|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Kinda lol that this is straight out of Venture Bros for a few reasons. Feel like if they leaned into that a little bit the movies would be great at being a more kid-friendly Venture Bros, like the DuckTales reboot. It's at least as old as Batman The Animated Series, there's a villain like that who's in two episodes.
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I don’t understand why people fight about it IMO it's low self-confidence leading people to too closely associate their personhood with their entertainment, probably. For certain people any criticism of their position on a series or story or character becomes a personal attack, and they react with emotional violence. This also gets filtered through a tendency to graft public reason arguments onto what are often debates of taste, which leads to arguments gaining the appearance of literal life and death stakes. This is often unhelpfully polarising, leading to situations like: You're no longer allowed to criticise X because liking X is praxis and will defeat the baddies. Or: You're no longer allowed to like Y because Y did a bad thing and by liking Y you're basically saying that the bad thing was okay. It happens in both pro- and anti- camps, and everyone becomes increasingly entrenched and toxic to the point where certain phrases or words become triggering and tendentious. I think this is also more common in some social circles than others, and for whatever reason animation tends to attract a lot of this (perhaps because animation is less literal than photography and therefore exists slightly more in the viewer's head? I dunno.) IMO I think you can, easily, just treat those public reason arguments and issues of taste as separate concerns. e.g. you can like a Hollywood film, even though they're built on the bones of genocidal landgrabs. But that's where the low self-confidence sneaks back in, because it's hard to feel good about liking a film built on a foundation of snuff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 12:57
|
|
|
Wittgen posted:ITT: People scratch their head at humans doing tribalism This one thinks differently! Get them!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 16:28
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:So there's just as many Simpsons fans getting bullied into committing suicide as other cartoons? Is there any way to determine this though?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
Ccs posted:That really sucks, cause composition is one element where animation can really shine. I mean, they have control over every element in frame. Arcane and Blue Eyed Samurai were both shows where I actually consciously noticed how good the composition was, which I don't usually do. However the new Ripley series on Netflix also has incredible composition. Something about being shot in black and white really lets them control the visual elements in an incredible way. I don't think it's the black and white necessarily. I jumped from Ripley to Sugar, which also opens with black and white photography, and the difference was stark. You've got to have someone who knows what they're doing and is allowed to do a good job.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2024 08:42
|
|
|
lol that shot of Florence Pugh. (this news rocks, but that's what jumped out at me)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
Larryb posted:Hatewatching is the entire reason a second season even got greenlit as I understand it Both seasons were probably commissioned together, like pretty much every other animated show ever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:Amusingly I think Velma was actually more hateable in Mystery Inc despite that show being infinitely better overall because they made her weirdly jealous of Shaggy and Scooby's relationship. Yes Scooby is a bit clingy, he's intelligent enough to speak, but he's still a loving DOG! She keeps whining after Shaggy breaks up with her that she was dumped for a dog, but first of all Shaggy's relationship with Scooby is completely different as unlike Velma he's not shagging the dog, and secondly he dumped her because she was a poo poo girlfriend, that part had nothing to do with Scooby. I reckon that all of that, like a lot of the show, was very tongue in cheek. The show, particularly the first season, is frequently taking the piss out of its leads in ways that I find very funny. They're both the most gosh darned wholesome teenage dorks and also deeply terrible, judgemental, deeply lovely crazy people. Mashing those two things up together ends up being pretty decently funny. So I think you're meant to be laughing at Velma, rather than trying to find any psychological clarity in her behaviour. I know the show has a reputation for being a dark and serious version of the Scooby Saga (or whatever) and it definitely becomes like that towards the end. But I vastly prefer its deeply sarcastic side. Open Source Idiom fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Apr 27, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:20ish episode orders are a common practice. Back in the day that would be one season. These days it's often spaced out to two, but they still order the same amount of episodes at the start. Yeah pretty much. I think the only notable deviation from this bulk order practice was the first season of Invincible, which essentially had a 16 x 20 minute order anyway, just in an 8 x 40 format.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2024 01:11
|
|
|
Mars Express is really good. Owes a lot to a lot of things (I caught shout outs to Metal Gear Solid 4, Minority Report and there's possibly a gag about Westworld's second season) but the thing it's most aggressively channelling is Ghost In The Shell. Not just in content, but the way it approaches violence, exposition, etc. is very similar. I like that it, it keeps it very fast paced and does a lot to suggest a lot of breadth and depth to the setting. There's some smart writing throughout, though I don't super want to get into what I liked about it here. Essentially though, you're dealing with an inverted version of the robot cop/augmented partner dynamic from GITS, so there's more commentary on the frailty of human existence. Including, what i suspect, will be a couple of controversial character decisions. I think they're thoughtfully deployed though. The plot itself isn't going to set the world on fire, but it's smarter about its very obvious seeming narrative. (big spoiler) The human figure behind the crisis being revealed to be covering up for a bungled tech filmflam operation, and ultimately answerable to a dispassionate board who sees him as expendable, is a cute way of capping the ideas of humanity / inhumanity that they've been playing with throughout. The character animation is lovely, and the action is cleverly staged, but it doesn't really have the budget it could have wanted. This mostly turns up in the crowd scenes, or the strange absence of them in parts where it would make sense for them to feature. It doesn't actually harm the film though, and there's plenty of animation for the actually important parts of the film (the characters talking).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2024 13:08
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:Just finished watching that tonight. I thought it was pretty great with a bunch of nods/influences (Ghost in the Shell, Blade Runner, 2001, etc...) but was let down a bit by the ending. I saw it last week and posted in the thread about it. I thought it was pretty good, essentially an inverted Ghost In The Shell (or a rip off if you want to look at it that way, but I think that's ungenerous). What didn't you like about the ending? I thought it was fairly tight -- humanity and robots can't coexist as long as robots are seen as products to be disposed of when the next flimflam fad rolls around. So, regardless as to whether they're being forced out or not, it might just be best for robots to choose to leave their broken system and search for something new. Humans can be left behind, left to subordinate themselves to systems that impassively marginalise them e.g. capitalism, or even biological frailty.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2024 08:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
JazzFlight posted:What made the movie feel less impactful at the end was that the main characters ultimately had no real role in the story. Sure, Carlos kills his friend/the Royjacker CEO, but other than that, they didn't solve or prevent anything in the plot at all. Everything happened with them or without them. FWIW, I think this is the point of the exercise. The leads really only make two or three choices throughout the piece -- she to turn her sobriety sensor off, and he to gaolbreak himself, and then to leave with the other robots. The film's about the way these highly automated systems remove the human element from the equation, making it harder and harder to opt out of even smaller choices. So when the leads capture the CEO at the end of the film it's irrelevant because the systems in place overrule his existence. It's the ultimate extension of Noir's "Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown" ethos. For individuals, people without access to support or solidarity, the only choice is whether to leave or to stay. (Not that this is a particularly socialist film.) I mean, obviously if it didn't work for you it didn't work for you though.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2024 16:15
|
|