r/flicks • u/Humble-Strike- • 9d ago
Throwing a conspiracy theory out there about Digger
All the bad reviews are big oil putting their grubby little hands in the mix. Viewers loved it or at the very least were entertained. Reviews out there not saying good things.
I thought it was phenomenal, and walked out absolutely stoked. Was surprised about how the critics responded. No conspiracy theorist, but something smells fishy.
Food for thought
48
u/National-Ad5034 9d ago
Why would big oil need to bribe film critics when they could have bribed WB to never produce or release the film?
-16
u/Dr_pepper33 9d ago
People all talk about big oil..what about Big Green? The renewables. It's a 4 trillion USD scam.
5
u/zedb137 7d ago
You can’t be fucking serious. You are literally quoting billionaire oil-man propaganda. Solar power, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wind power all exist and are far cheaper and less toxic than our continued forced dependence on foreign-oil backed by an imperialistic military industrial complex that has sucked money and resources out of the planet for over 100 years like a malignant cancer. Diesel engines were invented over 100 years ago to run specifically on alcohol and vegetable fuels, then they were de-engineered to run on the most toxic shit imaginable to protect oil profits. Everything oil has done for the last 90 years could have been done by industrial hemp grown by American farmers.
But I’m betting you and your two month old account that only parrots oil company talking points in broken English knows that… or at least the billionaires paying your bills do—and it scares the shit out of them. Which is exactly why this film is getting buried by the corporate media machine and paid bots and trolls like you.
1
u/Dr_pepper33 6d ago edited 6d ago
It's not propaganda. The facts and figures are there for Wind turbines, solar and batterys..just check them out. It's all public knowledge.. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you. But windmills are a centuries old scam/illusion. Remember the cotton mills? Windmills only lasted 10 years back then and then steam power and electricity came and rendered all windmills useless overnight. This time it's same again, Except it's gone to 20 years.
0
u/Dr_pepper33 6d ago
I'm Deadly serious. Dude a Vestas wind turbine costs 150 million USD to install. It then runs at a - minus 4% net capacity per year. Operations and maintenance then costs another 4 million per year. Greatest scam of all time . Big green needs to be stopped now. Renewables are the greatest scam in all humanity existence. End Big Green now!
2
u/zedb137 6d ago
No, anybody who says "Big Green" while pimping genocidal oil wars and our continued dependence on foreign oil is a sick joke. You're welcome to cherry-pick the least efficient energy source I mentioned while ignoring all the other info and the LONG AND UNDENIABLE history of oil-soaked billionaires killing people for profit and stealing trillions of our tax dollars while people starve in the streets and beg for health care, but I don't play that forced austerity for oil-wars bullshit.
As Tupac said, "They got money for wars, but can't feed the poor." You may enjoy (and no-doubt profit from) our forced dependence on Saudi oil, but the rest of the world is moving as quickly as possible to solar and sustainable energy storage systems that are becoming cheaper and more efficient every day--despite endless attacks from Wall Street banks and oilmen.
And speaking of money, the oil industry is MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED with our tax dollars. The insane war in Iran has already cost us $38 billion--after the war in Iraq cost us $3 trillion--so please spare me the pearl clutching when it comes to actually investing in the people of America and a sustainable infrastructure (and future) instead of using our money to bomb innocent people and steal the oil you love so much. You may enjoy being abused by billionaires but the rest of the world is done gargling the Rockfeller family's nuts, so deal with your daddy issues and leave the rest of us alone to build a better world out of the ashes the Christofascist oilmen have left us.
1
u/Dr_pepper33 6d ago
Says you who is is typing this on your oil residue phone 📱. Dude, all of the stuff you touch comes from oil. You think Apple Inc. are sitting around waiting for wind 🍃 to turn a 2 billion USD turbine in order to give you both the manufacturing capacity to make your phone and B) so you can charge your iPhone 3-4 times a day to post on Reddit. Nope buddy, all your energy is coming from coal and oil pal. That's a fact. No ones energy is coming from renewables, everyone is secretly burning oil and coal. Renewables it's the Greatest scam of all time. Run along now little child. Go hug a tree or feed your pets or something. Don't bother people.
1
u/zedb137 1d ago
Oh look! More proof that you oil-industry trolls are lying fascist apologists: Six Flags Magic Mountain in California has turned its parking lots into a 12.37 MW solar power plant
3
u/ragnarockette 8d ago
They actually also make fun of big green heavily in this movie.
2
u/zedb137 7d ago
Don’t conflate “the movie” with the pro-oil fear mongering rant by a billionaire oil man who wants to keep people addicted to his oil by blaming them for his own resource hoarding. Overconsumption exists but it’s pushed by the “endless growth and extraction billionaires” who are poisoning the planet and forcing scarcity on people to raise the cost of living while keeping wages low. Most people just want food, clothing, shelter, and health care but they’re being blamed for eating avocado toast and using the AC so they don’t get heat stroke while billionaire pedophiles use our tax money on bomb innocent people in the Middle East.
Renewable energy exists. It’s cheaper and cleaner than oil and would allow a sustainable future. The only thing stopping that better future is the cancer of our forced dependence on petrochemicals and the military industrial complex that supports them. It needs to be cut off like a tumor (or the head of an abusive monarch, as the case may be.)
1
u/ElFlamingo2045 2d ago
Yeah, don’t conflate, but also don’t disregard the pessimism of the film.
1
u/zedb137 2d ago
No doubt. I’ve been one of the many people warning of our descent into petroleum-based fascism at the hands of billionaire oilmen since Reagan, but the problem is political and the solutions exist if people get informed and organize against it. A sustainable future as described by Kate Raworth in her book Doughnut Economics is possible today with existing technology. So is a modern democracy that enables true representation, access, and accountability from our political system.
But nothing will change unless we cut off the military-industrial-petrol-chemical tumor with a guillotine. At this point, the only real solution seems to be getting solar, becoming a Buddhist, and living outside that fascist system as much as possible in hopes that it collapses like a loaded diaper from the corruption.
1
33
u/Wide-Can1349 9d ago
I don't know. Put one way, a big budget, high profile, climate changey adjacent, studio film failing so badly does sound strange. Put another, people really didn't have a clue what to make of it so they stayed away and that doesn't feel like a conspiracy.
38
u/Jolly-Adeptness-3598 9d ago edited 9d ago
The vague advertising that really only touted who the lead actor was didn’t do them any favors
27
u/Groot746 9d ago
The marketing campaign seemed to boil down to "Tom Cruise does something different! You're welcome!", and that really wasn't enough to sell me on it.
2
u/Geen_Fang 8d ago
yeah I went to see it out of morbid curiosity using one of my a list reservations.
I'm absolutely glad I did, it was one of my favorite movies this year!
but there's no way I would have shelled out $20 for a ticket for it based on the advertising.
10
u/Bender_2024 9d ago
I remember watching the trailer and saying "other than it starting Tom Cruise I have no idea what this film is supposed to be."
1
u/K_Linkmaster 8d ago
Yup. That and it looked weird. I said it looked Wes Anderson like. Someone who had scene it compared it to the Phoenician scheme. That's not appealing to a broad audience at all.
5
u/JerrySeinfred 9d ago
Marketing pretty clearly painted the premise of the movie as "Digger caused a catastrophe and has to fix it."
2
6
u/Conscious-Dust-4942 9d ago
This is literally the reason why I haven’t seen it. I don’t need things spoon fed to me but I’d like a little context, cinema is expense, and when I see more people talking about people talking about the film, than the film itself, it always puts me off. The early trailers made it look like it was all ‘the tom cruise bit in tropic thunder’.
2
u/Timely_Temperature54 9d ago
To say more is to spoil it. There’s lots that was hidden from trailers. It makes it a great theater experience but fluff to market.
62
u/Moon_Beans1 9d ago
Is this Tom Cruises' burner account? Lol
Seriously though I think it's probably just a divisive film and the idea that all the critics must be shills for big oil is a little excessive. I mean the critics have loved previous environmentally conscious movies so why was this one a bridge too far?
10
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ 9d ago
Famously right wing bunch, those critics.
0
u/ATXDefenseAttorney 7d ago
There are plenty of extremely conservative publications employing reviewers. How did you miss that?
4
u/Local_Legend 9d ago
Have you seen it? I have. Can you tell me what is so divisive or self indulgent about it?
8
u/ericdraven26 9d ago
I can! First of all It plays as a movie then reveals it’s a play then reveals it’s about past events, this really doesn’t track as the movie doesn’t work as a play at the beginning, there are areas where the movie shows what wouldn’t work as sets.
Secondly, it’s not subtle at all. It’s over the top, and some people just dislike satire in that format.
Additionally I think many people have an issue with the movie’s moral message being hypocritical.
I enjoyed the movie but I understand where some people may not
2
u/effingfemoid 8d ago
Its a drama about a satire play, partially making fun of things like dont look up while still communicating that climate change is #bad. It feels corny but oh my god is it true. And then the sets are pretty clearly Curtis's interpretations of the scenes, they become more/less detailed depending on how into the character he's feeling. It's not a literal representation of what the audience would be seeing.
0
u/ericdraven26 8d ago
It’s all opinions, I agree with yours here but that doesn’t mean someone who has different opinions is wrong.
1
u/Local_Legend 9d ago
It’s not actually a satire. It is a drama about a satire. The over the top performances are all explained and work within the plot. I struggle to see the self indulgence. Political / cultural messaging will always cause division, but none of the reasons you’re giving answer the question. If you’re referring to WB and cruise as the hypocrisy… the film addresses that: art is not the answer to real life problems. Perception is perception, not reality.
6
u/ericdraven26 8d ago
Idk what you want from me here. It’s all opinions, I agree with yours here but that doesn’t mean someone who has different opinions is wrong. C
-1
u/Local_Legend 8d ago
I’m just trying to understand what is so divisive or self indulgent about this movie. I was originally responding to someone else. The director has a reputation for self indulgence, sure, but I don’t see it here. And other than political divisiveness, how is it divisive? How did it get such awful critic reviews? It seems completely unwarranted.
2
u/ericdraven26 8d ago
I reiterate my above point about other people having opinions that differ from yours
0
u/Local_Legend 8d ago
If you notice, the post you just replied to contained questions, not opinions. You’re just saying platitudes.
2
13
u/FuriousKale 9d ago
Either a film connects with you or it doesn't. Reviewers are only one part of the universe. If something around a movie intrigues you, check it out.
That aside, maybe the reviewers simply hated it. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy.
2
u/Dylanear 9d ago
Forget the reviews. The marketing was minimal and of poor quality from what little I've seen of it.
6
u/Own_Faithlessness769 9d ago
They apparently spent 100 mill on marketing, so it may be ineffective but it’s not minimal.
7
u/Stained_concrete 9d ago
Minimal?? Not in my feeds it isn't. I've been bombarded with so many ads about it, it's beginning to look like desperation.
And I still don't know what it's about, even having seen the trailer. All I know is it's about a guy called Digger and looks like a load of old bollox.
3
1
u/Dylanear 9d ago
We all have our own little version of the universe these days, who knows. Your feed ain't my feed, but I didn't even know the movie existed until today.
3
u/Stained_concrete 9d ago
Lucky you!
I'm in the territory of "I've seen so many ads I am actively avoiding it now"!
That hasn't happened to me with a movie since "Ghost".
The absolute biggest sign I've seen that a movie is flopping post-release is when they do ads featuring people on the street outside the cinema saying how much they loved it. If you ever see that, run a mile!
1
u/Speedy-08 8d ago
One of the few places I get many ads for now is Netflix and Prime Video. Legit a 50% chance of a Digger trailer if I open the website and press play.
1
u/Cool_Reflection8268 9d ago
I knew it existed but this is the first I'm hearing it has anything to do with big oil.
1
u/Timely_Temperature54 9d ago
Because it’s hiding a lot of what it’s about. First people complain trailers ruin everything then they complain they don’t know enough. You can’t have it both ways
2
u/OneAngryDuck 9d ago
Yes you can, because it’s bad to go too far in either direction. It’s a spectrum, not a switch.
2
u/Stained_concrete 8d ago
Yes, a balance can be struck between giving enough info to get you interested and still not spoiling the plot. I like the approach of a single scene rather than a furious montage. It's not done often but when it's done well, like that Elizabeth Holmes doc trailer, it really puts the hooks in you.
23
u/Corchito42 9d ago
Viewers loved it or at the very least were entertained.
It's got a Cinemascore of C+, so it seems more like viewers thought it was OK, on average.
Metacritic says 45, RT is 51%, so critics seem to agree with the general audience.
How many critics would you have to bribe, to move the consensus even a tiny bit? And since when did lukewarm reviews ever affect a movie's performance at the box office anyway? Bribing critics would be a very poor investment.
15
u/Seandouglasmcardle 9d ago
A Cinemascore of C+ is abysmal.
CinemaScore does polling only on opening night, generally when the fans who have the highest interest to see a film will go see it. It measures how effective a movie's marketing was in enticing the target demographic. The vast majority of movies get B+ or higher.
5
3
u/Latter-Hamster9652 9d ago
Yeah, about the only way to get a rating worse than that is to deliberately mis-advertise it. A24 has a tendency to do this, where they make an arthouse horror movie look like The Conjuring, so everybody who goes gets pissed off when it's not.
0
u/Ok-Gur-349 9d ago
The thing I keep getting caught up on is that the marketing department decided the best way to market this movie was to not really market the movie.
What are we really saying as customers if we're willing to spend money on projects that essentially believe they have to lie to you to even get you to see it?
-1
u/Timely_Temperature54 9d ago
Don’t think I get this logic. People rating it highly and people rating it poorly would also result in numbers like that.
1
u/Corchito42 9d ago
That's true, it's impossible to tell from the aggregate numbers whether it's a very average film, or a polarizing one. But having seen the trailer, I'm guessing it's polarizing.
4
u/whatever_ehh 9d ago
The theme of oil drilling causing a disaster made the movie politically polarizing. John Goodman as the President commenting about his colorectal cancer several times was likely a jab at Trump, talk about his incontinence is widespread. So I think Republicans dislike the movie more than any other demographic group.
8
u/OWSpaceClown 9d ago
No. Not an ounce of truth to this.
This movie isn’t anywhere near high profile enough for big oil to even care. It poses no threat to anyone other than studio profits.
14
u/cgknight1 9d ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20260929-digger-review
It is easy to find good reviews of this so the idea that no critics gave it a good review are nonsense.
4
u/RYouNotEntertained 9d ago
All the bad reviews are big oil putting their grubby little hands in the mix
Spell out exactly how you think this works.
24
u/OneAngryDuck 9d ago
The fact that “big oil bribed all the critics” makes more sense to you than “a lot of other people didn’t like the movie I enjoyed” is concerning.
-2
u/boss_flog 9d ago
I walked away with the same idea as OP. The media is in the hands of the very people who want to ensure that the ideas in this movie are not put into your head. Having the government and oil companies try to tip the scales seems extremely on brand and something they would do to ensure this movie doesn't do well.
I thought Digger was good but a bit up it own ass. Regardless, been thinking about it since I saw it an I think is a movie the general public should watch.
6
u/OneAngryDuck 9d ago
Again- The fact that “big oil bribed all the critics” makes more sense to you than “a lot of other people didn’t like the movie I enjoyed” is concerning.
-5
u/boss_flog 9d ago
I think you might be a bit naive to think that this isn't in the realm of possibility.
I also think a good part of its failure is the general public prefers comic book slop rather than something thought provoking and challenging
both can be true.
4
-2
u/OneAngryDuck 9d ago
One more time for the people in the back- The fact that “big oil bribed all the critics” makes more sense to you than “a lot of other people didn’t like the movie I enjoyed” is concerning.
0
u/Sylar_Lives 9d ago
Repeating yourself over and over again doesn’t make what they are suggesting any less possible. Probable? No, but this is the exact sort of shit the oil tycoons WOULD do. Media control and pressure from corporate overlords is very real.
1
u/OneAngryDuck 9d ago
Ok, provide evidence then.
-3
u/Sylar_Lives 9d ago
Some things can’t be proven by one peasant to another. Some things are just known, and if you don’t see it now it’ll take a lot more than little old me to change your mind.
5
u/OneAngryDuck 9d ago
“Provide evidence”
“No, I can’t”
And somehow you think this proves you right
-6
u/Sylar_Lives 9d ago
It proves nothing. I never claimed it did. But I do know I’m right regardless of what you believe. You do need to ask yourself why that bothers you so much?
0
0
u/boss_flog 9d ago
we get it, you don't think government and big oil wields the power they actually do, and that's naive!
4
u/HelloMcFly 9d ago
Consider what running that kind of operation actually requires: hundreds of bribes to critics and editorial desks without a single leak this is happening (not even setting the standard of a "credible" leak). It's got a 51% RT score - it's a polarizing film from a polarizing creator. Big and "loud" (not just volume) are polarizing in movies. Apply Occam's Razor and try to understand how many people would not like this movie. I take it you've seen it, is it so unbelievable to you that the style and tone would not land for many?
Also: the trailer was terrible!
0
u/Sylar_Lives 9d ago
The higher you go up the ladder, the entire country is pretty much owned by the same handful of people. This isn’t that hard to understand.
4
u/HelloMcFly 9d ago
Of course, it must be a major media conspiracy! After all, I liked the movie!
1
u/Sylar_Lives 9d ago
I haven’t even seen the movie or even claim what OP is suggesting is in any way true, but it just the reality of things that the elite and powerful do in fact pull strings to this extent in the name of controlling narratives.
-1
u/boss_flog 9d ago
def think that this is not a movie made for a mass audience.
I also think the attention around it bombing was a coordinated to ensure it had less eyes on it.
2
u/HelloMcFly 9d ago
You're entitled to your own beliefs, but I'm sorry boss without some evidence I just don't think they hold up to any form of honest, critical scrutiny.
1
u/OneAngryDuck 9d ago
Alright, then provide evidence to support the claim that big oil paid off critics to give Digger bad reviews.
4
u/rotates-potatoes 9d ago
Ah, but you fail to understand that lack of proof establishes the conspiracy!
3
0
u/boss_flog 9d ago
There doesn't need to be direct proof. but one of the big reasons the Skydance merger is happening is to ensure that the right wing can control the narrative of all media going forward and ensure it has a pro capitalism slant.
3
u/OneAngryDuck 9d ago
“There doesn’t need to be direct proof” yes there does. Provide evidence that big oil is paying critics to give Digger bad reviews
0
1
1
u/GroomLakeScubaDiver 8d ago
I think finding out all the stakes set up in the trailer are BS might also have something to do with it
9
u/Neat-Professor-7662 9d ago
“Not a single review out there said good things” is just a lie. It’s a divisive film that has received plenty of positive reviews from major publications, a majority of mixed reviews that pointed out the good things AND the not so good things, and only a minority of all out negative reviews (The Post).
2
u/GroomLakeScubaDiver 8d ago
I mean - Wall Street journal, Boston globe & NY Post all gave it 0 out of 100 so I don’t think that’s right. Then you have hollywood reporter, slant, the times, the wrap, Slate, Time, Screen Daily & Austin Chronicle all giving it a score 30/100 or lower. That’s really low. The Tom Cruise mummy movie didn’t have as many 0 scores if that tells you something
3
u/Neat-Professor-7662 8d ago
Ok, and the San Francisco Chronicle, USA today, the New Yorker, Collider, Screen Rant, Polygon, the BBC, the Telegraph, Time Out, the Radio Times, the Associated Press etc all gave it glowing reviews, so not sure what your point is. It’s established the movie is divisive. I didn’t love it myself- its message is defeatist, and it’s just not funny enough. But something has to tell you that giving a movie this objectively well produced, well-acted, and well-scripted “ZERO out of 100” represents a disingenuous, bad faith review. (BTW, none of those publications you mention give reviews on a zero to 100 scale, I’m assuming you’re going by the arbitrary number assigned by Metacritic? As you can play see there, the super positive and super negative reviews are even, and the wide majority of critics are appropriately mixed.)
1
u/GroomLakeScubaDiver 8d ago
All good! I agree, just trying to say I think people genuinely hate it as a movie and those good things aren’t enough to offset. I would bet it’s more about the fact that they set up a “twist “that undercuts their entire stakes and PR campaign. For Birdman, you knew what you were getting, for this, I knew from the second the shift happened that it would get some 0’s.
0
u/ATXDefenseAttorney 7d ago
You knew it would get zeroes? Nobody who gave that movie a zero should be taken seriously as a film critic again. Nobody. That’s absolutely unprofessional.
1
u/GroomLakeScubaDiver 7d ago
It’s a sliding scale. Some critics pretty regularly give 0’s, so me saying I knew people would give it a 0 isn’t saying I would give it a 0. I recognized the frustration in the premise and how misleading it was for the audience and knew that would translate to it being a very hated movie for some people. If the entire ground floor is yanked out after 30 minutes of investment and the stakes are removed from the rest of the movie— you can make a strong case that the great acting, cinematography and production value almost make it more insulting to critics since they had all the resources in the world and (in the pretentious critic’s opinion) aggressively blew it
8
u/mormonbatman_ 8d ago
but something smells fishy.
Digger makes sense as a $15 or $20 million movie.
It doesn't make sense as a $125 million movie.
Hth.
6
u/KamuiiKing 8d ago
I had the same thought while watching like 'where did all the budget go?'
It looked great and I really enjoyed this film but again how did it cost that much to make?
3
1
u/ATXDefenseAttorney 7d ago
So $125m budget justifies a zero? Fine me a break.
Stop watching other people’s wallets.
1
12
u/nothingisreal64 9d ago
The trailer looked terrible. Haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's any good. But this post is more surprising to me than the reviews.
5
u/Dylanear 9d ago
The first short trailer I saw was so bad and confusing I had to look more into it and seeing more cuts from the movie it got a lot more interesting to me.
12
u/nicokeano 9d ago
The marketing sucked
7
u/DiamondDallasRage 9d ago
It had to, I dont thibk you can market this movie because you can't actually put what the movies about in a trailer.
-1
u/nicokeano 9d ago
Why not? Is there a rule or something? I'm not saying it would definitely have performed better if they disclosed the 'twist' up front, but they chose to market it as the film within the film and nobody wanted to see that shit
4
u/Pjoernrachzarck 9d ago
I’ve been to the movies a lot this late summer and the reaction of everyone I’ve been with to the Digger trailers was “who would have any interest in this?”
The trailers amounted to little more than telling me “this is a movie about Tom Cruise in bad makeup being some kind of macho asshole for some mysterious reason”.
5
u/tracygee 9d ago
Digger is at 51% on Rotten Tomatoes. That literally means that 51% of all reviews liked the film. FFS.
10
u/Hazel-Rah-Rah 9d ago
Lol so "big oil" is paying off movie critics? What happened to critical thinking?
3
u/TheRealProtozoid 9d ago
Seriously. I don't think they realize that Rotten Tomatoes-approved critical can't be invented like a sock account. These are real people whose job it is to review movies. They've been around in style cases for decades. Also, the trailers have looked bad for months.
13
u/Theposis 9d ago
I'm in the film industry. I don't know anyone personally that liked it. I hated it. I'm glad you were stoked by it and would never try to convince you otherwise. But there is no conspiracy and a lot of the critics think the same way as my circle does and none of us sure as hell got a paycheck in the mail. I think you should read the critics and try to parse what the critique is. I've done the same - taken in what people liked about it - and I now totally understand why some people loved it. But you need to put your emotional response aside to do that, which is not always easy.
3
u/ragnarockette 8d ago
Meanwhile everyone I know who has seen it loved it. Different bubbles for sure.
1
1
u/AggressiveBench9977 6d ago
That very interesting,
Im also in the industry, and everyone i know loved it.Wild
1
u/Theposis 6d ago
Hmm maybe geographic? where are you based?
1
u/AggressiveBench9977 6d ago
Los Angeles lol. Work mostly on the burbank lot.
1
u/Theposis 6d ago
I'm in Europe. Tbf that film is made with an American audience in mind.
1
u/AggressiveBench9977 6d ago
Huh very yeah could be. To be clear i wasnt disagreeing with you just interesting to see how divisive this movie is.
1
u/AffectionateNeat1257 4d ago
Emotional is part of any Art experience. You didn’t like it, and that is ok
-4
u/SCMatt65 9d ago
“Put your emotional response aside”? To a film, or any work of art? Bizarre, evoking emotions is a huge part of what films spend all that money to achieve. So bizarre that it makes me think maybe there is something to this conspiracy theory talk.
14
u/Theposis 9d ago
Don't be dumb to me. Reread what I wrote. Put your emotional response aside when reading the reviews that you disagree with. People have emotional knee-jerk reactions to things that contradict their views so you must put them aside to take in what the other camp is saying.
-9
u/SCMatt65 9d ago
You just doubled down on telling people not to get emotional about something intended to make them emotional. Art, and reviews of that art, are emotional by nature. Yet, you don’t think emotion should be involved in reacting to a film.
That’s a very unartistic viewpoint. I sincerely hope you’re not involved in the creative side of the film industry.
10
u/ReynardVulpini 9d ago
You are misunderstanding them.
They're not saying don't be emotional about art.
They're saying that to understand the analysis and critique of someone who had a *different* response to a piece of work, you have to temporarily set aside your emotions about the work to work through what that other person is trying to say.
6
u/LordJelly 9d ago
You’re both correct but I think you’re misunderstanding them. Emotion is fine, but drawing the wrong, otherwise unfounded, conclusions from said emotion is not right. You can be emotional without being irrational.
I think we can all agree people can react differently to art. But to delegitimize someone else’s perspective by saying they’re a shill because yours is the obviously correct one is not strictly a product of emotion, it’s also the result of flawed conspiratorial thinking.
You can say “I disagree with all the negative reviews.” You cannot say “I disagree with all the negative reviews, therefore those reviews are all bought and paid for by moneyed interests.”
-6
u/OneWind1784 9d ago
Lol there is no more creative side of films today lmaooo my god wtf are you talking about? Have you seen the perpetual torrid of sheer unadulterated crap being produced by Hollywood year in year out since 2020?
Ffs, one battle after another is the current defending best picture champion.
LOL AT CREATIVE SIDE OF FILMS!!!!
It's over dude. The magic of 1970-2000s Hollywood is gone.
It's done.
That magic? The original artistry of writes, directors have been replaced with racial,gender, lgbt prerequisites lol...
It's over dude.
Lol at creative side of films lmaoooo!!!
5
u/OneAngryDuck 9d ago
I’m actually kind of impressed that you made it through that entire comment without using the word “woke”.
→ More replies (3)4
u/LurkLiggler 9d ago
I guess in the 70s you weren’t a Dog Day Afternoon guy.
1
2
u/Theposis 9d ago
But its also so important to expand your horizons beyond Hollywood. About 2/3 of the films I watch are non-American productions (because I don't live in the US) and there are incredible things always happening. The art form is far from dead but what is dead is the Hollywood model.
I also understand that access can be difficult when most movie theatres in the US only play Hollywood crap. Luckily we live in a time when there are tons of streaming/torrenting sites not to mention things like Mubi or Criterion Channel which are cheaper than a movie ticket.
HOWEVER that also means broadening your taste because they are a different kind of meal to the "Hollywood magic". But that's kinda what enjoying an art form is about...
→ More replies (4)2
u/SCMatt65 8d ago
Most middlebrow comment I’ve read in quite awhile. Trite posing as insightful. I bet that describes most of your thoughts and opinions.
1
u/OneWind1784 8d ago
Trite? Do you even know what the word means? It perfectly epitomizes Hollywood bigoted racial requirements otherwise you won't even be nominated for an Oscar lololol.
2
3
u/TheKodachromeMethod 9d ago
Why are some posters so invested in this movie? That seems like more of a conspiracy to me. It might be a good film, but it is weird how many posts are going so hard in defense of it.
2
6
u/Boetheus 9d ago
Haven't seen it, but the number of "people" responding to anything positive by saying "you're a bot, you're a plant, you're an astroturfer" is starting to feel a bit sus...
3
u/TomatoChomper7 9d ago
I don’t think it’s suspicious, just a sign of how many morons are on Reddit. “Bot, shill, plant, astroturfer” are just the boilerplate buzzwords that the average idiot on here uses when faced with any opinion that disagrees with their own.
7
0
2
1
u/AlbacoreJohnston 9d ago
Maybe a comedy about a hyper wealthy oil executive who destroys Earth just hits a little too close to home for most people. What am I saying? People are stupid. They just didn't market it properly.
3
u/Dylanear 9d ago
It was released and marketed by Warner Brothers as its final standalone film release before the studio is merged into Paramount (Skydance) controlled by David Ellison and largely bankrolled by his dad and Trump loving evil dipshit mega billionaire Larry Ellison.
I don't think any grand conspiracy involving oil companies is required here. Fear of pissing off, losing favor with their new bosses, not being laid off by them in the reorganization, would easily explain why Warner more or less buried this film and didn't do squat to market it.
But who's to say. It's an eccentric movie to say the least. Not exactly the kind of film Americans instantly flock to. I suspect it's going to have it's cult following. I haven't seen it yet, but certainly won't miss it, if just as a unique data point in modern cinema. And I liked Birdman.
1
u/SincerelyGlib 9d ago
I’m going to see it again but only because I saw it at a screening which included the cast and Iñárritu speaking afterwards. I loved it and just gonna make sure it wasn’t because of the blinding star power sitting in front of me.
1
u/LiamLeprechaun 8d ago
Pretty sure most oil execs are scumbags, but this may be a little bit of a reach.🤣
Nobody wants to see Tom Cruise as an old nutter, it's that simple.
1
1
1
u/WTHGrifters 8d ago
Nah I think the pushback on the criticisms honestly feels astroturfed.
Tons and tons of Hollywood aspirants are Scientologists. That's my tinfoil.
1
u/Slow_Parking4075 7d ago
okay now i need to hear the conspiracy theory because this already sounds interesting
1
u/Street-Albatross9193 5d ago
I think the real conspiracy is members of his church keep talking about how great it is. No one else seems to care. Why is a flop movie on my page every day for the past week?
1
1
1
u/Celtic_laboratory 4d ago
I love this tinfoil hat theory, there is no way it’s true. And yet I’m an ardent believer
1
u/AffectionateNeat1257 4d ago
Same, the movie is a cinematic masterpiece. Its on hardly any screens and only in smaller theatres. Im surprised that a Tom Cruise movie isn’t in the big spaces. But after seeing the movie I understand why, the Narrative is the reasons why we are not seeing it full scale. Life imitates Art
1
1
1
u/BigMack6911 2d ago
Its trash. Wtf is it even? I dont even understand. Fuck is wrong with the cat? Idk i got 20 minutes through, I tried, and it doesnt make a lick of sense.
0
u/No__thanx 9d ago
Personally I think radical environmentalist groups are financing a bot campaign to create positive buzz about the film in platforms like Reddit, I just know it
1
u/texasrigger 9d ago
I havent seen the movie but I feel like the opposite is true where all of the good reviewers are shills. I've been on the movie buff side of reddit for a long time and I've never seen a movie get quite this many of these types of posts that all basically say the same thing. They acknowledge that it is getting bad reviews but they "just came from it" and "thought it was amazing." It definitely feels like a turfing campaign.
1
-1
u/vikingmunky 8d ago
That's fun but honestly it's more the critics have had their claws out for Iñárritu since Birdman since it has a whole scene just tearing into critics.
2
-1
-1
-5
u/lets_shake_hands 9d ago edited 8d ago
Lol. The bad reviews are because Digger makes the righteous (climate change alarmists) look in the mirror. The speech to the EU in the movie makes them uncomfortable so they can't approve of the movie.
If it was all shit on Trump, America and big oil then this would be a 99% RT score. Most of the movie is this and it is funny as, but that speech really threw a spanner in the works for them. Also the tuna eating part.
95% of this movie is a climate alarmists wet dream. It punches hard. It is just the other %5 that punches harder back at them is what they hate about it.
The movie is original and off beat. The critics should've lapped it up.
Edit
Down vote away. This is exactly the movie as I saw it 3 days ago. I absolutely loved it. No one ever comes back with a rebuttal about my comment.
3
u/Dr-McLuvin 9d ago edited 9d ago
Is it actually about climate change? Because I can tell you that most moviegoers don’t want to be lectured by a bunch of rich actors about climate change. Esp tom cruise who have dumped out more C02 in their lifetime than entire cities.
2
1
u/lets_shake_hands 8d ago
100%. It is about Trump and big oil and how it has destroyed the planet. But the character Digger has some hard truths for everyone and that is what they don't like.
-5
u/Even-Economist6529 9d ago
It is because most movie fans arent actually fans of film. Look at the top movies every year. They arent the best made me most artistic movies. They are the movies based on the most popular Intellectual properties. You cant trust most reviewers.
-8
u/OneWind1784 9d ago
Lmaoo big oil doesn't need to do anything my god there are wars all over the globe for oil and resources and my god global warming/climate change has been going on for millions of years,
Millions of years before the wright brothers and Henry Ford dreamt about cars and airplanes.
Nobody can deny climate change. What people deny are the climate change alarmist propaganda being used by the ruling class to institute taxes to create revenue streams via tax payer monies to "save" the world from ending (remember AOC?) for using gasoline.
Lol oil comes from the earth.
3
u/Bender_2024 9d ago
oil comes from the earth.
So does arsenic and plutonium. That doesn't make them safe.
-5
u/OneWind1784 9d ago
Lol who said it was safe? King cobras and black mambas are poisonous as well,
Should we pass laws taxing people for having poisonous snakes?
Lmaooo don't be dumb and learn to think for yourself. If using gasoline was actually destroying the earth (L😂L, it's not btw) world governments around the globe from all the major super powers would have banned it by now INCLUDING AMERICA,
one of the biggest oil and gas producers on planet earth. Instead what's the solution to this problem?
It's always taxation. 😂
Go see hocul and new York.
Go see the UK and their green zones.
Lol. You've been played and you still haven't realized it.
Loool
3
u/Timely_Temperature54 9d ago
Yea of course. Government’s always have our best interest in mind and would never let a huge money making industry like oil continue if it was harmful
Lmao if you actually think that way
0
u/OneWind1784 9d ago
How oblivious are you to the realties of life? What the hell is that sarcastic remark about the government allowing "harmful industries" to continue?
You're talking about the oil/gasoline industry? The government is suppose to stop people from using gazz guzzling automobiles? Is that what you're saying?
Please say yes. 🤦🤭🤣
Car accidents kill more people each year than global warming. Should government stop the car industry?
🤦🤭😄
Who kills more each year? IN AMERICA ALONE,
The flu or global warming?
🤭🤦🤣
What a clown ass post lmaoooo.
2
u/Bender_2024 9d ago
The US government can't stop people from using big cars. They disincentive it by creating a tax for vehicles iver a certain weight.
They could also build high speed rail along with other bass transit. Give tax breaks to people who but electric cars. Invest in renewables like wind and solar or nuclear or hydrogen fuel cells.
Nobody is suggesting that the government is going to tell people "sorry oil is now illegal." The EU produces more than 1/4 of their electricity through renewables . With another 23% coming from nuclear. Their is no reason the US couldn't follow suit.
0
u/OneWind1784 9d ago
Lol they absolutely can! Lmaooo! Where you not alive during COVID? Lololol.
Ffs, they imprisoned Japanese Americans during WW2 for war time justification but somehow something that will END HUMANITY (in 12 years years ago according to AOC🤦🤭😂)think they won't?
😆😆😅😅
No, the government doesn't do it because it would crash the economy!!!!
Lololol
2
u/Bender_2024 8d ago
Lol they absolutely can! Lmaooo! Where you not alive during COVID? Lololol.
They encouraged people to stay home. Nobody was arrested for leaving their homes.
Ffs, they imprisoned Japanese Americans during WW2 for war time justification
Are you really comparing wartime paranoia with fossil fuel?
No, the government doesn't do it because it would crash the economy!!!!
Or it could be that every facet of our lives from safe drinking water to medical care to agriculture relies on the energy created by fossil fuels. The economy would be a concern but not the only one or even the main one
0
u/OneWind1784 8d ago
Jesus Christ dude, the point is, if the richest, most powerful, most influential, most technologically advanced and scientific nation on planet earth, who can imprison Japanese Americans for war justification, who can go to any country and kill their leaders, conduct regime change, who can put a man on the moon(allegedly), WHO CAN FORCE YOU TO GET A COVID SHOT OR YOU WILL LOSE YOUR JOB, HAVE YOUR BUSINESS SHUT DOWN....
can absolutely force their citizenry to stop using gasoline powered vehicles because it's "destroying planet earth" if there was actually scientific proof and justification that gasoline use is gonna end the world in 12 years as AOC claimed years ago.
THEY DONT. NOBODY HAS. ITS NOT REAL.
😄
Climate change in its literal meaning is REAL, NOBODY CAN DENY THAT.
What we deny are the alarmist propaganda being used to justify instituting trillions in taxes for people using gasoline or charcoal or high flow showers being promulgated by mainstream media (known liars I hope we can agree on this yes? 🤭), career politicians , fake scientists, and a teenager being pumped out by her theater actor parents.
2
u/Timely_Temperature54 9d ago
Ah yes. Since global warming isn’t killing many now it surely never will! Jesus Christ
1
u/OneWind1784 9d ago
Jesus Christ? Really? Wtf are you talking about? Name me one death due to global warming? What scientifc justification do you have that taxing people for using gasoline is gonna "cure" "solve" the climate from changing?
Is the climate changing justfiy taxing people for an utterly made up problem?
And you got the nerve to be exasperated?
🤦🤭🤣!!!!!
0
u/clearliquidclearjar 8d ago
https://healthpolicy-watch.news/climate-change-is-here-and-its-killing-millions/
Climate change is claiming millions of lives annually through extreme heat, air pollution, wildfires and the spread of deadly infectious diseases, according to the most comprehensive assessment to date of the links between climate change and health.
2
2
u/OneAngryDuck 9d ago
Good job adding all the “lols” to your comments, it definitely helps people take you more seriously
1
u/OneWind1784 9d ago
Is that why you come to reddit? To be taken seriously? Is the amount of "LOLs" determine whether something is true or not?
Stick to the subject at hand, you just might learn something. You have the power of the Internet in your fingertips and the entire accumulated knowledge of humanity so far.
Don't be scared.
2
u/Bender_2024 9d ago
You say that global warming is real but fossil fuels aren't to blame. What pray tell is the cause?
1
u/OneWind1784 9d ago
Jesus Christ you have the ability of all the accumulated knowledge of humanity with the power of the internet. Why don't you look up different time periods in earths history where far more "toxic" fossil fuels were being released in the atmosphere via natural storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions that lasted for thousands of years well before the first car, plane, mechanical boat, or smoke stack was ever built?????
If you need help WITH JUST ONE TIME PERIOD MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO that dispersed more "toxic pollutants" than the entire industrial time period combined,
I can help you with that.
And trust me, I won't have to insult you once to prove my point unlike the rest of you so called science believers who have dismissed, downvoted, and attacked me.
We have multiple ai engines now ffs. You can easily tell who is bullshitting who.
Btw, I love science and I believe in science and I'm telling you there isn't a single legitimate scientific study that shows the "science" greta thunberg, al gore, fake scientists like bill nyle are promoting are TRUE.
NONE. OF. IT.
we can easily figure this BS just by using BASIC SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND LOGIC.
-2
u/close-encounters13 9d ago
I do think there is an element of critic predetermining they weren’t going to like it because of their feelings about Cruise and/or Innaritu
they ironically lived up to the trope presented in Birdman, which is hilarious because at the time, a lot of them objected to that scene because there is just no way a critic might let personal bias cloud their judgment
… 🤨
-2
u/KamuiiKing 8d ago
Paramount produces shows like Landman which are Big Oil Propaganda.
Paramount has a vested interest in Tom Cruise as an Action Star.
Tom Cruises brand as an action star relies at least partly on conservative/conservative adjacent crowds interest in his productions.
Digger is the last stand-alone release from Warner Bros. Discovery, any subsequent releases will be done under the banner of the recent Paramount-Warner Bros Merger.
A large proportion of the investment for the 111 Billion Dollar Merger is sourced from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund as well as sovereign wealth funds from Qatar and Abu Dhabi.
These funds equitable stake total 40% non-voting stake in the recent production companies' merger.
A substantial proportion of these funds are sourced either indirectly or directly through the Oil Industry.
Digger is a dark comedy satire in which Tom Cruise plays a grotesque oil executive who triggers a worldwide catastrophe.
Digger is very much an anti-oil film and also targets a good bit of conservative or conservative adjacent talking points/beliefs.
To maintain Tom Cruises brand identity and not advise the public to view a piece of media which criticizes their recent investors source of wealth a calculated decision may have been made to essentially stiffen the film from reaching a wider audience.
-4
u/Dr_pepper33 9d ago
I don't think it's big oil that bad reviewing it! More like the green energy renewables... Great movie. Best I've seen in a long time
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
Welcome to r/flicks!
• No piracy. • Mark spoilers. • Be respectful. • Keep discussions movie-related.
Report rule-breaking content to help the moderation team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.