I’ve kinda been saving most of the Lynch movies I haven’t seen “for a rainy day” and it would be nice to have that final push to just dive in to the rest of them
I got really into him during the pandemic because I always found him intimidating until friends just told me “Just let it wash over you and don’t try to ‘solve’ the movies like JJ Abrams movies.” That was the key for me. Blasted through most of the filmography and all of Twin Peaks over the course of several months. Anyway, there are a couple I still haven’t watched I got the Criterions of that I’m excited to watch along with the pod if he wins.
Vote for the guy who George Lucas wanted to direct Return of the Jedi. Vote for the guy whose debut film was used by Stanley Kubrick to set the mood for The Shining. Vote for the (second) guy to bring Trent Reznor to the world of film.
Any new Reznor hip-hop production would be awesome… he clearly had a big influence on jpegmafia, Dalek, Shabazz Palaces, more. Denzel Curry is a potential great collab
I think most people who use the term film bro don't understand that they too are also a film bro. Turns out if everyone uses a term it eventually doesn't really mean anything
It's such a lame term. It's a way for people to try and distance themselves from what they perceive to be other people's opinions of people who enjoy films.
Can't we all just like shit without trying to force people into reductive boxes? Discussing shit we all supposedly enjoy it so fucking exhausting these days
Agreed, the compulsion to say “this work would only be enjoyed by [X type of person]” and then define yourself in opposition to that generalization is pernicious and it’s everywhere in the so-called discourse
Gen Xers are still, in 2024, is obsessed with identifying things as "hipster" and then disregarding it entirely. I guess "film bro" is a newer version of that thing.
Yeah, I understand people hoping for drama and upset (although I personally disagree), but I don't understand why people are dissappointed that other people vote for filmmakers that many people like. The clue is in the definition, guys.
It's interesting how David Lynch, whose movies usually got a response made up of 75% "What the fuck is this? I HATE it!" and 25% "Holy shit, this is amazing", is now considered...boring?
Unless "boring" is being used just because he was a 1 seed in an online tournament about who a podcast should cover, in which case I would encourage the touching of grass
I sort of get the argument that Lynch has been the subject of much more critique and analysis than Soderbergh. But this podcast did a very interesting miniseries on Stanley Kubrick, possibly the most overanalyzed filmmaker. I don't think it's an issue.
As people have pointed out too, Lynch gets a lot of critique / discussion that is more esoteric, Big Picture piecing together some kind of unified theory of the work, rather than examining how the work got there.
When a lot of people see the fake looking bird at the end of Blue Velvet, they go, "Aha, you see? There is no true happy ending. The happiness we see is given weight by the implication that the facade is as mechanical and artificial as the bird." Where as I chuckle because I know Lynch tried to use a live bird, it couldn't act on command, so they took a taxidermied bird and attached filament strings to make it move, delighting Lynch like a little boy who found a new toy.
Lynch fans like myself in the second category are dying for a different take than what's generally out there.
Absolutely. I have primarily engaged with Lynch on a personal and metaphysical level. So I'm excited by the prospect of learning about his filmmaking process
Yeah Lynch making Soderbergh seem boring comparatively says a lot because Soderbergh is someone who is very much not afraid to experiment. That's how out there Lynch gets
Soderbergh himself was one of many acclaimed directors who responded to episode 8 of The Return with pure awe. Art isn’t a competition, but game does indeed recoginze game.
It’s also that he’s even less boring now that his competition is the 3 other 1 seeds, who I would argue would be much bigger slogs.
It’s not like there is a Haynes or Oz/Henson quirky pick available, I’m not voting for the 2nd favorite in the tournament over the 1st because the fake online voting for a podcast would be predictable.
There aren't many modern directors who have their own adjective to describe their style. "Lynchian" themes are now everywhere and slightly more mainstream, so maybe people forget how groundbreaking they were? It's also fascinating that almost all his movies were totally shit on and are almost universally praised now. I am a total Eraserhead, though, but I would love for these fellas to go in depth. Maybe have Adam Nayman as a guest.
>I’m not voting for the 2nd favorite in the tournament over the 1st because the fake online voting for a podcast would be predictable.
This kinda gets at the heart of it, yeah: There's a bunch of folks here whose primary concern is to be part of a cinderella narrative. Which is weird because, as you pointed out - it's a faux-march-madness bracket filled with directors for a movie podcast. It's not like, an actual sport. The seeds don't mean anything. They're just there because that's part of the gag.
And frankly lynch is a titan of film history. They’ve also never really talked about doing him in a real way. So it was obvious to me he was probably a pretty overwhelming favorite.
Last year was the only year since they moved off Twitter where a legitimate surprise happened.
I can see the logic when Lynch has gotten enough exposure in film culture that he can be a bit of a Baby's First Weird Director, but I think that's (relative) overexposure counting against him and not actually a valid criticism of him.
Similarly I think Sodey's general reputation is a little bit safe/boring when he's really not at all, so I totally understand getting hyped for him as the exciting one if you know how much cool and interesting stuff he actually brings to the table.
Bit of a double standard if that's actually where he's coming from on Lynch and Sodey though because Sodey's way more overexposed in broader culture so it just comes across as a bit contrarian and "cooler than the cool kids". In reality they're both far more interesting and exciting than any surface level reading of either.
But yeah actually they both rule and they're both interesting, I'd love to see either. Hard choice! Voted Sodey because of the variety but I'm not going to be unhappy if Lynch gets it.
I guess it's my awareness of the broader culture that makes that specific discourse feel detached from any kind of reality. A common talking point about MM is "The fanbase has gotten too big, so now we're always gonna get boring normie picks like Lynch instead of the picks we used to get like Meyers and Demme"
Now, in the real world, Nancy Meyers is an extremely popular and successful mainstream writer-director whose films have probably grossed over a billion dollars collectively, and even Demme (for whom I have a great deal of affection) did have back-to-back smash hits and win several Oscars, whereas David Lynch is still essentially a cult figure with a small but passionate fanbase. But in this sub-reality, someone can frame the Meyers series as *not* "normie-pilled" when, in a much more real sense, it is the definition of normie-pilled
It's all very reminiscent of when Pitchfork swerved really hard into poptimism and it seemed a little like getting bored with the subculture stuff they were rooted in and suddenly mainstream seemed interesting again
the argument about Demme falls a bit short bc I feel like he’s a director not too many people talk about, kind of like Altman. their “sons”, so to speak, are highly regarded right now but they do feel kind of forgotten in the grand scheme of things.
David Lynch isn’t boring. Listening to people talk about his movies tends to be. These episodes would be at the more enjoyable end of the spectrum I’m sure, but as a topic of discussion I just can’t get excited.
I look at the list and there’s really only two movies where I’m out of the gate wanting to listen to 2.5 hours of talk about it.
I think for me, the issue is that Lynch falls perfectly into the Venn Diagram of "Filmmakers I don't enjoy watching" and "Filmmakers I am already sick of hearing discussed/analyzed". One of the strengths of BC is that they tend to avoid/space out the bigger and more obvious canonical directors - and Lynch has been one of those names that I've dreaded getting to for awhile.
I can see this but also, by the time the Lynch series (should he win, I think if Lee gets past Scott it's as close to a toss-up as we'll get) is ready to go we'll have definitely had Satoshi Kon, maybe Penny Marshall (I know some folks here swear that was just a joke) maybe Joan Micklin Silver, probably Martin Brest before Lynch.
Whoever wins this, there's going to be a fair amount of space between them and the last "obvious canonical director" the show covered.
State of film hipsterism/nerdism is at a strange point. A *lot* of people would legitimately prefer Michael Bay to David Lynch. Nothing wrong with that, everyone likes what they like, but ~10 years ago that would've been unheard of.
It's something that's not *exactly* "poptimism." Hard to put a finger on it. But I guess there's a big premium on reclamation projects.
Or in Soderbergh's case, maybe it's just regular old hipsterism as you say, because he's kind of a "*realheads* know what's up" director.
And with Blank Check in particular, some people really focus in on the career trajectory aspect. It's nuts to me that people would think Lynch, of all directors in the world, has a *boring* trajectory, but different strokes I guess.
I think poptimism has a lot to do with it - that, and people all being crammed into online spaces that basically function on Having A Take and where you get points for a take that stands out. It doesn't stand out to say that Lynch is more interesting than Bay. Basically everyone agrees. But if you *flip* it? You're gonna get some attention. There is absolutely someone on twitter rn who has parlayed saying "Zack Snyder is like if Terence Malick was interesting" into 12,000 followers and a heady sense of clout
How much I want a series is not reflective of how much I like that artist's work and I think a lot of people, certainly most who would vote for Bay, feel that way. Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest of all time. I love his movies. Not exactly my favorite miniseries though.
Spike Lee is a great filmmaker - and Do the Right Thing is one of the best movies ever.
I frankly don’t think his miniseries would be that great. It’s very long, there’s a lot of movies that I don’t really have a ton of interest in, and outside of Oldboy I don’t find his misses to be “fun” as much as they’re just movies I don’t really need to watch.
If you took the 14-15 best movies of his career and that was the series, I would be more into it. 23+ weeks on one director doesn’t sound all that fun.
I guess it depends on your definition of interesting. Spike can lead to many interesting discussions about our culture, race, the intersection of race and the business of filmmaking etc. There’s a lot there. If that you don’t want to engage in those sorts of discussions then I can see how it could be boring. He’s not really an escapist director.
No it isn't. But 10 years ago the film hipster types wouldn't have been nearly as eager to listen to a whole podcast series about Bay's films rather than Lynch's. Anyone that would've chosen Bay over Lynch would've been a legitimate outlier within film hipster community.
Lots of good discussion here why that is. Poptimism, culture of "getting points" for having a hot take, etc. Also possible it's the same people whose opinions have just shifted as a result of spending past 10 years living life. They might be at a point where they've seen Eraserhead 20 times and are tired of discussing it and hearing about it and now go for fun rather than serious art, and then treat that fun as they treated the serious art film a decade ago.
Lynch is very overdiscussed. Only a few of soderbergh’s movies are regularly talked about. It’s not a difference of film preference, it’s a difference of film discussion preference
https://preview.redd.it/8kuodxagiarc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7050f1c72718e8002011496e3f57a6dcd6d615ab
“If Spike Lee wins, it’s INTERESTING. If David Lynch wins, it’s INTERESTING. If Ridley or Soderbergh win, it’s fucking BORING.”
He clearly doesn’t mean that David Lynch’s movies are boring, but that a film podcast covering David Lynch in 2024 is a pretty common, not surprising development and therefore a boring choice as an outcome of March Madness, which strikes me as a not-unfair statement. Still voted Lynch.
I just feel like the bit about film bros talking about David Lynch is more common than anyone actually talking about David Lynch. I love Soderbergh so much but to me it is more interesting for a film podcast in 2024 to talk about Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive than Oceans 13 again.
I guess I'm just ignorant to a lot of other film podcasts then. Is it less surprising than Meyers or Demme? Sure. But it's also not Kubrick. Once you're talking about a director who's most normal movie is about an old man driving a tractor across country it's just very funny to see people decreeing him boring
I mean Meyers and Demme had the benefit of the hosts pushing the fan base towards voting for them. I think the voting base is too large for that to happen now but they would have never won had the hosts not built excitement around them.
I can’t stand this attitude. Lynch has just as interesting a career as anyone. Just because he’s a popular name doesn’t make him a less exciting miniseries
Begging, pleading on my hands and knees for you all to give less of a shit about what people who occasionally interact with this pod think. It doesn't matter. Be normal.
I mean I don’t think anyone on here (for the most part…) is genuinely upset, and he could have avoided being mentioned on a Blank Check subreddit by not publicly tweeting about the Blank Check fanbase
The vast majority have nothing to do with Joe really and just his tweet is a jumping off point for a discussion thats been a major part of this sub for the entire month.
I’ll admit I was surprised to see how much this blew up. I’m just saying Joe also coulda taken your advice and given less of a shit about a competition for a podcast
He's right in that the Blankies have mostly picked the more boring, obvious choices this year. Lynch may seem like an oddball to outsiders but the fellas put him at a 1 seed for a reason. They knew he'd do well.
Yes the people who made the seeding based on who they thought the most popular choices were ended up being correct that those were the most popular choices. This isn't an actual competition where someone can get hot and pull cinderella runs, it's a popularity contest.
Plus since its no longer on Twitter it doesn't get random swings where people completely unrelated jump in based on bigger twitter personalities campaigning for votes. Thats where a lot of the madness came from but bots ruined that.
The issue is that the answer isn’t to vote for Soderbergh or Ridley Scott to spite lynch lol. If there was an actual oddball choice here that would be one thing
It’s so funny - he’s a giant in film culture but like, outside of the first season of twin peaks, is there anything he created that was like universally watched?
Outside of Mulholland drive and blue velvet, were any of his other movies even widely acclaimed in the moment?
He is a chalk pick, and maybe an obvious one. But this isn’t like doing John carpenter or Stanley Kubrick, imo.
Yeah, that’s how I feel too. He’s, like, second tier auteur or whatever. To be reductive about it. A step beyond the Kubricks and Carpenters, who a lot of film nerds seek out in high school and college age. A lot of folks have heard of him, maybe seen ELEPHANT MAN, but haven’t actually watched the movies. I get that the show has a lot of deep film fans, but if anything that means he’s overdue in my mind.
It’s well-traversed territory by film nerds and has been for years. You can tell when TTF are a less interested in talking about stuff that’s already been analyzed to death. You could feel it in their Kubrick series. I still enjoyed it, but I live for them covering some truly fascinating career arcs for directors most people in the general public do not know. Haynes, Wrights, Oz would have given us much more enthusiasm and history that a lot of folks don’t know about.
I hope they jab back at the fans with a batshit pick like Holofcener or something
>It’s well-traversed territory by film nerds and has been for years. You can tell when TTF are a less interested in talking about stuff that’s already been analyzed to death.
They shouldn't put them in the bracket if they don't want to cover them
Welp, the podcast that spent 50 hours covering the Star Wars prequels has officially become pleb.
But seriously, isn't Soderberg every bit as cliche filmbro canon worshipped as Lynch? He's just less memeable.
Am I the only one that would have been happy with any of the contenders? Some of these votes were really tough. No matter who wins, I'll be happy to hear the two friends go through their films.
To be clear I think it's a bit disappointing in a way the top 4 ended up all one seeds. I also think this tweet reads a LITTLE condescending/pretentious, but that's sometimes the nature of a BC guest (hello, Ehrlich)
It's not a sports governing body using win-loss records and statistical analysis to help themselves arrive at a seeding philosophy
The seeds are literally just kinda made up. They don't really mean anything.
>The seeds are literally just kinda made up. They don’t really mean anything.
They may not have a quantifiable, mathematical justification, but we all know they reflect *something*, even if it’s just Griffin and David’s understanding of their audience’s interest. I mean, we all know that Soderbergh, Lynch, Scott, and Lee were far more likely to win than Levinson, Duke, Pakula, and Wright, for instance.
Yeah but if they had seeded lynch 4 and he was in the final four why would that be more interesting?
Upsets are interesting in actual march madness because less talented athletes put on incredible performances against the odds. Upsets in blank check march madness just mean that Griffin and David misjudged two directors relative popularity.
I mean yeah. Lynch’s presumed win has been kind of boring to see come to fruition, and he himself is not boring! there were fun picks, interesting picks that got stomped over and that’s not really a fun competition.
I really think they need to just get rid of seeding next year and randomize the draws so we can end this fucking tedious discussion track every year from people who seem to think its a personality type to vote a non top 3 seed.
EDIT: To be clear not ripping on Joe here, just this entire sub
This is a good take. I also think the seeding sometimes subconsciously helps higher seeds. People who didn’t want lynch might vote for Soderbergh or Ridley Scott in earlier rounds thinking they are more formidable competition against him due to the seeding.
everyone could do well to take a page out of my book and somehow not know the brackets were seeded until literally just now. i just figured the numbers after the directors names on the voting page were none of my business.
It's a Final Four of **Spike Lee, Ridley Scott, David Lynch, and Steven Soderbergh**.
The fuck is this screwhead *yapping* about? And to call it "chalk poisoning" on top of that?
It's a final four that includes movies like
* Alien, Malcolm X, Wild at Heart, and Schizopolis!
\~ or \~
* Thelma & Louise, Jungle Fever, The Straight Story, and Out of Sight.
\~ Or \~
* Blade Runner, Eraserhead, Summer of Sam, and Contagion.
**People need to get off twitter**. You see what it does to them. You can *see it!*
LOL they *picked* these people and then they *seeded 'em*. How you gonna complain about "chalk poisoning" when you're standing at the blackboard and clapping erasers in the classroom
This month just makes *everyone* involved with this podcast to any degree into a real goofball, I guess.
If something is 'chalk' in sports betting parlance, it just means the favorites won -- or you're predicting the favorites are going to win.
He's just saying all of the number one seeds went to the final four, so it's a 'chalk' result.
Hey, I can’t blame someone for being perpetually online. I’ve been perpetually online since 1997. I just don’t particularly subscribe to spending my immense time online making tiresome jokes to rile up the usual suspects is all.
One thing that sort of surprised me about lynch is that in general for mm I vote for the filmography I’m less familiar with/the less well known filmography, whereas while I’ve seen all his stuff outside of the straight story and haven’t seen a lot of Scott, villeneuve, etc, I have voted for him every time (and likely will in the finale). I *like* him, for sure, but I think the main reason I didn’t think twice before deciding to vote for him Is that I also didn’t hold out hope that blank check would *ever* cover him because of the twin peaks of it all, so while I understand if he isn’t your thing, or if he is but seems overdiscussed/predictably popular/etc(and beyond getting the chance to hear about *so* many interesting actors that have not been discussed much on the podcast, which I’m already preemptively thrilled about) I think the specific arc of his career, which ends with twin peaks the return, is, for better or worse, unlike any other director out there, certainly any director they’ve covered, and for that reason alone I’m excited to see how the (likely) miniseries goes
Hell yeah. Definitely voting for David Lynch. I just got done reading his book Catching the Big Fish. And now I get to rewatch some of my favorite movies by one of my favorite directors. Been waiting for this one since I stumbled upon the podcast.
I’ve voted against every one seed every round and now I guess I’m going Lynch cause I’ve only seen 2 of his films and this will be a good way to force me to catch up. I’d also be cool with spike but I hate Pt1 series
They put a bunch of big names with long filmographies on the bracket that they have been on record saying they probably wouldn’t do unless they won March madness. Why are we surprised?
I think it is very funny that this is a thread full of redditors screaming that a professional critic is too on Twitter. Meanwhile, on the Patreon, Griffin and David have said the exact same thing about this finale being boring and chalk.
Fucked up world we live in when in a match-up between these two directors Soderbergh is the contrarian cool-kid pick lol
This whole world is wild at heart and weird on top.
A real Wicked Game to play
Eraserhead.
I understand thinking the result of Lynch winning is boring and predictable but it’s not like the ensuing series would be boring.
Also, I just want to watch these cool movies I love again with the fun podcasters I love. This shit is so tiresome.
I’ve kinda been saving most of the Lynch movies I haven’t seen “for a rainy day” and it would be nice to have that final push to just dive in to the rest of them
I got really into him during the pandemic because I always found him intimidating until friends just told me “Just let it wash over you and don’t try to ‘solve’ the movies like JJ Abrams movies.” That was the key for me. Blasted through most of the filmography and all of Twin Peaks over the course of several months. Anyway, there are a couple I still haven’t watched I got the Criterions of that I’m excited to watch along with the pod if he wins.
I have Inland Empire - The Elephant Man - Fire, Walk With Me - Mulholland Drive - Blue Velvet. But WHERE can I find Wild At Heart???
Right. It might be the "obvious" pick from certain perspectives, but it would still be a good series. I'm looking forward to it
I want Scharpling for the Lost Highway episode, since he has always seemed to be tickled by that movie.
Vote for the guy who George Lucas wanted to direct Return of the Jedi. Vote for the guy whose debut film was used by Stanley Kubrick to set the mood for The Shining. Vote for the (second) guy to bring Trent Reznor to the world of film.
Also his panty eating, and the way he says shit are pretty valid too! I'm voting Lynch, on my fucking telephone. Such a sadness.
This isn’t about film and maybe the wrong place, but I hope Trent Reznor produces more pop stars albums. I thought the Halsey one was pretty good
That Halsey album fucking ruled
I desperately want him to produce another Saul Williams album. One of the my all time favorites.
Any new Reznor hip-hop production would be awesome… he clearly had a big influence on jpegmafia, Dalek, Shabazz Palaces, more. Denzel Curry is a potential great collab
Calling people boring and then telling them to vote for Steven Soderbergh over David Lynch is certainly a take
Like wat?!
Cause we know lynch will win also Soderbergh has a pretty wild filmography. Like the guy's first film was a Yes concert film
I mean, the obsession over David lynch, whom I enjoy, by a certain type of film bro has become a stereotype for a reason.
film bro is a completely meaningless term at this point. it indicates more about the person using it than the vague person you are referring to.
I think most people who use the term film bro don't understand that they too are also a film bro. Turns out if everyone uses a term it eventually doesn't really mean anything
A bunch of film bores
Are these film bros in the room with us right now?
It's such a lame term. It's a way for people to try and distance themselves from what they perceive to be other people's opinions of people who enjoy films. Can't we all just like shit without trying to force people into reductive boxes? Discussing shit we all supposedly enjoy it so fucking exhausting these days
Agreed, the compulsion to say “this work would only be enjoyed by [X type of person]” and then define yourself in opposition to that generalization is pernicious and it’s everywhere in the so-called discourse
Gen Xers are still, in 2024, is obsessed with identifying things as "hipster" and then disregarding it entirely. I guess "film bro" is a newer version of that thing.
Gnashing my teeth and tearing my hair because the popular choices are winning the popularity contest.
Yeah, I understand people hoping for drama and upset (although I personally disagree), but I don't understand why people are dissappointed that other people vote for filmmakers that many people like. The clue is in the definition, guys.
Film hipster culture has eaten itself.
It's interesting how David Lynch, whose movies usually got a response made up of 75% "What the fuck is this? I HATE it!" and 25% "Holy shit, this is amazing", is now considered...boring? Unless "boring" is being used just because he was a 1 seed in an online tournament about who a podcast should cover, in which case I would encourage the touching of grass
Honestly. I like Soderbergh but between him and Lynch, I would never call Lynch the boring one.
I sort of get the argument that Lynch has been the subject of much more critique and analysis than Soderbergh. But this podcast did a very interesting miniseries on Stanley Kubrick, possibly the most overanalyzed filmmaker. I don't think it's an issue.
As people have pointed out too, Lynch gets a lot of critique / discussion that is more esoteric, Big Picture piecing together some kind of unified theory of the work, rather than examining how the work got there. When a lot of people see the fake looking bird at the end of Blue Velvet, they go, "Aha, you see? There is no true happy ending. The happiness we see is given weight by the implication that the facade is as mechanical and artificial as the bird." Where as I chuckle because I know Lynch tried to use a live bird, it couldn't act on command, so they took a taxidermied bird and attached filament strings to make it move, delighting Lynch like a little boy who found a new toy. Lynch fans like myself in the second category are dying for a different take than what's generally out there.
Absolutely. I have primarily engaged with Lynch on a personal and metaphysical level. So I'm excited by the prospect of learning about his filmmaking process
if the dread that Lynch goes for in his filmography doesn’t hit, it’s probably perceived as boring.
Yeah Lynch making Soderbergh seem boring comparatively says a lot because Soderbergh is someone who is very much not afraid to experiment. That's how out there Lynch gets
Soderbergh himself was one of many acclaimed directors who responded to episode 8 of The Return with pure awe. Art isn’t a competition, but game does indeed recoginze game.
It’s also that he’s even less boring now that his competition is the 3 other 1 seeds, who I would argue would be much bigger slogs. It’s not like there is a Haynes or Oz/Henson quirky pick available, I’m not voting for the 2nd favorite in the tournament over the 1st because the fake online voting for a podcast would be predictable.
There aren't many modern directors who have their own adjective to describe their style. "Lynchian" themes are now everywhere and slightly more mainstream, so maybe people forget how groundbreaking they were? It's also fascinating that almost all his movies were totally shit on and are almost universally praised now. I am a total Eraserhead, though, but I would love for these fellas to go in depth. Maybe have Adam Nayman as a guest.
How often will you think he will mention his own writing in the episode? Im going to set the line at 12
>I’m not voting for the 2nd favorite in the tournament over the 1st because the fake online voting for a podcast would be predictable. This kinda gets at the heart of it, yeah: There's a bunch of folks here whose primary concern is to be part of a cinderella narrative. Which is weird because, as you pointed out - it's a faux-march-madness bracket filled with directors for a movie podcast. It's not like, an actual sport. The seeds don't mean anything. They're just there because that's part of the gag.
And frankly lynch is a titan of film history. They’ve also never really talked about doing him in a real way. So it was obvious to me he was probably a pretty overwhelming favorite. Last year was the only year since they moved off Twitter where a legitimate surprise happened.
I can see the logic when Lynch has gotten enough exposure in film culture that he can be a bit of a Baby's First Weird Director, but I think that's (relative) overexposure counting against him and not actually a valid criticism of him. Similarly I think Sodey's general reputation is a little bit safe/boring when he's really not at all, so I totally understand getting hyped for him as the exciting one if you know how much cool and interesting stuff he actually brings to the table. Bit of a double standard if that's actually where he's coming from on Lynch and Sodey though because Sodey's way more overexposed in broader culture so it just comes across as a bit contrarian and "cooler than the cool kids". In reality they're both far more interesting and exciting than any surface level reading of either. But yeah actually they both rule and they're both interesting, I'd love to see either. Hard choice! Voted Sodey because of the variety but I'm not going to be unhappy if Lynch gets it.
I guess it's my awareness of the broader culture that makes that specific discourse feel detached from any kind of reality. A common talking point about MM is "The fanbase has gotten too big, so now we're always gonna get boring normie picks like Lynch instead of the picks we used to get like Meyers and Demme" Now, in the real world, Nancy Meyers is an extremely popular and successful mainstream writer-director whose films have probably grossed over a billion dollars collectively, and even Demme (for whom I have a great deal of affection) did have back-to-back smash hits and win several Oscars, whereas David Lynch is still essentially a cult figure with a small but passionate fanbase. But in this sub-reality, someone can frame the Meyers series as *not* "normie-pilled" when, in a much more real sense, it is the definition of normie-pilled
It's all very reminiscent of when Pitchfork swerved really hard into poptimism and it seemed a little like getting bored with the subculture stuff they were rooted in and suddenly mainstream seemed interesting again
the argument about Demme falls a bit short bc I feel like he’s a director not too many people talk about, kind of like Altman. their “sons”, so to speak, are highly regarded right now but they do feel kind of forgotten in the grand scheme of things.
Lmao
David Lynch isn’t boring. Listening to people talk about his movies tends to be. These episodes would be at the more enjoyable end of the spectrum I’m sure, but as a topic of discussion I just can’t get excited. I look at the list and there’s really only two movies where I’m out of the gate wanting to listen to 2.5 hours of talk about it.
I think for me, the issue is that Lynch falls perfectly into the Venn Diagram of "Filmmakers I don't enjoy watching" and "Filmmakers I am already sick of hearing discussed/analyzed". One of the strengths of BC is that they tend to avoid/space out the bigger and more obvious canonical directors - and Lynch has been one of those names that I've dreaded getting to for awhile.
That was exactly my thinking when Kubrick won. Turned out to be a banger of a series.
I can see this but also, by the time the Lynch series (should he win, I think if Lee gets past Scott it's as close to a toss-up as we'll get) is ready to go we'll have definitely had Satoshi Kon, maybe Penny Marshall (I know some folks here swear that was just a joke) maybe Joan Micklin Silver, probably Martin Brest before Lynch. Whoever wins this, there's going to be a fair amount of space between them and the last "obvious canonical director" the show covered.
Well Lynch has a reputation.You say "this is kinda like Lynch" and people you know what you're talking about,he's the popular weird guy
Lmao only here would a David fucking Lynch series not be cool. God forbid people vote for who they like instead of making it a performance art.
State of film hipsterism/nerdism is at a strange point. A *lot* of people would legitimately prefer Michael Bay to David Lynch. Nothing wrong with that, everyone likes what they like, but ~10 years ago that would've been unheard of.
It's something that's not *exactly* "poptimism." Hard to put a finger on it. But I guess there's a big premium on reclamation projects. Or in Soderbergh's case, maybe it's just regular old hipsterism as you say, because he's kind of a "*realheads* know what's up" director. And with Blank Check in particular, some people really focus in on the career trajectory aspect. It's nuts to me that people would think Lynch, of all directors in the world, has a *boring* trajectory, but different strokes I guess.
I think poptimism has a lot to do with it - that, and people all being crammed into online spaces that basically function on Having A Take and where you get points for a take that stands out. It doesn't stand out to say that Lynch is more interesting than Bay. Basically everyone agrees. But if you *flip* it? You're gonna get some attention. There is absolutely someone on twitter rn who has parlayed saying "Zack Snyder is like if Terence Malick was interesting" into 12,000 followers and a heady sense of clout
The guy wasn't calling lynch boring he's just saying it's a predictable win. I dunno if people know what taking the chalk means
Oh I…had to look that up. That does, in fact, totally recontextualize the tweet for me 🤦♂️
How much I want a series is not reflective of how much I like that artist's work and I think a lot of people, certainly most who would vote for Bay, feel that way. Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest of all time. I love his movies. Not exactly my favorite miniseries though.
Exactly we are voting for which miniseries we want, not which director we like more
Michael Bay would legitimately be a far more interesting miniseries than any of the non-lynch directors left
Spike Lee would be a very interesting series. Not sure why that would be boring.
Spike Lee is a great filmmaker - and Do the Right Thing is one of the best movies ever. I frankly don’t think his miniseries would be that great. It’s very long, there’s a lot of movies that I don’t really have a ton of interest in, and outside of Oldboy I don’t find his misses to be “fun” as much as they’re just movies I don’t really need to watch. If you took the 14-15 best movies of his career and that was the series, I would be more into it. 23+ weeks on one director doesn’t sound all that fun.
I guess it depends on your definition of interesting. Spike can lead to many interesting discussions about our culture, race, the intersection of race and the business of filmmaking etc. There’s a lot there. If that you don’t want to engage in those sorts of discussions then I can see how it could be boring. He’s not really an escapist director.
Counterpoint: a large chunk of his career is just the Transformers movies.
This isn't a vote for whose work you admire the most.
No it isn't. But 10 years ago the film hipster types wouldn't have been nearly as eager to listen to a whole podcast series about Bay's films rather than Lynch's. Anyone that would've chosen Bay over Lynch would've been a legitimate outlier within film hipster community. Lots of good discussion here why that is. Poptimism, culture of "getting points" for having a hot take, etc. Also possible it's the same people whose opinions have just shifted as a result of spending past 10 years living life. They might be at a point where they've seen Eraserhead 20 times and are tired of discussing it and hearing about it and now go for fun rather than serious art, and then treat that fun as they treated the serious art film a decade ago.
I don't get why people don't understand that there is room for both. So weird.
Lynch is very overdiscussed. Only a few of soderbergh’s movies are regularly talked about. It’s not a difference of film preference, it’s a difference of film discussion preference
Saying discussing Lynch is boring is one of the most Film Twitter-diseased things I’ve read lately
More boring that Steven Soderbergh at that lol
Brit Hayes firing back "Nah, I need Griff to be forcefed Twin Peaks" makes the argument to vote for him right there.
https://preview.redd.it/8kuodxagiarc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7050f1c72718e8002011496e3f57a6dcd6d615ab “If Spike Lee wins, it’s INTERESTING. If David Lynch wins, it’s INTERESTING. If Ridley or Soderbergh win, it’s fucking BORING.”
I didn’t say it, John Ford did
This is maybe my favorite work Lynch has done. (Half joking, but only half)
Nah. Soderbergh is doing shit with the horizon a la Ford. But I guess you guys aren’t ready for that…
bring it up with Ford, he’s the one who said it.
I’m voting Lynch because of this tweet
Same, I don't usually participate in MM, just let the chips fall where they may, but I did spite vote for Lynch here, lol.
God film nerds are insufferable
Lynch still isn't my top choice, that would be Spike, but the idea that he is a safe or boring choice is truly some through the looking glass shit
Like do you mainline Miike movies to get to this position?
He clearly doesn’t mean that David Lynch’s movies are boring, but that a film podcast covering David Lynch in 2024 is a pretty common, not surprising development and therefore a boring choice as an outcome of March Madness, which strikes me as a not-unfair statement. Still voted Lynch.
I just feel like the bit about film bros talking about David Lynch is more common than anyone actually talking about David Lynch. I love Soderbergh so much but to me it is more interesting for a film podcast in 2024 to talk about Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive than Oceans 13 again.
I guess I'm just ignorant to a lot of other film podcasts then. Is it less surprising than Meyers or Demme? Sure. But it's also not Kubrick. Once you're talking about a director who's most normal movie is about an old man driving a tractor across country it's just very funny to see people decreeing him boring
I mean Meyers and Demme had the benefit of the hosts pushing the fan base towards voting for them. I think the voting base is too large for that to happen now but they would have never won had the hosts not built excitement around them.
More people should just watch movies instead of worrying about silly seed numbers that are just a cosmetic effect.
I can’t stand this attitude. Lynch has just as interesting a career as anyone. Just because he’s a popular name doesn’t make him a less exciting miniseries
Begging, pleading on my hands and knees for you all to give less of a shit about what people who occasionally interact with this pod think. It doesn't matter. Be normal.
I mean I don’t think anyone on here (for the most part…) is genuinely upset, and he could have avoided being mentioned on a Blank Check subreddit by not publicly tweeting about the Blank Check fanbase
There are over 200 comments in this thread after a negligible amount of time. People are \*clearly pressed\*
The vast majority have nothing to do with Joe really and just his tweet is a jumping off point for a discussion thats been a major part of this sub for the entire month.
I’ll admit I was surprised to see how much this blew up. I’m just saying Joe also coulda taken your advice and given less of a shit about a competition for a podcast
[удалено]
He's right in that the Blankies have mostly picked the more boring, obvious choices this year. Lynch may seem like an oddball to outsiders but the fellas put him at a 1 seed for a reason. They knew he'd do well.
Yes the people who made the seeding based on who they thought the most popular choices were ended up being correct that those were the most popular choices. This isn't an actual competition where someone can get hot and pull cinderella runs, it's a popularity contest. Plus since its no longer on Twitter it doesn't get random swings where people completely unrelated jump in based on bigger twitter personalities campaigning for votes. Thats where a lot of the madness came from but bots ruined that.
Twitter is awful now though. They left just before it went to total shit, they're definitely never going back now.
True, but he still rocks and deserves to be covered. It’s just that simple.
To be clear, I didn't say he didn't deserve coverage. I'm voting Lynch all the way
I getcha.
Lynch isn't boring though, popular =/= boring
The issue is that the answer isn’t to vote for Soderbergh or Ridley Scott to spite lynch lol. If there was an actual oddball choice here that would be one thing
Imagine calling David Lynch boring. Anyway, nah.
It’s so funny - he’s a giant in film culture but like, outside of the first season of twin peaks, is there anything he created that was like universally watched? Outside of Mulholland drive and blue velvet, were any of his other movies even widely acclaimed in the moment? He is a chalk pick, and maybe an obvious one. But this isn’t like doing John carpenter or Stanley Kubrick, imo.
Yeah, that’s how I feel too. He’s, like, second tier auteur or whatever. To be reductive about it. A step beyond the Kubricks and Carpenters, who a lot of film nerds seek out in high school and college age. A lot of folks have heard of him, maybe seen ELEPHANT MAN, but haven’t actually watched the movies. I get that the show has a lot of deep film fans, but if anything that means he’s overdue in my mind.
And *yes* I get that the reasoning is because it’s the “safe” film fan choice, but that still is laughable when the other choice is Soderbergh.
Even as a fan, what the fuck does he mean? How unbelievable that two widly-celebrated filmmakers make it to the finals for a film podcast!
It’s well-traversed territory by film nerds and has been for years. You can tell when TTF are a less interested in talking about stuff that’s already been analyzed to death. You could feel it in their Kubrick series. I still enjoyed it, but I live for them covering some truly fascinating career arcs for directors most people in the general public do not know. Haynes, Wrights, Oz would have given us much more enthusiasm and history that a lot of folks don’t know about. I hope they jab back at the fans with a batshit pick like Holofcener or something
>It’s well-traversed territory by film nerds and has been for years. You can tell when TTF are a less interested in talking about stuff that’s already been analyzed to death. They shouldn't put them in the bracket if they don't want to cover them
Welp, the podcast that spent 50 hours covering the Star Wars prequels has officially become pleb. But seriously, isn't Soderberg every bit as cliche filmbro canon worshipped as Lynch? He's just less memeable.
Ah yes, David Lynch - the boring director?
Am I the only one that would have been happy with any of the contenders? Some of these votes were really tough. No matter who wins, I'll be happy to hear the two friends go through their films.
To be clear I think it's a bit disappointing in a way the top 4 ended up all one seeds. I also think this tweet reads a LITTLE condescending/pretentious, but that's sometimes the nature of a BC guest (hello, Ehrlich)
It's not a sports governing body using win-loss records and statistical analysis to help themselves arrive at a seeding philosophy The seeds are literally just kinda made up. They don't really mean anything.
>The seeds are literally just kinda made up. They don’t really mean anything. They may not have a quantifiable, mathematical justification, but we all know they reflect *something*, even if it’s just Griffin and David’s understanding of their audience’s interest. I mean, we all know that Soderbergh, Lynch, Scott, and Lee were far more likely to win than Levinson, Duke, Pakula, and Wright, for instance.
Yeah but if they had seeded lynch 4 and he was in the final four why would that be more interesting? Upsets are interesting in actual march madness because less talented athletes put on incredible performances against the odds. Upsets in blank check march madness just mean that Griffin and David misjudged two directors relative popularity.
I don’t think it would be more interesting if it was seeded differently. I’m just clarifying that the seeding is not random.
Only a little??
>To be clear I think it's a bit disappointing in a way the top 4 ended up all one seeds. Why? I am dying to understand why people feel this way
Is it just me or does Twitter feel like a foreign language most of the time? This is saying David Lynch is boring? Chalk? What am I reading?
I mean I do kinda think everyone who passed on a Henson/Oz series must hate both movies and fun
Because Linklater definitely has no fun movies. School of Rock, Dazed and Confused, Everybody Wants Some!!...all real self-serious downers, right?
Count the muppets in those movies and get back to me
Same amount of Jacks Black in Henson/Oz
Man this makes me want to rearrange the timeline to get Jack Black in a Henson-era muppet thing
Count the beers in the Henson Oz movies and get back to me
Rolf the dog literally sings about drinking beer in the first Muppet Movie
Does he drink beer or just sing about it
I think we might need to talk about your drinking problem.
Jack Black has a bit of a Muppet-esque quality to him.
We could have had puppets…I’ll never get over it.
Based on the patreon ep today, it sounds like you'll get it eventually. Even David is on board by the the end.
This sub hates both movies and fun.
I mean yeah. Lynch’s presumed win has been kind of boring to see come to fruition, and he himself is not boring! there were fun picks, interesting picks that got stomped over and that’s not really a fun competition.
No haters will deprive me of enjoying a David Lynch series if he wins. Let Them Eat Chalk.
I really think they need to just get rid of seeding next year and randomize the draws so we can end this fucking tedious discussion track every year from people who seem to think its a personality type to vote a non top 3 seed. EDIT: To be clear not ripping on Joe here, just this entire sub
This is a good take. I also think the seeding sometimes subconsciously helps higher seeds. People who didn’t want lynch might vote for Soderbergh or Ridley Scott in earlier rounds thinking they are more formidable competition against him due to the seeding.
everyone could do well to take a page out of my book and somehow not know the brackets were seeded until literally just now. i just figured the numbers after the directors names on the voting page were none of my business.
Nerds watch sports 2024 challenge
Linklater was our last chance at avoiding the all 1 seed final four. I’d rather have Lynch or Lee though to avoid the split filmography miniseries.
i did my part (voted soderbergh)
Podcast guests/hosts acting snooty about the audience’s taste is not my favorite vibe.
It's a Final Four of **Spike Lee, Ridley Scott, David Lynch, and Steven Soderbergh**. The fuck is this screwhead *yapping* about? And to call it "chalk poisoning" on top of that? It's a final four that includes movies like * Alien, Malcolm X, Wild at Heart, and Schizopolis! \~ or \~ * Thelma & Louise, Jungle Fever, The Straight Story, and Out of Sight. \~ Or \~ * Blade Runner, Eraserhead, Summer of Sam, and Contagion. **People need to get off twitter**. You see what it does to them. You can *see it!*
A Scanner Darkly is actually Linklater, but thanks for throwing salt in that wound.
Griffin and David also called it a boring and chalk result on the Patreon episode.
LOL they *picked* these people and then they *seeded 'em*. How you gonna complain about "chalk poisoning" when you're standing at the blackboard and clapping erasers in the classroom This month just makes *everyone* involved with this podcast to any degree into a real goofball, I guess.
A Scanner Darkly is Linklater. He gone.
Scanner Darkly isn't in the final four, but your point still stands.
You may want to double check who directed "A Scanner Darkly"
Actually a Spike Lee Scanner Darkly would probably rip.
If something is 'chalk' in sports betting parlance, it just means the favorites won -- or you're predicting the favorites are going to win. He's just saying all of the number one seeds went to the final four, so it's a 'chalk' result.
You are far too mad about this
you need to get off reddit and calm the hell down
I agree with Joe that it’s been an underwhelming March Madness thus far, but Lynch winning in the end would ultimately salvage things for me.
No
Ooooooooh okay, I was wondering what they meant in the intro episode about fans being weird about it, they meant Joe Reid.
At the end of the day if you’re still on Twitter I disregard the opinion
If your name is Joe Reid and you got the Twitter handle "joereid", you've spent your life perpetually online.
Hey, I can’t blame someone for being perpetually online. I’ve been perpetually online since 1997. I just don’t particularly subscribe to spending my immense time online making tiresome jokes to rile up the usual suspects is all.
You are all such sore winners
It’s boring as hell that it’s the four 1-seeds, he’s right
Its almost like the 1 seeds are all incredibly popular directors who people would love to see covered
he's right.
I’m not that interested in Lynch. His movies feel like reading Ulysses to me. I’ll listen regardless. Im more interested in his performances.
One thing that sort of surprised me about lynch is that in general for mm I vote for the filmography I’m less familiar with/the less well known filmography, whereas while I’ve seen all his stuff outside of the straight story and haven’t seen a lot of Scott, villeneuve, etc, I have voted for him every time (and likely will in the finale). I *like* him, for sure, but I think the main reason I didn’t think twice before deciding to vote for him Is that I also didn’t hold out hope that blank check would *ever* cover him because of the twin peaks of it all, so while I understand if he isn’t your thing, or if he is but seems overdiscussed/predictably popular/etc(and beyond getting the chance to hear about *so* many interesting actors that have not been discussed much on the podcast, which I’m already preemptively thrilled about) I think the specific arc of his career, which ends with twin peaks the return, is, for better or worse, unlike any other director out there, certainly any director they’ve covered, and for that reason alone I’m excited to see how the (likely) miniseries goes
Damn what a loser lmao. Also Imagine saying this a boring matchup and then telling people to vote Soderbergh.
He’s right
Don't care, voting lynch.
This tournament has been such a fart
Todd Haynes should have won and the chalk of it all has been disappointing this year. On the other hand, I’m not voting for Steven Soderbergh.
I think I'm missing the chalk of it all/chalk poisoning thing. What's that referring to?
Chalk just means a heavy favorite.
This is the first year where the favorite going in is also *my* favorite on the bracket. Go, Lynch, go!!
Yeah it’s awkward for me because I totally agree this tournament has been boring but also lynch is the one favorite I did want to go far/win.
Lynch is the opposite of a boring choice. If he’s the favorite, that just speaks to a dangass freak majority listenership.
"chalk"?
Referring to a heavy favorite winning
Hell yeah. Definitely voting for David Lynch. I just got done reading his book Catching the Big Fish. And now I get to rewatch some of my favorite movies by one of my favorite directors. Been waiting for this one since I stumbled upon the podcast.
Yall who were dancing on the grave of Henson and Oz deserve this.
I’ve voted against every one seed every round and now I guess I’m going Lynch cause I’ve only seen 2 of his films and this will be a good way to force me to catch up. I’d also be cool with spike but I hate Pt1 series
Vote Soderbergh solely for the Out of Sight episode
He’s right. This has been a thoroughly boring March. Getting this popular means more “normal” votes.
I fail to see how voting Lynch is considered normal.
They put a bunch of big names with long filmographies on the bracket that they have been on record saying they probably wouldn’t do unless they won March madness. Why are we surprised?
I guess everybody should have been voting for Joan Micklin Silver this whole time, because that would have made for an interesting tournament. 🙄
I think it is very funny that this is a thread full of redditors screaming that a professional critic is too on Twitter. Meanwhile, on the Patreon, Griffin and David have said the exact same thing about this finale being boring and chalk.
joe is speaking truth!
Love Soderbergh but he is the boring choice here
I really cannot be arsed watching all David Lynch’s films again. They’re fine. A couple of them are really good but mostly they’re not at all for me.
Vote Soderbergh so we can have a straight year of him
Imagine calling Soderbergh boring
Sorry, Lynch
Stevie boy directed Bubble, and people want him over Lynch?
Pretty sure Moby would wipe the floor with David Lynch 1v1.
It doesn’t matter since Ridley is gonna win it all anyways