LawrenceBrolivier

While I don't agree with the dismissive tone and shortness of this post, I do agree with the notion that this list.... thoroughly explained and backed up with obviously thought-through support for the opinions given, thankfully.... is a not-very-good representation of the best horror the 2010s offered up. My thinking on "Best of" lists for years (or decades) is.... even if you disagree with some of the placements or titles, you could step back from the list and evaluate it on the basis of whether or not a total novice to the genre (or medium, even) could use the list as a good place to dive in and get a great sense of what the time period had to offer at its top tiers. If I took that list and did that step-back, I'd feel like the 2010s were fairly misrepresented in terms of what happened in that genre.... But then again, at the end of the day, all lists are just a representation of what worked for the writer, and if we're lucky, the writer will explain WHY it worked on them... that does happen in this list, and it doesn't happen enough in MANY lists, so even if I disagree with the list's makeup, I very much appreciate the effort, and seeing it shared. Just to put money where my mouth is.... Movies I would put on this list over most of the choices (I'd try to keep It Follows, Mandy, and Midsommar) : Get Out, The Babadook, Hereditary, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night, The Witch, Raw, Green Room, Train to Busan, Kill List, Revenge, 10 Cloverfield Lane, Black Swan, You're Next, Tigers are Not Afraid, The Perfection, One Cut of the Dead

The film is very much focused on the fact they're old, they can't do what they used to, and they should start accepting that, and focusing on making amends for past behaviors and doing what they can to make the world better for future generations. Not to make it sound all lovey-dovey because there's still a ton of nastiness and violence and gross-out-gags all over the place. But yeah, there's a lot of "we're old" jokes because 50+ is pretty old to be riding motorcycles with miniguns on them and jumping off of moving semis onto a helicopter. It's fine.

LOL... just a reminder, as I dig into this heaping pot of stewed crow: no matter how confidently someone on a fan-based messageboard might sound, 9 times out of 10 they probably don't really know what they're talking about.

"The Entrenched Nerds" at Marvel aren't really doing anything that either adheres to, or nods to, anything resembling "canon" the way everyone understands it.... Marvel movies are always most concerned with being good movies first, and will discard anything from the "canon" such as it is, that doesn't fit. It's why Marvel movies have almost nothing to do with the comics they're "based" on outside of the general concept of a character, and the vague outline of a story. Everything else gets tossed. The creative committee getting tossed was good because it was that creative committee that was constantly vetoing cool movie ideas based on the notion that "it wouldn't work that way in the comics." and "Character X doesn't behave that way in my stories..." The way that creative committee worked is almost exactly the same way the "story group" works now at Lucasfilm, and as much as those people do a very hard, and very thankless job.... the truth is that focusing THAT strongly on "canon" and the concerns of a tiny fandom that cares that much about canon is limiting the studio's potential.

The thing that most appeals to audiences and fans is being good, period.... the fact so many people just automatically consider those two things ("being good" and "appealing to fans") to be inherently separate should say something.... The whole reason any of these properties have fans is because they created them by being good movies... The Rise of Skywalker's interest was lower than The Last Jedi's, but not by much. It wasn't until it became very obvious the movie wasn't going to be good that the interest finally dropped to where the "fandom" had been (falsely) saying it was after Last Jedi and Solo. Fandom isn't anywhere near as important to box-office as people in a Fandom think it is. That's been one of the most consistent delusions OF Fandom over the past 20 years. Endgame's box-office is mostly due to the film being well-made and engaging and enabling the general audience (which outnumbers the fandom by a massive degree) to thoroughly enjoy it, not because it specifically "appealed" to its fandom. In fact, people don't like to remember this, but.... Marvel's biggest successes as a studio, both from a critical and financial perspective, only came when their version of a story group got disbanded, and fandom concerns were essentially ignored.

I think the performance by this movie makes it clear those predictions were also off-base, just in the other direction.... When everyone was making those predictions, they were 100% not making them under the assumption this would be the worst reviewed Star Wars movie in 20+ years.... not counting The Clone Wars, of course (which nobody counts, nor should they). The fact this movie had to have reviews that bad, and word of mouth that low, in order for the "Fandom fractured!" predictions to get close to correct.... That says that the Fandom Fracture wasn't really that important at all. Star Wars' finishing the sequel trilogy on a critical and financial disappointment (not failure, not flop, but disappointment) will, however, be a catalyst for a whole bunch of people to reassess how much importance they want to put on "fandom" going forward... Which is a good thing, ultimately. Because the less everyone involved pays attention to "the fandom" the better the filmmaking is going to be in general, and the box-office will likely rise accordingly.

I'm not upset, those are legitimate questions. I want to know the answers to them and he can provide them. So I'm asking!

Here comes the inquisition, LOL: What was the condition of the film? Effects finished? Fully edited? Music in place? Was it just "okay" for being a troubled production with none of its reshoots done, or "it's okay" as is and it could go out with minimal work right now? Were you and the people who saw this grading on a curve? A lot of 5s and 6s isn't good on a 10-point scale, though.... Ideally 7s would be the lowest you get. How many people is "a lot?" in comparison to the total number of people in your screening?

I don't agree that this is a truism at all though. And part of the reason anyone pays for this stuff isn't just for the content, it's for the ability to watch what you want when you want. The idea that a big part of Netflix's model is an inherent mistake when everyone in the entertainment industry is trying to be Netflix right now doesn't make any sense to me.... It's not a deal-breaker, obviously... but it is annoying.

I think even if it doesn't get to 800, if it breaks $750 that would be enough for the studio to feel confident in making Hobbs & Shaw its own thing going forward... I still believe they're looking at this as the first chapter in a similar yet separate franchise, and if they can launch one off the back of Fast & Furious that starts out beating EVERYTHING in the past series but 7 and 8, they'll be happy... Plus of course it'll allow Dwayne to rub it in Tyrese's nose on social media which is what's really important here...

Is there such a thing as vape holders? Ostentatiously smoking all the time is a pretty big part of Cruella De Vil. Obviously they won't have her doing that, but I wonder if there's some sort of equivalent...

Are they? One person whose twitter is full of bad jokes and the sort of speculation you can find here, with a bio that says "don't believe my lies" is proof they're "testing" it?

I missed this.... did Disney announce that ALL the new shows on Disney+ were weekly releases? Only the catalog stuff is on-demand and at your own pace and schedule? I guess for 6.99 there had to be some sort of catch... Hulu is cheap but there's ads... ESPN+ is cheap but it's got a lot of junk on it... Disney+ is cheap but you can't actually watch a whole season when you want, the way you want...

I think depending where in your house the TVs are, you might want to look into either trying to actually run ethernet cables out of a standard router connected to the modem... a good router should have about 4-5 ethernet connections available, and if you can run wires through walls and ceilings to your TVs, that's probably going to be the best solution.... but a lot of people can't make that work, so I think the next best option might be a mesh wireless network with 3 or 4 nodes... It's not cheap, but it should provide you the most even coverage across your house.

I believe there's still technically a "press row" for these things, and a few outlets will be allowed to keep their phones because the people representing them are trusted to not livestream things...

Didn't Amazon only just this year FINALLY allow chromecast?

She-Hulk is the thing I'm most excited about. Well, the thing I'm most excited about that isn't Obi-Wan Kenobi...

So far as I can tell, if you're watching the official livestream on YouTube, the... less-official livestream that's been mentioned is the first recommended video in the right-hand panel.

I prefer them all being released at once so I can go through them at my own pace... it's part of what I'm paying for honestly, the convenience aspect... and also because I long ago learned that talking about shows while they're happening doesn't do much of anything but get in the way of actually experiencing the thing. It's not as if that talk is going to change what I'm about to see, all it can do is change my openness to what's about to enter my eyes... I can save the talking for both before and after it comes out... But I really would like to watch it when I want to watch it. Because I'm not really watching it SO I can talk about it. I'm watching it to experience it and get something out of that experience... and that experience doesn't NEED a bunch of yip-yap from people on the internet to make it better. The peanut gallery shouldn't be anything other than an elective...

Is that the reason? I've heard about 15 of them now, I didn't know there was just the one... Disneyland is overpriced, period. No matter what's in it. Might as well go full Jurassic Park with it...

Now I want Jon Favreau to announce he's opening an eight-seat Ramen bar at the end of a panel.

I feel like you guys are trying to argue me out of the idea anonymous executives aren't really Disney Princes and I'm sorry but I don't think I was behaving ridiculously in light of the last five or so years of entertainment, politics, and nationalism venn-diagramming... Disney is the same company that fired James Gunn for 10 year old tweets because right-wing activists brigaded him... The idea there's a single anonymous guy there still twitchy about all of that, enough to mention it at a screening.... that's not very "out there" to me, at all... People are giving the benefit of the doubt to an unnamed man for no other reason than he works at Disney and therefore couldn't be a smidge cowardly about right-wing backlash... I don't agree with that.

Logan isn't based on Old Man Logan. It has nothing to do with it aside from the fact Logan is old and he drives somewhere.

They don't necessarily have to be pro-Hitler.... rather, they just have to be sensitive enough to see someone making fun of Hitler as a roundabout way of associating them WITH Hitler, and being "outraged" at the association... It's not so much that they're out there sticking up for Hitler's honor, but rather they dislike the idea that Hitler is being used satirically in a way that makes them feel bad and guilty... and they can't deal with that... The President tweeted a movie out of existence because he heard about it from people doing that very thing in response to "The Hunt" without having seen it... and it's still "ridiculous" to assume a single anonymous executive at Disney wasn't a little bit worried about angry right wing backlash to a left-wing satire starring Hitler, directed by the guy making the next Thor?

We're pretty much there... I still don't know why I'm the representative for this reaction. I wasn't alone by a long shot, and it should say something about the tenor of the country... AND the general perception of executives at major corporations... that a report about an anonymous executive worried about someone making fun of Hitler would immediately lead for some people to believe this anonymous executive was nervous about right wingers being offended enough to turn it into a social media thing.... More than a few companies have had to deal with bad faith brigading, after all. I guess it's possible the anonymous executive was worried people would be upset at making Hitler a comedic figure but I think that ship probably sailed back in 1960 with the Producers... I think it's maybe a little more naive to believe anonymous executives are always trying to do the right thing for the right reasons as opposed to protecting and maximizing investments to ensure stockholders are happy and their jobs are secure... and frequently that means "Both sides"-ing things and playing the middle to ensure you're not sacrificing the redder, more racist-leaning dollar if you don't have to...