MovieChat Forums > Wint3rFir3 > Replies
Wint3rFir3's Replies
You know what? I totally agree with you. Nothing is ever at stake in this universe. Dr. Strange was everything you predicted. You're right on pretty much all accounts.
Oh, I'm laughing just reading this and reminiscing. It really is good unintentional comedy. Nic Cage needs to consider comedy as his genre.
I think it's because the formulaic, well-known ones are seen as the standard of what a romance is.
When I think of a good romantic comedy, I always think of Ever After. It's not just a romantic comedy. It's a complete film. It's a period film that talks about actual historical events. There are elements of action and danger, of adventure, of mystery, etc. The actors all serve a purpose, there's a strong plot that plays out well throughout the film, there's a strong villain, a strong protagonist, a strong cast overall. The main characters are well fleshed out and don't simply exist to be in love with someone.
Sadly, not a lot of rom-coms do portray the same amount of complexity and, those that do, are overshadowed by the crap that has come before and what's coming soon. I think you could probably say this about the action genre, too. Not every action film is a Michael Bay explosion and boobs fest.
It is. Hope rewarded.
She's both a badass and charming af.
I actually liked them. Unlike a lot of superhero movies, they weren't super-powered or impervious to danger. There was tension and risk because they had an actual chance of dying, and they were real people affected by a real war and real issues, like PTSD, racism and displacement. It gave the story a lot more depth than, say, X-men, where the only people who can really cause them physical harm is each other and normal people can only hurt their feelings.
The article pointed out that "many tickets were sold", so I think it's dumb given that the people of Lebanon clearly had no problem with the film and wanted to see it. So who is the ban respecting if the people of Lebanon aren't actually against it?
Better than what?
I don't have a problem with it because I think, if you look at ancient tribes throughout history, nudity and sexuality were regarded with a lot less conservatism than now. When conservatism became a big thing, like in the 1920s, characters like Wonder Woman became a symbol of empowerment. You have to remember that Wonder Woman was published in 1941, a time when sexual empowerment for women meant something different than it does today. It wouldn't make sense for her to feel empowered wearing...what, a floral button-up frock ala Mad Men?
Also, Wonder Woman's mythology has roots in BDSM, so she's supposed to be a sexual character. It doesn't matter, I guess, if she's objectified - because let's face it, she's an attractive woman - but that she herself is a sexual being, with desire is important. Superman lusts after Lois Lane. Batman lusts after women. Both of them are attractive and we as the audience can objectify them - but they're not just sexually desirable; they both sexually desire others. Wonder Woman is the same - and unlike Batman and Superman, WW isn't trying to 'cover up' or hide her identity in this film.
I don't really have a favourite genre, though I tend to be more intrigued by fantasy. I think that's because to me, anything can happen in a fantasy and the possibilities are endless, but a good one is also really grounded in truth. I used to be a huge fan of Stephen King films because, though often labelled as horror, they really encompass so much. They're so blended.
I guess I'm most interested in hybrid genre films, where you get a bit of everything.
She's not even a real daughter of Zeus, how does that work?
That was sarcasm, by the way.
Make me not like her. She's failing terribly at that, and I'm not mad at it.
Thanks for making me cry-laugh.
Agreed, this movie is very layered. It's almost surprising when you go back and watch it, how much it got away with saying.
In an interview, she said she was while filming.
I definitely think your experience is universal. I remember parents going into shops to buy their kids the explicit versions of Eminen albums. How many parents are willing to spend money on music for their kids - or even willing to let them listen to certain music nowadays unless they deem that singer PC?
I agree that the internet occupies a lot of time, more time than what is spent on watching TV. But I think if there were no internet, then more money and effort would be going into making TV, which is weird given how much is going into it now. But I do remember being a lot more invested in what was on TV as a kid when the internet wasn't a big deal.
And if that were the case, TV networks would be struggling more than they are currently - in other words, I think the divide in who can watch "good" TV and who can't afford it would be far greater than now, and that's saying something.
Also, by your logic, seeing as how we are far from the days of distress caused by WWII, there's less of a need for entertainment to get by on. So the movie industry should have died by now.
I think the assumption that films would be cheaper to buy and see in theaters if there were no piracy is unlikely. I don't know why people actually think this would be the price. If the internet ceased to exist today, do you think DVD prices and movie ticket prices would go down? I personally do not. Movies tickets were not $1 when I was a kid - given the money that goes into movies, why would they be this much nowadays?
Damn, I'm pretty much seeing all my favorites on this list.