|
The Bananana posted:Hell or high water Great movie. Green room , embrace of the serpent and the witch also were good 2016
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
reignofevil posted:For all the people asking why I care just assume I'm a weirdo and I don't have to write a bunch of poo poo about philosophy and capital and poo poo. Do it
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
hunt for the wilderpeople was the best movie of 2016, or at least a very good one that was made by people who give a poo poo to be good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Man why do people have to care so much about how many movies are being released by one studio? People treat it like the hype machine is unavoidable when its actually pretty easy to avoid hearing about new movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
I don't think anyone will remember or talk about the Spider-Man movie in a week from now. Completely forgettable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:I don't think anyone will remember or talk about the Spider-Man movie in a week from now. Completely forgettable. The lizard's cgi was really dumb in that one. There's a line you gotta draw with reboots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Okay I will. When you make a three hundred million dollar turd you basically spend a poo poo ton of money and provide totally value-less content. When I ( A useless alcoholic) see Hollywood putting less effort into the themes or content of their movie than even a dipshit like me could accomplish I get annoyed for several reasons. First because ultimately it hurts the pool of movie going audiences a little bit. Why do you think movies are always pushing for new 3d style price gimmicks and theaters are continually jacking up snack prices? Because the tickets themselves aren't selling out for repeat viewings like they used to. Reason two is that right now people are actually dying on this earth and 300 million dollars could have gone toward actually beneficial causes. Obviously there is a ton of room to argue that it's not an either or situation but I instead ask "what's the value of a movie that is too professionally made to mock but nobody liked and ended up wasting money". If all it provided was employment for the workers of the movie industry they could have been equally gainfully employed by a message with a strong message or some poo poo. Tossing money at a lovely script just so you can say you kept people in work that year is one of the dumbest things about capitalism and it's actively squandering a decent percentage of the total amount of human labor; a finite value that expires each day. If we lived in a world where humans were doing things because we wanted to and we didn't assign life or death value to any of the people we had the ability to help I'd be much less concerned by this aspect and we could make as many sequels to Stepbrothers as we wanted. Movies don't always have to be about what I enjoy but if nobody enjoys them and they don't help a later movie convey it's own ideas then literally what was the point. . Money isn't the entirety of it at all to be clear. The Transformers movie's make a ton and still suck rear end. The lovely money-first driven way that these movies are being made us actually helping modern audiences get even lazier when watching a movie and this allows the standards for what constitutes a movie tickets worth of economic value to slip even further. This is also bad and I don't like it. Finally as a human being the concept of a studio spending money to make a perfectly designed and tested product that fails any loving way is actively shameful to the critical thinking skills of our entire species imo. Finally I'm setting my arbitrary line of "annoyed at your failure" at 50 million dollars. Anything below that can do whatever. I apologise if I'm gonna have to revise this a million times if it's unclear, my a.c. is broken and I'm sweating like a bitcoiner over here. reignofevil fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jul 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Spider Man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:Reason two is that right now people are actually dying on this earth and 300 million dollars could have gone toward actually beneficial causes. You sweet, sweet summer child. Distribution of resources isn't going to be solved by Hollywood making less bad movies, you're focusing on the wrong problem here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You sweet, sweet summer child. Lol but seriously it really could. Like I don't care if you think people wouldn't go for it this isn't about that per say.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Why can't it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:Why can't it. Part of it does, you idiot. All those "Hollywood workers" you're so easy to dismiss are citizens who pay taxes and use that money to fund charities and raise the next generation of humans. Like, go to D&D and start talking about getting involved in local politics if you want to change the world, you're barking up the wrong tree here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Part of it does, you idiot. All those "Hollywood workers" you're so easy to dismiss are citizens who pay taxes and use that money to fund charities and raise the next generation of humans. Lol. Wampa I literally do not even know where to start here. I'm sorry I'm trying to have opinions in the wrong place I guess you can't handle a maverick like myself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:Lol. Wampa I literally do not even know where to start here. I'm sorry I'm trying to have opinions in the wrong place I guess you can't handle a maverick like myself. I don't mind that you have opinions in this thread, I'm trying to say that you have dumb opinions, like that if we weren't making lovely movies, somehow that money would be going directly to orphans in Africa. We've got like a million and a half problems to work on before we get there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I don't mind that you have opinions in this thread, I'm trying to say that you have dumb opinions, like that if we weren't making lovely movies, somehow that money would be going directly to orphans in Africa. We've got like a million and a half problems to work on before we get there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
I won't go any farther except to say if we weren't making lovely movies the money COULD be going to children in Africa. Idk where you got would from!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
I'd be alright if the last xXx movie never was made and some schools got built instead
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
The "That money could've been used for actual good!" argument is dumb as hell, hth
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
the good fax machine posted:The "That money could've been used for actual good!" argument is dumb as hell, hth I'm okay with this because I am dumb as hell 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:If all it provided was employment for the workers of the movie industry they could have been equally gainfully employed by a message with a strong message or some poo poo. Tossing money at a lovely script just so you can say you kept people in work that year is one of the dumbest things about capitalism and it's actively squandering a decent percentage of the total amount of human labor; a finite value that expires each day. If we lived in a world where humans were doing things because we wanted to and we didn't assign life or death value to any of the people we had the ability to help I'd be much less concerned by this aspect and we could make as many sequels to Stepbrothers as we wanted. Bad movies give us HitBs, which is infinity value.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Starving kids in Africa are never gonna make the 22nd avengers movie 🙄🙄🙄
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Mike and Jay' s spirit to keep living is a finite resource and we are demanding it at an exponential rate!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
We could have had universal healthcare but instead we got Spider-Man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Starving kids in Africa are never gonna make the 22nd avengers movie 🙄🙄🙄 Although ........... Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
What if instead of bad movies they gave money to make good movies. That would be pretty good overall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:We could have had universal healthcare but instead we got Spider-Man. Lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Wait till I tell you about my plan to fix police militarization with Disney Extras.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
None of this dumb poo poo matters. Hollywood can make all the remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels, spin-offs and whatever it wants. More superhero movies, more poo poo based on poo poo from the 80s and 90s, more iterations of crap we've already seen, more remixes of poo poo that's already been done, more adaptations of books and comics and videogames and television shows at the expense of original scripts, more nostalgia cash-ins, none of it matters. Yeah we're going to keep getting Marvel superhero movies and DC superhero movies, we're going to keep getting Star Wars movies and remakes of movies that were already perfectly decent and fine the way they were, we're going to keep getting movies that coast on brand recognition, we're going to keep getting movies that just show us poo poo we've already seen and already know and dont do anything new or unique, we're going to keep getting movies that cater to fanbases which already exist and dont try to do anything artistically interesting. Who loving cares?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Oh hey cool another goon who doesn't know dick about economics and as such is a socialist. gently caress movies!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
People who know too much about the economy get huge boners for numbers going up exponentially. It's SCIENCE!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
The real reason why people with money make poo poo movies is because it makes them more money. So they keep doing it. The only way to break the cycle is to not watch the movies, but then that means no more Half in the Bag because they can't pay to go see the movie. See the problem???
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
There were 10 Wizard of Oz movies before the one you know. So just think of all those people in like 1934 being like "Another loving Wizard of Oz reboot? The 1925 one was great! Why do we need another?!?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Don't blame me I voted for Rich Evans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Just 4 more Spidermans before we get an all-time classic that will be played for another 80 years and everyone forgets about the other versions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
gently caress movies
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Jay and Mike should teach Rich Evans to read and turn RLM into a book club instead. I am in earnest about this
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
mng posted:Dang, Jim is 46 and Colin is 44! Thanks, IMDB. Canuck don't Crack
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
I have no idea what that comic means but I am finding it incredibly provocative!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
I'm not reading any of that poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 02:02
|
|