Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2023 2:46:40 GMT
Funny seeing a lowbrow troll throw around a word like sophisticated. But it does make perfect sense you would equate such mediocre films with that word. You’re a Star Wars fan, right? Never seen it.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 11, 2023 5:22:46 GMT
They are. Even if they were garbage they would be too sophisticated for you. But they’re not. It's ironic that someone who constantly complains about Marvel movies being too silly would tout Prometheus as a 'sophisticated' film. It's freshman philosophy wrapped in horror tropes with all the shine of admittedly great Ridley Scott cinematography. There are intriguing ideas with loads of potential, but the whole concept is presented in such lazy fashion. The characters behave in counterintuitive ways, make nonsensical observations, and have clunky exposition laden conversations that in more capable writing hands, would've been minimalized so the audience had a chance to chew and digest these concepts on their own. Instead, the audience is force fed-- either because the writers didn't know how else to do it, or because they assumed the audience was too stupid to comprehend. Say what you want about Marvel movies (and you have, and you will, ad nauseam), at least they perform to expectation more often than not. There's plenty of legitimate characterization and moments of emotional resonance-- though your mileage may vary when it comes to your personal connection or response to these concepts as presented. But yes, ultimately, the MCU has a more lighthearted, family friendly tone. The travesty of Prometheus is that it thinks it's deeply intellectual when in reality, it's fodder for edgy 17 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 11, 2023 5:50:24 GMT
Well they’re great IMO. How could you forget? Do you actually concentrate when you watch something? All the Alien movies tend to run together. I only one I really liked was the first one, it's a brilliant movie. The second one was okay. I've seen one of the newer ones, but I don't remember which. And yes, I know how to concentrate on movies, TV, books, radio, etc. How about you?
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Feb 11, 2023 9:09:19 GMT
They are. Even if they were garbage they would be too sophisticated for you. But they’re not. It's ironic that someone who constantly complains about Marvel movies being too silly would tout Prometheus as a 'sophisticated' film. It's freshman philosophy wrapped in horror tropes with all the shine of admittedly great Ridley Scott cinematography. There are intriguing ideas with loads of potential, but the whole concept is presented in such lazy fashion. The characters behave in counterintuitive ways, make nonsensical observations, and have clunky exposition laden conversations that in more capable writing hands, would've been minimalized so the audience had a chance to chew and digest these concepts on their own. Instead, the audience is force fed-- either because the writers didn't know how else to do it, or because they assumed the audience was too stupid to comprehend. Say what you want about Marvel movies (and you have, and you will, ad nauseam), at least they perform to expectation more often than not. There's plenty of legitimate characterization and moments of emotional resonance-- though your mileage may vary when it comes to your personal connection or response to these concepts as presented. But yes, ultimately, the MCU has a more lighthearted, family friendly tone. The travesty of Prometheus is that it thinks it's deeply intellectual when in reality, it's fodder for edgy 17 year olds. I find it entirely consistent that someone who defends the MCU (you’ve done it frequently) is critical of Prometheus and Covenant.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Feb 11, 2023 13:21:02 GMT
They are. Even if they were garbage they would be too sophisticated for you. But they’re not. It's ironic that someone who constantly complains about Marvel movies being too silly would tout Prometheus as a 'sophisticated' film. It's freshman philosophy wrapped in horror tropes with all the shine of admittedly great Ridley Scott cinematography. There are intriguing ideas with loads of potential, but the whole concept is presented in such lazy fashion. The characters behave in counterintuitive ways, make nonsensical observations, and have clunky exposition laden conversations that in more capable writing hands, would've been minimalized so the audience had a chance to chew and digest these concepts on their own. Instead, the audience is force fed-- either because the writers didn't know how else to do it, or because they assumed the audience was too stupid to comprehend. Say what you want about Marvel movies (and you have, and you will, ad nauseam), at least they perform to expectation more often than not. There's plenty of legitimate characterization and moments of emotional resonance-- though your mileage may vary when it comes to your personal connection or response to these concepts as presented. But yes, ultimately, the MCU has a more lighthearted, family friendly tone. The travesty of Prometheus is that it thinks it's deeply intellectual when in reality, it's fodder for edgy 17 year olds. Prometheus also featured a dumbfuck stroking an alien snake like a puppy that alone ruined that movie.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Feb 11, 2023 13:32:12 GMT
It's ironic that someone who constantly complains about Marvel movies being too silly would tout Prometheus as a 'sophisticated' film. It's freshman philosophy wrapped in horror tropes with all the shine of admittedly great Ridley Scott cinematography. There are intriguing ideas with loads of potential, but the whole concept is presented in such lazy fashion. The characters behave in counterintuitive ways, make nonsensical observations, and have clunky exposition laden conversations that in more capable writing hands, would've been minimalized so the audience had a chance to chew and digest these concepts on their own. Instead, the audience is force fed-- either because the writers didn't know how else to do it, or because they assumed the audience was too stupid to comprehend. Say what you want about Marvel movies (and you have, and you will, ad nauseam), at least they perform to expectation more often than not. There's plenty of legitimate characterization and moments of emotional resonance-- though your mileage may vary when it comes to your personal connection or response to these concepts as presented. But yes, ultimately, the MCU has a more lighthearted, family friendly tone. The travesty of Prometheus is that it thinks it's deeply intellectual when in reality, it's fodder for edgy 17 year olds. Prometheus also featured a dumbfuck stroking an alien snake like a puppy that alone ruined that movie. He was with an outwardly volatile individual (albeit really a coward) and may have wanted to display bravery. Also he was a biologist who had discovered a new species. Plus he was intoxicated.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 11, 2023 14:11:07 GMT
It's ironic that someone who constantly complains about Marvel movies being too silly would tout Prometheus as a 'sophisticated' film. It's freshman philosophy wrapped in horror tropes with all the shine of admittedly great Ridley Scott cinematography. There are intriguing ideas with loads of potential, but the whole concept is presented in such lazy fashion. The characters behave in counterintuitive ways, make nonsensical observations, and have clunky exposition laden conversations that in more capable writing hands, would've been minimalized so the audience had a chance to chew and digest these concepts on their own. Instead, the audience is force fed-- either because the writers didn't know how else to do it, or because they assumed the audience was too stupid to comprehend. Say what you want about Marvel movies (and you have, and you will, ad nauseam), at least they perform to expectation more often than not. There's plenty of legitimate characterization and moments of emotional resonance-- though your mileage may vary when it comes to your personal connection or response to these concepts as presented. But yes, ultimately, the MCU has a more lighthearted, family friendly tone. The travesty of Prometheus is that it thinks it's deeply intellectual when in reality, it's fodder for edgy 17 year olds. I find it entirely consistent that someone who defends the MCU (you’ve done it frequently) is critical of Prometheus and Covenant. Good, at least you recognize a functioning adult. That's progress, keep working at it. Maybe someday you'll find a better outlet for the disappointment that is your life instead of bitching about Disney 24/7.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Feb 17, 2023 2:18:21 GMT
Everyone's only now realizing that all these alternate platforms are for shows that would have not made it on the broadcast or basic cable networks back in the day or even now.
Even the high concept shows, like all the new Star Wars and Star Treks.
Or maybe those would have done as well as the Star Trek shows into the 2000s and all those hit genre shows in the heyday of syndication in the 1990s.
The DC shows did pretty well on The CW for the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Feb 21, 2023 21:02:42 GMT
I find it entirely consistent that someone who defends the MCU (you’ve done it frequently) is critical of Prometheus and Covenant. Good, at least you recognize a functioning adult. That's progress, keep working at it. Maybe someday you'll find a better outlet for the disappointment that is your life instead of bitching about Disney 24/7. Functioning adults don't stroke alien snakes either.
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jul 11, 2024 6:22:35 GMT
This is an obvious and pathetic attempt at revisionism. Disney was actually kind of looked down upon during 70s and 80s. It wasn’t until 1989 when they became a powerhouse again.
The Wonderful World of Disney was a big tv hit and the very reason they were being sought after was because of the positive brand recognition with families. Their problem was that they were known for animation originally and were floundering--i.e. the exodus of Don Bluth. They made Dragonslayer with Paramount (Eisner was there) but that was a big change from the family film.
I remember Eisner in 1988 saying that a) they hated making animation but it was the company legacy and they had to do it--Oliver and Company.
and b) he said it was lucky that the company was bought by people who want to do good and not evil because the influence of the brand was "awesome." A strange comment to make. He also tried to be the PR face of Disney and did a show like WD did--where he hosted it--total fail. And they had a new Mickey Mouse club (Britney Spears was in it).
Simple fact is--Walt Disney was the company. Without him or someone like him (Pixar's John Lasseter came close I guess), there was no company. Replacing him with lawyers and hedge fund managers completely destroyed the public perception of it as a family-friendly American company. Eisner also said Disney's goal (in the 90s) was to become entertainer for the globe.
No one knew that Disney co. had hired a convicted pedophile to direct a movie but their lawyers were so predatory--forcing a pre-school to erase images of Disney characters (which were replaced by Hanna-Barbera ones--the company had an artist go there to replace them) just made the company demonic in public perception.
Walt Disney did not have an easy time getting money. He was generally shut out of the Hollywood studio system--his first character Mortimer Mouse was ripped off--and it was simply due to his merit and connection with American audiences that he succeeded. First in family films and then television.
I’m sorry, but this sounds like a nonsense that is being spat out by a crackhead. I have no idea what kind of point you’re even trying to make.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 11, 2024 7:09:29 GMT
I have no idea what kind of point you’re even trying to make. I will make it kindergarten level for you then:
you said Eisner Disney saved the company--but the public image of Disney was completely destroyed. It is associated with pedos now.
Some achievement.
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jul 11, 2024 11:09:21 GMT
I have no idea what kind of point you’re even trying to make. I will make it kindergarten level for you then:
you said Eisner Disney saved the company--but the public image of Disney was completely destroyed. It is associated with pedos now.
Some achievement.
Dude, as awful as that was, most people probably have never even heard of the whole situation. In fact, they’re probably more aware of scandals involving John Lasseter. Also, your point regarding Hanna-Barbera sounds like a complete rambling of a crackhead, not to mention that you’re probably going to need to provide some sources to back up a lot of your points - though knowing you, you’re probably going to provide sources from InfoWars.
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jul 11, 2024 11:19:57 GMT
Dude, don’t be silly. Their animation division almost went under when ‘The Black Cauldron’ floundered, not to mention that their animation quality went really downhill during this time. ‘Robin Hood’, in particular, was notorious for reusing animation from their previous films so many times.
I wasn't talking about their animation movies, though it's my understanding Pete's Dragon was supposed to be particularly good and I found it enjoyable and mixing animation/live action is a hard feat, Roger Rabbit is what perfected combining the two worlds but Pete's Dragon wasn't a bad example either. Some of their live action movies were cute but others were hilarious, That Darn Cat, the Medfield College ones, Midnight Madness in the early 80s, and I personally would like to see more animal movies done like Gus, the field goal kicking mule who DOESN'T SPEAK. Homeward Bound did it right with the animals 'thinking' not talking like Garfield that the audience could hear but not the humans in the film, but Gus was fantastic, a star football playing mule, that doesn't do a damned thing but KICK.
Well, if Disney’s animation department actually went under at the time, the whole company might’ve ended up not existing in a long run.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 11, 2024 17:05:02 GMT
Dude, as awful as that was, most people probably have never even heard of the whole situation. In fact, they’re probably more aware of scandals involving John Lasseter. Also, your point regarding Hanna-Barbera sounds like a complete rambling of a crackhead, not to mention that you’re probably going to need to provide some sources to back up a lot of your points - though knowing you, you’re probably going to provide sources from InfoWars. It's not my fault that you are ignorant (but I am amazed you responded so quickly--I was expecting a reply in 1.5 years ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
The stuff about Disney lawyers was well-covered in the 90s. You can probably find the Eisner interview from 1988 on Youtube--or some of those segments he hosted with Mickey Mouse.
For people old enough to recall the Disney before the 1985 takeover, it had a somewhat boring but stable reputation. The Shaggy DA and Computer Wore Tennis Shoes were considered jokes but overall it had a positive reputation which is why Eisner and co. were so gleeful about taking over. Now the Disney brand is poison.
|
|