 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 16, 2013 - 10:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
As regards killing off cartoon superheroes: What's the point?
Exactly, what is the point? A superhero movie is always going to be about a superhero defeating a villian, and he (or she) will defeat the villian. There's no suspence. It's like James Bond. Is James Bond ever going to lose in the end? No. So, the question becomes, how many times do you need to see the same thing over and over? I'm as bored with James Bond as I am with Batman, Superman, Spideman, Ironman, or whatever.
But, it's not really the movie's fault. It's an audience that seems to never tire of seeing the same thing, again and again, and filmmakers, or at least the executives that hire them, that pander to whatever sells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 16, 2013 - 10:47 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
As regards killing off cartoon superheroes: What's the point?
Exactly, what is the point? A superhero movie is always going to be about a superhero defeating a villian, and he (or she) will defeat the villian. There's no suspence. It's like James Bond. Is James Bond ever going to lose in the end? No. So, the question becomes, how many times do you need to see the same thing over and over? I'm as bored with James Bond as I am with Batman, Superman, Spideman, Ironman, or whatever.
But, it's not really the movie's fault. It's an audience that seems to never tire of seeing the same thing, again and again, and filmmakers, or at least the executives that hire them, that pander to whatever sells.
Part of the thing with both the cartoon superheroes and James Bond is that it's not just the same people watching these things over and over again. James Bond started in the early 1960s, and while I'm one of those geezers that loved JB from the very first one on, we're on our third generation of Bond-lovers by now and by all appearances, still going strong. So as bored as you may be by them, the appeal of these characters has sustained across the years, and shows no signs of fizzling out. A hell of a lot more money has been spent by moviegoers on cartoon superhero and James Bond flicks than will ever cross the palm of Quentin Tarantino!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 17, 2013 - 8:24 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Part of the thing with both the cartoon superheroes and James Bond is that it's not just the same people watching these things over and over again. James Bond started in the early 1960s, and while I'm one of those geezers that loved JB from the very first one on, we're on our third generation of Bond-lovers by now and by all appearances, still going strong. So as bored as you may be by them, the appeal of these characters has sustained across the years, and shows no signs of fizzling out. A hell of a lot more money has been spent by moviegoers on cartoon superhero and James Bond flicks than will ever cross the palm of Quentin Tarantino!
You know that Tarantino has wanted to make a James Bond movie for years, but the Bond producers have said, "Thanks, but 'No Thanks!'." They don't trust what he would do with the franchise. As much as I find Tarantino shallow and stupid (and most of his movies too), I do think he'd bring at least an energy to the Bond films that it's lacked for decades now. I think the Bond movies have pretty much calcified into "movies for old farts," or, as you say, "geezers." What was the last Bond film, SKYFALL, but an elaborate send off for Judi Dench (age 79), with a damn near walking dead Albert Finney (age 77) thrown in for good measure. Now, I'm not knocking old people (I'm in my mid-fifties.), but when I look at my favorite Bond movies -- the ones from the '60s -- I don't see them as entertainment for the older crowd. They were the height of pop culture then, now they're not much more than nostalgia. You say they're still "going strong." I have to disagree. I think they're just "going along."
I also wish people would stop confusing popularity with quality. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's therefore good. Cigarette smoking has been, and still is, popular, but it ain't good. Eating a lot of foods full of sugar and salt is popular, but again, not good. And I would argue -- as I'm doing -- that just as junk food isn't good for you, neither is junk movies. And it's not just bad for you, it's bad for the culture. We (the geezers) really shouldn't celebrate it. We should be dissatisfied with it. Is this how you want to spend the last years of your life, being served entertainment that's just a regurgitation of what's been popular for decades, but that really offers little in substance?
And, by the way, just because Dr. Zaius is my avatar, and the original APES film my favorite movie since childhood, doesn't mean that I celebrate the milking of the concept that Fox has done (they ran it into the ground in the '70s), or that I'm all that enthusiastic about the "yet-another-sequel" coming out next year. If it's a good movie with some brains to it, then lucky movie and lucky everyone who sees it, but if not, then it's just another piece of movie junk food -- a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just an example: Thor is a guy with a blond wig who carries a plastic hammer with him.
How can ANY adult worthy of the name (adult, i.e.) watch such drivel without dying of shame?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUENO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, the question becomes, how many times do you need to see the same thing over and over?
That's not the question at all, folks. May as well ask, "We all know the lights are gonna come up again at the end, when the projection device turns off, so what's the point?
The question should be: Given the conventions of the form (that the lead character always survives, and all the other childish nonsense), what ELSE does this property offer for our entertainment? How is it different this time? What's imaginative about it? Clever about it? Charming about it? How was the music, by the way? The notion that the only kind of suspense possible in any drama is the question of whether the lead character lives or dies at the end strikes me as astoundingly ignorant. We're not all drama students, true, but haven't we seen enough movies, plays and TV to know better than that?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am at such a loss
You're ALWAYS at a loss. At ANYTHING.
Grown-ups watching stupid shenanigans of cartoon-come-to-would-be-life characters (Pow! Shazam! Whack!) are just this: SAD!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 18, 2013 - 10:17 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
So, the question becomes, how many times do you need to see the same thing over and over?
That's not the question at all, folks. May as well ask, "We all know the lights are gonna come up again at the end, when the projection device turns off, so what's the point?
The question should be: Given the conventions of the form (that the lead character always survives, and all the other childish nonsense), what ELSE does this property offer for our entertainment? How is it different this time? What's imaginative about it? Clever about it? Charming about it? How was the music, by the way? The notion that the only kind of suspense possible in any drama is the question of whether the lead character lives or dies at the end strikes me as astoundingly ignorant. We're not all drama students, true, but haven't we seen enough movies, plays and TV to know better than that?!
It's not the destination it's the journey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADULT 
. 
