Discussion in 'Arts & Entertainment' started by EgonSpengler, Aug 15, 2014.
I'm respectfully asking others to join in.
Dude, don't even joke.
Saying that something is bad and other people shouldn't buy it still isn't a boycott, it's an opinion. I think that Five Guys is overpriced and that other people should have more sense that to patronise them, but I'm not "boycotting" them.
You know what, you're right. I've been thinking too small. We need protests and picket lines outside of movie theaters.
That would be ridiculous, yes. But that it is ridiculous doesn't prove that you're engaged in some sort of boycott, only that the characterisation of perfectly ordinary commercial behaviour as a "boycott" is itself ridiculous.
Of course. No pirating either.
Who said it was a joke? At least he doesn't go in for lens flares.
How dare you sir! Five Guys Burgers and Fries is a delicious AND nutritious example of the proper way to separate people from their money and make them feel happy whilst doing it. I demand a retraction! Retraction I say! Retraction! Retraction!
Star Wars is still the best example of that tbh.
Way to bring it back around to the thread topic... Nicely done
The Phantom Menace at 20: was the infamous prequel actually that bad?
It’s 20 years since George Lucas outraged fans, derailed careers and introduced us to Jar Jar Binks. Is it time to forgive him?
Spoiler tl;dr :
Seriously, read the article first, it's short and to the point
Spoiler OK, you lazy bums :
Yes...yes it was.
from the article:
As I've said before. Episode 1 is fine once you realize what it is and look at it through that lens. It's a stuffed-animal-friends/cartoon + live action kids movie for pre-schoolers and elementary school kids... like Barney the Dinosaur, Fragle Rock, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Air Bud, Space Jam, etc... using Star Wars as a backdrop/setting. The target audience is kids Anakin's age. Kids 3-8 years old love Jar-Jar.
Once you realize that, its actually quite good. Its a great movie to watch with your small children... much more bearable than Barney the Dinosaur or Teletubbies.
It's not about having the mind of a child. It's about being a child. The movie is for small children, like Thomas the Tank or Handy Manny. We wanted it to be the spiritual successor of Episode 4 and evaluated it on those terms. But it simply isn't that. It's not even the same genre as Episode 4. It's a children's movie. It's a cartoon for little kids and it's fine when evaluated on those terms. I'm not holding Barney the Dinosaur up to the same standards for script and plot and writing as I would a action/sci-fi/fantasy movie for adults.
If Episode I is meant for a different audience, then it is a "what the bleep were they thinking" decision. Can you imagine what that would look like for other franchises? What if one of the Saw movies was for kids? Or the next Bond movie was a romantic comedy? Doing that would be a big middle finger to the existing fans.
Thomas the Tank Engine. Outside of North Korea I haven't seen the military selling itself to preschoolers.
Or they made Warhammer family friendl—...oh.
"Obi-Wan never told you what happened to the fandom..."
"He told me enough! He told me Kathleen Kennedy killed it!"
"No... I... killed the fandom."
This is probably true, but (unsurprisingly, I begin to disagree) it's not a very good way of establishing the merit of a film. Movies pitched at 3-8 year olds have a market. Lucas may have decided to make a film to exploit that market. That film may have had its intended commercial appeal to 3-8 year olds. But the audience for a Star Wars film, as others have pointed out, isn't only 3-8 year olds, or even primarily 3-8 years olds, and by pitching it that way, he disappointed a lot of people who are in other age groups than 3-8. And that's a lot of people.
Yeah, I kindof actually still like the film (I watched it again last week) but there's still some cringeworthy scenes and there's the constant sense of of ‘it could actually have been a great film!’ rather than ‘well, OK, the great visuals make up for the mediocre plot and some good actors manage to make it watchable’.
cringeworthy parts, e.g. Jake Lloyd's part was so badly directed and scripted, just like Hayden Christensen's, that it's no wonder he didn't want to act again.
And why the hell reveal who the Emperor was from the beginning?
One of the most disturbing things about US gun shows is how they make guns ‘for little girls’ that shoot actual metal bullets at actual gunpowder-driven speeds but are coated in glossy pink or magenta or a similar ‘girly’ colour and have happy peppy names like ‘my first gun’. But there's a different thread for that.
Well, it's not as if we didn't already know that it was going to be Ian McDiarmuid though.
They didn't have to cast him, as much as may I like him as an actor, and thus more or less give it away from the start.
Separate names with a comma.