|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 2, 2020 16:51:21 GMT
This is often an argument some people use to criticize the quality movie, but is the argument that the movie is dated actually a good argument when it comes to discussing the quality of a movie?
Or is it a fair argument to use ?
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on May 2, 2020 17:32:26 GMT
No, because there is no definition for "not aged well".
Now, it could conceivably be used for a movie made in the sixties that is set in somewhere around 1990, showing some future nuclear war that didn't occur. One could buy the argument that such a movie "did not age well".
But that's not what I've seen it used for.
I haven't made any sense out of the way it has been used by anyone here. Of course, I set each movie in its own era, with its own ideas.
One difference between the older TV and movies from TV and movies somewhere after about 1965 is the way community self righteousness set in about 1965.
Community self righteousness is dangerous. Individual self righteousness isn't. By community self righteousness, I mean the idea that if enough people vote or agree to persecute, falsely accuse, and discriminate against certain people, that they don't need a reason. They're automatically right. Books, TV, and movies were made to feed this "demon" or ideology.
So now we have entire generations who believe they are always right.
As an example, take an episode of THE RIFLEMAN in which the stalwart hero, Lucas, is told by his son that some day there will be modern conveniences which we did later have. Lucas scoffed at him like the son was off his rocker. Now, that bit of self abasement from the writer and actor who do the character, was credible, and would have been accepted at one time.
It's no longer accepted. Today, there are generations who would insist that the protagonist be the traditional Greek hero who was always correct, couldn't stumble, couldn't make a mistake, other than a moral one.
This also includes dialects people don't like. Laurence Olivier is criticized today for a heavy French Canadian accent in 49TH PARALLEL, but that's the way they spoke, even into the seventies when I heard some speak that way. The accent doesn't hold well with one might call "sensitivity" of some people, but it isn't derogatory to French Canadians. Anyone who thinks it is derogatory is being self righteous, and since many people feel this way, they gather into a "community self righteousness" which gives them safe passage into unprovoked hatred against individuals they so choose.
That's what people are calling "not aged well" on this site, and it makes no sense. It says more about the people who use that phrase for something other than not predicting the future well.
Personally, I give the benefit of the doubt for science fiction movies that take such risks. Predicting a nuclear war just 20 years in the future is something that one knows is risky. There's little payoff. If you're right, you won't be around to say "I told you so". If you're wrong, you look like a fool. So it's the biggest risk taking adventure in movie making one can do.
That's why good science fiction is almost always "credible characters in incredible circumstances". Probably most of us marooned on a planet with some creatures intent on killing us in a horrible way would fall apart and say something like "we're in deep sh.t now, man. Now what are we gonna do? Game over, man, game over!".
As long as the characters are credible, then the characters aren't "dated", and tht's what good writers try to keep from being "dated".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 17:37:29 GMT
It's an observation. Sometimes it can't be helped.
It's a big umbrella observation. A movie might not age well because details from a cast member's past emerge and make them difficult to watch. Behind the scenes details that intrude into the movie watching experience. Kevin Spacey is an excellent actor worthy of every accolade he's ever received, but his onscreen catalogue took a dive for me a few years ago.
I don't know if it's a "good argument", but if it's what you feel it's hard to really help it. I've seen movies from the 30's that borrow from psychology that we're still unpacking today. Sometimes movies can age poorly after just a few years.
Maybe it's a film by film basis.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 2, 2020 17:49:15 GMT
It is one of the worst arguments that anybody can use imo.
Some movies are meant for the time (Easy Rider for example) and must be watched with this in mind.
One of the worst arguments that has to do with this is visual effects. Visual Effects will always be a of their time until movies reach a point where all visual effects look 100% real. Some visual effects will always look less real because of the budget of the particular film.
The morality and views of society change as we gain more knowledge and become more aware. This is unavoidable and to fault movies for not being in line with modern social views is a bit silly, though there are extreme examples such as The Birth of a Nation. That movie was considered immoral by many people even at the time and is only praised for it's technical greatness.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on May 2, 2020 17:52:21 GMT
It depends on what you mean by "dated": -That it shows objects that don't exist anymore? No. If anything, it gives me nostalgia. -That the plot depends on objects that don't exist anymore? A little bit, but I can't really blame the script writers. This isn't really something they could've predicted. -That the messages/themes are part of a mentality that I and/or the world don't consider right anymore? Yes. This also isn't something they could've predicted, but maybe at the time there was a small part of society who was against this mentality. -That there are jokes that reference pop culture from only the decade (or even the year) it was made in? Absolutely! Pandering attempts to be hip!
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 2, 2020 18:23:32 GMT
I would say it's a legit argument for certain aspects of film making. Because Hollywood was still experimenting with it, I would say a lot of 90s CGI has aged horribly. Try watching "Mortal Kombat", it's laughably bad by today's standards. Also another example of this is blackface/yellowface/etc. Ask anyone the worst part of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and Mickey's Rooney's performance will almost always be brought up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 18:32:56 GMT
It is one of the worst arguments that anybody can use imo. Some movies are meant for the time (Easy Rider for example) and must be watched with this in mind. One of the worst arguments that has to do with this is visual effects. Visual Effects will always be a of their time until movies reach a point where all visual effects look 100% real. Some visual effects will always look less real because of the budget of the particular film. The morality and views of society change as we gain more knowledge and become more aware. This is unavoidable and to fault movies for this is a bit silly, though there are extreme examples such as The Birth of a Nation. That movie was considered immoral by many people at the time even and is only praised for it's technical greatness. Usually for me it's characters. Characters I don't particularly find entertaining or cute.
This year I watched Paths of Glory and Witness for the Prosecution in the same week. Both are really good. Paths of Glory I would consider a near masterpiece. They're both made in 1957, so what's the difference? For me, it's watching Charles Laughton. He did an excellent job but watching his character sneaking cigars around his nurse and taking the case against doctor's orders makes him boring to me. Just to reiterate, his character is boring to me, not his performance. Why should I join the rank and file of little people in his life cheering him on for waltzing into court late, making fun of the other lawyer and taking pills for his heart because there's no other lawyer in town who can do his job? I don't find it cute. Half the time I thought this man deserves to be looked after by Nurse Ratched.
Contrast it to Paths of Glory, which is as crisp and clear as it comes. Themes about loyalty, privilege, injustice were more appropriate for its tone. Witness for the Prosecution was terrific for 1957 whereas Paths of Glory could have been made yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 2, 2020 18:38:47 GMT
It is one of the worst arguments that anybody can use imo. Some movies are meant for the time (Easy Rider for example) and must be watched with this in mind. One of the worst arguments that has to do with this is visual effects. Visual Effects will always be a of their time until movies reach a point where all visual effects look 100% real. Some visual effects will always look less real because of the budget of the particular film. The morality and views of society change as we gain more knowledge and become more aware. This is unavoidable and to fault movies for this is a bit silly, though there are extreme examples such as The Birth of a Nation. That movie was considered immoral by many people at the time even and is only praised for it's technical greatness. Usually for me it's characters. Characters I don't particularly find entertaining or cute.
This year I watched Paths of Glory and Witness for the Prosecution in the same week. Both are really good. Paths of Glory I would consider a near masterpiece. They're both made in 1957, so what's the difference? For me, it's watching Charles Laughton. He did an excellent job but watching his character sneaking cigars around his nurse and taking the case against doctor's orders makes him boring to me. Just to reiterate, his character is boring to me, not his performance. Why should I join the rank and file of little people in his life cheering him on for waltzing into court late, making fun of the other lawyer and taking pills for his heart because there's no other lawyer in town who can do his job? I don't find it cute. Half the time I thought this man deserves to be looked after by Nurse Ratched.
Contrast it to Paths of Glory, which is as crisp and clear as it comes. Themes about loyalty, privilege, injustice were more appropriate for its tone. Witness for the Prosecution was terrific for 1957 whereas Paths of Glory could have been made yesterday. I'm not sure what that has to do with when the movie was made. Witness for the Prosecution is a more laid back movie then Paths of Glory, so they add stuff that is meant to be humorous to lighten it up. Movies do this all the time. For me it adds personality to the film and definitely doesn't take away from the themes. He is a flawed character and the movie shows him as such. Movies still do this. You just dont like how the character is written in certain areas, that has nothing to do with the time it was made as far as I can tell. It seems like a Zodiac vs. Se7en contrast. They are both dark movies about serial killers, but Zodiac is a lot more humorous and often uses Robert Downey Jr. as comic relief.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 19:13:52 GMT
Usually for me it's characters. Characters I don't particularly find entertaining or cute.
This year I watched Paths of Glory and Witness for the Prosecution in the same week. Both are really good. Paths of Glory I would consider a near masterpiece. They're both made in 1957, so what's the difference? For me, it's watching Charles Laughton. He did an excellent job but watching his character sneaking cigars around his nurse and taking the case against doctor's orders makes him boring to me. Just to reiterate, his character is boring to me, not his performance. Why should I join the rank and file of little people in his life cheering him on for waltzing into court late, making fun of the other lawyer and taking pills for his heart because there's no other lawyer in town who can do his job? I don't find it cute. Half the time I thought this man deserves to be looked after by Nurse Ratched.
Contrast it to Paths of Glory, which is as crisp and clear as it comes. Themes about loyalty, privilege, injustice were more appropriate for its tone. Witness for the Prosecution was terrific for 1957 whereas Paths of Glory could have been made yesterday. I'm not sure what that has to do with when the movie was made. Witness for the Prosecution is a more laid back movie then Paths of Glory, so they add stuff that is meant to be humorous to lighten it up. Movies do this all the time. For me it adds personality to the film and definitely doesn't take away from the themes. He is a flawed character and the movie shows him as such. Movies still do this. You just dont like how the character is written in certain areas, that has nothing to do with the time it was made as far as I can tell. It seems like a Zodiac vs. Se7en contrast. They are both dark movies about serial killers, but Zodiac is a lot more humorous. I'm not so sure it's a movies do this all the time kind of case. It can add to the movie or take away from it. Case in point, I liked Zodiac more than Se7en.
You mentioned Easy Rider too, which I loved. I watched that recently for the first time and I knew it might be one of those movies too inside its era for me (or too American), but I thought it was excellent.
I dunno then. Let me ask you something. Do you think movies can age well?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 2, 2020 19:18:07 GMT
I'm not sure what that has to do with when the movie was made. Witness for the Prosecution is a more laid back movie then Paths of Glory, so they add stuff that is meant to be humorous to lighten it up. Movies do this all the time. For me it adds personality to the film and definitely doesn't take away from the themes. He is a flawed character and the movie shows him as such. Movies still do this. You just dont like how the character is written in certain areas, that has nothing to do with the time it was made as far as I can tell. It seems like a Zodiac vs. Se7en contrast. They are both dark movies about serial killers, but Zodiac is a lot more humorous. I'm not so sure it's a movies do this all the time kind of case. It can add to the movie or take away from it. Case in point, I liked Zodiac more than Se7en.
You mentioned Easy Rider too, which I loved. I watched that recently for the first time and I knew it might be one of those movies too inside its era for me (or too American), but I thought it was excellent.
I dunno then. Let me ask you something. Do you think movies can age well?
I don't look at it that way. Movies are good or bad on the merit of their quality, not their age. For me those are 2 completely different things. If you are just asking are there old movies that feel like they are more similar to modern movies, the answer is of course. That doesn't make them better or worse necessarily. More realistic maybe, but movies are not reality.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 2, 2020 19:36:27 GMT
I'm not sure what that has to do with when the movie was made. Witness for the Prosecution is a more laid back movie then Paths of Glory, so they add stuff that is meant to be humorous to lighten it up. Movies do this all the time. For me it adds personality to the film and definitely doesn't take away from the themes. He is a flawed character and the movie shows him as such. Movies still do this. You just dont like how the character is written in certain areas, that has nothing to do with the time it was made as far as I can tell. It seems like a Zodiac vs. Se7en contrast. They are both dark movies about serial killers, but Zodiac is a lot more humorous. I'm not so sure it's a movies do this all the time kind of case. It can add to the movie or take away from it. Case in point, I liked Zodiac more than Se7en.
You mentioned Easy Rider too, which I loved. I watched that recently for the first time and I knew it might be one of those movies too inside its era for me (or too American), but I thought it was excellent.
I dunno then. Let me ask you something. Do you think movies can age well?
The difference you are talking about is post-1965 movies vs. pre-1965 movies and this is largely a product of Hollywood during the classic era. Stanley kubrick was a progressive filmmaker and a pioneer of modern filmmaking. It is unfair to criticize classic era Hollywood movies for being what they are. The MPAA for example is part of the reason for this. The theatrical acting and the more corny aspects of a lot of them were the style at the time. Most classic era foreign movies have "aged better" than classic era Hollywood movies because their style was more realistic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 19:40:26 GMT
I'm not so sure it's a movies do this all the time kind of case. It can add to the movie or take away from it. Case in point, I liked Zodiac more than Se7en.
You mentioned Easy Rider too, which I loved. I watched that recently for the first time and I knew it might be one of those movies too inside its era for me (or too American), but I thought it was excellent.
I dunno then. Let me ask you something. Do you think movies can age well?
I don't look at it that way. Movies are good or bad on the merit of their quality, not their age. For me those are 2 completely different things. If you are just asking are there old movies that feel like they are more similar to modern movies, the answer is of course. That doesn't make them better or worse necessarily. More realistic maybe, but movies are not reality. That's true. When movies are made, they tend to not change.
Charles Laughton in Witness for the Prosecution stood out to me. I have finished putting my finger on it. Maybe it's me, maybe I've aged.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 2, 2020 19:45:41 GMT
I don't look at it that way. Movies are good or bad on the merit of their quality, not their age. For me those are 2 completely different things. If you are just asking are there old movies that feel like they are more similar to modern movies, the answer is of course. That doesn't make them better or worse necessarily. More realistic maybe, but movies are not reality. That's true. When movies are made, they tend to not change.
Charles Laughton in Witness for the Prosecution stood out to me. I have finished putting my finger on it. Maybe it's me, maybe I've aged.
It could also just be that I like that stuff more than you. That stuff is what makes movies so interesting to me. I edited my previous reply to be a bit more specific btw.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 19:48:16 GMT
I'm not so sure it's a movies do this all the time kind of case. It can add to the movie or take away from it. Case in point, I liked Zodiac more than Se7en.
You mentioned Easy Rider too, which I loved. I watched that recently for the first time and I knew it might be one of those movies too inside its era for me (or too American), but I thought it was excellent.
I dunno then. Let me ask you something. Do you think movies can age well?
The difference you are talking about is post-1965 movies vs. pre-1965 movies and this is largely a product of Hollywood during the classic era. Stanley kubrick was a progressive filmmaker and a pioneer of modern filmmaking. It is unfair to criticize classic era Hollywood movies for being what they are. The MPAA for example is part of the reason for this. The theatrical acting and the more corny aspects of a lot of them were the style at the time. Most classic era foreign movies have "aged better" than classic era Hollywood movies because their style was more realistic. That I don't do. Especially since I watch so many older ones. I watched Catch 22 and Seven Weeks in May recently and neither of them elicited those feelings.
Aging poorly can just as easily apply to films like Revenge of the Nerds. It's fine because you can't very well go back and change the movie, or yell at it, but he did rape her via deception and he's supposed to be the nerd getting revenge. That didn't age well. Perhaps it's just because I wasn't there at the time for my jaw to drop; I don't know how it was received at the time.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 2, 2020 19:57:06 GMT
The difference you are talking about is post-1965 movies vs. pre-1965 movies and this is largely a product of Hollywood during the classic era. Stanley kubrick was a progressive filmmaker and a pioneer of modern filmmaking. It is unfair to criticize classic era Hollywood movies for being what they are. The MPAA for example is part of the reason for this. The theatrical acting and the more corny aspects of a lot of them were the style at the time. Most classic era foreign movies have "aged better" than classic era Hollywood movies because their style was more realistic. That I don't do. Especially since I watch so many older ones. I watched Catch 22 and Seven Weeks in May recently and neither of them elicited those feelings.
Aging poorly can just as easily apply to films like Revenge of the Nerds. It's fine because you can't very well go back and change the movie, or yell at it, but he did rape her via deception and he's supposed to be the nerd getting revenge. That didn't age well. Perhaps it's just because I wasn't there at the time for my jaw to drop; I don't know how it was received at the time. Easy Rider is extremely dated and hasn't aged well at all imo, but it is still a good movie and works as a time capsule. Not only what the movie is about, but also the filmmaking style. It reeks of the 1960's. That doesn't make it bad, it just makes it dated. Dated is not a dirty word, but people use it as a dirty word and that is the part I am disagreeing with. The 1980's is by far the most dated decade for movies since the 1950's imo and I love the 1980's exactly because many movies made during that decade reek of the 1980's. I love the style that is unique to the 1980's. The thing in Revenge of the Nerds is unique to Revenge of the Nerds. Revenge of the Nerds is a shitty movie regardless though. It is sort of in Sixteen Candles too, but it was still a recognized immoral act in the 1980s. In the case of Revenge of the Nerds the girl is seen as one of the villains and I don't think the movie is saying that what he does is okay, it is a comedy that is purposely pushing a moral boundary. Comedy is uniquely set up to get away with this kind of stuff, but it goes too far sometimes. In Sixteen Candles it it is right on the line, in Revenge of the Nerds it stomps on the line. I assume you have never watched shows like Family Guy and American Dad, because both of those shows have done far worse stuff than Revenge of the Nerds. Archer? Have you watched that show? That show is about a narcissistic womanizer.
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on May 2, 2020 19:57:43 GMT
I think this applies to a lot of comedies. Tastes in what's funny changes from generation to generation. A lot of the "sex comedies" of the 1950s-'60s seem quaint to later audiences, and something like Neil Simon's comedies are more like period pieces now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 20:03:10 GMT
That I don't do. Especially since I watch so many older ones. I watched Catch 22 and Seven Weeks in May recently and neither of them elicited those feelings.
Aging poorly can just as easily apply to films like Revenge of the Nerds. It's fine because you can't very well go back and change the movie, or yell at it, but he did rape her via deception and he's supposed to be the nerd getting revenge. That didn't age well. Perhaps it's just because I wasn't there at the time for my jaw to drop; I don't know how it was received at the time. Easy Rider is extremely dated and hasn't aged well at all imo, but it is still a good movie and works as a time capsule. Not only what the movie is about, but also the filmmaking style. It reeks of the 1960's. That doesn't make it bad, it just makes it dated. Dated is not a dirty word, but people use it as a dirty word and that is the part I am disagreeing with. The 1980's is by far the most dated decade for movies since the 1950's imo and I love the 1980's exactly because many movies made during that decade reek of the 1980's. I love the style that is unique to the 1980's. The thing in Revenge of the Nerds is unique to Revenge of the Nerds. Revenge of the Nerds is a shitty movie regardless though. It is sort of in Sixteen Candles too, but it was still immoral in the 1980s. I assume you have never watched shows like Family Guy and American Dad, because both of those shows have done far worse stuff than Revenge of the Nerds. Archer? Have you watched that show? That show is about a narcissistic womanizer. I had my concerns going into Easy Rider because it is America in the 60's: The Movie. I thought it was really good. It's the type of movie that could easily be trapped in a glass case of its era but I found it viscerally upsetting the way they died. It was like the live action parts of a Ralph Bakshi movie come to life. It's one of those movies for me that's so lauded and iconic for its time, yet I still find it almost subtly underrated for the little things it does. It tapped into the part of my brain that thinks about horizons, the open road...maybe that's too off topic. Interesting then that you find it dated. I do not but I don't have much to say about the film making style. That I'll take your word for. I found the ending quite upsetting, which is great because it made me feel. That's the minimum of what I ask for.
"I assume you have never watched shows like Family Guy and American Dad, because both of those shows have done far worse stuff than Revenge of the Nerds. Archer? Have you watched that show? That show is about a narcissistic womanizer."
Those are terrific. They also take the piss out of themselves and exist in a damn near continuity free setup. Peter can shoot himself in the head and be fine in the next frame. It's not anywhere near the same.
I'm not completely sure I agree with what you said about WFTP being laid back for the lulz. It asks me to take it seriously and I oblige it.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 2, 2020 20:07:39 GMT
Easy Rider is extremely dated and hasn't aged well at all imo, but it is still a good movie and works as a time capsule. Not only what the movie is about, but also the filmmaking style. It reeks of the 1960's. That doesn't make it bad, it just makes it dated. Dated is not a dirty word, but people use it as a dirty word and that is the part I am disagreeing with. The 1980's is by far the most dated decade for movies since the 1950's imo and I love the 1980's exactly because many movies made during that decade reek of the 1980's. I love the style that is unique to the 1980's. The thing in Revenge of the Nerds is unique to Revenge of the Nerds. Revenge of the Nerds is a shitty movie regardless though. It is sort of in Sixteen Candles too, but it was still immoral in the 1980s. I assume you have never watched shows like Family Guy and American Dad, because both of those shows have done far worse stuff than Revenge of the Nerds. Archer? Have you watched that show? That show is about a narcissistic womanizer. I had my concerns going into Easy Rider because it is America in the 60's: The Movie. I thought it was really good. It's the type of movie that could easily be trapped in a glass case of its era but I found it viscerally upsetting the way they died. It was like the live action parts of a Ralph Bakshi movie come to life. It's one of those movies for me that's so lauded and iconic for its time, yet I still find it almost subtly underrated for the little things it does. It tapped into the part of my brain that thinks about horizons, the open road...maybe that's too off topic. Interesting then that you find it dated. I do not but I don't have much to say about the film making style. That I'll take your word for. I found the ending quite upsetting, which is great because it made me feel. That's the minimum of what I ask for.
"I assume you have never watched shows like Family Guy and American Dad, because both of those shows have done far worse stuff than Revenge of the Nerds. Archer? Have you watched that show? That show is about a narcissistic womanizer."
Those are terrific. They also take the piss out of themselves and exist in a damn near continuity free setup. Peter can shoot himself in the head and be fine in the next frame. It's not anywhere near the same.
I'm not completely sure I agree with what you said about WFTP being laid back for the lulz. It asks me to take it seriously and I oblige it.
Fair enough. We seem to just have a fundamental disagreement that we aren't going to see eye to eye on. I respect your opinion though and am at least able to understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that if a movie is dated it cant be powerful? I never said that Easy Rider isn't a powerful movie. It is. It was a very important movie at the time and the ending is no less upsetting now than it was in 1969. But there is not a hippie movement anymore and that movement was a direct response to the the social and political situation of the time and so was the movie itself. Seriously though. Family Guy has a joke that insinuates that Quagmire rapes Maggie Simpson. I wasn't referring to the violence, I was referring to the rape and pedophile jokes that sometimes go way too far. They are shock value for the sake of shock value. At least in Revenge of the Nerds we understand his motive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 20:19:26 GMT
I had my concerns going into Easy Rider because it is America in the 60's: The Movie. I thought it was really good. It's the type of movie that could easily be trapped in a glass case of its era but I found it viscerally upsetting the way they died. It was like the live action parts of a Ralph Bakshi movie come to life. It's one of those movies for me that's so lauded and iconic for its time, yet I still find it almost subtly underrated for the little things it does. It tapped into the part of my brain that thinks about horizons, the open road...maybe that's too off topic. Interesting then that you find it dated. I do not but I don't have much to say about the film making style. That I'll take your word for. I found the ending quite upsetting, which is great because it made me feel. That's the minimum of what I ask for.
"I assume you have never watched shows like Family Guy and American Dad, because both of those shows have done far worse stuff than Revenge of the Nerds. Archer? Have you watched that show? That show is about a narcissistic womanizer."
Those are terrific. They also take the piss out of themselves and exist in a damn near continuity free setup. Peter can shoot himself in the head and be fine in the next frame. It's not anywhere near the same.
I'm not completely sure I agree with what you said about WFTP being laid back for the lulz. It asks me to take it seriously and I oblige it.
Fair enough. We seem to just have a fundamental disagreement that we aren't going to see eye to eye on. I respect your opinion though and am at least able to understand where you are coming from. Seriously though. Family Guy has a joke that insinuates that Quagmire rapes Maggie Simpson. I wasn't referring to the violence, I was referring to the rape and pedophile jokes that sometimes go way too far. I get that.
A friend of mine swore off Family Guy because of a joke where Mort was donating blood, found out it was for free and literally sucked the blood back through the tube into his own body. I'm Jewish and I thought it was hilarious but it was one crossed line too many for my friend, apparently.
One of the most brutal things I recall was Quagmire's sister's boyfriend (husband?) audibly beating her while Quagmire's standing in the door yelling at Brian about something. Family Guy definitely goes dark sometimes.
"We seem to just have a fundamental disagreement that we aren't going to see eye to eye on. I respect your opinion though and am at least able to understand where you are coming from."
I appreciate that. As do I you. If we all agreed lock stock and barrel it'd be a pretty boring place.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 2, 2020 20:24:02 GMT
Fair enough. We seem to just have a fundamental disagreement that we aren't going to see eye to eye on. I respect your opinion though and am at least able to understand where you are coming from. Seriously though. Family Guy has a joke that insinuates that Quagmire rapes Maggie Simpson. I wasn't referring to the violence, I was referring to the rape and pedophile jokes that sometimes go way too far. I get that.
A friend of mine swore off Family Guy because of a joke where Mort was donating blood, found out it was for free and literally sucked the blood back through the tube into his own body. I'm Jewish and I thought it was hilarious but it was one crossed line too many for my friend, apparently.
One of the most brutal things I recall was Quagmire's sister's boyfriend (husband?) audibly beating her while Quagmire's standing in the door yelling at Brian about something. Family Guy definitely goes dark sometimes.
"We seem to just have a fundamental disagreement that we aren't going to see eye to eye on. I respect your opinion though and am at least able to understand where you are coming from."
I appreciate that. As do I you. If we all agreed lock stock and barrel it'd be a pretty boring place.
I didn't swear off Family Guy, I stopped watching it about 5 seasons ago because it started to get unfunny and extremely redundant. The only animated shows I have seen which had a great entire run are King of the Hill and Futurama. Archer has had a steady decline since around season 4 imo, but I still mostly like it. South Park is inconsistent, but still often reaches satirical brilliance. The Tegrity Farms season is probably the worst season of the show so far though. My point was that those animated shows are able to get away with a lot of stuff that movies these days aren't.
|
|