|
Wait, so this just hit me: Blue finds out that millions of his brethren have been basically, um.... penned up in camps, enslaved, and literally gassed... and his response is to sue for stolen property? If you're going to have the tortured analogy, you might as well go all the way with it.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Wait, so this just hit me: Blue finds out that millions of his brethren have been basically, um.... penned up in camps, enslaved, and literally gassed... and his response is to sue for stolen property? You know how bees are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
Make sure you saw the previous update! Okay. Chapter 11: talkin' 'bout bee-fuckin' So now we're in court again, after Vanessa makes sure poor Blue's feeling weren't hurt. Baaaarf. This movie was written by a man, and a man who doesn't view women as people. gently caress this film and everyone involved in it except Patrick Warburton and John Goodman. At least they threw their hearts into it. Speaking of!  John Goodman must now recite some of the most awkward and uncomfortable dialogue in the history of mankind. I feel bad quoting so much of this film verbatim, but just read this. You'd think I was making poo poo up. quote:
 Then the movie shits on other parts of itself. You know how I said at the very beginning of the review that I was sure that this movie would contract itself re: bee society? Well, it has done so about every ten minutes, so yay I am great and everyone else sucks! Oh, right. Proof. Okay! quote:
Yeah, so now the democratically elected queens (with term limits, because there are former queens) are somehow the parents of everyone in the hive, who are all cousins, some more distant than others. Can anyone explain to me how this is remotely possible? At all? Are they all just voting for their mother? If so, who was queen before? Who comes after? What the gently caress is going on? NO ONE CARES they just wrote whatever thing could go after the previous thing quote:
NO GOD DAMMIT you just said they're all siblings ahhhh!!! you just said that!!!! don't you know the definition of words?!!?!? And what are incest jokes doing in a movie for little kids?! ... creating a world and populating it mattered to no one, no one cared about or respected the audience, no one cared that this movie was shoddy at every level This line of inquiry upsets Adam, though, who'd been sitting with Vanessa. Oh, the rage! The fury! He stings the lawyer right on the rear end.  "What angel of mercy will come forward to suck the poison from my heaving buttocks?" he proclaims, unaware of what an "angel of mercy" is, unless he's suggesting that someone suck his rear end until he dies, like suddenly we're in a Harry Potter fanfic. ... Which was actually the lawyer's plan: to show people what they hate about bees (namely, that bees are violent idiots without regard for others, which frankly I thought Blue was already doing, but whatever). It does seem to work: everyone is horrified. Adam has also gone pale. Remember, when bees, including male bees who shouldn't have stingers, sting someone... they die. Except Adam won't die because in a movie this masturbatory, the main character makes no actual sacrifices and will learn nothing. (I haven't seen to the end of the film, but come on. Who will bet against me here.) Anyway, we then cut to the hospital, where Adam is hooked up to a line of honey, because as well as being hair gel, it is also blood. I don't give a poo poo. It doesn't make the idiocy radar at this point.  This scene isn't particularly gay, which is a shame because Philadelphia with Bees would be a better movie than this. Oh, yep. Adam will be fine.  They weren't even going to wait so there'd be tension. Ahhh gently caress tension, let's get back to having nothing matter for more than the 10 seconds in which time it is actively taking place. Pick fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Apr 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 02:45
|
|
Mr. Benson Bee, I'll ask you what I think we'd all like to know:
We're friends.
|
quote:He follows Blue into the bathroom and tries to smash him with a rolled-up magazine, and when that doesn't work, with a lighter+hairspray combo. I heard the British version reanimated that scene so that way Patrick sprays Blue with a portable showerhead, as the censors over there felt that kids would easily be swayed into thinking that making an aerosol flamethrower is cool. Though given how screwed up the movie already is, why would that be the one thing that sticks in the craws of the UK censors? Anyway, great post. Just what I need for my birthday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Seinfeld unsurprisingly sympathises with the bee in this story because in real life he convinced a married woman to leave her husband for him. The fact that he would rationalize it in an animated movie like this is pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Seinfeld unsurprisingly sympathises with the bee in this story because in real life he convinced a married woman to leave her husband for him. What's weirder is that it's rationalized so poorly. This movie makes colony collapse disorder look awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
Chapter 12: the return of the thing any beekeeper will tell you is hella wtf So anyway, in the hospital, Adam is languishing. Languish, languish.  Ugh shut up with your pain. He asks Blue to close the window because the smoke from outside is bothering him. That's people smoking, by the way. Tobacco, that is. Yes, it's the return of the nicotine and tar in beekeeping smoke. Please, please, please heed me when I tell you that this is an idea so baseless, stupid, and divorced from reality that it's a wonder Jenny McCarthy hasn't jumped on it already. Beekeepers do not use tobacco because that is goddamn crazy. This is, according to Blue, our... SMOKING GUN! We arrive at the next day in court. Adam is already there and he's loving fine, so the entire sacrifice angle or whatever was indeed meaningless, contributed nothing, and had no weight at all for our narrative. However, it does mean the lawyer rides around in a baby thing now. I mean, some giant baby thing now.... Odd, since no baby would be that big, and no adult would want--  yeah gently caress it Blue and Vanessa burst in--because of course they're late, for fake tension, because real tension is hard and requires artistry or something--and show the judge... the smoker! Yes, the same one beekeepers were using earlier in the film. So I guess we have some continuity after all. But, yeah, not much.  They at least had the decency to base the exterior design on a real bee smoker. It's too bad that only the art department was pulling their weight around here. The judge's expression mirrors mine pretty well. There's pain there... a sort of... dejection. What is this. Is this my life? Is this what I've been working towards my entire life? The lawyer grabs the smoker and accidentally Then Blue claims these smokers have made bees "addicted to smoking"? So what is it that--screw it here, treat yourself to the worst quote in movie history like really, brace yourself motherfucker quote:Is this what nature intended for us? To be forcibly addicted to smoke machines and man-made wooden slat work camps? Living out our lives as honey slaves to the white man? literal words from this actually existing real film ... ... followed by these other real words, quote:They're playing the species card!! Everyone involved in the writing of this film deserves an eternity in the fires of the inferno of Hell.  The bees are then declared victors with no closing argument or input from the jury, which apparently was decorative. The court, of course, found "in favor of the bees", but we are still not told what Blue was suing for, so I don't know what's going to change yet. Films are really exciting when you don't know what's going on or why you should feel invested in it. It's like a journey through smog in some sort of labyrinthine hellscape, just like most good kid's flicks. Vanessa and Blue share what was an ill-fated high-five. Everyone claps and cheers and whatever. But we still get a final statement from the lawyer, one which of course turns out to be rather prophetic. Whether this is the time and place and appropriate message, well. We'll get to that.  "This is an unholy perversion of the balance of nature." just like this loving film Pick fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Bee Movie fanfiction exists, and it's almost as glorious as this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Swedgin posted:Bee Movie fanfiction exists, and it's almost as glorious as this thread. One story is by "beemoviefan24601", which seems like a mathematical impossibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
Oh, god, this is so beautiful:quote:"Hey, whats the buzz!" exclaimed Adam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Last chapter misnumbered! Other than that, this has been a wonderful read 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
Here have a SINCERE Bee Movie fanfiction. Also it's five chapters long. http://www.fanfiction.net/s/4230538/1/Garden-of-Whispers
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Last chapter misnumbered! quote:Other than that, this has been a wonderful read Pick fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
Pick posted:
Is that... did he replace his stinger with a cocktail pick? Holy poo poo this movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Seinfeld unsurprisingly sympathises with the bee in this story because in real life he convinced a married woman to leave her husband for him. Hey, hey... engaged, not married. Though she was 17.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 06:50
|
|
Pick posted:One story is by "beemoviefan24601", which seems like a mathematical impossibility. 24601 was Jean Valjean's prisoner number in Les Miserables. I don't think that person is being entirely serious.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
Just the title of this thread intrigued me, and the innards did not disappoint. Excellent breakdown, and I learned a little about bees along the way  I'm still appalled by the laziness of 'Bee Larry King.' I mean, good God, man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
I bee-lieve this is the best thread in Cinema Discusso. Voted 5, went Honey Wild!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
I remember the movie being bad, but I didn't realize how horrible it truly was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
I want this film, remade in live-action, with all Bee references replaced with an equivalent Jew reference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
Pick posted:
This is why white people should not be allowed to talk about the legitimacy of cultural appropriation. Amazing thread so far. quote:Holy poo poo are you really going to start this derail For the person below, no? But it's the film's internal logic of how dare Blue get upset that something sacred from his culture be taken by an oppressive, dominating group played up for laughs. That's pretty awful. Jefferoo fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 12:06
|
|
Jefferoo posted:This is why white people should not be allowed to talk about the legitimacy of cultural appropriation. Holy poo poo are you really going to start this derail
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
So one of the plaintiffs essentially stabs the defendant's lawyer, during trial and in front of a judge, and still wins. Kids movie stuff right here. Never mind films about talking race cars or zoo animals that go on mad adventures, violent bee litigation is what kids want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:So one of the plaintiffs essentially stabs the defendant's lawyer, during trial and in front of a judge, and still wins. Kids movie stuff right here. Never mind films about talking race cars or zoo animals that go on mad adventures, violent bee litigation is what kids want. Well the second talking race car movie does have a torture scene!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:So one of the plaintiffs essentially stabs the defendant's lawyer, during trial and in front of a judge, and still wins. Kids movie stuff right here. Never mind films about talking race cars or zoo animals that go on mad adventures, violent bee litigation is what kids want. Also cameos by Larry King.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
And Ray Liotta, childhood hero of the ages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Penny Paper posted:I heard the British version reanimated that scene so that way Patrick sprays Blue with a portable showerhead, as the censors over there felt that kids would easily be swayed into thinking that making an aerosol flamethrower is cool. 'cause it IS loving cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
I really don't remember the crazy poo poo in the last two updates. I mean Christ, how in any world is Barry supposed to be anything other than a complete loving rear end in a top hat?! That face he makes at Patrick at dinner. That speech about being slaves to the white man. Just... criminy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Wow this movie is more horrible then I ever thought. I was always turned off by this movie terrible promotion on NBC, where it was just ram down your throats, but this is just downright Food Fight bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Hey, hey... engaged, not married. Though she was 17. They were married for one month before she asked her husband for a divorce. Jerry had been courting her for several months prior to that. The way Seinfeld attempts to justify himself through this movie is not too far from how Michael Jackson had that video game made where he's saving little children. edit: VVV thanks for clearing that up, I was talking about Sklar Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
Hold on, hold on, the 17-year-old and the woman whose marriage he destroyed were two different people, let's get this right. The 17-year-old was named Shoshanna Gruss, they dated for four years when Seinfeld was still in production, and then Jerry left her for Jessica Sklar, who was like 26 or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:They were married for one month before she asked her husband for a divorce. Jerry had been courting her for several months prior to that. What's odd though is, again, it doesn't feel like a justification at all. I cannot conceive of a single human being who would see Blue's behavior as acceptable. Except Jerry Seinfeld, apparently, but didn't this thing at least have editors?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Thank you so much for making this thread, as I am both laughing and learning interesting things about bees. I remember this movie being obnoxiously promoted everywhere and then falling off the face of the planet after it came out, but I had no idea just how astoundingly weird and awful it is. I'm still loving baffled as to who it's for (aside from Jerry Seinfeld, I guess)…it's like it's tailor-made to be totally off-putting to both kids and adults.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
I want Louie CK to do an episode of Louie where he takes his daughters to this, and afterwards tracks Seinfeld down to ask him "What the gently caress?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:It's important to note that Seinfeld in syndication has made Jerry Seinfeld one of the richest entertainers to ever live (close to a billionaire so far), and more so than even other rich actors, he can really choose to do anything or nothing. He chose this. This is what I find so fascinating about this movie. Was this a project of passion for him, a story he really wanted to tell? Was it some dumb bullshit he started spinning out one day, said "Haha I should make this a movie," and no one told him no? It really does sound like some halfass observational standup that you'd muse about for 30 seconds and then move on. "So they're all brothers and sisters, huh? That must get awkward when you see someone you think is hot hanging around the hive... anyway, what's the deal with..." The whole promotional blitz was NBC driven and basically "Jerry Seinfeld wants us to advertise this, and we owe him big, so here you go." But why? Why Why Jerry?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
With all the weird Honron/ multinational servitude is natural element this movie seems like poorly made propaganda. Also telling kids thay only rear end in a top hat woman stealing bees care about.appropriation. I want to watch it but its not on Netflix and Comcast as it as PPV (WTF) Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Between this thread, the recently released "Turbo" trailer, and my disappointment with "Rise of the Guardians", something hit me recently about Dreamworks animation. Disney or Pixar (E: also Blue Sky and Illumination; this wasn't meant to be "LOL Disney/Pixar vs. Dreamworks") will only release maybe one fully animated film each per year. Meanwhile, Dreamworks will release up to THREE animated features per year. Usually, they do two but in 2015 they're scheduled to release four! They just pump them out and hope that one of them will click. Anyway, the "did the people who spent all this time making a movie about bees even bother to learn anything about bees before going in?" aspect of this thread kind of reminds me of the time my cousins and I made a drinking game on that idea out of "Dinosaur". That was most likely the only enjoyment anyone has ever got out of "Dinosaur". Rahonavis fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
I saw this movie in the theater after we discovered that there was a misprint in the day's newspaper, and the Darjeeling Limited would not be screening that evening. At the time we figured that the best option would be to not waste the gas and see Bee Movie instead. Thinking back, that story is about the only thing I remember from it. Also, you're in for a hailstorm of stupid ideas if you decide to stick around for the ending. You haven't seen any scientific inaccuracies yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Thanks for this, Pick. I saw Shark Tale in theaters and actually mildly enjoyed it, so I hope you do that movie, too 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Rahonavis posted:Between this thread, the recently released "Turbo" trailer, and my disappointment with "Rise of the Guardians", something hit me recently about Dreamworks animation. That is unfairly disparaging to the artists who work on these films, especially contemporary Dreamworks films which--for whatever faults they may or may not suffer in terms of writing--are all artistic masterworks, like the aforementioned Rise of the Guardians and, I expect, the upcoming Croods. One of the reasons I was hesitant to do a Bee Movie review is I expected the usual Dreamworks bandwagoning, but the truth is there are a lot of people working there who are doing an excellent job and clearly pouring their hearts into it. Nico Marlet, for example, worked on Bee Movie. I find his designs, especially those for the Kung Fu Panda franchise, but also How to Train Your Dragon, far more appealing than anything in Pixar's roster.  I don't want this thread to turn into another Dreamworks/Pixar fight, suffice to say that I do think this is Dreamworks at nadir. But I blame a huge amount of that on Jerry Seinfeld, because he was lead writer and the producer of the film. If they had trusted the artists--those who made the rightfully gorgeous hive backdrops and that sleek-rear end lawyer car--you've have gotten a better film. And in fact, that kind of happened, because the next movie Dreamworks released was Kung Fu Panda the following year. I see Bee Movie as what results from thinking that a famous person can just jump into a specialized artform and excel. I am annoyed, like many people, that animation is seen as inherently different than normal film, but in some ways it is inherently different and requires a skill set far in advance of what the higher-ups at the company admitted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:15
|
|