[QuickTidal]

I mean you had me at the HOOK-type premise...add in original Pooh voice Jim Cummings....make the star Ewan McGregor (one of my fave actors working)...and give us a stunningly perfect voice cast (including Chris O'Dowd as Tigger, Peter Capaldi as Rabbit, Brad Garret as Eeyore, and Sophie Okonedo as Kanga....and I mean....I wants it NOW please.

[Macros]

Cgi on poohs face didn't look great there, but it might need polished more.

[worry]

If Tigger starts using a cell phone in this, so help me...!

That said, it actually looks really sweet, just from those moments. And Jim Cummings' voice hits like every nostalgia button in my brain at once.

[Malankazooie]

I see it having a lot of issues based on how Peter Rabbit was received. The triple S contingent (Sensitive Sally Snowflakes) are not going to have a great time with Tigger's "microagressions" towards Pooh.

[QuickTidal]

Watched TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT….last night (ba-dum-tish).

And I’m not sure what the complaints were about it. Sure, it’s batshit ridiculous, but it has a plot that could easily have been lifted from a 3-episode arc of the old TV series. I think some of the complaints about this series forget what it started as, and what everyone enjoyed about the original G1 cartoons. Because this very much fits with that. It’s a bunch of overt, convoluted nonsense…and it’s a hell of a good time to watch.

But then I’m a sucker for Anthony Hopkins, and anything with King Arthur or Knights and such. Add in Unicron and one of the Quintessons…and you have the recipe for a really enjoyable 2.5hours of entertainment. It’s certainly better than AoE (in which I also found stuff to like).

I will say this though, Laura Haddock (the British actress who plays the love interest for Cade, and lynchpin of the whole plot) is what you’d get if Megan Fox and Olivia Wilde had a baby…and I’m convinced that Michael Bay just has a Megan Fox fetish at this point, cause she looks a LOT like her.

And I still hate Wahlberg in pretty much every way as an actor….but I was able to deal with him in this because he was pretty bland.

Anyways, not the worst TF movie by a long shot (I think that distinction still goes to TF2 or TF3), and easily worth the $0.99 rental.

[worry]

Speaking of complaints, I watched Justice League. Let's just say it wasn't half bad.

Spoiler

It was 2/3 bad!

JK, it was more like 2/3 mediocre. The way WW was great until the final fight, and then that was just kinda serviceable....most of this movie fell in that okay range. Not glaringly, abrasively awful like B vs S.

But I did like the waking up Superman section. There was danger and humor and pathos, and all were well done! And the "do you bleed" callback was actually effective and even chilling. Next scene, of course, Superman is back to his old self, but as nice and soothing as Amy Adams can be, I think it was mostly because Zack Snyder is incompetent and lazy. Steppenwolf was a solid villain though and it was cool to see him and the parademons in the flesh.

The DCEU movies, in my ranking, are WW >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MoS = JL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Suicide Squad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BvS

[Malankazooie]

Final trailer before movie comes out? Don't watch though, spoils everything.

[Aptorian]

Went and saw Black Panther earlier. I think it's a good film that could have been a great film if they'd worked more with the plot.

The third act pretty much ruined the film I think. It's sloppy and makes little sense. Black Panther doesn't earn his victory, nor was I invested in the fight between the "so called" bad guy and Black Panther. The story was neither personal enough for T'challa, nor dangerous enough for national security, that I really gave much of a fuck about the fight. I feel like, from a skewed perspective, in the second half of the film T'challa is the ursurper and Killmonger was the hero. Which I guess makes the film a modern tradgedy.

Spoiler

The revolutionary died to change the status quo and in his death affected a change in the wider world

I think the story would have worked much better as a second film and they should have gone with a less revolutionary storyline. Like The Dark Knight as a sequel to Batman Begins. As a viewer I was no where familiar enough with Wakanda or T'challa's people for me to care about what was happening. The story moved too fast for me to feel like any of it truly mattered. For the fall to matter first there has to be a rise.

I think Claw and Gorilla Chieftain would have been a better pick for a first film, which could have been the introduction for this Killmonger character, instead of just springing him on the viewer in a matter of 30 minutes.

All of that aside, I do think it was a good film. Felt like a real Disney film at times, what with them going condensed African culture on the viewer. I do think the question about why Wakanda doesn't share it's technology was an important one. All through out the film I asking myself why the hell don't they just hand out Black Panther cool aid to all the warriors and mass produce the ridiculously overpowered cat suit? I would have liked a dream dimension:

Spoiler

appearance of Bast the kitty goddess. Especially when Killmonger drunk the purple drank. I think it would have been effective for Bast to actually bless Killmonger and accept his intention of helping the world through war. Meanwhile dialing back the unnecessary villain antics. They could have twisted Killmonger's plans a bit and just made them grey instead of being as murderous as depicted.

Speaking of which I think they actually spoiled Black Panther's image by allowing him lose clean to Killmonger at the waterfalls. You don't have the hero lose clean in hand to hand combat. That undermines the perception of the hero and the villain. It made Black Panther look like a loser and at the same time actually legitimized Killmonger's rule. He earned his spot by their own rules.

This is why I've become more and more convinced that more writers should study the tradional baby face and heel dynamic in show wrestling. This stuff is crucial in how you shape the viewer/readers perception of the characters.

Anyway, I do wish I'd saved the ticket money because the film had nothing at all to do with the Infinity War build up. Seems strange to spend an entire film on Wakanda without actually tying it into the wider story. But hey, congratulations to African fans, they usually get overlooked.

Also watched Guardians of the Galaxy 2 yesterday. Now that was a fun film. Didn't take itself too serious. Completely silly plot and hilarious scenes. I love how well the individual characters mesh with one another. Especially Drax was really allowed to shine in this film. It's a shame they completely neutered his character and de-powered him but man is he funny.

I think Kurt Russel was just okay in his role, feel like they should have gone more megalomaniac with him but Michael Rooker really stole the show in this film. I've always loved that fine line he walks between seeming charming and dangerous. He was born to play a bad guy.

Spoiler

Any of you know what the hell the plan is with the Adam Warlock Cocoon in the after credits? I assume it's Adam Warlock anyway. Looks exactly like the comic book version of the chrysalis he emerges from.

The first Infinity War film comes out in April. Seems way too late to introduce Warlock at that stage. He's just going to become a deus ex machina solution to Thanos power I assume, which seems cheap. They won't have earned anything if they don't explain the relationship between Thanos and Adam Warlock.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 18 March 2018 - 06:42 PM

[D'rek]

Alternative Goose, on 18 March 2018 - 06:32 PM, said:

Spoiler

Any of you know what the hell the plan is with the Adam Warlock Cocoon in the after credits? I assume it's Adam Warlock anyway. Looks exactly like the comic book version of the chrysalis he emerges from.

The first Infinity War film comes out in April. Seems way too late to introduce Warlock at that stage. He's just going to become a deus ex machina solution to Thanos power I assume, which seems cheap. They won't have earned anything if they don't explain the relationship between Thanos and Adam Warlock.

Spoiler

Infinity War is full of enough characters as it is. The Adam Warlock (and for that matter the original Guardians bit if that ever leads gets a follow-up) has got to be just setup for some future GotG 3 / Ms Marvel / etc movie, right?

[Aptorian]

Could be. I guess they might already be stacking cards for what ever is planned for the Marvel Universe post-Thanos. Who comes next I wonder?

Doubt it will be Dark Phoenix. Could be Galactus with some kind of twist? Secret War Skrull invasion? Could be the Phallanx techno virus? It has to be some cosmic threat if Adam Warlock is meant to be utilized.

[worry]

Ouija: Origin of Evil -- This was getting hyped as a surprise success after the (apparently) lousy, generic first one which I didn't watch. It's from Mike Flanagan, who made Hush and Oculus (and Gerald's Game, after this) which were all pretty good. But despite some good early moments in the setup stage, and all-around solid performances, this movie suuuuucks. It's PG-13 (probably the Hasbro connection), there are no scares, hokey CGI, and it gets really stupid really fast in the final act.

A Bad Moms Christmas -- As you may remember (and by 'you' I mean QuickTidal), I didn't really like the first one despite being a fan of the cast. This is essentially the same movie, just with all their moms showing up to cause drama, but I have to say the jokes just landed more often. It's still full of goofy montages and sitcom humor w/ R-level raunch, it often doesn't make any sense from scene to scene, and it's too long even at 1:45, but whatever. I laughed more than the first one. I give it 2.3 stars out of 5.

[worry]

Never heard of it.

[Slow Ben]

worry, on 19 March 2018 - 01:10 AM, said:

Never heard of it.

Lucky bastard.

[QuickTidal]

So Wes Anderson's new one ISLE OF DOGS is getting some (IMHO WELL deserved) backlash for appropriation and disrespect of Japanese culture.

I don't like Anderson's films anyways...but yeah, this flick is surprisingly tone deaf.

[D'rek]

I don't get it.

The Japanese characters speaking Japanese is cultural appropriation? One non-Japanese character attacking a Japanese character is emblematic of an entire cultural stereotype instead of just a thing that happens between characters in almost any movie...?

Seems to me if the Japanese characters all spoke fluent English throughout the whole movie and if there was no violence at all this article author would have written the exact same thing, saying it was "cultural appropriation" for Anderson to not have them speak their own language and that having a peaceful film is only reinforcing stereotypes.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 23 March 2018 - 02:17 PM, said:

I don't get it.

The Japanese characters speaking Japanese is cultural appropriation? One non-Japanese character attacking a Japanese character is emblematic of an entire cultural stereotype instead of just a thing that happens between characters in almost any movie...?

Seems to me if the Japanese characters all spoke fluent English throughout the whole movie and if there was no violence at all this article author would have written the exact same thing, saying it was "cultural appropriation" for Anderson to not have them speak their own language and that having a peaceful film is only reinforcing stereotypes.

I think the point is more that he's purposely set a movie in Japan, and has everyone (all the dogs) speaking American English. It's setting a story immersed in a culture, but then purposely distancing itself from that culture. It's a weird and kind of tone deaf choice, for a place that is still such an homogenized, and non-melting pot country.

I can see both sides of the argument, and perhaps appropriation isn't the right word, but to me at least I do see the problem with it. I think this is why Disney went out of its way to make something like Moana have a diverse and closer to accurate voice cast since it was set in the South Pacific and involved native culture there. In this case, I think this problem goes away if you have the dogs speak in japanese and subtitle them and there is no reason he could not have done that. It's like Ridley Scott....he didn't get a pass on EXODUS having white actors portraying his characters in an explicitly north African / middle eastern tale...but apparently Anderson does?

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 23 March 2018 - 02:37 PM, said:

D, on 23 March 2018 - 02:17 PM, said:

I don't get it.

The Japanese characters speaking Japanese is cultural appropriation? One non-Japanese character attacking a Japanese character is emblematic of an entire cultural stereotype instead of just a thing that happens between characters in almost any movie...?

Seems to me if the Japanese characters all spoke fluent English throughout the whole movie and if there was no violence at all this article author would have written the exact same thing, saying it was "cultural appropriation" for Anderson to not have them speak their own language and that having a peaceful film is only reinforcing stereotypes.

I think the point is more that he's purposely set a movie in Japan, and has everyone (all the dogs) speaking American English. It's setting a story immersed in a culture, but then purposely distancing itself from that culture. It's a weird and kind of tone deaf choice, for a place that is still such an homogenized, and non-melting pot country.

I can see both sides of the argument, and perhaps appropriation isn't the right word, but to me at least I do see the problem with it. I think this is why Disney went out of its way to make something like Moana have a diverse and closer to accurate voice cast since it was set in the South Pacific and involved native culture there. In this case, I think this problem goes away if you have the dogs speak in japanese and subtitle them and there is no reason he could not have done that. It's like Ridley Scott....he didn't get a pass on EXODUS having white actors portraying his characters in an explicitly north African / middle eastern tale...but apparently Anderson does?

The difference is that in Moana or Exodus the characters were human. The only "culturally appropriate" way to voice dog characters would be with actual dogs. If he'd had Japanese people voice the dogs, they'd say he was insulting Japanese people by calling them dogs.

And obviously this movie is being made for an English-speaking audience, so he's not going to have the entire thing be in subtitled Japanese any more than Baccano the anime had all its characters speak in American English with Japanese subtitles.

For that matter, what do you think Disney did with Moana in all the non-English-speaking countries? They didn't just release it with all those "culturally appropriate" voices and subtitles... they re-dubbed it. So is the Japanese version of Moana (where all the human polynesian characters are speaking fluent Japanese and voiced by Japanese voice actors) cultural appropriation? I would argue that cultural authenticity of the setting and the narrative matters far more than who the voice actors are.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 23 March 2018 - 02:59 PM, said:

The difference is that in Moana or Exodus the characters were human. The only "culturally appropriate" way to voice dog characters would be with actual dogs. If he'd had Japanese people voice the dogs, they'd say he was insulting Japanese people by calling them dogs.

Wait, are you implying that Japanese dogs would hear/speak/think in English voices? That's weird. The assumption that "barking" equals "English" is (as the reviewer noted) ludicrous.

D, on 23 March 2018 - 02:59 PM, said:

And obviously this movie is being made for an English-speaking audience, so he's not going to have the entire thing be in subtitled Japanese any more than Baccano the anime had all its characters speak in American English with Japanese subtitles.

This somehow makes it okay? As if English audiences can't parse a film that takes place IN Japan is the actors don't speak English instead of Japanese?

D, on 23 March 2018 - 02:59 PM, said:

For that matter, what do you think Disney did with Moana in all the non-English-speaking countries? They didn't just release it with all those "culturally appropriate" voices and subtitles... they re-dubbed it.

Except dubbing is a different thing. Dubbing is taking an existing piece of media (made in whatever language it's made in), and dubbing over it to make it understood in other countries without needing to use subtitles. This is not that. At all.

D, on 23 March 2018 - 02:59 PM, said:

So is the Japanese version of Moana (where all the human polynesian characters are speaking fluent Japanese and voiced by Japanese voice actors) cultural appropriation? I would argue that cultural authenticity of the setting and the narrative matters far more than who the voice actors are.

You're making a false equivalency between "English dubbed" foreign movies, and a movie that purposely is set in Japan and concerns Japanese culture where almost all the characters, inexplicably, speak English.

These are two totally different things.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 March 2018 - 03:15 PM

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 23 March 2018 - 03:15 PM, said:

D, on 23 March 2018 - 02:59 PM, said:

The difference is that in Moana or Exodus the characters were human. The only "culturally appropriate" way to voice dog characters would be with actual dogs. If he'd had Japanese people voice the dogs, they'd say he was insulting Japanese people by calling them dogs.

Wait, are you implying that Japanese dogs would hear/speak/think in English voices? That's weird. The assumption that "barking" equals "English" is (as the reviewer noted) ludicrous.

I'm outright saying that dogs would hear/speak/think in Pupperese. Having dogs speak Japanese is just as inaccurate as having them speak English, or Swahili, or Sanskrit.

QuickTidal, on 23 March 2018 - 03:15 PM, said:

D, on 23 March 2018 - 02:59 PM, said:

And obviously this movie is being made for an English-speaking audience, so he's not going to have the entire thing be in subtitled Japanese any more than Baccano the anime had all its characters speak in American English with Japanese subtitles.

This somehow makes it okay? As if English audiences can't parse a film that takes place IN Japan is the actors don't speak English instead of Japanese?

Yes, this is totally okay. It's ludicrous to proclaim that any film must only be acted in the language of its setting. Indian audiences can parse subtitles, too, so Jaanemann (Bollywood film) should have been acted entirely in American English with subtitles? Brave should have been voiced entirely in old Gaelic with subtitles? Lord of the Rings should have been entirely in Elvish/other Tolkien languages with subtitles? The Berlin File (a Korean film) should have been in German with subtitles?

Why wasn't Moana done entirely in [appropriate Polynesian language for the location and time period] with subtitles?

QuickTidal, on 23 March 2018 - 03:15 PM, said:

D, on 23 March 2018 - 02:59 PM, said:

For that matter, what do you think Disney did with Moana in all the non-English-speaking countries? They didn't just release it with all those "culturally appropriate" voices and subtitles... they re-dubbed it.

Except dubbing is a different thing. Dubbing is taking an existing piece of media (made in whatever language it's made in), and dubbing over it to make it understood in other countries without needing to use subtitles. This is not that. At all.

Ok, fair enough.

[Malankazooie]

Holy crap! Have you guys watched the new Deadpool 2 trailer? (it's poppin all over the intrawebs, so can't be missed). Well the dude who played Pennywise in It - you know the real life brother of Floki and the vampire from True Blood? Well, get this, he is in the new Deadpool movie and in the trailer he looks like the spitting image of a young Steve Buscemi.



Isn't that a barrel of heeeeyucks?