|
fatherboxx posted:I think the reason why Hercules, and Atlantis, and Treasure Planet underperformed because they were more straight-up boy adventure movies and not lush, ambitious productions with broader appeal, like Beauty and the Beast and Alladin. These movies are beloved by nerdy millenials who dig Gerald Scarfe and Mike Mignola, but they didn't do much to fulfill the demand for the universal, moral-centered super-entertainment that earned a Best Picture nomination for B&B. The late nineties were also a period in time where teenage boys were at their nadir as a cinematic demographic. The era of the 80's adult-oriented-but-their-appeal-to-teenage-boys-being-an-open-secret-action-flick was in full decline, video games had gone 100% mainstream, and a new anime boom was going on. The audience that might have been down with Atlantis and Treasure Planet wasn't paying attention to see what Disney was gonna do next, and had already written them off as kids' stuff. EDIT: I don't always snype, but when I do, it's usually probably-incorrect speculation, so enjoy this nugget from my comment section: quote:Oh. So you are one of those guys who genuinly believe that drawings, images on paper, need to be protected by human rights as well? I judged you better, given your history of bisexuality, hoping maybe your experiences made you understand how weird and personal sexuality can be. Obviously I was wrong, because jacking it off to fictional characters totally goes into the same category as child molestation as enjoying horror movies must make you a sociopath in training. Good reasoning there. DStecks fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Oct 4, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
DStecks posted:
I thought this was from Lindsay's video comment section and got really confused
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
I shouldn't ask, but what is that about? Did she make a joke about people jacking off to cartoons? That comment can't be real. I won't let it be real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I shouldn't ask, but what is that about? Did she make a joke about people jacking off to cartoons? That comment can't be real. I won't let it be real. It's from the comments on my Foodfight review, responding to the following remark: quote:Now I know I'm gonna get that one comment that's like "cartoon characters don't actually have an age", and at this point I think we all know that means "I jerk it to lolicon", right? I also got this lovely knowledge bomb: quote:Cartoons don't have an age, but that catcall was loving painful. The scene was pointless and the sexual innuendo was so loving awful. They probably going to make little Debbie older and look like the plastic 20s horrid Barbie doll look but the joke still would have been still awful. But really cartoons don't have a physical age they could have an implied age, but going by appearance couldn't be as accurate do to cartoons having different laws of logic and time. Also fans and creators can manipulate their age or appearance of age of a character whenever they want. Characters never can die because they could always be bought back into their "existence". This does mean you have to like whatever happens to the character. The Internet is a hosed up place that takes things to the extreme, but I'd rather have them express that with cartoons then an actual person who has a life to live, feels pain permanently, and can die for real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:This is exactly what I got out of it. Now I want to put this and the Phantom Menace Review side by side and see if he's trying to do a Ring Theory for his own reviews just to show how it's not some masterstroke of storytelling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
I really love how these creepos go into explainy "Cartoons aren't real people! They can be anything!" mode, as though this was not something that everyone knows already. It's like they've internalized their strawmen to the point that they seem to believe that anyone who doesn't approve of anything goes chan poo poo is either dumb and so goddamn crazy, or just somehow completely ignorant of anything in life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
I was looking around and I rediscovered Ed Glaser and his Deja View series. Does anyone else watch his videos?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
What I don't get about Ring Theory is how it's supposed to make me think that the prequels are better movies. Like "this all lines up" doesn't change them being bad movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:I was looking around and I rediscovered Ed Glaser and his Deja View series. Does anyone else watch his videos? I do, and I'm glad he's had a couple new episodes recently since his videos are infrequent. He's also seemingly a good guy and is actually competent and talented. http://neonharbor.com/titles/deja-view/
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
DStecks posted:It's from the comments on my Foodfight review, responding to the following remark: I expect this reaction from anime (much as I wish it were otherwise), but Foodfight? Those characters barely look like characters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
The Plinkett TFA review would've been better if it wasn't a TFA review and was just about prequel apologists instead. It was such a half-assed review that only touched on what was ostensibly the point of the review for 1/3 the length of it, and it's pretty obvious that they only made it because of fan demand. It was at least worth it to learn about this asinine ring theory bullshit though. Always nice to see what kind of poo poo people will pull out of their asses to defend something that sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
loving millenial sjws
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
James and Mike review Shin Godzilla
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:What I don't get about Ring Theory is how it's supposed to make me think that the prequels are better movies. Like "this all lines up" doesn't change them being bad movies. there's a segment of criticism that wants to make the case that bad movies are excused through interesting subtext, which is a bunch of nonsense of course ring theory is just a rung down that ladder, taking the idea to its most extreme, ring theory ain't even loving subtext it's just poo poo structure nerds jizz over
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
My take on Ring Theory is that certain scenes and moments that happened in episodes IV-VI also happened in I-III, and if you don't like them in I-III, then you're hating on IV-VI. Well, something like that. I mostly skimmed it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
cat doter posted:there's a segment of criticism that wants to make the case that bad movies are excused through interesting subtext, which is a bunch of nonsense of course I've been thinking about this a lot recently. Interpretation can be read into anything, any image,or any film can be read into from whatever subjective lens the viewer intends to do so. However, this should be taken as separate sometimes to discussion of worth. From my experience in other threads, people will bend over backwards and utilize semiotic interpretation and tenth rate Brechtian analysis in order to deflect any criticism of the film they like, but when such subtexts are wholly unique to the viewer then it isn't perhaps appropriate to use such techniques in the venue of "Is it good or not?", it's really just saying "Well, it's just too smart for you" for a bunch highly interpretive and unique to the individual reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I've been thinking about this a lot recently. Interpretation can be read into anything, any image,or any film can be read into from whatever subjective lens the viewer intends to do so. However, this should be taken as separate sometimes to discussion of worth. From my experience in other threads, people will bend over backwards and utilize semiotic interpretation and tenth rate Brechtian analysis in order to deflect any criticism of the film they like, but when such subtexts are wholly unique to the viewer then it isn't perhaps appropriate to use such techniques in the venue of "Is it good or not?", it's really just saying "Well, it's just too smart for you" for a bunch highly interpretive and unique to the individual reasons. yeah you're absolutely right of course, though some of these subtext obsessed people also seek to "solve" a film too and reach a consensus which is equally frustrating
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
For me, it's a question of what the critic's purpose is: just presenting a viewpoint, or recommending a work to an audience. There are a lot of critics I like to follow because of their viewpoints, whether or not I agree with them. Heck, I really like reading/watching HBG's weird rambles about stuff because he presents a viewpoint that's totally different from mine. (The fact that it's amusingly presented is a plus.) I'm not really happy when this stuff is presented as fact or used to recommend a work, though. For critics who are offering a judgment of quality or fun, I don't expect objectivity, but at least a mention that "this is how I see it" or "this is my personal taste" is preferable. (If for no other reason than letting me get a grasp on how much their taste aligns with mine on other reviews.) While typing this, I started thinking whether the insistence on overanalyzing nerd poo poo comes from a desire to stay in one's comfort zone. It's like, "If I can prove that this is good, I don't have to try any of the other stuff people say is good, and risk either proving I can't appreciate it, or learning that my animes aren't actually as great as I've been saying." In cases where it's not posturing to show how smart the analyzer is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:What I don't get about Ring Theory is how it's supposed to make me think that the prequels are better movies. Like "this all lines up" doesn't change them being bad movies. Duh, that's what all the listicles are for. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
I'd rather read the entirety of Ring Theory and a dozen listicles about cool things in the prequels than read another HBomberguy post about how there's no such thing as bad storytelling and that the only reason we don't find the characters in the prequels compelling is because we just don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Pretty much, it's like the world of the prequels wasn't terrible or anything, there's been games and animated shows set in it that were good and cool, the movies however were just pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Maybe the prequels are just not as good as the originals and Lucas cargo culted past material cause he's a hack???
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Legit though, Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid were treasures in those movies. drat did they do their best to make lovely material work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:What I don't get about Ring Theory is how it's supposed to make me think that the prequels are better movies. Like "this all lines up" doesn't change them being bad movies. It's equal parts nostalgia, fandom, beginning literary theory, and healthy amounts of cargo cult trying to legitimize a series of mediocre-to-bad films in a shared universe. Granted, I used to drink the same Kool-Aid, but for Zack Snyder's terrible DC films. Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Oct 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:It's equal parts nostalgia, fandom, beginning literary theory, and healthy amounts of cargo cult trying to legitimize a series of mediocre-to-bad films in a shared universe. Granted, I used to drink the same Kool-Aid, but for Zack Snyder's terrible DC films. I summon the Bravest of the Lamps to defend Jesus of Alien Metal with earnest fervor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Pretty much, it's like the world of the prequels wasn't terrible or anything, there's been games and animated shows set in it that were good and cool, the movies however were just pretty bad. That's been my take too. Belated Media's "What If Episode I/Episode II/Episode III Was Good?" videos did a really good (if flawed) job of thought experimenting the prequels into halfway decent films using only the pre-existing matter presented in the prequels themselves. It kind of stumbles in the Episode III section as he makes awkward reaches to his version into the OT story, but overall it shows there was enough there that if Lucas had at least had a decent quality-control apparatus around him like he did during the OT then it would have been fine. Like, Episode I didn't feel like a Star Wars movie on any level, but I've argued for a while that that should have been a conscious design feature instead of a bug so that (like RedLetterMedia originally argued) the bright and shiny world of the prequels slowly crumbles apart into the shitworld of the Original Trilogy as the Republic morphs into the Empire under Palpatine's influence so that by the time you get to Episode III everything looks and feels tantalizingly like Star Wars until the last big push at the end. Augus posted:Legit though, Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid were treasures in those movies. drat did they do their best to make lovely material work. It's a drat shame they didn't have any real scenes together too. Any way you went with it, something fantastic would have come out it. But alas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I think that Plinkett was off the mark with the whole 'why didn't Rey & Finn kiss' thing. I mean, I think it's nice for a movie to actually not have the two leads not hook up, but they did seem to have chemistry to me (especially considering neither actually was probably into much of a dating scene - not much opportunities for romance as a stormtrooper or junker). I'd rather they actually, you know, build up to it. Rey and Finn obviously didn't kiss because the couple in TFA is clearly Finn and Poe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Like, Episode I didn't feel like a Star Wars movie on any level, but I've argued for a while that that should have been a conscious design feature instead of a bug so that (like RedLetterMedia originally argued) the bright and shiny world of the prequels slowly crumbles apart into the shitworld of the Original Trilogy as the Republic morphs into the Empire under Palpatine's influence so that by the time you get to Episode III everything looks and feels tantalizingly like Star Wars until the last big push at the end. I think I've brought this up before, but when you look at the original draft of Star Wars, you get the impression that Lucas has always wanted to tell a more complex story with a large cast and political intrigue, like something along the lines of Dune. I know people love to bash the political stuff in the prequels (and they should), but I sort of see as Lucas attempting to flesh the setting out into something more cerebral by showing how the Jedi fell into decline and how Palpatine set things into motion so that he could become Emperor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Mischalaniouse posted:Rey and Finn obviously didn't kiss because the couple in TFA is clearly Finn and Poe. I truly hope and wish this would happen. It's mostly just specific creeps that'd get mad about "Oh no, a black and white person kissed" but hoo boy would a hundred times larger span of horrible people throw fits if THE GAYS got screen time in my sci-fi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
I'm burning through my horror movie requests! Today's video is on The Faculty, and its relationship to the film Scream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Annointed posted:I summon the Bravest of the Lamps to defend Jesus of Alien Metal with earnest fervor. Obliged, but it's actually the prequels that I'm going to talk about. The obvious question with the Star Wars prequels is why are they so gosh-darned important? Why is it important that prequel “apologists” be proven wrong, or that it even necessitates near-religious terminology such as “apologists”? Despite supposedly being just a trilogy of bad-to-mediocre films, they are nevertheless treated as some of the most important movies of all time. The obvious answer is that they’re Star Wars movies, but to that one must ask the following: why is Star Wars itself so important? The answer to both questions is that the internet critical community is ironically not very well versed in criticism, and primarily use it to supplement either their enthusiasm or antipathy, and thus uncritically place certain movies on a pedestal. This is why the Plinkett reviews are so half-formed like so many other amateur critical works: the more literate criticism is really used as an extension of fannish disappointment. They’re not truly critical. The examination of the Prequels’ ground-breaking digital environments, for example, devolves into strange jabs at George Lucas’s personal characters (he’s lazy, don’tcha know?). Understanding of cinematic influence and tradition generally boils down to the common refrain that the originals are great, especially compared to the prequels. But Stoklasa and so many others can’t actually explain what makes Star Wars good or bad. It’s simply taken for granted that both the originals and the prequels deserve the decades’ long fan attention, because that is the nature of fandom. The years-long preoccupation with the prequels is just a bizarre inverse of the love for Star Wars. Neither is particularly well-deserved, and ignore any qualities that the films themselves possess. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Oct 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Obliged, but it's actually the prequels that I'm going to talk about. your posting makes me want to die
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Obliged, but it's actually the prequels that I'm going to talk about. now I know what smug diarrhea as text looks like
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Maybe the prequels are just not as good as the originals and Lucas cargo culted past material cause he's a hack??? Maybe the prequels are fine movies that just happen to not be as good as the originals in variety of ways and the internet hate machine has exaggerated that into whatever the weird obsession with hating the prequels is over time? We'll never really know, because anytime someone say they like something about the prequels it somehow starts a loving flame war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:We'll never really know, because anytime someone say they like something about the prequels it somehow starts a loving flame war. I like that the prequels allowed Republic Commando to happen and people are pretty widely agreeable with that though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
I mean, the stilted dialogue, the total lack of chemistry between two actors who's characters' love was supposedly so strong it destroyed the Republic, the entire CGI green screened sets that gave the actors nothing to work with or move around in, long action scenes that aren't particularly impressive or exciting that do nothing to advance the plot... its not like there aren't legitimate criticisms to be made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Maybe the prequels are fine movies that just happen to not be as good as the originals in variety of ways and the internet hate machine has exaggerated that into whatever the weird obsession with hating the prequels is over time? there's a logical disconnect between the first and second sentences in this post. Can you find it, audience?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
the pivot to the middle ground is admirable but those movies really are just kinda fuckin bad, dude I couldn't even sit through those things when I was 12 without being bored to tears
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Counterpoint: Phantom Menace loving ruled when I was 11 and as I haven't ever rewatched it I'm forced to conclude it still in fact rules and RLM are in fact stupid poopyheads with bad opinions. Take that!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Insurrectionist posted:Counterpoint: Phantom Menace loving ruled when I was 11 and as I haven't ever rewatched it I'm forced to conclude it still in fact rules and RLM are in fact stupid poopyheads with bad opinions. Take that! I liked to poo poo in my neighbour's letterbox when I was 11 and I haven't done that again since and I'm pretty sure it that was bad and stupid
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 10:23
|
|