MovieChat Forums > capuchin > Replies
capuchin's Replies
<blockquote>Haven't kept up with Pixarbin a lil while but they've made some excellent stuff. </blockquote>
No. Been a while since I've seen one too. They appear to have gone down the endless sequels route, which is a shame. Because they've made some great films.
<blockquote>I've actually worked with & met actual adults who liked Mickey. </blockquote>
Fair enough. I just always think of Mickey Mouse as being terribly old-fashioned. But that's largely because I only really know the character from very early cartoons and, of course, from being the symbol of the company. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure I know what Mickey Mouse's character even is.
You know. Donald Duck: futile rage. What's Mickey's thing? I don't know.
So that's probably my ignorance. I take back the 'World War II' thing.
None.
Can't wear anything around my neck, wrist or on my fingers. Feels restrictive. It's practically a phobia. Not even a wrist watch. Before phones had clocks on them, I used to have an old-fashioned pocket watch. People thought I was being 'hip' or something, but I was just being practical.
Now I come to think of it, that's probably the most eccentric thing about me: can't wear jewellery.
Although I don't think I'd have a problem with dangling something from my ear... but I never have.
No. Mickey Mouse is boring. Has anyone genuinely been a Mickey Mouse 'fan' since, I dunno, World War II?
Even as a kid, I was never fond of the 'classic' Disney characters. Always vastly preferred the anarchy of Looney Tunes. Give me Daffy Duck over Donald Duck any old day.
In fact, I even preferred the cheap, semi-animated Hanna-Barbera cartoons to Disney. And crap like Dogtanian and Cities of Gold. I never liked Disney. In fact, I have strong memories of getting to that age where you start working out that the stuff you're watching on TV is actually made by people... and starting to link the name 'Disney' to things I wasn't that keen on.
And then for all sorts of reasons, I developed a deep dislike of the Walt Disney Company as a teenager. And that sentiment has never really left me.
A lot of the Pixar stuff is good though. Credit where it's due.
There's so much stuff being released onto so many streaming services that someone would probably have to make editorial decisions about what to add and what to exclude.
Theatrical distribution still means something. It still has a prestige that, say, a Tubi Original just doesn't.
So, no, I would not support this change.
Sure. But Hanton's worldview doesn't contradict mine in any meaningful way. We agree with each other. He analyses business. I'm talking here about the geo-political architecture that drives that.
In Europe, the business influence of the USA is highly dependent on the security arrangements. This has been the case for eighty years. You remove that central plank of American power, and everything else recedes along with it... even including the UK, which is the European country most tangled up with American business and culture.
I'm familiar with Angus Hanton. I've read his book, Vassal State.
Credit where it is due: the Americans are correct about European security having been too reliant on the USA. That must be addressed.
But they don't understand the implications of changing the post-war arrangement. Security has been their bargaining chip since 1945. Without that, Europe has no more use for America than America has for Europe. These people don't understand soft power.
Nothing will change overnight. But we're about to see eight decades of Americanisation start to go into reverse. Why do we have so many McDonalds franchises on our continent? Why do we consume so much of their entertainment? Why do we permit them to own our football clubs? &c. All exciting questions that will be asked in the coming years and decades.
As someone who wants Europe to be more European and less American, I welcome it.
Pour le bénéfice du spectateur.
Maybe. You could certainly look at it that way. For me, they're advertising: 'Contains scenes that some viewers may find disturbing.'
YES!!!
They don't bother me. I barely notice them.
But there should probably be an option to disable the feature for people who prefer to go into things completely blind.
They're good for the people who make use of them and I've no problem with that; but for those of us who don't... yeah, the ability to turn them off would probably be a nice compromise.
Because it informs Rose's character - she is rebelling against the codes and expectations of her class and era. Sex is a facet of that rebellion.
And because it's a 1990s entertainment blockbuster designed to be understood and enjoyed by a 1990s mainstream audience; it isn't an academic exercise.
I don't either. I don't even clock the ratings of films, let alone look at the additional information / warnings. Well, except when I see them in the corner of my eye and say 'Ooooh, nudity and graphic violence. Good-o.'
But they're clearly useful to some people and they don't inconvenience me, so I'm perfectly happy for them to exist.
I'm in favour of content warnings so that consumers can make informed choices about what they watch.
But the 2019 version seems entirely sufficient to me; the 2020 version is just self-congratulatory corporate back-slapping and comes across as insincere anyway: 'Disney is committed to... blah blah blah.' No-one needs a company mission statement every time they watch a film.
Let's hope so.
I was pretty confident they'd beat Tottenham this evening. Because, you know, they're Tottenham. But I think Newcastle in a final - out to win their first domestic trophy since 1955 - will actually give them a proper game.
Dunno about a treble or quadruple. But I'll be happy enough with just one of the big ones: Premier or Champions League will do me just fine. (Preferably the Premier League to draw level with Manchester United.)
<blockquote> I think it was a film that was doomed from the start.</blockquote>
Yes. Almost certainly. Good film or not, from a marketing angle it's horribly misconceived.
$19m worldwide. Only $2m of that from the US market. I'm sure it'll do fine on streaming in Europe and other places where people know who Mr Williams is. But it's never going to make the $110m they've spent on it back.
Financially, they'd have been better off making a smaller budget film -- say, $30m -- with an actor instead of an expensive CGI chimp and more or less ignoring the USA.
<blockquote>If people communicated primarily by singing would there be more peace on Earth?</blockquote>
I don't know, but it would make declarations of war more entertaining. Neville Chamberlain's classic 'This country is now at war with Germany, doo-bi-doo-bi-doo'. And FDR's Billboard #1 classic 'A Date That Will Live in Infamy (La La La La)'
<blockquote>How do you think someone came up with the idea to sing at some point? </blockquote>
Dunno. Must have been a long time. Back in the Paleolithic Era... with Simon Cowell on standby to invent criticism.
<blockquote>Not to say I could say with any certainly she definitely didn't do it</blockquote>
No. But of course we don't have to, do we? They have to prove that she <i>did</i>. And I wasn't entirely persuaded at the time of the conviction that they'd really done that. And I'm even less persuaded now.
The case definitely needs to be looked at again. As people commented at the time, it seems to have some parallels with the Lucia de Berk case: <url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk_case</url>
One year later: “In summary, ladies and gentlemen, we did not find any murders” -- <url>https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/04/no-medical-evidence-to-support-lucy-letby-conviction-expert-panel-finds</url>
This verdict looks increasingly unsafe.
I can see why you'd think this. David Lynch did like his 'happy little accidents'. But the repeated line -- and the lack of reaction the first time -- is in the shooting script.
What isn't in the shooting script (or at least the publicly available draft of the shooting script) is the reaction to the second line delivery. It just moves straight on to them being interrupted by the woman with the ice pack over her eye.
This is true.
But also a lot of the bad reviews in 1992 were from people who <i>did</i> enjoy the show who resented it not being very much like the show.
There's a reason <i>Fire Walk With Me</i> begins with an axe going through a television set. It's confrontational.
Also, it's tough subject matter. There's nothing in <i>Fire Walk With Me</i> that wasn't also present in the ABC show, but in the TV series it's cushioned by the quirky soap opera parody stuff. Here, it's directly addressed, laid absolutely bare. And it doesn't blink or turn away.
British film critic Mark Kermode tells a story against himself about <i>Blue Velvet</i>. When he first saw <i>Blue Velvet</i>, he walked out. And then he wrote what he describes as 'a very snotty and dismissive review' of it in whatever newspaper he was writing for at the time.
A couple of years later, he rewatched it. And he realised that he had been totally and utterly wrong. The film had just got under his skin to such a degree that he -- a man who wrote his dissertation on horror films, by the way -- couldn't handle it and he outright rejected it. 'No, no, no, I don't want to deal with that.'
And, basically, I think that's what happened with the wider reaction to <i>Fire Walk With Me</i>. It got under people's skin in ways they weren't prepared for.