I understand it) is more that "metamodernism" is a "meta-philosophy."
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
Hi Robert, thanks for the well thought out comment. I don't have time to fully address every point you raise but I have a few things I want to mention.
-I'm working within a film focused framework here. So I'm not asserting any of these definitions are necessarily directly applicable to other mediums! I think Modernism and film is a weird combo because film never really had a proper "modernist" movement. It was just "born" as a modernist form. So Modernism very much existed in literature in a way that it never did in film. So when you say "traditional story structure" is not in the great modernist novels, you're absolutely right. When I use the term "story structure" in this video I'm reffering specifically to "conventional film story structure." I suppose I could have been more clear about that, but figure it would be clear within the context of the video. Again for clarity, I don't think modernism in film maps perfectly to modernism in lit or philosophy. Modernism in film and literature both feel very different. These "movements" in lit usually precede film, and I don't think any of them map perfectly. The lit I feel is "metamodern" is really not like the metamodern films I'm talking about here in my experience.
To your issue about No Country- sure there's no sneering empty irony here, but I think we'd both agree that postmodernism is bigger than just that! That's why I threw in Monty Python as an additional example. Within film when we think about postmodernism, we're really looking at how a film like that deconstructs the structures that we came to expect in cinematic storytelling. I also think the film is very philosophically nihilist, even though it's not sneering and ironic. We may just disagree on The Coen's work in general- I find most of their stuff have a very nihilistic and almost apathetic vibe. I think they love their characters, but the world those characters inhabit is cruel and chaotic, and ultimately possibly meaningless. That's what I personally take away from them and so they feel very postmodern to me but I understand if you feel differently. You kind of dismiss the fact that No Country is a great example of "deconstructing the western" but that's exactly why I picked it! It seems like you're looking mostly at the philosophical arc here (which is important) but in doing so you aren't really examining the shifts in terms of how they impact filmmaking form and technique, which I think is just as central to my argument.
Finally on the TG:M point- I disagree again, and I feel like I addressed it in the movie. They do in fact still make big blockbusters that don't have the features of the MCU, Tom Cruise's other work is a great example. Their are many smaller boutique action films that have lots of great practical stunts. Denis Villeneuve's Sci-fi's have some of the most stunning CGI I think we've ever seen. I'm as bored of the franchise stuff and the MCU as the next guy- but pretty much every good quality TG:M has exists in other current films- except, the sincerity, and traditional film story structure.
Hope that helps! I don't think you're being a dick at all. I appreciate the thorough response, it seems to me like you just got caught up in try to make what I'm saying fit within an understanding of these structures in literature, which makes sense, but which I don't think will ever perfectly compare. That would have to be its own video.
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
Personally I find Camus' idea of embracing the absurd unsatisfying, and I have my doubts that many people could actually do it. In my own life I try to live something much closer to what Kierkegaard talks about, making a "leap of faith." Regardless of whether or not I can know with certainty that there is meaning to the universe, I choose to believe there is, and live my life as if my actions truly mean something and there is an absolute moral code I can try to live up to. This is probably part of why I like Groundhog Day so much, because it models a philosophy I adhere too in some ways. It's not a perfect approach but I feel it brings purpose and direction into my life, even though some people might say that faith isn't grounded in "reality."
I hope you find truth and hope in your search, I think it's one we're all on to some extent, some people just do a better job of ignoring it or distracting themselves from it than others. The world can be a scary place full of suffering, but there's also so much beauty and mystery in our very existence, the fact that we're even here experiencing this. It's complex stuff that's hard to get at in YouTube comments but if you ever want to chat about it more in depth you can send me an email me@thomasflight.com or hit me up on my Twitter DMs.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
The short answer is if I'm not mentioning it I probably haven't read it.
I'm aware of Deleuze's work a bit but haven't read any of those sources you mention. If my thinking on a film or subject is heavily influenced by someone's writing I generally try to cite it directly. But I don't do much extensive reading on film theory per-se. In general I've read/absorbed much more general philosophy and media theory (McLuhan, Neil Postman, John Berger, Eisenstein, David Bordwell, Zizek, Camus, Baudrillard, etc) the truth is I'm not writing in an academically rigorous way, but I'm also not an academic and not trying to operating in any kind of academic capacity. In the Metamodern video I do cite in the description every direct source that I used for that video, the rest is just me apply the understanding I gained via those sources. Hope that clarifies.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
You've certainly presented an example of a scenario in which the power of the personalization is reduced. I totally agree. However this doesn't reduce the power of the personalization for those who don't have "contamination" in their viewing history. Netflix provides a single account with multiple profiles, and each profile is personalized. If you use it how I use it with my siblings (each person has a unique profile), then the personalization is pretty powerful (as I illustrate in the video). In the case of my wife and me, we almost always are watching Netflix together, so if Netflix is personalizing things for what we both like, it's even better since we want to find things that we'll both enjoy together. In that case Netflix is actually personalizing things for a sort of meta-user combination of the two of us.
I'm also not saying that Netflix has reached the same kind of addictiveness that Facebook has, or necessarily will, there are many other factors that differentiate how we use the two services (the shorter, more frequent uses of FB lends itself more to dopamine release in the brain, creating a higher chance of addiction). I'm just pointing out that personalization plays a role in getting us onto the site, and getting us to stay there in both cases. And while the tech might only be so powerful now, we've come a long way in 5 years and it will be interesting to see where it's at in the next 5.
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hi Stuart,
Thanks for the thoughtful constructive criticism. I appreciate it when people take the time to provide meaningful feedback.
I think your perspective is valid, if you didn't take much away from my video, I can't convince you otherwise, so I won't try to do that. But I can offer my perspective.
First, this video was largely an experiment. While you're right in that I've been trending towards appearing on-screen more, this video isn't indicative of where I'm planning to go with my content, unless I feel like I have a strong motivator for doing so. I had no idea starting out if it was going to work. I wanted to copy not just Bo's visual style but the approach of writing and shooting it as I went because I thought it would be fun. This meant it wasn't fully scripted from the start, and I was setting myself up for potentially having nothing interesting to say, I think I did end up saying something interesting but you're obviously welcome to disagree. Was this a bad idea? Possibly. But I wanted to try it and it was a risk I was willing to take. My work as a YouTuber isn't just about making the most popular videos I can but is selfishly about getting to work in a way that's enjoyable for me. And experimenting with the format to see what's possible, instead of just repeating the same formula applied to different topics, is important to me.
That said: I do think my adoption of the style and the imitation does say something, serves a purpose in my commentary, and is more than just distracting and self-indulgent. I think my approach to deconstructing Inside is less technical and more thematic than my usual work so if you were expecting something technical I can definitely see how this fell short of that. That said, what was most important to me with this video was exploring two things 1. What Bo Burnham is saying 2. Commenting on how commentary surrounds a piece of work like this and the process of constructing a commentary.
For 1. I agree with many elements of Bo's "message" in the special and what he's communicating, but I wanted to also showcase the areas where I disagree with him. It's hard to put those things into words, and I could have made a video that was 30 minutes of exposition but I thought it would be interesting to try to communicate that in subtext. I think the visual journey of "breaking out" of Inside is communicating my conclusions more clearly than I could have with words. This ending, wouldn't have said what it had said if I hadn't extensively re-created the style leading into things.
For 2. There are many moments throughout this where I'm not copying Bo's style but am recreating different styles of criticism. My purpose in taking this approach was to explore visually the way I often try to approach a piece of media from many different perspectives in order to figure out how it works. Constructing criticism is a process, things never come out fully formed, and so I wanted to show that process a bit since I thought it might be interesting and since it fit well within the format. Further, I think Bo's style of comedy special acts as a sort of long-form YouTube-style commentary. This is something I alluded to briefly, but my adoption of his style was in part to show how comfortably the special's style fits within the world of YouTube.
It's not for me to say whether I accomplish those things or not. Like I said this was an experiment and maybe it failed, I like to think it was worth trying even if it did. Your experience of my videos is your own, and I appreciate you sharing your criticism since it helps me understand how things are coming across, but that's how I feel about it.
Rest assured back to another disembodied voice in two weeks. (At least until I get another zany, hair-brained idea).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thanks for sharing, I think it's a journey for everyone, I think (at least for me) it's less that all of this meta, self-reflexivity is good or necessary in it's own right, but that it's a response to a place or mindset you find yourself inside. You start down a path of examining things and eventually you realize that path is a dead end- some of this art explores the moment where you find you've reached the dead end and start coming to terms with it.
"Just shut up and feel something." Is absolutely how I would describe a big part of what I've been trying to internalize in my own life the last couple years, but here I am, someone who makes a living talking about art, what do I do with that? The answer would seem to be just talk about the movies that make you feel something. Well, this movie made me feel something, ironically about this very experience of wanting to be more connected directly to reality and emotion, but finding that difficult sometimes.
I'd just say based on what you're saying about where you are in that journey, I don't think you're really the target audience for this movie or video then. They might have felt very different if you had seen them in that time of your life when you were shifting from wanting that intellectual validation to realizing that embracing real life is more valuable. I think I'd say I do think this movie (and my attempt at analyzing it) affirm the sort of embrace of life you're describing. It's just targeted at people who are lost inside the attempts to understand and explain and intellectually justify their own work, not the people who have already learned that lesson. Maybe my work or Anderson's will get stuck there and we'll never escape,
Cheers!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I take your point. I think it's a point many people come too, and it has a lot of names. In a sense it's the Absurd Camus writes about. I think what's unique about the internet is that it's inducing this experience in a lot of people who may not have really taken the time to encounter it in the past.
Okay I'll play ;) my genres are: House, Jazz, Ambient, Hip-Hop, Classical, Reggae, Punk, Blues, New Age, Psych Rock.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well I hope I can be one of the "next big ones" too. :) And you're right, I still do read most comments.
For this video I had the idea for a few months prior too writing anything or starting to edit the essay. Those few months of "brewing time" are important, because I allow time to mull over the idea and start noticing and remembering how cars are used in movies.
Once I actually started collecting material, the main place I started was just from memory. I just wrote down every interesting car scene or use of a car in a movie that I'd seen that I could remember. This gave me maybe 20-30 to start with. I pulled those in, and of course in the process of doing that, I remember a few more and brought those in too. Then I moved on to any movie that I already had, that I knew cars were in and just started going through them for clips or scene with cars. Finally I did research on the "famous" car movies, and tried to make sure I had a decent amount of representation there.
The last step was to use http://www.subzin.com which lets you search through movie dialogue to look for people talking about cars, this turned up another few example that I hadn't thought of.
All that gives me is a massive supercut, and I could have stopped there. But during this whole process I'm thinking about how the car is used and what it means. I was constantly writing and re-writing during the editing process, so the edit and analysis develop together.
...it's a lot of work haha.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1