The powers in the real world thing would have worked if they revealed that the real world was just another level of the Matrix like I was so sure they were going to do
This would have been a fantastic thing to reveal. Just simulation upon simulation, to the point where the question rises as to what is real and what does real even mean? Lots of philosphical "meat" in that direction.
I think that would have been kind of be lame
I mean I saw Existenz,
I dont know if the Matrix could've brought the same kind of existential horror needed for that ending to land
It's a fun thought experiment, but I think they might have had a lot of trouble making that into an interesting movie, on account of there are basically no stakes in a world like that.
+3
Options
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
Those children should be put in a well until they aren't monsters
So not quite a movie, but Castlevania on Netflix isn't fucking around. It certainly has some humor, but the level of gore and the lack of a lower limit on the age of victims is ... not what I was expecting. I'm digging it, though. It has done more for giving Dracula a story than any of the games I've ever played.
one "tengen toppa gurren lagann" engages with the question of endless simulations and concludes that you can't be endlessly distracted by what ifs, just live in the world you live in, it's as real as anything could be
After a fucking shit day at work, involving much swearing and my ultimate decision that I will soon turn in my two weeks notice I was stressed as fuck. Decided buying a movie would help pick me up, and I'm currently staying at a place with a 4K TV and player, so I thought I could pick up a UHD Blu-Ray. I wanted something stress free, easy to watch, and something that I'd seen before.
John Oliver has been cast as Zazu in the Lion King
They've done a great job of casting this movie that I don't understand the point of, beyond the obvious
I mean, you probably aren't the target audience
There's loads of kids that had the CGI Jungle Book as their version of the Jungle Book, same with Beauty and the Beast and so on
Not every kid grows up watching all the Disney classics and I know a few personally that don't like watching anything that looks "old because they think it is boring
It's making Lion King for another generation of kids who either haven't seen or aren't interested in the original
They aren't making Lion King for another generation of kids, they're making the Lion King for parents who know what the Lion King is already and will drag their kids to something they recognize. Which, obviously makes money, but it's not out of some weird altruistic "for the children," reason. Like, they're running a cartoon right now on the Disney Channel that takes place within the continuity of the existing animated Lion King movies.
And...the Lion King came out in 1994. I'm not going to sit here and pretend it was yesterday, but the "youth of today" are obsessed with the pop culture of the 80s and 90s, they aren't dodging the Lion King en masse because it's "too old looking."
one "tengen toppa gurren lagann" engages with the question of endless simulations and concludes that you can't be endlessly distracted by what ifs, just live in the world you live in, it's as real as anything could be
and if all else fails, assemble a gestalt robot the size of an actual galaxy to punch the concept of apathy in the face
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
If Disney just wanted to have kids these days watch the Lion King, they could just have a YouTube vlogger on screen yelling while watching the movie. It'd be a lot cheaper than a live action remake
one "tengen toppa gurren lagann" engages with the question of endless simulations and concludes that you can't be endlessly distracted by what ifs, just live in the world you live in, it's as real as anything could be
and if all else fails, assemble a gestalt robot the size of an actual galaxy to punch the concept of apathy in the face
It's hard to explain gurren lagann without it sounding like completely stupid anime bullshit, because it's also probably one of the best.
This might be nostalgia putting the blinders on, but I have a hard time imagining a kid looking at the Lion King at refusing to watch it because it "looks old."
It's 20 years old, but it's still a beautiful movie.
[IMG][/img]
+8
Options
TrippyJingMoses supposes his toeses are roses.But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered Userregular
Animation doesn't get "too old" for me until you starting hitting the era of noodly arms waving everywhere.
I am more saddened by people cutting animation of old because it's upsetting for the modern age or not for children
It probably was not for children then either
We've passed this topic up by now but Vader probably also doesn't blow the ship up because Leia is on it and she's still like, a Senator, and until later in A New Hope it's clear that the senate has some sway/networking especially RE: the rebels, and killing her would probably tip the emperor's hand before he could dissolve the senate.
Once there is no longer a senate or an Alderaan, it seems clear that he keeps her a prisoner in an attempt to learn any rebel secrets while they scramble to find the plans. You can't question a corpse.
The only real structural change that Rogue One adds to Episode IV is
the hilarious irony of Leia AND Darth both explicitly knowing this is a rebel ship (I just saw you like 5 minutes ago!!). Which makes Leia's smug invocation of DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY that much more in-character for her
yeah, if anything Rogue One truly enhances the opening of A New Hope because of that.
I'm late in this, but also.
Vader had just straight up murder what? 15-20 people like a freaking bad ass, and Leia treats him like a fucking useless errand boy.
John Oliver has been cast as Zazu in the Lion King
They've done a great job of casting this movie that I don't understand the point of, beyond the obvious
I mean, you probably aren't the target audience
There's loads of kids that had the CGI Jungle Book as their version of the Jungle Book, same with Beauty and the Beast and so on
Not every kid grows up watching all the Disney classics and I know a few personally that don't like watching anything that looks "old because they think it is boring
It's making Lion King for another generation of kids who either haven't seen or aren't interested in the original
They aren't making Lion King for another generation of kids, they're making the Lion King for parents who know what the Lion King is already and will drag their kids to something they recognize. Which, obviously makes money, but it's not out of some weird altruistic "for the children," reason. Like, they're running a cartoon right now on the Disney Channel that takes place within the continuity of the existing animated Lion King movies.
And...the Lion King came out in 1994. I'm not going to sit here and pretend it was yesterday, but the "youth of today" are obsessed with the pop culture of the 80s and 90s, they aren't dodging the Lion King en masse because it's "too old looking."
I mean define the youth
Cause like 13 year olds and up, sure okay
But I am talking about like 5 year olds and up and they, in my experience, don't give a FUCK about anything older
Like my nephew is 3 and will actively refuse to watch most 2D cartoons (I tried to watch some of the Mickey Mouse shorts with him for example) but will sit and watch Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and the gaggle of cheap ass CGI Disney Junior shows all day long
Like, there is 100% a preference among young kids today for CGI shit over hand drawn, there's a reason that there are very little actual kid focused 2D entertainment while all of the stuff like Steven Universe or Adventure Time are actually for teenagers and adults
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
edited July 2017
Blank, last year at the summer camp which I supervised I had five to nine year-olds yelling at me to put in my Samurai Jack dvds.
Blank, this past summer at the summer camp which I supervised I had 5-9 year-olds yelling at me to put in my Samurai Jack dvds.
Anecdotal evidence swings both ways.
Yeah but, like I said, every actual child focused cartoon and major franchise I can think of is CGI
Like, can you point out any modern day 5-10 year old targeted media that's hand drawn? Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, Minions, Cars, Finding Dory, etc.
I'm not gonna pretend there is an ironclad "kids only like CGI" rule or anything but there s loads of evidence that the most popular animated stuff targeted at Actual Children today (and not teenagers and adults) is CGI
Yeah, I think it's less "kids love CGI more than traditional animation" than it is "CGI is cheaper to mass produce than traditional animation." And it's not universal, Disney's got a mix on their channel (The Lion Guard, the Tangled series, the new DuckTales series...) and SpongeBob is still chugging along. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, judging by the DVR of any TV my nephew has access to, has tons of episodes, and, you know, they're pretty cheap looking, because kids don't really care what things look like. It's kind of a hallmark of television for really young kids that everything is cheap and sparse so they can produce as many episodes as humanly possible, like...Blue's Clues and Teletubbies weren't CG, but they weren't exactly built to switch up a formula
A huge part of the reason there are so many animated films being produced now is that it's less of an ordeal to produce CGI animated movies than it is to produce hand drawn animation. There's a really big reason Disney was the only company that was making them that way, and there's a reason they don't anymore. It's not because kids are like "that cartoon looks like it's for old people," like...these kids grow up with picture books and drawings, hand-drawn cartoons aren't a foreign concept to them
Yeah, I think it's less "kids love CGI more than traditional animation" than it is "CGI is cheaper to mass produce than traditional animation." And it's not universal, Disney's got a mix on their channel (The Lion Guard, the Tangled series, the new DuckTales series...) and SpongeBob is still chugging along. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, judging by the DVR of any TV my nephew has access to, has tons of episodes, and, you know, they're pretty cheap looking, because kids don't really care what things look like. It's kind of a hallmark of television for really young kids that everything is cheap and sparse so they can produce as many episodes as humanly possible, like...Blue's Clues and Teletubbies weren't CG, but they weren't exactly built to switch up a formula
A huge part of the reason there are so many animated films being produced now is that it's less of an ordeal to produce CGI animated movies than it is to produce hand drawn animation. There's a really big reason Disney was the only company that was making them that way, and there's a reason they don't anymore. It's not because kids are like "that cartoon looks like it's for old people," like...these kids grow up with picture books and drawings, hand-drawn cartoons aren't a foreign concept to them
Lion Guard is a CG show, for the record
And I would say Ducktales is definitely targeted more at the teen/adult crowd ala Gravity Falls
Like, I'm just saying that there are 100% kids that haven't seen The Lion King or aren't into it that will probably see and enjoy the new one so saying it is a pointless movie just cause you dig the original seems kinda shortsighted
Yeah, I think it's less "kids love CGI more than traditional animation" than it is "CGI is cheaper to mass produce than traditional animation." And it's not universal, Disney's got a mix on their channel (The Lion Guard, the Tangled series, the new DuckTales series...) and SpongeBob is still chugging along. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, judging by the DVR of any TV my nephew has access to, has tons of episodes, and, you know, they're pretty cheap looking, because kids don't really care what things look like. It's kind of a hallmark of television for really young kids that everything is cheap and sparse so they can produce as many episodes as humanly possible, like...Blue's Clues and Teletubbies weren't CG, but they weren't exactly built to switch up a formula
A huge part of the reason there are so many animated films being produced now is that it's less of an ordeal to produce CGI animated movies than it is to produce hand drawn animation. There's a really big reason Disney was the only company that was making them that way, and there's a reason they don't anymore. It's not because kids are like "that cartoon looks like it's for old people," like...these kids grow up with picture books and drawings, hand-drawn cartoons aren't a foreign concept to them
I think one feeds the other. Kids grow up with entertainment aimed at them being cgi and the things their parents want to show them from their own childhoods are hand-drawn. Surely they pick up on that and a lot of kid sure insist on new stuff.
one "tengen toppa gurren lagann" engages with the question of endless simulations and concludes that you can't be endlessly distracted by what ifs, just live in the world you live in, it's as real as anything could be
and if all else fails, assemble a gestalt robot the size of an actual galaxy to punch the concept of apathy in the face
This is actually why I really like playing JRPG's. A regular game would have you fight back against a nebulous destiny, but a JRPG will have you suit up and go tear down the door of a personified "Destiny" followed shortly by beating it to within an inch of its life. Then punch some gods for cooldown stretches.
it's a pointless movie because, judging from beauty and the beast, the only difference between it and the original is that it's going to be CG lions instead of just CG wildebeast. and I don't know if the lion king is necessarily a story that needs to be rebooted every twenty-five years or so, so today's kids can experience it in a format they understand
but that's going to get me going on a rant about how I wish parents would let their kids discover more of their own things rather than force the stuff they liked when they were a kid on them, in whatever form they can get, but whatever. I love the Lion King a whole lot but...I don't think it's a big deal if a kid looks at the Lion King and says "that looks old," and doesn't want to watch it, I don't need Disney to go "well now the lions look like real lions you're welcome." Especially when they're still putting out stuff like Moana or Frozen or Wreck-It-Ralph or anything else, like...whatever, I mean, I don't think saying "a cg lion king movie is kind of pointless" is a terribly controversial statement
Blank, this past summer at the summer camp which I supervised I had 5-9 year-olds yelling at me to put in my Samurai Jack dvds.
Anecdotal evidence swings both ways.
Yeah but, like I said, every actual child focused cartoon and major franchise I can think of is CGI
Like, can you point out any modern day 5-10 year old targeted media that's hand drawn? Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, Minions, Cars, Finding Dory, etc.
Teen Titans
Two of the biggest children's cartoon franchises are hand drawn. Spongebob has made about $12 billion in merchandising. Ben 10 has made about $5 billion.
Blank, this past summer at the summer camp which I supervised I had 5-9 year-olds yelling at me to put in my Samurai Jack dvds.
Anecdotal evidence swings both ways.
Yeah but, like I said, every actual child focused cartoon and major franchise I can think of is CGI
Like, can you point out any modern day 5-10 year old targeted media that's hand drawn? Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, Minions, Cars, Finding Dory, etc.
Teen Titans
Two of the biggest children's cartoon franchises are hand drawn. Spongebob has made about $12 billion in merchandising. Ben 10 has made about $5 billion.
Ben 10 is long since past its prime and the current show is not nearly as large as it was in its heyday
It was big, like 10 years ago, with the first two series
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
We've passed this topic up by now but Vader probably also doesn't blow the ship up because Leia is on it and she's still like, a Senator, and until later in A New Hope it's clear that the senate has some sway/networking especially RE: the rebels, and killing her would probably tip the emperor's hand before he could dissolve the senate.
Once there is no longer a senate or an Alderaan, it seems clear that he keeps her a prisoner in an attempt to learn any rebel secrets while they scramble to find the plans. You can't question a corpse.
The only real structural change that Rogue One adds to Episode IV is
the hilarious irony of Leia AND Darth both explicitly knowing this is a rebel ship (I just saw you like 5 minutes ago!!). Which makes Leia's smug invocation of DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY that much more in-character for her
yeah, if anything Rogue One truly enhances the opening of A New Hope because of that.
I'm late in this, but also.
Vader had just straight up murder what? 15-20 people like a freaking bad ass, and Leia treats him like a fucking useless errand boy.
She doesn't see the murder spree though, does she? Plus Leia's not afraid of ANYTHING and she knows Vader's all ego and emotion from his reputation, so why not heckle him to try and put him off balance?
I wouldn't say that a live action/CGI Lion King is pointless, but I think it's fair to say that it's an unabashed attempt by Disney to try and cash in on the same property twice.
But we got a Jungle Book that's arguably better than the original, and a Beauty and the Beast which was apparently pretty good? And Disney's clearly taking the casting seriously, so maybe there's something to be said for it.
It's just not something I'm interested in, because I still think the original is one of the best movies I've ever watched, and seeing it retold in CGI with a more modern cast of celebrity voice actors really isn't going to somehow improve on that experience.
[IMG][/img]
0
Options
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
We've passed this topic up by now but Vader probably also doesn't blow the ship up because Leia is on it and she's still like, a Senator, and until later in A New Hope it's clear that the senate has some sway/networking especially RE: the rebels, and killing her would probably tip the emperor's hand before he could dissolve the senate.
Once there is no longer a senate or an Alderaan, it seems clear that he keeps her a prisoner in an attempt to learn any rebel secrets while they scramble to find the plans. You can't question a corpse.
The only real structural change that Rogue One adds to Episode IV is
the hilarious irony of Leia AND Darth both explicitly knowing this is a rebel ship (I just saw you like 5 minutes ago!!). Which makes Leia's smug invocation of DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY that much more in-character for her
yeah, if anything Rogue One truly enhances the opening of A New Hope because of that.
I'm late in this, but also.
Vader had just straight up murder what? 15-20 people like a freaking bad ass, and Leia treats him like a fucking useless errand boy.
She doesn't see the murder spree though, does she? Plus Leia's not afraid of ANYTHING and she knows Vader's all ego and emotion from his reputation, so why not heckle him to try and put him off balance?
Well i mean
Aren't you just seeing the same family behavior then
We've passed this topic up by now but Vader probably also doesn't blow the ship up because Leia is on it and she's still like, a Senator, and until later in A New Hope it's clear that the senate has some sway/networking especially RE: the rebels, and killing her would probably tip the emperor's hand before he could dissolve the senate.
Once there is no longer a senate or an Alderaan, it seems clear that he keeps her a prisoner in an attempt to learn any rebel secrets while they scramble to find the plans. You can't question a corpse.
The only real structural change that Rogue One adds to Episode IV is
the hilarious irony of Leia AND Darth both explicitly knowing this is a rebel ship (I just saw you like 5 minutes ago!!). Which makes Leia's smug invocation of DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY that much more in-character for her
yeah, if anything Rogue One truly enhances the opening of A New Hope because of that.
I'm late in this, but also.
Vader had just straight up murder what? 15-20 people like a freaking bad ass, and Leia treats him like a fucking useless errand boy.
She doesn't see the murder spree though, does she? Plus Leia's not afraid of ANYTHING and she knows Vader's all ego and emotion from his reputation, so why not heckle him to try and put him off balance?
Except she would also know about
the Empire blowing up their own base in their attempt to eliminate information about the Death Star. Does it make sense for her to lie about the Rebel base being on Alderaan knowing what the Empire is capable of? In fact, her actions in ANH implies she didn't even know the Death Star was operational.
As for the Empire not killing Leia because she's a senator, why does that matter? I'm pretty sure the news that two planets suffering catastrophic explosions that killed thousands, if not millions, of people and rendered those worlds uninhabitable would be bigger news than the death of one senator. And if the Empire is able to cover that up, it wouldn't be very hard for them to cover up Leia's death.
And on a tangential note; I've got nothing against CGI, but it does really suck that traditional animation's been pushed off to the side over the past few years because studio heads want to try and chase that Pixar money.
I was too young to appreciate it at the time, but now whenever somebody posts a clip or a .GIF from a Don Bluth movie, I'm just struck by the artistry of it. That's not to say that digital animation done right isn't beautiful or worthwhile, but it's a completely different beast from 2D art, and it's a shame to see any art medium get left behind. Especially when some of the best films I've seen come from the Golden Age of Disney animation.
Blank, this past summer at the summer camp which I supervised I had 5-9 year-olds yelling at me to put in my Samurai Jack dvds.
Anecdotal evidence swings both ways.
Yeah but, like I said, every actual child focused cartoon and major franchise I can think of is CGI
Like, can you point out any modern day 5-10 year old targeted media that's hand drawn? Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, Minions, Cars, Finding Dory, etc.
There's a cartoon of old Japanese folktales aimed at very small kids that seems current. But then again, they prefer making hard-drawn animation over there for some reason.
Posts
I think that would have been kind of be lame
I mean I saw Existenz,
I dont know if the Matrix could've brought the same kind of existential horror needed for that ending to land
And now I own Power Rangers 2017.
They aren't making Lion King for another generation of kids, they're making the Lion King for parents who know what the Lion King is already and will drag their kids to something they recognize. Which, obviously makes money, but it's not out of some weird altruistic "for the children," reason. Like, they're running a cartoon right now on the Disney Channel that takes place within the continuity of the existing animated Lion King movies.
And...the Lion King came out in 1994. I'm not going to sit here and pretend it was yesterday, but the "youth of today" are obsessed with the pop culture of the 80s and 90s, they aren't dodging the Lion King en masse because it's "too old looking."
and if all else fails, assemble a gestalt robot the size of an actual galaxy to punch the concept of apathy in the face
It's hard to explain gurren lagann without it sounding like completely stupid anime bullshit, because it's also probably one of the best.
It's 20 years old, but it's still a beautiful movie.
It probably was not for children then either
Kids don't know what they like
They only know what they don't
I'm late in this, but also.
Satans..... hints.....
Cause like 13 year olds and up, sure okay
But I am talking about like 5 year olds and up and they, in my experience, don't give a FUCK about anything older
Like my nephew is 3 and will actively refuse to watch most 2D cartoons (I tried to watch some of the Mickey Mouse shorts with him for example) but will sit and watch Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and the gaggle of cheap ass CGI Disney Junior shows all day long
Like, there is 100% a preference among young kids today for CGI shit over hand drawn, there's a reason that there are very little actual kid focused 2D entertainment while all of the stuff like Steven Universe or Adventure Time are actually for teenagers and adults
Anecdotal evidence swings both ways.
Like, can you point out any modern day 5-10 year old targeted media that's hand drawn? Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, Minions, Cars, Finding Dory, etc.
I'm not gonna pretend there is an ironclad "kids only like CGI" rule or anything but there s loads of evidence that the most popular animated stuff targeted at Actual Children today (and not teenagers and adults) is CGI
Teen Titans
A huge part of the reason there are so many animated films being produced now is that it's less of an ordeal to produce CGI animated movies than it is to produce hand drawn animation. There's a really big reason Disney was the only company that was making them that way, and there's a reason they don't anymore. It's not because kids are like "that cartoon looks like it's for old people," like...these kids grow up with picture books and drawings, hand-drawn cartoons aren't a foreign concept to them
Cheap ass Flash animated shows are all over the place, but very few are targeted at kids
And stuff like Cars still cost 175 million. Contrast that with the last Hand Drawn Disney movie which cost 105
And I would say Ducktales is definitely targeted more at the teen/adult crowd ala Gravity Falls
Like, I'm just saying that there are 100% kids that haven't seen The Lion King or aren't into it that will probably see and enjoy the new one so saying it is a pointless movie just cause you dig the original seems kinda shortsighted
I think one feeds the other. Kids grow up with entertainment aimed at them being cgi and the things their parents want to show them from their own childhoods are hand-drawn. Surely they pick up on that and a lot of kid sure insist on new stuff.
This is actually why I really like playing JRPG's. A regular game would have you fight back against a nebulous destiny, but a JRPG will have you suit up and go tear down the door of a personified "Destiny" followed shortly by beating it to within an inch of its life. Then punch some gods for cooldown stretches.
but that's going to get me going on a rant about how I wish parents would let their kids discover more of their own things rather than force the stuff they liked when they were a kid on them, in whatever form they can get, but whatever. I love the Lion King a whole lot but...I don't think it's a big deal if a kid looks at the Lion King and says "that looks old," and doesn't want to watch it, I don't need Disney to go "well now the lions look like real lions you're welcome." Especially when they're still putting out stuff like Moana or Frozen or Wreck-It-Ralph or anything else, like...whatever, I mean, I don't think saying "a cg lion king movie is kind of pointless" is a terribly controversial statement
but...I've gotta go to bed
Two of the biggest children's cartoon franchises are hand drawn. Spongebob has made about $12 billion in merchandising. Ben 10 has made about $5 billion.
It was big, like 10 years ago, with the first two series
But we got a Jungle Book that's arguably better than the original, and a Beauty and the Beast which was apparently pretty good? And Disney's clearly taking the casting seriously, so maybe there's something to be said for it.
It's just not something I'm interested in, because I still think the original is one of the best movies I've ever watched, and seeing it retold in CGI with a more modern cast of celebrity voice actors really isn't going to somehow improve on that experience.
Well i mean
Aren't you just seeing the same family behavior then
Except she would also know about
As for the Empire not killing Leia because she's a senator, why does that matter? I'm pretty sure the news that two planets suffering catastrophic explosions that killed thousands, if not millions, of people and rendered those worlds uninhabitable would be bigger news than the death of one senator. And if the Empire is able to cover that up, it wouldn't be very hard for them to cover up Leia's death.
I was too young to appreciate it at the time, but now whenever somebody posts a clip or a .GIF from a Don Bluth movie, I'm just struck by the artistry of it. That's not to say that digital animation done right isn't beautiful or worthwhile, but it's a completely different beast from 2D art, and it's a shame to see any art medium get left behind. Especially when some of the best films I've seen come from the Golden Age of Disney animation.
There's a cartoon of old Japanese folktales aimed at very small kids that seems current. But then again, they prefer making hard-drawn animation over there for some reason.