The content really should be on the Disney channel, among Gravity Falls and shows like that. Making people bleed another 6,99 per month is just a theme park dick move.
I'm going to actively avoid giving any money to Disney. It's the only way to reach them.
They own half of all media now. Hear that sound? It's the tortured soul of Walt Disney, wailing in sorrow at the money hungry empire his company has become.
shareDisney is family entertainment AKA: children can watch with their parents. If you want adult shows with more mature themes, then you need to subscribe to a channel like HBO or Showtime.
shareDoes HBO have Marvel or Starwars shows on them? The majority of the fans of both of those franchises are adults. It is possible to content make "family friendly" without making it too dumb for adults to enjoy. Marvel have been doing it for the last decade in case you didn't notice. Do you think Disney is going to make back the billions of dollars of investment by making live action saturday morning cartoons that cost 150m dollars to produce? uh...nah.
shareI agree with Scorsese. Even though some can be entertaining, superhero movies are already dumbed down because they follow a simple formula. And look what happened to Lucas' SW franchise. Disney settles by rehashing his original trilogy in look, characters, and story for the new films, etc.. I like the Mandalorian show, but it's basically Lucas creation from 40 years ago.
You're not going to find a Game of Thrones or Joker made by Disney.
Um...all movies follow a simple formula. Do you not know what the hero's journey is? People have been retelling the same story for 1000s of years.
There are 100s of TV series made for adults every year that are not a "Game of Thrones". I'm not sure what you are on about. There are many degrees between Saturday morning cartoon and Game of Thrones.
WTF are you talking about?
That's just the idiot's excuse for no talent or creativity.
My point was that the superhero movies are not telling any story. You know how the movie ends before you see it. Bad guy does something bad. Good guy stops him. The end. That's not a story.
shareSame reason Casablanca is so lame. And Die Hard. And everything John Ford did. And Capra. And those awful Terminator films. And that dreadful Seven Samurai. Ugh. Trash, all of it. No stories.
shareI hope you didn't just equate Casablanca to Spiderman.
shareI'm pointing out that what you described as the reason superhero films aren't telling a story applies to nearly all movies, Casablanca included. If you want to dismiss any film in which a bad goes does something bad and a good guy stops him, you're the one equating Casablanca to Spiderman.
shareSpiderman movie. Villain does something bad. Spiderman stops him. The end.
Thor movie. Villain does something bad. Thor stops him. The end.
Ironman movie. Villain does something bad. Ironman stops him. The end.
"Sophie's Choice" has a story. Do you know what it is? I guarantee you don't know the ending before you watch it. There are no true "villains" or "heroes" in this story. You have to slowly learn about the characters in order to learn the story. And no, it's not about a villain doing something bad and a hero stopping him.
Same with "Frailty", "My Diner with Andre", "Citizen Cain", "West Side Story" "What Dream May Come", "Casablanca" (have you even watched this one?)
You're oversimplifying the superhero films to force them to fit your point. You can do the same with many films, Casablanca included. Nazi does something bad. Rick stops him. The end. That is as accurate a synopsis of the film as any of your superhero summations are.
shareRick didn't stop the Nazis. Less Spiderman movies, more history books for you. BTW, Casablanca isn't about Rick vs Nazis.
shareRick shot and killed the Nazi, just like Spider-Man apprehended the Vulture. And in both cases, the moment where the hero defeated the villain was secondary to the story being told.
shareKilling one Nazi is irrelevant since it did nothing to stop the Nazis who still control Casablanca and attack the world. Once again, he didn't defeat the Nazis.
Also, the movie isn't about Rick vs Nazis.
Secondary? What's the main story? Can you describe it or did you not see the movie?
I feel like you aren't reading what I'm writing. My point IS that Casablanac isn't about Rick vs. Nazis, and neither is, say, Thor:Ragnarok about Thor vs. Hela nor is Spider-Man:Homecoming about Spider-Man vs. the Vulture.
shareSuperhero movies are about the hero vs the villain.
Let me guess. Thor stopped the villain.
"Thor's quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful Hela from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilization."
I'm sure he won. I was right.
Spider-Man:Homecoming
"Peter must soon put his powers to the test when the evil Vulture emerges to threaten everything that he holds dear."
Ditto.
I told you so. Hero vs villain. Hero wins. Yawn.
As a matter of fact, you're wrong. It's Surtur, not Hela, who is attempting to destroy Thor's home world, and he succeeds. Thor fails. Hela kills nearly all the Asgardians, destroys Thor's hammer, and rips his eye out, and Surtur annihilates Asgard. Thor escapes with a few stragglers, and they set out in hopes of finding a place to start over. The film ends with Thanos finding them. He slaughters them all.
The point is, if you dismiss any film with a "good guy defeats the bad guy" story at its core, you're going to dismiss a lot of great films. You'll be left watching My Dinner with Andre or My Breakfast with Blassie and maybe some Spalding Gray films, but some of cinema's finest films have good vs. evil at their core. It's what happens around that story that matters, and it's why Casablanca, Thor:Ragnarok, Spider-Man:Homecoming, and myriad other films are so enjoyable.
You're twisting my comment which I don't appreciate.
Most superhero movies settle for mediocrity because they figure the fans will watch them anyway and they are on a schedule to make x amount of films within a time limit for maximum profit. It's not about the art. It's about the profit. They settle into the same tired good vs bad trope which is boring and predictable.
IMDB.com
"Imprisoned on the planet Sakaar, Thor must race against time to return to Asgard and stop Ragnarök, the destruction of his world, at the hands of the powerful and ruthless villain Hela. "
I've been avoiding most recent superhero movies because I knew I would be bored by that predictability. Even your explanation of the Thor film was boring me. Hero lives, villain dies. I don't care.
Exception. The Joker. I consider it in the superhero genre, but it's art. They worked hard to make something very different. The movie is character driven - not action driven like most superhero movies. Many original ideas and concepts in this film. I literally had no idea how this movie was going to end. Great job from the actor, director and cinematographer. Best movie I've seen in 2019.
I don't see how I'm twisting your comment. You initially dismissed superhero films because they are, in your words, "Bad guy does something bad. Good guy stops him. The end. That's not a story." That's most films.
Interesting to note, Casablanca, the film we've been discussing, was made at the height of the Hollywood studio system, where films were churned out on a schedule to make x amount of films within a time limit for maximum profit. Sometimes such restrictions lead to great art, as in the case of Casablanca, and many superhero films, and many films across genres.
I think you're being too dismissive and making blanket judgements against films you admit not to have seen.
There's nothing original about watching the third reboot of Spiderman.
Casablanca was original and had a story.
You've abandoned your first two reasons, and now believe because it's a reboot it has no merit? I can think of plenty of other examples of reboots that were as good or better than their original-- The Maltese Falcon and The Man Who Knew Too Much immediately come to mind-- but at this point it seems clear you're simply anti-superhero films, and don't really have a defendable reason for your position. Let's agree to disagree?
shareThe Spiderman reboots were done within a few short years of each other which made it unnecessary. Why not just continue the story with the same actor instead of retelling the origin ad nauseam? Yeah, yeah, he was bit by a radioactive spider. WE KNOW, ALREADY!
One of my favorite films was Superman (1977). But, at that time it was rare, new and fresh. Now there are so many, it's been beaten to death.
My problem is the lack of creativity and originality of superhero movies. If you're satisfied by watching the same thing ad nauseam, more power to you. I don't watch TV procedurals, family shows or doctor shows for the same reason.
The Mandalorean is interesting to me because I can't figure out where the story is heading or where that kid came from. Not predictable yet anyway and Filoni is good with storytelling.
I want a good story like Tyrion said in "Game of Thrones".
It's clear to me that you haven't seen the Spider-Man films, and are judging them based on what you guess them to be. Neither of the two new films have even touched on his origin. We don't even know that he was bitten by a spider, though we can assume it. Same with his uncle-- I don't believe he's even been mentioned. The audience is left to take for granted that the origin story is what we know it to be.
I enjoy good movies, and I dislike bad movies. I like movies that keep me guessing, that give me insight into the human condition, that make me think about who I am or who I want to become. I don't care a bit about the genre of such films. When I watched the two recent Spider-Man films, I felt something, and that's all I can ask for from a film.
Unless you have actually watched the films, and done so with an open mind rather than watching to nitpick and call out anything you dislike, I don't think it's reasonable to say they lack creativity or originality, or that the only offer the same thing as previous films of their genre.
I saw the first two Spiderman trilogies in the theater. That was enough.
Many people I speak to are bored with the superhero movies too and stopped going to see them. Disney has a habit of churning them out like a factory widget and DC movies are just bad with a few exceptions.
If I'm bored watching a two minute trailer then I'll be extremely bored trapped in a theater watching a two or three hour movie.
Notice how I didn't criticize the comics/graphic novels. That's because they offer more creativity. If a movie was made based on Superman: Kingdom Come or Superman: Red Son then that would be worth seeing.
Dude stop being such a drama queen, there are other things to watch, you can enjoy disney and other channels, stop acting like a baby
shareTrue, I am 42 and I like this show. Dont really care who they are aiming it for. If I didnt like it I just wouldnt watch it.
share? I'm watching it of course. I just won't pay to see it. Free membership is so easy.
shareI wonder if you've watched The Mandalorian. It's highly unlikely that a 9- to 18-year-old audience will find much to their liking in the show, which is clearly aimed at those over 40. It is paced and shot like a classic Western, and feels far more like the original Star Wars film than anything since. I'd be astonished to find that many modern-day children have the patience and attention span required to enjoy this show.
shareThings are not that grim.
shareThis thread makes no sense to me. Elements of Eps 4-6 weren't childish? The Ewoks? Some of the droid humor? Don't even get me started on Eps 1-3 from this perspective. I am not sure why the Mandalorian specifically gets beaten-up for its (supposed) for-children tilt.
shareThe whole simplicity and aiming for coolness with the hero. The ridiculous all bounty hunter race, the bloodless but rampant and casual murder like in a video game. Aimed at children exclusively!
sharethis show is pretty dark for kids, high body count.
as a 40+ guy, it's been pretty good so far.
To me it feels like a live action "The clone wars" ...Not that is a bad thing the clone wars was an awesome show
shareYou have to remember age is irrelevant when it comes to comic book or SW/ST type shows. You could be a 45 year old nerd/geek/dork/dweeb/weeb, still watch it, and still get overly excited over it.
share