moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ll go with when they acquired Marvel. That’s when they got incredibly obnoxious to me, but I suppose they’ve been evil for longer than that.

I place the birth of modern Disney after the end of the Disney Renaissance, when they stopped making traditionally animated films and started producing pop tarts like Miley Cyrus.

That’s at about the same time, isn’t it? She was in the late 2000s, wasn’t she?

I think the Marvel acquisition happened a couple years after her big debut, but yeah, essentially around the same time.

Weird, almost like the same time you guys became adults. But there definitely isn’t a connection there.

Disney shoving revolting products into my face every which way I turn isn’t connected with me becoming an adult.

I don’t see how what they’re doing now is much different than what they’ve always done.

EDIT: I also hate how they’ve handled Star Wars and I hate how they handle their classic movies and I hate how they’re remaking all of their animated features into boring CGI and live-action films.

The handling of Star Wars lies in LFL, not Disney. I’m not sure what they’ve done to their classic movies? Remaking their animated features isn’t entirely new (101 Dalmatians, Jungle Book), and CGI is pretty much the only way to tackle some of those stories.

Basically, who gives a fuck.

You can say “who gives a fuck” about anything. Obviously I’m not losing sleep over this, but I still find it lazy and revolting the way they suck the soul out of great classics and then regurgitate them as boring shells of their former selves. And Disney’s shadow looms large over Lucasfilm.

Using strong words like “revolting” and “hate” makes it sound like you give a lot of a fuck, which is silly. I personally don’t think they’ve changed in any significant way. It just seems like a ridiculous complaint to make.

As for LFL, I suppose it depends on what you dislike about their output.

DominicCobb said:

I had such thigh hopes for this thread.

Fixed(?)

SilverWook said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ll go with when they acquired Marvel. That’s when they got incredibly obnoxious to me, but I suppose they’ve been evil for longer than that.

I place the birth of modern Disney after the end of the Disney Renaissance, when they stopped making traditionally animated films and started producing pop tarts like Miley Cyrus.

That’s at about the same time, isn’t it? She was in the late 2000s, wasn’t she?

I think the Marvel acquisition happened a couple years after her big debut, but yeah, essentially around the same time.

Weird, almost like the same time you guys became adults. But there definitely isn’t a connection there.

Disney shoving revolting products into my face every which way I turn isn’t connected with me becoming an adult.

I don’t see how what they’re doing now is much different than what they’ve always done.

EDIT: I also hate how they’ve handled Star Wars and I hate how they handle their classic movies and I hate how they’re remaking all of their animated features into boring CGI and live-action films.

The handling of Star Wars lies in LFL, not Disney. I’m not sure what they’ve done to their classic movies? Remaking their animated features isn’t entirely new (101 Dalmatians, Jungle Book), and CGI is pretty much the only way to tackle some of those stories.

Basically, who gives a fuck.

Slathering their animated classics with DNR and questionable color correction to the point they don’t look like vintage animation anymore? And don’t get me started on Fantasia’s last so called restoration.
I can ignore the pointless remakes, but treat the the originals like the crown jewels they are.
If they did a live action The Black Cauldron I might be slightly interested in that though.

I don’t own any of their animated classics on BD so that was a legitimate question.

I was actually thinking recently that I’d like to get Fantasia, is there any good release of that?

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ll go with when they acquired Marvel. That’s when they got incredibly obnoxious to me, but I suppose they’ve been evil for longer than that.

I place the birth of modern Disney after the end of the Disney Renaissance, when they stopped making traditionally animated films and started producing pop tarts like Miley Cyrus.

That’s at about the same time, isn’t it? She was in the late 2000s, wasn’t she?

I think the Marvel acquisition happened a couple years after her big debut, but yeah, essentially around the same time.

Weird, almost like the same time you guys became adults. But there definitely isn’t a connection there.

Disney shoving revolting products into my face every which way I turn isn’t connected with me becoming an adult.

I don’t see how what they’re doing now is much different than what they’ve always done.

EDIT: I also hate how they’ve handled Star Wars and I hate how they handle their classic movies and I hate how they’re remaking all of their animated features into boring CGI and live-action films.

The handling of Star Wars lies in LFL, not Disney. I’m not sure what they’ve done to their classic movies? Remaking their animated features isn’t entirely new (101 Dalmatians, Jungle Book), and CGI is pretty much the only way to tackle some of those stories.

Basically, who gives a fuck.

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ll go with when they acquired Marvel. That’s when they got incredibly obnoxious to me, but I suppose they’ve been evil for longer than that.

I place the birth of modern Disney after the end of the Disney Renaissance, when they stopped making traditionally animated films and started producing pop tarts like Miley Cyrus.

That’s at about the same time, isn’t it? She was in the late 2000s, wasn’t she?

I think the Marvel acquisition happened a couple years after her big debut, but yeah, essentially around the same time.

Weird, almost like the same time you guys became adults. But there definitely isn’t a connection there.

I had such high hopes for this thread.

SilverWook said:

You know they’ll raise ticket prices just in time for the Star Wars land to open. I miss the days of ticket books which allowed you to more or less spend money on the rides you actually wanted to go on.

I need to make sure I get an annual ticket in time for that.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I hate modern Disney.

I think Disney knows. As a child I got excited by the castle opening of their movies. Classic Disney was great. If Disney was still held in such regard, it would have been proud to start TFA and TLJ with its Disney castle in lieu of the necessarily omitted Fox fanfare.

I was initially surprised by this but it makes sense as a branding decision. Marvel doesn’t have the Disney logo either, and I figure Pixar wouldn’t too if they didn’t already and if the Pixar/Disney Animation confusion wasn’t mutually beneficial.

Shopping Maul said:

Creox said:

Ms. Thrawn said:

I’m subscribed to a ton of reviewers and critics on YouTube whose opinions tend to vary from one another on a lot of things. But the only name I can think of off the top of my head who gave TLJ a glowing review would be Movie Bob. Doug Walker gave it a mostly positive, if I remember right?

Other than that, my subscription updates and recommendations have been inundated with negative reviews since the movie came out. YouTube has a kind of cynical culture going to it anyway, but I’ve never seen the hate bandwagon toward a work of fiction reach “Look What This Cuh-raaazy SJW Feminist Did On Campus” levels until now. I’m pretty sure there’s what amounts to a zombie horde of angry fans waiting to rip Kathleen Kennedy and Rian Johnson to shreds at the first opportunity, if the comments on a lot of those videos are any hint.

TLJ is just OK in my opinion, and I don’t rush to its defense. That said, if you want to call the backlash against it a little bit ridiculous, then you might have something there.

The informed and rational detractors of the film get washed up in the wave of hysteria you mention in your last sentence. That being said I find it puzzling why someone would spend so much time posting on a film they don’t like. I am talking to people like Dre who is obviously taking the time and feels passionately about his thoughts on the film. He makes good points but is unswayed so…why continue talking about it? IMO he feels (like many do in his position) that we will finally see the light and agree with him. Disney is not going to change their film.

And yes, it makes more sense to me to continue to talk about a film you like then one you dislike simply because most people are not bothered to keep engaged in activities they dislike. If I don’t like a book I stop reading, If I don’t like a song on the radio I switch stations etc. But if I DO like that song I listen to it a lot and tell other people about it.

I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I think at some level I’m hoping to be swayed. As a fan I want to be able to keep enjoying Star Wars. If someone can offer me a better way to view aspects of the film that bug me (Holdo’s withholding information, new canon regarding the Force, Luke’s personality etc) then I’m all for it.

Thing is, those are things that are all explained in the film and have been discussed ad nauseam here. Either you buy it, or you don’t. Sounds like you don’t, and I’m not sure there’s anything that could be added to the last 241 pages that’d sway you one way or the other.

Mocata said:

It’s the perspective or something where they painted over the original photo

http://www.starwarsarchives.com/dt_gallery/scene-04-icy-goodbye/

They chose the weirdest looking picture of Harrison I think I’ve ever seen.

I mean, a lot of that is true for some people, but I don’t see how that article is productive.

Mrebo said:

Nobody saying gray yet.

I found another white hair today. Oddly enough, right next to it I found a red hair. Don’t know why.

Dark brown, though at a glance it looks like it could be black.

paja said:

What is up with Han’s face?

yhwx said:

Handman said:

Wow, this thread sucks.

It sucked from the first microsecond it was created.

Yeah.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.

First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.

I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.

Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.

DominicCobb said:

Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.

You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.

I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.

I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.

Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.

To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.

That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.

I don’t think so, Dom.

If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.

Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.

Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.

You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.

My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.

A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.

Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?

Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???

Read that exchange again, we’re talking about a hypothetical.

You asked if the theatrical cut would be worse than the original, the only way that could be is if they are different.

That wasn’t what I said.

Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?

Those are two separate questions. “It” refers to the hypothetical altered version. The theatrical and the original are the same.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.

First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.

I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.

Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.

DominicCobb said:

Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.

You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.

I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.

I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.

Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.

To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.

That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.

I don’t think so, Dom.

If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.

Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.

Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.

You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.

My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.

A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.

Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?

Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???

Read that exchange again, we’re talking about a hypothetical.

You asked if the theatrical cut would be worse than the original, the only way that could be is if they are different.

That wasn’t what I said.

Obviously. So are the walkie talkies. But who cares?

HAN SHOOTS FIRST!

You’re missing my point.

aren’t I always?

I guess so?

Possessed said:

Knock it off.

Also Han didn’t shoot first. He shot only.

Also last I heard “fup ur” wasn’t even allowed as a joke anymore (Which in and of itself is funnier than the actual joke ever could have been…). Is jokingly saying fuck you flying again? Coz I’m in favor of that.

Fuck you neglify.

Wook told me to play nice right after, so no.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.

First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.

I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.

Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.

DominicCobb said:

Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.

You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.

I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.

I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.

Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.

To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.

That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.

I don’t think so, Dom.

If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.

Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.

Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.

You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.

My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.

A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.

Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?

Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???

Read that exchange again, we’re talking about a hypothetical.

Obviously. So are the walkie talkies. But who cares?

HAN SHOOTS FIRST!

You’re missing my point.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.

First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.

I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.

Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.

DominicCobb said:

Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.

You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.

I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.

I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.

Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.

To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.

That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.

I don’t think so, Dom.

If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.

Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.

Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.

You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.

My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.

A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.

Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original? Obviously. So are the walkie talkies. But who cares?

I’m not saying people can’t criticize changes like this (especially if its more prominent like that would be, instead of the very minor-blink-and-you-miss-it ET change). It’s just silly to act like it’s the end of the world.

The other factor would be who is the one making the changes? If Spielberg wants to do a new cut of Raiders with that change it’s silly, but who cares. If the studio decides to impose this new cut, different story. But with a theme park the dynamics are completely different.

Cretin is not how I’d describe all of them, mostly they’re just people wasting their time and energy getting worked up about nothing. Framing the potential agenda in positive terms is just natural, there’s nothing nefarious about removing something that many people find demeaning to women, whether it objectively is or isn’t (of course, hard to apply objectivity in something such as this).

As for fighting against the “PC agenda,” I’ll rarely ever find that not silly.

The old PotC display was more demeaning to pirates, imho. The women were obviously victims portrayed in a sympathetic light and in no way condoning the treatment. That’s why I’m fine with seeing it go. Pirates are kind-hearted souls when it comes down to it. If you don’t believe me, go watch the movies.

Yay! I get to dictionsplain!

demean (verb): "cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something).“
synonyms: degrading, humiliating, shameful, mortifying, abject, ignominious, undignified, inglorious
"a demeaning experience”

Also, there’s a difference between a theme park ride and a PG-13 movie.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Well you obviously aren’t too worried about offending people like me, but you’re so in favor of political correctness because it preserves the feelings of people.

Why should I be worried that saying “fuck you” might offend you when it’s a very commonly known running joke here?

That joke got shut down and I was publicly reprimanded and chastised for using it a while back and it hasn’t been used since so I assumed it wasn’t a joke.

Wait, is telling someone “fuck you” allowed here if it’s not a joke?

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

• Batman: Mask of the Phantasm on 35mm

Wait, that came out before you were born? I feel so old.

I did say “Well, I guess it doesn’t have to be before you were born, any years later rerelease will do.”

Oh I missed that. This thread is suddenly less fun and less aggravating at the same time.

In fairness, I doubt anyone’s paid attention to that part of my post.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Just remembered I saw Close Encounters this past fall. Don’t know how I could’ve forgotten that, saw it in the Cinerama Dome and cried my eyes out.

This story has stuck with me since I first heard it:

In a making-of documentary commemorating the 20th anniversary of the 1977 film, [Spielberg] said, “I would never have made Close Encounters the way I made it in ‘77, because I have a family that I would never leave. That was just the privilege of youth.”

I think about that every time I watch it. I still wonder if that would have made it better or worse. I usually just settle on different.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

• Batman: Mask of the Phantasm on 35mm

Wait, that came out before you were born? I feel so old.

I did say “Well, I guess it doesn’t have to be before you were born, any years later rerelease will do.”

That doesn’t mean it didn’t come out before I was born. Just it might have. I’m keeping it ambiguous (no one’s guessed my age correctly yet in that thread).

Just remembered I saw Close Encounters this past fall. Don’t know how I could’ve forgotten that, saw it in the Cinerama Dome and cried my eyes out.