Movie, TV, Web Series, and Music Hot Take(s).

[NerfedFalcon]

Resident Evil original movies (the Paul WS Anderson ones) ranked: Afterlife (4) > Original (1) > Apocalypse (2) > Retribution (5) > Extinction (3) >>>>> The Final Chapter (worst piece of crap I've ever watched in my life, and I saw The Emoji Movie).

I haven't seen WtRC or all the CGI ones, but of what I have seen I'd put Degeneration between Apocalypse and the first movie, and Damnation at the top of the list.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Resident Evil original movies (the Paul WS Anderson ones) ranked: Afterlife (4) > Original (1) > Apocalypse (2) > Retribution (5) > Extinction (3) >>>>> The Final Chapter (worst piece of crap I've ever watched in my life, and I saw The Emoji Movie).

Hmmm, I'd probably say 2,1,4,3,5,6, which is each film being worse than the one before with the first pair and second pair being the wrong way round. Stop going back and forth about superpowers and clone armies and stuff.

 

[BrawlMan]

Resident Evil original movies (the Paul WS Anderson ones) ranked: Afterlife (4) > Original (1) > Apocalypse (2) > Retribution (5) > Extinction (3) >>>>> The Final Chapter (worst piece of crap I've ever watched in my life, and I saw The Emoji Movie).

I haven't seen WtRC or all the CGI ones, but of what I have seen I'd put Degeneration between Apocalypse and the first movie, and Damnation at the top of the list.

Hmmm, I'd probably say 2,1,4,3,5,6, which is each film being worse than the one before with the first pair and second pair being the wrong way round. Stop going back and forth about superpowers and clone armies and stuff.

I hate all the live action RE films. The only exception being the first one, but I just find that to be okay. Give me any of the CG films any day. They can be fun and entertaining.

 

[Drathnoxis]

The first 2 seasons of the Simpsons were the best, they were funny and had heart. The same episodes that made you laugh often had a genuinely touching ending. The characters also were more believable as people rather than insane instruments of joke delivery.

In Season 1 Homer loses his job during a moment of distraction and despite his best efforts is unable to get a new one. His sense of self worth is crushed, and he decides that his family would be better off without such a screw up weighing them down and he attempts suicide. Before he completes his attempt he finds a new calling by lobbying for safety signs in dangerous areas. It's a funny episode, but the characters act in a believable way as well.

Fast forward to Season 5 where Homer is in danger of losing his job because he has once again been found to be grossly unqualified. He needs to go to college and get a degree in nuclear physics. He puts no effort into his applications and gets rejected by every college around. Mr. Burns is inexplicably invested in getting Homer his degree and pulls some strings to get Homer accepted into Springfield University. Homer proceeds to do nothing but act like an insane child trying to live out a television fantasy of college life that is explicitly contradicted by his actual surroundings. There's no emotional core to the story, just 20 minutes of non sequiturs.

The Simpsons has been going downhill since season 3. Is that take hot enough @BrawlMan?

 

[BrawlMan]

The Simpsons had jumped the shark by season 5. Is that take hot enough @BrawlMan?

Fine by me. I actually nearly forgot about that episode, and thought it was a Season 6 episode. I stopped caring for The Simpsons by the 8th Season. I usually just tell people to watch the first 6 seasons, then jump to the movie, and then end it there.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Fine by me. I actually nearly forgot about that episode, and thought it was a Season 6 episode. I stopped caring for The Simpsons by the 8th Season. I usually just tell people to watch the first 6 seasons, then jump to the movie, and then end it there.

Man, the movie was awful. I think that was the moment where I first had the revelation that I didn't like the Simpsons any more, back when I was 15.

 

[BrawlMan]

Man, the movie was awful. I think that was the moment where I first had the revelation that I didn't like the Simpsons any more, back when I was 15.

I consider the movie ok. I don't find much reason to watch it again, though.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Drathnoxis]

The Iron Giant is waaaay overrated. The animation is nice and the story is that cliche family friendly mush that is always enjoyable, it's just kind of dumb though. The villain is just completely insane and so stupid it completely breaks my immersion. One, if he has no respect within his organization, how does he hold onto his position as an independent investigator? Two, he's just wildly irrational from almost his first appearance and devolves from there. I don't get why he is so intent on destroying this marvel of machinery at any cost, the better course of action would be to capture it, if possible, and study its technology for use by the American military. This doesn't even cross his mind. Three, he disobeys a direct order from a general (also, why were there no code words needed to launch a nuke?) how did he envision this ending in anything but court martial? It's just silly.

The evidence requirements of the general were really weird. He wants footprints (which this 1000 ton monster is somehow not leaving everywhere) but bites out of tractors and grain silos don't count for anything I guess?

Like, the movie was fine, I didn't hate it. But this is far from the masterpiece everyone seems to claim it is.

 

[BrawlMan]

Like, the movie was fine, I didn't hate it. But this is far from the masterpiece everyone seems to claim it is.

I can see where you are coming from. I still consider it a good movie, but I like Cats Don't Dance better. There's something you should know, neither movie did well in theaters. Especially Cats. The reason why so many find Ironi Giant beloved is because many kids saw it on constant runs on Cartoon Network. It's one of those movies where you had to be there at the time or really appreciate what it was doing around that time.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I can see where you are coming from. I still consider it a good movie, but I like Cats Don't Dance better. There's something you should know, neither movie did well in theaters. Especially Cats. The reason why so many find Ironi Giant beloved is because many kids saw it on constant runs on Cartoon Network. It's one of those movies where you had to be there at the time or really appreciate what it was doing around that time.

I was there, I saw parts of it as a child, it never interested me then though. I seem to remember thinking the robot looked kind of dumb.

I don't remember much about Cats Don't Dance. It definitely looks familiar, and I probably have seen at least a part of it, but I couldn't tell you anything about it.

 

[thebobmaster]

I think the reason Cats Don't Dance flopped was because as good as it was (at least, as good as I remember it being), it's a bit of a niche target audience. Not a lot of general audience for a film that's all about recreating the era of 1930's Hollywood, but with animals.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Ratatouille, on the other hand, from the same director as Iron Giant is fantastic and may be my favorite Pixar movie ever.

 

[Agema]

Can't remember where I saw this flick a few years ago but it was...interesting -

Aw bless. Without even watching the video I can tell from the poster in the background of the thumbnail that it's They Live.

As for why it failed... firstly, "failed" seems unfair. Although was little-watched, because it was a low budget film it made a profit at the box office.

But the main reason it "failed" is that it's a John Carpenter movie, and I say that as someone who mostly enjoys them. No matter what you say about studios and their interference and budgets and all, John Carpenter himself is the most consistent limitation of John Carpenter movies. They nearly all have the same themes and structure, for instance. In response to John Carpenter saying he often rewatches Rio Bravo, I read a critic harshly but incisively note it was a shame he also kept trying to remake it. He made a series of taut and very effective action movies and horrors in his 70s and early-80s heyday, but he just feels creatively bust by the mid-80s. There's still something to like about plenty, but they nearly all have substantial shortcomings.

 

[Agema]

I've never understood why Farquaad isn't a king in Shrek. If he has lands, an army, and isn't bound to another liege lord then he's a king.

I'm not sure this is actually true.

In order to be a king you need a recognised kingdom, and in practice other countries often had a say in that, or there were other cultural reasons why realms did not use the title (although whatever title they did use held equivalent powers). For instance, when Prussia was first created it was a dukedom, and whilst subjugated as vassal to Poland, it wasn't actually part of Poland. That's very deliberate: Poland could not outright take Prussia over, but nor was it prepared to allow Prussia's ruler to have a title to equal their own. And there's all sorts of other stuff that was true for a load of small European states that have existed over the centuries.

The other way you can look at it is how much centralised authority a realm has, and it certainly happened that the central authority could little more than nominal. So Farquaad might have a liege lord de jure, but that liege has so little authority that Farquaad is independent de facto. He might, however, still want a bigger and better title. Like William the Conqueror was a duke who owed fealty to the French king, but he was still free to go out and conquer a kingdom for himself (which was conveniently also outside the fealty of the French king).

 

[Drathnoxis]

I'm not sure this is actually true.

In order to be a king you need a recognised kingdom, and in practice other countries often had a say in that, or there were other cultural reasons why realms did not use the title (although whatever title they did use held equivalent powers). For instance, when Prussia was first created it was a dukedom, and whilst subjugated as vassal to Poland, it wasn't actually part of Poland. That's very deliberate: Poland could not outright take Prussia over, but nor was it prepared to allow Prussia's ruler to have a title to equal their own. And there's all sorts of other stuff that was true for a load of small European states that have existed over the centuries.

The other way you can look at it is how much centralised authority a realm has, and it certainly happened that the central authority could little more than nominal. So Farquaad might have a liege lord de jure, but that liege has so little authority that Farquaad is independent de facto. He might, however, still want a bigger and better title. Like William the Conqueror was a duke who owed fealty to the French king, but he was still free to go out and conquer a kingdom for himself (which was conveniently also outside the fealty of the French king).

Yes, those could be reasons, but we don't see any of that in the film. There aren't any other kingdoms that are disputing Farquaad's title, nor do we have any reference to anybody that has even a nominal authority over him.

All we get is the mirror saying "Well, technically, you're not a king" followed by the suggestion (under duress) that marrying a princess would make him a king, which makes no sense. The impression I've always gotten is that the only reason his legitimacy is in question is because he just started calling himself a king... except that's the origin of every line of kingship. It doesn't matter how many generations your royal line goes back, there's always going to someone at the start that said "I'm king now, everybody else has to kneel or die." or maybe "God says I'm king now, etc."

 

[Gordon_4]

Yes, those could be reasons, but we don't see any of that in the film. There aren't any other kingdoms that are disputing Farquaad's title, nor do we have any reference to anybody that has even a nominal authority over him.

All we get is the mirror saying "Well, technically, you're not a king" followed by the suggestion (under duress) that marrying a princess would make him a king, which makes no sense. The impression I've always gotten is that the only reason his legitimacy is in question is because he just started calling himself a king... except that's the origin of every line of kingship. It doesn't matter how many generations your royal line goes back, there's always going to someone at the start that said "I'm king now, everybody else has to kneel or die." or maybe "God says I'm king now, etc."

I assume the reason is that since Farquaad is a thinly veiled mockery of Michael Eisner, the lack of being a king was the point.

 

[Bedinsis]

Yes, those could be reasons, but we don't see any of that in the film. There aren't any other kingdoms that are disputing Farquaad's title, nor do we have any reference to anybody that has even a nominal authority over him.

All we get is the mirror saying "Well, technically, you're not a king" followed by the suggestion (under duress) that marrying a princess would make him a king, which makes no sense. The impression I've always gotten is that the only reason his legitimacy is in question is because he just started calling himself a king... except that's the origin of every line of kingship. It doesn't matter how many generations your royal line goes back, there's always going to someone at the start that said "I'm king now, everybody else has to kneel or die." or maybe "God says I'm king now, etc."

Psychologically speaking, Farquaad is very much obsessed with appearances. Of having the picture-perfect kingdom. He did state that he's king even unwed at the end (before being swallowed by the dragon) but narcissism or perfectionism might be at play.

Also, how do you know that all every line of kingship started that way in the setting? Maybe someone slayed a dragon and everyone voted him into the role, or managed to pull Excalibur out of a stone?

 

[Drathnoxis]

Psychologically speaking, Farquaad is very much obsessed with appearances. Of having the picture-perfect kingdom. He did state that he's king even unwed at the end (before being swallowed by the dragon) but narcissism or perfectionism might be at play.

Also, how do you know that all every line of kingship started that way in the setting? Maybe someone slayed a dragon and everyone voted him into the role, or managed to pull Excalibur out of a stone?

I admit, I have no evidence it's the case in the setting. I meant every line of kingship in the real world.

I assume the reason is that since Farquaad is a thinly veiled mockery of Michael Eisner, the lack of being a king was the point.

Could you explain more? I don't know who that is.

 

[Gordon_4]

I admit, I have no evidence it's the case in the setting. I meant every line of kingship in the real world.
Could you explain more? I don't know who that is.

Michael Eisner used to be CEO of Disney with whom Katzenberg had a very tempestuous relationship. Some of it was Katzenberg's fault cos he nearly screwed Disney hard when he deliberately went against Robin Williams' wishes regarding advertising Aladdin using the Genie (and Williams didn't work with Disney again until after Katzenberg resigned), some of it was both of them being stupid like nearly totally fucking up Toy Story and some of it was all on Eisner because he was a cockwit to people to a legendary degree and would shoot down Katzenberg's ideas. Basically it was personal and office politics runamock and Katzenberg decided to use Lord Farquaad (which is basically a bad phonetic prounciation of 'Fuckwad') and Duloc as a hit piece against his former employer.

Mind you, Katzenberg more or less got the last laugh because once founding DreamWorks - along with Steven Speilberg - they made Shrek which was a colossal smash hit and eventuated in Eisner's removal from Disney due to a lack of proper response to Shrek, which itself more or less put Disney's traditional formula in the ground until Frozen.