|
Imagine spending $150 to watch the croods 2 and like 3 of your friends die as a result
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:Imagine spending $150 to watch the croods 2 and like 3 of your friends die as a result
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:Imagine spending $150 to watch the croods 2 and like 3 of your friends die as a result Because of coronavirus or because the Croods just kills them there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Everything else aside, was the first Croods not viewed pretty positively here? It seems like everyone‘s dumping on the sequel like the first one was bad, but I remember it being surprisingly good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
Did the person who positively reviewed the Croods happen to have the words "super" and "mecha" in their name?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
I have never seen The Croods. I'm not sure I know what The Croods is. I was totally having an instinctive response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
I rented a theater on Halloween to see Beetlejuice. Just me and my family, since no trick or treating I wanted to do something fun for the kids. It was cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Did the person who positively reviewed the Croods happen to have the words "super" and "mecha" in their name? No, it was a pretty general consensus. Besides, SMG tends to steer clear of the CD animation thread for the most part. Their usual shenanigans don’t seem to catch on there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
It’s fine for a kids movie, not the best thing ever put on film but not Mars Needs Moms either. It’s definitely not something that I’d pay $150 to see a sequel too though
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
It’s your typical 70% RT, 6.5/10 actual rating family animated comedy that comes out 12 times a year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:Imagine spending $150 to watch the croods 2 and like 3 of your friends die as a result Sounds like the next low budget Blumhouse movie setting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
A few years ago I decided to watch every Nicolas Cage movie on a whim. I didn't finish but I did get to The Croods and I thought it was pretty ok. I don't watch many cartoons or that kind of CGI family comedy but I thought it was decently charming. I would not watch The Croods 2 in a $150 death crypt but I would probably watch it on TBS for free by myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
How Wonderful! posted:A few years ago I decided to watch every Nicolas Cage movie on a whim. I didn't finish but I did get to The Croods and I thought it was pretty ok. I don't watch many cartoons or that kind of CGI family comedy but I thought it was decently charming. I would not watch The Croods 2 in a $150 death crypt but I would probably watch it on TBS for free by myself. I GOTS TA KNOW: What were your favorites and least-favorites? Despite his uneven career, he might be my overall favorite actor, with at least a dozen timeless classics to his name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
I mean I am sure Croods is a fine hungover nothing on TV poo poo I need to vacuum the place oh let me answer these text messages from mom about the kid I knew from high school rainy day Sunday kind of movie, but it definitely isn't one I would be willing to die for. Bill and Ted Face the Music on the other hand....
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
How Wonderful! posted:A few years ago I decided to watch every Nicolas Cage movie on a whim. I didn't finish but I did get to The Croods and I thought it was pretty ok. I don't watch many cartoons or that kind of CGI family comedy but I thought it was decently charming. I would not watch The Croods 2 in a $150 death crypt but I would probably watch it on TBS for free by myself. This is me except Jason Statham films
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:I GOTS TA KNOW: What were your favorites and least-favorites? Despite his uneven career, he might be my overall favorite actor, with at least a dozen timeless classics to his name. I needed a minute to think about this because no matter what I think my answer will be boring. Most of the really, really good Cage movies aren't hidden gems or anything, they're the ones everybody likes. And he is in so many bad and/or boring ones. I think my favorite performance of his is a tie between Vampire's Kiss and Raising Arizona. Honorable mention Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. think my favorite movie that he's in are Moonstruck or Wild at Heart or I guess I do really like Raising Arizona. Red Rock West is pretty under-rated actually. I think more people should see that one. As for bad ones Fire Birds is really bad. He's in like a million dumb things a year these days but there are some grody selections from his earlier career too-- Zandalee is absolutely nothing at all aside from the grim shadow of foreboding that one feels watching it and fearing that Cage and Judge Reinholdt are at all times about two feet of personal space away from igniting a threesome. In G-Force he is a nerd and a star-nosed mole so there's that I guess. The two Ghost Rider movies are also like--- very very difficult to be generous about. I guess the worst of the worst was probably the 2014 Left Behind, maybe Army of One.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
He's loving phenomenal in Adaptation, twice even.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 04:25
|
|
|
Mandy and Colour out of Space were both great and I think it put him on a good track for output. Drive Angry is probably his best Ghost Rider movie (which isn't really saying much). Edit: talking about Nic Cage my wife is reading Captain Corelli's Mandolin and now wants to see the movie. As it is a book I enjoyed years ago I am morbidly curious to see how badly Cage was miscast for the film. Madkal fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Nov 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
How Wonderful! posted:I needed a minute to think about this because no matter what I think my answer will be boring. Most of the really, really good Cage movies aren't hidden gems or anything, they're the ones everybody likes. And he is in so many bad and/or boring ones. Haha, I made my wife watch Red Rock West the other night (it's free on Peacock), and she was really skeptical, but she loved it, just as I did when I saw it back in high school in the mid-'90s. It's a timeless neo-noir, so timeless it felt like it could have been set or even made in the '40s or '50s. My Cage Top Ten: Wild at Heart Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call: New Orleans Face/Off (seriously) Adaptation Raising Arizona Red Rock West National Treasure Bringing Out the Dead Matchstick Men (it helps that Sam Rockwell is another favorite actor) Drive Angry I don't count Into the Spider-Verse because he had a small VO part, but I loved Spider-Man Noir and would love to see a spinoff movie for him, drinkin' egg creams and punchin' Nazis. Tomorrow I'm watching Moonstruck for the first time (my wife loves it), and then she'll watch Raising Arizona for the first time. The public library had both on DVD, so we'll have a Cage film festival. She refuses to watch National Treasure or Drive Angry, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 07:11
|
|
|
The "Superman should smile more" remark, while meant as facetious (and coming off as glib, my bad) , is a short hand that points to the faultline in how people view Superman, or indeed superhero media. Snyderman is Superman in every way that counts. He saves the world while wearing garish tights, is in love with a clever journalist called Lois Lane, pisses off genius billionaire Lex Luthor and generally just wants to help people. But because he has a crisis of confidence and is second guessing himself, because he doesn't seem like he's having a good time and is smiling, and because the film makes an effort to show us how he could come off as intimidating , we get hot takes like "Zack snyder doesn't get Superman because everyone should always trust Superman" (never mind that the story of a Superman that has to win over a cynical people who are scared and distrusting of him is a cliche old enough to drink at this point) or how Superman caused mass causulties in metropolis (not Zod, Superman), or glowers at the people he saves while he hovers menacingly above them or whatever hyperbolism people usually come up with when it comes to these films. It's the companion piece to Batmans rubber nipples, which is the short form complaint about a campy Batman that dances the Batusi and has a Bat-Credit card and rubber lip condoms. They're too invested in what they think is the "correct" way to portray these characters to enjoy other iterations for what they are, even if they diverge in some ways. It's understandable if they didn't like that this Superman is a bit broody, or that Batman has a lightsaber in his belt and talks about his fists of Justice or whatever, but the basic point is the same. And it gets even worse when the point of contention is something as shallow as "Well, he didn't look like he was enjoying himself". For all the talk about Superman being an alien that's more human than us, people are obsessing about making him into some sort of smiling father figure dispensing schmaltzy speeches about hope, and seem to take umbrage at giving him flaws and making him relatable. (Kinda ironic considering a big theme in BvS was people projecting their own weird ideas about him). It's just another form of gatekeeping when it comes down to it. I absolutely get that this particular portrayal is....let's call it an aquired taste. But it's still just as valid a take of him as the Superman that springs fully formed from a crystal fortress indoctrination program in the arctic, has masonry vision and slyly winks at the audience. It doesn't mean that they "didn't get the character" it just means it's different, but equally valid. Basically it's that Brave and the Bold Bat-mite speech about Campy Batman, but in reverse. PS: Sorry about the late response, Shadowlands just came out and I was busy with angels cosplaying as the blue man group 
McCloud fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Nov 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
The Golden Age Superman is literally a different guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
When you've made deliberate choices to render a character less appealing, you don't then get to wonder and whinge when people find the character unappealing. I've said this before about writers like Tom King, and in regards to things like The Last Jedi and what have you: There's such a thing as writing about an imperfect hero and the conflicts that they face. And then, there's also such a thing as actively disempowering these characters -- not just depowering, but disempowering -- to whatever degree in order for them to fail in these conflicts, just so that you can then tell the story about them failing. But ultimately, you've told me nothing interesting about the actual character as they stand, and only about your grim, curious desire to see the character fail, along with your propensity to write the character in such a way that they must fail. This...disempowerment, this grimness, this failure, whatever we want to call it...it's not baked into the character by any means. It's a deliberate deviation. Snyder made an intentional choice to have this character be less inspiring, less proactive, less than what he was in such a way that all but drips with condescension towards the original figure and their fans, and I suppose he now gets to huff and declare "No you don't get it, the fact that you don't like him is the whole point!" when they don't like him. Really, it always seems like the exact specific things people don't like about Snyder end up being "the point" somehow, thereby rendering those things above reproach through some tenth dimensional logic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 11:06
|
|
|
I think Superman killing Zod is bad because it's so boring. Every superhero movie ends with the hero killing the villain (unless the villain is interesting enough to keep alive). It would've been a lot more interesting if Superman tried to save Zod or rehabilitate him. Not to mention that the message of "some people are too dangerous to let live" is a bad one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 12:02
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:in such a way that all but drips with condescension towards the original figure and their fans this is all you, not the film Alhazred posted:I think Superman killing Zod is bad because it's so boring. Every superhero movie ends with the hero killing the villain (unless the villain is interesting enough to keep alive). It would've been a lot more interesting if Superman tried to save Zod or rehabilitate him. well, it's suicide by cop, isn't it though? like Killmonger in BP, Zod just doesn't want to live anymore
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 12:58
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:well, it's suicide by cop, isn't it though? like Killmonger in BP, Zod just doesn't want to live anymore That was my read on it. Supes took away every reason Zod had to live, so he was trying to force Supes to kill him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 13:02
|
|
|
That’s not what happens with Killmonger though. He doesn’t go into the fight wanting to die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
he refuses treatment after being defeated, preferring to die than live as a prisoner or convert the most irrelevant of distinctions
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 15:36
|
|
|
Did doesn't go into the fight wanting to die either, so I'm not sure what the distinction there even is. Also I disagree that "some people are too dangerous to let live" is a bad message when the people it's talking about are fascists. I mean, look at Germany or Italy in the thirties or the USA in 2020 to see what happens when those people are allowed to live. I don't think Superman should kill, but I'd have had no issue with like, Green Arrow putting a kryptonite arrow into space Hitler's head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Did doesn't go into the fight wanting to die either, so I'm not sure what the distinction there even is. Good point. They're both wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Good point. They're both wrong. Neither are wrong. Both characters go into the fight wanting to win, both fights hit a moment where they have lost and they both have the same choice to make: surrender and change, or keep going and die. They both choose to die. Both deaths are 100% suicide by super hero.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Both deaths are 100% suicide by super hero. And personally I think that the one superhero that shouldn't work on is Superman. Vince MechMahon posted:Also I disagree that "some people are too dangerous to let live" is a bad message when the people it's talking about are fascists. I mean, look at Germany or Italy in the thirties or the USA in 2020 to see what happens when those people are allowed to live. It is a bad message because it justifies the death penalty, drone strikes and cops shooting people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:30
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:And personally I think that the one superhero that shouldn't work on is Superman. 1. Fully agreed. I don't like that Superman does it, it has no place in a Superman movie. 2. Nah, you can make a movie that says "fascists should not be suffered to live" and it doesn't justify poo poo beyond that. False equivalency is something people will always do, not the movies fault. E: Suicide by cape. Vince MechMahon fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:
It justifies killing people because of their crimes. Which I'm against.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:It justifies killing people because of their crimes. Which I'm against. Tell me why Hitler being kept alive on tax payer dollars, much of which would have surely been provided by his direct victims, would be a good thing. We're never going to agree on this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Superman extra extrajudicially kills someone and in the next scene crumples a drone saying "uh don't keep tabs on me" like he's got any moral authority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
And then in the next movie flies to a different country and kills a guy because his girlfriend is in trouble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Tell me why Hitler being kept alive on tax payer dollars, much of which would have surely been provided by his direct victims, would be a good thing. We're never going to agree on this. For me it's just one of those core principles that must remain inviolate. In my opinion it is fundamentally wrong to kill someone who is not a threat (as in they're in jail), no matter how evil or monstrous they are. I oppose the cold blooded murder of fascists in the same way I oppose the cold blooded murder of serial killers who wear people's skin. To execute them is an act of pure revenge and has no real function other than blood lust, which is not an inclination that should be fostered in a just society. I fully understand killing a fascist in conflict, or in defence, but not after the fact as punishment. In terms of costs, I think in a lot of systems it actually costs more to execute them than to keep them in jail. The reason it costs more is to absolutely guarantee the guilt of the executed with various checks/balances etc. It would be cheaper if those checks and balances were removed of course, but that's a very dark path to go down....
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
Hitler is the ultimate boogeyman (hello Godwin). I would have preferred him to be captured and tried in front of the world. And then hung. As a society it's strange to think about how we view killing others in the name of the greater good. The idea of the state killing someone via death penalty as opposed to sending soldiers across the world to kill other soldiers. Countries without death penalties are happy enough to do that and find the justifications needed. Lastly, one little interesting tidbit about a country with the death penalty, Israel (and yes I know all about the assassinations, wars, conspiracies, etc) has only tried and executed one person (and yes I know about....etc), and that was Adolf Eichmann. Despite having capital punishment it is only used for those tried for war crimes (yes Israel etc etc) and only been used once. That's the end of that little tidbit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Legally there is a distinction between killing someone to save others and killing someone who is defenceless, which is almost always murder. That's why it's one thing where Superman snaps General Zod's neck in the middle of a life or death fight and he is about to hear vision a bunch of people into ash. And a different thing where a beaten, crushed Megatron begs Optimus Prime not to kill him and Prime just melts him. One is justifiable the other is murder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
My only proper analogy is in pro wrestling. Sometimes the bad guy is doing a really good job at being the bad guy. And I can appreciate that. But sometimes the bad guy is doing a really bad job and if you criticize them, they always can fall back on "Well you're not supposed to like it. They're the bad guy." The latter is sorta how I feel about that version of Superman. I didn't like it and people can tell me I'm not supposed to, but that doesn't make me feel any better about it. If the natural conclusion of a character is "Superman must snap their neck" I think you should write a different character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 19:08
|
|
