Ralph Breaks the Internet | Rich Moore / Phil Johnston | 21st November, 2018

[ZattMurdock]

21 minutes ago, Jandrew said:

Ralph 1 filled with classic brands? I don't know, gee, maybe because he was a supposed to be a classic video game character?... Having Qbert, Bowser, Pacman ghost, and Eggman made sense. The villain group therapy wasn't seen as a ploy to sell Sonic, Mario, and Pacman games, it was a legit humorous attempt to showcase Ralph's character.

 

But you, and basically everyone else, has failed to provide a reasoning on why the Princessess, Star Wars, Marvel, Mupppets, and everything Disney is in this movie. Sure, since this is a movie about the web, maybe it makes sense to flash Amazon, the tweeting birds, and Ebay - they're real world internet. But you still haven't told me how the princesses add anything to the *internet* concept. All I've heard is "Ralph will be good, Emoji was ass, that's all that matters." Who cares if Emoji was ass, if this a movie about the traveling into the internet, why did this trailer replace the (clever) clickbait gag with a princess sleepover gag? What does any of that have to do with the concept of this movie: going inside the internet?

 

But lemme guess: doesn't matter, Emoji sucked, this will be good, audiences don't care. Alrighttty.

It's not filled with "just" Disney. It's filled with big ass corporation icons, Amazon, Snapchat, Twitter and yes, Disney included.

 

The "Disney princesses" are also a big part of the internet when it comes to children, just like I bet we will see Marvel characters and maybe even some DC ones as well. This is about "current" fandom and looks like a commentary on that, its cliches and even meme culture. Emoji is a film about fucking EMOJIS, which is not the same of traveling the internet in a Wreck-It-Ralph context. Saying that is like saying that because Wreck-It-Ralph exists, Pixels should not exist. Pixels was a bad film. So was Emoji. But that doesn't mean they should not exist, just not to suck.

 

Also, you are truly grasping at straws here if your best shot is comparing this to freaking Emoji. It doesn't even make sense. This isn't a film about keyboard emoticons, it's a film about a videogame character that exists in a classic arcade fantasy going to the internet. You can try better than that man. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by ZattMurdock

[cax16]

6 minutes ago, expensiveho said:

Trailer was great. So excited to see this. WIR is my favorite from the current Disney era.

 

Are the people complaining about the "lack of plot" the same ones that complain about trailers giving everything away? Like make up your mind. 

 

And, if you guys think this is somehow Disney's (IPs) victory lap, I strongly suggest to move out to a jungle before 2019 starts.

Agreed, I loved number one and this one looks great as well. 

[EmpireCity]

Who in the fuck has a brain and watches this trailer today and goes "Fucking Disney. Vanellope and Ralph totally walk around and go oh look Disney stuff this is awesome and look at Snapchat everyone should use it and buy Amazon products and use Twitter.  I bet they all paid a bunch of money and the director and producers decided to make the movie a giant ad with no point."

 

What possibly could lead any thinking person to that conclusion?

[YM!]

I liked the trailer a lot but I see where Jandrew is coming from. 

 

I trust in Disney making a good film mainly due to history but if this had been Sony, (btw it’s nowhere near as bad as the trailers for Emoji or The Star or Peter Rabbit (shudders internally)) I doubt some would’ve let it slide.

[That One Girl]

I highly doubt they'll use the princess scene to tie it into a deeper message.  They will use it as essentially a sketch inside of the film and promptly forget about it until the last 5 minutes where they reappear or something.  Quote me when this happens because it will.

 

Plus, what will the message be?  "Stop using the internet so much?"  I'm not sure how obvious Disney product placement ties back into that message.

[Yandereprime101189]

3 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

I highly doubt they'll use the princess scene to tie it into a deeper message.  They will use it as essentially a sketch inside of the film and promptly forget about it until the last 5 minutes where they reappear or something.  Quote me when this happens because it will.

You likely aren't wrong, unless the villain of the movie is the girl from Black Cauldron upset that she's not a Offical Princess or something. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Yandereprime101189

[ZattMurdock]

Holy shit. Are you people for real? I'm out. 

 

 

This is crazy country. 

[That One Girl]

Just now, Yandereprime101189 said:

You likely aren't wrong

 

Which again, proves my point that it's only in there for brand recognition.  How the fuck do Disney princesses tie into the internet?  And even then, they can satirize the internet without name-dropping brands.  They can be creative and use an imaginary counterpart to compare to an obvious real world counterpart.  Sticking real-world brands like Snapchat, Ebay, Google, etc. on there just makes it feel tacky and cheap.  Be creative.

[EmpireCity]

You fucking people.  They literally telegraph it in the trailer where they are going with this.....

 

Vanellope looks out over complete chaos that is the internet

 

"This is the most beautiful miracle I have ever seen!!"

[Yandereprime101189]

The movie sold me with "Bunny eats the pancake" from the first trailer and the child screaming in terror complete with camera zoom. Everything in this as just icing on the cake. 

 

Also, Warner itself did something similar with Lego Batman (and to a lesser extent Lego Movie), and it was actually pretty cool in that film. I mean, you got all these Batman villains, but let's pull Warner, Doctor Who and Universal monster villains in it too. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Yandereprime101189

[ZattMurdock]

3 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

Which again, proves my point that it's only in there for brand recognition.  How the fuck do Disney princesses tie into the internet?  And even then, they can satirize the internet without name-dropping brands.  They can be creative and use an imaginary counterpart to compare to an obvious real world counterpart.  Sticking real-world brands like Snapchat, Ebay, Google, etc. on there just makes it feel tacky and cheap.  Be creative.

 

 

 

https://www.yotube.com/watch?v=DeBIXhXW8C8&ab_channel=Yahoo

 

Quote

In total, 42 of YouTube’s 100 biggest channels that month were aimed at children, generating 10.3bn video views.

Only two of them came from well-known traditional kids’ brands: Disney Junior UK’s channel in 50th place on the Tubefilter chart with 200.7m views, and Lego’s channel in 63rd place with 169.9m.

 

It’s a sign of the strange new online-video world that those two Lego and Disney channels combined still fall nearly 275m views short of a child called Ryan playing with whatever toy his parents have surprised him with that week.

 

That said, Disney and Lego are among the most popular products reviewed on the big toy channels, so they are unlikely to be complaining too much about this trend.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/28/children-toys-unboxing-channels-youtube-real-stars

 

 

[That One Girl]

2 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

You fucking people.  They literally telegraph it in the trailer where they are going with this.....

 

Vanellope looks out over complete chaos that is the internet

 

"This is the most beautiful miracle I have ever seen!!"

 

Okay.  The princess jokes and forced referencing still feels tacky and obvious to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[RRA]

49 minutes ago, captainwondyful said:

Everytime EmpireCity posts something about the Princesses I get more excited. 

 

And I think it is safe to say the Princesses, not Ralph, are breaking the internet right now. Most All of the tweets in the #WreckItRalph2 on Twitter are about that scene (or the literal money shit where Disney shows all the IPs it owns).  On tumblr the gif set posts are already in the 30k to 100k, which is high for less than 24 hours. All the comments read as giddy, with very few complaints. Cinderella is getting the most attention. The most common refrain is:

 

Marvel/Disney: Avengers is the most ambitious crossover in film history.

WDAS: Hold our beer.

 

Greenlight Princess Academy, Disney. You love money. Do it!

Yeah the novelty of that concept is powerful AF. It also helps sell the movie without needing to spoil the plot. 

44 minutes ago, Jandrew said:

There's an @ feature my dude. Again, quality is irrelevant. This and Emoji are the same concept, but one gets excused and the other beaten over the head - not because of quality but because of the team. You had people writing thinkpieces about how Emoji was a lowpoint of filmmaking, just because it was a movie featuring iphone apps. This is literally no different. And I already explained why I don't like what I saw, and I already called out Amazon and friends. Has nothing to do with DISNEY POWER, but yeah conveniently ignore it. Enjoy your 3D princesses and stormtroopers.

Meanwhile A WRINKLE IN TIME tanked and got bad reviews and SOLO despite "Disney Power" is flopping hard. And honestly I wouldn't be shocked if NUTCRACKER later this year eats it too. People aren't zombies. 

 

Honestly EMOJI MOVIE disappointed me. Hype online was this was a cinematic war crime and instead I got a mediocre mindless feature. It being up for Razzies was horse feathers. 

[Arlborn]

@That One GuyIt's a kids movie which you haven't even seen yet, you are seriously over-thinking its trailer a bit.

 

 

You know I love you and all that, this is just my 2 cents.

[YM!]

5 minutes ago, Yandereprime101189 said:

The movie sold me with "Bunny eats the pancake" from the first trailer and the child screaming in terror complete with camera zoom. Everything in this as just icing on the cake. 

Pretty much this. But I liked the teaser better but we’ll get another one in September with Smallfoot or House with a Clock in the Wall. Hopefully as funny as the princess bit is, isn’t awkward with the story.

 

Also if they do something satirizing unboxing videos, they’ll get at least a B- from me.

Edited June 5, 2018 by YourMother the Edgelord

[Jandrew]

27 minutes ago, Yandereprime101189 said:

Hmmmm Wonder if if has anything to do with this logo playing in front of the film.

Yeah, this debate is a lost cause. None of it has anything to do with the internet or internet culture and you know that. You're just excited to see your childhood as 3D rendered models so it doesn't matter why.

 

25 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

Gee, I don't know, maybe because the movie doesn't fucking come out for another 6 months?

 

I can discern from the dialogue and general theme of what I have watched so far that the point of including all of it will carry a larger message.  The same way that you could tell Spielberg was using nostalgia to tell people to stop being nostalgic and get the fuck outside and live in the moment and talk to people.  

 

Now if I had simply watched the trailers with a negative eye, then I would have been convinced like a lot of people were that Ready Player One was a giant advertisement and it was terrible and would lose millions.  Turns out there was something larger being said the movie actually made $600m and millions and millions of profit for the studio.  

Okay bud. Because yeah, my typical negative self clicked the thumbnail saying "woo boy, this is gonna suck ass." Too bad I thought the first trailer was cool, really liked the end gag. I wanted more of that. This new trailer is not that, it looks like something completely different and shallow.

 

And no need to have a dick attitude. I was trying to have a debate but you gotta get so pressed. Regardless, you don't need "a fucking six months" to tell what the Princesses have to do with the internet, it should be obvious right now. Obviously, they have nothing to do with it. But alright, have fun with it, you get your 3D Pocahantas and Cinderella in a movie about travelling into the internet. I'm happy for ya.

 

Your RPO comparison also makes no sense, just sounds like an excuse to scapegoat Ralph 2. Sure Overwatch shows up, which is egregiously obvious placement considering it was the biggest thing since Fortnite, but at least they're video game characters in a movie about a video game.

22 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

It's not filled with "just" Disney. It's filled with big ass corporation icons, Amazon, Snapchat, Twitter and yes, Disney included.

 

The "Disney princesses" are also a big part of the internet when it comes to children, just like I bet we will see Marvel characters and maybe even some DC ones as well. This is about "current" fandom and looks like a commentary on that, its cliches and even meme culture. Emoji is a film about fucking EMOJIS, which is not the same of traveling the internet in a Wreck-It-Ralph context. Saying that is like saying that because Wreck-It-Ralph exists, Pixels should not exist. Pixels was a bad film. So was Emoji. But that doesn't mean they should not exist, just not to suck.

 

Also, you are truly grasping at straws here if your best shot is comparing this to freaking Emoji. It doesn't even make sense. This isn't a film about keyboard emoticons, it's a film about a videogame character that exists in a classic arcade fantasy going to the internet. You can try better than that man. 

Sir I already brought all that up like 5 pages ago. You have completely missed the point and this is exhausting. This is not a fuck-Disney rant like all of you lacking reading comprehension keep acting like it is. I've made it very clear what my problem was with that trailer multiple times now but yall continue to ignore it and regurgitate "you just hate Disney, this movie will be good who cares." 

 

And saying "the princesses relate to the internet because gen z sees them on there" is what you call grasping at straws. The Princesses have absolutely nothing to do with the internet and you know that. I didn't like the blatant Amazon and Snapchat promotion in the trailer, but at least it remotely relates to the internet, which is the whole point of the movie. 

 

This is legit exhausting to debate at this point. Just whatever. Enjoy the commercial, I'm sure it'll be a hit.

[That One Girl]

What differentiates something like, say, Ready Player One from this is RPO used their licensed characters to enhance their story.  They weren't literally the story.  They were there to help further the setting and message.  It made sense because it was in the future, in a virtual world where people could be anything they want, in a world that's hooked on nostalgia and doesn't want to seek out anything new, rather just looking back into the past.  This seems like Disney just self-promoting for the sake of it.  They can tie concepts of the internet into this film without directly referencing brand names.  You're not live-action like RPO is, you can be detached from reality and still have it work.

[EmpireCity]

I forgot, showed this to a group of 4th and 5th graders and their moms today and the absolutely ate it up.  They were like like 5 and 6 when the first movie came out, one of their first memories in the movie theaters.  Their moms were in their early and mid 30's and grew up on Disney films.  

 

It's going to be huge.  Way bigger than the first movie.  Bash the fuck out of me if I am wrong, but this group never fails me on kids and family movies.  

 

FYI, they are bonkers for the Fantastic Beasts 2 trailers and lukewarm on The Grinch.  

[Barnack]

16 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

Okay.  The princess jokes and forced referencing still feels tacky and obvious to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think empire is being heavily sarcastic here or maybe not... hard to tell with is terrible general attitude and heavy what seem like Disney bias.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Barnack

[EmpireCity]

I'll trust the opinions of real people and not the angry internet faction.