|
Robindaybird posted:There's a truism that sequels to Don Bluth movies are terrible, and aside from the really loving cringe-worthy scenes with the native mice, while lighter in tone I still think Fievel Goes West is actually pretty good, and builds on the theme that those in power will trick and exploit the ones who don't (it's even in the first with the smaller cat disguising himself as a mouse to trick mice into working in sweatshops, and the Boss Tweed-esque mayor putting a dead mouse's name as for voting for him). Though I believe Bluth himself had nothing to do with it it's also the only Bluth sequel I can recall that actually got a theatrical release.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
My kids watch The Secret of NIMH in the car on long rides and it pains me every time when they ask for the second movie on the other side of the disc. God lord that sequel is awful in every way. I showed them An American Tail recently and they were slightly underwhelmed. The wife and I have fond memories of it but I think their experience with more modern (and often better) animation has really affected their reactions to what wed consider classic animated features. I have a real soft spot for Bluth films, mostly because it was one of the only major alternatives to Disney in the 80s and early 90s and I loved the distinctive art style, but yeah even classic Bluths have a lot of weird choices and occasional messy editing/pacing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
Aces High posted:I liked Antz more as a kid because the ants were modeled with 6 legs instead of 4. Actually I saw it first, didn't see A Bug's Life until...poo poo I can't remember when, I don't think I saw it in theatres. Regardless, when I did finally see it I was very confused why all the insects did not have 6 legs, besides the grasshoppers, when that was something that Antz got right. This is one of the only thing about Antz I really did like, but beyond the ant queen being associated with birth, that's where the attention to biology ends*. Beyond that it's all the exploration of themes using the backdrop of an ant colony: the use of a fictional story to establish the morals of "it is no crime to be innovative, even if it breaks tradition", "heroism is a pretense until the lie becomes true because heroes are made, not born" and "bullies and parasites cannot be appeased and if you try you're playing their game" in A Bug's Life, vs... vague comparisons to the daily grind of work using an ant colony, an arbitrary conflict between worker ants and soldier ants that gets forgotten, and a protagonist who has no dreams beyond being recognized and who doesn't really change, the perception of him does. The former just feels more focused and reinforced, while the latter just kind of is... and I guess it is memorable for how weird it is, but that doesn't really make it good. *Which annoys me, to be honest. I get that anthropomorphization is part and parcel to kids stories because it's recognizable and being mammals we would respond most positively to mammalian values, but... why exactly would an insect like an ant care very much about the potential thousands of children they would have? Why would a queen, who gives birth to pretty much every other ant in the colony, prioritize two of those children as actually heirs apparent, when depending on the species, there could be hundreds of other potentially fertile females? And then of course, we treat these as a traditional monarchy, another things that makes no sense from an insectoid perspective... I get that these are movies for children, but there's no exploration of what family and friends, or society, would look like from an actual ants point of view. So they wouldn't have a traditional family- would they have friends? Rivalries? What would they look like and what form would they take? Speculation, I guess, but there is a place for speculating in children's entertainment!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:As true as this may be, I think Charlie the dog is unlikable to a fault. Maybe it's just because I'm getting old and have kids and all that, but I'd really prefer that the protagonist of a kids' movie not behave in a nearly irredeemable fashion for 95% of the running time. You're falling into the trap I literally just posted - you want to feed your kids soft, 'safe' and unchallenging media when they need to confront more difficult narratives to develop a mature and nuanced personality. If you just feed them nothing but squeaky clean protagonists they'll grow up with a warped sense of expectations for themselves and others that doesn't allow for subtlety and nuance. Charlie is very charming, likable, and charismatic when he is out to get something and that kind of subtle narcissism isn't something you often see in a protagonist - but it is something we often see in children. In fact, Charlie's journey through the film mirrors closely the idealized moral development we would like to see in our youth as they transition from self centered hedonist into a altruistic citizen that would sacrifice their own interests and life for another. Another parallel is obviously Biblical, of course, as you'd expect with the set-up of heaven and hell in the narrative. Charlie is the stand-in for all men, of course, tempted by the vice of the material world. He's a sloppy drunk, a petty criminal, a greedy dog that exploits the better nature and friendships of those around him, and in search of more hedonism he rejects the automatic entry into Heaven granted to him by nature of his doghood. This is a clear mirror held up to show how the sacrifice of Christ is rejected along with the traditional religious virtues, certainly condemning the transgressor (mankind, on in the film Charlie) to the tender mercies of Hell. Only by rejecting his former vices, begging forgiveness, and seeking redemption through self-sacrifice as Christ did does Charlie free himself from the grip of the hellmouth and escape the sword of damnation hanging over his head. Another, less spiritually moralizing but less supported read of the film has to do with Charlie's rejection of traditional paternal virtue and eventually achieving triumph only by accepting the modesty and responsibility of his masculine strengths. I don't like going through this reading though, because Charlie's course too closely tracks with the early the real-world failures of József Barsi and it makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:My kids watch The Secret of NIMH in the car on long rides and it pains me every time when they ask for the second movie on the other side of the disc. God lord that sequel is awful in every way. I remember enjoying that one song (the "I'm my father's son" one) but that's about it. As I mentioned, I had been keen on the original Robert C. O'Brien novel and it ends kind of ambiguously for Justin; basically NIMH arrives to gas the rose bush where the rats make their home and Mrs Frisby arrives in time to find Mr Ages treating Brutus, who explains that another rat whose name isn't mentioned was able to help him get out, then went back in to rescue someone else and hasn't come back out yet. You assume it was Justin, but it isn't clear, so I was always fascinated to discover who it was. When I realised you could buy books on the Internet a few years later, I thought about getting the sequel (Rasco and the Rats of NIMH), then decided I had outgrown it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
Is the book sequel to NIMH any better than the movie one? Also I don't believe I've ever read the Secret of NIMH novel, how is it in comparison to the film?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:This is one of the only thing about Antz I really did like, but beyond the ant queen being associated with birth, that's where the attention to biology ends*. Beyond that it's all the exploration of themes using the backdrop of an ant colony: the use of a fictional story to establish the morals of "it is no crime to be innovative, even if it breaks tradition", "heroism is a pretense until the lie becomes true because heroes are made, not born" and "bullies and parasites cannot be appeased and if you try you're playing their game" in A Bug's Life, vs... vague comparisons to the daily grind of work using an ant colony, an arbitrary conflict between worker ants and soldier ants that gets forgotten, and a protagonist who has no dreams beyond being recognized and who doesn't really change, the perception of him does. The former just feels more focused and reinforced, while the latter just kind of is... and I guess it is memorable for how weird it is, but that doesn't really make it good. Like I said, the message of A Bug's Life is basically 'When the oppressed are the majority and the oppressors are a minority, all it takes it for the majority to realise their status and they can gently caress up them up bad', so I can't hate it to much. Though I kinda have a soft spot for both. Also the former message...does have a history of being misdirected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Larryb posted:Is the book sequel to NIMH any better than the movie one? Also I don't believe I've ever read the Secret of NIMH novel, how is it in comparison to the film? I've never checked out the sequel so I can't comment on it. The book (Mrs Frisby and the Rats of NIMH - they changed the character's name to "Brisby" in the movie because I believe there's some kind of IP issue around the word "Frisbee") is much less fantastical inasmuch as it doesn't have magical forces at play or anything like that. A pretty big chunk of it is Nicodemus, who's just an older rat in an eyepatch rather than rodent Gandalf, relating the rats' story of how they came to NIMH, how they escaped, how they came to the farm and set up a home under the rosebush and their plans for the future. Jenner isn't in it except as a background character who previously disagreed with Nicodemus's plan to relocate to the countryside and create their own community where they didn't have to scavenge from humans, and instead left with a group of followers and were reportedly electrocuted trying to steal tools from a hardware shop. I think he comes back in the book sequels, but like I said, haven't read them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:You're falling into the trap I literally just posted - you want to feed your kids soft, 'safe' and unchallenging media when they need to confront more difficult narratives to develop a mature and nuanced personality. If you just feed them nothing but squeaky clean protagonists they'll grow up with a warped sense of expectations for themselves and others that doesn't allow for subtlety and nuance. Charlie is very charming, likable, and charismatic when he is out to get something and that kind of subtle narcissism isn't something you often see in a protagonist - but it is something we often see in children. In fact, Charlie's journey through the film mirrors closely the idealized moral development we would like to see in our youth as they transition from self centered hedonist into a altruistic citizen that would sacrifice their own interests and life for another. There is a difference between wanting to only sterilized stories for one's children and finding a protagonist so unlikeable it makes it hard to enjoy a movie. It's the same thing that doesn't make me want to watch Dr. House, for example: he's a complete asshat to everyone and everything, he has no redeeming qualities that I could see, why the hell would I cheer for him? Why would I watch a program that is 100% focused on slobbering his knob about how he's always right and "keeps it real"? I haven't watched All Dogs Go To Heaven in a long time so I don't know if that's what's going on here, I frankly don't remember much of it. But I'm just saying, it's a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
House very quickly turns into a deeper analysis of his character and the characters around him. He is very often wrong, is called out on it, and suffers consequences for it. There are aspects of the show that are silly or outright bad (I cant think of a series that goes that many seasons without having a few stinkers), but its a very enjoyable show thanks to the world building and supporting cast. If you enjoy medical procedurals/drama I suggest to take another look. I was at the perfect age for All Dogs Go To Heaven at the time, as Ive forgotten the rest of the film but the vision of hell is permanently seared into my mind and really does a great job of depicting outright fear and dread in a kids cartoon. Im certainly not religious but they really pegged the terror of damnation. PierreTheMime fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
House seems like it came a little bit too early, as prestige television it would have gone great, in episodic network form it becomes self-parody.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:There is a difference between wanting to only sterilized stories for one's children and finding a protagonist so unlikeable it makes it hard to enjoy a movie. It's the same thing that doesn't make me want to watch Dr. House, for example: he's a complete asshat to everyone and everything, he has no redeeming qualities that I could see, why the hell would I cheer for him? Why would I watch a program that is 100% focused on slobbering his knob about how he's always right and "keeps it real"? Unlike House, who does morally wrong things in a total asshat manner, Charlie is likeable and charming personally as he greedily does immoral things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:House seems like it came a little bit too early, as prestige television it would have gone great, in episodic network form it becomes self-parody. Surely "House as prestige television" was In Treatment? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Surely "House as prestige television" was In Treatment? I dunno, maybe I should watch that. Funny thing is I think Dr Strange was a little bit 'House gets his hands hosed up and learns magic'. His actor playing Sherlock Holmes not helping the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I dunno, maybe I should watch that. In fairness, it's not really "House if it were prestige tv" despite being on HBO, but it does have Gabriel Byrne in the lead role.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Funny thing is I think Dr Strange was a little bit 'House gets his hands hosed up and learns magic'. His actor playing Sherlock Holmes not helping the case. Doctor Strange is House with magic instead of Vicodin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Unlike House, who does morally wrong things in a total asshat manner, Charlie is likeable and charming personally as he greedily does immoral things. So Charlie is Don Giovanni and the film's only flaw is that it didn't end with him being dragged to Hell?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
The hell scene isn't scary because the lava looks like spaghetti sauce
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Elementary is like House except the entire thrust of the show is him learning to appreciate that other people are also competent and that though he is very smart he does not have the right to be an rear end in a top hat. So instead of shaking your head at House for 4 minutes because he rammed a car into the side of the hospital, Sherlock has to apologize for being a dick, and mean it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:So Charlie is Don Giovanni and the film's only flaw is that it didn't end with him being dragged to Hell? Charlie manages to turn things around by embracing virtue and sacrificing himself, so he escapes that fate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Larryb posted:Is the book sequel to NIMH any better than the movie one? Also I don't believe I've ever read the Secret of NIMH novel, how is it in comparison to the film? I read Racso and the Rats of NIMH as a kid, the only thing I really remember about it was that the way they sabotage the threat of a dam that would flood the area and drown or displace everyone was by sneaking into offices after dark and working in tandem to operate word processors and xerox machines to covertly sideline the development project which I thought was cool. I had no idea that it was written by a different author or came out so long after the first book but as a kid in a pre-internet world my perception of the age of books and films was simply things that were already extant or things that were brand new and authorship was a nebulous concept outside of known brands like Disney.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:This is one of the only thing about Antz I really did like, but beyond the ant queen being associated with birth, that's where the attention to biology ends*. Beyond that it's all the exploration of themes using the backdrop of an ant colony: the use of a fictional story to establish the morals of "it is no crime to be innovative, even if it breaks tradition", "heroism is a pretense until the lie becomes true because heroes are made, not born" and "bullies and parasites cannot be appeased and if you try you're playing their game" in A Bug's Life, vs... vague comparisons to the daily grind of work using an ant colony, an arbitrary conflict between worker ants and soldier ants that gets forgotten, and a protagonist who has no dreams beyond being recognized and who doesn't really change, the perception of him does. The former just feels more focused and reinforced, while the latter just kind of is... and I guess it is memorable for how weird it is, but that doesn't really make it good. Many species of ants absolutely will prioritize a few offspring who remain close to the queen, though. It's adaptive because, in case of some supreme disaster where the queen is killed, there's always at least one female who will take their place. And you don't want just any potentially fertile females taking that mantle, you want the most fertile. Of course, since there's usually more than one of these "heirs apparent," there's often a bit of squabbling - and it's not even unheard of for some enterprising heirs to, surprise surprise, lead military coups against the sitting queen. Ants are cool, obvi. But this also helps us expand on the critique as far as anthropomorphism. Obviously, neither ABL or Antz are about actual ants. Ants are merely a useful analogy for structuring a narrative that is clearly about us. A speculative narrative more about trying to give voices to more biologically and socially correct ants just becomes increasingly more disturbing. We can even think of Cronenberg's brilliant The Fly: Humans have politics, bugs don't. Humans have these entire symbolic structures and senses of philosophical motivation that drives them to make decisions. Even if you're a queen at the top of society, even if we can make this critique that you substantively can't or don't care about the masses over whom you wield undemocratic power, you can at least feel and think that the opposite is true, that you do authentically care about the people, that your power is not simply a display of power, etc. Ants don't have that. They have no delusions, but also no beautiful lies that they tell themselves. They are brutally efficient and automatic. So what we're describing when we're describing a more speculative animated film about animals is not simply, like, ABL or Antz but slightly further - we're talking about Alien, but where the monster speaks English. It's definitely a cool idea, though, and I'm not trying to poo-poo your own speculation. But let's not be too closed off, me thinks, about what we consider "speculation." The symbolic orders of ABL and Antz are automatically speculative, but about people: What systems they are born into, what obstacles they face (both physical and meta-physical), what they can accomplish, and how they can accomplish it. So, with regards to Antz as an example, there is nothing vague about this speculation. There is nothing vague about opening your film with a character going to see a shrink. There is nothing vague about having a villain who believes that the colony has been made weak by 'useless workers,' who once a society oriented more around military authority, and who desires a massive purge of the useless people. There is nothing vague about casting Woody Allen, an icon of the ironic, self-hating cosmopolitan Jew, at the center of this conflict. The conflict of the film is not between the soldiers and the workers. The soldiers and the workers make friends all the time, Z himself is friends with a soldier. The conflict of the film is "the Jewish question." Ghost Leviathan posted:Like I said, the message of A Bug's Life is basically 'When the oppressed are the majority and the oppressors are a minority, all it takes it for the majority to realise their status and they can gently caress up them up bad', so I can't hate it to much. Though I kinda have a soft spot for both. Also the former message...does have a history of being misdirected. Well that's the thing. You were spot on before about how the grasshoppers are characterized more or less like classic film gangsters. So while it's possible to extrapolate some sort of thesis about oppression, like maybe colonialism (?), this is undermined by the fact that the apparent oppressors are not the founders of any colony. The colony is taken for granted already, and the grasshoppers have no invested interest in its perpetuation, they aren't the engineers of it. Like locusts (duh), they just take, take, take until the resources are deprived, and then, supposedly, they move on. Or do they? This gets back to resurgam40's point about the 'vagueness' of the symbolic order, and even their well-founded speculation about anthropomorphism and all the questions it leaves open about the narrative potential of depicting more biologically accurate animals as characters. Do any other colonies exist? Do none of them ever just fight back from the get go, like ants will do, voraciously, without regard for themselves? Did the colony of ABL do this and fail? If so, why did they succeed at the end? Do they require the inspiration of a single "great man" (an inventor and "innovator," no less)? So, of course, if we're talking about vagueness, ABL depends far more on leaving things vague, of treating the symbolic order of the film as being something that is simply spawned out of unknowable emotional forces, but where there is no tenable political or historical foundation, even a hypothetical one. The grasshoppers are not colonists, with an invested interest in perpetuating a particular order, or preserving a colony for as long as possible to maximize its exploitation. They don't attempt to exploit conflicts of interests within the ant colony to achieve a goal. They are simply locusts, forces of directionless evil and 'bullying' who, once you kick them out, then everything will be fine. You're right to be suspect of the ideological compunction of this narrative. ABL is like the propaganda film that the general from Antz would produce if his coup had succeeded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
ABL does also involve the misunderstood/ignored genius from within the masses whose inventions are both a huge economic force multiplier and a keystone in fight against the outside oppressor, with at least the implication that valuing the right and voice of the individual allows those who have new ideas that benefit the majority when necessary to reach their full potential and uplift all. And before that, the ants are more willing to put their trust in unproven foreign ideas (the circus bugs defending them in Seven Samurai/Three Amigos style) than Flick's technology. But then again, it's a confused metaphor at best. (It does take the skills of the outsiders AND the wisdom of the downtrodden to fight the oppressor) It seems like a common thing in Pixar movies, like the Incredibles, where the masses should be allowed to have their say for they may occasionally produce exceptional individuals with abilities and ideas that can benefit all. A very liberal capitalist idea of egalitarianism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Charlie would've been less unpalatable as a protagonist if he ever, right before the very end ever actually gave a drat about Anne-Marie's welfare outside of what she can do for him. His brand of sleaze hits way too close to home - even without the real life subtext of what happened to her VA - of the narcissistic parent (like Mother Gothel), of the abusive significant other, and it's very difficult to want to see him succeed at essentially exploiting a little girl for his own gain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Charlie is very charming, likable, and charismatic when he is out to get something and that kind of subtle narcissism isn't something you often see in a protagonist - but it is something we often see in children. I hadn't considered that before, but that's a keen observation. As someone who saw All Dog's quite a few times as a kid, I can attest that Charlie being a bad person completely went over my head for a long time. Charlie's affable and fun loving, buys food for the poor, befriends a poor orphan girl, and stands in contrast to the transparently vicious and treacherous Carface. Running a casino and fixing races are all "adult" crimes, and the way he exploits Anne-Marie is complicated as well -- as it's less a crime of active maliciousness than a failure to do good. So from my young point of view, Charlie was a good guy who liked to have fun and help people out who only ever really got in trouble because he broke an arbitrary rule. Compare, "don't rewind your watch, because you'll get in trouble if you do," with "don't eat cookies after dinner, because I'm your father and I said so." It's only as an adult that it becomes apparent that Charlie is actually a terrible son-of-a-bitch that'll make a buck at anyone's expense, but even then there's still a sort of tension to his character. His sort of animal hedonism is destructive, but it's appealing. He wants evil things, but the movie doesn't hide that those things are desirable. And as many bad things as he's shown to have done, he's (evidently) not irredeemable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:ABL does also involve the misunderstood/ignored genius from within the masses whose inventions are both a huge economic force multiplier and a keystone in fight against the outside oppressor, with at least the implication that valuing the right and voice of the individual allows those who have new ideas that benefit the majority when necessary to reach their full potential and uplift all. And before that, the ants are more willing to put their trust in unproven foreign ideas (the circus bugs defending them in Seven Samurai/Three Amigos style) than Flick's technology. But then again, it's a confused metaphor at best. (It does take the skills of the outsiders AND the wisdom of the downtrodden to fight the oppressor) Yeah, there's a definite "imagineering" bent to their films that began with ABL and then just totally crystalized with Inside Out. Also, thank you for reminding me to watch Three Amigos again, I love that poo poo irrationally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
So Will Vinton died on the 4th this month  RIP
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
The smallfoot is coming from inside the thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
it's good my only real point of criticism is that the soundtrack, apart from the Two Contractually Obligated Good Songs, is pretty uninspired, but Let it Lie and Wonderful World(?) are VERY good ungulateman fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
A Bug’s Life is better than Antz because Dave Foley is great and gently caress Woody Allen
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:gently caress Woody Allen No thank you. Also I'm 16 years too old for his tastes, at 30.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:it's good So I haven't seen the movie, I might see it Friday. I will say, the trailers did a terrible of job of interesting me and Pick's weird defensiveness about it didn't help either but I've listened to songs in the movie. And the songs are making me WAY more interested in seeing the movie than anything else does. It's funny you kind of toss aside the other two songs as "two contractually obligated good songs" because I absolutely love Perfection and Moment of Truth, both of them are so catchy and fun to me. I think Wonderful Life is just kind of alright. Let It Lie though is a very good, what sounds like, villain song, and I'm very interested in seeing that song in motion because villain songs are always elevated by their visuals (I obviously have no idea if that character actually is straight up a villain but the things that happen in the song are obviously presented as Very Shady). edit: I will say, I am also TOTALLY a sucker for the big opening musical number in movies where characters sing about how great their town or city or whatever is and then the end has a whole chorus of townsfolk singing along. Perfection is like the epitome of that kind of song. Life's A Happy Song from the Muppet Movie is another good example. Even the Thneedville song, not to give The Lorax too much credit edit: Also Channing Tatum can SING like what Macaluso fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:So I haven't seen the movie, I might see it Friday. I will say, the trailers did a terrible of job of interesting me and Pick's weird defensiveness about it didn't help either but I've listened to songs in the movie. And the songs are making me WAY more interested in seeing the movie than anything else does. It's funny you kind of toss aside the other two songs as "two contractually obligated good songs" because I absolutely love Perfection and Moment of Truth, both of them are so catchy and fun to me. I think Wonderful Life is just kind of alright. Let It Lie though is a very good, what sounds like, villain song, and I'm very interested in seeing that song in motion because villain songs are always elevated by their visuals (I obviously have no idea if that character actually is straight up a villain but the things that happen in the song are obviously presented as Very Shady). You will not be disappointed by the visuals in Let It Lie, they're good, I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
Robindaybird posted:So Will Vinton died on the 4th this month ungulateman posted:The smallfoot is coming from inside the thread I confused this with the Verne Troyer death thread and GBS and was briefly scandalized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:A Bug’s Life is better than Antz because Dave Foley is great and gently caress Woody Allen Dave Foley has done a lot of reprehensible poo poo and also Kevin Spacey voices Hopper, so that's one more way ABL and Antz are similar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
They should have got Dennis Hopper to voice Hopper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Dennis Hopper was definitely an early DreamWorks kind of guy, though
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
also i found this extremely interesting take on the lorax that i wanted to share with you guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC_8vkD1-H8
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:Dave Foley has done a lot of reprehensible poo poo and also Kevin Spacey voices Hopper, so that's one more way ABL and Antz are similar. wait what has dave foley done? i'm gonna regret asking this but it's not gonna stop me from watching Newsradio if the presence of Noted rear end in a top hat Andy Dick and Big Dummy Joe Rogan don't already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
All I know is Foley has some massive child support payments due to a messy divorce and a settlement that was computed on his salary when he was on a big TV show. It's why he can't really come to Canada anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 03:36
|
|
