Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Disney wants Hasbro


Gamer Talk

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Orthos wrote:
I disagree on pretty much everything in the prior post.

Me too. No...wait, well you know what I mean.

A "real" pirate movie would be an R movie?

Now that would have worked if it was put out by MIRAMAX which was owned by Disney at one point. The same studio that put out Pulp Fiction and a slew of adult themed indie films.

But if you honestly expect Disney which has for the most part been family friendly (G, PG, PG-13) to release a hard R movie then anyone who says that has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

I'm just sick of the mentality of "it can't be a good movie if it isn't PG-13 or above".


Alitan wrote:

In case anyone was missing it:

Disney=Evil+Bad Productions.

[There are 9 Muses, not 5. Heracles was the bastard offspring of an extramarital affair, and Hera SENT the serpents to slay him in his crib. The Little Mermaid turns into sea-foam at the end of the story, because she cannot bear to use the cure for her legs: murdering her prince. Etc., ad infin. Disney couldn't make a proper movie about ANYTHING that actually existed before they pissed in it.]

Not really true. Disney has been making some really pretty great film in recent years. I mean, just look at the avengers...

As for your complaint about 'meddling in stories.', think your miss understanding their reasons for doing so. They ain't 'meddling for meddling sake', nor is is wholly about making 'wholesome family entertainment'. The big picture is related to IP. If today, you where to make a animated film of the classic fairy tale, the princess and the pea, and it where a success, it would be very easy for others to ride the films coat tales(and their by dilute your own financial success) When disney makes these changes, such as having robin hood be a fox, it becomes much harder for people to produce tie in merch without succumbing to your "army of enforcers."

Their is a reason they put "Disney's" in front of the name of the material they draw from the public domain.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

my theory with regards to the whole pirates franchise basically boils down to this.

When you encounter some one who loves them, ask them to mentally have some one else play the part of either Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa.

Now ask them if they love the films.

Wow so my enjoyment of the films are dependent solely on the performances of Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush? and that's it? I didn't know that. This feels like the Dave Chapelle bit where some white guy tells hims that he's predisposed to liking fried chicken because he's black, not because, you know fried chicken ACTUALLY TASTES REALLY FRICKING GOOD...

Yes do please continue taking offence at my observation that a piece of media may have punched well above its weight cause Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush happen to give amazing performances. The comment was conceived after all, for the sole purpose of upsetting you and getting you to compare me to a racist. Cause that is in noooo way hyperbole

And no offence to Mr Chapelle; I could not disagree more about fried chicken, it tastes like arse ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zombieneighbours wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

my theory with regards to the whole pirates franchise basically boils down to this.

When you encounter some one who loves them, ask them to mentally have some one else play the part of either Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa.

Now ask them if they love the films.

Wow so my enjoyment of the films are dependent solely on the performances of Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush? and that's it? I didn't know that. This feels like the Dave Chapelle bit where some white guy tells hims that he's predisposed to liking fried chicken because he's black, not because, you know fried chicken ACTUALLY TASTES REALLY FRICKING GOOD...

Yes do please continue taking offence at my observation that a piece of media may have punched well above its weight cause Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush happen to give amazing performances. The comment was conceived after all, for the sole purpose of upsetting you and getting you to compare me to a racist. Cause that is in noooo way hyperbole

And no offence to Mr Chapelle; I could not disagree more about fried chicken, it tastes like arse ;)

Who's being sensitive here? I was in no way calling you a racist but making a damn near direct comparison between what you were doing by you saying "the only reason you enjoy X is because of Y" THAT'S IT.

Anything else is you reading into something that's not there. The Chapelle bit came immediately to mind because I'd seen it again on DVD recently.

So yeah no one's getting upset here, really.


Alitan wrote:

In case anyone was missing it:

Disney=Evil+Bad Productions.

[There are 9 Muses, not 5. Heracles was the bastard offspring of an extramarital affair, and Hera SENT the serpents to slay him in his crib. The Little Mermaid turns into sea-foam at the end of the story, because she cannot bear to use the cure for her legs: murdering her prince. Etc., ad infin. Disney couldn't make a proper movie about ANYTHING that actually existed before they pissed in it.]

Proper Little Mermaid adaptation. As a child, I saw this after the Disney version and completely forgot about the bland, stereotypical, black/white morality, commercial garbage previously viewed.


Orthos wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Orthos wrote:
I disagree on pretty much everything in the prior post.

Me too. No...wait, well you know what I mean.

A "real" pirate movie would be an R movie?

Now that would have worked if it was put out by MIRAMAX which was owned by Disney at one point. The same studio that put out Pulp Fiction and a slew of adult themed indie films.

But if you honestly expect Disney which has for the most part been family friendly (G, PG, PG-13) to release a hard R movie then anyone who says that has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

I'm just sick of the mentality of "it can't be a good movie if it isn't PG-13 or above".

Well that's just too bad. I hate PG13 movies, they just tell me what I won't be seeing. Any movie based off a theme park ride is running off of luck as it is, and frankly I'm quite sick of Jack Sparrow and his failed jokes.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperSlayer wrote:
Orthos wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Orthos wrote:
I disagree on pretty much everything in the prior post.

Me too. No...wait, well you know what I mean.

A "real" pirate movie would be an R movie?

Now that would have worked if it was put out by MIRAMAX which was owned by Disney at one point. The same studio that put out Pulp Fiction and a slew of adult themed indie films.

But if you honestly expect Disney which has for the most part been family friendly (G, PG, PG-13) to release a hard R movie then anyone who says that has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

I'm just sick of the mentality of "it can't be a good movie if it isn't PG-13 or above".
Well that's just too bad. I hate PG13 movies, they just tell me what I won't be seeing. Any movie based off a theme park ride is running off of luck as it is, and frankly I'm quite sick of Jack Sparrow and his failed jokes.

So, what? You never watch anything that isn't rated R or above? In that case I'd say there's quite a lot you won't be seeing, and not because rating restrictions are keeping it OUT.

Because frankly, all I'm seeing that you'd lose would be excessive gore (no thanks), excessive swearing (again no thanks), and nudity (no thanks yet again, and if that's what you're at a movie for why not just stay home and watch porn?).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Alitan wrote:

In case anyone was missing it:

Disney=Evil+Bad Productions.

[There are 9 Muses, not 5. Heracles was the bastard offspring of an extramarital affair, and Hera SENT the serpents to slay him in his crib. The Little Mermaid turns into sea-foam at the end of the story, because she cannot bear to use the cure for her legs: murdering her prince. Etc., ad infin. Disney couldn't make a proper movie about ANYTHING that actually existed before they pissed in it.]

So your problem isn't that they're unoriginal, but that they're not faithful to whatever they're adapting? You're annoyed that Disney is too original? That's new. :P

Not only can PG-13 works be perfectly good, so can G works. The idea that something for kids is automatically bad is hilariously outdated.

Let's take some shows and movies designed with both parents and kids in mind:

- Who Framed Roger Rabbit
- Looney Tunes
- Aladdin (come on, Robin Williams is great and everyone knows it)
- My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
- Tangled
- Powerpuff Girls
- Pretty much everything from Pixar

Cheers, all.


Orthos wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
Orthos wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Orthos wrote:
I disagree on pretty much everything in the prior post.

Me too. No...wait, well you know what I mean.

A "real" pirate movie would be an R movie?

Now that would have worked if it was put out by MIRAMAX which was owned by Disney at one point. The same studio that put out Pulp Fiction and a slew of adult themed indie films.

But if you honestly expect Disney which has for the most part been family friendly (G, PG, PG-13) to release a hard R movie then anyone who says that has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

I'm just sick of the mentality of "it can't be a good movie if it isn't PG-13 or above".
Well that's just too bad. I hate PG13 movies, they just tell me what I won't be seeing. Any movie based off a theme park ride is running off of luck as it is, and frankly I'm quite sick of Jack Sparrow and his failed jokes.
excessive swearing (again no thanks).

That is actually kind of a pity. Swearing can be wonderfully expressive. One of my favourite TV shows of recent years was "lie to me". At its core, the reason I loved it, was you got an american tv show which was properly sweary.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Alitan wrote:

In case anyone was missing it:

Disney=Evil+Bad Productions.

[There are 9 Muses, not 5. Heracles was the bastard offspring of an extramarital affair, and Hera SENT the serpents to slay him in his crib. The Little Mermaid turns into sea-foam at the end of the story, because she cannot bear to use the cure for her legs: murdering her prince. Etc., ad infin. Disney couldn't make a proper movie about ANYTHING that actually existed before they pissed in it.]

So your problem isn't that they're unoriginal, but that they're not faithful to whatever they're adapting? You're annoyed that Disney is too original? That's new. :P

Not only can PG-13 works be perfectly good, so can G works. The idea that something for kids is automatically bad is hilariously outdated.

Let's take some shows and movies designed with both parents and kids in mind:

- Who Framed Roger Rabbit
- Looney Tunes
- Aladdin (come on, Robin Williams is great and everyone knows it)
- My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
- Tangled
- Powerpuff Girls
- Pretty much everything from Pixar

Cheers, all.

What is studio gibli's output rated over their, cause almost everyone of those is a superior film to most of the 15s and 18s released every year.

As far as film classification goes, i don't think Us, PGs, '12a's, 12', 15', or 18s are innately 'bad'. What can be a problem, is when a story that should be told as one thing, is told as another for commercial reasons. You can literally see the film suffering for it.

Taldor

Eh, I'm fine with it. Disney has done a good job with the IPs they own so far. Although when the current head honchos (Lasseter, Iger, etc.) leave then it could be a different story.

Taldor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Well Disney wouldn't be a monopoly yet...

No, but they'd own the rights to Monopoly! (Surprised no one jumped on this earlier).


Orthos wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
Orthos wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Orthos wrote:
I disagree on pretty much everything in the prior post.

Me too. No...wait, well you know what I mean.

A "real" pirate movie would be an R movie?

Now that would have worked if it was put out by MIRAMAX which was owned by Disney at one point. The same studio that put out Pulp Fiction and a slew of adult themed indie films.

But if you honestly expect Disney which has for the most part been family friendly (G, PG, PG-13) to release a hard R movie then anyone who says that has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

I'm just sick of the mentality of "it can't be a good movie if it isn't PG-13 or above".
Well that's just too bad. I hate PG13 movies, they just tell me what I won't be seeing. Any movie based off a theme park ride is running off of luck as it is, and frankly I'm quite sick of Jack Sparrow and his failed jokes.

So, what? You never watch anything that isn't rated R or above? In that case I'd say there's quite a lot you won't be seeing, and not because rating restrictions are keeping it OUT.

Because frankly, all I'm seeing that you'd lose would be excessive gore (no thanks), excessive swearing (again no thanks), and nudity (no thanks yet again, and if that's what you're at a movie for why not just stay home and watch porn?).

Yes it's true, the majority of films I own are R rated and I have few PG13 films like Terminator Salvation that should of been R and would of been better if it was R. R rated films are more realistic and not so cartoonish and Disneyish. I love Japanese Gore flicks, Robert De Niro movies, and breast shots in my action films.

Shadow Lodge

Zombieneighbours wrote:
Orthos wrote:
excessive swearing (again no thanks).
That is actually kind of a pity. Swearing can be wonderfully expressive. One of my favourite TV shows of recent years was "lie to me". At its core, the reason I loved it, was you got an american tv show which was properly sweary.

I'm the exact opposite. No quicker way to turn me off to the dialogue of a scene than fill it with vulgarities. Just as quickly as gore (I have a weak stomach) or nudity (keep your damn clothes on, I have no interest in seeing anyone of either gender undressed) will.

Quote:
Yes it's true, the majority of films I own are R rated and I have few PG13 films like Terminator Salvation that should of been R and would of been better if it was R. R rated films are more realistic and not so cartoonish and Disneyish. I love Japanese Gore flicks, Robert De Niro movies, and breast shots in my action films.

Yeah. I want none of that, at all. That's a good way to turn it into a bad movie for me. So clearly we're at odds with what we want out of a film, and what satisfies you will clearly not be something I'll be interested in, and vice versa. I also have to disagree with the "realistic" application of an R film versus anything else, but it's not worth it to get into an argument with you.

No further need to pursue this conversation then.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Miyazaki makes good movies that aren't full of nudity, gore and swearing, while still dealing with very real emotions.

I also loved The Wire, and if that were edited to be shown on ABC, it would suffer horribly.

Nudity, gore and swearing can be story telling tools, but when they exist on screen for their own sake, the story suffers.


Irontruth wrote:

Miyazaki makes good movies that aren't full of nudity, gore and swearing, while still dealing with very real emotions.

I also loved The Wire, and if that were edited to be shown on ABC, it would suffer horribly.

Nudity, gore and swearing can be story telling tools, but when they exist on screen for their own sake, the story suffers.

Could not agree more.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

my theory with regards to the whole pirates franchise basically boils down to this.

When you encounter some one who loves them, ask them to mentally have some one else play the part of either Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa.

Now ask them if they love the films.

Wow so my enjoyment of the films are dependent solely on the performances of Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush? and that's it? I didn't know that. This feels like the Dave Chapelle bit where some white guy tells hims that he's predisposed to liking fried chicken because he's black, not because, you know fried chicken ACTUALLY TASTES REALLY FRICKING GOOD...

Also, isn't casting important for any film?!


Kip84 wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

my theory with regards to the whole pirates franchise basically boils down to this.

When you encounter some one who loves them, ask them to mentally have some one else play the part of either Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa.

Now ask them if they love the films.

Wow so my enjoyment of the films are dependent solely on the performances of Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush? and that's it? I didn't know that. This feels like the Dave Chapelle bit where some white guy tells hims that he's predisposed to liking fried chicken because he's black, not because, you know fried chicken ACTUALLY TASTES REALLY FRICKING GOOD...
Also, isn't casting important for any film?!

Yes.

Which is why it helps not to cast a plank of wood and your heroic lead.

If you do, best make sure you also cast Johnny Depp takin the crazy to 11 and geoffrey rush talking like a pirate.


I've looked at a big variety of genres and series with different feels to them and such, all from really darn sweet to heart-wrenchingly sad. With that amount of experience, I've gotten to see what I like and what I hate in a given series. And the fact still remains that you call that great media, but it is only your opinion on the matter and nothing more. Please stop claiming it's somehow better than mine or Orthos', because it really isn't.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Dark and gritty can be good. Light and soft can also be good. It depends entirely on the story being told as to which presentation is more appropriate. Rating doesn't matter to me as much as "Does this seem like an interesting plot?" And I'm sorry, but I just don't find "Have sex with everything" or "Yeehaw chainsaw to the face" for two hours to be that compelling a plot. (But then, I'm also of the opinion that romance isn't typically strong enough to carry a plot on its own and is best served as a side plot. I'm well aware that I'm weird.)

On the whole, I prefer lighter movies, I suppose. There are some darned good ones that are G/PG out there. I mean, come on, The Princess Bride is PG! I actually find excessive violence/nudity/swearing to be somewhat distracting, especially in cases where it's clear it was only put in to garner a higher rating. Does it automatically make a move bad if there's a sex scene? No, but I wonder what in blazes it has to do with the story.

The mindset of darker and edgier always making everything better/nothing's worth watching without a super high rating/things made with kids in mind are terrible just boggles me. I don't understand how anyone can restrict themselves that much. But that's just me, and Hollywood has made it perfectly clear that my opinion isn't the one they care about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone seen "this film is not rated"? Its basically an exposé on the MPAA. It mostly talks about films that get an NC17 for stupid reasons.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
I assume he'll reply just to call you a prude or something.

It's not inaccurate.

Zombieneighbours wrote:
The only thing wrong with the attitude is that you are closing your self of from some really great media. Your choice I guess, but I'd hate to not have seen the wire on such grounds.

The problem is I simply can't stomach that kind of thing. I go to movies (most of the time) for the stories, and that distracts me so completely from it that I lose all ability to follow along. Gore makes me sick, nudity makes me extremely uncomfortable, and excessive swearing makes me irritated at best. If the story had been told WITHOUT those elements, I'd be able to enjoy it, provided of course it was a good story.

With the increasing mindset of "Anything with a low rating can't have a good story or must be dumbed down for kids" (nevermind the separate rants that kids don't need things dumbed down for them) it's getting increasingly difficult to find good movies that won't disgust or bother me too much to follow the story. The singular exception to this seems to be companies who focus all or most of their product on G and PG movies - Disney, Pixar, etc., who fairly regularly provide good stories (if a bit mangled from their original sources, yes) without excess sex, vulgarity, and gore.


Yeah, I used to be that way, still am with gore somewhat. Nudity is totally fine as long as its not inyourfacepornonude. I just hate when a movie gets an R for showing a pie-humping scene in the trailer, then another movie gets an NC17 for a girl touching herself while fully clothed.

Shadow Lodge

Anything sex-related is a major WTFNOTHX for me. I blame part of it on my being raised that way and part on being asexual. It's just extremely uncomfortable to have to see, especially when it's just tacked onto the story for fanservice ("okay yes they're in love/lust and sleep together, why can't they just fade to black and get back to the story" is what I usually think), and I'd just rather have nothing to do with it.

Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I heard that in 6th edition, the guy who runs the game will be the Dungeon Mouseter.


Here in Finland, Mickey Mouse is nothing compared to Donald Duck.

Donald Duck comics are sold nation-wide, while nobody cares about Mickey.

Taldor

Orthos wrote:
Anything sex-related is a major WTFNOTHX for me. I blame part of it on my being raised that way and part on being asexual. It's just extremely uncomfortable to have to see, especially when it's just tacked onto the story for fanservice ("okay yes they're in love/lust and sleep together, why can't they just fade to black and get back to the story" is what I usually think), and I'd just rather have nothing to do with it.

Well that sure seems like you're not asexual at all. Being asexual would mean that you would just not care about those moment, because you don't understand or you're not interested by them.

Being Extremely uncomfortable means you have some kind of shame or something about it, and that's a problem in American Culture. I totally agree with Icyshadow here, in most culture it's not taboo at all...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkorin wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Anything sex-related is a major WTFNOTHX for me. I blame part of it on my being raised that way and part on being asexual. It's just extremely uncomfortable to have to see, especially when it's just tacked onto the story for fanservice ("okay yes they're in love/lust and sleep together, why can't they just fade to black and get back to the story" is what I usually think), and I'd just rather have nothing to do with it.

Well that sure seems like you're not asexual at all. Being asexual would mean that you would just not care about those moment, because you don't understand or you're not interested by them.

Being Extremely uncomfortable means you have some kind of shame or something about it, and that's a problem in American Culture. I totally agree with Icyshadow here, in most culture it's not taboo at all...

Asexual is no innate interest in sex.

Up bringing, can create an aversion to subject.

The two things are not incompatible.

Orthos is both a sexual, and very prudish. I ascribe nothing negative to that prudishness, other than my afore mentioned consideration that it is a pity because it excludes some of the greats.


Orthos wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I assume he'll reply just to call you a prude or something.

It's not inaccurate.

Zombieneighbours wrote:
The only thing wrong with the attitude is that you are closing your self of from some really great media. Your choice I guess, but I'd hate to not have seen the wire on such grounds.

The problem is I simply can't stomach that kind of thing. I go to movies (most of the time) for the stories, and that distracts me so completely from it that I lose all ability to follow along. Gore makes me sick, nudity makes me extremely uncomfortable, and excessive swearing makes me irritated at best. If the story had been told WITHOUT those elements, I'd be able to enjoy it, provided of course it was a good story.

With the increasing mindset of "Anything with a low rating can't have a good story or must be dumbed down for kids" (nevermind the separate rants that kids don't need things dumbed down for them) it's getting increasingly difficult to find good movies that won't disgust or bother me too much to follow the story. The singular exception to this seems to be companies who focus all or most of their product on G and PG movies - Disney, Pixar, etc., who fairly regularly provide good stories (if a bit mangled from their original sources, yes) without excess sex, vulgarity, and gore.

I have never argued that a story can only be good if it is "r"rated. I mean I posted earlier about how awesome Hayao Miyazaki is. But just as kiki's delivery service wouldn't work with face eating, the wire wouldn't work without sex, drugs, and violence.

both are great.

both would suffer if you tried to make them into something else.

Shadow Lodge

Zombieneighbours wrote:
I have never argued that a story can only be good if it is "r"rated.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you had. Several people have, not so much here but it's a pretty common thing I hear offline.

One of these days I'll get to wording things better.

Darkorin wrote:

Well that sure seems like you're not asexual at all. Being asexual would mean that you would just not care about those moment, because you don't understand or you're not interested by them.

Being Extremely uncomfortable means you have some kind of shame or something about it

As ZN said, that's not what asexual means, in the terms of orientation. It just means I have no interest in sex, which is accurate. Doesn't stop me from being squicked out about it, or not wanting to be exposed to it.

Isn't directly connected to it, either. There's plenty of people - many of whom I know, mostly due to being raised alongside them or by them, or living in close proximity for them for several years - who have similar responses to sexual situations in public, in movies or other media, etc. but are married and have children without aid of adoption or other nonsexual means.

Just was saying that my aversion to it is in part based on the fact that I have no interest in it whatsoever, in addition to being raised in a manner that fostered what I readily admit is a prudent outlook on the subject.

... and I'm finding it incredibly bizarre that I of all people am having this discussion.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I assume he'll reply just to call you a prude or something.

It's not inaccurate.

Zombieneighbours wrote:
The only thing wrong with the attitude is that you are closing your self of from some really great media. Your choice I guess, but I'd hate to not have seen the wire on such grounds.

The problem is I simply can't stomach that kind of thing. I go to movies (most of the time) for the stories, and that distracts me so completely from it that I lose all ability to follow along. Gore makes me sick, nudity makes me extremely uncomfortable, and excessive swearing makes me irritated at best. If the story had been told WITHOUT those elements, I'd be able to enjoy it, provided of course it was a good story.

With the increasing mindset of "Anything with a low rating can't have a good story or must be dumbed down for kids" (nevermind the separate rants that kids don't need things dumbed down for them) it's getting increasingly difficult to find good movies that won't disgust or bother me too much to follow the story. The singular exception to this seems to be companies who focus all or most of their product on G and PG movies - Disney, Pixar, etc., who fairly regularly provide good stories (if a bit mangled from their original sources, yes) without excess sex, vulgarity, and gore.

I have never argued that a story can only be good if it is "r"rated. I mean I posted earlier about how awesome Hayao Miyazaki is. But just as kiki's delivery service wouldn't work with face eating, the wire wouldn't work without sex, drugs, and violence.

Both are great.

Both would suffer if you tried to make them into something else.

If that were true, then story-telling as an art would stagnate and rot for all eternity.

Anything can be given a new twist to it. The thing that matters is if you can do it skillfully or not.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Alitan wrote:

In case anyone was missing it:

Disney=Evil+Bad Productions.

[There are 9 Muses, not 5. Heracles was the bastard offspring of an extramarital affair, and Hera SENT the serpents to slay him in his crib. The Little Mermaid turns into sea-foam at the end of the story, because she cannot bear to use the cure for her legs: murdering her prince. Etc., ad infin. Disney couldn't make a proper movie about ANYTHING that actually existed before they pissed in it.]

Not really true. Disney has been making some really pretty great film in recent years. I mean, just look at the avengers...

As for your complaint about 'meddling in stories.', think your miss understanding their reasons for doing so. They ain't 'meddling for meddling sake', nor is is wholly about making 'wholesome family entertainment'. The big picture is related to IP. If today, you where to make a animated film of the classic fairy tale, the princess and the pea, and it where a success, it would be very easy for others to ride the films coat tales(and their by dilute your own financial success) When disney makes these changes, such as having robin hood be a fox, it becomes much harder for people to produce tie in merch without succumbing to your "army of enforcers."

Their is a reason they put "Disney's" in front of the name of the material they draw from the public domain.

No, I haven't looked at the Avengers, because I've already given up on anybody making a decent comic book movie. Hollywood, Disney, et. al., have already demonstrated to my complete disgust and dissatisfaction, that they are incapable of the task.

As for fairy tale adaptations, I don't care WHAT their motivation is: if they can't (won't) get it right, they shouldn't be making the attempt.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zombieneighbours wrote:

my theory with regards to the whole pirates franchise basically boils down to this.

When you encounter some one who loves them, ask them to mentally have some one else play the part of either Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa.

Now ask them if they love the films.

I definitely do, given I enjoyed them most for the hottest and manliest actor in the franchise, Keira Knightly.


DeathQuaker wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

my theory with regards to the whole pirates franchise basically boils down to this.

When you encounter some one who loves them, ask them to mentally have some one else play the part of either Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa.

Now ask them if they love the films.

I definitely do, given I enjoyed them most for the hottest and manliest actor in the franchise, Keira Knightly.

It is true that few films suffer from having Keira Knightly in a corset.


Icyshadow wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I assume he'll reply just to call you a prude or something.

It's not inaccurate.

Zombieneighbours wrote:
The only thing wrong with the attitude is that you are closing your self of from some really great media. Your choice I guess, but I'd hate to not have seen the wire on such grounds.

The problem is I simply can't stomach that kind of thing. I go to movies (most of the time) for the stories, and that distracts me so completely from it that I lose all ability to follow along. Gore makes me sick, nudity makes me extremely uncomfortable, and excessive swearing makes me irritated at best. If the story had been told WITHOUT those elements, I'd be able to enjoy it, provided of course it was a good story.

With the increasing mindset of "Anything with a low rating can't have a good story or must be dumbed down for kids" (nevermind the separate rants that kids don't need things dumbed down for them) it's getting increasingly difficult to find good movies that won't disgust or bother me too much to follow the story. The singular exception to this seems to be companies who focus all or most of their product on G and PG movies - Disney, Pixar, etc., who fairly regularly provide good stories (if a bit mangled from their original sources, yes) without excess sex, vulgarity, and gore.

I have never argued that a story can only be good if it is "r"rated. I mean I posted earlier about how awesome Hayao Miyazaki is. But just as kiki's delivery service wouldn't work with face eating, the wire wouldn't work without sex, drugs, and violence.

Both are great.

Both would suffer if you tried to make them into something else.

If that were true, then story-telling as an art would stagnate and rot for all eternity.

Anything can be given a new twist to it. The thing that matters is if you can do it skillfully or not.

Yay...thanks for missing the point by a mile. Then again I was being dragged out the door to purchase the makings for bangers and mash, so I'll blame it on an incomplete explanation, rather than anything else.

Both examples are master pieces.

Forgive me for thinking that, given the specificity of the discussion regarding age ratings and that I said

Zombieneighbours wrote:
Both would suffer if you tried to make them into something else.

But having been the one who posted this earlier

Zombieneighbours wrote:
John Woodford wrote:
princeimrahil wrote:

Imagine a world... where Disney owns all of the old IP.

Imagine a world... where people have to suddenly come up with NEW ideas for movies, books, and television.

Now imagine a world...where Disney's lawyers scrutinize everything new that comes out to make sure it doesn't infringe on their IP, and sue the creator's pants off if the new work looks even slightly derivative.

And in that same world, the rules that govern human creativity work like this..

1.
2.
3.
4.

it would be obvious I was not talking in the general sense about remixing stories.

So let me re-state my position.

It is the very adult nature of subject, coupled with the way in which that subject is depicted in realistic and complex manner that is at the core of the wire, and a very important part of its attraction as a piece of media. Removals of those elements from the wire would remove its soul, and destroy a great masterpiece. That is not to say it could not be woven into a different story, but that it would be loss to human culture if some one had not made the wire as it is because, its a bit dark. Some stories need to be told with those elements and not including them make it a worse story. Not all stories need such elements. Some are in fact worsened by their inclusion for no reason, but the wire wouldn't be the wire without it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alitan wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Alitan wrote:

In case anyone was missing it:

Disney=Evil+Bad Productions.

[There are 9 Muses, not 5. Heracles was the bastard offspring of an extramarital affair, and Hera SENT the serpents to slay him in his crib. The Little Mermaid turns into sea-foam at the end of the story, because she cannot bear to use the cure for her legs: murdering her prince. Etc., ad infin. Disney couldn't make a proper movie about ANYTHING that actually existed before they pissed in it.]

Not really true. Disney has been making some really pretty great film in recent years. I mean, just look at the avengers...

As for your complaint about 'meddling in stories.', think your miss understanding their reasons for doing so. They ain't 'meddling for meddling sake', nor is is wholly about making 'wholesome family entertainment'. The big picture is related to IP. If today, you where to make a animated film of the classic fairy tale, the princess and the pea, and it where a success, it would be very easy for others to ride the films coat tales(and their by dilute your own financial success) When disney makes these changes, such as having robin hood be a fox, it becomes much harder for people to produce tie in merch without succumbing to your "army of enforcers."

Their is a reason they put "Disney's" in front of the name of the material they draw from the public domain.

No, I haven't looked at the Avengers, because I've already given up on anybody making a decent comic book movie. Hollywood, Disney, et. al., have already demonstrated to my complete disgust and dissatisfaction, that they are incapable of the task.

As for fairy tale adaptations, I don't care WHAT their motivation is: if they can't (won't) get it right, they shouldn't be making the attempt.

Fiddler's Green retelling of little red riding hood.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Then again I was being dragged out the door to purchase the makings for bangers and mash

Mmmm... Bangers & Mash...

Such a simple meal, yet so good! :-)


Good Cumberland(would have prefered lincolnshire but gf got the meat) made with outdoor reared pork.

Fresh made mash, with black pepper, whole grain mustard, horseradish, butter, and full fat milk.

Petit pois

and gravy.

It is going to be epic!!!!!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Zombieneighbours wrote:
It is going to be epic!!!!!

Sounds like!

I imagine it will be leaps and bounds better than any of the so-called "Bangers & Mash" this American has eaten...


Picture to come ;)

Taldor

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Good Cumberland(would have prefered lincolnshire but gf got the meat) made with outdoor reared pork.

Fresh made mash, with black pepper, whole grain mustard, horseradish, butter, and full fat milk.

Petit pois

and gravy.

It is going to be epic!!!!!

Petit Pois? You big girl's blouse!

Marrowfat processed peas or it's only a pale simalcrum of bangers and mash.

Also, playing with your mash makes you go blind and grow hairs on the back of your hands: potatoes, milk and butter are the only acceptable ingredients.

:b


GeraintElberion wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Good Cumberland(would have prefered lincolnshire but gf got the meat) made with outdoor reared pork.

Fresh made mash, with black pepper, whole grain mustard, horseradish, butter, and full fat milk.

Petit pois

and gravy.

It is going to be epic!!!!!

Petit Pois? You big girl's blouse!

Marrowfat processed peas or it's only a pale simalcrum of bangers and mash.

Also, playing with your mash makes you go blind and grow hairs on the back of your hands: potatoes, milk and butter are the only acceptable ingredients.

:b

Marrowfat processed peas? By gum, it's grimm up north.

Home grown garden peas, freshly picked is the way it should be done, but I don't have an allotment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Marrowfat processed peas? By gum, it's grimm up north.

Home grown garden peas, freshly picked is the way it should be done, but I don't have an allotment.

That's what window boxes are for, mate.

(Also can I just say that I love the Paizo boards? No matter how badly we all may disagree on a topic, we are always willing to put the arguments aside and gab on about food at the drop of a hat. I love you guys.)

Assistant Software Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I removed a couples posts. Do not use the word 'retarded' ion that way.


jemstone wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Marrowfat processed peas? By gum, it's grimm up north.

Home grown garden peas, freshly picked is the way it should be done, but I don't have an allotment.

That's what window boxes are for, mate.

(Also can I just say that I love the Paizo boards? No matter how badly we all may disagree on a topic, we are always willing to put the arguments aside and gab on about food at the drop of a hat. I love you guys.)

I live on the ground floor in an area they would probably be vandallised, plus my time is far more limited these days.


If I may briefly bring the discussion back to ratings...
From what I'm reading the flaw may be with the US rating system, as from what I can see there's no middle ground between PG and R.

Australia has G, for "General Exhibition", PG "Not Recommended for Children", M, for "Mature Audiences" or 15+, MA for between M and R, and finally R for 18+ films. Many films that I've seen referenced as PG or R fall into the M rating in Australia.

Of course, we've only just managed to pound into the politicians the idea that maybe an R rating for video games is a good idea. About darned time if you ask me.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zombieneighbours wrote:
jemstone wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Marrowfat processed peas? By gum, it's grimm up north.

Home grown garden peas, freshly picked is the way it should be done, but I don't have an allotment.

That's what window boxes are for, mate.

(Also can I just say that I love the Paizo boards? No matter how badly we all may disagree on a topic, we are always willing to put the arguments aside and gab on about food at the drop of a hat. I love you guys.)

I live on the ground floor in an area they would probably be vandallised, plus my time is far more limited these days.

In fairness to Zombieneighbors, it also takes a hell of a long time to shell peas.

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / Disney wants Hasbro All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.