Topic: Movie thread.

Just saw the Honest Trailers video of Mary Poppins and I was reminded by the Epic Voice Guy how Disney basically pissed all over Mary Poppins' creator, P.L. Travers, waiting for her to die before releasing the sequel to a film adaptation she hated. Phew, that's evil even for Disney.

@Maxenmus P.L. Travers is a very interesting old (old not odd oops) lady. I've read a lot about her, some of the things she has done are odd to say the least. Ya messed up even for Disney then they hired a lukewarm director to make a sequel to one of the greatest films ever made.

This video is amazing, it is a great re-write of the film. It does have rules which makes the re-write more fun.

I did see Disney's biopic of her relationship with Walt, but even with Disney's biased take on the lady, I don't think it's that ethical to harass someone to give over the rights to something you've worked hard on, and then disrespect that person by portraying her as a grumpy bag lady in your biopic just because she didn't like your take on her work, and then further disrespecting her legacy by cashing in on a work she held dearly. Disney just comes off as a self-entitled man-child who couldn't stand different opinions, let alone perfectly justified opinions (because remember, she created Mary Poppins, so I think she has some rights at least to voice out how she didn't like Disney's take).

I came to dislike Disney films as I grew older because of problematic messages in their popular films, but man, their treatment of Travers is something I really couldn't stand.

I think with DC's "super dark and serious" takes on Batman and Batman and Superman becoming as dark as Batman though, I don't think I'd call Spawn's emergence a "fresh of breath air" at all. lol I did like the first season of the Spawn animated series for what it is - an ultra-violent take on the seedy underbelly of America - but I wouldn't exactly call it subversive or a fresh of breath air either. shrugs

@Maxenmus that biopic is a good movie. The real story is more interesting, and I thought the flashbacks were terrible for the pacing.

PL Travers adopted a baby, from a pair of twin boys. She went to the house of the twins and brought a psychic-person (I forgot the proper wording), She then adopted only one of the twins, the other twin was then sent to his grandparents (or an uncle) and worked on a farm (I think) and was treated quite poorly and he never knew he had a brother until he was 20 (I think). The adopted twin lived a "nice life" with PL.

I'm not doing this story justice it's very interesting and shows of PL Travers character.

Yeah, can't wait for like three more Phase 4 movies and shows (and two specials)!

I might give up on modern film if nothing keeps catching my eye. As it is I mainly watch old films anyway and I was looking at my "most wanted to watch list" and I've seen pretty much everything on it (not like I had a lot on it) the only things I have not seen on it are (ranked in order of what I want to watch most, 1 being most):

3 Wonka

2 Paddington 3

1 The Jim Henson Ron Howard Doc (I'm a huge fan of Jim Henson so a new doc is very welcome)

Not that a list matters.

I'd begrudgingly say it is kinda a well-made movie, but whether the movie is good... eh, that's debatable depending on your assessment of a biopic's quality. I feel like biopics that unfairly crap on the people they're basing on automatically makes it a bad biopic, but maybe that's just me. I mean, let's face it, Disney isn't gonna make Walt Disney look like the bad guy. It's a biased pic.

Much as I enjoyed Tobey Maguire's reappearance, man, that movie was definitely a shameless nostalgia-bait literally cashing in on your childhood. CHA-CHING! The only other thing I liked about it besides the guest appearances was that they finally made Tom Holland's Peter Parker feel like the angst-filled Peter I knew from the comics, so... hooray that they took three movies to do that?

I definitely agree with your take on the Holland trilogy. Really hated or just disliked those movies on some level. I feel like Holland's jokes aren't as funny as those of Andrew's or Josh Keaton's Spider-Man. Look at literally every other Spider-Man that's not Tom Holland or Drake Bell (basically the only Spider-Men Disney owns); they all had a very witty and snarky sense of humor, whereas Tom's humor feels more juvenile and insecure, like he doesn't have the confidence to insult bad guys and just went for a more family-friendly and awkward humor. I'm glad that a lot of new Spider-Man fans like his take and maybe even find him funny, but I just really couldn't get myself to enjoy any form of Spider-Man produced by Disney. I guess it makes sense that he's unfunny and insecure because he's supposed to be a younger Spider-Man, but just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's entertaining.

I guess I can't really blame Marvel though since they probably had to change their writing a lot because of Sony. Without Sony's interference, maybe they could've made a movie I would care about, but eh.

I actually did like some of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 despite its flaws. I think it had potential that wasn't used to its fullest capability. I felt that the Gwen going to London arc was stupid and tacked on, just Peter whining about Gwen heading abroad for her studies. I hated Electro, but not just because of his Batman & Robin level of goofiness as a villain, but also because he was wasted as a villain. You literally have an insecure guy with obvious mental health issues, someone who worshipped you but felt disappointed by the reality of you being a flawed human being, and your solution is to just beat him up, mock him, and kinda just not care about him for the rest of the film? And Spidey is supposed to be the hero of the film? I feel like they could've focused more on Spidey's pride, how he's more popular now, and let that popularity go to his head. I know it's not Peter's fault that Max became aggressive, but still... Peter is all about responsibility. It just felt kinda weird to see Peter act so indifferently to someone with low self-esteem issues when Peter's whole deal was that he was an insecure nerd who got bullied.

I think my biggest gripe with the two Amazing Spider-Man films though is that Marc Webb didn't manage to make the films he envisioned. Sony kept interfering with his scripts, and he ended up making a mess of the film. HiTop Films, as always, made a great video examining this problem.

I particularly liked the first Amazing Spider-Man film too in hindsight after watching HiTop's video. That bridge scene where Peter removed his mask so that he could humanize himself to the kid he's trying to save, that was easily one of the best scenes that showed what Spider-Man stands for as a hero. Marc Webb did understand Spidey on that level, and I feel bad that he never got his due. #releasethewebbcut

When you put it that way, it does sound kinda ultra-edgy in a goth/emo teenager kind of way, you have to admit. I mean, I get what you're saying, but if it's demons fighting demons, or even having angels involved, I'd much rather see a faithful adaptation of Constantine or even Lucifer. I know they're already doing a Sandman TV show, and Lucifer was spun off from the Sandman comic book, so hopefully, we'll get to see Lucifer done justice too instead of being some boring LA detective in some boring cop procedural.

@Maxenmus all biopics are movies, and I'm not expecting historical facts I can read about those stories. What I'm trying to say is that biopic movies are(/should) normally like a taste of a person's life or a real life event. I think a well made documentary is better than any biopic because you can get the full life story from people that were there or knew the person. The Beatles: Get Back is better than any biopic they could (and have) made. I could go on but ACNH is calling me lol.

Yeah, that's a fair take. I'm not saying it's bad because it's not historically accurate, I'm saying it's bad because it unfairly put someone who existed in real life in a bad light, someone who literally wanted nothing to do with Disney, and therefore wouldn't be able to defend herself. That's not just a bad biopic, that's bullying.

Celebrity neighbours?

Dad used to be neighbours with Chris Martin, of Coldplay.

The less said about that the better.

I'm not saying those are bad films, it's just that they are normally for (not a bad thing) a more casual audience. Technically all H O L L Y W O O D films are for a casual audience and it's all up to you if you want to watch a film made by a large movie studio.

In the end I think it's silly (I respect your choice though) to cast out all major brands and only buy tiny company products. I own Coca-Cola Monopoly, don't talk to me about not liking major brands.

I need to stop talking before I start questioning my future life choices

I'm sorry I can't get my ideas out properly I wish I could but my stupid dysgraphia & slow processing make it really hard. No use getting mad at myself though that gets no one no where.

I kinda get what you're saying, but I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying to condemn all major brands or major Hollywood studios. It's fine that these tentpole blockbusters are meant for a more casual audience, but that's not what I was criticizing. I was criticizing Disney's distasteful take on a woman who didn't want anything to do with Disney. It's not as if she's a criminal like Ted Bundy, because if that's the case, it would be understandable if a biopic portrays her crimes as a criminal and puts her in a negative light. No, the reality is, that film was obviously told from a biased point of view and made a mockery of a woman who wanted nothing to do with Disney. It's not really about whether it's a bad film or not, it's not about whether people should watch movies by big-name Hollywood studios, it's about that one film I had a problem with, it's about Disney's overall treatment of P.L Travers' estate and legacy, adding on to numerous other problematic and unethical decisions made by Disney as well.

More than many other movie companies, Disney is a greedy money machine that only cares about how much money they could make and add to its already enormous pile of gold coins, and I wish people would stop putting the company or its brand on a pedestal. They don't care about your childhood. They don't care about children. They care about making as much money as possible off your children.

It's fine. I just feel like I have to clarify my own stance in this conversation, and I'm not really blaming you or anything. Take a break.

@Maxenmus I understand I just didn't move into that bit properly sorry.

Saving Mr. Banks is a good look into Mr. Walt Disney in the 60s, and how a beloved classic was made and a Disney-esc look at Ms. P.L. Travers. I think it's quite obvious the film cares more about Mary Poppins than P.L. and that ending is like Disney put those emotions into her. Plus she didn't even get invited to her own book's film.

Now let's talk about GUS the real best Disney film.

I think Disney+ for Switch could be announced at D23 at that Video Game live stream they're having.

Unpopular opinion: I also didn't like Thor: Ragnarok. Taika Waititi's goofy comedy didn't really do it for me, but probably because I've never seen What We Do in the Shadows.

But I think more than just not liking the MCU's self-referential jokes, I think it's a crying shame so much of the Norse mythology went unexplored in favor of dumb jokes. The Ragnarök, literally one of the most significant events of Norse mythology, was treated like a joke, Fenrir the wolf (foretold to kill Odin in the myth) was never really named (and some generic wolf creature replaced him instead), and most egregious of all... where the heck is Jörmungandr the world serpent?! lol

I think it's fair to say this is more than just some comic book nerd whining about the movies not being faithful to the comics, because the Norse mythology is an actual folklore in real life, part of a real culture. I just think that it's a shame that millions of kids today who experience the MCU wouldn't get to learn about all the other cool stuff from the rich lore the mythology has to offer. We've had lots of films based on the Greek mythology (even though none have been a decent film unless you count the really old ones like Jason and the Argonauts) and even the Egyptian mythology (again, not a lot of decent films except Moon Knight), so I think it was a wasted opportunity for the MCU to not tap into the Norse myth.

In fact, I felt like Moon Knight did a better job at getting me interested in Egyptian myth than those Thor films ever did for Norse myth. I'm glad the God of War games at least gave the Norse myth a bigger highlight though, so that's nice.

@Maxenmus It's comic-book Norse mythology it pours 3 gallons of water on it and only some things stay the same.

@Kermit1 lol I have no idea what you just said.

@Maxenmus Norse mythology is watered down in Thor/comics.

excuse me I gotta go replace a car in a different thread.

Yeah, I know, which is why I said that the MCU felt like a great opportunity to correct that, given the large amount of people that watch those movies.

It would have. Could have been cool to see the myths done right.