>"People say three hours is too long, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours. Also, there are many people who watch theater for 3.5 hours. There are real actors on stage, you can't get up and walk around. You give it that respect, give cinema some respect!"
https://people.com/martin-scorsese-defends-3-5-hour-runtime-for-killers-of-the-flower-moon-8349497
I'd happily sit in a theatre and watch a 4 hour cut of Avengers Endgame, but I'd never do the same for a 3+ hour Scorsese flick
You'll watch crime Wops 7 for four hours and LIKE IT
You better sit tight for at least 15 hours for Guinea Mobsters 5, chud
frick off
>I'd happily sit in a theatre and watch a 4 hour cut of Avengers Endgame, but I'd never do the same for a 3+ hour Scorsese flick
Mite b cool, the book is great.
he does have a point. cinema is dying because people coming into the industry dont know how to tell multi-hour stories, just look at Skinamarink. its only right that one of the last real filmmakers make 3+ hour films as a frick you to the incoming generation
Casino?
Meh.
Skinamarink was a filter movie which, translated to real life speak, means it sucked
Skinamarink is unironically the worst movie I've ever seen.
>Skinamarink is unironically the worst movie I've ever seen.
Indeed. Truer words were never spoken.
People take breaks when watching tv at home though. They’ll get food, go to the bathroom, talk to someone, and even pause what they’re watching. It’s not constant
He's a hack. If you can't get your point across in under 2.5 hours then you suck at your job.
This but I say 23 minutes tops. If you can’t tell your story in that time, you’re a hack.
was just listening to this interview
thought it was interesting that he was offered 150,000 dollars if he made Mean Streets a blaxploitation film instead
HAHAHA
That was personal to him.
He made that movie because Cassavetes said "You spent a year of your life making this piece of shit?" after watching Big Bad Bertha and he took it to heart.
But that movie has topless Barbara Hershey so...
That's the the only thing I remember about it.
She did look good.
Doesn’t anyone else think Scorsese is afraid of dying and being forgotten? He’s taking his role of being some sort of protecter for cinema a lot more seriously in the past few years. It’s almost obsessive
I mean more people will talk praises about taxi driver/Goodfellas than other superhero stuff in 2050 or more.
With shit like Black Panther and Get Out being rated some of the best movies ever made, I'm not even sure of that. The type of people who praise Taxi Driver will not exist, at least with any influence, by 2050
>people who praise Taxi Driver will not exist, at least with any influence, by 2050
That's tough to think about. Old critics might have to use their influence.
He is. It's not funny anymore.
Marvel really did buck-break him just by existing.
He's right about everything. When he's gone, you'll wish he forgave you.
I think he is just disgusted with the direction cinema has taken, like a lot of us are. And you don't even have to be that old. Many people in the 35-50 range are disgusted with the state of the industry. There are no movies anymore for middle-aged people who don't like mindless action and CGI and what are essentially kids films.
>There are no movies anymore for middle-aged people who don't like mindless action and CGI
Yes, there are. Thousands of them every year.
Most if that is indie trash and you fricking know it.
This
100%
Name one and if I haven't seen it I'll go torrent it, watch it tonight, and make a thread about it.
Can you really blame him? Just look at the sorry state cinema is in.
Yeah, I do think he's trying to shore up his legacy during the last few year he has left of directing. Which explains his hypersensitivity towards criticism and attempts to deflect. Could also be that KotFM sucks and he's trying to ahead of it.
He's realized there's very little new up and coming Hollywood directors to take his place. Most of the promising talent is being swooped up into working on huge IP by the big studios. The only directors still consistently making studios' money with non franchise films are Nolan and Tarantino, who says he's quitting.
There are none.
Who do you consider promising?
I like Chazelle and Eggers but both their most recent movies flopped. Plus like I said practically every indie darling is immediately sucked into the Disney machine so we never get a true sense of their talent. Scorsese seems to think Ari Aster is the best new talent but his latest film was also a huge bomb.
Indie darlings is a shit term, anyone who would give up their freedom was never truly an artist.
Kelly Reichardt will make a movie on 16mm if she has to.
Kelly Reichardt can't be classed with these directors, she's an exception anonette
He's doing absolutely nothing wrong. People need to have fixed standards, both in life and art.
What’s telling to me is that he’s casting his buddy DeNiro and the guy he’s playing is like 35 years younger irl when the events happened.
>Doesn’t anyone else think Scorsese is afraid of dying and being forgotten?
uh, yeah, anon; everyone's afraid of that
Shitsese is an insecure hack.
He's spent his whole working life restoring and preserving cinema. Nothing new about his obsession.
Maybe because hollywood is producing garbage after garbage? Every movie now is either capeslop of pajeet CGI or race baiting/politics shit that nobody watches except youtubers to make a "why did x fail" video essay
i miss when filmmakers understood that 90-120 minutes was the sweetspot. everyone is too self-indulgent these days, even the garbage popcorn flicks are fricking hours long, i dont want to hang out in a theater that long
David Lean is the only guy I can think of that got over indulgent and still made legit kino. Maybe better than his early stuff.
Probably better.
Depends how large the story is that you are telling. Sometimes, you cannot do justice to a narrative without the movie being 2.5 hours, or even 3 hours. But yes, most movies could use some editing. I find most contemporary movies make the mistake of adding to much "backstory" in the form of flashbacks, like we give a frick about the child-hood of so-and-so character. A lot of time, it's better to leave backstory mysterious. I don't often want to know why the bad guy is evil. It ruins the mystery. And I don't give a frick about the main character's elementary school days. Jesus frick, flashbacks are so overused.
>people say 3 hours is too long
It is
>you can watch TV for 5 hours
In my home, taking breaks, getting snacks that aren't marked up 300% where I can drink alcohol, fall asleep, frick, or rewind if I miss anything
>there are many people who watch theater 3.5 hours
Not me
>there are real actors on stage, you can't get up and walk around
No idea what you are saying gramps, but ok
>give cinema some respect
No
zoomie autist redditor go back
Frick off, Marty.
Very, very few movies should be that long. The last one was made in 1974.
i would watch 3.5 hours of a good movie. people watched lord of the rings. people dont want to watch whatever Black person shitskin shit this is though. at 3.5 hours you really need to think about your night and decide if you want to throw it all away for some shitty film because you also have the commitment and going out and driving to the cinema. you can just turn the channel whenever a Black person comes on screen like you do at the house
This. Plus all of Scorsese's movies are already way too long yet you can still tell they are chopped to hell. I absolutely hate the way he edits his films, I hate the casting, the dialogue/narration choices, I actually don't like any of his movies very much aside from the aviator. He honestly gets way too much credit for being a "serious real artist filmmaker man".
In my book he's Tarantino tier, only producing a couple good standout scenes in the middle of an absolute mess of a movie every decade or so.
Frick off, Marty
For the theater, a 3.5 hour movie better have a intermission of 10 mins at about the 2-hour mark. If I am paying for a movie, I don't want to miss 5 mins of the movie to take a piss. At home, I don't give a frick how long a movie is. If the movie is awesome, it actually can't be long enough.
Martin Scorse also got to say "Black person" in an acclaimed classic film and still makes movies to this day. The only other white director I can think of to have the honor is Tarantino.
Sorry Marty, my limit is 3.4 hours
Respect anime first you fricking old homosexual.
I would beat the shit out of him in a fist fight
Were you 'giving cinema respect' when you made that massive dishonest pile of shit Hugo, Martin. That movie looks, feels and sounds like a fricking chocolate commercial, Martin. Was that your way of 'giving respect' to the pioneers like Melies?
>Hugo is a chocolate commercial
Wtf why is this so amusing
I would literally murder everybody on this website if Marty asked me to. Real greaseball shit. You wouldn't understand it.
These old guard guys that could frick off with their trillions of dollars but don't because they just like cinema that much, that's that real homie shit.
>I'd happily sit in a theatre and watch a 4 hour cut of Avengers Endgame, but I'd never do the same for a 3+ hour Scorsese flick
Bunch of fricking phone posting zoomers itt.
If this has the full Intermission + Entracte shebang I will be on-board with it; it would replicate the feeling of Golden-Age Hollywood epics like Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind.
If not, he's just indulgent for making it that long.
>4 hour movie
does this movie come with free diapers upon entrance or do i gotta bring my own?
The most disgusting aspect of this post isn't the grown man in a diaper, but the fact that he called a festival a "festy."
If it's that fricking long just make it a miniseries. The balls on this guy, it better be some god tier kino at that length and he hasn't made a good movie in like 20 years, frickin guy afangool
Silence was great.
I used to love Marty but if I saw him today I'd honestly try to kill him just to put him out of his misery. He's like an old sick dog that you can't stand to see hurt any longer.
He hates where film is going but that's all he's got and he has to keep making pozzed slop to maintain a living. His last movie, his last chance to solidify his legacy as a filmmaker, will be a completely embarrassing disaster. He has a broken family, his b***h wife walks all over him and the fact she's cuckolding him is all but confirmed. He's balding.
I think he'd kill himself if not for his need to stick it to capeshit, but with the way Hollywood is going, I expect they'll make him direct capeshit within 3 years. I'd just tell him I'm sorry and put a bullet in the back of his head.
KEK, he's 80. Do you really think he gives a frick if he's balding?
This doesn't look like a "must-see in theaters" kind of movie though. I'll wait to watch it from the comfort of my own home thank you.
Especially at 3.5 hours. It's a movie that all but ensures you will need to pause it about 3-4 times.
just watch it in installments like the irishman lmao
Is this real / official?
This is ridiculous, why would anyone recommend watching The Irishman?
The Irishman is good frick you
>episode 3: 1h 8 mins
I'm not marathoning that!
Let's see him tell a coherent story in 1000ft of film first... also; nobody drinks a gallon of ice cold coke while watching theater. That's typically an activity done before going to dinner.
that run time is insane for a theater viewing
why is it always our fault that he's out of touch?
I remember when movies could be less than 90 minutes and still be fun, now even a random comedy is pushing two hours for no reason.
Bathroom breaks, you old son of a b***h! The American bladder is constantly refilling itself. We gorge ourselves through the runtime, and we eat before the movie on account of our poor planning.
People in their homes now have control over when they can pause a show running live on air.
They have the availability of allowing themselves intermissions, a luxury which most movie theaters have not considered offering for decades past now.
>sit and watch tv for three and a half hours
>every episode ending gives you a built-in break to go do whatever between episodes
>if watching on cable for whatever reason ads also do this
>sit and watch movie for three and a half hours
>if watching in a theater then you better not have to pee or you're missing the best scene every fricking time
>if watching at home, movies don't have baked-in intermissions so any time that you have to pause will feel awkward for both leaving and resuming
Its all about the editing and pacing. I can watch Seven Samurai or Lawrence of Arabia and time just flies by but I watched badly edited 1,5 hour slogs that felt twice their lenght.
3.5 hours of white man bad? I don't think so Marty.
I thought this dick chugger was dead. The movie will bomb and hopefully he stops making movies. He hasn't made anything good in over 20 years.
I have no interesting in Killers of the Flower Moon but Scorsese doesn't have to explain its runtime to anyone either
Why are his films getting longer?
Films in general are getting longer. They're competing with streaming television. Generally I sympathize with Scorsese on his views, but this sounds like he's talking out his ass. Once you go over 90 minutes, your movie better be really fricking good, and Scorsese's track record is a lot less consistent than many would admit. I'm tired of major studio features that feel like truncated cuts of an entire season of television (oppenheimer, the batman).
He's right.
If it was something kino like Ben Hur, yes. If it's anothere Scorsese shit like The Irishman, frick no.
I saw The Killers of the Flower Moon last Sunday at the London Film Festival. I thought it was mediocre, aggressively mediocre. The runtime is long and the film really feels it’s length. At 2 hours in, I actually pulled my phone out intending to check the time but remembered it was turned off and I was sitting in a theatre. The film could easily be an hour shorter. I knew Jesse Plemons was a main character and was kept waiting for him to show for like 2 and half hours.
The film is technically good (shot well, solid performances etc) as you would expect from a Scorsese film but I just didn’t connect with either the characters or story.
I’d give it a 5/10.
Oh Scorsese himself shows up at the end to say the film’s final lines. Cringeworthy moment.
>Scorsese himself shows up
no way lol
Will the movie flop?
The ending felt tacked on. It was revealed that the events of the film was a true-crime radio play in front of an audience in a theatre. Scorsese showed up here to give a little speech to the audience. I found it to be pathetic for the directors to be self-inserted here.
I kinda hope the film flops. The film is bloated and boring. It’s embarrassing that it’s getting critical praise. The runtime is a killer though, I really don’t see how plebs will sit through 3 and half hours of this. It is an Apple TV movie though so maybe it’s designed not to be watched in the cinema.
>The film is bloated and boring. It’s embarrassing that it’s getting critical praise.
I thought Irishman took 2hrs to get somewhat interesting. the budget for this and the new one seems way too high to get any profits.
Also, what does Brendan Fraiser do in the movie?
Brendan Frasier is only in it for 5 minutes as the lawyer defending Robert DeNiro’s character. Classic example of stunt-casting.
>Oh Scorsese himself shows up at the end to say the film’s final lines. Cringeworthy moment.
What are they?
I can't remember exactly. It was some gay shit about the Indian woman and the other Indians. I had thoroughly checked out of the film by that point.
The film's plot was spoonfed by Robert DeNiro in the first five minutes - they marry the Indians to get legal rights to their oil-rich lands. I don't think there really needed to be a gay message from Scorsese at the end.
why don't they add intermissions?
I bet a lot of fatsos would buy more candy and popcorn
Movies should be 90 minutes long. I struggle with 2 hour movies because I start noticing all of the bullshit interactions and pointless camera lingering that should have been cut. I’m not watching a 3 hour movie no matter what.
>zoomers cant keep their attention on one thing for more than 90 seconds
Realy?
TV for five hours, if it's good, provides way more story than a single movie. Good long movies often either have episodic plots like Apocalypse Now or have lots of characters with different storylines like Lotr.
Low IQ post from a low IQ anon.
What a fricking moron. You can go to the toilet between episodes of a TV show. Hell you can pause whenever you want.
Nobody goes four fricking hours to the theater.
I'll watch if i can swipe up on the big screen for 3.5 hours
>It's not cinema it's indian theme park
>historical movie
>casts white actors for white character because they are le evil
I work at a movie theater. Oppenheimer's length drove a lot of people into seeing Barbie instead. These little things matter at the box office. Especially when this movie is clearly marketed towards an older crowd who can't handle even two and a half hours at a movie, let alone three.
Don't care. Watching Star wars.
>haha but people watch series all day!
Not the same, you absolute morons. Series are divided into episodes that are usually shorter than an hour. Besides, people don't *watch* series anyway. They have them running in the background while on their phone or talking with friends. Not the same as sitting in a movie theater for 4 hours.
you're all morons with israeliteed attention spans. I don't use social media and look at scrolling short-form content and I'm looking forward to this. I truly pity you scum.
THE IRISHMAN WAS SHIT
Awful opinion, contains some of his best work. But i only watched if youre listening Marty bc it was on Netflix, never wouldve seen a 3 hour flick with zoomers.
Only eat a small breakfast and nothing else the day of the showing. Stop drinking fluids 2 hours before the showing. And obviously don't buy a drink when you get there. If you don't know how to sit through long movies you probably aren't tying your shoes correctly, either.
I need to pee, frick off.
If anything longer runtime is a plus, you get more moviefor the same ticket price
>but I'm a wittle baby and have to pee every hour
Grow up
I watched movies like Cleopatra, Godfather II, and Once Upon a Time in America with no problem, idk why people are making such a big deal of out this movie's runtime.
>you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours
That's because anime is entertaining, grandpa
He's right, but he forgets about one crucial detail about over 3h long movies, they need intermissions.
I'm really glad that watching Irishman in cinema I didn't had to take a piss.
>WHITE MAN BAD
Why would I go watch his bloated 3.5 hour film when it can all be summed up in just 3 words?
when i was a kid i always wanted movies to have longer runtimes, now all the movies are shite
I wish someone would print this thread up and mail it to the hack.
just make a double feature you dumb wop.
Any film that meets or exceeds a 2h30m run-time should just have an intermission. I don't want to be distracted by my desire to go rock a piss during the last hour of my kino
I want to like this movie but I'm kind of tired of the "muh poor widdle indians" trope
>give cinema some respect!"
No, it's a literal toy.
This, authors and composers still shit all over "cinema auteurs".
Movies are for hacks, composers can tell stories with a $10 guitar.
"Auteurs" need to suck a million wieners so they can make their shitty movie only to be bloated mess that makes no sense but it is "artsy"
>buttmad that a good director's oeuvre will outlive his shitty drum banging
directors are crying 24/7 about their shitty media dying
becasue modern audience and industry are shit. And that's a pity
Movies should all be extremely long, Rivette knew this...
t. Passive viewer P-Zombie
>Rivette knew this...
We need a word for you homosexuals that think you’re IRL Sopranos characters. Like weaboo” was for the dudes that think they’re Guts from Beserk.
>“I remember I was over at Paramount, and Warren Beatty and I had been fooling around, doing this Howard Hughes thing. He had made the film Reds and he was showing it on the lot, and he wanted me to come. I was so tired. I thought, ‘Well, I’ll sit way in the corner, way in the back. If I fall asleep, I’ll fall asleep, and nobody will know.’ Nobody told me there was an intermission. So the lights come up, everybody from Barry Diller on down is in the room, all of Warren’s friends, and I am sound asleep. Afterward, one of Warren’s minions came over to me and said that Warren had expressed his displeasure. And I said, ‘Look, I know it took Warren 10 years to make this movie, but it took me three hours to see it, and I can guarantee you that three hours of my life mean more to me than 10 years of Warren’s.”
Sorry, too long. I got shit to do.
It kind of bothers me how much Scorsese has felt the need to justify these opinions
Cinema has spent the past 15-20 years pissing away what respect it had.
>list of films zoomers will never, EVER watch
Also Das Boot, La Belle Noiseuse... all the best films go over 3 hours. This next film could be Scorsese's answer to Gone With The Wind.
I've seen 24/30 there. 90 minutes is the ideal length of a movie. The current push for longer films is some kind of gimmick pushed by studios because they're trying to compete with serial television. A lot of modern 3 hour movies don't play like the movies on that list. They aren't cinematic or epic experiences. They're overly plotty, filled with a lot of dialogue and character subplots that do nothing but spin wheels. In other words, they're like television. Not challenging in the least. It's time filler.
>The current push for longer films is some kind of gimmick pushed by studios
Nobody's pushing for longer films
You say that, but recently I watched a three hour Batman movie that played like a season of television condensed into a movie form. Ditto for Oppenheimer. Before these three hour behemoths, studio films have been getting longer in general, probably with the idea of getting more bang for your buck. But feel free to ignore that and the rest of what I said in my post.
That's two films a year apart. a lot of other blockbusters came out the same year as them
>studio films have been getting longer in general
do you have a graph or is this just anecdotal?
>That's two films a year apart. a lot of other blockbusters came out the same year as them
Yep, but I bet we're going to see more of them. Again, it's not simply that the runtimes are going up, but that the content itself is more closely resembling modern television.
>do you have a graph or is this just anecdotal?
It's an observation. It's either right or it's wrong. I don't have a source, Mr Redditor. Feel free to look at the runtimes of Batman movies over time. The 90s films clock in at over two hours, which was generally longer back in the day for popcorn fare.
Well I don't think films are getting longer. Some blockbusters happen to have a runtime exceeding 3 hours, but the same was seen with the LOTR in the 2000s and the Hobbit in the 2010s
Yeah, and the original LOTR were huge event films. They were very long back then for what was a series of mainstream blockbusters. Exceptions don't create the rule. Look at continuity within franchises. Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, James Bond, all these franchises ticking upward. And even with the franchises that aren't, longest entries are always ones made in the past ten years.
That's five movies. One, two, three, four, five. Countless? The overwhelming majority of classics are not that long.
>The current push for longer films is some kind of gimmick pushed by studios because they're trying to compete with serial television.
It's becasue digital data costs nothing. It's not like they are saving film or space. That't why fewer bloat ends on the cutting floor and editing is more and more casual
Both can be true.
>90 minutes is the ideal length of a movie.
This doesn't translate into financial or critical success. Movies considered to "the best" tend to be near 2 hrs or over (like Vertigo, 2001, Citizen Kane). Biggest moneymakers tend to be 2hr epics like Titanic, Avatar, Endgame, Star Wars, etc.
almost all of that list is utter dogshit.
overblown hollywood israelitefests.
I'd happily do that, but give me a damn intermission like theater does too!
>come back from the concession stand and time the release of the Gushers to the exact moment when the blood starts splattering
Scorsese should just stick to the gangster films. Anything else is just fricking crap (except Raging bull and Taxi Driver)
>only 4 hours
>quick
>You give it that respect, give cinema some respect!
Why dont you give your audience some respect, old man!
because you watch marvelshit and wokeshit
Based Scorsese trying to singlehandedly pull cinema from its grave.
Imagine being Scorsese, seeing hollywood reach its absolute peak to seeing it drop to something unfathomable
Ok boomer
people like martin scorsese have their own private screening rooms with perfect picture, sound, etc. of course 3.5 h feels nothing in a space like that.
It's zoomers fault 3 hour movies are shunned now. Countless classics are that long and there's tons of movies I get stoked when I find out I'm only halfway an hour and half in. Oppenheimer was great
>It's zoomers fault 3 hour movies are shunned now.
How are they shunned? One of the most successful films of all time, Avengers Endgame, clocks in at 180 minutes. That was 2019.
>Countless classics are that long
Not really.
>Oppenheimer was great
Also a successful film. Those dang zoomers! A bad film too.
Godfather: 2 hrs 55 min
Spartacus: 3 hours
Barry lyndon: 3 hours 15
Lawrence of arabia:3 hours+
Gone with wind: really long
Also, Barry Lyndon? I know every film bro is a Kubrick fanatic these days, but back when that was released it was completely slept on and considered a massive bore by critics. Guess the boomers shunned 3 hour movies too.
never heard of it until a few years ago from this place.
it was a long and pointless film
>ooh it looks like a painting!
then make a painting, or do still photography.
feels AI generated and even the title is utterly forgettable.
it's like plebbitors dug up an old forgotten film school project and decided to endlessly hype it up
Whoa buddy, I wasn't criticizing the movie itself, just saying that it's not actually a "classic" and it wasn't well-received in its day, which makes it a bad example for the other poster's point. I first saw Barry Lyndon on VHS back in like 2000 and thought it was a great film, and to this day I consider it one of Kubrick's best. Your opinion is for the birds.
my opinion is correct, it's dull and pointless, leads nowhere, nothing memorable about it.
it feels like an "off beat" period mini series that was cancelled halfway through
The problem is that 3-hour movies used to be events which told epic stories. Today we have 3-hour Batman and Bond movies. The odds are that a modern 3-hour movie is simply padded with a ton of scenes that have no tension and go nowhere, like The Irishman. And nobody wants to watch a 3-hour anti-racism commercial like TKOTFM.
Three hours isn't too long. It's just that Scorsese's movies are boring as frick and watching paint dry would be more entertaining
Casino and goodfellas are a blast. Irishman was mediocre and this new one look bad but his old movies are classics. Taxi driver too
>3.5 hours
Ok boomer, how many vines is that?
>vines
this isn't 2005 you fricking victorian
Brevity is the soul of wit.
It's a bad director that can't say what he needs to say in under 2 hours.
>binges 8hrs of a netflix series
>can't watch a 3.5 hour movie
why are zoomies like this
To save anons time from watching this garbage, here's the plot:
>DiCaprio has returned from WW1 to be with his uncle, Robert DeNiro
>DeNiro is big man in the community
>The land they are in is Osage land and the Natives have rights to the land
>The land is also oil-rich
>Robert DeNiro wants DiCaprio to marry an Indian so he can get legal rights to the land
>Once they are married, DeNiro and DiCaprio set about killing all other claimants (they are "the killers" the title is referring to)
>Eventually the Natives get wise that they are being murdered (after 30 people die lol) and ask for help from the Federal government
>Jesse Plemons comes to investigate and deduces Robert DeNiro's plan
>Robert DeNiro gets arrested and put on trial
>Both DeNiro and DiCaprio are jailed
>Final scene reveals that the entire film is actually a true-crime radio play (there are no hints of this throughout btw)
wow truly great cinema. thank you marty for your inability to make anything that isn’t boring dogshit.
>entire film is a radio play
what kind of pretentious jerk-off crap is this? shit like this causes people to hate movies. God I fricking hate Scorsese and his "oh movies are the highest art form" bullshit
Movies with long runtimes should offer better food and 5 minute intermissions for bathroom breaks.
Parking is only free for 2 hours at my local theater.
>"muh cimena"
shut the frick up
2001 and Sound of Music had intermissions. Bring back the idea of intermissions if it's going to be 3+ fricking hours of people mugging at the camera intercut with a ebin 'every frame is a painting' bullshit landscape shot.
Boomers address the need to change their autistic ways by ignoring them and doubling down on the dumb shit they were doing before.
He's going to be some relic of a bygone Era in 5 years.
You know you got you got nice color a skin. What color would you say that is? My color. BAM BAM BAM BAM HEY! The Osage. They had, the worst land possible. But they out-smarted everybody. The land had oil on it. Black gold. Money, flows freely here now. I do love that money, sir. Hee Hee. HAAAAAAAAY AAAAAHH HAAAAAY AAAHH HAY! This wealth, should come to us. Their time is over. It's just going to be another tragedy. When this money started comin, we shoulda know it came with somethin else. They're like buzzards circling our people. We're still warriors! HAAAAAAAAAAY YAAAAAAH HAY YAH WAAAAH AAHH! I oughta kill these white men who killed my family. I need you here! I am right here. You've got to take back control of your home! I wuz uh, sent down from Washington DC to see about these murders. See what about 'em? See who's doin it. *clap* WAAAAAAY AAAAAHHH HAAAAAH WAAAAY AAAAH WAAAAAY AHHH! WAAAAAAY AAAAAHHH HAAAAAH WAAAAY AAAAH WAAAAAY AHHH! WAAAAAAY AAAAAHHH HAAAAAH WAAAAY AAAAH WAAAAAY AHHH! *explosion* You expectin a miracle to make all this go away? You know they don't happen anymore. WAAAAAAY AAAAAHHH HAAAAAH WAAAAY AAAAH WAAAAAY AHHH! HEY! WAAAAAAY AAAAAHHH HAAAAAH WAAAAY AAAAH WAAAAAY AHHH! HEY! WAAAAAAY AAAAAHHH HAAAAAH WAAAAY AAAAH WAAAAAY AHHH!