Topic: Movies in the Theater (Read 106695 times)

Ocksi · « **Reply #560 on:** June 28, 2010, 05:12:27 PM »

Toy Story 3 in an internet-ages old image:

Thad · « **Reply #561 on:** June 28, 2010, 05:18:40 PM »

Pooh, promise you won't forget about me, ever. Not even when I'm a hundred.

Brentai · « **Reply #562 on:** June 28, 2010, 05:41:51 PM »

Iiiii promise!

Dooly · « **Reply #563 on:** June 28, 2010, 09:21:10 PM »

Because Lord knows the stuff made for the next generation of kids will be a thousand times worse.

teg · « **Reply #564 on:** July 08, 2010, 01:37:21 PM »

Finally saw Toy Story 3!

This movie is brilliant. Definitely one of Pixar's best.

But...

There's something that's been bothering me since the second movie, and it definitely affected my enjoyment at least a little. A big part of the film is Woody dealing with the fact that he's finally, definitely losing his owner. While incredibly poignant in the context of the film, It loses impact to me because, logically, I can assume that it's not the first time it's happened to Woody.
I mean, think about it. In the second movie, it's shown that Woody is an antique. Given that his show was in black and white, if we assume the movies take place in the year they were made that would make Woody at least fifty years old by now. And it's very unlikely that Andy's parents gave him an unopened and extremely rare antique doll. Woody must have been somebody else's toy before he was Andy's, and I've been dying to know that story since I saw the second movie. Maybe there'll be a Toy Story Zero some day.

Also, major props for making a kind of a legacy joke with [spoiler]Mr. Tortilla Head[/spoiler] (who was hilarious); plus additional props for finding yet another way to bring [spoiler]delusional Space Ranger Buzz[/spoiler] into the mix without it feeling forced.

Oh, and I'm glad [spoiler]Bo Peep wasn't in it. For one thing, she does literally nothing across the span of two movies. Her only role in either film was to be the token female and love interest to Woody. Mrs. Potato Head and Jesse are much better additions to the female cast. Plus she never really fit in with the rest of the cast. For one thing, she doesn't belong to Andy. She belongs to Molly. For another, she's not a toy. She's part of a lamp. Not to sound like a huge bitch, but I felt like her leaving was the only thing she ever really contributed[/spoiler].

Detonator · « **Reply #565 on:** July 08, 2010, 02:33:41 PM »

Quote from: teg on July 08, 2010, 01:37:21 PM

she's not a toy. She's part of a lamp.

Hamm isn't a toy either by any stretch. The fact that he's kept as one with the other toys is kind of a stretch, but I like the character so I won't complain.

Lottel · « **Reply #566 on:** July 08, 2010, 02:46:46 PM »

Hamm isn't kept with the toys, the dirty rotten Evil Dr. Porkchop is kept with the toys.

teg · « **Reply #567 on:** July 08, 2010, 03:42:21 PM »

Hamm is kind of toy-like at least.

I would hazard a guess that the real reason why Bo Peep never contributed anything was that, being made of porcelain, she was too breakable to go through the crap everyone else does. I'm glad they just wrote her out rather than try to try to figure out another way for her to stay home while everyone else goes off on an adventure.

Brentai · « **Reply #568 on:** July 08, 2010, 06:22:19 PM »

My best guess is that she was a one-off that became a two-off.

Thad · « **Reply #569 on:** July 10, 2010, 01:02:37 PM »

Despicable Me was surprisingly good!

It's clearly an animator's movie; the plot is secondary to the highly stylized designs and the movements. And there's a lot to love about them: Gru himself resembles Robert McKimson's Holey Terror crossed with Uncle Fester, and there's plenty of Warner/Mad/Addams wackiness to go around. By and large it makes for a satisfying love letter to the cartoonists of yesteryear, and the gags are funny and revolve around the protagonist being an asshole -- there are a couple that would have been at home in the old Warner shorts but wouldn't make it past S&P today, like a bit where [spoiler]he threatens to kill his neighbor's dog[/spoiler] and a shot where one of the orphans appears to have met a bloody death.

And about those orphans: the movie DOES founder a bit in its last act when Gru realizes he MUST...SAVE...THE CHILDREN!, but it's still a decent enough execution of the cliche.

Also, on the trailers: how the fuck is it that there have been five theatrical Superman movies, and the first one to feature Brainiac as the villain is a goddamn parody starring Will Ferrell?

I guess the same reason that the best Fantastic Four movie is The Incredibles.

Büge · « **Reply #570 on:** July 10, 2010, 02:17:49 PM »

Quote from: Thad on July 10, 2010, 01:02:37 PM

I guess the same reason that the best Watchmen movie is The Incredibles.

Brentai · « **Reply #571 on:** July 10, 2010, 04:05:36 PM »

Quote from: Thad on July 10, 2010, 01:02:37 PM

goddamn parody starring Will Ferrell?

Is there a rule in CG animation that all characters must have one eyebrow raised at all times?

Niku · « **Reply #572 on:** July 10, 2010, 04:23:25 PM »

Royal☭ · « **Reply #573 on:** July 10, 2010, 07:41:58 PM »

I like how that comic glosses over Cars.

And by "glosses over" I mean "ignores because it would ruin the joke".

Brentai · « **Reply #574 on:** July 10, 2010, 07:54:35 PM »

Also Finding Nemo, because GRAAAAAAAAAGH

Lottel · « **Reply #575 on:** July 13, 2010, 01:36:13 AM »

Posted on Norton's official facebook page.It's too bad. I kind of liked him as Bruce.

Fredward · « **Reply #576 on:** July 17, 2010, 03:34:46 PM »

so, inception

huh.

a-

MadMAxJr · « **Reply #577 on:** July 18, 2010, 08:20:05 AM »

Inception requires a bit more thought than your regular summer movie. I loved some of the special effects they pulled off. I did not fully understand the first 30 minutes of the movie until about an hour in. Also did not know this movie is nearly two and a half hours long. It was certainly a creative story and it kept my interest all the way through.

Fredward · « **Reply #578 on:** July 18, 2010, 10:29:34 PM »

maybe it is just because I am the particular kind of douche that enjoys movies like synecdoche, new york, but I was hoping for something more complex. like primer, except with dreams.

clutch · « **Reply #579 on:** July 20, 2010, 02:47:24 PM »

I left Inception feeling very angry. I can suspend disbelief like a motherfucker, but when a film establishes a system with rigid rules--the dreams in this case--on which the whole plot is anchored and then fails to follow those rules, I just can't get past it. Dileep Rao spewed apologetics in the pages of the New York Magazine, trying to explain the nonsensical laws of dreaming that exist in the movie. (spoilers follow)

Quote

Also, you can be in limbo for years and years, subjective limbo time, but in reality only moments have passed.
Yes, a lifetime can go by, because each layer is ten times dilated by going into a dream within a dream within a dream. Um, within a dream.

So if a character descends into a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream (and SPOILERS they do) a person’s brain can magically work at 100000% normal capacity while still maintaining a presence in all the other dream layers? Fuck you.

Quote

But first, as the chemist who invented the sedative, why is it important to synchronize the kicks, the triggers to wake you up?
Well here’s the key: You want to wake all the way up, because if you don’t, you can’t go back up to rekick and wake yourself up. The sedative leaves inner-ear function unimpaired, so you have to feel a jolt in the level you’re asleep in to wake from the level below.

DREAM AVATARS DONT HAVE INNER EARS LET ALONE INNER-EAR FUNCTIONS. And it doesn’t make any sense to me how the brain of the dreamers is supposed to differentiate between real world stimuli and what they’re experiencing in each dream level. Beyond that, there was no explanation for why a person in a second-level dream would not feel what his real body is feeling if he can feel it on the first level.

Also unexplained is how the characters can keep descending in the dream state, since the chemist character formulated the sedative to allow for only 3 dream levels. Even more confusing is why if the architect character can change the dream world in fundamental ways, why doesn’t he just surround the other characters with impenetrable barriers before venturing into deeper dream levels? The writers went to great lengths to show that too many changes in the dream world cause the “projections” to attack, but in each level they were already being attacked as soon as they entered! IT JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE.

And then the whole idea of “totems” is bullshit too! The top that spins and spins and spins in a dream… why? If the dream architect is expected to make changes as subtle as the fabric of Saito’s carpet, why would he overlook making a toy work according to known physics? The rest of the dream artifacts work just like their real-world counterparts (quick examples: the dream machine, the guns, the cars, the elevators, the safes, the keypads) but for some reason a simple top baffles the “most skilled extractor of dreams”. Even stupider is the ending: Leo leaves the magic top spinning, and the film cuts to black before it stops, leaving the audience to wonder if it was all a dream. Earlier in the movie though, Leo himself explains that an extractor alone knows the weight and feel of his totem, so if Leo were in a dream he would have known it the whole time even without spinning the thing. It might have been an interesting development if Leo had known he was in a dream all along and still went through with the heist (and resulting dead wife shenanigans), but the movie's just not structured that way.

I HATE INCEPTION

News:

Author Topic: Movies in the Theater (Read 106695 times)