Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to Aquamarine - Contact Fan Reaction, Aquamarine Preview

Transcript

Prequel to Aquamarine - Contact Fan Reaction, Aquamarine Preview · This Film is Lit

• 0:11
  Speaker A: On this week's episode, we follow up on our Contact listener polls and preview Aquamarine. Hello and welcome back to another prequel episode of this Film Is Late, the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. We got plenty of feedback to get to and lots of other good stuff. So we're gonna jump right in as we always do, to our patron shoutouts. I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why. No new patrons this week. But we do have our Academy Award winning patrons and they are Amanda Nicole Goble, Harpo Rat, justice for Kevins, Matilde Cottonwood, Steve Ben Wilcox, Teresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine Country, Kelly Napier Gratch. Just Gratch. Shelby's listening from the back rooms and that darn skag. Thank you all very much for your continuing support. Could not appreciate you any more. Katie let's see what the people had to say about Contact.
• 1:15
  Speaker B: Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion man on Patreon we had one vote for the movie, six for the book, and two listeners who couldn't decide. Our first comment was from Shelby who said, I'm trying to keep in mind that without this book we wouldn't have movies like Interstellar, the Martian and Project Hail Mary. Books like Solaris might not be as big. Books like Annihilation might not exist at all. Hollywood wouldn't be gearing up to bring us more sci fi after the success of Dune and Project Hail Mary. On the other hand, I haven't been this bored by a sci fi property like this book in a long time. I understand what we're doing, but you also haven't gotten me to care like these other properties. I think this is what people experienced while watching Star the Motion Picture. That's not to say there aren't good passages in the book. Brian read them. Maybe the story would have worked better for me as a vignette from part of something larger like in 2001.
• 2:19
  Speaker A: So stopping right there. And I'll probably refrain or echo this a lot, but I don't disagree with that. As I mentioned in the review that it was not my favorite book to read. I didn't find it a compelling page turner in the way that I kind of hoped maybe. I guess I would, but I also didn't. I maybe didn't dislike it quite as much as it sounds like Shelby did. I might be somewhere in between that and liking it because I think overall I liked the book. But yeah, like I said, I just. The actual it is not great throughout My opinion.
• 2:57
  Speaker B: I also didn't care for the both sides approach to religion versus science in the book and the movie. Maybe in another decade I would have had the patience for it, but not in this one.
• 3:09
  Speaker A: In the movie. I agree. Obviously in the book I think it does a pretty interesting job of marrying the two in a way that again, I wasn't expecting. Having not only ever read Carl Sagan's nonfiction stuff, I had only yeah, so I and this is his only fiction. But only being familiar with Carl Sagan vaguely through Cosmos and then through hearing him quoted and reading I was before I thought it was two different books, but I remembered that that is the title, the subtitle and the title of that book. It's called Like a Demon Haunted Science as a Candle in the Dark I think is like the subtitle and for some reason in my brain I had that as two separate books, but it's one. But I've also read his other big book. Oh my God, now I'm blanking on it again. Anyways, continue.
• 4:02
  Speaker B: Intellectually, I understand the reasoning behind the trope of aliens presenting themselves as people so humans can comprehend them. But I have yet to find an instance where I've liked it.
• 4:14
  Speaker A: Pale Blue Dot. That's the other one. Pale Blue Dot. Sorry.
• 4:18
  Speaker B: The movie is more condensed, which I appreciated, less waffling around. It has some good moments too. I liked Baby Ellie trying to reach her dad on the CB radio and the two launch sequences were fun. I was going to give it to the movie because it's shorter, but Brian's convinced me. Yes, it's a draw. If you liked one, you'll probably like the other.
• 4:40
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think I agree with that.
• 4:41
  Speaker B: Generally speaking, our next comment was from Kelly Napier who said, I've been so busy with work lately that I've barely had time to read, slash, watch, listen slash, vote with the episodes, let alone be able to comment on them. I guess that what that's what happens when you work in TV and the World cup is in your backyard. Yeah, but I had some big thoughts on this, so I forced myself to make the time. Somehow I missed this movie when it first came out. I remember it being a thing, but remember this was 1997, so me as a 13 year old girl was firmly in the grips of Titanic and all that accompanied it. That is fair. So I was excited to get to something I really should have seen decades ago. I ended up really, really enjoying this book. Unlike Shelby, the discussions around science and religion really hit me and I remember at one point I was listening to the audiobook while on my daily walk and literally stopped in tracks in reaction to what I was hearing. I immediately texted my best friend and my mom that they had to read this book. It's so rare these days that we get thoughtful, balanced discussions regarding religion. And it was a breath of fresh air to have some in this property discussions that left me feeling like my beliefs weren't right or wrong, but valid because they were mine and others are valid only because they're theirs. No winners, no sides, just what works for you is what works for you because it works for you. And I appreciated that.
• 6:11
  Speaker A: I will say, I think. And I can appreciate that, and I do. I think there's a little bit of that in the book. I do think that is not how I would characterize Carl Sagan's views on beliefs or religion or anything like that. I think he would be a little bit more. Hmm, I don't know how to word it. I think he would come down a little bit more on the. No, actually, like your beliefs do. There are right and wrong beliefs. And in something, maybe not specifically with regards to like very, very big questions about like deistic gods and stuff like that. I think he has a little bit more sympathy for kind of nebulous deistic theological beliefs than maybe I would have expected, given what I had known about him previously. But I don't know if I would necessarily characterize. I'm not saying it's a wrong way to read the book because I definitely think that's. Elements of that are in there. And I definitely think his point is to be sympathetic to people's beliefs and why they have the beliefs they do and where that comes from. And particularly to not be super judgmental about beliefs that do not. And maybe this is what you're getting at. He's definitely coming down on the side of to don't be super judgmental about people's religious beliefs that do not affect or do not like, directly and negatively affect the world. I think he has no problem with people believing in God if those beliefs do not inform negative actions in the world, which is how I am. So for reading this book for me, I was like, yeah, this is kind of what I. What I. This kind of follows my general beliefs about like, how the merging, not merging, but the. The conflict between science and religion, which is that as long as your religious beliefs don't make you an asshole, that's all that matters. And that's really what this book is saying in a lot of ways. Because at least in My opinion, because Palmer Joss is not an asshole and his religious beliefs. The book is like, meh, okay, like, whatever. Rankin is a gigantic piece of shit. And the book is very judgmental of his religious beliefs and outright characterizes them as incorrect at times. So again, I think it's a subtle difference. I also think it's compelling and interesting that I'm pretty sure I could be wrong. But I believe before Kelly has said that you are religious or Kelly has said that she's religious, I think. And Shelby is not religious, I'm fairly certain. And so I do think that obviously flavors your. Because again, I was kind of surprised how charitable the book was to religion in a way that I was not really expecting. I still largely thinks it comes down. Think it not think I largely. It comes down on the side of science and rationality and skepticism because that's just who Carl Sagan was, but just again, one that is maybe a little more sympathetic and to people whose religious beliefs are not hurting anybody.
• 9:18
  Speaker B: The spot where the book lost me was the amount of characters they had. I found myself getting confused over who was who and how they fit into the story, especially since I was listening to it and not reading it. So I appreciated that the movie cut out or combined some of the characters to streamline it better.
• 9:35
  Speaker A: Yeah, there are a lot of characters in the book which I think is an intent, is a choice to make it reflect reality, that were you dealing with a situation like this, there would
• 9:43
  Speaker B: be a lot of people involved, A
• 9:45
  Speaker A: lot of people involved. You know, it wouldn't be like eight people in the President's office. Like it would be. There would be huge consortiums of scientists from around the world, like, so I think that's. That's the point. But that being said, it does make it a little bit difficult to keep track of who all is doing what and what's going on.
• 10:01
  Speaker B: The romance between Ellie and Joss in the movie felt so forced. I agree with everyone who said Foster and McConaughey had no chemistry because everything after their initial one night stand gave me secondhand embarrassment to watch.
• 10:15
  Speaker A: I don't disagree with that.
• 10:16
  Speaker B: This is a woman who built her life singularly around science and the search for what could be out there. She isn't going to give a shit about how she looks and trying to impress a man at a gala.
• 10:26
  Speaker A: See, I slightly disagree with that, at least as presented in the movie. For sure that Ellie. But I. I think even book's version of Ellie, she's also petty and she doesn't disvalue relationships. Especially in the book she talks about. She has struggled with the relationships and connecting with people her whole life. That is what the entire thing that the book is about. But she very much. It's not. She, she. She enjoys being in relationships with people. There's again that passage about being in love that I read about her relationship with Der here. And she also can be petty and can be. Can want to like she, she, like. She gets into very intense arguments and debates with Palmer Joss and wants to win arguments against him about stuff because she finds his certain brand of religion kind of annoying. But also again, much more permissible or acceptable or able to be engaged with than other religious people. But she still does. I don't know. I found her being like, I need a really great dress to make him jealous. Not even so much as a. Because I need his approval or want him or whatever. But it's just because they've kind of had this nonstop. And again, it's different in the movie the way their relationship is presented. But they've had this kind of non stop flirty, weird repartee. And it's more of like, I'm gonna show him what he's not, what he's missing out on.
• 12:01
  Speaker B: It's a revenge dress.
• 12:01
  Speaker A: It's a revenge dress. Even though she is the one who ended the relationship. It's. I, I don't know. I think it actually tracks for her character. But I, I get what you're saying.
• 12:13
  Speaker B: I mean, I get that I don't have a single ex that I wouldn't. Revenge dress. Even though I ended the relationship.
• 12:20
  Speaker A: Exactly. Yeah. She wants to look because I'm petty like that. She's a little petty in a way that I think is endearing and. Yeah. Cause that I guess that's how I would different characterize it differently. Rereading your line. She isn't gonna give a shit about how she looks trying to impress a man at a gala. She's not trying to impress oppress him. She's trying to rub it in his face. That is the difference.
• 12:38
  Speaker B: I can get on board with that.
• 12:40
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 12:42
  Speaker B: I ended up voting for the book mostly due to the discourse I spoke about earlier in my comments, but also because the movie just didn't do it for me. It's hard for me to pin it down with specific examples, but I just felt like the movie rushed things I wanted to spend more time with and spent too much time on things I didn't feel fit what I knew about our main character after reading the book.
• 13:04
  Speaker A: Yeah. I Can agree with that.
• 13:05
  Speaker B: Our next quote. Our next comment is from Johnny diamond, who said, although Contact was an impactful movie for me when it came out, it's been nearly two decades since I last watch it, and I only realized I'd never read the book until you announced your coverage. I'm glad I finally closed that gap because it reframed my view of the movie considerably. I was born. I was both a devout Catholic and an avid science nerd when Contact first came out, and it appealed to both sides of me.
• 13:40
  Speaker A: There's a lot of those.
• 13:41
  Speaker B: Yeah, 97 was right as I started college. And while it took a few years to realize it, Contact and Carl Sagan more broadly were critical to me, outgrowing my faith in my early 20s. I'm fairly confident Sagan intended that effect with his writing, but rewatching the movie now, I'm not so sure the director shared that intent.
• 14:00
  Speaker A: 100%. Yes.
• 14:02
  Speaker B: The movie strips so much nuance and philosophy from Sagan's work and reduces it to an overly simplistic we need both science, both faith and science. While Sagan wasn't actively antagonistic towards people of faith, he saved most of that antagonism for those who wield faith more as a cudgel. His writing offers an answer to the search for meaning that Contact wrestles with, one I find far more compelling than the movie's Pat Dancer.
• 14:30
  Speaker A: Mm.
• 14:31
  Speaker B: Sagan showed immense compassion and understanding for the human drive for answers and how that drive leads people to faith and its reassuring fables. At the same time, he never seemed to argue that science alone could fill the role that religion claims for itself.
• 14:46
  Speaker A: No, absolutely. That's what I completely agree with that he's not a like, oh, well, you need, I don't know, just like, read Darwin and then you'll be. You'll be fine like that. He understands. Again, the whole point of the book is the need for numinous. The need for that, searching for that meaning in life and that it's not like for some people, I think you can kind of just not. Well, science, scientific answers for the universe. That's like all I need. And that's fine. I think there are people like that. I'm kind of like that. But there are plenty of people who don't believe in religion or who do or whatever, who just for what. I think it's kind of built into our. Who we are as humans to need that kind of fulfilled, that search for meaning fulfilled in some way that goes beyond just kind of a practical, rational explanation of. Yeah, the scientific realities of the universe.
• 15:37
  Speaker B: Instead, he argued for what I can only label here as a third way. Science is our most powerful tool for understanding ourselves and the world. But it can't answer every question, not because it's deficient, but because it was never intended to answer every conceivable question. Yes, but the questions science can't address aren't therefore answered by faith or religion either. Rather, philosophy, ethics, and the arts can help fill that role without the self flattering misdirection. Religion all too often provides this more complicated answer, one that tells us we'll never have all the answers, but it's still worth asking the questions is more beautiful than any reassuring fable Nailed it.
• 16:18
  Speaker A: You said it better than I did.
• 16:19
  Speaker B: Good job. That messiness and imperfection is why the book wins out over the movie. Despite what it meant to me, the movie has strengths. It's an excellent A to B narrative with little fluff or dead ends. The handling of the Signal is so visceral it still gives me chills just thinking about it. The audio and visual composition captures what that moment would feel like in a way words on a page never could.
• 16:44
  Speaker A: Which is why they knew that. Because if you listen to the prequel, the trailer, it doesn't have music or anything. The trailer is literally just the signal. It's like silence and then the signal comes in and it just keeps repeating over the course of the trailer. And then the trailer ends because, yeah, it is so kind of visceral and it gets the imagination going.
• 17:08
  Speaker B: The tracking shot as Ellie runs back into the control center is so kinetic. I was on the edge of my seat even knowing what was coming. Visuals like the machine, the telescopes, and those mirror scenes are iconic. Yep, I'll even throw in one more line not discussed in the podcast. Haddon's Wanna Go for a Ride carries such childlike glee that it's stuck in my head since I first saw the movie and remains a reference among old friends.
• 17:34
  Speaker A: I would agree with that. It is a great line. I did not mention it, but I do that as soon as it's been so long since I've seen the movie. It's not something that I like commonly quote. Whereas there are some other lines in this movie that I will kind of like quote occasionally but wanna go for. The way he says wanna go for a ride is it's great.
• 17:54
  Speaker B: But despite those strengths, its exploration of the core theme, the search for meaning and the impact such a signal would have on humanity can never compete with the intricate web Sagan weaves in the book not all his subplots land some speculation feels trite all these years later, but the book is so much more human precisely because it explores all that messiness and fluff that would bloat a movie. That not everything pays off neatly is part of point. There's a richness here the movie can never reach. Lastly, as Brian said, Sagan can write some bangers.
• 18:29
  Speaker A: He was a. He was a. It's a fascinating how he's both at times a very like mediocre writer in the book in terms of like kind of pacing and, and like describing some of his pro. Like the way he writes some like descriptions of events and stuff like that is not my favorite. But when pontificating about love or science or like the, the. The inevitable desire humans have for meaning in life, he's. It's when he's at his best and he can really. He really dials in for those moments.
• 19:07
  Speaker B: No writer is great at everything.
• 19:08
  Speaker A: That's true.
• 19:09
  Speaker B: Yes, the subtle and not so subtle exploration of sexism Ellie deals with feels spot on. Her complicated romantic and family relationships are beautifully messy in a real way. That description of love, along with the characterization of relationships between colleagues, friends and larger social networks, rings so true and creates such a complete picture that I wasn't expecting, even as a fan of Sagan's nonfiction book all the Way. Thanks for giving me the reminder I needed to finally read it.
• 19:41
  Speaker A: Fantastic. Well, thank you. That was great.
• 19:44
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Cottonwood Steve, who said, well, I have no idea how to begin. I was going to use a very esoteric and pretentious metaphor in regards to a couple bands I have started following recently, but I felt it would make me sound like a douchebag trying to make myself look cool. And then it hit me. This seems to be the exact thing Carl Sagan did with his book.
• 20:12
  Speaker A: I'm not sure I follow. Maybe you will.
• 20:14
  Speaker B: Perhaps Steve will explain further. I'm one of the people who could not decide whether to choose the movie or the book. On the one hand, Sagan does a lot of legwork on the science associated within the book. It has a hard science feel to it, which makes it feel legitimate and realistic. But on the other hand, he was the cool and overbearing dude in the corner talking about stuff only a handful of people like him would understand, such as the Fermi Paradox, life too scattered in the universe for easy contact, the Drake Equation, how many civilizations could exist in the universe, and the Kardashev Scale. What type of civilization you are, judging by your ability to Harness energy. You can say no one would have ever heard of this stuff without Sagan. But on the other hand, I felt like he was showing off a little to his 1980s pre fall of the Berlin Wall fan base.
• 21:11
  Speaker A: I did not get that at all. Maybe because I was familiar with all that stuff. Yeah, it seems. Sounds like Steve is so. Because, like, I was already familiar with all of those things from being kind of a science nerd my whole childhood and listening to science podcasts and reading, you know, Sagan's books and stuff like that. Like. But I remember learning about, I believe, the furry paradox and the Drake Equation at a relatively young age. And it's not particularly complicated or even that esoteric. I would argue they have interesting names, but they're not like super hard to grasp or wrap your head around once somebody starts. I guess you're not saying that, but I didn't find. I mean, he's writing a sci fi book about finding life in the universe. Like a hard sci fi book about discussing life in the universe, mentioning stuff like Fermi paradox and the Drake Equation were always going to come up if you want to write sci fi about that specific thing. I don't know. Yeah. I'm just saying I didn't. I didn't have the thing that I didn't get the vibe that he was like, showing off. I thought he was just writing about what he cares about, which is science stuff. Yeah,
• 22:24
  Speaker B: I won't judge him for this. Kind of sounds like you are.
• 22:27
  Speaker A: Sounds like you're judging him a little bit, but. But you were also judging yourself in the same way.
• 22:32
  Speaker B: But it was sort of an aha moment because Sagan was that guy about theoretical physics, as I am with movie, with music and mov, by the way, seriously, check out the band Clown core or not. We don't need more fans, even though I discovered them barely a month ago.
• 22:50
  Speaker A: See, that's where you're completely different than Carl Sagan. That, and I think that's the difference, is that Carl Sagan is. Wants to share the Drake equation and the Fermi paradox and the Kardashev scale with everybody. And he's not showing off. He thinks it's so fascinating and so cool and so interesting that everybody should know about those things and everybody and this book is his way to share. You know, writing a fiction book that covers all that stuff is his way to share his weird kind of esoteric knowledge about alien life and astronomy and the universe with the masses. Because he thinks this is stuff everybody can be into. Everybody should. Everybody can connect with this. And this is so cool. You should see this. And I think that's the difference there between what you're describing with the bands you're talking about where you're like, check out the band or don't. We don't need more. I know you're saying that kind of tongue in cheek, but I think it belies maybe a truth in your opinions about this. That is, I think I would argue a very distinct thing from Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan wanted to everybody to love science as much as he did. That was his entire thing.
• 24:07
  Speaker B: Had a whole TV show about it.
• 24:08
  Speaker A: Entire thing. Yeah.
• 24:12
  Speaker B: I'm gonna look up the band Clowncore after this. I can't promise I'm gonna become a fan, but I will look it up. As for the quality of the book, it did feel a little slow at times. It was a necessary evil for the stretched out timeline felt more realized than the condensed one in the movie. Getting into the background of Ellie was definitely interesting and it made me like her even more and also aggravated me when I rewatched the movie. I too hate how they turned this strong, self assured woman into a bumbling wreck from the Big Bang Theory in the final act. Strong words, I say.
• 24:50
  Speaker A: I. I don't. I haven't really watched any of Big Bang Theory so I can't compare that. Don't. But I, I agree with your assessment that obviously about what they did to her character. I completely agree.
• 25:00
  Speaker B: But then again it leads to the problem with the movie. Contact, as much as I like it, is definitely a boomer film.
• 25:09
  Speaker A: It's Zemeckis. Yeah.
• 25:10
  Speaker B: Yeah. Not too heavy on the science and heavy on the SAP and nostalgia.
• 25:15
  Speaker A: 100%.
• 25:16
  Speaker B: You know, I'm just going to give this to the book for. I have kind of talked myself into it now. It reminds me too much of Forrest gump and Apollo 13. Perfectly inoffensive cheese from that era that is once again making a comeback with the likes of Disclosure Day and Project Hail Mary. It tries too hard to bring a sense of wonder and was certainly fine when I was younger and less hardened by the world. I feel like Contact, the movie just didn't say much, which is fine for some people, but certainly not me. Mainly because I'm pretentious.
• 25:50
  Speaker A: I mean, I don't even disagree. I don't disagree that it didn't say much that ends up saying almost very little because Zemeckis is desire to kind of not, I don't know Zemeckis's religious beliefs or I say Zemeckis also the script writers, whoever, all the people, you know, does the studio production behind everybody involved in creating the film as we saw it. Because I don't know whose idea, like, whose, you know, choice it was for the ending to work how it did in the film.
• 26:17
  Speaker B: Right.
• 26:17
  Speaker A: But I completely agree that it's. It's definite. And that was one of my criticisms this. Of the film this time. It was definitely a lot cheesy. Like, cheesier and corny and sentimental. Like, quote, parenthetical negative. Because I. I think sentimental is one of. It's one of those words that I. I always forget that it's. I think, traditionally is used in a disparaging way. Saying something is sentimental is often meant as a negative, whereas we have kind of. In modern parlance, it is kind of morphed into anything. Like, either way, like, people use it as positives.
• 26:57
  Speaker B: I feel like in modern, it's almost more neutral.
• 27:00
  Speaker A: That's what I mean. That's what I'm saying. It's neutral. It's just. It just means evoking emotions. And it doesn't necessarily mean. In a way that's, like, negative. Whereas sentimental, traditionally, I thought, right, kind of.
• 27:11
  Speaker B: Or at least that often is. I mean, I would have to, like, look up the etymology of it and whatnot. But, like, yeah, often sentimental historically has been used in a negative way.
• 27:23
  Speaker A: And so I would agree with that because I did feel that watching Contact this time, that it was more sentimental, more intentionally kind of emotionally manipulative than I recalled it being, in a way that, like, I talked about that scene with the astronaut and his kid. And there's other moments throughout the movie that just felt like, okay, rolling my eyes at how. At Zemeckis. Like, just like, we get it, man. And what I have heard, I would obviously agree with that about Forrest Gump. I don't really agree with that about Apollo 13. It's been a while since I've watched it.
• 27:53
  Speaker B: I've never seen Apollo 13.
• 27:54
  Speaker A: Great movie. It's been a while since I've watched it. It's Ron Howard. He also can be guilty of that. So I'm not saying it's impossible, but I thought. I remember that being a much more. A much less kind of intentionally sentimental film. I have heard that very distinctly about Disclosure Day, that it is kind of the worst impulses of Steven Spielberg in terms of, like, yeah, okay, grandpa. Like, this is not the world we live in anymore. Like, what are you talking about? Like, it's just so disconnected from the reality of the world that it's hard to take seriously. And I actually had similar. My only real criticisms of Project Hail Mary, which we saw and I liked a lot was that at times I felt that it was being a little overly emotionally manipulative in a way that I found kind of grating, which is usually not a problem for me. For instance, I adored. And now maybe I would have different feelings now, but when we watched everything Everywhere all at once when it came out, which I know the, like the Internet famously thinks is like an overly sentimental, emotionally manipulative film, I sobbed through the entire, like last hour of that movie and thought it was like my favorite movie I'd seen in years. Now I haven't seen it since, I don't know, in a couple years. But so it really depends on how it's done and like a lot of things.
• 29:14
  Speaker B: Yeah. Because I can definitely see what you're saying about Project Hail Mary, but it didn't bother me at all.
• 29:18
  Speaker A: Yeah. And because we talked about that after we got out, you and our co worker that we went and saw with it, we were taught. I mentioned that I felt like it was a little overly emotionally manipulative in a way that I found a little grating about at times and just was like a little like, I get it, man. And I definitely felt that in context. So I don't think you're crazy for feeling that in the film at all.
• 29:40
  Speaker B: Although I just want to say, Steve, I appreciate that, you know, you're pretentious because that is. That is a pretentious person's only saving grace.
• 29:49
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 29:50
  Speaker B: Is being self aware.
• 29:51
  Speaker A: That's true.
• 29:52
  Speaker B: All right. And Steve rounded out his comment here, saying, anyway, I've probably angered enough people with that last statement. And to Brian, never feel bad about your episodes being long. It really helps listening to you guys when you have a three hour road trip. So it definitely helps with the mundanity of driving through the never ending roads of Arizona.
• 30:14
  Speaker A: Well, there you go. Thank you for your comment, Steve. Even though I argued with you a little bit, I also agreed with you a little bit. So, you know, just like in context,
• 30:23
  Speaker B: when do we not argue with Steve a little bit?
• 30:25
  Speaker A: I think he likes it.
• 30:26
  Speaker B: I think so.
• 30:27
  Speaker A: I think he. I think he enjoys it.
• 30:30
  Speaker B: All right, last comment on Patreon was from John Pauley, who we know in real life.
• 30:36
  Speaker A: Yes. One of my best friends going back to middle school.
• 30:39
  Speaker B: Yeah. And Paulie said, I first saw Contact the movie as an adult and I remember it being somewhere in my timeline of my path to accepting I am an atheist, but I don't remember it being particularly impactful in that regard. The book, however, could have been a different story.
• 30:57
  Speaker A: Interesting. I don't know. I'll be honest. I don't know if I assumed Paulie was an atheist my whole life because we just kind of got along in a way that made me think he was.
• 31:06
  Speaker B: Or
• 31:08
  Speaker A: maybe I knew because obviously I knew he grew up Catholic and like that, but I just wasn't. I don't know. That's interesting. I don't know if the. Like, I think I knew. I don't remember if we talked about it. It's been so long. Anyways, now you can. Now we can. He definitely is aware I'm an atheist. I'm pretty confident. Well, definitely after listening to the show,
• 31:25
  Speaker B: but even before that, I didn't know Carl Sagan wrote it until listening to the preview episode and was excited to dig into it. I still like the movie upon rewatch, but reading the book made me like the movie so much less.
• 31:39
  Speaker A: Why? We're best friends. Paulie, you're just gonna write my review back to me. I can dig it.
• 31:45
  Speaker B: Reading the book was like wrapping up in a warm blanket of Carl Sagan's detailed arguments of science versus religion via a medium of practical and realistic settings and characters. I understand movies generally can't have as much detail as books, but there is so much important nuance that goes into the debates in this book about science and religion that is missed in the movie. And it really affects the overall narrative of each 100%.
• 32:11
  Speaker A: It is almost to the point where you're like, you almost can't make this story that way. Like, it's just so different that it just loses so much of what makes this a book again. It is a different thing. It becomes a feel good spectacle boomer movie. Like, it is what it is. But yeah, it absolutely. I don't know if I said in the episode, but when we finished watching the movie, I was like, I don't know if there's a movie out there and this might be sacrilege to some people that I am more in more desire of being remade than this movie. I 100% would love to see. I don't know who I could come up with a. I think I could come up with a really interesting like, writer, director combo for who should make this and a leader leading. Okay, I'll do that later. I'll come up with writer, director, Ellie and Palmer Joss. Those are the four most important characters. And then depending on how you adapt the book, there will be other people. Those are the four. I'll think about it and I'll see who my dream remake is.
• 33:12
  Speaker B: We'll come back to that later. The movie does such a disservice to Ellie in a number of ways, particularly in her knowledge of religion, where the book has her being well versed in scripture and knowledgeable in many of the world religions, able to quote many of their teachings and arguments against faith. And later in the book, she travels the world discussing religious philosophy with other science and religious leaders of various cultures, weighing the implications of the existence of aliens against what those religions and cultures believe. She also has to go through the trials of the end of the story completely alone, both traveling through the machine and answering to the public about it in the movie. Whereas in the book there's four other people that experience it with her and are notably representatives of different cultures, religions, sex and age. The movie seems to put the onus of proving science on one individual's personal experience and does not allow her to provide evidence ultimately making the statement of the movie to be whether you trust in science or religion, it's all just equal faith. And that is very much not the statement of the book.
• 34:19
  Speaker A: Okay, I'm glad I wasn't alone in interpreting that the ending kind of says that of the film because I was like, I don't know why I want to hope I'm not being uncharitable here, but that's kind of what it feels like.
• 34:30
  Speaker B: I'm pretty sure the first time I saw the movie I did think it possible she was hallucinated the entire part of the machine. So I am glad at least they put the 18 hours of static scene in the movie so there was at least evidence to the audience that what she experienced was real. But it just makes the story of the movie so personal to Ellie. Only where the book is telling the story about humanity through her experience.
• 34:56
  Speaker A: I had an issue with the 18 hours of static thing I didn't talk about in the episode. That it feels like such a. Such a weird cop out in the movie that I just don't even understand why it's there. Because the whole point of the movie, very clearly the emotional cathartic release and end of the movie is like she has to profess faith in the same way that everybody else does. And this is her moment. She has to do it haha. Not haha, but like, there you go. That's the thing. We're all just. We're all believing on faith. Ultimately, when you boil it down to it like, but then. And like that's what the movie is doing, like, unapologetically seems to be doing. And then we get like a little denouement scene where they're like, oh, actually there is evidence, but we're not gonna. So it's like, okay, so what do I make of that as a viewer of the movie? Like, what do I. Okay, so she wasn't. She didn't make it up. It did actually happen. So she didn't actually need to profess on faith. But that's not the emotional catharsis. Like, that's not what the movie presents. So it just kind of undercuts the message for some. It's. It's like a bone left there for us atheists in the audience to be enough skeptics in the audience to be like, oh, see, she was telling the truth. And so she actually had evidence. She actually is backed by science. And so it isn't just faith. But that's not what the narrative presents mostly. So it's like, why? I don't know. I had such an issue with that. Just like in terms of when I was younger, I thought that scene was so fun because I had the same experience of Paulie where I wasn't thinking about the movie thematically at all. I was thinking about it purely from a narrative level of like, what happened as like a mystery? Did she actually go? Did she not? Blah, blah, blah. Like, and her at the thing is like this big moment, her at the trial is her having to like prove it in a way that like, I was caught up in the theatrics of it and not thinking about like thematically what it's saying. And so like when that reveal of the. Oh, there was 18 hours of static. I was like, ooh, wow. She, you know, it feel like as a 12 year old, I was like, ooh, she was right. Haha. But it like, it doesn't work with the thematic core of what the film is. It's. I hate it.
• 36:58
  Speaker B: One thing I did love about the movie was the relationship of Ellie with Palmer Joss. It makes perfect sense. And the Dehaer character was just annoying in the book.
• 37:08
  Speaker A: I liked him because. And I liked their. I like. I don't think he goes on to touch about it. I like their weird, messy relationship where just kind of, she's deeply in love with him and we get. Some of the most profound writing about love I have literally ever read is about her relationship with this guy who just kind of goes through and they never talk again. Eventually like that's just the end of their relationship just peters out and, you know, and like, it doesn't matter. And it. I actually find that really compelling. Like, I think that's really kind of. It references a very true experience of humanity, which is you can hold such deep and true emotional feelings for someone and that still doesn't necessarily mean that they're like your soul mate who you're gonna be with forever. Like. And I think that is kind of beautiful in a sad way. I don't know. Yeah, so I like it.
• 38:08
  Speaker B: But Ellie and Joss were great parallels in the story, as in the book they are portrayed as intellectual equals with Ell being a scientist able to quote Bible verses and Joss being a preacher able to discuss the astronomical significance of the star Vega. And they represent what I think is Carl Sagan's view of what the debate of science versus religion can look like when approached with mutual respect. Even if the character's path of learning truth leads them to a different ultimate ending viewpoint.
• 38:39
  Speaker A: Yes, I completely agree. I think that is absolutely what that he is presenting with those two characters.
• 38:44
  Speaker B: I also love the parallels of their numinous experience as both describe traveling down a dark tunnel to a foreign bright light and coming into contact with a heroic godlike being. Joss, for Ellie, her dead father, who is seemingly basically omniscient.
• 39:00
  Speaker A: Yeah, he's. We don't know exactly what he is. It's kind of implied he might be a singular alien taking the form of her parent or maybe like a hologram basically that they project. It's never really explicitly clear. I can't remember actually if they say that or not in the book. But yeah, I actually hadn't mentioned that. And I thought that was really like the similarity, the parallels between their experiences of Palmer's near death experience earlier. He talks and we don't get that in the movie, but he talks about going through a ton like the classic near death experience thing. And then her traveling to Vega is a very similar type of experience in kind of a way which I thought was. Is neat and I hadn't really thought about that.
• 39:48
  Speaker B: Ellie says Josh. Ellie says Joss imagined his experience due to lack of oxygen. But would Joss tell her she talked to God? Movie Joss would probably tell her this was God talking to her. But book Joss believes her experience and molds his religious beliefs to incorporate the truth of the message, the machine and the experience of the travelers while still being a strong believer in God, which I think is the message Carl Sagan was going for that at Least if you believe in God, you can still accept scientific truths.
• 40:19
  Speaker A: Yes. That big speech I read in the episode about how he said, like, my God is bigger than that. Like, my God has room for all of the stuff you're talking about, because my God is not this simple. Kind of constrained by the very narrow view that traditional Christianity has of God.
• 40:39
  Speaker B: Yeah. I would have loved if the movie had included the pendulum scene where Ellie challenges Rank and Joss's faith by saying she would confidently stand behind the large pendulum having faith in the science that states it can't swing past where it started versus them having faith. God would stop the pendulum from hitting them if they were. If they stepped forward. As it was a fun scene.
• 41:03
  Speaker A: It was fun. I was kind of annoyed in the book that I almost mentioned that in the episode. I was kind of annoyed with that scene in the book. I was unsure how to interpret that scene in the book because they actually eventually do that. She mentions it to Joss and Rankin in the book when they're having the religious debate. And then later when she's just talking with Joss, when they go to the National Air and Science Museum or whatever it was, they actually go to this big pendulum and they do it with just her and him, but she flinches and chickens out and he, like, calls her on it. And I wasn't exactly sure what to make of that scene. I was like, okay, so she kind of. But I don't know. Yeah, but it was. Yeah, I thought it was an interesting scene.
• 41:43
  Speaker B: While the main theme of the movie was faith in science versus faith in religion, the main theme of the book is arguably how communication and cooperation between humanity, regardless of race, religion, gender, age and nationality, can propel the human race further in the search for truth in the universe and scientific advancement, which I found much more profound and interesting.
• 42:05
  Speaker A: Absolutely. And that is 100%. Carl was all about like, hey, guys, we could stop being assholes to each other and work together, and this world could be pretty cool.
• 42:12
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 42:13
  Speaker A: And everybody was like, fuck you. Kill him. Kill him.
• 42:17
  Speaker B: This is also why I wonder if this book was very influential to Andy Weir, as this was a main theme in Project Hail Mary as well.
• 42:25
  Speaker A: It is. Yeah. No. And I would imagine that, yes. This is an. And I think it has similar flaws to the movie, has similar flaws to Project Hail Mary. And that being a little bit cheeseball at times. Times. But I like both.
• 42:35
  Speaker B: So I'm glad you picked up the line in the book. And it's true, the book was better than the movie.
• 42:42
  Speaker A: Picked up the Line. It's just written, not like it's subtly woven in there. It's just like right at the beginning of a chapter. It's like the book was better than the movie.
• 42:52
  Speaker B: Forgot to also say I did not fully understand the meaning behind the end of the book. With Ellie's real dad being John Stanton, the book states the imposter had turned out to be the real thing. Is this supposed to be a metaphor for finding a sign of the artist's signature in the number PI? Like life does have a creator father, but it's not necessarily God the father. I don't understand the significance or implication.
• 43:22
  Speaker A: So, yeah, I didn't actually talk about that, and that is interesting. And I also wasn't entirely sure what to make of that. And it was not like my favorite thing in the book because. So I think your interpretation is pretty good. I also think it's kind of meant to be a reminder that the way we feel about things aren't necessarily indicative of the truth. I think it's kind of a reminder to be, like, epistemically humble. Ellie knows who her father is. The whole book. It is Ted. It is the guy we see in the movie. And then it is revealed to her at the end, surprise. He was not actually your biological father, this other guy who you hated was. The issue I have with it. It is that John Staunton being her biological father doesn't change the fact that he was a shithead who she shouldn't. Everything we have been told about him in the book, he was kind of a sexist shithead and that she shouldn't have respected him and cared about him like. Or valued a relationship with him based. Again, based on what we're told in the book. Maybe it's meant to have us question her perception and characterization of him. Maybe it's meant to. To make us go, okay, so the version of him that you've learned about in this book is filtered through her perception of him as viewing him as her not her dad.
• 44:37
  Speaker B: Right.
• 44:38
  Speaker A: But actually, maybe he. But again, what we're told about him in the book is that he basically is like a sexist piece of shit to her when she's a kid. And like, well, why are you care about science, you should marry and blah, blah, like, just. And there's not. He's not given any redeeming moments, really, other than the note he gives her way late in life when her mom has a stroke or whatever. And he sends her the letter about, like, kind of chastising her for abandoning her mom. And not, like, keeping up with her. And because her mom was, like, very hurt by that. In that moment, you're like, oh, okay, that seems all very reasonable. And I. Maybe that's also supposed to be a moment where you're supposed to go, okay, maybe Ellie's version. Because I remember reading that letter and being like, everything he's saying here is fairly reasonable. Maybe you're supposed to go, okay, what we. What, Ellie, What. What we learned about him earlier in the book maybe is not an accurate representation of him. But that would be, like, the only time in the book we're doing, like, an unreliable narrator, at least as far as I'm aware. Unreliable narrator thing, where we're not supposed to believe what we're told about a character, really. So I. I don't really know what to make of it, like I said, because to me, it just ended up being this thing that's like, okay, it's. Again, it's interesting, and it does reframe her experience and reframe, like. Like, okay, what you thought was true about the world is not true. So, like, you should always keep that in mind when you're forming relationships and stuff. And maybe don't judge people. Like, you boxed him out of your life because you assumed he wasn't your father or whatever, but surprise, he was. It's like, okay, but if. If I think it would work if we just didn't get the stuff earlier where he was, like, described as being a piece of shit, then I'd be like, okay. Like, if she just was like, he's not my dad. Like, the only thing we get about him early is her being like, he's not my dad and he'll never understand me. Like, well, or something like that. Then we see maybe a little bit of, like, tension between them, but we never see, like, he's never outwardly outright, like, described as bad. Then I could understand this. But it. As it is, it ends up being like, okay, but she had good reasons to not form a relationship with this guy, from what you've told us. So what? Yeah. Anyways.
• 46:47
  Speaker B: All right, that's it for Patreon. Over on Facebook, we had one vote for the movie and one for the book. And Matt said, movie, but that's because I haven't read the book.
• 47:02
  Speaker A: Fair.
• 47:02
  Speaker B: And then Josh said, the book is a lot better, but hard to finish.
• 47:06
  Speaker A: Can't necessarily disagree with that. I struggled to get through it, even though I enjoyed it. A lot of it.
• 47:11
  Speaker B: We didn't have any comments on Instagram, but we did have One vote for the movie and two for the book. And on threads, we didn't technically have any votes. We did have A comment from gumbyok234 who said I missed the poll. But I was surprised Brian didn't comment on the long tracking shot at the beginning of the film that started in our atmosphere and then just kept going. Scorsese, eat your heart out.
• 47:41
  Speaker A: So I did mention that shot in the episode. I didn't really.
• 47:44
  Speaker B: To be fair, I think we talked about the, like, audio part of it more than the visual.
• 47:49
  Speaker A: Yeah, but I. So what I specifically mentioned was I said the movie nailed it. And I referenced that shot because I said it. We get this big, long tracking shot pulling out from Earth at the beginning of the film that is kind of reflective of the openings of the first handful of paragraphs in the book where we're flying towards Earth. And I was like, it's kind of this cool, big, long track shot. I will say I didn't say much about it. And to your Scorsese, eat your heart out. I don't know how tongue in cheek that is, how serious that is, is. It doesn't do. It's a cool moment. I enjoy it. But it's also, in terms of, like, it's an entirely digital effect. Like, it's. It's not particular. Like, it's cool. I like it. But from, like, a purely technical filmmaking. Like, the things that get me jazzed up in movies when I see, like, a cool shot is not an entire. Not. There's elements of it that I like, but the. The things that really get me aren't like, wow, they completely computer generated a flyback from Earth to the Vega Star. Vega. Like, that's cool to see, but it's just all computer graphics. Big, long tracking shots where you have 800 different extras and all of this stuff timed out. And it requires a complete choreography and a symphony of grips and lighting people and sound people and actors and. And all these different elements. That is the shit that is like that. That's what gets me going. Like, for instance, the tracking shot, which isn't even really that, but it is a little bit. The tracking shot following Ellie into the command center when the signal gets called does way more for me than that opening shot. Pulling back from space in terms of, like, the filmmaking, I like that shot, but it's just like, yeah, it's all cg. It's fine. It's cool.
• 49:35
  Speaker B: Cool.
• 49:35
  Speaker A: It's neat.
• 49:37
  Speaker B: All right. And over on Goodreads, we had zero votes for the movie. And one for the book. And Miko said, I did read Contact ages and ages ago, but over the years, the movie basically supplanted all my memories of the book.
• 49:54
  Speaker A: Yep, that's fair.
• 49:55
  Speaker B: I had a very similar experience as Brian did with the movie. I remembered it being great, but now upon a rewatch, I found it lacking.
• 50:03
  Speaker A: This has been one of the most edifying episodes of Feedback we've ever done, where every single. Not every single person, almost every single person is just like, Yep, exactly the same experience you had, Brian.
• 50:16
  Speaker B: Especially the wormhole sequence. I thought at least I'd like that part, but there were so many details I had completely forgotten. Foster is clearly going for a religious awe voice, but it doesn't work out at all for me.
• 50:29
  Speaker A: I didn't mention in the episode, but I agree. I. I love Jodie Foster as an actor. Like in most things, I think she's brilliant. I think she's great in most of this movie. I don't think she's all that great in some of this movie. And that is the. The like all voice thing she's doing at the end. As a kid, I remember watching that and being just as awestruck as she was and thinking it, like, worked perfectly. Watching it now, it fee. It reads forced and cheesy in a way that doesn't. Didn't quite land for me.
• 51:01
  Speaker B: Yeah. And blending together the younger and older Ellie's faces made me genuinely question if it was some botched, upscaling attempt before figuring out what they were going for. It looks so bad.
• 51:13
  Speaker A: Genuinely looks terrible.
• 51:15
  Speaker B: I enjoyed the book a lot and finished it in a day. It can be pretty slow at times, but I kind of prefer it over the movie. Injecting drama into every scene. Cutting the alien dad conversation short and not including the message in the digits of PI really left me wondering what the aliens were even going for in the movie. It feels like the only message Ellie brought back was, we're not alone. But the radio message itself confirmed that.
• 51:42
  Speaker A: Yeah, it is a little bit tough to figure out what they're going for. I mean, they say in the movie, like he specifically says, like, this is just a first step or whatever, right? Like small, small movements or whatever. And like, you know, we'll contact you again. Basically, it's like, this is just to let you know that we're out here.
• 51:57
  Speaker B: Don't call us, we'll call you.
• 51:59
  Speaker A: Which is similar to the book. Like, it's not that far off. The book does a very similar thing. They're like, we're cutting off the connection. You can't come back or what? You know, we'll. We'll reach out or whatever. So it's a similar idea. But yeah, I do agree that in the movie, it makes. It feels even less like, what's the point of this?
• 52:17
  Speaker B: Yeah. And Miko ended his comment here by saying the book is better.
• 52:23
  Speaker A: Here we go.
• 52:24
  Speaker B: And overall, people agreed because our winner this week was the book with 10 votes to the movies. Three, plus our two listeners who couldn't decide.
• 52:34
  Speaker A: It's fascinating, I would have thought. And it seems like we mostly had people vote who had read.
• 52:39
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 52:39
  Speaker A: Or watched them because, like, otherwise.
• 52:42
  Speaker B: Yeah. It feels like a lot of people did both this time, which is often not the case. So that's fun.
• 52:48
  Speaker A: I guess it's just one of those things where it happens to hit a specific thing that people similar to me was like a big part of my childhood. And then, like, you know, was. At least that was echoed in a lot of the comments we got, like, watching this movie when they were younger and it being like a thing that stuck in their memory. And so I think that probably had a lot to do with it. And everybody loves Carl Sagan. All right, that is it for all of our listener feedback. Thank you all very much for your comments. We love talking about them. It's literally my favorite thing to do about on this podcast. It's the best. It's the most fun. Now we're gonna preview our next film slash book, and start with Aquamarine, the book. Do you realize we've got five days to talk your mom out of moving
• 53:34
  Speaker B: halfway around the world? I haven't kissed Raymond yet, so I'm
• 53:37
  Speaker A: not going anywhere anyway. Hi, Raymond.
• 53:39
  Speaker B: Incoming. Cecilia's back from camp. Did you order a sand Witch for
• 53:43
  Speaker A: two best friends who needed a miracle?
• 53:45
  Speaker B: I'm sorry, sweetheart, but we're still moving.
• 53:48
  Speaker A: How about we start packing the rope?
• 53:50
  Speaker B: So how about I live here with Claire Till I'm 18?
• 53:55
  Speaker A: Something magical. Half the ocean washed up in there last night is about to happen. Boo. You're
• 54:08
  Speaker B: Aquamarine is a 2001 young adult novel by American author Alice Hoffman. You might recognize Hoffman's name from a previous episode because she also wrote Practical Magic. Yeah, she also wrote a bunch of other books, but Practical Magic is, like, easily her most well known work. Yeah, clocking in at only 104 pages, Aquamarine is really more like a young adult novella, which is why it's often packed together with Hoffman's other YA mermaid novella, Indigo, under the collective title Water Tales.
• 54:44
  Speaker A: Water Tales.
• 54:45
  Speaker B: Disappointingly, Spelled T A L, E, S. Yeah. And not like mermaid tails. I don't know whose decision that was.
• 54:54
  Speaker A: Marketing. Not a marketing person, that's for sure.
• 54:58
  Speaker B: And I was really scraping the barrel for fun facts this time.
• 55:02
  Speaker A: Don't worry.
• 55:03
  Speaker B: But Aquamarine was the answer to a Jeopardy. Liberty clue in 2024. The question was. Alice Hoffman, born March 16, 1952, wrote a novel about a mermaid called this. Also the name of her watery blue birthstone.
• 55:20
  Speaker A: Gives you a little bit of help there.
• 55:22
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 55:22
  Speaker A: For people who don't know this random
• 55:24
  Speaker B: book and a couple review poll quotes from off of the publisher's website of the novel, the New York Times Book Review wrote, quote, this spare, haunting novella is the lovely introduction to the author's storytelling genius and matter of fact lyrical style.
• 55:44
  Speaker A: Haunting.
• 55:47
  Speaker B: I have underst. I understand that the book and the movie are quite different.
• 55:51
  Speaker A: I don't even know anything about the movie, but just I literally. The poster is the only thing I've seen in the movie. And looking at the poster, I would not. The word haunting would be nowhere involved.
• 56:01
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, No, I understand that. They are quite different. And then from Publishers Weekly, quote, Hoffman creates an apt metaphor for that Twilight time between childhood and adolescence, when magic still seems possible and friendships run deep and true.
• 56:20
  Speaker A: All right, interesting. Let's go ahead now and learn a little bit more about Aquamarine, the film. How did you get in here?
• 56:29
  Speaker B: I used these.
• 56:31
  Speaker A: I have to find love, have it where I'm from.
• 56:34
  Speaker B: The only way I can get out of my wedding is if I can prove to my dad that love exists. I only get three days.
• 56:39
  Speaker A: I have one love with him. Raymond.
• 56:42
  Speaker B: Raymond. Raymond's way too popular. If you help a mermaid, you get a wish.
• 56:47
  Speaker A: Can we wish that you don't have to move? Yes.
• 56:49
  Speaker B: We begin where every girl starts with her first crush.
• 56:52
  Speaker A: We call in.
• 56:54
  Speaker B: Call it.
• 56:58
  Speaker A: That was fantastic. Sick.
• 56:59
  Speaker B: Let's do it again.
• 57:01
  Speaker A: Who are you? Aquamarine.
• 57:03
  Speaker B: That's kind of pretty for a crayon.
• 57:05
  Speaker A: Aquamarine is a 2006 film directed by Elizabeth Ann Rosenbaum, known for Purple Hearts and then mainly other television. Ginny in Georgia, I think was a television show. Two episodes of Dead to Me, which we've watched. Yeah, she did like an episode of Gossip Girl, an episode of the Vampire Diaries and lots of other random episodes of television in the 2000. This is like the main movie credit that she has. It was written by John Quintance, known for writing some episodes of Workaholics, Hot Pursuit, Bad Judge Whitney. The Whitney Cummings like sitcom, I think. And then the Will and Grace. Reboot. Reboot. Wrote like 10 episodes of that I believe. And Jessica Bindinger, who wrote Bring It On. Nice under the sun, an episode of Sex and the City, First Daughter and Stick it. Which was the gymnastics take on Bring It On. Right. It's like the gymnastics version of. At least that's what it seems like. This is what it. The poster looks like. And it literally says on the top of the poster from the writer of Bring It On.
• 58:07
  Speaker B: Right, right, right.
• 58:08
  Speaker A: Yeah. The film stars Emma Roberts, Joanne, Jojo Levesque and Sarah Paxton. There are other people, but who cares? I don't. Random adults. Those are the main characters. It was nobody I recognized, so I was like whatever. I'm sorry if you starred in this movie and had a supporting role in this movie and I short shrifted you. The film has a 53% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 51 on Metacritic, and a 5.5 out of 10 on IMDb. It made 23 million against a budget of $12 million. And the extent of the production. Notes on Wikipedia are that the movie filmed in Australia from February 2005 to April 2005. That was it. Moving to some IMDb trivia facts which are always of questionable reliability. Sarah Paxton, the main character required or not the main character, the main actress, the titular Aquamarine, supposedly required two and a half hours of hair and makeup for her hair and makeup. And then supposedly another two and a half hours to put on her tail, which seems long to me. I'm not saying that's wrong. I would have to see the tail, I guess, but.
• 59:13
  Speaker B: But I mean it looks pretty big, but I don't know.
• 59:16
  Speaker A: Big I would have to see because the two and a half hours to put it on, depending on how it works and how it's blended. I don't know any of that. But that seems like a crazy long time for a single piece that just goes over her legs and is then like glued down. Maybe.
• 59:33
  Speaker B: Maybe it wasn't a single piece, maybe not.
• 59:35
  Speaker A: As I said, when we see the movie, maybe it'll make more sense. I almost wonder if she was in hair and makeup for two and a half hours total and that included doing that. I don't know. I'm not saying again, some makeups can take a long time. Usually those are like very detailed face makeups and stuff where they're applying multiple pieces and blending and blah. A tail. It's already pre painted. It's. You're just putting it on, gluing it down and blending it again. Unless it's a very Involved. Deal. We'll see. I don't know. The tail also supposedly weighed over 100 pounds and was roughly 8ft long. So it is huge, that's for sure. Sarah Paxton was originally cast as Cecilia, the villain of the story, but insisted that she auditioned for Aquamarine as she had a lifelong dream of playing a mermaid.
• 1:00:19
  Speaker B: Lifelong dream achieved. You'll love to hear it.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker A: There's a scene in the film where the girls are browsing a magazine and they see. They come across a print interview with JoJo because she obviously was a musician, musical artist. I don't know. I say musician. She sings. I don't know if she like plays.
• 1:00:36
  Speaker B: She was like a pop star. Yeah.
• 1:00:39
  Speaker A: Supposedly Jessica Simpson was considered for the role of Aquamarine and offered it, but ultimately wasn't cast as she was determined to be too old.
• 1:00:48
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:00:48
  Speaker A: Which would make sense because she was like in her.
• 1:00:50
  Speaker B: She was like a grown ass adult at this point.
• 1:00:53
  Speaker A: Yeah. And then also supposedly Brie Larson was considered for the role of Cecilia Banks but was not cast. So getting to some reviews, Michael. Oh boy. German Michael Rechts Schaffen Rechtschafen. There is. Michael Rechtschafen of the Hollywood Reporter called Aquamarine a bright and breezy tween fantasy romantic comedy that coasts along on his charming performances and the light comedic touch of its first time. Feature Director Elizabeth Allen Variety's Joe Layden praised the film, saying, quote, the high concept premise has been fleshed out with inventive wit, unsticky warmth and more than a little wackiness. The result is an unusually likable, family friendly comedy that would appeal, that could appeal far beyond its target audience. Other critics praised the film's themes and message, giving the film a B minus. Chris Kaltenbach for the Baltimore sun said, quote, I like how Aquaman Aquamarine exhibits a welcome empathy for adolescent girls and an understanding of how they interact, while teaching the difference between what is important, friendship, self confidence and altruism. And what seems important, puppy love, trendiness and running with the pack. End quote. Quote Describing Aquamarine as engendering, quote, a vision of cherished, cherished sisterhood. Kelly Algram for Insider wrote that the film is a romcom insofar as it tells a boy meets girl story, but the deeper, more honest love between its young female leads is the film's true emotional core. End quote. Writing for the Boston Globe, Wesley Morris said that Aquamarine Aquamarine is unique because of its rare. It's a rare movie that fiercely respects the altruistic loyalty that bonds girls to one Another end quote. Ruth Stein for the San Francisco Chronicle found the film that while the film, quote, has a sweetness and innocence that makes it near perfect entertainment for its target audience. Aqua. Aquamarine. I can't say that word.
• 1:02:47
  Speaker B: Holy cow, we're gonna have trouble.
• 1:02:49
  Speaker A: Aquamarine. I'm just not gonna say in the episode, I'm just gonna say the Fish Lady. Aquamarine avoids seeming coy and doesn't flinch from taking on serious issues that illustrate that life isn't always all fluff, even for the young. Giving it three out of five stars, Roger Moore, not that one, writing for the Orlando Sentinel said, quote, aquamarine Marine really is just an adorable movie. And along the way, life lessons about love, friendship, adjusting to bad news and overcoming grief are passed along in a not that obvious fashion. And giving it three out of four stars, Todd Herz of Christianity Today wrote, quote, the movie scores a major victory in reaching its audience and the all too important message that they are fine just the way they are and end quote. Couple negative reviews though, because we gotta round that out because the film has like a 55% on rotten tomatoes. So with somebody on Wikipedia who's a fan of this movie, cultivated almost entirely positive reviews of this and then threw in a couple negative ones at the end. Other critic critics were less positive. Carrie Ricky of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, quote, like its title character, Allen's choppy and inconsistent film has two speed deeds, ditzy or sentimental, and never gathers momentum, end quote. There's something there it is as a negative. Nailed it. Reviewing Awkward Marine for the BBC Stella Papa Michael rated the film incredible name. Papa Michael rated the film two out of five stars, saying, quote, the worthy mess worthy message about the value of friendship central to Alice Hoffman's novel is drowned out by a sappy magazine style portrait of girlhood that's all lip gloss and giggles and end quote. So there you go. A couple counterfactuals to all of the glowing praise it received in all our other reviews. As always, you can do us a favor by heading over to Facebook, threads, Bluesky, Instagram, Goodreads, any of those places interact with us. We'd love to hear what you have to say about all the stuff we talk about. You can also help us out by heading over to Apple, Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to our show. Drop us a five star rating, write us a nice little review. It helps us out quite a bit. Finally, you could Support us at Patreon.com ThisFilmIsLit where every month we put out a bonus episode we literally just yesterday put out our bonus episode for June, which was an audible. It was supposed to be Tombstone, but at the last second, I said, no, I want to watch a different movie. It's my birthday. You can't tell me. I can't. And we watched and talked about Nirvana, the man of the show, the movie which just came out on streaming. So if you haven't seen it or heard about it, highly recommend it. Go check it out. Very funny movie. You can rent it on Amazon and other places. Very, very funny movie. But if you want to hear us talk about that. 5 bucks a month over at patreon.com thisfilmislit Katie, where can people watch it? Aquamarine.
• 1:05:31
  Speaker B: Well, as always, you can check with your local library. I think there's a pretty good shot they'll have a DVD copy of this. Very well.
• 1:05:39
  Speaker A: Good.
• 1:05:39
  Speaker B: Or if you still have a local video rental store, you can check with them. Otherwise, you can stream this with a subscription to Disney plus Tubi or the Roku Channel. Or you can rent it for around four bucks from Prime Video, Apple TV, YouTube or Fandango at home.
• 1:05:59
  Speaker A: There you go. I was not. I didn't know anything about this, but having read those reviews, I am more intrigued.
• 1:06:05
  Speaker B: Yeah, I have read this book long time ago. I remember not liking it all that much, so I'm interested to revisit it through the lens of adulthood and see how I feel about it. Now, I don't think I've seen this movie, but it's entirely possible that I have and I just don't remember it.
• 1:06:24
  Speaker A: Well, there we go. Well, I can't. I mean, I, I, I, the reviews. But also finding out that it was written by the person who wrote. Wrote Practical Magic.
• 1:06:31
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 1:06:32
  Speaker A: And then seeing the reviews, I'm like, okay, I can see that because that's obviously such a, the, the kind of relationship between women and, and that sort of thing is such a huge element of Practical Magic. And I adored that movie. So I'm very interested to see if this kind of silly kids movie from 2005 ends up having any of the sauce that Practical Magic did. I feel confident it won't look as nice. Yeah, but we'll see. We shall see. In one week's time, we're talking about Aquamarine. Until that time, guys, gals, not battery pals. And everybody else keep reading books, watching
• 1:07:05
  Speaker B: movies, and keep being awesome.
• 1:07:15
  Speaker A: Sam.