Jump to content

Hamilton Trailer and Discussion Thread (Update: Official Trailer)


TwinIon

Recommended Posts

Hamilton should have released on Hulu uncensored. It’s not a big deal to me that they’re censoring a couple words and I couldn’t tell you where they use the fucks anyways, but I do think most art should remain uncensored and Disney and the MPAA just suck in general. Kids in middle school say every swear word known to man and if they aren’t the ones saying it, they’re hearing it everyday. But saying more than one fuck is unacceptable :vortex:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Anzo said:

When he said see it in the theater in Oct 2021, he meant the movie theater, when it was originally scheduled to release. 


Does @Emblazon honestly think Disney is going to release an R-rated cut to theaters? The version we’re getting on Disney+ likely is the theatrical cut. LMM must have know he would have to sacrifice some language when he sold it to Disney. I’m sure this is a conversation they had months ago.


I assumed he meant live theater because of my point above, and also because I believe that’s when the touring production will resume shows again (could be wrong on that, though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, johnny said:

Hamilton should have released on Hulu uncensored. It’s not a big deal to me that they’re censoring a couple words and I couldn’t tell you where they use the fucks anyways, but I do think most art should remain uncensored and Disney and the MPAA just suck in general. Kids in middle school say every swear word known to man and if they aren’t the ones saying it, they’re hearing it everyday. But saying more than one fuck is unacceptable :vortex:


It’s disturbing to me how many users on here are willing to roll over and accept censorship. It’s an ani-art position, and considering that this is a board that discusses art, I find that to be most offensive.

 

It’s more than just two words. The more that consumers passively accept censorship studios will continue to pull more and more shit. You have to stand up to even seemingly minor instances of censorship, less these instances continue to grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Movies are both art and business. They are in fact one of the few art forms that simply can’t exist without the business component. LMM is a fine artist and wants more people to experience his art. He’s also a business man managing a product, and he also wants as many eye balls on it for that reason.

 

Would I love for the art of movies to be wholly untethered from the reality of economics? Sure. But until the point where that is reality, you have to be realistic about how these things fit together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Movies are both art and business. They are in fact one of the few art forms that simply can’t exist without the business component. LMM is a fine artist and wants more people to experience his art. He’s also a business man managing a product, and he also wants as many eye balls on it for that reason.

 

Would I love for the art of movies to be wholly untethered from the reality of economics? Sure. But until the point where that is reality, you have to be realistic about how these things fit together.

Agreed. And while I would prefer everything to be uncensored, the film isn’t being changed. They’re not cutting scenes short, removing them, or actually changing dialogue. They are censoring a few words. The MPAA just needs to pull the stick out of their ass like 3 fucks are going to corrupt a 13 year old. Context of how the words are used should matter a lot more imo 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this thread, some people grew up after VHS, apparently. You want censorship? Try watching your favorite movie with 33% of the image just cut off, and some idiot who wasn’t the cinematographer, or any cinematographer for that matter, making camera movement decisions. 
 

THAT’S offensive censorship. Having the CREATOR CHOOSE to remove two words is more than acceptable. 
 

And if you really want to get into a censorship debate, I’m more than happy to get into it about theatrical releases vs director’s cuts. 
 

Now, could they have done a better job with choosing what to cut? Absolutely. You lose nothing by changing Fuuuuuuuuu to Whaaaaaaaa. So you get that “fuck” back. Keep “I get the fuck back up again”, and then have it be something like “southern mother truckin’ Democratic Republicans”. 
 

But again. Cutting something like the scene that is the motivation for the entire second act would be a crime. THAT would be censorship. But it’s there. And everyone who has only listened to the official soundtrack up until now will be in for a real treat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2020 at 7:57 PM, sblfilms said:

Movies are both art and business. They are in fact one of the few art forms that simply can’t exist without the business component. LMM is a fine artist and wants more people to experience his art. He’s also a business man managing a product, and he also wants as many eye balls on it for that reason.

 

Would I love for the art of movies to be wholly untethered from the reality of economics? Sure. But until the point where that is reality, you have to be realistic about how these things fit together.


He could have theoretically sold it to Netflix and have received just as many eyeballs on it, maybe even more. And there wouldn’t be any issues of censorship.

 

I’m not sure if you’re saying I’m being unrealistic because I’m fully aware of the intersection of art and commerce. I knew as soon as it was announced that Disney was buying it that we’d be seeing censorship. I excepted it. I still think LMM could have released it in a way that wouldn’t have compromised his art anymore than he already had had to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2020 at 7:35 PM, sexy_shapiro said:


It’s disturbing to me how many users on here are willing to roll over and accept censorship. It’s an ani-art position, and considering that this is a board that discusses art, I find that to be most offensive.

 

It’s more than just two words. The more that consumers passively accept censorship studios will continue to pull more and more shit. You have to stand up to even seemingly minor instances of censorship, less these instances continue to grow.

Because everyone else knew it was inevitable when disney bought it, and if LMM is ok with it, I will be too. When a company buys something, they buy the right to use it as they wish (or as contracted).  🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2020 at 10:02 PM, Emblazon said:

In this thread, some people grew up after VHS, apparently. You want censorship? Try watching your favorite movie with 33% of the image just cut off, and some idiot who wasn’t the cinematographer, or any cinematographer for that matter, making camera movement decisions. 
 

THAT’S offensive censorship. Having the CREATOR CHOOSE to remove two words is more than acceptable. 
 

And if you really want to get into a censorship debate, I’m more than happy to get into it about theatrical releases vs director’s cuts. 
 

Now, could they have done a better job with choosing what to cut? Absolutely. You lose nothing by changing Fuuuuuuuuu to Whaaaaaaaa. So you get that “fuck” back. Keep “I get the fuck back up again”, and then have it be something like “southern mother truckin’ Democratic Republicans”. 
 

But again. Cutting something like the scene that is the motivation for the entire second act would be a crime. THAT would be censorship. But it’s there. And everyone who has only listened to the official soundtrack up until now will be in for a real treat. 


I’m sorry for loosing my cool previously. But you can stop getting personal, because I’m no longer attacking you. I also grew up in the era of VHS and pan & scan. No need to talk down to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

I'm hard-pressed to consider a thoroughly commercialized, mass market-friendly, practically focus group-tested product as Hamilton well and truly is as "art" to begin with.

 

If something speaks to you or moves you in some way, it is, in a way, art. Its process of creation, no matter how cynical, is irrelevant. Whether it's "good" art, that's a conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2020 at 1:23 PM, Emperor Diocletian II said:

I'm hard-pressed to consider a thoroughly commercialized, mass market-friendly, practically focus group-tested product as Hamilton well and truly is as "art" to begin with.


Did you just learn how Broadway musicals are made or something?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2020 at 2:25 PM, Emperor Diocletian II said:

There is enough risque material in Hamilton beyond the swearing that it probably shouldn't be on Disney+ to begin with.


You can see Bart Simpson’s penis on Disney+. Are you saying what’s in Hamilton is more risqué than Bart Simpson’s penis? :p 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

Yes.


You’re more than welcome to tell us your issues with Hamilton are without being so vague. I personally find it to be an impressive work of art despite overtime finding aspects of it to be troubling. I’m happy to debate you.
 

I also find it trendy to dismiss a whole work because of one one or two elements. Does Hamilton whitewash history? Sure. But does that make it a poorly constructed and performed musical? Absolutely not. I wish more critics and fans could learn to have nuanced views on art/entertainment instead of being so binary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:


You’re more than welcome to tell us your issues with Hamilton are without being so vague. I personally find it to be an impressive work of art despite overtime finding aspects of it to be troubling. I’m happy to debate you.
 

I also find it trendy to dismiss a whole work because of one one or two elements. Does Hamilton whitewash history? Sure. But does that make it a poorly constructed and performed musical? Absolutely not. I wish more critics and fans could learn to have nuanced views on art/entertainment instead of being so binary.

But it whitewashes history. That is the major problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sexy_shapiro said:


You’re more than welcome to tell us your issues with Hamilton are without being so vague. I personally find it to be an impressive work of art despite overtime finding aspects of it to be troubling. I’m happy to debate you.
 

I also find it trendy to dismiss a whole work because of one one or two elements. Does Hamilton whitewash history? Sure. But does that make it a poorly constructed and performed musical? Absolutely not. I wish more critics and fans could learn to have nuanced views on art/entertainment instead of being so binary.

 

Simply put, I cannot overcome my "political" aversion to the play which therefore colors (pun fully intended!) practically every aspect of it for me.  It doesn't help that I utterly despise the musical genre as a whole.  I was hoping that the play might change that somewhat, but its cloying, milquetoast political sensibilities only served to reinforce that visceral loathing.

 

Is the play reasonably entertaining?  Sure, I suppose it is, but it sure as hell ain't "art"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

 

Simply put, I cannot overcome my "political" aversion to the play which therefore colors (pun fully intended!) practically every aspect of it for me.  It doesn't help that I utterly despise the musical genre as a whole.  I was hoping that the play might change that somewhat, but its cloying, milquetoast political sensibilities only served to reinforce that visceral loathing.

 

Is the play reasonably entertaining?  Sure, I suppose it is, but it sure as hell ain't "art"!


May I ask if you saw a production of it?

 

You are certainly allowed to not like it and if you aren’t a fan of musicals in general, that totally makes sense. I’m personally a fan of the genre and love what the show added to the art form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What infuriated me to no end was that LMM had the opportunity to do something TRULY interesting with the concept (a hip-hop musical with a minority cast playing the lily-white Found Fathers) to make a bold, inflammatory statement that would do what the purpose of art should be: to make people feel uncomfortable by challenging their long-held beliefs.

 

And he did nothing of the sort at all.  In fact, he did the opposite: he made people as disparate as Barack Obama and Rupert Murdoch feel the "warm fuzzies" of contentment because the play only reinforced their belief systems which therefore negated its value as "art".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

But it whitewashes history. That is the major problem. 


It’s a compelling work of historical fiction that tells a compelling story using well known figures. I look at in a similar way as Shakespeare’s historical plays. It’s a classic rise and fall tragedy set against an American backdrop. In a way I would say that these characters are their own entities. I don’t think LMM original goal was to downplay slavery’s history in America, it simply isn’t a big part of the show because it’s not necessary with the story he wanted to tell. It’s not absent from the show however, it just isn’t as big a part as some people want it to be.

 

But where I have issues is that Hamilton wants to have it both ways. It wants to have a fictionalized story while also being a history lesson. Schools take field trips to see it. Eventually LMM will licensed it I be performed by schools. It’s fine as entertainment, but when presented as history I start to have issues with it, as an educator myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

What infuriated me to no end was that LMM had the opportunity to do something TRULY interesting with the concept (a hip-hop musical with a minority cast playing the lily-white Found Fathers) to make a bold, inflammatory statement that would do what the purpose of art should be: to make people feel uncomfortable by challenging their long-held beliefs.

 

And he did nothing of the sort at all.  In fact, he did the opposite: he made people as disparate as Barack Obama and Rupert Murdoch feel the "warm fuzzies" of contentment because the play only reinforced their belief systems which therefore negated its value as "art".


I understand where you are coming from. That’s part of the issue with large scale musical productions. In order for them to work they have to bring in money. Furthermore, they rely on investors to get the show running in the first place, and investors aren’t going to poor money into something that they feel won’t be a hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it’s Hamilton. By a lot. Distantly followed by Joseph.

 

And while I understand what Rent did for musicals and their relatability, it’s always really pissed me off that the best and most memorable song in the musical isn’t actually IN the musical.

 

Also, Dear Evan Hansen might be the first musical I’ve heard where the second act songs are stronger than the first act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Emblazon said:

Actually, it’s Hamilton. By a lot. Distantly followed by Joseph.

 

And while I understand what Rent did for musicals and their relatability, it’s always really pissed me off that the best and most memorable song in the musical isn’t actually IN the musical.

 

Also, Dear Evan Hansen might be the first musical I’ve heard where the second act songs are stronger than the first act.


What song are you referring to in Rent?

 

Rent is the best musical of the ones I’ve seen live, which isn’t a whole lot compared to some people. Perhaps there are better ones out there, but I can only judge on what I’ve seen.
 

I also recognize it’s not perfect, but it does speak to me on a personal level that other musicals haven’t quite done (although I do really relate to the young, brash Alexander in act 1).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...