Jessie
-
Posts
14,778 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Jessie
-
-
6 hours ago, Zakiyyah6 said:
Marvel doesn't own comedy, I don't know what you mean by replicating Marvel's style. WB tried to chase the TDK dragon and failed, why should they keep doing that?
How can you not know what I mean? Ever since Avengers took off DC have copied the marvel template by trying to add more humour. Wonder woman was a copy of Cap 1 and Aquaman was basically Thor. Dc's two well received movies were complete copies
-
7 hours ago, Zakiyyah6 said:
Nobody reads metacritc. At least not enough people for it to matter. Jumanji had much worst reviews than Star Wars last year and which one did audiences like more? Jumanji is the answer.
Dumping that dopey dark n gritty mope fest 3000 style will be the best thing that WB ever did with regards to the DC films. That tone is fine for lower budgeted side projects but it's awful for their mainstream projects. Also WB should start aggressively going after women from now on.
I disagree about ditching the tone. DC had the chance to be the serious dark and gritty comic book universe whilst marvel gave us their light hearted take. The problem was their movies were just bad. There's a reason TDK is deemed the best comic book movie of all time, id rather they try replicating that success than continue to copy marvel
-
1 hour ago, La Binoche said:
More than 20M ppl watched that shitty Kurt Russell Xmas movie in 1 week. More ppl watched Bird Box than Aquaman.
Probably because it's on Netflix and can be viewed for free. Either way Bird Box was garbage
-
4 hours ago, Christmas baumer said:
Now someone can correct me if I'm wrong but this PG-13 release of Once upon a Deadpool, doesn't all that money go to cancer research? So whatever the film ends up with, let's just say 6 million, that's I have a lot of money that goes to cancer research.
And this makes me realise how critics are simply assholes as they've decided to give it bad reviews. Like what sort of human goes out of their way to persuade people not to watch a movie for cancer research?
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, PANDA said:
Bad take. Try again.
I don't really need to try again, what I said came true
-
33 minutes ago, PANDA said:
Because it’s not cheap looking and is better than the live action movies
Not many people care about an Anime looking Spider-Man film. To the average eye it looks cheap, yet another film I warned you all would disappoint
-
31 minutes ago, PANDA said:
L O L
You’re claiming I’m “the type of person to meet a black person and the first thing I say is I liked Black Panther” Why? Because I liked Black Panther, like most other people?
You’re making a whole lot of assumptions about me personally instead of engaging my actual argument. Not going to bother with giving you any actual retort.
Meanwhile you start your post off by pulling the “I’m not racist, I have a black friend” card. Not indulging your bullshit
Aww you don't like people making assumptions about you? Maybe you shouldn't do the same to others then bud. Kalo expressed his common opinion, even mentions about his father having a stroke and you continue to call him a racist, it's shocking, we should be able to discuss something like this in a movie forum without calling anyone with a different point of view a racist
I've engaged your argument, South Park has even engaged your argument, you're just choosing to ignore it, why? Probably because you know you're simply wrong here.
And yes my girlfriend is black, sat with me right now eating mince pies actually and even she thinks you're trying to play saint 😂
-
On 12/12/2018 at 4:19 PM, PANDA said:
Maybe instead of reacting to all my posts with not cool and laughing reactions you should say what’s so bad about them?
Oh wait, you’re also somebody who’s posted racially insensitive stuff, at best, in the diversity thread. So you’ll probably just respond with more of it
I reacted to your posts because Kalo was right. He brought up an interesting point and you are trying to play saint by claiming he's a racist. Before you show me the racist card know that my partner is actually black/Brazilian. BP was a good film and it did get a boost for PC reasons, the first review that pops up on RT is a great example of it..
'Marvel's Black Panther film means so much to so many people. The film is a lightning rod of representation, in a time where black people feel so belittled and not paid attention to.'
You'd have to be very narrow minded to disagree with him, especially if it gets a BP nod, which would make it the first superhero movie ever to do so. It made me laugh how upon release there were hundreds of white celebs tweeting about how much they loved Black Panther. I'd never seen so many celebs comment on a movie before. It was basically a load of fake white people wanting to let the world know they're not racist for loving Black Panther, it was cringe to see. Even one of South Park's newest episodes touches on this subject and hits the nail on the head with this.
Hell this was the sort of behaviour Get Out covered. I bet you're one of those guys that meets a black guy for the first time and within 2 minutes you'll have brought up black panther. My friends the same, meets a black guy and within a minute he has to being up the fact that his girlfriend is black. It was the same with this movie
So in conclusion Kalo is right, in an era where the Oscars are so white and people calling out for diversity it's no surprise that a diverse 250m blockbuster has had praise for giving minorities the opportunity to have their own mega blockbuster. No-one is taking anything away from the team behind the movie but it's not unreasonable to suggest BP had a boost for PC reasons
-
Oh Merry Christmas. Hope Santa got everyone what they desired
-
1
-
-
Its been an underwhelming season for box office this Christmas however I always thought that would be the case. Alot of high profile films may have been released and people assumed one of them had to break out as it's Christmas and we had been spoilt the last few years however no-one stopped to think that there simply wasn't any new releases with enough interest to make gangbusters. Transformers has been run to the ground, no-one cares about a Anime looking Spider-Man movie, it's about as niche as they come and Mary Poppins was never doing big numbers, I tried warning people on here for months that kids don't care about singing nannies but as usual I was dismissed and as usual i was right, again. I don't want to start the whole 'I told ya so' but seeing as I was banned for 2 weeks because people can't accept the truth I'm 100% going to gloat.
In the future people, listen to Jessie
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, dudalb said:
I don't think "this generataion" is quite as close minded and ignorant as you think they are.
oh so not seeing Mary Poppins makes you ignorant now? Come on mate
-
13 hours ago, terrestrial said:
To apply for a critics job (full-time, paid,...) you have to have credentials better than to have been a blogger.
The problem is, to get some credentials that might persuade 'them'.
examples (not the only possibilities by far)
like having worked as an assistant to xxx, or having studied at a certain university certain lectures and having done lots of (way too often underpaid or unpaid) internships and so on as a starting point, with that still not getting that kind of job - you need costly preparation time.
To risk as someone out of the poorer groups that, knowing how poor your chances are later on to get the job beside being either female, a PoC (again female PoC having even less chances), or of another minority is ... risky.
Usually having gained experience enough to get considered as a critic even a white the person is already a bit older. To have reached the same credentials the minority person needed longer for the blocking of minorities/females even there, never knowing if there is even a real chance later on.
Means the time before (depending on how to get the credentials) risky not only for the person who applies as a minority, but also his/her family (in average poorer)
= the % of ppl who will apply for that kind of profession is not an indicator for them not willing to be committed, able or whatever, it's problems way deeper on the career ladder that will influence the applying %.
In the UK for the really high positions they expect long internships. Without pay. An average person (incl the average white worker / non-high society or however you'll call that) can not do that.
Same principle to systematically hold certain positions in the 'right' hands in a way.
= Only one example how to reach a potential successful applying situation, there are others as well.
Picked for the similarities to certain UK jobs, as it might help per the familiarity.
Basically what you're saying is you need money as a cushion so you can do the internships without pay and still be able to live but in the UK everyone has the same opportunity to do well in life from birth. These outlets obviously expect a high standard of education which anyone in life can achieve if they work hard from a young age and put their mind to it. I see people all the time work for a couple of years, save the majority of their money so they can go off travelling for a year or 2, if people can manage that then if people really wanted that critic job they can do the same here. This template however would make it very hard for someone if they were to say, have a child would you agree? As we all know children will take a huge bulk of your pay
There are like 40 top critics that make up RT and who are probably getting paid a very good wage, it's only natural that to get to that standard it's going to be a tough climb. This to me doesn't seem like a discrimination issue, they've just made the job very hard to get for literally anyone. Anyone who managed to get the job has worked hard to do it, whether they are white, black or female.
-
On 12/1/2018 at 12:00 AM, dudalb said:
This whole "No One Knows Who Mary Poppins Is" argument is so stupid it's not worth answering.
You can make the same argument about just about eveny movie ever made that is more then 20 years old.
people have heard of Mary Poppins, but I doubt much of this generation have seen it. It's very old
-
man I love Noctis. been the most dedicated Potter fan for the last 10 years
as for this.... less hype, lacklustre WOM
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:
and a movie about a white saviour was the highest grossing film of all time globally?
What is your point...
To be fair, he was kinda blue
-
10 minutes ago, PANDA said:
That’s exactly why a white savior complex movie is taking critics awards over stuff like Beale Street, BlacKkKlansman and Black Panther
which movie are we referring to here?
-
36 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:
Really.
don't care to explain why then? Or do you just feel like ranting because it's nearly christmas and you want to be the first snowflake
-
18 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:
This. Wouldn't. Prove. Anything.
Do you even read the posts here? Or do you just reply with nonsense because you're bored?
how would it not? so if you're telling me 10 people applied to be a critic and all were white it proves nothing? or if 9 out of 10 of the applicants were of an ethnic minority and they didn't get the job it still proves nothing? really?
-
7 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:
It's a statistical fact that men take time off to raise kids. (it's true! men raise children too!)
it's nowhere near as many though is it mate?
Best way to get an answer for this 'racial discrimination' is to see how many people from different cultures actually apply to be a critic. I'm guessing people are picked for their writing merits and not to do with skin colour and gender. A critics job is hardly an important job in the grand scheme of things, seems to me that people are overreacting but then again this is 2018
-
6 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:
Only about 62% of the US is white. Of course you're ok with the critic split to be 82%, you have no sense of anything it seems.
actually it's higher than 62% when you take the UK into consideration too
5 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:Lord this is sexist as FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK
it's a statistical fact that women take time off to raise kids. Calling someone sexist over bringing this important bit of information up is counter productive. leave the debates to terrestrial because you are obviously thick as shit kid
-
31 minutes ago, terrestrial said:
But do they really want to? Without research for the reasons that does not say anything
Usually there is a lot of pressure early on to stay at home and or....., plus companies do not give a lot of chances for newly mothers, faring child illness and so on, outside of 'simple jobs'
I have and I work.
50h per week is not seldom, sometimes even more, somtimes less (depends on the projekt I am working for) I did take a 2y time-out but during that time I literally co-build our house (outside walls, windows and roof were done by professionals, floors were only done as rough ground by them) with a then 2y-old beside me. Plus helped my self-emplyed husband during that time too
Fortunatly I do not sleep a lot (2h per day in average)
Do they want to? That all comes down to the individual. I'd say alot are happy doing that but i can only speak on behalf of my partner, my mother and pretty much all the housewives she meets for coffee every day. I see alot of happy housewives where I'm from. Men supplying the bread and butter whilst the partner makes the house a home and takes care of the children is extremely common. Maybe men don't want to be the ones working all week and would rather the housewife job? I can understand certain jobs not wanting to take on some women who are likely about to start a family, for example my business only has 3 people working here and if we hired another employee we wouldn't want to risk them having time off, afterall we want someone who is guaranteed to work all year round. Big businesses can afford to take that risk more than smaller companies. Example if I had a male and female applying for a job with he same qualifications but the female said she s likely to be taken time off to raise a family then obviously the male is getting the job.
you said it yourself, you had 2 years off, now imagine you were working for a company trying to climb to the top but you took 2 years out, that's 2 years where other workers are likely to climb higher in their career, it can set you back and I don't think that's discrimination, I think it's just unfair that women have the short end of the stick by being the ones who give birth. Biology is to blame here.
on a side note building your own house is extremely satisfying and I know it's alot of work, doing that with kids running wild must have been a nightmare so kudos. I bought my first house at 23 and spent 2 years getting it to how I wanted it and when you see how much money you've made from it it's a nice feeling. I'm moving out soon and plan on doing it all again. Only thing I can't really do on my own is plaster, tried it once and the wall looked like a cheese grater lol
-
23 minutes ago, terrestrial said:
Start to do reserch why they do not climb in reality before assuming they do not want to or wuldn't be committd under equal situations
Why does this have to be pointed out again?
Smarter... you are not
I've done plenty of research, fact is most women get pregnant and a hell of alot of married couples consist of the male working 9-5 whilst the female spends years taking care of the children which one could argue is the most important job out of the lot.
you say you're married, do you have children? and do you gave a job?
-
19 minutes ago, terrestrial said:
One reason why actually the 'white' ppl in the US are reacting in such an extreme excluding. law breaking and undemocratic way is, that they will be soon under 50% of the population.
In 2010 72% got counted as white, but:
Officially white includes a lot of minorities which the 'real' (puke) whites do not see as white.
Like Middle East and North Africa. Or the mixed ones. And the at least parts of the Hispanic based ones..
Reality in 2010 were ~ 60% 'whites' (w/o 'Latinos', but incl the other minorities, means a bit above 50% 'real' whites at best), % declining more fast than earlier projected
Earlier this was assumed:
Generation Z is majorly non-white
will happening in 2023 earliest, reality is its happening since ~ 2016/17
Guess why Trump wants to change the 14th Amendment see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Or voting list purges, or e.g gotten thrown out beside having fighting as soldiers for the US army for over 10y without any blemish, children get illegally adopted away from their parents still beside the courts ordered to reunite them, why parents have to sign illegal papers to get their children back, that papers including the write-away of the rights of their legally being US citizens children....
They are afraid to loose control
Plus there are more ppl like Asian, native Indian, mixed,… btw there are not lot of 100% whites in the US according to the momentarily so loved gen-tests
Not sure where you got the numbers, they are not matching with any governmental ones I know about..
And again, free-lancing means way too often ~ blackmail conditions like bad payment,.... and so on, there are always several details to look up for, not only one.
I really don't care about Donald trump and his way as I'm not American, I'm talking about 'diversity amongst critics' only
According to 2 sources non Hispanic whites make up 60% of the population so I don't know where you're getting 50% from
combined with the UK you're looking at close to 70% of the overall population of both countries combined to be white (not white/Hispanic/Asian etc) so 22% of critics being of foreign origin really isn't a vast difference in comparison to the populations here. 8% really isn't anything to cry over and certainly doesn't scream discrimination.
find me a source that says it's 50%
-
13 hours ago, ChipMunky said:
This is a very ignorant take.
Sure, anyone can be a movie critic. Nobody is saying that. But why are the VAST majority of "reputable" critics male, and white? Do you ever wonder that? It's because they get more opportunities for advancement and promotion. The tide is slowly, slowly, slowly shifting to more diverse critics getting more opportunities. But we're a long way off of that, because people hate change unless you force it.
again, the vast majority of people living in the UK and US are white. combined it's actually 12.5% of people living in both countries combined are black so no I've never wondered that because it's blindingly obvious why. You're not going to have an even split when the population doesn't support that.
On the promotion side I bring up a females lifestyle again. to climb up the cooperation ladder you have to be committed, it's competitive getting to the top so it's no surprise more men are up there as most women as some point in their lives will take time off to raise a family, how does this even need explaining?
seriously guys I thought you were smarter than this
Shazam! | April 5, 2019 | 21st Most Profitable Film of 2019
in Box Office Discussion
Posted · Edited by Jessie
Wonder woman was a world war setting about a god like creature that wanted world domination by using futuristic weaponry created by one of his minions who later on had a change of heart. Meanwhile the main hero teams up with other soldiers in a bar which were used for comic relief. By the end of the movie all this weaponry was loaded on a plane ready to destroy most of the world however a guy named Steve made the ultimate sacrifice by crashing the place and saving the day. WW was very similar to Cap 1
Dc copied marvel by trying to rush a cinematic universe and personally I'd rather them focus in the individual characters like the good ol days and just let marvel do their shared universe.