Animation 2013

[Stewball]

And I didn't think they were that much of a risk. They have the widest built in audience with guidance ratings to match.

It doesn't matter what you "think". What matters are the realities of the box office. And since about 2006 or so, not only has state-of-the-art CGI cost a lot of money, but many of these movies end up failing at the box office. For instance, Mars Needs Moms was one of the biggest bombs of the last decade, and caused numerous lay-offs at a major studio, Buena Vista.

Jesus, I didn't say there weren't bombs, the potential for which should have made Mars Needs Moms stick out like a sore thumb

Oh, and Stewie, you would know that edkrak's movies were from 2013 if you bothered to care about animation outside of Hollywood's mass-produced CGI trash.

He said, "Haven't seen any animation this year so far, but 2013 looks really promising".

What, CGI automatically makes something "trash"? You need to get your ducks in a row; which is it, does Hollywood make mass-produced or high-risk productions? I was under the impression that art and beauty were still matters of subjective opinion, not arrogant, dictatorial, pugnacious judgements. You need to get out more, see a movie once in a while, get that bug out your ass. I know they don't make 'em like they used to, but really, progress is a good thing, by definition. My biggest criticism of The Princess and the Frog was that it wasn't CGI.

[edkrak]

He said, "Haven't seen any animation this year so far, but 2013 looks really promising".

I meant that I'm unable to judge whether 2013 is a good year for animation, because I haven't seen anything yet, but looking at trailers & directors involved it seems promising. Tried to make it short, but I guess that my previous sentence was a bit awkward grammatically.

[Stewball]

He said, "Haven't seen any animation this year so far, but 2013 looks really promising".

I meant that I'm unable to judge whether 2013 is a good year for animation, because I haven't seen anything yet, but looking at trailers & directors involved it seems promising. Tried to make it short, but I guess that my previous sentence was a bit awkward grammatically.

Yeah, temporal continuity problems, which I'm sure I would have discerned after my inquiry. But before that came to pass, the answer was written across the sky as the blue light special asteroid screamed out of the ethos and stuck in my back. Of course I've always claimed that I never make such syntax errors myself.

[ShogunRua]

Jesus, I didn't say there weren't bombs, the potential for which should have made Mars Needs Moms stick out like a sore thumb

If there is a strong possibility for major bombs (and Mars Needs Moms is one of many that I can name), then animated features can hardly be said to have "little risk", no?

What, CGI automatically makes something "trash"?

Pretty sure that if you read my sentence again, you will realize I was implying nothing of the kind. (And since 1987, every single animated feature, whether it come from Hollywood, Europe, or Japan has had CGI of one kind or another)

Rather, I was stating that Hollywood's particular brand of CGI all looks the fucking same, with a partial exception every now and then. ("Rango", for instance)

You need to get out more, see a movie once in a while, get that bug out your ass. I know they don't make 'em like they used to, but really, progress is a good thing, by definition.

If only you would take your own advice, and try to watch a few movies that aren't modern-day, brain-dead, Hollywood trash...

Let's put it this way; I have watched 10 modern Hollywood movies (if not 20) for every 1 foreign/classic film you have seen.

[Stewball]

Let's put it this way; I have watched 10 modern Hollywood movies (if not 20) for every 1 foreign/classic film you have seen.

Not so, even if you don't include British, Australian and other English language films. And I've seen plenty of "classic" films, I just don't consider it worth it to go to the trouble of rating them. And if you're ratings are to be believed, I have seen way more foreign films (10 with subtitles including the Scottish film, The Angel's Share with an unintelligible brogue, which I rated a 9 btw) and Indys (IOW not the Hollywood films you so categorically and prejudicially dislike) this year than the total number of films you've seen/rated (3).

I just finished watching Key Largo, a highly praised classic which I hadn't seen before, but like so many from back then, they just don't live up to modern standards in any category you can name (All About Eve and High Noon a couple of rare exceptions).

[ShogunRua]

Let's put it this way; I have watched 10 modern Hollywood movies (if not 20) for every 1 foreign/classic film you have seen.

Not so, even if you don't include British, Australian and other English language films.

Obviously, 10 was an exaggeration, but in general, I have definitely seen more modern Hollywood fare than you have of either classic pictures or foreign film. While not a perfect metric (some non-Hollywood films get counted), looking at pictures I have seen from 2003 to 2013 with "US" as one of the countries, I get a result of 237 pictures;

http://www.criticker.com/?fl&view=prs&f ... 2003zt2013

While also not a perfect metric, if we look at the number of pictures Stewie has seen from 1900 to 1969 (this includes shorts), we get back a result of just 89;

http://www.criticker.com/?fl&view=oth&u ... 1900zt1969

Sadly, there is not an easy way to see Stewie's foreign pictures, except on a country-by-country basis. (And that's flawed too, since Freddy vs. Jason, Cliffhanger, and Gangs of New York all have "Italy" listed as one of their countries, for instance)

Point being, when I criticize most Hollywood movies for being trash, I have a lot of data points on which to base that assertion. When Stewie criticizes older/foreign films, he has far less evidence on which to do so.

[Stewball]

I've seen plenty of "classic" films, I just don't consider it worth it to go to the trouble of rating them.

That would fit with your point that "the number of pictures Stewie has seen from 1900 to 1969 (this includes shorts), we get back a result of just 89". Are you saying that's even close to an accurate representation of films I've seen from that period?

BTW, where do Indy films fit into your classic, foreign, Hollywood trash breakdown? And what determines what's Hollywood trash, the directors, production companies, distributors, filming locations.....what? It can be really complicated. And while I believe that as a group foreign language films are inferior, the reason I don't actually see more is because of the subtitles and/or availability and/or awareness of them.

looking at pictures I have seen from 2003 to 2013 with "US" as one of the countries, I get a result of 237 pictures

There's some strange shit going on here. Your total for that same 10 year period is 316. Of that, for the last three years, you've seen/rated 16 in 2011, 10 in 2012, and with less than a month to go in 2013, 3--two foreign shorts and an off the wall documentary. WTF? 29 movies in 3 years. And something else, your highest rated movie for that period is No Country for Old Men, but you've only made dismissive comments about The Counselor, which is by the same writer, both star Javier Bardem, and at least one person here on Criticker (myself) has rated it a masterpiece. Just sayin', WTF? X 1000.

[ShogunRua]

I've seen plenty of "classic" films, I just don't consider it worth it to go to the trouble of rating them.

That would fit with your point that "the number of pictures Stewie has seen from 1900 to 1969 (this includes shorts), we get back a result of just 89". Are you saying that's even close to an accurate representation of films I've seen from that period?

I don't know. I can't read your mind. If you haven't rated them, how do I know whether you saw them or not?

By the way, there are films made in 2003 to 2013 that I have also seen and not listed on my profile. It works both ways.

BTW, where do Indy films fit into your classic, foreign, Hollywood trash breakdown?

Good question. Sadly, most modern Hollywood "indies" aren't all that different from mainstream Hollywood pictures, except with lesser budgets. I told you about my disappointment in watching Midnight in Paris, right? Decent flick, but if most Hollywood movies are intended for 8 year-olds, then this was most heavily targeted at 12 year-olds.

There's some strange shit going on here. Your total for that same 10 year period is 316. Of that, for the last three years, you've seen/rated 16 in 2011, 10 in 2012, and with less than a month to go in 2013, 3--two foreign shorts and an off the wall documentary. WTF? 29 movies in 3 years.

What's surprising? After seeing the three highest rated films of 2012 and being less than impressed (Argo, 69, T8, Skyfall, 62, T6, and Django Unchained, 55, T5), and only being interested in a few offerings from 2013 which I will get around to eventually (Zero Dark Thirty foremost among that list), I decided there were more interesting pictures to watch.

And something else, your highest rated movie for that period is No Country for Old Men, but you've only made dismissive comments about The Counselor,

Uh...no I haven't. Where are you getting this from?! Are you confusing me with someone else?

[Stewball]

I don't know. I can't read your mind. If you haven't rated them, how do I know whether you saw them or not?

Well, I've mentioned it before, and even if I hadn't or you didn't see it, it's obvious.

By the way, there are films made in 2003 to 2013 that I have also seen and not listed on my profile. It works both ways.

I considered that, but it doesn't explain the last three years, especially 2013.

BTW, where do Indy films fit into your classic, foreign, Hollywood trash breakdown?

Good question. Sadly, most modern Hollywood "indies" aren't all that different from mainstream Hollywood pictures, except with lesser budgets. I told you about my disappointment in watching Midnight in Paris, right? Decent flick, but if most Hollywood movies are intended for 8 year-olds, then this was most heavily targeted at 12 year-olds.

8 or 12 year olds? The vast majority are PG-13 and R. Now you could have something of a point if you're talking intellectual development, but there are still too many good films that you dismiss out-of-hand without even seeing them because they're Hollywood--whatever you mean by that.

What's surprising? After seeing the three highest rated films of 2012 and being less than impressed (Argo, 69, T8, Skyfall, 62, T6, and Django Unchained, 55, T5), and only being interested in a few offerings from 2013 which I will get around to eventually (Zero Dark Thirty foremost among that list), I decided there were more interesting pictures to watch.

ZDK is certainly watchworthy and much better than the other three. What other "more interesting pictures to watch" did you see and not discuss/rate? All you have to do for ideas is to look at my highly rated stuff, such as: Life of Pi, The Bourne Legacy, End of Watch, The Words. The last two are Indys (production and distribution), and Life of Pi was a Fox 2000 Pictures hybrid production. There's good stuff out there, and you don't even have to go to the theater if you don't want to. As I remember, your sight unseen criticism of TBL was that stunts aren't what they used to be, ostensibly because technology has allowed them to be made less dangerously.

And something else, your highest rated movie for that period is No Country for Old Men, but you've only made dismissive comments about The Counselor,

Uh...no I haven't. Where are you getting this from?! Are you confusing me with someone else?

Mostly from your silence about a movie, particularly considering its positive associations with NCFOM, and a throwaway line where you used it in an unrelated but negative association.

[lisa-]

well, i've only seen two movies from 2013.

/interjection